Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DOOM III to be showed at E3 FINALLY!!!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 7, 2002 8:32:14 PM

Well this is it guys, John Carmack's final chance at showing us the revelation, and whether or not it will be an apogee for a new world in gaming.
Seriously though, ID will put a stand for Doom 3, finally showing us what the hype is all about. They say they are so psyched about it, they are claiming it will change and revolutionize(big words there) the PC!

I keep asking myself the question though: Why am I so hyped on it!
Is because John Carmack is behind it?
Is it because I loved Doom 2?
Is it because the name sells so well, and that it comes from a company that introduced FPShooters?

I dunno but I am just hyped, even though I'm disappointed our PCs are not enough to handle the full gameplay.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
May 8, 2002 5:35:34 AM

I saw doom 3 shots at the macworld expo(not in person on tech tv) the faces look funny.


Unreal 2 now....nummmy.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2002 8:04:53 AM

Make a guess, what videocard will that PC have when running DOOM III!

I can give you all my guess... http://www.matrox.com/mga/home.htm

:D 
Related resources
May 8, 2002 12:04:46 PM

Wow really?
Hmm well they might've been early ones, or anyway, it is still something to see.
Unreal sounds fine too, however it seems DOOM 3 IS the bandwidth hog on GFX, and WILL put the step forward.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
May 8, 2002 2:52:58 PM

Doom? Isnt that UT2's grandfather or something?

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURP.
UT FOREVER.

nVidiot: Message board Troll employed by nVidia to terrorize aTidiots.
May 8, 2002 8:05:37 PM

Doom is for ID, the other is....hmmm I forget who owns UT, but I do know it's Tim Sweeney who did it. Personally I never liked the Unreal engine, it has those little weird filters over the graphics, especially in Deus Ex, and it also has poor performance on my WinXP system. Q3 game engines worked best, and had always top performance on almost any setup.
But as for Doom, John Carmack is known in almost the entire industry, if not the most famous.
Of course UT2 will be amazing, I've seen screenshots (unless this isn't the one? UT2003?), however the way they described Doom 3 since, it looks like it's the killer thing. Graphically, it is the most challenging thing ever, and as Carmack puts it, even GF4s are not up to the full job. I'll be probably running it at 640*480 on my Ti200, until I upgrade.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
May 8, 2002 10:33:53 PM

Didn't i hear the name Carmack in connection with Dickatana or however you speel it? UT is made by a faaaar cooler company in my opinion which in called EPIC!

Doom...is by the creators of Quack...Quack III is very ugly, its full of pastels and washed out colors and big huge chunks of bleep which are supposed to be body parts.

Unreal Tournament is shiny and pretty and detailed and colorfull and bright and sounds better too....a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT better.....

Quack Quack Boom

UT FOREVER!

Get phsychadelic here:
<A HREF="http://mediaviewer.ign.com/ignMediaPage.jsp?media_id=14..." target="_new">HERE!</A>
<A HREF="http://mediaviewer.ign.com/ignMediaPage.jsp?media_id=14..." target="_new">HERE!</A>
<A HREF="http://mediaviewer.ign.com/ignMediaPage.jsp?media_id=14..." target="_new">AND HERE!</A>

nVidiot: Message board Troll employed by nVidia to terrorize aTidiots.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by williamc on 05/08/02 06:38 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 8, 2002 11:56:35 PM

I think I might be detecting some extrememly subtle hints of fanboyism from you. Could it just be might my super sensitive senses. Nah.. you're just making you're self sound like an a$$.

Both engines are good. I haven't seen anything from Unreal 2 but the Doom 3 Engine is gonna be great.

Wasn't there supposed to be some duke nukem game coming out or did I miss it?


