Tech Qs

[naddie]

While I understand the need for secrecy in the DNF storyline/gameplay, I was wondering if tech Qs that were not answered in the FAQ was okay?

I was curious while checking out the features of the UT 2.5 engine.

1) UT 2.5 supports 64-bit Wndows/Linux. Will DNF support this as well? Or perhaps a patch in the future to make it 64 bit? What about Linux support? Is it easy to port over, since the feature is inhearent to the engine?

Games such as the Quake series, and the UT series were easily ported to Linux, which is one of the reasons I wonder if that would also be the case with DNF. Though I haven't heard anyone wonder about the 64-bit version (very intersted, since I have an AMD64 and plan on getting Vista 64-bit).

2) While the UT 2.5 engine is said to have optimized support for DirectX versions 7 and 8, OpenGL, and even software rendering with Pixomatic (licensed separately), will DNF use any of them? (Probably not the software rendering, understandably, but OGL?

3) Will DNF use the more advanced DX9c features, such as HDR?

[IceColdDuke]

1) Probley
2) They completlly rewrote the old renderng module its a DX9 only game.
3) Use the search button.

[Micki!]

^^
What he said, except, the number 3...

Yes, DNF will make use of HDR...
As well as a buttload of other new tech stuff...
It'll look nothing like any other Unreal 2.5 game you've seen ever... It might even stand up to UEd 3
Don't worry, it'll look competetive to any other game released by it's time for sure...

[Kristian Joensen]

Yes, the above two are correct. Except 3D Realms didn't break off from UE2.5, they broke of prior to Unreal 2.

However that isn't really relevant, since they wrote their own rendering, animation, lighting, visibility, particle, sound, high level physics(That is powered by Meqon instead of Karma) and AI sub systems.

1)I highly doubt a Linux version, however a 64 bit version might happen after release, but not for the reason you think as they have nothing to do with the UE codebase anymore.

2)DNF doesn't feature any DX7, DX8, OpenGL or software renderer at all. DNF only features fully DX9 renderer.

3)Yes DNF fully supports Shader Model 3.0, HDR, Depth of Field, Motion Blur and other features.

Edit:

Infact 3D Realms are continualy adding shaders to make it look good.

Edit2:

To clear up any misconceptions, DNF's engine isn't really in the same generation as UE2.5, it fully supports normal/bump mapping, pixel and vertex shaders(It is said to be pixel shader heavy game) and per-pixel lighting aswell as stencil shadows

So basicaly it support all the features of D3E and then some.

[naddie]

Thanks for all the answers. That pretty much answered my curiosity. So pretty much the engine was nearly re-written. I wonder if that is the case, would 3D Realms eschew the UT2 code completely in the future and rewrite their own engine and incorporate all their in-house code already done for this release for a future engine and future games. An engine to call their own. :)

Also, from what it sounds like, DNF will probably not have the look and feel of UT at all, which is a good thing - I personally never liked the Unreal series. Just something about the way it looks and feels. As someone said before, most games based off the same engine as another game tend to have that look/feel.

[Micki!]

As someone said before, most games based off the same engine as another game tend to have that look/feel.

Not necessarily though...
Call of Duty didn't feel anything like Quake 3 arena at all imo... ;)

Or Rune, build off the Unreal engine... (it wasn't even an FPS, and was still a great game, that played different)

So it certainly is possible, depending of how much the developer changes, and what they want thier game to be like... (and of course depending on thier actual skills of doing so)

[Commando Nukem]

Thats mostly an art department issue and something to do with the very basics of the way the characters move. For instance, DOOM 3 doesn't have a use key. Prey follows suite. (I kinda miss it.). Speaking of which, does anyone know if DNF has a use key or is it gonna be like this too?

[Micki!]

I think DNF will have a use key for this...
I simply think there are to many interactive objects that could be in your way, when pressing the fire button...

Maybe both, that could also be... Like, only pressing fire, when you really don't need the gun (control panel etc)...

[KaiserSoze]

Lighting is awesome. I wanted to ask if the images had been photoshopped, because, well, they looked really ****ing superior (and true to Duke Nukem)."

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4817/crysis27yy.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

One of Dukes guns in another shot looked very awesome. Very true to DN3D.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1430/crysis17gj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

one scene was a bunch of police-like SWAT dudes looking hardcore and pissed off. Slick looking helmets and carrying the "we are ready to kill you" demeanor.

