Half-Life 2's physics (Havok) vs Doom III's (in-house)

[spitcodfry]

Originally posted by kinggi
^that also means doom 3 can out do all those games if its custom engine is good enough- cause all those games are more similar to each other than they are doom .

Uhh...aside from using the basic parameters of the Havok engine, they certainly are NOT. Half-Life 2: Plot-integrated FPS with physics playing heavy role in gameplay; Max Payne 2: Third person 3D action game (Not much else known right now); MOH: PA: FPS tactical war game. These games all run on different engines. I don't see too many similarities between them with the exception of the Havok engine.

 

[SupaKoopa]

Originally posted by Tr0n
Well....I didn't feel like reading that whole thing but here is my opinion....Half-Life 2 is going to have a great phyiscs engine and doom 3 in going to have a great graphics engine.There going to be both good games so there is no point of putting them head to head.I kinda feel like hijacking this thread. Due to the fact that we have to many of these.

[edit] stupid img tags

 

[NightSinister]

Originally posted by kinggi
well according to gabe if you have too many moving objects the cpu takes a big hit- according ID their physics system allows for a lot more moving objects. They used the example of having a really tall stack of boxes and they wiould all fall realistically on top of one another. They are saying its one of the most advanced physics systems ever designed. ID is smart people, i think a lot of people are underestimating them.

These vs things are funny, there was the lighting one, now it's physics. The thing I like about it is ID talk about the tech parts eg: they use dynamic lighting, there falling box physics example, where as Valve take a more how we use it. For example:

Valve don't use dynamic lighting on static objects, building etc, not because they can't but because they make little difference and would rather use the resources in other places, more physics, higher polys.

With the physics, ID says "example of having a really tall stack of boxes and they would all fall realistically on top of one another", do you really think this is with everything else turned on, unlikely considering it only runs at 640x480 at the moment. I am sure that the source would be capable of this.

To develop a game or engine they have to compromise, you want dynamic shadows you will have to reduce some where else etc, there is only so much they can get out of the hardware, add to that, most people don't have the lastest and greatest, reducing your selling power.

Just because you don't see it in game, does not mean it is not capable of producing it.

 

[kinggi]

ALL you people are ^ turning this into a vs thread- im merely saying what both companies said...

 

[kinggi]

also all of you have serious issues about acting like you want doom 3 to fail or something.. i mean i know this is a half life 2 board but cmon i mean better games mean better games.... i dont know which will be better but there certainly is an evident bias that doesnt help things- i played the alpha and it showed awesome promise if cleaned up.. i wouldnt be suprised if doom 3 turned out better then hl2 one bit.

 

[SheepFactory]

I didn't bother to read anything other than the first post. I simply didn't want to find anything that would make me feel compelled to engage in any debates on this tired topic. But i did notice the word "alpha" as i scanned the page so i thought i would post about that and a few other things, including some relatively new info about the doom3 physics system that most of you prolly haven't heard yet.


First off, the physics system cannot be judged by what you saw in the alpha. I think this goes without saying but I'm saying it anyway so pls forgive me. It simply wasn't implemented to a great degree for whatever reason. They only stuck ragdoll on just one fat zombie to show him falling down the steps. Also, there wasn't much evidence of a physics system found in the maps other than the occasional box you could shoot.

Now, you wont find the kind of gameplay with the physics you find in hl2. Meaning, you wont be creating any domino effects with martian boldurs and crushing demons or anything like that. Thats just not what doom3 is all about. The traptown vid really made the game feel like a physics toy to me(don't mean to piss off any hl2 fans). I'm sure doing things like that will be fun in hl2(i enjoy the online physics demos too) but that doesnt mean just because we can do such things now that it should be an integral part of every game from here on out. Doom3 is going for a different type of gameplay than hl2.




Now for some doom3 physics info.

There were a few articles released recently which shead some more light on Doom3 physics. For example, when you are on a martian base and blow out a window, or breach a wall, it will create a vacuum, sucking nearby objects out into the martian atmosphere. I remember when carmack was describing a while back about a part of the game where the marine is sucked out of an airlock into the martian atmosphere. The player then had to desperately search for another way back inside the facility before his oxygen supply ran out. These are the kind of suttle things done with physics in Doom3.