<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 9, 2002 1:04:12 AM

Um I'd ask you to go look at MOHAA, SOF II, before you say any further about this very lasting engine. Not alot of Unreal engine games recently, no? When you compare UT's engine which is so CPU intensive compared to Q3, you know that developping games using Q3, will allow more and more systems to enjoy it, as it uses both CPU and card, therefore performance stays up. (In Q3 at 1024*768 full, you get 200FPS with GF4s, in UT, it's a bit above 100 FPS, or last time I seen... if they developped a hugely revamped UT engine for a new game, guess the FPS)

My point is not to dishonor UT2's engine. I've seen many pics, and I agree completly, it is very impressive. BUT, almost everyone knows, DOOM 3 has been long rumored to have some graphics nobody has ever touched in quality. There is no doubt, it will be the most impressive one ever, and even UT2003's would not touch it. You'd probably ask for proof...wait for E3 to see. But this is Carmack, and he spoke several times, the game is powerful, it will require above GF4s to run perfectly, what else does that describe the engine? Of course, I am hoping for his sake, that this includes GF3 optimizations. I'd hate him to do a game with no DX8 benefits, that would allow GF3s to play the game at nice FPS. If it has been optimized like Aquanox to the max, then indeed this is one helluva GFX hog, and a GF2 would barely start the game, heck getting past the 10 FPS menu would be great lol.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
May 9, 2002 5:45:49 AM

I'm not sure which engine goes where, but so far serious sam and UT are at the top of my list. Quake always sucked as far as I was concerned, and Doom, well...it's been a while.

I put Doom3 in the same pile as WarCraft III. It's all hype, and we still haven't seen shite.

<font color=red>I have a computer and it does weird stuff. please help.</font color=red>
May 9, 2002 7:35:00 AM

Warcraft 3 is in the final beta testing stage actually. There is tons of info on the net about it. "World of Warcraft" is a whole 'nother story, however...
May 9, 2002 12:02:55 PM

Hmm you mean you never visited blizzard.com to see the entire site revamped under W3? And the tons of tons of pics?

You're right, they did not show anything yet for D3, I am maybe hyping, you can refer to my first post to why I might be! Anyway we will finally see the truth come E3, and that is what I can't wait.

--
I set my graphics aperture to 1024MB, why can't I open anything now? :mad: 
May 9, 2002 1:44:07 PM

Actually the warcraft 3 beta pretty much owns everything...Puts command and conquer multiplayer absolutely to shame. It puts its predecessors to shame too...i go even so far as to consider it better than starcraft and Total Annilation and Sudden Strike and Kohan...well maybe not Kohan (that had to be the best rts ever). You will LOVE WC3 if you like rts at all....its got some really cool rpg elements to it as well and you can play it smoothly on the net all the way down to a 28.8 modem in 6 to 8 player games, i know from experience-)

About UT...of course...i'm definitely a fanboy of UT...because i cannot stand Quake 1 2 or 3....MoHAA was pretty...sure...but severely lacked in gameplay, it ALMOST got by without the washed out look of quake but not quite. RTCW definitely had the washed out pastel look alot and waaaaaaaaaaaaaay overused that damned fog to try to cover it up. I enjoy the halflife engine more cause its sharp, carefully textured, and uses more brilliant colors. UT is the same way as halflife. UT doesnt try to cover up its ugly engine cause it doesnt need to. Hopefully Doom 3 will change that but i have serious doubts, I dunno what SoF2 will look like yet cause i'm not in the beta, screenshots never look like the actual game on your pc, sometimes they're better, sometimes their worse. SoF1 looked the same as Quake 3...few colors, washed out, pastels...bloody ton of fog to cover it all up. Check out NOLF....it has a far prettier engine than Quake 3 too. Ghost Recon's engine puts quake 3 to shame in every department. You get 325fps in quake 3 for a reason man...and it aint cause its pretty. If you wanna be a 325fps twich fanatic for life go right ahead, i got nothin against people who do that..its not for me though, i wanna actually enjoy the game, not just the blowing people into little chunks.

nVidiot: Message board Troll employed by nVidia to terrorize aTidiots.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by williamc on 05/09/02 09:46 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 9, 2002 5:16:24 PM

Quote:
It puts its predecessors to shame too...i go even so far as to consider it better than starcraft and Total Annilation and Sudden Strike and Kohan

Blasphemy!!!! Total Annihilation is the best rts game ever made!!!


Ok ok ok it's MHO but still like to play TACC from time to time,the problem is that I can't find a good partner to play with...my friends don't want to play me anymore and the AI gets pretty easy when you get to know how it's playing and the people on the M$ Zone are a:using cheats or b:not strong enouth...