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3810/crysis39ho.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The above shots are from Crysis.

The quotes are from a shacker who is the only known person recently outside of 3dr to have seen DNF screenshots.

I'm using the Crysis shots and DNF screenshot quotes as kind of a "target" area of where the DNF tech may fall in.

When I saw the Crysis screenshots for the first time, I thought they were photoshopped too.

As for the DNF tech, George said not to underestimate them, that they had shot pretty high.

With their reported engine features(one's we actually know of) it's not a far stretch to say they probably can pump out graphics like those above....

[Kristian Joensen]

Don't get your expectations up Kaiser, I think it is sensible to:

*Sincerely hope it looks like that(or better)
*Realisticaly expect that it looks like Doom 3 with a better art style, a bit higher resolution textures/bit higher polygon counts with some cool effects thrown in.
*Mentaly prepare for it looking like Wolfenstein 3D or worse.

Edit:

The most promising quote I can think of from George is this one:

Unreal Engine III looks like Doom 3 with higher res textures and features like HDR rendering. But the main thing that's impressing people is simple the poly counts on models and the resolution of the textures. That's what I'd expect, shipping after Doom 3. - George Broussard, August 15th, 2004.

In response to:

I have over heard rumors about you guys starting over in 2002. If you are still using the Unreal engine like I assume you guys are would the technology of unreal being improved all the time. Is there a chance the game may look like the Unreal III Technology engine.?

[Micki!]

Puts a smile to my face, even though i remember those quotes well... :)

[Kristian Joensen]

Well we don't know if George was talking in relation to DNF or not.

[Micki!]

Well, if George was answering directly to this persons question, i assume he was refering to DNF's graphics... Since that's what the person he replies/quotes was asking about...

Just an assumption of course...

[trackit]

As for the DNF tech, George said not to underestimate them, that they had shot pretty high.


hehe, i think this is not a problem at all :) the problem is opposite... most people expect too much out of DNF

[SyntaxN]

hehe, i think this is not a problem at all :) the problem is opposite... most people expect too much out of DNF
George said that it will be "on par" graphically when it gets released, right...expecting something like the UE3 level couldn´t be that wrong. While that might not even be the highest possible thing *if* Crysis gets released in Q4 2006.

[DavoX]

My high expectations are only on the Gameplay and fun factor, the 2001 build is enough to me, and i know it'll be more than that so im happy.

[KaiserSoze]

Don't get your expectations up Kaiser, I think it is sensible to:


*Mentaly prepare for it looking like Wolfenstein 3D or worse.

Please tell me you're kidding about that. You can't be serious.

[Kristian Joensen]

It is a personality thing, I do stuff like that. More approriate for you in a situation like this would perhaps be to expect DNF 2001 graphics then no matter what actually happens that should be sufficient to keep you from beein disappointed.

[KaiserSoze]

It is a personality thing, I do stuff like that. More approriate for you in a situation like this would perhaps be to expect DNF 2001 graphics then no matter what actually happens that should be sufficient to keep you from beein disappointed.


Got ya.

I'd take the 2001 graphics right now. I have no problem with that. Looked fun as hell!

[Micki!]

If they actually DID have the same graphics as back then, they'd done a pretty damn bad job of using the advanced shader models, DX9, and stuff... :o

But yeah, that version looked sweet, i'd take it anytime... But knowing something (much) better is coming up, makes me drool...

Like George once said, the 2001 version looks like crap compared to what they have now... :)

[KaiserSoze]

Like George once said, the 2001 version looks like crap compared to what they have now... :)

:love: :cool:

[Micki!]

Yeah, it's great..! :cool:

This is the most pleasing insult of something i liked, that i've ever heard... :)

[Otto von Keisinger]

After reading this thread, I had to watch the 2001 trailer yet again. Damn, I could live with the 2001 graphics, no problem. That trailer still gives me the shakes even today, despite having seen it countless times. :D :D :D

[KaiserSoze]

After reading this thread, I had to watch the 2001 trailer yet again. Damn, I could live with the 2001 graphics, no problem. That trailer still gives me the shakes even today, despite having seen it countless times. :D :D :D

Damnit now you're gonna make me go watch it again! :D

/off to watch

[Micki!]

Now i need to watch it, and i was just going to play Prey...
Damn you guys...

//off to watch...

