PDA

View Full Version : JK4 Game Engine? (No arguments about Q3 engine)


babywax
11-06-2003, 04:30 AM
What would you like to see for JK4's engine?
I personally cast my vote for the Far Cry engine, it looks absolutely stunning, has physics on par with havok 2 and doom 3, and the view distance is a really really nice feature in my oppinion.
Can anyone say Ewok Village?
http://www.farcry-thegame.com/teaser/images/screen-06.jpg
The source engine(Half-Life 2) also looks very nice, but I love the extremely advanced AI that appears to accompany Far Cry, with unscripted AI and idle functions etc, I can just image using binoculars from atop a mountain and seeing storm troopers walking around talking to eachother.

www.crytek.com for the far cry engine.
I don't think source has a website, I couldn't find one on the valve website atleast. There is enough info about it all over the web though.
Doom 3 everyone knows about.
The Stalker engine looks cool too, but I haven't really heard much about it's engine being licensed out.

Cast your vote! Feel free to put forward any other engines, but please, no talking about the quake 3 engine in the game now, whenever someone mentions it, the thread turns into a flame war or something or other.

P.S.
I don't know if I double posted or not, but if I did I don't think they got the poll option, so sorry for any extra posts!

P.P.S.
Also, this is mainly for what you would LIKE to see, not what Raven is likely to use, as they are likely to use Id's engine since it is what they have used before.

FK | unnamed
11-06-2003, 06:36 AM
Doom 3 is such a huge leap in the technology that it really can't be compared with anything that is out today.

having played an early build of doom 3 (spare the soap box rants, Iím just making a point related to his post) I can honestly say it is jaw dropping and that's not a term I would have slapped on any game that came out since quake 1 (the first true 3d FPS, DOOM was 2.5d if you know what I mean).

The enormous leap in technology is obvious, but what really makes it just amazing is for the first time since the old DOOM shareware days, I actually became immersed in the game as if it were a true interactive experience.

Half-Life 2 looks great, but no matter how you dress it up, it still feels like a video game.

DOOM 3 is truly an interactive horror experience, you will become so engrossed in it due to the level of immersion, that you will jump at your own shadow when you see it, believe it or not.

JK4 would simply be amazing on that engine; the level of "realism" that could be achieved would have "it needs to be more movie like" people wetting their pants.

Samuel Dravis
11-06-2003, 06:40 AM
I didn't think Star wars games were supposed to be terrifying. :D

FK | unnamed
11-06-2003, 06:46 AM
No obviously, but look at it like this, in DOOM 3 you get the feeling you are "really there".

now translate that into fighting a saber battle on the death star with ďdarth whateverĒ...


In DOOM 3 the level of immersion is so high due to the game engine and what it can do, that you (no joke, I did it, as did the people who I watched play it) will actually duck your head and jump back in your chair when a monster swings a claw at you on the screen.

Imagine saber battles like that....

babywax
11-06-2003, 07:04 AM
Yeah, that would be very cool. I wonder if they could impliment some sort of system like max payne 1/2 where you can slow down, that would make saber battles really neat, seeing that your opponent is swing at you, so you duck and do a forward stab. I guess that couldn't really be done in MP though, and it wouldn't feel star warsy.

I think a large part of the immersive factor is not just in the engine, but a large part in the theme and art work. I remember half life being very immersive, mainly because the enviroments felt so interactive. Max Payne 2 pulls this off for me too, I completed it yesterday and it is a whole lot of fun.

The reason JA/JO don't seem to immerse me is they're always too bright, all the colors are so bright and everything doesn't seem dark/dank enough. I think they should make it all a lot darker and dimmer, instead of having bright red/green/yellow everywhere. The only place I want to see those colors are in a saber or a blaster shot :p

Kurgan
11-06-2003, 07:37 AM
If Raven makes it, it will more than likely use the Doom3 engine, which they are already working on with Quake IV. They have already stated that JA is the most likely the last game they'll do on the Q3 engine.

People are already complaining about the Q3 engine, but in another year and a half they'll really be whiney if JK4 would use it.

The other likely candidate is the Unreal engine, a build of which is being used for the upcoming Republic Commando FPS (set for release sometime around 2005).


So it's up for grabs but I'd say they'll either use a modified Doom3 engine or a build of the Unreal engine (again, comparable to what will be used for Republic Commando).

As far as what I would LIKE? That depends. It depends on who does it and what those engines can do.

We have yet to see a single game use the Doom3 engine yet (so all we have to base our opinion on is the latest John Carmack interview or video of Doom3). We already know that the Unreal engine is very versatile and capable of some nice things and has had some solid games made on it in the past.

It all really depends on the people working on it. Though I would think doing it on an Unreal based build would be easier, considering how long its been around and the already solid lineup of games and developers associated with it. Doom3 is pretty much untested beyond what's being done for two games that aren't out yet (and are both generic FPS's with lots of eye candy).

Gabrobot
11-06-2003, 07:38 AM
The Doom 3 engine is a step ahead of all the other engines...rather than on concentrating on higher polygon models (which is relatively easy to do on older engines anyway, as shown by Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy), it focuses on the lighting which pays off best. I believe Doom 3 is the first game I've seen where you can watch a light hanging from the ceiling sway back and forth and see realistic shadows being cast by the light which move...it's the moment when you walk around and beneath it watching it and the shadows that you realize it's not using some trick or pre compiled light information...it's doing it in real time. Imagine watching shadows cast by your light saber...that's something you wouldn't see in any of the other engines...