My frog asked me for a cigarette...dunno what happened he's all over the place :eek: 
May 9, 2002 7:44:02 PM

OK, now you're confusing the actual game engine with the game elements. The textures say diddly squat about the engine. Halflife uses an ID engine. Of course the developers made their tweaks. I don't remember if it was a highly modified Quake Engine or an early Quake 2 engine.

I'll give you that on UT using vivid textures. It kinda reminds me of the marvel action comics. But that says virtually nothing about the engine. There are tons of good/better engines out there but between Q3 and UT engine, Q3 wins hands down. The serious engine is supposed to be good.

Another engine that has to be mentioned is the Torque Game Engine, a modified form of the Tribes 2 engine. If you want to develop games or something, you can spend $99 to get the full engine source under a restriced license allowing you to distribute your games based on the engine via <A HREF="http://www.garagegames.com" target="_new">http://www.garagegames.com&lt;/A>. If it is good enough for boxed distribution, then sierra get publishing priority.


<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 9, 2002 9:07:30 PM

Yeah the Serious engine has got to be the sharpest one ever. All details when put to max, really show sharpness like hell, yet the frame rate is very decent, even with tons running at you.

{to Wiliamc)
Half-Life itself lacks a lot in detail and texture detail, and although it is more brightish, like Counter Strike, it is no longer used in any new game. Q3 engines have been used solely because there was some reason, otherwise it'd had been trashed a long time ago, but it didn't now did it? MOHAA has awesome textures, proving you don't need the new DX8 features of GF3s to render beauty.
As for SOF1, it used a highly advanced Q2 engine, much different from it anyway. It ran smooth of course, and had some nice sharpness in textures. SOF2 is already on multiplayer demo, it's very fun, and again the Q3 engine is put on the longevity test. UT2003 will arguably require a good PC setup, the textures are definitly something DX8 is used in. I don't know if so far, anyone has ever defied Massive with its Aquanox Krass engine, because it is the one that pushes GF3s to their utmost max, yet even with intense battles, flying laser balls, torpedoes, flashing explosions and moving ships, the game keeps a sound 30 FPS average on my Ti200, and even as it stutters below, it still feels awesome and I forget the lag. If UT2003 uses the GF3 well, but does not push it so much, it will run very well on our GF3+ systems, Rad 8500+.
But as for Doom 3, forget it, it's a new engine, it's something we've wanted to know more about, but no screenshots bring pain, however if it lives up to its expectations, Johnny has indeed retained his crown as the most known game programmer in the industry, and continued to keep his title for the shooter of the year, as Doom and Doom 2 had shown. I still sometimes enjoy playing D2, classical yet fun. I wonder if he'll put the hero's face on the bottom hud, it'll be funny but nice and nostalgical!

--
I set my graphics aperture to 1024MB, why can't I open anything now? :mad: 
May 10, 2002 2:52:23 AM

Ooooooooooooooh. Parhelia.

I can't think of a good signature so I'll use this one.
May 10, 2002 6:16:15 AM

Yeah... thats funny that you are putitng down all the Quake engines when Half-life runs on the Quake2 (modified?) engine. I think you are confusing the engines with the games that have been using them. From my limited knowledge, the game engine is what effects things like, lighting, physics, rendering, map construstion, etc. You can take any texture set you want and apply it to the Quake3 or UT engines and things like fog can be turned on and off. I think the only logical way to compare engines is to apply the same game (or as close as possible) to each engine and see how it plays.
IMO, I think the Quake3 engine has the upper hand. Since you could create UT on the Quake3 engine and it would most likely play/perform better. I think UT is a better game though. Ironic, eh?
May 10, 2002 2:34:50 PM

One of the big deals about how Valve modified the engine for Half Life was redoing allt he pallates and textures to create a whole new appearance that was more bright, sharp, and classy looking. Just one of the jillions of things they modified. Dunno if you ever noticed but Quake 2 and Half Life FEEL completely different from each other. On the other hand, RTCW, MoHAA, and Quake III all feel pretty much the same...like your floating on ice which is weird to me. MoHAA is definitely the best of the bunch cause of its textures and the least amount of fog, they at least tried to get a more realistic feel and did alright...but HalfLife might as well be a whole different engine its so heavily modified. I am not confusing engines and games.