[EDIT:]
Refreshing...
I love the explosions, and smoke effects... :cool:

[FireFly]

It is a personality thing, I do stuff like that. More approriate for you in a situation like this would perhaps be to expect DNF 2001 graphics then no matter what actually happens that should be sufficient to keep you from beein disappointed.
Ah, but what if there's a new art style, and you hate it?

If you listen to the PC Gamer Podcast - #37, you'll hear the Assistant Editor, Dan Stapleton, who's seen DNF, worry that the game will miss its 'tech window'. He says:

"My fear is that in trying to polish the game they're going to miss yet another tech window. Because I mean we're looking at systems, like, like, well Crysis, with what Crytek is doing - some of the other, kinda next-wave graphics engines. I don't know if Duke Nukem Forever is going to be capable what say, Crysis is capable of doing."

[KaiserSoze]

^I question whether he really saw the game that will ship.

3dr basically shows tech demonstrations. I don't know if they're showing all the bells and whistles.

[DavoX]

BTW that first screenshot of Crysis looks like a real photo, i actually thought it was a real picture.

[Malgon]

Interesting way of looking at the current DNF situation there KJ. What I gathered from George's quotes were that after D3's release, as a developer you'd be better off releasing something that is comparable with UE3 tech, so you won't miss any `tech window' and thus won't lose a huge amount of potential customers.
In saying that, yes, it is safe to assume that it would be a waste of time for 3DR to release DNF after D3 generation, if it didn't hold up to it at all. So of course it seems that they are putting a lot of effort into High-poly models and High-resolution textures, as that's what George is assuming most people are being impressed by. That's my take on it anyway. :)

[SyntaxN]

^I question whether he really saw the game that will ship.

3dr basically shows tech demonstrations. I don't know if they're showing all the bells and whistles.
It depends on what kind of tech-demo they showed...
Even if it was just some random level to show various gameplay elements you could get an overall impression of the graphics.

[dioditto]

Duke Nukem, if it did and indeed got finished, should look much better than Crisis interm of polygon count... that I know, because one of the key technology used in Duke Nukem is Jetscream technology,

The current generation and near future coming FPS titles, none of them have this tech, the crucial difference this tech makes is in the outline. As it is known in the game community, normal mapped character/models usually suffer from POLYGONAL outline. (case in term, DOOM3)

This technology makes models retain the very VERY high resolution 3D OUTLINE of the object while maintaining the performance by decreasing the polygon count in the "inside area" of the object on the fly (Adaptive mesh resolution). Combine this with normal mapping technology, it should make it a one damn fine looking, high fadelity game.



And so far, 3Drealms is the ONLY game company I have known to licensed such tech.


For the techies :

JetScream software is available in two forms: the ACIS JetScream Husk for ACIS OEMs (requires the ACIS 3D Toolkit) and JetScream for non-ACIS OEMs (ACIS 3D Toolkit not required).

Development Features
*Full C++ object oriented implementation.
*Supported on Windows NT (Platform support will soon be expanded to include UNIX-based systems from Sun, HP, SGI, Compaq, and IBM, as well as support for Linux, by Red Hat, on Intel architectures).
*Low memory footprint.
*Full integration with ACIS architecture.
*Renderer independent - works with OpenGL, D3D, Glide and other graphic APIs.

Performance Features
*JetScream removes unnecessary polygons from small and far-field objects in a 3D scene on a real time basis while preserving image integrity. This reduction decreases processor load and improves real-time rendering speed.
*Using a bi-cubic interpolation algorithm, JetScream subdivides polygons in real time to preserve the integrity of curved edges and adds additional polygons to silhouette areas in order to preserve the curvature of objects on a real-time basis.
*JetScream can be streamed or converted, into a progressive format that can be sent over a network. This makes it ideal for World Wide Web content creation, as well as CAD/CAM/CAE applications, industrial design and 3D game development.
*JetScream preserves vertex attributes such as texture coordinates, normals and discontinuities, and using this technology, the same texture map can be used for all resolutions. Texture mapping coordinates can be recalculated at each frame, for exact control, if required. JetScream's technology avoids problems of texture crawling, tearing or fragmenting often experienced with less advanced detail software applications.

[Kristian Joensen]

Could you please provide a (recent) source for your claim of the above techonology beeing in DNF ?

