babywax Posted November 6, 2003 Author Share Posted November 6, 2003 Far Cry can do cities and indoor too Think correllia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 The crytek engine does look nice. I haven't even heard of Far Cry before, though... I agree about it being too light. It just doesn't feel like a real universe. I mean, think back to the Nar Shaddaa levels in DF and JK - they felt dark. Even the JO NS level didn't really capture that feeling. On the other hand, SW isn't a horror type game. Period. It would also be nice to have larger environments both inside and out. Be able to explor ships and take them apart various ways - not such linear levels. Explor outdoors and be able to develop alternate tactics to come at people from different angles or get behind them and trap them, etc. Instead, we just charge, because that's all we can do. Any engine with large outdoor environment support would rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExcelsioN Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Any engine with large outdoor environment support would rock. Like Halo ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrobot Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Ok people, how many times have I got to say it? Doom 3's engine was not designed for horror games...it's an engine. Doom 3 is being developed as a horror game, but Quake IV is going to be large out door areas in a war enviroment with vehicles and large numbers of enemies...not a horror situation like Doom 3. Also, please take another look at what system requirements are likely for Doom 3... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Originally posted by FK | unnamed (the first true 3d FPS, DOOM was 2.5d if you know what I mean) Technically, Doom and even Wolfenstein 3D have all three dimensions, but don't allow for the same degrees of freedom that Quake does. Infact, few first person shooters do 6DOF, only flight sims and stuff. I'd go with Doom III, because it's most likely to be the best looking, highest performance, reliable and flexible engine in the long run. I don't know many details of the X-Ray engine that STALKER uses, other than it looks cool, and claims to have a physics engine better than Havok (HL2, DX2, MP2, many more), which I believe to be true, because the pre-alpha videos looked nearly as good as the full blown Havok. Also, HL2's Source engine isn't really as great as it seems. It's basically the HL engine (which was built off Quake I), with some new graphics code and new physics. It still uses BSP for maps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormHammer Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Originally posted by Excelsion Doom 3 would be the obvious choice. Imagine a jedi-horror game. Far Cry looks beautiful. But this would only be chosen if JK was to become a...er..jungle warfare game. Imagine Imperial guerilla attacks in the jungle. So why did I choose the Doom 3 engine? Simply because of its obvious ability to create atmospheric, creepy, mysterious areas and at the same time give you an excellent game. Erm...I think you're confusing the games being developed on the engines with the capabilities of the engines themselves. Just because Far Cry the game is set in a jungle...doesn't mean that's all the engine can do. Just because Doom 3 is a horror game, doesn't mean the engine can only do dark, atmospheric scenes. Each engine has it's strengths and weaknesses, and the visual 'style' is simply built on top by the developer. Just look at the cel-shaded game XIII, which uses the same Unreal engine that brought you games like Splinter Cell and Unreal Tournament 2003. Even Deus Ex: Invisible War looks completely different on that engine, because they ripped the guts of the renderer out and coded their own. So at the end of the day, you have to divorce the capabilities of the engine from the titles in development for it at the moment. Look at LithTech as another example...dark and gritty for Aliens v Predator 2, more 'realistic' for No One Lives Forever 2, and downright cartoony for Tron 2. The visual 'style' of any game is completely up to the developer in terms of the artistic assets they bring to the table. Any of these engines could be used to recreate Pac Man in 3D if that was what the developer wanted to do. Some of the engines are obviously better at some things than others. Very large terrain capability is obvious in Far Cry and Stalker, and less obvious (at the moment) for Doom 3. The limits of the terrain (at the time) were obvious in games like Unreal 2...but AFAIK UT2K4 has much larger terrain support. As for physics...does it really matter which physics engine? They mostly do the same sorts of things, and what one can't do can probably be coded in anyway. In my view, it's more important to consider the longer-term view about which engines will be supported by the Mod Community. After all, without someone backing a particular engine in the longer term, it doesn't matter if they release the best toolset ever for a particular engine, if no one wants to mod for it. The simple fact of the matter is that people are going to jump behind Id's Doom 3 engine - because you have the long-standing Quake modding community waiting to get their sweaty palms on it. You'll also have a ton of modders backing the Source engine, due to it's particular capabilities, and no doubt we'll see many counter-strike conversions for it. Lastly...you've got the tried and test Unreal tech with it's own large