Also, it was recently revealed that demons will be able to pick up things to throw at you. Most of you who have seen the alpha know that at one point you come through a door and a zombie to the side chucks a barrel at you. Well, we now know than the smarter demons, having better AI, will be able to discern if nearby objects would cause damage if thrown at you, and they will pick them up and throw them. But the cool part is that this isnt limited to only world objects, but the bigger demons will even pick up smaller creatures like zombies and throw them at you. If you saw the e3 2003 trailer you would have noticed that the hellknight at one point picked up a chainsaw zombie and hurled him across the room into some barrels. they will throw things at you in this way. It also seems that demons wont particularly care much for zombies, killing them if they get in their way.

Another tidbit isn't really new but most people don't seem to be aware of it. Anyone who has played the alpha knows that if you stand on top of a zombie while he is on the ground he will be unable to get up. But in the final game you will also be able to jump on them from a higher location, landing on top of them and knocking them off their feet. They will be on the ground and you will be on top of them, rendering them helpless and subject to multiple gunshots in the face.


Another thing i would like to mention that isn't related to physics is the AI in doom3. Most people thought that when carmack said that they weren't going to do anything particularly good with AI, and that monsters didn't need it, people thought he meant they would just be dumb. This isn't the case. Demons will actually have different senses, and they will know how to use their senses to hunt you down in the map. Hollenshed described a time when he was playing doom3 and a Cammando zombie with a chaingun was chasing him. He ran into a room for cover and turned out all the lights to hide. This particular zombie couldn't see in the dark to find willits, nor could he see in the dark for the lightswitch. So the zombie decided he would shoot in random directions as he walked through the darkness, shooting in small spurts probing the darkness for willits. Willits waited until the zombie passed his box, still in search of his prey. And when the zombie had his back to willits, willits jumped out and nailed him with the shotgun at close range. Different monsters will have different means of hunting you down. It seems that demons have better senses than zombies though, so the smarter zombies will rely on methods like this.



So, the physics in doom3 are more subtle that in hl2. You wont find a huge chandalier(sp?) hanging from a thin chain right above a zombie, waiting to be shot down in order to crush your enemy. You might see something similar in hl2, but doom3 is goind for something else. It will be a great ****ing game though and i don't see how any true fan of the FPS genra can pass this game up. People who think that just because it has great graphics that it will lack fun gameplay either have a huge surprise in store for them, or will miss out in one of the better gaming experiences of our time.


I really hope somebody didnt start any shit and get this thread closed by the time i hit this "submit" button

for some reason they just seem beat.

I really dont understand attitudes like this.

 

[kinggi]

^^^thats just fuked up right there (about doom 3 that is) now seriously if carmack can pull that crap im gonna sh!! myself- cmon PEOPLE DOOM # BEING AMAZING IS A GOOD THING REMEMBER!! we are talking the innovators of the fps genre just like valve here- they both equally deserve our attention.

 

[MultiVaC]

In Doom3 just looking at 100 boxes would be a load, lol. In the alpha, I'm sorry to say that physics were utterly crap. Now don't say I'm judging the final game by the alpha; I'm not. This is simply what I saw: All of the dead bodies clipped stuff, except one of those Homer Simpson zombies, whose dead body had a rather inconsistant ragdoll that seemed to get stuck on invisible things. I think it's safe to say all bodies will be ragdolled in the final version, and it will work better. In the same room as the aforementioned zombie, there was large box and a shelf of smaller green ones labled "poop". I shot the large box and it tipped over. But when I shot it again, it would barely budge, even with the shotgun. I knocked one of the poop boxes onto the floor and shot it a few times. About 25% of the time it flew off erratically, sometimes almost straight up, spinning madly. One time, I let it settle down, but when I approached it, it started, well, for lack of a better word, dancing. There are lots of body parts laying around, but none had any physics applied to them except for that severed foot that stopped reacting to anything once it fell off the chair. The swinging lights were unaffected too. I'm sure all of this has been improved by now, however, considering that iD is a great developer. In the end the physics should come close to HL2's because the alpha is way back from E3. But the only Doom physics I've seen are alpha ones.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't hear about those articles. That actually sounds pretty good. I missed a lot of points because I started playing Call of Duty in the middle of typing my post.

 

[kinggi]

deleted

 

[Tr0n]

I only see doom3 as a great tourny game due to the fact that it can only hold up to 4 people on multiplayer.So we will probally see doom 3 a lot at the next and future quake cons.Oh yea don't forget about Quake IV!!!

