Doom iii
realityisdead
Employed by Raven Software after making ns_nothing Join Date: 2002-01-26 Member: 94Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Employed by Raven Software after making ns_nothing Join Date: 2002-01-26 Member: 94Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Off-Topic
If I were you, I'd keep an eye on <a href="http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/doom3/" target="_blank">this</a> page the next couples days/weeks.
It's almost... <i>depressing</i> how utterly amazing this game looks. The graphics at least. Makes you wonder what Half-Life 2 is going to look like if they ever come out with it. I'd hope similar.
/me waits for the screenshots and movies
It's almost... <i>depressing</i> how utterly amazing this game looks. The graphics at least. Makes you wonder what Half-Life 2 is going to look like if they ever come out with it. I'd hope similar.
/me waits for the screenshots and movies
Comments
This is about the lighting.
I'll do anything to get my hands on that engine and create levels for it. It is, after all, where my original source of inspiration for ns_nothing came from...
<!--EDIT|ken20banks|May 22 2002,00:54-->
so many ppl can play it
Take the average reliability of release dates in account and most people will have the necessary equipment when Doom III gets launched.
Take the average reliability of release dates in account and most people will have the necessary equipment when Doom III gets launched.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ur right but 1 problem
i can't buy a new pc nor most of the ppl
<a href="http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/doom3b/index.shtml" target="_blank">Today's DOOM3 Info from E3 (GSI Boycotters, please ignore)</a>
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|May 22 2002,13:35-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other side of the fence, we uncovered a major bit of info that will be of particular interest to mod developers: the development tools are built into the game's executable. So, as Stratton put it "when you're running the game, you're running the editor." What this means is that you'll be able to walk around in a level, press a key, bring up the editor, place some lights, and go back to the level. It seems the old .BSP process is gone, and will be replaced by something different, so while this may be a bit of a learning curve for mappers, they can rest easy knowing that tools will be included with the game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That... is like a dream come true... ohhh... maaann...
Although contrary to that article knowledge of the integrated development tools isn’t new, the article does raised a few interesting (though mostly obvious) points about the direction id is taking with Doom III ...
<b>*runs and starts scribbling article ideas *</b>
Lighting, lighting, lighting, lighting... Notice a theme there? CONTRAST! Contrast r0xors j00!!
Ahem, sorry...
Anyway, Doom3 sounds like it's heading more in the direction of the Resident Evil games, no? Slower paced gameplay, allowing you to absorb the atmosphere. That sounds good and all, but the sequences described in the article don't sound all that appealing to me. The apparent story is... well, disappointing. I can't say I'd expect anything more from a doom game though. And I think that's kinda the point. <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
But that lighting... *shudders with delight*
<!--EDIT|ken20banks|May 22 2002,16:47-->
I always felt that Doom III would move towards a slower pace, somewhat similar to Undying/Res Evil and chums ... with emphasis on atmosphere, environment rather than endless streams of enemies. And also partly because of the technology, the large scale battles of the past episodes are probably unrealistic
<b>*glances over shoulder and sees Halo*</b>
probably <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
And yeah, Doom has never really been about the story, its more situation than story led, which isn’t a bad thing (how I’d describe Half-Life’s structure) if done right. Although id could, and hopefully will, surprise us.
The only thing that worries me about Quake 4 is that Raven are supposedly handling it.
The architecture and level design is fantastic.
The models are wonderful.
The models blended in with the architecture and level design is atrocious.
You talk about lighting, pure black shadows from models aren't exactly my cup of tea. Shiny, reflective clothing... It looks like a console title, and not necessarily in a good way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to it, and I'm eager to get my hands on the engine itself, but... I had expected much better.
The lighting is really stark, partially due to the total absence of radiosity, I suppose. I can't really complain, though, since it is real-time, after all.
So, crates and zombies - where's the other standard FPS feature, Nazis?
Also, the models don't appear to be self-shadowing. I imagine this'll be added at some point, though - even my crumbly old G400 has the relevant hardware capability for <b>that</b>... <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
I'm also intrigued by the idea of an in-engine editor, partially because the likely Linux port will presumably have the editor included as well.
Wasn't the technology demonstration a while ago a massive publicity coup for <b>Apple</b>, on one of those non-PC Macintoshes?