following. To my mind, those are the big three in terms of ongoing support. The Crytek and X-Ray engines certainly look every good as well, and I'd be surprised if people didn't start modding for those. But at the moment, they are untried, and from developers not that well known. They don't already have a large fan base behind them willing to port over - and until other full games are developed with those engines, which might garner more support, I don't think they will be massive hits like the 'big 3'. Now, if it boils down to hard choices at Lucasarts, I think there is a choice of basically 2 engines. Lucasarts is using Unreal tech to develop Republic Commando - so they obviously have a team geared up to use that. If they decide to keep Raven on board to develop the next Jedi Knight game (if there ever is one), then Raven will use the Doom 3 tech, because they have a long-standing relationship with Id Software. The only other option for Lucasarts is to find a completely new developer who might consider using the Source engine - unless they decide to bring that in-house as well. But you have to ask yourself how commited people will be to the Source engine, in light of the major code leak. Why back an engine that is essentially in the public domain? Time will tell. I just have to hope that if a new Jedi Knight game is considered (I certainly hope so), that they will allocate more resources and allow a longer development cycle for it. Above all else, I want the next game to have greater depth, and more freedom of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinny Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 i hope they include red faction's geo modding and half life 2's havok engine . imagine force powers combined with the effects of a havok engine, or blowing a hole in a structure with force destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Lightsaber Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 No offence unnamed but you just scream D3 fanboy. Play HL2 Stalker or Far Cry and then compare, of course D3 is great, but thats because you've played it, you've only seen videos of all the other games. I'm not trying to start an arguement and forgive me if it seems that way. But please play the other games before you pass judgements that D3 is better than HL2 Stalker or Far cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FK | unnamed Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Originally posted by Blue_Lightsaber No offence unnamed but you just scream D3 fanboy. Play HL2 Stalker or Far Cry and then compare, of course D3 is great, but thats because you've played it, you've only seen videos of all the other games. I'm not trying to start an arguement and forgive me if it seems that way. But please play the other games before you pass judgements that D3 is better than HL2 Stalker or Far cry. I've never even heard of far cry, but as for HL2... Like I said, I had the chance to play the recent leak but chose not too. That said, I did take a look at "real" in game footage (from the recent leak) and it looks... well it looks like crap to be honest. The official footage they have shown (both videos and screens) is obviously "polished up promotional footage", because after seeing some raw in game screens and avi footage, it's not mind blowing or even remotely revolutionary. Granted, I have not played it first hand, so the overall experience, I can’t comment on. For all I know it could turn out to be the most fun game ever made. But the engine and what can be done within it’s limitations is not going to be a strong selling point for HL2 when it’s sitting side by side with Carmack’s D3 build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumor Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Originally posted by Emon Technically, Doom and even Wolfenstein 3D have all three dimensions, but don't allow for the same degrees of freedom that Quake does. Infact, few first person shooters do 6DOF, only flight sims and stuff. I'd go with Doom III, because it's most likely to be the best looking, highest performance, reliable and flexible engine in the long run. I don't know many details of the X-Ray engine that STALKER uses, other than it looks cool, and claims to have a physics engine better than Havok (HL2, DX2, MP2, many more), which I believe to be true, because the pre-alpha videos looked nearly as good as the full blown Havok. Also, HL2's Source engine isn't really as great as it seems. It's basically the HL engine (which was built off Quake I), with some new graphics code and new physics. It still uses BSP for maps! d3 engine uses bsp's kiddo. hl was built off of quake 2 not quake 1. every engine after quake in the series has been built off of the quake engine. why do you think many of the commands etc are very very similar? d3 is just the next rendition. HL2 uses the Source engine. not the havok engine. DX2 uses unreal warfare afiak (don't really care what it uses) engines will continue to use .bsp's until a better system is devised. please bring actual knowledge and facts to the table if you are going to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FK | unnamed Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Originally posted by Rumor d3 engine uses bsp's kiddo. hl was built off of quake 2 not quake 1. every engine after quake in the series has been built off of the quake engine. why do you think many of the commands etc are very very similar? d3 is just the next rendition. HL2 uses the Source engine. not