 

[SheepFactory]

I only see doom3 as a great tourny game due to the fact that it can only hold up to 4 people on multiplayer

Thats scaleable. 4 player will be the limit in default doom3 MP, but that was a "design decision not a technical limitation" as you hl2 guys would say

You might say "why in the hell would game making veterans like Id CHOOSE to limit doom3 to 4 players?!?!". The answer is they wanted to create something that was uniquely Doom. Somehting that you wont find in other games. And i dont mean the player limit, i mean the gameplay of the MP. They didnt just say"well lets make something different. HEY! every other game supports like 32 people, so we can just make ours 4 people and it will be unique!!". They wanted to create a type of gameplay that would be hella fun, scary at times, and introduce new gameplay elements. Hell the lighting system alone introduces new gameplay elements.

Anyway, back to the point. The type of experience they wanted to create was suitable for a small number of people(4) in a game. If you have read any of the MP reports from quakecon you would know that the general concensus is that the Mp is fun indeed. Infact i havnt seen a single report that says anything bad about it, and i pay attention to doom3. Infact, just the other day i came across a report in a mag written by a journalist with many years experience reviewing games, and he said it was the most enjoyable MP game he has ever played.

Anyway, back to the point i was trying to make before i veered off, it will be scalable. Its not inherit in the engine or the way p2p works as most people think.

Personally, im thrilled about what they are doing with MP. Not only because it will be a new and unique type of Mp game, but because i always enjoyed smaller games myself. There is nothing i enjoy more than going heads up with another player. Mon to man. Some people like larg scale games like bf1942 and wolfenstein type games. But that doesnt mean they wont enjoy what doom3 has to offer on the MP side of things either.

 

[MultiVaC]

But any game can be for 4 players. Just limit the server capacity. They could allow 32 players max and still have 4 person games. It seems like just limiting the options of gameplay, which leads me to believe that at this point, maybe it is a technical limitation?

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by Mountain Man
It's unfair to call Half-Life 2's physics system the Havok engine simply because Havok simply formed the base on which Source's physics engine was built. Valve didn't just plop Havok's code into the game, they've substantially modified it and extended it specifically for the Source engine.

That said, I think Source will provide a much better gameplay experience as Valve was intent on integrating physical interaction into the gameplay.

Carmack, on the other hand, simply cobbled together some simple box and ragdoll physics because he considered them to be pointless gimicks and didn't want to spend a lot of time on it.

Tellingly, after seeing the reaction to Half-Life 2, Carmack overhauled Doom III's physics engine, but it remains to be seen what kind of use id's level designers will make of it.

That said, I think Valve will do a much better job of integrating physics into the gameplay and thus Source's physics will seem superior.

I agree.

 

[Polykarbon]

4 Players was a design decision based on a techincal limitation. Do not deny that. ID Software did not decide to essentially create a limit of 4 players in an environment. DooM 3[not the entire engine itself, but the game] has problems rendering what seems like more then 4 players while maintaining a stable frame-rate. Regardless of how "unfinished" the product may be--having the game run at 640 X 480 resolution on a top platform system with 4 players in multiplayer mode clearly shows how limited the game can be. If it was a "design decision" they could of had it running at 1024 X 768 accordingly. Go look up the many DooM 3 interviews in which carmack states the ideas of DooM 3 and how single-player is his main subject at hand.

The type of experience they wanted to create was suitable for a small number of people(4) in a game. I agree. Again--this decision was based on the games limitations, and they followed these limitations while still managing to create a fun multiplayer environment for players.

I am not trying to create a war of discussions regarding DooM 3's engine. I am sure it is capable of handling 10 players or so in a multiplayer environment. I am just stating a response to what you said.

I am also looking foward to D3's multiplayer, because it is very Lan-Friendly with very few people ^_^.

 

[Polykarbon]

Without sounding demeaning to Carmack/ID Software/Doom 3, it is of my opinion that he is very jealous of the source engine and its capabilities[with the mod community...development....story...everything]

In the Quakecon interview at Gamespy, he stated that he has 1 more engine to write. Perhaps HL2 sparked something in him that made him want to create something better. I think he would have retired. That is just my opinion, and it is a whole guess of an opinion at that.

Also--regarding physics...I think that physics in games need to be made beyond that level of a realistic created feel. Half-Life 2 manages[from what we have seen] to pull this off the best from all of the other next generation of games. For example. In Half-Life 2, when you throw a grenade, that person flys far...high...and lands very hard.[when the soldier hits the car from the grenade] Gamers like this, because it looks and feels great. I am not judging any of the games yet, but am just voicing my opinoin based on what I have seen.