Another thing about Doom 3 is the way it calculates everything in real time, rather than compiling a bsp, portal information and light map for use in game. It also means that it can be more precise in figuring out what needs to be drawn and what doesn't...this helps in large open areas. Because of the nature of the game Doom 3, itself, there aren't many large open areas with terrain and stuff...I heard that there is a cutscene at the beginning where your character is in a ship flying above mars, and you can see terrain down below that is so large that enemies appear as dots.

Well, anyway...John Carmack, himself, said that he thinks the Doom 3 engine will be used for the next five years, so...

Kurgan
11-06-2003, 07:44 AM
Graphics are always nice, and the physics engine for the ill-fated Obi-Wan PC was quite impressive (and that was back in 1999!).

However funky physics and eye candy aren't everything.

The newer the engine the more time it'll take to create all the "Jedi" stuff from scratch in it and get the developers a chance to become familiar.

Republic Commando is using a familiar engine and its nearly 2 years away. Then again they may be taking their time so they can release it in time for the theatrical release of Episode III, the last Star Wars movie of George Lucas's career. ; )

[Update: I assumed RC was coming out in 2005, but now I'm hearing 2004, if so, I stand corrected, it must be farther along than I thought.]

babywax
11-06-2003, 07:46 AM
Far Cry will have real time lighting/shadows. Look in the video that says Crytek in the very beginning, in one scene it shows the player shoot a hanging light on the ceiling, and it sways back and forth (looks real), the lighting looks very real. As for polygons, what I think is neat is the fact that a lot of the models in Far Cry are over 250,000 polygons, but the engine lowers the amount to look like the same amount.
I think that would help custom created player models, considering polycount is basically not a factor when creating models. I would love to create a 10k poly gun model and just have it look gorgeous :)


Imagine watching shadows cast by your light saber...that's something you wouldn't see in any of the other engines...

Of course you would :)

Watch some of the Far Cry videos, the landscapes are MASSIVE. The single player is, I think, one whole map, all based on one island. The entire island looks HUGE. In one of the videos they shoot a rocket at some guys, then back out and they're like a mile away. So cool.

babywax
11-06-2003, 07:57 AM
Found some more screenshots etc... (crytek.com)
http://www.crytek.com/images/gallery/xisle/1228.jpg
I don't know why this engine looks so cool to me lol, although doom 3 appears to have better graphics, I guess I just like all the physics/giant maps and other stuff...
Take a look at this:
http://www.crytek.com/images/gallery/polybump/poly_04.jpg
(I think 250.000 means 250,000)
Another:
http://www.crytek.com/images/gallery/polybump/PBPreviewer07.jpg
Not quite as good looking as the first, but it does go from 28k to 275...

Gabrobot
11-06-2003, 08:24 AM
Well, I don't have a fast connection so, I can't download the movie right now to see, so I'll take your word for it. I notice in the screenshots, however, that the lighting doesn't appear to be consistent...it looks like the characters don't have shadows (at least not cast on the environment), and out side, the lighting doesn't hold up well in the environment either. Doom 3 lights everything the same, so there are no inconsistencies (I remember seeing some Half Life 2 screenshots, with environment shadows going perpendicular to character shadows ;) ).

Far Cry does look nice, but the Doom 3 engine still has better tech behind it.

Also, the Doom 3 engine's interface is very similar to that of Quake III. In fact, the Doom 3 engine is really a heavily modified Quake III engine...all it's technical stuff has been rewritten, but it works much like Quake III on the surface. There are certainly many features that Raven (and id software for that matter ;) ) have to learn, but it's not like learning an entirely different engine...it's still a familiar system.

babywax
11-06-2003, 08:39 AM
Well...
P.P.S.
Also, this is mainly for what you would LIKE to see, not what Raven is likely to use, as they are likely to use Id's engine since it is what they have used before.
:p
But, if we are going to argue that point, I'll just point out one thing :)

Renderer: integrates indoor and outdoor technology seamlessly. Offers rendering support for OpenGL & DirectX 8/9, XBox using latest HW features, PS2 and GameCube.

PS2, GameCube, and XBox support, doesn't get much better than that :)

I noticed something else on their site:

Physics System: supports character inverse kinematics, vehicles, rigid bodies, liquid, rag doll, cloth and soft body effects. The system is integrated with the game and tools.

Cloth? Does that mean clothes? Anyone know about this stuff? I'm a modeller so I would love to see clothes in a game, almost no one has made a game with clothing :(

EDIT:
Oh:

Well, I don't have a fast connection so, I can't download the movie right now to see, so I'll take your word for it. I notice in the screenshots, however, that the lighting doesn't appear to be consistent...it looks like the characters don't have shadows (at least not cast on the environment), and out side, the lighting doesn't hold up well in the environment either. Doom 3 lights everything the same, so there are no inconsistencies (I remember seeing some Half Life 2 screenshots, with environment shadows going perpendicular to character shadows ).

Well, I don't really know about the inconsistencies... I've seen some shots with shadows on terrain and some without, so I can only guess maybe some shots are from an earlier version of the game/engine?


Edit:
Thanks for adding the Unreal engine to my poll :)

FK | unnamed
11-06-2003, 09:28 AM
The Unreal engine is great, best FPS engine out there at the moment.

That said, talk to someone who played the DOOM 3 MP demo at quakecon this year.

Ask them how D3 compares to the UT engine; they will look at you like you are on drugs.

Even Half-Life 2 with it's impressive physics system is still far behind what Carmack pulled off.

I totally agree about "eye candy" being just a small part of the game, to be honest, I have not been seriously visually impressed with any games since the original quake brought true 3d gaming to life.

I've seen countless games get the "must see to believe graphics" reviews, and once I see them... uhh yeah wow... is generally how I feel.

But after seeing DOOM 3 up close and in action, my concept of "immersion" has been totally reassessed.

