If you were a developer which engine would you use for your game?

[Shuzer]

wolf ur so wrong foo.

ai is not a engine thang its a game thang, but d3 gots plenty complex ai. as 4 2.0 shaderz i dunno wtf ur talkin bout wit da 2.0, if its a directx thang then no doom engine is a opengl engine which is better cos it will be released on mac and linux and hl2 wont be woadie. but it does have opengl2 shaders which are as good as dx shaderz. as 4 scaleability doom will run on low eng specs 2. hdr is jus sum bull$hit an isnt needed its just sum little trick not an important engine feature. doom does have proper vehicle physics which idsoftware included for the modders. doom maps can be huge if u want and u can have plenty of monsters on screen at once, plus doom is on of the most interactive damn games coming out woadie.

the only thangs are voice com and facial animation system isnt sum big deal cos the facial animations still have funk and doom isnt a team game so voice com $hit isnt needed.


think harder b4 u open yo mouth and talk $hit dat u cant back up woadie.

This gets the prized "most ignorant post" award.
..is that you, EvilEwok2.0!?

Anyhow, AI is an engine feature. Also, saying HDR is a gimmick and not important is like saying the unified lighting system in D3 is a gimmick and not important.

 

[GhettoFab]

foo hdr dont compare to lighting of doom, no way no how little woadie.

u just sit back an talk $hit but u cant deny what i said bcos its true and u no damn well it is loke.

 

[MultiVaC]

Ok, 'woadie' but I don't think Doom 3 will do very well at all in large detailed areas with lots of visibility. I just eats up way too much computing power, not mention the fact that the hard-edged shadows would look hideous outdoors. Source engine will support displacement mapped terrain with and advance LOD system; 2 of the most underrated features in upcoming engines IMO.

 

[GRIMEY]

Another useless poll.

Why don't you just ask "which game do you like the best?"

 

[blahblahblah]

Wolf - I disagree with you, but I don't feel like bickering.

Can't we all admit that any of these engines are capable of making awesome games?

 

[Wolf]

Wolf - I disagree with you, but I don't feel like bickering.

Why do you disagree? None of the things I've said are untrue, though maybe you don't think having to code custom support for those extra features or having much higher system requirements (and thus AI resources/entity/environment limitations) are big enough disadvantages to offset the benefit of dynamic lighting, per-pixel collision, glass fracturing etc etc. I'm still struggling to understand how you might think those limitation are going to be acceptable for most games. Tech should fit design not the other way around...

In a few years when hardware progresses and we have things like socket 939 A64 3700+ and PCI Express x16 graphics cards in the mainstream, the hardware limitations will be much less of a problem. But by that time HL3 will be on the horizon with a new engine to go with it and probably an even bigger DX10 feature-set...

Can't we all admit that any of these engines are capable of making awesome games?

Of course we can.

 

[chu]

This is a pretty stupid question to be asking. Of course the results are going to be biast since this is the "Half Life 2" forums. Ask it in a D3 forum and you'll get majority towards D3, vice versa. Thus making the poll boring with cluttered "Sorce enjin uv corse!!! cuz doomb free graficks l00k lyke plasstick! Sorce iz soo freeckng awsum, its lyke thuh besst gaym enjin evur,yay!"

I suggest taking your little poll to a forum not affiliated with the games listed.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

The upcoming Resurrection engine

 

[Pitbul]

i would use the X-Ray engine, because it can handle very high detailed textures (pretty much look Real) because if can render huge areas at a time and can have many NPC's at once. in the end that would mean HUGE high action battles that could be created. i would go with the Doom 3 engine but it looks so good and is still a bit to damanding for todays computers, maybe in a year i'd go with the Doom 3 engine.

althought i dont knw why this question was asked here, just about everybody is gonna ride HL2's nuts.

 

[Gorgon]

I would use he D3 engine. iTS got the best physics and lighting technology.

D3 engine kills HL2 engine.