Let's be honest here. From what we have seen now, when you are done playing Stalker or DooM3, what game will you be coming back to. HL2 already gets an early start with the fastest release, and mods will be having been worked on...with patches...etc.

Sorry...this is a rather long post.

Later.

 

[SheepFactory]

But any game can be for 4 players. Just limit the server capacity...............It seems like just limiting the options of gameplay, which leads me to believe that at this point, maybe it is a technical limitation?

Naw you didnt listen to what i said. they werent limiting the player capacity in order to make it unique, they lowered the player capacity because it fit the type of unique gameplay they were shooting for.

Its doesnt limit gameplay at all. It has more of certaint gameplay elements than other games, and has less of other certaint gameplay elements of other games. And it will introduce gameplay elements that we arent even familiar with. Its just different, unique. There is no game out today that shoots for the type of gameplay doom3 MP will have, and it is likley the same can be said when doom3 is released. Its in that respect the developers are making it unique. They are making something new, something fresh. Something uniquely doom as they said.

They didnt set out to create something innovative. There only goal was to make it fun and unlike anything else out there in terms of gameplay.

which leads me to believe that at this point, maybe it is a technical limitation?

You can belive whatever you want. The simple fact is, as its been stated many times by the developers, its totally scaleable. They only limited it in doom3 because 4 players in a game is ideal for the type of gameplay they are going for.

 

[Polykarbon]

I highly disagree with you man. Read what I said. Post a direct quote from the developers where it says it is totally scaleable at THIS point. I don't care about what can be done in two years, I care about what the engine is at this point with DooM 3. They did not really create anything new, to be honest with you. A mapping team for Half-Life 2 could get some VERY nice maps going with some fun physics/shadows/traps/etc and lower that player count to 4 players and duplicate that feel. It is nothing all that unique. It seems like a blind cover to the limitation of the engine. If they COULD have more players, they would. Then they could leave it up to the players to have those fun 4 player matches.

 

[Flyingdebris]

in games that revolve around tealth and surprise 4 people is plenty. in avp i always lok for the servers with fewest people. Doom3 MP is not about cramming as many people as you can into a server, its about a couple of people running around blindly in the dark trying to kill each other

 

[Polykarbon]

I Agree--Doom 3; because of the way it was built and with the limitation of the engine, IS about small matches in rather dark and confined spaces. It is not foolish to think, howeverm that if ID Software had the chance they would allow for larger players and larger environments for multiplayer maps while STILL retaining that feel.[which is easily possible]

Point closed.

 

[Pol]

remember, they hadn't properly implemented the d3 physics in the e3 leaked alpha we all played...

 

[SheepFactory]

Post a direct quote from the developers where it says it is totally scaleable at THIS point.

Both Hollenshed and Willits have stated many times that the engine is totally scaleable. Obviously you wouldnt be able to render as many characters on screen as you would in source, the higher quality visuals of the DOom3 engine are just too demanding. But its not limited to 4 people on screen at one time.

The rest of your lats few posts are just based on lack of understanding of what the doom3 engine is capable of. All the common stuff you would find on a hl2 forum. Ive explained them all on many occasions and i just get tired of it. However i am the type of guy who hates when people have the wrong idea about an awesome engine such as doom3, so i think ill make a faq tonight with all these common misunderstandings explained. Ill just link people to the faq when i see it is needed.

 

[Polykarbon]

I am not doubting that the engine is scalable. I myself have been programming and into computers for my entire life. I understand what can be done with the engine. I am doubting, however, that at THIS current point DooM 3 the GAME could be scaled for more then 8 players at 1024 X 768[what I consider a standard resolution for gamers] and run at a rather fluid rate.

DooM 3 does not look THAT great. It is more of an over-use of effects then an applicable game engine that mod developers of all kinds would love to work with. It is also more of a tech demo then an actual game in my opinion, which is now what ID Software seems to have become. I am looking foward to seeing what a game development company like Raven can do with it, rather then a tech demo company who created it to look nice. I know entirely what the DooM 3 engine can do. Do not harper my intelligence by stating otherwise.

I am not denying that the engine is "great." The only thing I am doubting, again, is that it can be "totally" scaled for a higher number of players in an online environment without a complete "ownage" hit of performance.