And everything i've said is MY EXPRESS OPINION AND NOT NECCESSARILY FACT! The exact same as everything you've said. So you can say you disagree, but not that i'm wrong-P

edit: eh no..you could not create Unreal on the Quake 3 engine...The unreal engine is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR more versatile and can create gigantic outdoor envionments which are an amazing site to see. Hopefully Doom 3 will take a giant leap foward for gaming kind and outdo even Unreal but i seriously doubt it, ID has always focused on smaller environments, dungeon type settinsg, dark danky corridors, and tricks like real curves which is a moot point now...



nVidiot: Message board Troll employed by nVidia to terrorize aTidiots.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by williamc on 05/10/02 10:38 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 10, 2002 8:28:12 PM

ID can do how they want, but recreating Hell will seem like a new world...

--
I set my graphics aperture to 1024MB, why can't I open anything now? :mad: 
May 10, 2002 9:39:52 PM

IMO, Deus Ex has a beautiful engine.

Sig of the week.
May 10, 2002 9:42:43 PM

Actually you are comparing games rather than engines. That isn't just an opinion. I haven't played MoHAA, but doesn't that have outdoor elements? The Quake 3 engine IS more versatile than the UT engine. Thats mainly why it is more popular among third party developers.

You can't question the fact that John Carmack is the best FPS engine writer out there. Hardly anyone would disagree. But I would agree that ID software aren't the best game writers out there. But then again the FPS market is so grossly oversaturated, it just isn't funny.

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 10, 2002 9:46:39 PM

I think it uses the Unreal engine.... one of the reasons why it was rather sluggish.

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 10, 2002 10:12:10 PM

It's using the Unreal engine, and although it has its shares of beauty, the sluggish non 100% compatible performance on my WinXP AND my uncle's WinME with both using GF3s, was something to expect. They had graphical sluggishness in the first release anyway. The D3D of Unreal in this game lacks, VERY much. When you approach at the walls, you'll see a filter of little squares covering the textures!

--
I set my graphics aperture to 1024MB, why can't I open anything now? :mad: 
May 10, 2002 10:16:50 PM

Actually, they have very good games. Of course the only good references are Doom 2 and Wolf 3d. Can't say those 2 sucked at all!
However RTCW, was not entirely developped by ID, thus the fact it barely had much Wolf 3d ressemblances, with the inclusion that the bosses barely had Nazi background, except the castle itself. I liked the GFX but was disappointed in the end. It was long and less enjoyable, as you grew to die easily and had enemies far too hard. If ID had done, with John, it'd have rocked. Sadly it was Nerve and Activision who mainly built it, using ID's Q3 engine. I also hate RTCW's poor optimizations and memory management. There is so much stalling in the beginning after loading a level, it's just annoying, as well as incredibly long loading times, which again make no sense. The game has huge environments, but damn it they are not THAT huge to load so long, especially when games like Aquanox have the whole sea bed around you, with scripting, movie cutscenes in a level all included in a 7 second loading, WITH NO STALLS. The game remains as the prettiest and best optimized GF3 game ever to me. MOHAA also has very disappointing stall control too. Q3, OTOH loaded fast, was stable and reliable thanks to ID's tradition, it ran smooth too.

--
I set my graphics aperture to 1024MB, why can't I open anything now? :mad: 
May 10, 2002 11:27:45 PM

Odd, I never saw such filters. Very odd..... Also, it was never sluggish on my comp (Quadro DCC, 1.2T-Bird).

Sig of the week.
May 11, 2002 12:21:40 AM

odd... pong doesn't play that slow on my amd650...