[dioditto]

I think on 2nd thought, maybe, the area that's lacking for DNF right now is texture. I would have love to see 3DR to get the megatexture tech from John Carmark..and that would make DNF the best looking game on the market. (If their art team is upto their snuff)

Too often I see polygonal (usually seen on the outline of the model), low resolution textured, and HUGELY contrasted normal mapped shading models in games (mostly recent titles - just look at player's weapon holding hand). DNF will get rid of atleast 1 of these problems from tech (Jetscream technology), while normal mapping seems to be a prevalent problem in games right now, that character looks rubbery/plastic looking due to large contrast in shading - I hope 3DR's art team knows how to handle this (and not ending up like PREY's art team.. look at those ugly unrealistic looking characters..); so the last problem is the problem of texture. While current titles have significantly greater resolution of texture compare to the past game, but I think with Enemy Territory Quake War (MegaTexture tech) coming out, people are going to expect games with that much higher texture resolution/fadelity.

[Kristian Joensen]

Again have you got any source backing you up on that "Jetscream technology" claim you are making ?

[Addicted Gamer]

yeah, interests me too.

[cladinshadows]

^
Ditto.

I can't find any info about this on google so if dioditto could supply some proof that'd be nice.
I also can't find anything on Jet Scream (maybe I'm blind) can someone point me to some web page from whoever developed it?

[dioditto]

Could you please provide a (recent) source for your claim of the above techonology beeing in DNF ?


Recent? erm, I can't. I can only assume Duke Nukem Forever still use such technology or it would be such a waste for not using it.


This is a scan from December 1999 Game Developer Magazine.


http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/2033/jetscream7my.jpg

[Addicted Gamer]

i suppose JetScream is dead by now, or has changed its name.
and you took the previous development features etc from this page created in 1999:

http://www.wave-report.com/1999_Wave_Issues/wave9106.html

so, i guess that JetScream is old by now. :)

[dioditto]

i suppose JetScream is dead by now, or has changed its name.
and you took the previous development features etc from this page created in 1999:

http://www.wave-report.com/1999_Wave_Issues/wave9106.html

so, i guess that JetScream is old by now. :)


Not quite. No other game use it yet, and most game are still severely lacking in this area, that's why this tech is still at the forefront of the future 3D game tech. The thing about it is that, most game use Pre-computated/pre-made LOD models to swap models in and out to maintain the performance, but doing so, it does not make it as nicer looking than what Jetscream's APR tech can offer; because the WHOLE LOD model have to be swapped. (As compare to whole model polygons refined/decimated in real-time)

I think part of the reason why no other company have license such tech is due to the fact that, the original developer of the tech, Sven technology got bought by Spatial, and not long after Spatial bought SvenTech (and put out this ads) Spatial itself got bought out by the CAD giant Dassault Systemes. So the direction (and the sales focus) changed, (and probably got forgotten) and I think that's the reason that such tech wasn't pushed to game developers after that. It's a pity really...

[Addicted Gamer]

but JetScream doesn't exist anymore by its original name 'JetScream' i guess, right? at least there's no newer information available than 2000(1).

[Denz]

I bet that if 3DRealms decided to put that in a 2001 game, then wait the better for a 2007/2008 game. :woot:

[dioditto]

but JetScream doesn't exist anymore by its original name 'JetScream' i guess, right? at least there's no newer information available than 2000(1).


I don't know, I think it may also been axed. That's the problem with mergers and corporate acquisitions.. sometimes a good technology simply vanished after acquisition and "restructuring".

It's a real pity really, the way I see it, most of the recent games are severely lacking in outlines smoothness. Even the recent F.E.A.R. (and the addon- "Extraction Point" coming out next year) looks VERY, decidely angular/polygonal. GTA:SA without doubt also looks VERY polygonal, even Prey looks a bit angular at times. Oblivion for the most part is probably the only game I have seen that looks not as angular and polygonal as I can tell.. but it suffer terribly in performance and really needs a decent computer to get high frame rate (with full effects turn on)


Prey :

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2006/166/reviews/198340_20060616_screen027.jpg
These NPC looks very angular to me... look at the shoulder and the knee, the sharp angular ass that can that dice tomatoes better than a set informercial knives.....

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2006/166/reviews/198340_20060616_screen023.jpg
Look at the outline and top of the monster head.. is that made up of 6 sided polygon?!


F.E.A.R. Extraction Point :
http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2006/129/932918_20060510_screen004.jpg
Look at the rocket launcher barrel.. 6 sided polygon (hexagon) rears it's ugly head again!

http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2006/129/932918_20060510_screen003.jpg
Look at the hole they coming out from.. OMG, it's HEXAGONAL AGAIN! And all the Clone soldiers also look very angular to me.