I am hl2 fanboy but this is the fact and I am not crying.

 

[Pitbul]

the Poll proves my piont, that the majorty vote to be cool and agree with everyone else, not by its abilities.

 

[Wolf]

'the Poll proves my piont, that the majorty vote to be cool and agree with everyone else, not by its abilities.'

X-Ray looks the best on paper because it can do dynamic lighting, can handle big outdoor areas, has vehicles w full physics, can push many polys with lots of creatures, (supposedly) good AI, advanced shaders etc etc, but you've got to remember it is still an unkown quantity Pitbul.

I downloaded the Alpha to test it, and I'll admit it was VERY promising, but it had no AI, physics, polished creatures - and a lot of it was placeholders etc... We'll just have to wait and see how good it is in the final version.

Also you're forgetting that a game dev wanting a character driven experience might still want the facial animation tech of Source if it was a close call... They might also think Valve is in a better position to provide support and the engine itself easier to work with - since every man and his dog understands how to mod for HL1.... You can't discount things like that in the consideration of engines. Hell Tribes Vengeance recently changed from Karma to Havok physics purely because of a lack of support 'in-case'...

 

[jonesey2k]

Id use the Lithtech engine as seen in AVP2. Not the best engine, but does the nest job of making you feel in the game and being s*** scared!

 

[Shuzer]

I would use he D3 engine. iTS got the best physics and lighting technology.

D3 engine kills HL2 engine.

Lighting, yes.

Physics, I haven't seen anything special from D3.
Sure, they're there.. but, HL2 has the best inter-woven physics system in any game, IMO. They've spent alot of time (from the looks of it) creating proper weight/etc for objects, and actually making physics useful in the game. D3 would probably be more MP2 style, eyecandy that serves no purpose.

 

[Someone]

Would depend on what I was creating.

Source would be my all around choice for its wide choice and ease of use.

But if I wanted something dark and dingy, where mood lighting would play a BIG role, than Doom3 might be my choice. But only with specific types of things: horror for instance.

Other than that, Source all the way.

(Based on what we know at this time anyway)

 

[maximus0402]

I would pick...

far cry hands down...for now...its the only one that has a demo showing it.....and it rocks....it shows huge enviroments, yet stalker we have no demo, so far cry wins.....doom3 is much to coded for that specific game.....to narrow of an engine not a whole lot of variety in it.....

 

[Dougy]

far cry hands down...for now...its the only one that has a demo showing it.....and it rocks....it shows huge enviroments, yet stalker we have no demo, so far cry wins.....doom3 is much to coded for that specific game.....to narrow of an engine not a whole lot of variety in it.....

theres a good reason why you and only 2 other people have picked the far cry engine.

 

[Kadayi]

Heh some interesting posts generally (aside from the few 'decriers'...shame on you humbuggers). Seems to me that certain people are taking the thread back into the realm of graphics. But the poll question isn't simply about which engine looks the best or even which game is the best (I couldn't give a shit frankly), it is about which engine you think would serve you best if you were a developer.

With regard the question of money, let's assume I'm your secret mad rich uncle and I'm financing the project so cost isn't a factor in reaching a decision I'm just wanting you to get the best engine for your game. I'm also interested to know the 'why; for choosing a particular engine, beyond the technical speil and pissing contest factor.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Heh some interesting posts generally (aside from the few 'decriers'...shame on you humbuggers). Seems to me that certain people are taking the thread back into the realm of graphics. But the poll question isn't simply about which engine looks the best or even which game is the best (I couldn't give a shit frankly), it is about which engine you think would serve you best if you were a developer.

With regard the question of money, let's assume I'm your secret mad rich uncle and I'm financing the project so cost isn't a factor in reaching a decision I'm just wanting you to get the best engine for your game. I'm also interested to know the 'why; for choosing a particular engine, beyond the technical speil and pissing contest factor.