the havok engine. DX2 uses unreal warfare afiak (don't really care what it uses) engines will continue to use .bsp's until a better system is devised. please bring actual knowledge and facts to the table if you are going to debate. Actually rumor, HL was built off a hybrid quake 1 engine that had elements of the quake 2 engine in it. And although it did have many elements of the quake 2 engine in it, at it's core it is still the quake 1 build they purchased and used. Notice I say purchased for a reason, they did not lease or "rent" it like many devs do these days, they (Valve) totally purchased the rights to it. Ever wonder why valve was able to make "Death Match Classic" (quake 1) an official part of HL without stepping on any copy write toes? The reason why is, they (Valve) now own the rights to the quake 1 engine after purchasing it from id. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eniaC Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Heres a link to a game that uses the HL2 engine. http://www.vampirebloodlines.com/ eniaC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrobot Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Originally posted by Rumor d3 engine uses bsp's kiddo. hl was built off of quake 2 not quake 1. every engine after quake in the series has been built off of the quake engine. why do you think many of the commands etc are very very similar? d3 is just the next rendition. HL2 uses the Source engine. not the havok engine. DX2 uses unreal warfare afiak (don't really care what it uses) engines will continue to use .bsp's until a better system is devised. please bring actual knowledge and facts to the table if you are going to debate. No, Doom 3 actually uses .map files for it's levels...these are just .txt files with a .map extension, and were previously just used as level files for the level editor. Now that Doom 3 does everything in real time, there is nothing to compile, and thus no need to make a .bsp file. This also means that all levels will be viewable in their original form, which may or may not be a good thing. (It certainly helps level editors figure out how to do stuff, but it makes it easier for idiots to cut and paste levels together.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Yeah, it seems things lean towards the Doom3 engine, especially if it is Raven who are doing the next JK game. I dont really know much about it, but what type of specs would you need to get this engine goin.... are we talking mimimum 128mb video card, and when is doom 3 happening anyways...sorry im a bit ignorant about fps goings on(I am usually an rpg/sports gamer) MTFBWYA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrobot Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 I dont really know much about it, but what type of specs would you need to get this engine goin.... are we talking mimimum 128mb video card, and when is doom 3 happening anyways...sorry im a bit ignorant about fps goings on(I am usually an rpg/sports gamer) John Carmack designed the Doom 3 technology based on the latest graphics card technology at the time he started working on the Doom 3 engine...that was the Geforce 2, so the minimum graphics card requirement is about a Geforce 2 level card. If you'll be able to run Knights of the Old Republic decently, you'll have no problems running Doom 3. [Edit: Oh, and Doom 3 should be coming out early next year. Quake IV is already in development at Raven, but nothing has really been shown of it besides a piece of concept art or two.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babywax Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 Exactly my point stormhammer Someone said that graphics don't affect the gameplay, that's what I was referring to with almost that whole post. Far Cry will pretty much be better than most games for large enviroments, due to the fact that they use heightmaps to make terrain. I don't know what format they compile their maps into though, maybe a heightmap + BSP? As for Half-Life 2, I have seen it in action (real playing, my friend has it, boy is that gravity gun fun!) and although still screens don't look great, when you see people's faces moving that's when it shines. They don't have the level of detail but the movements are so life like it is crazy. Want to see some of the things being done on Quake 2? Check this out http://tenebrae2.com/ Here's a screenshot http://tenebrae2.com/screenshots/tenebrae2_tb-base_06.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isoparm Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 what about halo 2? Its got shiny surfaces, normal mapping, specular lighting, bumpmaping, realtime shadows, large enviorments, ragdoll....I just like the way its rendering looks. Its like comparing mental ray vs brazil. As far as a jedi game and the best engine for it...thats hard, all new games that will be out 2+ years from now will have some form of normal maps, bump maps, shiny shaders that make you scream, some form of the 2 popular physics engines and all that good stuff. If it was between hl2 and d3 engine only, I would go for hl2 and have them add realtime lighting. D3 has nice normalmaps dark shadows with shiny backgrounds, that always make the average person go crazy. Its like seeing chrome and fire together, but I would rather see a game that can render a scene in full daylight and have it look tits. Its just too easy to make things look cool with solid black shadows and shiny gray backgrounds with blinking lights. A Jedi