There have been many "baby steps" in the evolution of gaming.
When I say baby steps, think quake 1 to UT2003

Then you have revolutionary changes in the industry.
Think Pac-man to DOOM.

That is how big of a change to the "norm" DOOM 3 is.

babywax
11-06-2003, 10:02 AM
Have you played half life 2 or far cry or stalker?

FK | unnamed
11-06-2003, 10:36 AM
I had a chance to play a leaked HL2, but I chose not to bother with it. From the official promotional footage I have seen, it just has done nothing to even spark the slightest bit of interest in me.

That far cry game, I've never even heard of that to be honest with you.

But looking at this:

http://www.farcry-thegame.com/teaser/images/screen-06.jpg


Then looking at these:

http://www.planetdoom.com/images/screenshots/official/7l.jpg

http://www.planetdoom.com/images/screenshots/official/13l.jpg

Itís hard to believe anything can top that.

babywax
11-06-2003, 11:50 AM
Yes, I don't think anything will even come close to matching the level of detail shown off in doom 3, I think that's pretty much a given. The reason I think Far Cry would be better is because of the huge landscapes, and the very low in game poly count meaning it performes very well on low end systems.
Can you imagine playing siege on an island that is 8 square KM? That would be wild! Think about hoth, you start outside, then go into echo base, and the maps could be MASSIVE. Look at the infrared vision in some of the videos (it's pretty cool looking for those on 56k), that would port very very well into force sense/seeing, and with smoke grenades implemented it would actually be a very useful force power. Think about making Mind Trick make vision very foggy, as if there were smoke all around you, and seeing would remove that smoke and go to a heat-like vision of players.

How about having massive swoop races on Tattooine(sp?), over land scapes as larger than battlefield 1942 maps.

Here's some eye candy :)
http://www.crytek.com/images/gallery/xisle/1246.jpg
http://www.crytek.com/images/gallery/xisle/1237.jpg
http://www.crytek.com/images/gallery/xisle/enemies_on_grass.jpg
http://www.crytek.com/images/gallery/xisle/1245.jpg

EDIT:
one more ;)
http://www.crytek.com/images/gallery/xisle/zoom_to_helicopter.jpg

Master William
11-06-2003, 12:36 PM
Why are you jumping up and down of joy when you see a game has great graphics on a PC?!

1. You usually have to go buy some ATI RADEON XR!914814 whatever for alot of money.

2. Your computer can handle it, but not very good...

I mean look at Doom 3. It's good looking and all, but the chance of your computer being able to run that perfectly smooth as it appears in the screenshots is not so big. So why brag with it?

The Truthful Liar
11-06-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Master William
Why are you jumping up and down of joy when you see a game has great graphics on a PC?!

1. You usually have to go buy some ATI RADEON XR!914814 whatever for alot of money.

2. Your computer can handle it, but not very good...

I mean look at Doom 3. It's good looking and all, but the chance of your computer being able to run that perfectly smooth as it appears in the screenshots is not so big. So why brag with it?

Hey another Swede on the forums, nice to see one once in a while. As for Doom3, it will most likely end up looking like Q3 on a persons machine if they don't have a high-end computer so the looks can vary alot.

Tesla
11-06-2003, 02:13 PM
Republic Commando is due out 2004 BTW. ;)

As for these other engines, i have changed my mind and i don't care what engine it is on, as long as it's good then im happy with that. :D

babywax
11-06-2003, 03:00 PM
Heh, well one could make the argument that engine directly correlates to whether or not it is a good game, but you're right anyway. I still care what engine it is on though ;)

Gabrobot
11-06-2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Master William
Why are you jumping up and down of joy when you see a game has great graphics on a PC?!

1. You usually have to go buy some ATI RADEON XR!914814 whatever for alot of money.

2. Your computer can handle it, but not very good...

I mean look at Doom 3. It's good looking and all, but the chance of your computer being able to run that perfectly smooth as it appears in the screenshots is not so big. So why brag with it?

Well, actually the very early unoptimized not meant for release Doom 3 leak runs surprisingly well. Once the engine is optimized, it should run well (and still look stunning. Oh, and I don't think, even on the lowest settings, it'll look like Quake III. The shadows can't be turned off or turned down, and the polygon counts are about the same as Quake III anyway).

Currently id software estimates the minimum system requirements (that can still run the game with stunning detail) as being:

1 GHz processor
256Mb RAM
GeForce 2 level graphics card (this card's technology is actually what John Carmack developed the Doom 3 engine towards...I'm not sure if Doom 3 can actually take advantage of newer cards special shader things or shadows things)

These are about the same as most games coming out now...like Galaxies or Knights of the Old Republic. I think most people will be able to run Doom 3 at a decent frame rate and still get stunning graphics.


Also, the point about graphics not automatically making a good game is true. However, think about all the fancy physics and lighting plus gameplay as good or better as that of Jedi Academy. That's possible on the Doom 3 engine because, interface wise, it's very similar to that of the Quake engines (although there's a hell of a lot more features).

josh22
11-06-2003, 03:40 PM
Ok well the only thing I can say on this subject is look at the gameplay and graphics of jedi acadamy.With that said I think any engine would be a VAST improvment imo...lol...later:lsduel:

babywax
11-06-2003, 03:53 PM
Well, engine has more than just graphics. All of these new engines that I have listed have physics, which can greatly change gameplay, depending on how it is implemented. In half life 2 they have a gravity gun, which utilizes only physics, and apparently blocking off doorways with stuff lying around will be a good tactic.

Just imagine having force telikinises (sp?) and throwing stuff around. That would be very fun!