If costs weren't an issue, developing a new one would always be the best choice. You could hire the best programmers and setup a large enough team to put everything you need in it without licencing anything from third parties. Result, a completely owned by you engine that you could then licence out for a lot more and not have to pay anything out yourself. Apart from wages of your guys, but then your the rich mad uncle so you paid for all their wages

 

[The Dark Elf]

The upcoming Resurrection engine

*grins*

tell us more

 

[Kadayi]

If costs weren't an issue, developing a new one would always be the best choice. You could hire the best programmers and setup a large enough team to put everything you need in it without licencing anything from third parties. Result, a completely owned by you engine that you could then licence out for a lot more and not have to pay anything out yourself. Apart from wages of your guys, but then your the rich mad uncle so you paid for all their wages

OK lets assume I'm not that mad then (although if your rich your never mad, merely eccentric so I'm told)

 

[SLH]

If i had money i'd probably go with the source engine because valve seem to have done a lot to help companys wanting licences.

I wouldn't rule out an older engine, because they'd be cheaper and there would be a base of people familiar with developing it. Something like the serious sam engine wouldn't be too bad.

Of course all this deopends a lot on what game you're planning to make.

 

[PvtRyan]

Totally depens on the game I'd make. If I would make Alien vs Predator 3, I would choose Doom 3, it's great with lighting and shadows, a major factor in previous Alien movies and Avp games.
But for a WW2 shooter I would choose either Source or X-Ray, I think Source because we already know that it's gonna be highly modable. Don't know if modability counts when making a game with the full source of the engine available, but still
I think X-Ray used in STALKER is very good looking, I even think it's the best looking game, but mostly because of the excellent art. No the cutting edge technology behind it, as far as I know, it has no super nice PS2.0 shaders, no super advanced lighting like Doom 3 but it's mostly the art that makes STALKER look so damned nice.
I've played the early alpha, and I must say the movement and shooting feels very smooth and nice, almost like HL, which had a very good movement system.
So I don't know if the technology behind STALKER is that great, or it's just the art that makes it the best looking game out there.
X-Ray does feature large enviroments, but so does Source. Both nice physics, and presumably good AI.
But I think Source has an edge with flexible shaders and lip sync.
You could make a nice WW2 game with it where you can see the fear on soldiers faces.

 

[FictiousWill]

I'd use the Dark engine!

 

[CyberGeek]

The game engine I would use depends on quite a few factors, including how soon I wanted the game to be finished and what I wanted it to be capable of.

Doom III would be ideal for me under many conditions. I would personally avoid using it if I wanted to do anything really fancy with terrain, but for something which just needs basic terrain I would consider it. The thing about rendering terrain is, as I think Carmack said, it's just drawing triangles, just like indoor games. There is really nothing inherently difficult about terrain in a game, just easier to create more than your engine can handle.

The problem that Doom III has with handling terrain isn't in something like the sheer number of triangles. Indeed, the intro map for the game, from what I understand, is a very massive terrain map, larger than any previous ID map. The problem arrises from the lighting engine. Because of the realtime nature of the lighting engine, radiosity is impossible. Since an outdoor scene usually has one light source (the sun,) anywhere the terrain casts a shadow will be drawn as pitch black. If all terrain triangles receive a minimum light amount the problem would be solved, but then the textures can be very flat looking, given the reliance of the textures on normal mapping. This, I imagine, is the problem Carmack was tackling when he talked about the engine having problems with terrain. There are a few solutions, though, such as having any piece of terrain simply be lit from 'above' it, based off the normal of the triangle and given the strength based off of the angle in relation to the angle of the sun, creating an image similar to what you would see in a non-dynamically lit game. The harsh shadows could be avoided by not permitting terrain to cast shadows, which would not only fix that problem, but make terrain faster to draw than normal indoor scenes. This would be visually acceptable, too, few games have terrain that actually casts shadows. The terrain lighting problems in Doom III have been fixed, as I understand, though I'm not sure what they did. Better be fixed, given as Quake IV will have vehicles, and it wouldn't be fun to drive vehicles solely indoors.