game that has heavy character interaction would have to have a nice facial animation system and hl2's beats d3's. D3 looks nice with normal maps but its low poly count can't hold good facial deformation. HL2 had to go high on the poly count for heads in order to have smooth deforming facial animation, theres no way around it. I would rather see good character performance right now then some highly smooth looking statue. It really depends on what kind of jedi game they try to make next, another fps with a third person option, a morrowind type of deal or maybe splinter cell stealth action jedi...will it be mp and sp or just sp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrobot Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Well, actually from what I've seen in the leak, the animation is just fine. You see, Doom 3's models started out as extremely high poly models, like the ones used in movies, and then they did a bunch of mapping stuff across the surface and converted the model into the low poly ones used in game. Then the mapping stuff is applied so that the models have smoothed surfaces, or something...whatever it is, it works, since you can't tell the models have a lower poly count than most games out now. The animation itself is straight forward direct animating in a 3d modeling program...this actually creates the most lifelike animations, since it's done by hand. It's the same thing used in CG movies. Half Life 2's animation blending system thingy is going to have to prove that it works in game, when you're actually playing it...I saw this one screenshot of that dude in the suit, and his eyes were looking in slightly different directions, but they off enough to look sickening... Oh, and you can't just add realistic shadows as if it were just another extra little feature...you'd have to tear out the whole renderer and rewrite it...plus the technology Doom 3 is using is pretty revolutionary, as it's actually doing it's rendering different than the old way of making a bsp and compiling a lightmap...this is what Jedi Academy uses, and this is also what Half Life 2 uses...it's what just about every game made in the past 5 or so years has done. One more thing...Most of Doom 3's shadows are solid black because there aren't that many light sources to create light that would soften the shadow. The reason this is being done in Doom 3, as a game, is because it's a horror game, and by doing that the shadows are highlighted and made more obvious...it's what you see done in horror movies as well. And last of all, here's a fairly new Doom 3 screenshot...notice the models look fine, despite their low poly count. [Edit: Oh, and from the screenshots I've seen of Halo 2, it doesn't appear to have universal shadows like Doom 3... /Edit] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExcelsioN Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 babywax you say you've seen HL2 in action, your friend has it? I've heard that the HL2 engine's been leaked in a playable form...but that's not for discussion here. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what engine LEC take when, or if, they make JK4. Gabrobot your shot says 'Forbidden' when I click on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Szadou Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Did you pepole notice that Doom 3 uses maps and rooms as small as a rathole? Compare it to Far Cry. Well...... And for the "Super UBER 1337 graphixorz in DOOM 3! WOO!", the models look like sh*t for me. The lighting makes them look like they would have been made from plastic or a shiny piece of metal. Bleh! And the enemies look like that too, in fact there are like 25 types of enemies in the game. Looking all the same. WTF is that!? It's the freaking XXI century for God's sake! I want to see enemies that are different, not just all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExcelsioN Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Originally posted by Szadou Did you pepole notice that Doom 3 uses maps and rooms as small as a rathole? Compare it to Far Cry. Well...... And for the "Super UBER 1337 graphixorz in DOOM 3! WOO!", the models look like sh*t for me. The lighting makes them look like they would have been made from plastic or a shiny piece of metal. Bleh! And the enemies look like that too, in fact there are like 25 types of enemies in the game. Looking all the same. WTF is that!? It's the freaking XXI century for God's sake! I want to see enemies that are different, not just all the same. Thats the game . The engine could be modified to look way better. The engine can support far more than whatever Doom has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eniaC Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Heres some screen shots from a HL2 engine game, not sure how much they've been doctored up. I havn't even voted on this topic, I can't decide between Q3 and HL2, and there hasn't been very many arguments for the latter. Like I said though I havn't voted so I can't even see the percentages. anyways, these look great to me, a little dark but hey, why not make the next JK a story based around a villian. (*/edit: I know you can make just about any mood setting or environment that you choose w/ just about any engine, imho, why would you want to...the darkside is...nvrmnd.) http://www.uploadit.org/files2/071103-BS10.jpg http://www.uploadit.org/files2/071103-BS4.jpg http://www.uploadit.org/files2/071103-BS1.jpg http://www.uploadit.org/files2/071103-BS6.jpg