Graphics, although not special effects, can change the way the game feels greatly too. Super new engines are not required, although they can help. Half Life 1 had a very good feel to it, check out the diablo 1/2 series (diff. genre though), they don't have great graphics but they really have a unique feel.
One thing I don't like about JA is that everything just seems too light, graphically. It isn't dark enough everywhere, it's just too upbeat. It feels out of sync with the movies.

Huge islands from far cry would change the gameplay in obvious ways.

Doom 3 with it's lighting and shadowing would also affect gameplay, it would make stealth a more viable option if they made it darker. In a game like JA there is very little for stealth besides mind trick. It would add a bit more chance of ambush etc...

Graphics can easily change the way the game plays, due to the fact that they are the main way you percieve the game.

MasterSidious
11-06-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by babywax
Yeah, that would be very cool. I wonder if they could impliment some sort of system like max payne 1/2 where you can slow down, that would make saber battles really neat, seeing that your opponent is swing at you, so you duck and do a forward stab. I guess that couldn't really be done in MP though, and it wouldn't feel star warsy.

I think a large part of the immersive factor is not just in the engine, but a large part in the theme and art work. I remember half life being very immersive, mainly because the enviroments felt so interactive. Max Payne 2 pulls this off for me too, I completed it yesterday and it is a whole lot of fun.

The reason JA/JO don't seem to immerse me is they're always too bright, all the colors are so bright and everything doesn't seem dark/dank enough. I think they should make it all a lot darker and dimmer, instead of having bright red/green/yellow everywhere. The only place I want to see those colors are in a saber or a blaster shot :p

I don't know about engines cause I'm not allowed to get hardly any games but actually you can do the "Max Payne" thing when you're about to duel in SP by typing:
1. ~
2.devmapall
3.enter (return)
4. time scale 0.5
5. enter (return)
6.~

SO, if you want, you can do this already as you will see
:)

BTW, if you want a "dark/dank" feeling make a map like that. (Have a map thats huge and has like 5 light entities [lamps] that are 600 intensity really far apart :) )

ExcelsioN
11-06-2003, 04:37 PM
Doom 3 would be the obvious choice. Imagine a jedi-horror game.
All the lighting looks brilliant, but then you gotta think about "Will my pc be to support such a sophisticated engine?". Of course, that dosne't bother me, my pc's under a year old, but we're not all gonna have new pc's are we?

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. :rolleyes:

HL2 would be a good candidate. But we'll have to wait and see. Same goes to Unreal. They are both well capable of dealing with the style of JK.

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.

:)

babywax
11-06-2003, 04:41 PM
Far Cry can do cities and indoor too ;) Think correllia :)

Master_Keralys
11-06-2003, 05:41 PM
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.

ExcelsioN
11-06-2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Any engine with large outdoor environment support would rock.

Like Halo ? ;)

Gabrobot
11-06-2003, 08:26 PM
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...

Emon
11-06-2003, 09:09 PM
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! :(

StormHammer
11-06-2003, 10:05 PM
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. :rolleyes:

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.

Tinny
11-07-2003, 12:25 AM
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.

Blue_Lightsaber
11-07-2003, 01:36 AM
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.

FK | unnamed
11-07-2003, 03:47 AM
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 canít 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 itís limitations is not going to be a strong selling point for HL2 when itís sitting side by side with Carmackís D3 build.

Rumor
11-07-2003, 05:02 AM
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.

FK | unnamed
11-07-2003, 05:17 AM
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.

eniaC
11-07-2003, 05:29 AM
Heres a link to a game that uses the HL2 engine.
http://www.vampirebloodlines.com/

eniaC

Gabrobot
11-07-2003, 05:46 AM
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.)

Astrotoy7
11-07-2003, 07:35 AM
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

Gabrobot
11-07-2003, 08:03 AM
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.]

babywax
11-07-2003, 08:11 AM
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

Isoparm
11-07-2003, 09:27 AM
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?

Gabrobot
11-07-2003, 03:58 PM
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... :eek:

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.
http://images.3dgamers.com/screenimages/games/doom3/shot00313.jpg

[Edit: Oh, and from the screenshots I've seen of Halo 2, it doesn't appear to have universal shadows like Doom 3...

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/screen0/562116_20030916_screen001.jpg

/Edit]

ExcelsioN
11-07-2003, 04:03 PM
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.

Szadou
11-07-2003, 06:21 PM
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.

ExcelsioN
11-07-2003, 06:26 PM
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.

eniaC
11-07-2003, 06:58 PM
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

Isoparm
11-07-2003, 07:06 PM
"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.

RigoR_MortiS
11-07-2003, 09:49 PM
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..

Gabrobot
11-07-2003, 11:08 PM
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. :p

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?

Emon
11-07-2003, 11:49 PM
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.

1. No, it doesn't, BSP is obsolete. At least the way it's done in Quake. Doom III is all new in that department. There's very little precompiling, if any (I can only think of a stage to break up brushes, which may not be needed). Doom III has mapper placed portals instead of the old cluster, leaf node and portal stuff generated at the compile time.

2. A common myth, Half-Life was actually built off the original Quake engine, but had some of the aspects Quake II had.

3. Right, each Quake is built off the previous (but don't let that make you think Quake II is just a "modded" Quake and Quake III is just a "modded" Quake II, because that's quite off). I read somewhere that Doom III started as the Quake III engine, only so it would be easier to code in individual aspects, e.g. replace the renderer, and still have the other code in place to make it easier to test. I have no idea how true this is. And, don't think it's built off Quake III just because of the console commands, that's stupid. The console is so similar because, well, the Quake console just kicks ass, and so do the naming schemes for cvars and commands.