That said, I still probably wouldn't use Doom III for massively outdoor games. It may be capable of it, but the lighting engine isn't really being used to its fullest benefit outdoors. For that I would probably use Source.

As for physics, I have to wonder something. Source uses the Havok engine, and because of it you may be required to license the physics engine seperately from the rest of Source, similar to the Unreal Engine. Yes, Havok is pretty heavily integrated into the engine, but I really don't see it as much of a problem to remove all its effects on the game engine. If such a system is in place you would undoubtedly get a copy of the Source source with Havok fully integrated once you license Havok, but still, it may well be required to be licensed seperately. Doom III's will probably be distributed with the Doom III engine no matter what, since their's was developed in-house, so there are no external licenses to worry about.

Doom III's engine has shown itself capable of creating characters that are on par, with moveable eyes, synched lips, etc. I would take Source over it if that was a priority, though, just 'cause Source had a far higher priority. Muscles n' stuff.

I also wouldn't take Doom III if multiplayer were to be a major component. Doom III is capable of more than 4 players without any changes to its technology, the limit was set for an old-school kind of feeling, I think. I think the game engine is supposed to be easily scalable to 8 players. Going up higher should be possible after beginning to sacrifice features, like fully-synchronized physics objects. Doom III synchronizes everything across all clients, Half-Life 2 only synchronizes what's critical to the gameplay. Not only that, but Doom III's physics engine handles a lot more of the game than Half-Life 2's does. It handles every single bullet, for instance, most of Half-Life 2's guns simply do the standard line-trace, which makes sense. There's not much to gain by properly simulating bullets. Doom III should be reasonably scalable up to perhaps 16 players if its use of physics is lowered to Half-Life 2's level (Heh, that might sound a bit opposite of what is to be expected. I say that just 'cause Doom III simulates many little things, like bullets, and synchronyzes it across all clients. Half-Life 2 simulates fewer things, it seems, though they tend to be larger and more noticeable in the gameplay.) But yeah, I would take source for multiplayer.

I would take Doom over Source for things like cross-platform compatibility, and if I wanted to release the game close to 2006, but not quite at 2006. Now, why 2006? If I release a game around then hardware will be much more advanced, and Doom III's technology will be easily handled on average hardware at the time. Source will likely show some weakness around that time, do to sacrifices that need made to be able to support older hardware. Why 2006 specifically? That's the estimated release for Windows Longhorn. One of that operating system's major components is its new API, the replacement for Win32. This new API runs on .net, which is an entirely managed atmosphere. For non-developers, it essentially makes it much easier to write stable and powerful applications. Longhorn will still support Win32, but there are drawbacks. One, Win32 will run slower on Longhorn than .net will. Two, because programming in unmanaged code is very unstable (it takes probably no more than 2 minutes to write something in C++ that will seriously screw your computer up, fun with pointers n' stuff.) Windows Longhorn will warn you with a message box any time you try to run a program written in non-managed code. Ok, so, people will get a message box before they play games like Doom and Half-Life 2, why does this play into what I would decide? Well, depending on the application, it can be rather trivial to port a non-managed app to managed code. Both Half-Life 2 and Doom III are written in C++, so that's not the problem. The problem is that Source uses DirectX, Doom uses OpenGL. .Net has managed DirectX, making it probably pretty easy to port the graphics engine over. .Net only has a few unofficial and probably incomplete OpenGL libraries. Therefore, looking past 2006 it would probably be easier to go with Source, as far as running on Longhorn is concerned.

Heh, I honestly expected to say I would go with Doom III more than I did. While this post probably seems more like I would favor Source, I WOULD actually go with Doom III before Source in most cases.