 

[kinggi]

^dude saying its more of tech demo than a game isnt exactly smart... first off the game isnt released, second if youve played the alpha you would know that wasnt true, cause the game really has a great feel to it and has some very scary gameplay..

 

[Polykarbon]

You do not have to play the final build to see where the game is going. The game does have a good feel and it has scary gameplay...but that does not change my opinoin that ID has become more of a tech demo company then an actual game development company. Scary Gameplay and a general fun type of environment is done all the time in games. I see nothing generally fun without the graphical elements which define it.

 

[koopa]

Carmack isn't a factor in this because he didn't write the physics engine. I think the guy who did the old bot code (Mr. Elusive?) did it.

 

[bastard_loud]

Do you think id doesn't know a lot of people out there think they're nothing more than "engine-builders"?
They're doing DooM to get this idea out of their heads, and show all you nonbelievers that they can still rip @ doing great gameplay.

Atleast i hope so.

 

[Mountain Man]

Originally posted by SheepFactory
Thats scaleable. 4 player will be the limit in default doom3 MP, but that was a "design decision not a technical limitation" as you hl2 guys would say

No, it's definitely a technical limitation as id has openly admitted that the Doom III engine can't handle more than three or four character models on screen at once, even on a top of the line system.

 

[Polykarbon]

Yes-- Carmack did write the rendering engine, no-- this discussion is not about physics and finally yes it is a technical limitation as we have discussed. Topic Closed.

 

[WaSwAt]

damn not another of those hl2 vs d3 vs stalker vs farcry vs halo (2) threads :/
just wait till those games are released and THEN discuss them :x

 

[Mountain Man]

What's wrong with discussing them now?

 

[Whatup1049]

I think HL2 looks better than doom3. Doom3 = plastic toy soldiers with over-done graphics... Like geez turn the bump mapping down a bit its going too far!

 

[Feath]

Originally posted by SheepFactory
I didn't bother to read anything other than the first post. I simply didn't want to find anything that would make me feel compelled to engage in any debates on this tired topic. But i did notice the word "alpha" as i scanned the page so i thought i would post about that and a few other things, including some relatively new info about the doom3 physics system that most of you prolly haven't heard yet.

You've listed a lot of things, while they all certainly sounded cool, you don't really list anything to do with Physics engines.

Originally posted by SheepFactory
First off, the physics system cannot be judged by what you saw in the alpha. I think this goes without saying but I'm saying it anyway so pls forgive me. It simply wasn't implemented to a great degree for whatever reason. They only stuck ragdoll on just one fat zombie to show him falling down the steps. Also, there wasn't much evidence of a physics system found in the maps other than the occasional box you could shoot.

Agreed that the Alpha is not representative of the final product. But it does give a good indication of things to expect. It's the best we have to judge Doom 3 on, in the same way that the Half Life 2 videos are the best we have to judge Half Life 2 on.

Originally posted by SheepFactory
Now for some doom3 physics info.

There were a few articles released recently which shead some more light on Doom3 physics. For example, when you are on a martian base and blow out a window, or breach a wall, it will create a vacuum, sucking nearby objects out into the martian atmosphere. I remember when carmack was describing a while back about a part of the game where the marine is sucked out of an airlock into the martian atmosphere. The player then had to desperately search for another way back inside the facility before his oxygen supply ran out. These are the kind of suttle things done with physics in Doom3.

This has really nothing to do with Physics. Game Physics Engines don't simulate fluids (Like air or water). You won't be sucked out of a window because the physics engine determins that air is moving from an area of high pressure to an area of low pressure.

Instead the level designer will make it so that if the window isn't there, you will be pulled outside. This isn't part of a consisent physics engine, if you go to another window, that isn't meant to break when shot, and remove it somehow, nothing would happen.

This is similar to the fan sequence in Half Life and almost the same as a sequence in Elite Force II where a part of the ship is blown out and you are pulled towards the breach. Both games you are pushed but they don't physically simulate the air.

Originally posted by SheepFactory
Also, it was recently revealed that demons will be able to pick up things to throw at you. Most of you who have seen the alpha know that at one point you come through a door and a zombie to the side chucks a barrel at you. Well, we now know than the smarter demons, having better AI, will be able to discern if nearby objects would cause damage if thrown at you, and they will pick them up and throw them. But the cool part is that this isnt limited to only world objects, but the bigger demons will even pick up smaller creatures like zombies and throw them at you. If you saw the e3 2003 trailer you would have noticed that the hellknight at one point picked up a chainsaw zombie and hurled him across the room into some barrels. they will throw things at you in this way. It also seems that demons wont particularly care much for zombies, killing them if they get in their way.