4. Uh, yeah, HL2 runs off Valve's Source engine, which uses the Havok physics engine, developed by Havok (http://havok.com). Deus Ex: Invisible War and Thief III use the Unreal engine (there's only one Unreal engine, by the way, just various incarnations), and also use the Havok physics engine, along with a plethora of other games out there.

5. No, buddy, not many engines use BSP as you think. Nothing Unreal doesn't, nothing pre-Quake does, and a lot of engines use proprietary stuff, which I don't know much about, and also some octree stuff.

6. Yeah, you should bring facts to the table.

Master William
11-07-2003, 11:56 PM
Halo engine? don't get me started there. Not to mention Halo in general sucks ass, now we have to use its engine? Flying and driving is also very sloppy.

Emon
11-07-2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Gabrobot
Oh, and Doom 3 doesn't include facial animation tools, you funny person...the animations are made in Maya. :p

Yeah, the animations can be made in Maya, but it can still have automatic lip synch.

Rumor
11-08-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Master William
Halo engine? don't get me started there. Not to mention Halo in general sucks ass, now we have to use its engine? Flying and driving is also very sloppy.

halo's vehicle system is one of the best and most accessible systems ever.

you implying that JA's system is better?

MMP
11-08-2003, 03:23 AM
Please, I can't stand all this fanboy drooling over the Doom3 engine. The fact is, Doom 3 looks FAKE. Sure, the lighting's great, but everything looks like plastic or clay. It's WAY overhyped. The Source engine is extremely close to photorealistic. The water alone looks 100% REAL, and the physics are fantastic. Source all the way.

http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/half-life2/screenshots/09.jpg

http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/half-life2/screenshots/17.jpg

babywax
11-08-2003, 03:37 AM
Rumor, for a good vehicle system see Tribes 2 or, for the best out now IMO, Battlefield 1942. Battlefield has very, very well done aircraft and land vehicles.


4. Uh, yeah, HL2 runs off Valve's Source engine, which uses the Havok physics engine, developed by Havok. Deus Ex: Invisible War and Thief III use the Unreal engine (there's only one Unreal engine, by the way, just various incarnations), and also use the Havok physics engine, along with a plethora of other games out there.

You probably know this already, but just for the sake of it for people who don't, Half-Life 2 will use the Havok 2 physics engine, incorporated into the Source engine.

Real-time lighting CAN be programmed in, although it is no easy task. See my posts above, focusing on the Tenebrae 2 quake 2 modification. The enviroments easily rival Doom 3, atleast in the screenshots. I'm sure it has worse performance, but still it shows what can be done by even a non-professional team.

Emon
11-08-2003, 03:51 AM
Programmed into HL2? Haha, no way, not unless they open source the engine, which is never going to happen. And Havok 2 is Havok with a few constraints and a little added here or there, it's basically the same (although I am curious to see if Ion Storm has made any shocking significant improvements in Havok for DX2/T3, they did a lot more with Unreal than a lot of people thought they would).

And, yeah, Tenebrae 2 rivals Doom III in most areas except speed, and it doesn't have Carmack's miracle fix to stencil shadow self shading (the "bug" people like to talk about in the JO/JA shadows, it's not actually a bug, it's functioning perfectly, which makes it hard to "fix"). Although, I think Tenebrae 2 uses static bumpmapping (I know it CAN at the very least).

MMP, I could go on about how I can't stand HL2 fanboy drooling over the Source engine, too. Some of the newer Doom III screenshots don't look nearly as fake as the older ones, it's really been cut back. The E3 2003 trailer also shows some better stuff. You should also open your eyes and look around you. Almost everything is shiney and reflective to some degree. I'll admit some of the designers for Doom III overuse it, but I think a lof of people's calling it too shiney is the fact that almost every game until now has been totally NOT shiney.

It's also the game itself. It's sci-fi, but not the grundgy kind of sci-fi you often see in Star Wars, it's all clean and polished stuff on a Mars base or whatever. System Shock 2 looks just the same way, except without the bumpmapping. Metal based environments are going to be shiney. They're METAL.

I mean, gee, notice how the natural areas in JA, or the more rocky type areas like Tatooine or Ord Mantell generally look a lot more realistic than an Imperial base? Generally, fake things look fake, because they ARE fake.

Emon
11-08-2003, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by babywax
Battlefield has very, very well done aircraft

I don't know of it's condition now, after patches and expansions, but I hated the plane controls when I first played it. There wasn't any throttle, it was either full power, or nothing. To fly somewhere in the middle, I had to tap the button at different rates, which was really lame.

Rumor
11-08-2003, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by babywax
Rumor, for a good vehicle system see Tribes 2 or, for the best out now IMO, Battlefield 1942. Battlefield has very, very well done aircraft and land vehicles.


You probably know this already, but just for the sake of it for people who don't, Half-Life 2 will use the Havok 2 physics engine, incorporated into the Source engine.

Real-time lighting CAN be programmed in, although it is no easy task. See my posts above, focusing on the Tenebrae 2 quake 2 modification. The enviroments easily rival Doom 3, atleast in the screenshots. I'm sure it has worse performance, but still it shows what can be done by even a non-professional team.

for aircraft bf is much better if you are going for a more realistic experience.

halo as i said is the most approchable. its vehicle system (esp for land vehicles) is far better than t2. also imho than bf, although i would change some things about the way it handles certain vehicles.

Rumor
11-08-2003, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by Emon
I don't know of it's condition now, after patches and expansions, but I hated the plane controls when I first played it. There wasn't any throttle, it was either full power, or nothing. To fly somewhere in the middle, I had to tap the button at different rates, which was really lame.

good point.

babywax
11-08-2003, 06:14 AM
I have a joystick with throttle, so I wouldn't know...