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 11, 2002 10:57:36 AM

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the utter stupidity of creating a game that will only run on a handfull of the PC´s out there? im sure there are more P500Mhz, 128Mb sdram, geforce2 slugs out there, than geforce4 powered gigabyte monster machines. if DOOM3 cant run properly on low(er)-end pc´s, how the hell is ID supposed to make a profit on this game???
May 11, 2002 11:36:51 PM

Well dude, go back when Doom came out, or Doom 2. Just how many comps were able to fully play it? I remember in 1995 when my uncle had his 486 DX2 66MHZ. Playing Doom 2 was sluggish, and even with Low Detail it was sluggish. It wasn't until one year later, that decent comps were able to handle it. But that was because Carmack pushed us forward. With DOOM 3, he is doing it again, pushing people to make better and even more advanced hardward than on a regular basis, therefore pushing competition, pushing people to buy them, pushing lower prices. It's a cycle that helps in the end. Besides check this out as I was searching the web:
http://www.fileplanet.com/index.asp?file=56348
The demo one year ago before GF3 came out, they demonstrated Doom 3 tests on GF3s. Quite smooth but again, a year ago, and the game was barely any advanced, and was probably 5% developped. So this looks promising a lot, they probably harnessed the GF4 now, enhanced further, so that when it comes out, the name will flourish. I tell ya, when I see that name on the shelves, I WILL be tempted. Awesome titles sell to me! When I look at my OEM small booklet of WinXP Home, I feel tempted to use WinXP, even though I always am! It's a weird feeling but titles with beautiful background and smooth colors, sell.
Now to see the MINIMUM system reqs for Doom 3...

--
I set my graphics aperture to 1024MB, why can't I open anything now? :mad: 
May 12, 2002 12:52:39 AM

Quake 3 works on my friends AMD-K6 300 with Riva TNT. I expect Doom 3 will work an a P500 with 128MB ram with a GF2 albeit at minimum settings. Sometime ago in an interview he said even the GF3 cards will be stressed at maximum settings. But I think the GF3 cards are stressed with aquanox.

I think you'll be fine, but If you want fluid gameplay at high resolution with max settings, get yourself a GF4 TI4600 or the next ATI, Creative/3dlabs, Matrox offering. Do not get a kyro!

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 12, 2002 10:42:23 AM

i did´nt say i had a p500, 128mb, geforce2 system, well actually i do, but i was just making a point.(and the geforce2 is actually a ATI128)
im in the process of building a new computer right now, why? you ask, because MOHAA runs like crap on my present system. and yes its great if games like DOOM3 pushes game graphics to the next level. but how many people are going to bother spending a thousand dollars or more on brand new systems, just to play new games?
not that i care, as long as it runs fine on MY xp1800,512mb geforc4 pc....
May 12, 2002 5:00:32 PM

I totally understand and to an extent share your point of view. Personally I can't justify spending over a grand just for gaming either. But there are plenty of people richer than you and I, or more precisely, there are plenty of kids out there with rich parent. When people have to spend money they earned, things do change a bit.

My time for upgrade has been long overdue, but I think I'll still hold out for a little bit longer. There are cool things on the horizon. Thoroughbred, Barton, the next crush motherboards, next generation graphics cards from a number of companies. And I haven't actually sat down with the intention to play a game for months now. I've still got a number of games I baught ages ago, that have requirements far below my amd650/geforce and I haven't even unwrapped them yet.

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 12, 2002 6:10:06 PM

I have a 1.2Ghz T-Bird Quadro DCC w/ 512DDR. I hope it'll run DOOM 3, and if it can't, oh well. I'm definetly not upgraded till this PC runs everything like crap. Then I go all out and buy the best performer. I usually pay 50% w/ my money, and my parents pay 50%.

Sig of the week.
May 12, 2002 6:20:27 PM

Hehe, I'm getting a P4 1.6A, Asus P4S533, and 512MB DDR333. I've decided that I'm not going to blow all my money on a new computer and since Northwoods are overclocking monsters, I expect to get it to ~2.4GHz if not more. Then I'll overclock my R8500 to 300/300 (600MHz DDR). If that doesn't run Doom3 at 60fps+ at 1024*768*32, then id isn't going to get many buyers.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 12, 2002 9:09:12 PM

Did you check out the website link and the video? They showed a Geforce 3 standard with its crappy 12.10 drivers running it, quite smoothly I might add... it was on mac, oh well, but still, our comps now are far better at 3D than the Power Mac G4 no?
Check out the video again, and see how even at early dev, the game sounds like it is well optimized. There is no doubt GF3s WILL be stressed. Doom III is like DOOM II, it was a pinnacle in graphics. It's a gate to push people to move on, get the newest hardware, therefore encouraging developpers to make games with raw beauty and awesome gameplay, as graphical programming becomes easier and faster to be done, with awesome results. If DOOM III plays anything like D2 or better, it will rock.