Demons picking up Zombies isn't really to do with the Physics engine at all. That's just an AI thing. The only physically simulated thing would be the Zombie flying through the air.

Originally posted by SheepFactory
Another tidbit isn't really new but most people don't seem to be aware of it. Anyone who has played the alpha knows that if you stand on top of a zombie while he is on the ground he will be unable to get up. But in the final game you will also be able to jump on them from a higher location, landing on top of them and knocking them off their feet. They will be on the ground and you will be on top of them, rendering them helpless and subject to multiple gunshots in the face.

I'm not sure whether this is due to a physics engine or not, presuminly, if they have a weight on them, they won't be able to stand up. You knocking them over when you fall from different heights will probably be due to the Physics engine but the not being able to stand up thing, will probably be due to the AI.

Overall you are listing a lot of cool effects but these have nothing really to do with Physics.

And then you go on to talk about AI which I won't comment on.

 

[Zerox]

:thumbs: It's Havok 2!

 

[hunter-killer25]

you guys are wrong, i read somewhere the valve worked WITH the havok people to help develop havok 2 SOMEWHAT so it sorta a in house/licensed physics engines

 

[spitcodfry]

Originally posted by hunter-killer25
you guys are wrong, i read somewhere the valve worked WITH the havok people to help develop havok 2 SOMEWHAT so it sorta a in house/licensed physics engines

Ken Birdwell is God.

 

[Zoltar]

I really don't think that how good a physics engine in a game really matters.

What matters is how well it's implemented.

With Half Life 2, the entire game is built around the physics engine. Nearly every object in the game can be picked up with the manipulator, blown apart, etc. So far I have not seen any indication that Doom 3 has this level of flexibility.

Now Doom 3 could quite possibly have a better physics engine than Half Life 2, but if it is not utilized like the Havok engine is in Half Life 2, then it is just wasted code. In Half Life 2, the physics are an integral part of the gameplay. In Doom 3, they just seem like cool graphical effects that really don't have any bearing on how the game is played (I'm not quite sure about this because I haven't played the alpha).

Basically, it doesn't matter who has the better physics engine, it’s who implements it the best.

 

[CyberGeek]

the "bashed down door" in hte D3 movie is not physics, it's an animation, at least the bashing part. Rigid-body physics models do not do deformation of surfaces in response to force, which is what you saw there. The doors falling over could have been physics. And the "knocked up grate" where the imp climcs out could well be physics. No reason for it not to be, really.

Aye, the deformation of the doors was scripted. I think the doors falling over were scripted, too. If they were simulated using physics then that means that the imps were capable of interpreting and moving over geometry through their AI. While such a thing is possible (Half-Life 2's Strider does it, I think,) it would be very difficult to simulate a biped's movement through code. The grate was probably physically simulated, though.

I cant remember in what review I read, but from what i remember ID chose to make their own physics engine because they didnt think Havok was good/advanced enough for them.

Graeme Devine said that when he spoke at the University of Utah. I attended and quoted him later in this forum in a now deleted thread. I know one other person who attended wrote about what Graeme Devine said, but I don't know if he mentioned Havok.

It should be noted that Graeme would have been referring to Havok itself, not the heavily improved version in Source.

A thought occured to me about Havok being used in Source: Licensees of Source will likely need to license the physics engine seperately. While Havok was heavily modified for Source, it still forms the underpinnings of the physics engine. If a potential buyer wants the physics engine he will probably need to pay Valve for Source and then Havok for the physics. The Unreal engine works the same way. You have to pay additional money in order to use the Karma engine. Since the Doom III engine's physics engine is developed in-house they don't have to mess with anything like that when they license the engine.

In the Quakecon interview at Gamespy, he stated that he has 1 more engine to write. Perhaps HL2 sparked something in him that made him want to create something better. I think he would have retired. That is just my opinion, and it is a whole guess of an opinion at that.

Carmack mentioned the engine he wants to work on after Doom III in his 2002 keynote. It's nothing new and was not a fear instilled by Half-Life 2.

I highly disagree with you man. Read what I said. Post a direct quote from the developers where it says it is totally scaleable at THIS point.

http://games.bigpond.com/pc/features/idsoftware.php
Quote Tim Willits: "The player limit is fully scalable."

ID has become more of a tech demo company then an actual game development company.