Emon, it COULD be programmed in, I didn't say mod developers would be able to do it, because almost anyone knows that would require the full source. Not just an SDK.

Gabrobot
11-08-2003, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by babywax
Emon, it COULD be programmed in, I didn't say mod developers would be able to do it, because almost anyone knows that would require the full source. Not just an SDK.

Uh, the whole renderer would have to be scraped and written just about from scratch...isn't this some of what took Valve the last 4 years, or so, to do?

babywax
11-08-2003, 06:41 AM
It took them 5 years to make the entire engine, but dynamic shadowing could be added in.

Gabrobot
11-08-2003, 07:09 AM
Look, believe Emon and me...we know what we're talking about. We've worked with this kind of technology...it can't be simply added into the engine, as if it were like changing a variable. The lighting is most of what the renderer does in a game like Doom 3. More than 50% of the computer's power is used for the shadows.

Look, think about this...Tenebrae was originally done in Quake...why was this? Because that was the only engine whose source code had been released at the time they started! They've been working on it for a hell of a lot of friggin years!

The only reason John Carmack was able to program the Doom 3 engine so quickly is because he is, quite literally, a genius. Even Doom 3 wasn't much of a challenge for him, since he knows computer graphics inside out so well. In fact, he started a company to make a spaceship to compete for the X-Prize...he's literally a rocket scientist. Computer graphics pose so little a challenge to him, he's getting bored with it, and wants a better challenge. Other companies that develop a game engine, have a large teams to make it...Tenebrae had a large team of programmers working on it. But John Carmack still manages to single handedly make better engines in a shorter amount of time.

Now, please try to understand...we're not talking about changing a couple variables here.

babywax
11-08-2003, 07:59 AM
I never said it was a couple variables, I said that it COULD be programmed in, I even stated it would take a long time to do it, but it COULD be programmed in. Please read my whole post.

Master William
11-08-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Rumor
halo's vehicle system is one of the best and most accessible systems ever.

lol, good one ;)

(maybe you never heard of BF1942 that has a way better vehicle system :D)

ExcelsioN
11-08-2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Master William
lol, good one ;)

(maybe you never heard of BF1942 that has a way better vehicle system :D)

Halo does have a good vehicle system, one more suited to JA.

but then again, BF1942 kicks its ass! :D

Master William
11-08-2003, 02:49 PM
BF only kicks its ass in the vehicle part. The rest is just bull if you ask me. The game lags even if your computer is way better than the required specs (like mine), and a map takes freaking MINUTES to load.

babywax
11-08-2003, 03:00 PM
Here's some more far cry videos, someone linked me to em:
http://www.farcryhq.com/downloads.php?ordner_id=2
Scroll down to "Far Cry - PC Action Video (HIGH)"
The ones to the lower part of the screen start to get significantly older and older.

Emon
11-09-2003, 12:30 AM
Actually, it could be programmed in with the existing system, I can think of a few ways. You could do dynamic lightmaps, which would be, uh, really ****ing stupid, because it would be too slow for any machine in probably the next ten years. It could also be possible to use the Z-buffer shadow technique they used on the models and objects, and apply it to the world. Only it would look bad and would run really slow, and from the looks of it, that code doesn't do multiple shadows, so yeah, it would be ugly.

Celluzion
11-09-2003, 12:02 PM
If I had a choice, I'd use the Glacier engine, it has great physics and can render beautiful graphics and lots of NPCs on a slow machine, my computer is ancient yet I can play Hitman 1 and 2 with high settings and not have any slow-downs.

Though I think alot of tweaking would be needed if the Glacier engine were to be used for Star Wars.

|DEM|Mosleg
11-09-2003, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Samuel Dravis
I didn't think Star wars games were supposed to be terrifying. :D

What he's trying to say is the Doom III engine makes it feel like you're REALLY there and in the game, and provides a realistic experience. And I'll agree, it's one phenominal engine.

Emon
11-09-2003, 08:43 PM
No, the engine doesn't make a game scary, realistic, or atmospheric. It only allows it. It's still up to the artists and designers to make it happen.

DarkLord60
11-09-2003, 11:03 PM
I have one thing to say. HL2 engine rules!

babywax
11-10-2003, 09:18 PM
Lighting and Shadows: A combination of precalculated, real time shadows, stencil shadows and lightmaps to produce a dynamic environment. Includes high-resolution, correct perspective, and volumetric smooth-shadow implementations for dramatic and realistic indoor shadowing. Supports advanced particles technology and any kind of volumetric lighting effects on particles.

Taken directly off of the crytek website. Take special note of:

for dramatic and realistic indoor shadowing.

Real time shadows are only indoors it looks like. I guess this has something to do with the fact that they use heightmaps for outdoor enviroments, and model the indoor enviroments in 3dsmax, kind of like battlefield. I bet they could still do shadows outdoor though.
This does however explain why there aren't shadows in the outdoors.

Dance Commander
11-10-2003, 10:44 PM
I think a big problem here, is that the point of the thread has disappeared. Which engine do you think would be best for JK4? And until we see complete finished versions on our own pc's, we'll never know.

Doom 3 is nothing more than a performance of what the engine can do, thus the lack of any real plot/script/depth.

The requirements of Doom 3/HL 2 don't really come into any really point here, because by the time JK4 is out, a new breed of cards will surely have come out utilising the PCI express system along with cheaper 64bit processors etc blah blah blah...

Wait til next year when all these new engines are out before a decent judgement can be made, that isn't based on hype, video's (which are undoubtably polished) and pictures. Play it on your own PC then judge.