--
I set my graphics aperture to 1024MB, why can't I open anything now? :mad: 
May 13, 2002 10:59:49 AM

Quote:
Is it just me, or does anyone else see the utter stupidity of creating a game that will only run on a handfull of the PC´s out there? im sure there are more P500Mhz, 128Mb sdram, geforce2 slugs out there, than geforce4 powered gigabyte monster machines. if DOOM3 cant run properly on low(er)-end pc´s, how the hell is ID supposed to make a profit on this game???


I would rather game developers push the limit on new games and intice me to purchase better hardware than to have to play games which look like wolfenstein(the origional) just to cater to the e machines common denominator.


Most modern games come with adjustable graphics settings, this is more than enough to please the p3 550 losers out there, if you only have a p3 550 dont buy doom 3, the minimum requirements are clearly printed on the box.




:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 13, 2002 11:02:12 AM

Quote:
im in the process of building a new computer right now, why? you ask, because MOHAA runs like crap on my present system. and yes its great if games like DOOM3 pushes game graphics to the next level. but how many people are going to bother spending a thousand dollars or more on brand new systems, just to play new games?


Mohaa runs like crap on all systems, its poorly coded.(still a good game)

But nothing like the hardcore pain that is dungeon siege, I have a 2000++ (150 fsb)axp and a gf3 ti 500 and In snow levels I TOP OUT at 30fps, granted this is with aniso on to 32 tap, but even turning it off dosent make it very much better.

Its a good thing ds is slow paced and the lower frame rate is no big deal, my system is far from slow!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 13, 2002 11:55:07 AM

So I am not alone!
I was wondering why DS has such a poor FPS! Talk about horrible optimizations! No seriously, even turning off shadows, or using 800*600 yeilds no possible increase in FPS. I find this very disappointing.
But if you want stuttering, go play Jedi Knight II, it's RTCW all over again in both load times(maybe even more) and horrible stuttering all the time, appart from no frame skip.

--
Intel had 2.2GHZ Willies left...I bought one, it powered my entire neighborhood! :smile:
May 13, 2002 12:19:53 PM

Eden wrote:
Quote:

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the utter stupidity of creating a game that will only run on a handfull of the PC´s out there? im sure there are more P500Mhz, 128Mb sdram, geforce2 slugs out there, than geforce4 powered gigabyte monster machines. if DOOM3 cant run properly on low(er)-end pc´s, how the hell is ID supposed to make a profit on this game???

Well, if they didn't push the envelope they wouldn't be able to license the engine later on...Which is one of their primary objectives, expect to see lots of DOOM3 based titles in the future.
May 13, 2002 1:57:10 PM

bleh...

UT Forever...

I still say Unreal engine is superior to ID engine... flame me, go ahead, i wear fireproof clothing.

nVidiot: Message board Troll employed by nVidia to terrorize aTidiots.
May 13, 2002 8:16:05 PM

I won't but you will be proven quite wrong once it is shown at E3.

--
Intel had 2.2GHZ Willies left...I bought one, it powered my entire neighborhood! :smile:
May 13, 2002 9:21:12 PM

So, thats why all the developers looking for a 3D engine are stampeding over Epic to get a license to the ID engines.

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 14, 2002 1:38:13 AM

Hmm even as you are rebutting him, I don't get your point!

--
Intel had 2.2GHZ Willies left...I bought one, it powered my entire neighborhood! :smile:
May 14, 2002 3:23:45 AM

Actually Unreal, Unreal Tourny, Unreal 2, UT 2003 use the Same engine believe or not. They keep on updating it.

Well there is a real game coming using the Unreal Engine. When ever it comes out Duke Nukem Forever will be out kicking ass without bubble gum !

You GeForce Ti4xxx is faster then my R8500 but my R8500 is the king of Aniso baby :cool:
May 14, 2002 12:04:57 PM

I never recalled it using an updated engine. I recall the UT2003 engine uses its own, with a benchmark suite to test all cards to the max, to predict their performance during 2002.