Oh the ONLY recent title that doesn't suffer from this problem is probably Half-Life 2 : Episode 1. The character and all entity model seems superb and smooth where it should be. And Half-Life 2 runs silky smooth even on a medium low end system.

[3DProgrammer]

All games using engines that do shadowing using shadow volumes are bound to have a low polygon count. Detecting the silhouettes and creating volumes from there isn’t cheap, that’s why games based on the Doom 3 engine or Jupiter EX engine use low polygon models.

[Otto von Keisinger]

And if I recall correctly, George Broussard made a statement saying DNF's lighting system was "as good as" Doom 3's. One may surmise that they are using shadow volumes in their current renderer. In that case, expect to see more "low" polygonal models in DNF's future.

[3DProgrammer]

And if I recall correctly, George Broussard made a statement saying DNF's lighting system was "as good as" Doom 3's. One may surmise that they are using shadow volumes in their current renderer. In that case, expect to see more "low" polygonal models in DNF's future.
Everybody reads a bit too much into every statement George makes. No, it doesn’t really mean that. They might use shadow buffers instead, or they might be combining both in the same way Unreal Engine 3 does. There are many options to obtain a lighting system “as good as” Doom 3 that doesn’t involve having a low polygon count. And also, even though it’s nice to have high poly models with nice rounded edges, it doesn’t really add that much to the visual quality. Real-time shadowing has more of a visual impact than a higher resolution polygon model.

[Kristian Joensen]

Sure reading that into THAT particular statements of George's might be gooing a bit too far but how about this statement:

You can't really tone down the shadows. they are all dictated by distance from a light, etc, so it's all "real". So you really just take what you get. I expect that people complaining about stencil shadows being hard lines, and dark, will like people complaining that characters are pixellated when you walk up to them in Doom. It's simply the way it is with technology, right now. - George Broussard, January 25th, 2003.

Or this one:

Just like every Quake 1 generation game had lightmaps. The tech does, what the tech does. Mostly it's an art issue, and tweaking to reduce some of your complaints.

As for shadows...I'll take 100% dynamic, sharp shadows, over static lightmap, or pixellated lightmap/projected shadows...any day of the week. Dynamic = god. - George Broussard, February 22nd, 2003.

[Micki!]

Personally, i think that most games are already using technology fitting with the description of "JetScream"...
Juyst because there still are some jaggy polygon stuff, it doesn't mean it's not being used though...

Just because the image, of the face being full of poligons on one side, and completely "round" and smooth on the other, it doesn't really mean that the exact same effect will happen in games, but that it'll just reduce it alot...

I'll compare it with the feature "Anti Aliasing"... Which "clears the jaggy lines"... Yeah, it does reduce the amount of jaggies, and it does look alot better, but they're NOT gone at all... It's depending on how much you set Anti Aliasing to... I believe it's the same case with todays games, that it's all a performance thing, and that they use this kind of feature that "JetScream" does, from a certain scale... So some games may be using it, maybe even Half Life 2...

[Tim. Just Tim.]

Boooo-urns to high poly counts!
Thats a bad thing as far as Im concerned.

You can make a 100,000 poly model look almost as good as its 500,000 poly model equivalent, if youve got good artists and shader writers. Maybe not quite as perfect, but close enough. The difference isnt worth the 5x more polys.

If the engine can only handle 2,000,000 polys for example, Then Id much rather see 20 100,000-poly bad guys coming at me than 4 500,000-poly guys coming at me.

The later is what i call Doom3 syndrome: Sacrificing Fun and Interactivity and large maps and large numbers of onscreen models, and more, all for the sake of stupid pretty graphics. Its a trend I keep seeing as 2D Games are remade into their 3D counterparts.

[naddie]

This JetStream-like algorithm or process reminds me of how sound and video compression works.

[lamuh]

Yeah it's like everyone assumes 3dR is just trapped in 1998. They not only have they been observing the tech trends but creating them. They MAKE what they want, they don't use other people's content, tech too much. Look back to 1996. What engines were there? Quake and Build. Nothing out there competed except for Carmack's engine but that is an anomaly. We will see an engine that is better than HL2 with better physics. Although, HL2 is VERY solid. I still play with it to this day with all the mods. I just hope 3dR will give us randomness in gameplay so that everytime you play something new can happen with jibs or physics.