I cut this quote halfway out of a sentence which began with the author stating it was his opinion, but people have stated that iD is nothing more than a tech demo company very often, and I'm getting very annoyed about it. So, what follows is not directed at that quote specifically, but rather towards all the people that call iD a tech demo company.

iD charges a whopping $250,000 plus a percentage of the royalties for the Quake III: Arena engine. A LOT of games license Quake III. Soldier of Fortune II, Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force, Star Trek: Elite Force II, Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast and Jedi Knight: Jedi Acadamy would have generated $1,250,000 just for the initial sale, factor in the percentage of the royalties and it's even more, factor in how ever many other Quake III licensed games there are and it's more still. This, combined with the fact that iD typically produces games which are on the simple side, leads many people to believe iD now only makes its games to show off its latest engine. People even say that iD presently makes most of its money off its engine licenses.

This is not true. According to iD's CEO, Todd Hollenshead, iD software generates 20% of its money from its licenses. It would simply be screwed if it depended on them. What about the fact that iD games are simple? That's just the way Carmack likes games. He doesn't like them bogged down with gimmicks, preferring something which can simply be picked up and played. He didn't want to see a use key or duck key in Doom III. He won the use key argument but lost the duck key. He was also reluctant to add Physics, though he later admitted that it was a good thing he lost that argument, too. While iD games are simple, their simplicity does seem to appeal to a respectable number of people, as Quake III is still one of the most played games online.

If iD games were made as tech demos, it would make sense for them to make it developer friendly, right? That is certainly not the case with Quake III, at least as far as the game code goes. The code is very much geared towards Quake III, and only Quake III. It is very hard to program support for more than ten weapons in the game, so much so that some mod developers consider it impossible (it's not, it's just so difficult it might as well be.) If Quake III was designed to be friendly for developers it would make sense to include some basic stuff which could be mostly just copy-pasted from Quake II, right? For example, Quake II has a function which can return the distance between two entities. It's a simple function and requires only a few tweaks to be compatible with Quake III, but it's not included in Quake III. Mod developers and engine licensees have to code it in themselves. Similarly, there is no ladder code in Quake III.

Now, Doom III has been described time and again as developer friendly, but I still can't see it being made just for the engine. Let's assume for a moment that iD is indeed making Doom III just for its engine. If that's the case, why has iD only publically released footage of the game itself, while Valve released a good five or so minutes of footage showing off nothing but the engine's capabilities? Why has Valve given their engine a name to distinguish it from the game its powering, while iD hasn't? Why isn't iD licensing its engine now, while Valve is? (Quake IV doesn't count, in my opinion, as it is being supervised by iD, not just developers using the engine for their own purpose.)

Demons picking up Zombies isn't really to do with the Physics engine at all. That's just an AI thing. The only physically simulated thing would be the Zombie flying through the air.

Actually, it would be using the physics engine while the zombie is being held. The zombie would go in ragdoll mode and have a constraint placed wherever the demon is holding him. Then the demon can go ahead and swing the zombie around before throwing him. That said, I don't think Doom III has demons picking up zombies in-game. I haven't seen it in writing anywhere, and the segments in the trailer where it happened looked like cinematics to me. That said, I suppose there's no technical reason why they couldn't do it, and I won't be surprised either way whether or not it's in actual gameplay.

Finally, I would like to comment on iD's use of its physics engine. It does seem that Valve is going for a more integrated approach with its physics engine. While iD will probably be integrating the physics a bit more into the actual gameplay now, I don't imagine we will see as extensive an implementation as in Half-Life 2, but mostly for reasons relating to the atmosphere of the game. It is more scary to have a demon jump right in front of your face and you need to shotgun him that second than it is to see a demon walking by minding his own business and there just happens to be a log hanging overhead that you can shoot loose.

 

[Styloid]

Don't let this thread get out of hand (wasn't a great idea to start it either though).
Anyways... A lot of these teams are incredibly talented. If they sought to, they all probably could have dynamic lighting and physics and advanced AI etc but they probably looked at their game and considered what they needed- not trying to stick everything together (CloakNT had the ability to do real-time dynamic lighting like Doom3 but didn't use it in Chaser because it would be too hard on current computers).
Now the limitations are probably time, money, scalability on older computers, etc (not talent). You have to respect both Id and Valve, they both have the resources to make amazing games. In the end, it's not whether a game has [x] feature or not, it's was the game good and believe me, both these games will be good.