--
Intel had 2.2GHZ Willies left...I bought one, it powered my entire neighborhood! :smile:
May 14, 2002 2:10:05 PM

I know...thats part of why the engine is so nice...they've been working on it for a long time constantly improving it. Unreal engine is absolutely incredible at this time...

Anyone who expresses such 100% confidence that Dooom 3 is gonna blow it away like Eden is nuts. The engine has yet to be demonstrated...after E3...then maybe we can disguss this...in the game forum instead of the graphics card forum.

HolyHandGrenade...huh?

Eden, the UT 2003 engine is most definitely the same engine as the origional unreal. I beleive the origional UT maxed at build 4.36 or something, currently UT2003 is somewhere around build 8.5 Unreal test is based on something around 8.4

HolyDudGrenade: oh i think i get what you meant to say... Doom and Quake have bigger names, i'll never argue that...but there's a whole pile of major instances where mediocre games far outsell and outpubicize games which are in fact far superior. Why? It all has to do with the media, and Doom and Quake, because of their legacy, generate FAR more publicity than Unreal. Lets face the facts, however, other than Curved surfaces in Quake 3, the Unreal engine has been technically superior in its capabilies at every point since the origional unreal's release. I just pulled out Quake 3 and the origional Unreal and UT last night and did side by side comparisions on my GF4 TI card. There is absolutely no contest...every single aspect of the unreal engine plays better and looks better than the Quake 3 except for quake3's insane frame rates which really are not neccessary. If you get 60+ fps your good, you really dont need higher for smooth action and shooting. UT can go well beyond 60fps though....WELL beyond so i dont see a problem at all. Quake 3 has more mods...but its not cause modding with unreal is harder, in my experience, its definitely not harder. Quake and Doom have just always had a bigger following and a larger mod community, there are some fantastic mods out for Unreal Tournament. Some very similar to CS, some wacked out, some just different... And alot that are actually the exact same as mods for Quake 3. I cannot fathom why people must insist ID has the better engines. So you like their game more for some reason, fine, i got nothing against that, thats great. But man, you guys need to learn something about objective comparison. In all honesty, i dont care for either game in itself. But i love the unreal engine.

NOW FOR THE FINAL BLOCK BUSTER! The next Tom Clancy game in the Rainbow Six series is using the latest Unreal Engine. Now THATS why i like the unreal engine! For games i do like. I'd have to look it up but i wouldnt be surprised at all if the Rainbow 6 series is the best selling PC action series of all time. The origional sold over 3 million copies at least and is still on shelves in its collectors edition packaging with the other games of the series up to ghost recon.

The point of all that is that i think we'll be seeing an incredible jump in the Unreal engine's popularity very soon. Doom 3 will have to be shockingly impressive to hold up in sales to UT2003 and its spawn. Thats something i personally dont see happening, but again...lets talk more about that after E3 in the game game forum...

nVidiot: Message board Troll employed by nVidia to terrorize aTidiots.
May 14, 2002 9:54:00 PM

I haven't been playing a lot of games lately. The last game I've played for playing sake (as opposed to study the game) was Aliens vs Predator 2. That uses lithtech, so we'll leave that one.

My point is, the fact that an overwhelming majority of developers go for ID engines over anyone elses (and before anyone says it, consoles don't count). You can't suggest thats because ID sell more games. I speculate, economical viability is also out of the question, as, if you have a seller in your hands the difference in licensing terms from the major engine vendors becomes pretty much neglegible.

I will accept that some developers may have closer relations to ID since they may have previously licensed an ID engine and had good support. This rappor may be the main reason why some developers may return to ID for another engine. But you seriously cannot suggest these are the soles why ID engines (not games) sell better. You might say that the framerate that Q3 reaches (due to the superb optimisations) are of no use, but what happens when you start using all eight texture layers allowed by the engine, plenty of cureved meshes to beautiful effect, frame rates drop. And Q3 handles that quite a bit better than the UT engine.

If you want eyecandy now matter how much it effects you can get any of the numerous free engines. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying those engines are comparible with the ut engine, but they can do pretty neat stuff.