 

[Epsi]

Hmm, depends really how legacy native code and the new pretty much totally managed enviroment in Longhorn interoperate. One one hand, managed has a significant performance hit over native. On the other hand, if the Win32 API is plumbed into .Net, rather than staying pure native, that could be the bottleneck. However, I still doubt that Win32 will be slower than .net anytime soon.

At the end of the day, .Net itself is still pretty much an abstraction layer over the real native code underneath, so I think even with the warnings native code will still be viable, and will be used for games until processor power really takes a massive step upwards, .net is too slow. Anyway, Managed Doom3 wouldn't be too hard, you could probably just write a OpenGL wrapper yourself using P/Invoke... even though there's a perf. hit on that too.

 

[63]

How much would the Source engine cost?

 

[CyberGeek]

As far as performance of managed code in Longhorn goes:
.net code will obviously perform slower than C/C++, that goes without question. The area which may make managed applications run faster on Longhorn is within the Windows API. Win32 calls are going to simply be passed on to the new managed WinFX Api. As I understand a similar thing happened on Windows 95, stuff calling Win16 took a performance hit. Win32 will definitely be faster than .net until Longhorn, though, since the situation is opposite right now. .Net calls the Win32 API.

I suppose it wouldn't be terribly difficult to write an OpenGL wrapper, but it still likely wouldn't see the speed advantages that something like managed directx offers (or will offer, later... probably, heh.) As I understand PInvoke gives a fairly large performance hit, but I wouldn't know, almost all managed code I've done has stayed within .net, which I intentionally do.

One thing I forgot to mention: AI can be tightly integrated in the engine, but it doesn't have to be, and I don't think it usually is. The AI in Quake III was more or less tacked on towards the end of the project, so most of it is handled independently of the rest of the engine. Many Quake III licensees completely dropped it and wrote their own. Source's AI is obviously very strong, from what has been shown, so it's likely developers would continue to use it. Doom III's AI was initially going to be very simple, but recently they've stepped it up quite a bit, probably in response to Half-Life 2.

Edit: Oh, and about the cost of the Source engine. I honestly don't know. I don't think either Valve or ID have announced the pricing for their engines. Quake III cost $250,000 per game, Doom III will probably see something similar. Not entirely sure why, but I kind of expect Source to cost less than Doom III, just 'cause ID engines tend to cost far more than other engines, and deservedly so, Doom III certainly isn't holding back on implementing much of the latest technology.

 

[vann7]

Id use the Lithtech engine as seen in AVP2. Not the best engine, but does the nest job of making you feel in the game and being s*** scared!

well according to some information it looks like the developers of ALien vs PRedator are working in AVP3 but in a diferent engine this time.. nothing is official but for me thats good news. for a game that is not out yet ,its looks that there will be as many games licensing D3 as there were in Q3 engine if not more..


if you look at the following screenshots you will notice something familiar in the -Art- in some of the new levels in D3..

http://vann7.homestead.com/Doom3/D3_group2.jpg

the first thought came to my mind ,Alien vs Predator art ,and in some way some of the screnshots have ambience and lighting perfect for an UNreal3 game. ligting is beautifull there

in another subject when it comes to the discussion of the sophisticated Lipsich technology ,i still dont see the real use of that technology in a (fast action) FPS game like Hl2. because in Single player you dont see your face ,neither your body ,only the weapon. and in multiplayer nobody will notice the diference if the words you say are propretly pronounced or not .. i see the tech more used in the Slowpaced games /adventure or Rpgs .. were disscourses happens all the time. in Hl2 is more practical in Cutscenes , in the times ->you dont play.
just like here..
http://www.halflife2.net/image_files/13.jpg

maybe it just me ,but i dislike discourses in games ,i just look for quick action , with fast play.. but yes thats a matter of preference. however in the other hand facial animations can be very cool to show more human like emotions in the players.. and while i can sleep without that feature too. it will be good for the people that really needs that feature in their game or mods,to know that D3 *also* support good looking facial animations ...contrary with what other may think. anyone that watch carefully the last E3 trailer of D3. you will see those.. maybe the techniques are not as techically "advanced" or "accurate" as some will like to say Hl2 is . but as far as i can see the facial animations look -spectacular- in D3. a feature that was not suppose to be there.. :cheese:
the marine Eyes/eyebrows/Lips/teeths all the face and the neck is -manually- animated by idsoftware animator [Fred Nilson]who have enough experiences in this area.. (animation) since he comes from the movie industry and worked in BIg Films for a living like SHREK/and many others .