People who comment about Halo's vehicles etc, remember.... HALO IS A CONSOLE GAME. Any conversion of console to Pc is better, but only in graphics and a few bonus weapons etc. Otherwise console gamers get pissed and EA makes no money.

babywax
11-10-2003, 10:46 PM
Well, I think it goes without saying this thread is total speculation :)
But you're right, we kind of ventured off topic, so, anyone else new viewing this, that has an opinion on what information we have?

Emon
11-10-2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Dance Commander
Doom 3 is nothing more than a performance of what the engine can do, thus the lack of any real plot/script/depth.

Eh, I don't think you can really say that without playing the game. You're only going on speculation based on id's past games. They've said it's an actual game this time.

StormHammer
11-10-2003, 11:19 PM
Well, judging by the poll, people are obviously swinging in favour of Source or D3 tech.

Whether that's because they think the engines have the capability, or are simply buying into the hype around the two games currently being developed on them, is not very clear.

babywax
11-11-2003, 12:07 AM
It's funny though, doom 3 tech specs have not been released so it's almost certainly the screenshots/hype/leaked alpha. Half-Life 2 tech specs have been released, and it has a pretty full leaked beta out.

I'm still looking forward to far cry, thanks to the detail combined with the huge enviroments, I think it would mix the level of detail (of course, this is all assuming that they do a good job with models and other resources etc...) and the large enviroments of star wars very well. Think about a massive hoth, one that isn't in a snow storm :)
The X-Ray engine (Stalker) also has these features, but it doesn't seem to have the same view distance, and it doesn't look like it uses heightmaps, just normal BSP/whatever.

Dance Commander
11-11-2003, 12:25 AM
Okay, the real truth is that it doesnt matter.

All three/four engines (i lost count) kick ass in their own way and would surely take us closer to the ultimate Jedi Game.

Eh, I don't think you can really say that without playing the game. You're only going on speculation based on id's past games. They've said it's an actual game this time.

Serious Sam was a game too, but all you did was shoot stuff, al a Doom 1, Doom 2, Quake, Q2, Q3. Sounds promising.

On another note, when you think about it, JK4 will not be for a veeerrrry long time. You think Mr Lucas will want us playing games that are based on the expanded Star Wars universe... or will he want us playing "Super Super Bombard Racing: Episode 3 Edition"? God i hope not... The only possible way JK4 could happen, is if its set around the time frame of Episiode 3. But anyway, by the time thats died down, we'll be lookin at Q8 or HL6 which will probably require 1342gb Geforce8 graphics card and 213897237404Mhz processors. Maybe i exagerate a little, but you get the point.

Gabrobot
11-11-2003, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by Dance Commander
On another note, when you think about it, JK4 will not be for a veeerrrry long time. You think Mr Lucas will want us playing games that are based on the expanded Star Wars universe... or will he want us playing "Super Super Bombard Racing: Episode 3 Edition"? God i hope not... The only possible way JK4 could happen, is if its set around the time frame of Episiode 3. But anyway, by the time thats died down, we'll be lookin at Q8 or HL6 which will probably require 1342gb Geforce8 graphics card and 213897237404Mhz processors. Maybe i exagerate a little, but you get the point.

Huh? I don't follow your logic...Jedi Knight II came out at the same time as Episode II...


And as for Doom 3's story...John Carmack isn't one to waste time and resources on things which aren't needed...but id hired a sci-fi author to write the script for Doom 3. I rather doubt John Carmack would allow that if the story was just going to be another generic story such as in past Doom/Quake games.

Rumor
11-11-2003, 02:44 AM
you kids need to remember that the engine does not make the game.

babywax
11-11-2003, 01:13 PM
It sure helps, long view distance really helps the game. Physics, depending on the game, can make a huge difference. Hopefully JK4 will have some more neutral NPCs in it, it needs more of an atmosphere IMHO...
Engine can change the game big time.

GreenSmoke
11-11-2003, 05:12 PM
raven should probably just not make jk4 i already lost my lunch w/jk3

Gabrobot
11-11-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by GreenSmoke
raven should probably just not make jk4 i already lost my lunch w/jk3

Have you tried the patch that just came out?

Mullaney
11-11-2003, 06:25 PM
I voted for HL2 for the facial animations. In the long run, the engine will probably be D3, which I have no problem with.

GreenSmoke
11-12-2003, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Gabrobot
Have you tried the patch that just came out?

1.05 came out a while ago i didn't like it since they made it stupid

Gabrobot
11-12-2003, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by GreenSmoke
1.05 came out a while ago i didn't like it since they made it stupid

Ah bingo...I think I know what's stupid here... :p

Isoparm
11-12-2003, 04:26 AM
If it was between hl2 and d3 knowing lec, they would choose the cheaper one.

Gabrobot
11-12-2003, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Isoparm
If it was between hl2 and d3 knowing lec, they would choose the cheaper one.

You mean like how they choose Raven and the Quake III engine for Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy, even though Raven is one of the best developers available, and isn't exactly one to get ripped off? Oh, I'm sure Lucasarts picked Raven because it would cost less money than developing it in house or with a less known developer, and not because Raven has so much experience having been making games with id's technology for the past ten years. :rolleyes:

Isoparm
11-12-2003, 05:54 AM
I don't think Raven was the only company they asked to make JO. I'm sure raven bid the job and got it based off that. They used already existing tech they had for sof2, recycled models/textures and a few little animations, they busted it out in a year and saved lec dev money. Thats cheaper than lec building it from the ground up taking 2+ years paying all the devs yearly salary.