But it is, after all, just a couple screenshots. Not like we're seeing the entire game here...
That said, I'm hardly interested in Doom3. I'm interested in its engine.
<!--EDIT|ken20banks|May 22 2002,19:09-->
The engine however... <!--me&Nemesis Zero--><span id='ME'><center>Nemesis Zero faints</center></span><!--e-me-->
<!--EDIT|Spyder Monkey|May 22 2002,21:18-->
<b>Carmack: A big plus is that all of our tools are now built in to the game, so every release automatically has the tools that were used to build the game. The game also uses the same map file that the editor uses, so the original source data can be opened up with any copy of the game.
We have not yet decided exactly where we are going to break the source code for mod making, but it is certain that it is going to be a C++ DLL.
Artists are going to have a significant learning curve to properly deal with the bump maps, but again, all the tools we use to generate them are included with the game.
Level designers have to retrain themselves to use lighting more efficiently. Instead of plastering in hundreds of little lights to get your light maps the way you want, you need to think about primary key lights in a scene, and fill in around them as necessary. Cinematic lighting skills are now directly relevant.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/carmack/" target="_blank">http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/carmack/</a>
I can’t seem to shake the po-faced feeling of a awaiting a game more for its engine then its content but ... but ... but I seriously want to play with the Doom3 tools!
<b>*Pats Nemesis Zero*</b>
Yay! Another CoC fan <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
There are parallels between what we know of Doom3 and CoC but I think CoC is going to take the story led route much more seriously and use it as I larger component to the final product. Where as Doom3 will have the story as a basic background to the locales, situations and events rather than a driving force.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->GameSpy: Quake 3 was essentially built as a multiplayer game, and it's been 5 years since id Software developed and released a game with a traditional single-player campaign (Quake II, 1997). Is there anything different about developing an engine for the two different styles of games? Is there anything new or special you need to take into consideration for a single-player campaign as work on the new engine continues?
Carmack: The core renderer is fairly agnostic to single player versus multiplayer, but many other areas of the game have to make tradeoff decisions. A latency tolerant multiplayer game needs to have all time dependent effects predictable, which forces a style of programming that isn't always the most direct. A single player game can also have more expressive and precise effects, like multiply blended skeletal animations with pivot feet, that wouldn't work out well over a network channel. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/carmack/" target="_blank">Interview with John Carmack (GSI Boycotters, look the other way)</a>
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|May 23 2002,11:56-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->The slowest cards will be the 64 bit and SDR ram GF and Radeon cards, which will really not be fast enough to play the game properly unless you run at 320x240 or so. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry old PC guys. You will be needing some heavy upgrades for this one. What is truly astonishing about this fact is that according to the latest <a href="http://valve.speakeasy.net/" target="_blank">Valve-Speakeasy Hardware Survey</a>, fewer than 40% of all gamers will be able to play this game <b>at all</b>, much less with any viewing quality. How do they expect to sell it when the minimum specs are out of most PC's reach, and the cards they describe as being best start at about $350? No way I'd pay $400 for a video game, after all. For the love of pete, he says the Nvidia GF4MX won't be good enough, and that thing is brand new...
<!--EDIT|MonsieurEvil|May 23 2002,12:09-->
On the other hand, though:
I, for one, would spend a measly $400 dollars to get to edit that engine. Think of how many zero's you'd have to write down on a check if you were to commercially liscense that thing. <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->
Keep in mind though: Unless I'm mistaken, Doom3 is still quite a ways from being released. GeForce4 cards will be old news by then. It's only realistic. I mean that thing looks frickin ten times better than your standard FMV sequence. And it's all realtime. You can't really expect that kinda quality to be pushed out of our UT/Quake3 machines, can you?
-Edit- Actually, he says the GF4 <b>will</b> be good enough... I think...
He's just saying that the GF4-MX won't be as fast as it is with current games. The GF4 will be fine though.
<!--EDIT|ken20banks|May 23 2002,11:49-->
<a href="http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/resellers/0-1107-311-9481751-3.html?fl=0&tag=st.co.1107-311-9481751.sort.price" target="_blank">GF4-TI Prices</a>
scroll down a little bit, like 2 posts, there are tons of mirrors, not just FP.