http://www.uploadit.org/files2/071103-vampire_3.jpg http://www.uploadit.org/files2/071103-vampire_8.jpg http://www.uploadit.org/files2/071103-BS14.jpg http://www.uploadit.org/files2/071103-BS15.jpg http://www.uploadit.org/files2/071103-vampire_13.jpg All screen shots taken from Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. This game will include a MP format that is somewhat objective based FPS. eniaC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isoparm Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 "You see, Doom 3's models started out as extremely high poly models, like the ones used in movies, and then they did a bunch of mapping stuff across the surface and converted the model into the low poly ones used in game. Then the mapping stuff is applied so that the models have smoothed surfaces, or something...whatever it is, it works, since you can't tell the models have a lower poly count than most games out now. The animation itself is straight forward direct animating in a 3d modeling program...this actually creates the most lifelike animations, since it's done by hand. It's the same thing used in CG movies" Thats the point, normal maps give a model a highres look, but not highres deformation. You need a dense surface inorder to have good deformation. I can normal map a 4 million poly head onto a 100 poly head and fron a front view it will look awsome. As soon as that thing has to talk, it will look like crap. After playing with both hl2 and d3's tools, hl2 has a way more complex facial animation system and character animation/blending system compared to d3. I think these shots from halo 2 give a better idea of its shadowing I think it uses just volumetric shadows on character and the enviorment like swg does. http://halo.bungie.net/images/site/halo/screenshots/halo2/h2_e3_05.jpg http://halo.bungie.net/images/site/halo/screenshots/scrn_109.jpg http://halo.bungie.net/images/site/halo/screenshots/scrn_125.jpg Bottom line is hl2, d3, and whatever other engine you want to mention might might look good for the games being developed for them but that doesn't mean those are the best choice for a new jedi game. That new rogue squadron rebel strike game with its flying and ground combat mix wouldn't have worked with any of those, its all dependent on what type of gameplay the next jedi game will have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RigoR_MortiS Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Indoors and outdoors performance must be balanced, and it seems that D3 favors indoors over outdoors, like Q3. Realtime lightining was done in splinter cell, and well I don't think it is a prerequsite for a jedi knight game :| Halo 2 will do fine IMHO, but modding wise D3 will be better.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrobot Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 Originally posted by Isoparm "You see, Doom 3's models started out as extremely high poly models, like the ones used in movies, and then they did a bunch of mapping stuff across the surface and converted the model into the low poly ones used in game. Then the mapping stuff is applied so that the models have smoothed surfaces, or something...whatever it is, it works, since you can't tell the models have a lower poly count than most games out now. The animation itself is straight forward direct animating in a 3d modeling program...this actually creates the most lifelike animations, since it's done by hand. It's the same thing used in CG movies" Thats the point, normal maps give a model a highres look, but not highres deformation. You need a dense surface inorder to have good deformation. I can normal map a 4 million poly head onto a 100 poly head and fron a front view it will look awsome. As soon as that thing has to talk, it will look like crap. After playing with both hl2 and d3's tools, hl2 has a way more complex facial animation system and character animation/blending system compared to d3. I think these shots from halo 2 give a better idea of its shadowing I think it uses just volumetric shadows on character and the enviorment like swg does. http://halo.bungie.net/images/site/halo/screenshots/halo2/h2_e3_05.jpg http://halo.bungie.net/images/site/halo/screenshots/scrn_109.jpg http://halo.bungie.net/images/site/halo/screenshots/scrn_125.jpg Bottom line is hl2, d3, and whatever other engine you want to mention might might look good for the games being developed for them but that doesn't mean those are the best choice for a new jedi game. That new rogue squadron rebel strike game with its flying and ground combat mix wouldn't have worked with any of those, its all dependent on what type of gameplay the next jedi game will have. Well, I disagree with you...I think Doom 3's facial animation is fine. Maybe your graphics card can't run the unoptimized alpha very well...? Oh, and Doom 3 doesn't include facial animation tools, you funny person...the animations are made in Maya. As I pointed out before, Half Life 2's animation blending system comes up with some rather awkward results sometimes. Really, I don't see the point in it, myself...it seems just as easy to use regular animations for emotions...why the need for blending? And, Doom 3, as a game, is set in small places because it's a horror game...large open areas don't help with suspense. Quake IV is using the Doom 3 engine, and it will have large open environments with large numbers of enemies...how many times have got to say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.