Matariel
11-12-2003, 06:30 AM
They probably chose Raven to make JA because its basically an expansion pack to JK2 branded as a full game.
Why make a whole game when you can slap some cheezy eyecandy (like 2 sabres, and the staff) on an existing game, along with a rehash of the same story, slap a $AU90 price tag on it, and sit back and watch the star wars nerds give you their money.

It probably a little silly we're argueing over what engine will be used to make JK3 (cant you count? JK1, JK2:JO, JA, JK3), since none of these engines are even completed, much less having a finished game for us to look at. That said- I voted doom3 because the feel of the engine, with its strengths and weaknesses, suits the Star Wars universe better than the competition. HL2 is suited to more 'natural' environments (stuff like wood and water etc), while doom3 is better suited to industrialised locations, with lots of shiny metallic surfaces, and high tech lookin thingys. Far Cry looks 'okay', but seems a little brightly coloured and cartoony to me (real life really isnt that colourful, why cant game developers realise this? Less saturation = more realistic image) The only good looking thing is the ocean, and since when have we seen a jedi knight go for a short dip in the ocean? Never, thats when.
On the subject of lighting, HL2 does use a stencil algorythm for it's shadows, like doom3, but its a 'soft' shadowing technique that still suffers from the problems of overlapping shadows that Carmack published a paper on (where he describes the technique he uses in doom3 to overcome the problem. I love carmack, he's not a guy wanting to make money off his talents, he's like a scientist of the computer game, he shares his discoveries).
So as it stands now, both engines have directional stencil shadows, doom3's look perfect, HL2's are 'soft' shadows with overlap errors.
However, HL2 is going in the 'soft' direction because a lot of their game is set outdoors, which makes it look a little more realistic.

Anyways, enough of that..we should wait until theres a finished version of either of these engines before we jump to any conclusion.
Incidentally, while doom3 has reportedly been licenced to make q4, we havent seen any screenshots from it yet. 'Source' has also been licenced to make the next Vampire: Masqerades game, there are shots from this game, and videos even, and it looks very nice, but lets remember static screenshots and low-res videos may look alright, but probably very different to the game you play on YOUR computer.

And PS. Just a glimpse of what really can be done on Quake1 technology:
http://industri.sourceforge.net/shotlg.php?img=ind030927a2&old= (http://)
http://industri.sourceforge.net/shotlg.php?img=ind030927k2&old=
http://industri.sourceforge.net/shotlg.php?img=ind030927j2&old=
http://industri.sourceforge.net/shotlg.php?img=ind030927d2&old=
These are from the Tenebrae V2 Quake1 engine mod based game "Industri", and represents what Doom3 will kinda look like when its done, but this engine is open source...anyone wanna change their vote? :)

Gabrobot
11-12-2003, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by Isoparm
I don't think Raven was the only company they asked to make JO. I'm sure raven bid the job and got it based off that. They used already existing tech they had for sof2, recycled models/textures and a few little animations, they busted it out in a year and saved lec dev money. Thats cheaper than lec building it from the ground up taking 2+ years paying all the devs yearly salary.

Why would Raven put in the lowest bid? They were already set up to make Quake IV, which will no doubt be one of the biggest games coming out after Doom 3 and Half Life 2, and yet they would except to throw together a couple games taking up a whole development team (Jedi Academy's was even larger than Jedi Knight II's...Jedi Academy had many of Solder of Fortune II's developers since they had finished Soldier of Fortune II) which could be making a game for another, higher bidding company? I don't think so. Lucasarts is not a company out to make an easy buck...what you're saying seems to show that you know nothing of Lucasarts, and the games they have released. There are very few games that Lucasarts has made, or published, which are bad. They've made countless excellent adventure games...not a bad one among them. They've made two great first person shooters and an expansion pack for the second, themselves. They had a period back in 1999 when Episode I was released, where they tried rushing their games out, and they released some tacky games...but the thing is, it hurt them, and they knew they had screwed stuff up. Since then they've pulled themselves together...where do you think Galaxies and KOTOR came from? Or how about Rebel Assault II and Rebel Strike? Or how about Gladius, a RPG/strategy combo game released at the same time on the PS2 GC and Xbox? That's a recipe for a bad game, especially considering that Lucasarts never developed a game of that type before, and yet it turned out very well...in fact, it actually did some new stuff!

Now, do you really seriously believe that Lucasarts is just out to make money, and not release good games?


Oh, and about the tech used in Jedi Knight II:
Yes it was based on the tech that was used in Soldier of Fortune II...but the tech that was used in Soldier of Fortune II was based on tech that Raven made for Elite Force, which was based on the tech that Raven made for Soldier of Fortune, which was based on the tech they made for Heretic II. Jedi Knight II's tech works noticeably better than that used in Soldier of Fortune II...it was obviously improved on. The tech used in Jedi Academy adds even more features to the existing Raven tech...it makes perfect sense that Raven would build upon it's technology instead of reinventing the wheel in every game they make. Since so much of the tech was already present, Raven could get to work on the game content right away, instead of waiting for over a year until they've developed their tech enough, and they've learned how to use it. Oh, and Jedi Knight II's animations/models/textures/sounds/ect are not from Soldier of Fortune II...anyone with half a brain should see that that's obvious. :rolleyes:
I don't want to start any arguments about the Quake III engine or anything...I'm just pointing out that it wasn't out of laziness or greed that Raven used tech from Soldier of Fortune II.

Now, please...I'm getting sick of ignorant Lucasarts/Raven bashing...just because it turned out Lucasarts was fully willing to release a JA patch, doesn't mean you have to go and dig up some other thing to complain about Lucasarts. :rolleyes:

GreenSmoke
11-12-2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Gabrobot
Ah bingo...I think I know what's stupid here... :p
yeah... you, if you paid money for this p.o.s. game