[3DProgrammer]

Sure reading that into THAT particular statements of George's might be gooing a bit too far but how about this statement:

- George Broussard, January 25th, 2003.

Or this one:

- George Broussard, February 22nd, 2003.
I’m amazed that no one at this point has realized that trying to see how DNF will look like is just a waste of time. 3D Realms has shown to be a developer that changes its mind at any point. They have decided to make great changes that most developers wouldn’t do in order to ship a title on time. Yes at the time of those quotes shadows volumes was the only solution to do real-time shadowing, but right now you can think of using shadow buffers that will provide many benefits including true umbra and penumbra shadows, limited CPU usage and things like that. The truth is that even if 3D Realms said anything about the game you can’t take anything too seriously because they have a track record of changing their mind (which isn’t bad, if they have the money and the desire to bring the best possible game experience). I would wait until they actually say “DNF is gold”. If people can’t let go of this things then we might as well talk about DNF using the Quake 2 engine cause they said that at some point in time.

[FireFly]

Recent? erm, I can't. I can only assume Duke Nukem Forever still use such technology or it would be such a waste for not using it.
George said a while back that they weren't using this tech any more. In any case it was only ever used as in input to their existing LOD system:

"The Sven MRG code is used for polygon count reduction calculation, which we use when mesh models get further and further away from you. We don't use the Sven MRG stuff within DNF itself, we use it during the "preprocessing" phase when the meshes are being built. The results of MRG's calculations are reinterpreted and stored natively in DNF's mesh file format, which is all that's actually used in the game itself.

Our mesh format doesn't depend on MRG directly, so the choice of LOD preprocessor really doesn't matter to the game (I've set things up so that a user could theoretically write their own if they wanted to). It just happens to be that the MRG code is what we're using." (April 12th, 1999)

Not quite. No other game use it yet, and most game are still severely lacking in this area, that's why this tech is still at the forefront of the future 3D game tech. The thing about it is that, most game use Pre-computated/pre-made LOD models to swap models in and out to maintain the performance, but doing so, it does not make it as nicer looking than what Jetscream's APR tech can offer; because the WHOLE LOD model have to be swapped. (As compare to whole model polygons refined/decimated in real-time)
Valve tried to use a dynamic LOD system for Team Fortress 2, (Intel's Multi-Resolution Mesh technology), but in the end they dropped it because it didn't make performance sense.

"After tonight's chat, some people are reporting that you won't be using
Intel's MRM Technology that you were going to use for TF2 and instead using
a static LOD system. What's made you come to this decision and what benefits does it have over Intel's technology?

Gabe: Static LODs are faster and work better with the hardware."

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3672&page=2

I don't know, I think it may also been axed. That's the problem with mergers and corporate acquisitions.. sometimes a good technology simply vanished after acquisition and "restructuring".
Engine developers have had plenty of opportunities to add their own dynamic LOD systems. I fact though, the concept is very much alive - it's called displacement mapping and current hardware is far too slow to do it properly.

It may become viable with DirectX 10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_mapping

When JetScream was around, vertex transformation was done on all the CPU, and polygon counts were therefore a real limitation. With the advent of hardware T&L, though, this could could be hardware accelerated, and as a result everything became much faster.

So now you'd have to impliment a dynamic LOD system through the graphics card (making the JetScream solution obselete) and it would be much, much slower than the standard hardware transformation.

It's a real pity really, the way I see it, most of the recent games are severely lacking in outlines smoothness. Even the recent F.E.A.R. (and the addon- "Extraction Point" coming out next year) looks VERY, decidely angular/polygonal. GTA:SA without doubt also looks VERY polygonal, even Prey looks a bit angular at times. Oblivion for the most part is probably the only game I have seen that looks not as angular and polygonal as I can tell.. but it suffer terribly in performance and really needs a decent computer to get high frame rate (with full effects turn on)
Polygon counts aren't generally an issue. Curent hardware has very high vertex rates, so for example, Valve can use 8,000 polygons per (major) NPC in Half-Life 2. Models in UT2k4 had a 3000-5000 polygon budget. Even SOF2, which launched in early 2002, used 3000 polygons per enemy.

And really you only need 5000 - 10000 poly models, as long as you're using normal maps. That's all Gears of War uses. Here's a close up of one of the characters:

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/p_bezerker.jpg

Doom 3 is actually a step backwards in this regard - characters only have a couple of thousand polygons, and, as has been said, this is the case for most games that use stencil volumes.