The simple fact is the Q3 engine, or any ID engine for that matter has always had way more titles (not talking about sales of those titles) under its belt, than the competing engines. Now I've already said that all these commercial engines are good, and I assure you I am not a fan of any of those, and I am not biased (except the torque engine as I'm doing something with it :wink: ) in this matter. I'm just pointing you towards the light. Whether the next ID engine will be better than the next Epic engine is beyond me and all I can do is speculate. History shows ID engines to be more successful and more feature packed.

And again, when you load the two games and see the visual difference, what you see is mostly the textures. If you wish to rewrite Quake3 to use the UT engine or rewrite UT to use the Quake 3 engine, do so. But, until you do that, don't bother try side by side comparisons like that. And besides, there are so much more to Game engines than just the 3d components. And even then, the 3D components of the engine are limited to what the cards let them do. That certainly was true for Quake3 when it came out.

<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>
May 15, 2002 1:35:25 AM

In a way, this is what I would've refuted.
However it's not just this, I have said it since my first post: this is my hype. Ever since Doom III ever was rumored, to the time Carmack spoke, everyone had known, even GF4s are not enough to run it completly well. If that holds true, I regret to inform you but it's true, Doom III WILL have more eye candy and realism UT ever will. I think it lies in the fact that UT continues to improve its 3d Engine, and although I think it's very unique and nice too, a fresh engine, using thorough DX8 technology, exactly like Aquanox, but ever more, to the Carmack-esque style, would almost anytime do better. Did you see the video I linked to? It's surprising those faces are on a GF3, looking so high res like real movies or shows made on the comp. And that was a year ago in Feb. Look now, I think Carmack WILL deliver.


--
Intel had 2.2GHZ Willies left...I bought one, it powered my entire neighborhood! :smile:
May 15, 2002 2:01:50 PM

Why not? Your saying the same damn things i said, cept your in favor of quake and doom over Unreal. Wake up and smell the napalm. If your not biased i'm a Duck.

You cant judge a comparison until they're both out. Doom3 may well have more eye candy etc than Unreal, Doom3 wont be out for at least a year probably based off how much (little) of it we've seen (almost nothing at all yet you scream its praises with no proof). We get the UT2003 demo this month. Think where Unreal might be in a year... Your judgements are based off how many developers liscence their engine. Seems pretty dumb to me in the end...dev's will use whatevers cheapest and works cause there's just not that much money floating around with the firms that liscence engines usually. There's good games based off both quake and unreal engines so cream that way of comparing okay...

On Textures, i see alot more, and alot better textures in unreal, so whether you care or not, i prefer unreal. >I< >DO< have all these games (MoH:AA, RTCW, Q3, UT, Unreal, HL, R6 series, and others. The physics of unreal are far better in my opinion than Q3. I think the engines always run my better on my pc. I think the games have always looked better. I think the gameplay's always been more fun. There are no other ways to judge an engine, who cares whats behind the scenes if its never put to good use.

This is my opinion and i'm sticking it.

Not Biased my arse. Everyone's Biased, hell, yer biased against my opinions...Don't even go there. Ever...anyone claiming to be not biased needs help cause they're just denying the truth.

I am biased.

The biggest difference between unreal and Doom 3 at this very moment is Doom 3 is mostly hype and Unreal is zero hype. Yes, thats a fact, cause Unreal never claims more than it can show at that time. Its an engine in constant development and as they accomplish more and improve it more and more they show us more and more. With ID...you see the hype machine rolling big time, we get a huge list of stuff claiming it'll be the best game EVER with ZERO proof. 2 or 4 years later we finally get to see the game and by the time it comes out wow...not so amazing anymore is it, look, everyone else is doing the same stuff now. Thus, whenever a new ID game is realsed it generates massive hype and wow factor. But, its not even demoable for graphics nevermind playability. Meanwhile, you have unreal which has always stayed ahead at release points of ID's quality but generates zero hype cause they only show and talk about stuff after its accomplished.

Thanks but i'll take Unreal any day over a hype machine.

Note to reader: I am biased and I am not a Duck.

Eden: There's nothing special about a fresh engine unless you admit your last one doesnt have the versatility to go anywhere... The Unreal engine is currently fully up to date in DirectX terms. The beautiful thing about what Epic's done is they've created a lifetime project that just always gets better and better and never gets stale.

nVidiot: Message board Troll employed by nVidia to terrorize aTidiots.
!