screenshots dont do justice..

http://vann7.homestead.com/Doom3/D3_group1.jpg
http://vann7.homestead.com/Doom3/D3_group3.jpg

in that part of the trailer there are MANY! diferent emotions in the marine ..from suspense :O to fear ,later there is SUrprise :dozey: when his machinegun is empty.. hehe ..and finally Rage. :flame: if you watch frame by frame in slow motion the full scene you will see that the marine guy have done an excelent job in the acting department .yes.. its only a game

 

[Sparta]

It depends what type of game you're looking for i guess. For example (from what i've seen) i wouldn't use the Source engine for a stealth game, i'd use the D3 or Unreal engine. IF i was gonna make Operation Flashpoint kinda game i would DEFINATELY use the X-Ray engine, because if that can make enviroments as massive as it says it can, a full-scale war would be awesome on the X-ray engine with all that detail. But if you want realism more then anything i'd say Source. To me Source just looks more realistic, doom 3 may have all that fancy lighting but Source just looks more realistic to my eyes

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Those are fantastic pictures vann7.

I didn't realise Doom 3's characters were so far ahead of HL2's in terms of detail. They look amazing. HL2 already looks out of date. Yikes!

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

*grins*

tell us more

No

Other than it's an OpenGl renderer, with an OpenAL/Ogg sound subsystem and LUA as a scritping language.

 

[Wilco]

On a slightly different note...

Which of these games will be releasing SDKs? and whats in them? I assume they are not all as free as source. BF1942 was annoying in that they didnt release an SDK .

 

[cadaver]

without a doubt the the doom3 engine

 

[Kadayi]

CyberGeek

Those are two very interesting posts. The information about Longhorn and the impact that will have upon gaming is something I hadn't thought much about to be honest. I think that the Source/Doom³ argument is a very interesting one. The D³ engine is certainly the powerhouse with regard to long term capability, but as you have highlighted through it's unflinchingness to compromise it does limit its present usage. The physics on bullets being the classic example of a near superfluous system demand. I think ID have in many ways lost sight of the end product in the process of development. What can be done has taken precedent over what needs to be done.

vann7

Although Valve are launching HL² on it, and HL² is a FPS, Valve don't see Source as simply a FPS engine, they see it as a storytelling/narrative engine with FPS capabilities. Certainly in a frenetic FPS, facial animation and lipsynch have little use, however such features would add an instant richness to future games similar to the likes of GTA, Mafia, DX:IW, KoToR. Narrative driven games that have traditionally relied upon cutscenes for exposition of plot developments and interactions.

One of the original Halflife's strengths was that it rarely took you out of the frame and consequently it retained it's sense of immersion and unrelenting atmosphere throughout. The more deeply immersed you become in a game, the more rewarding and satisfying it becomes. From an adventure gamers perspective I'm excited about the possibilities of seeing a Source version of an epic adventure game such as Morrowind for example. I think something like that would be pretty amazing to behold, and to interact with.

 

[blahblahblah]

CyberGeek - Thanks for writing an informative post.

Kadayi Polokov - I don't see the physics calculations in Doom3 as superfluous. I think it is more of an another example of what physics engines are made to do. Instead of doing something predictable like giving mass to objects and creatures in the game world, ID is using physics to do other things. How much more realistic would a game like Rainbow Six be if it used those physics calculations?

The more and more I think about it, we are in a horrible time for PC gaming. It used to be that the only way to improve a game was to add more triangles or higher resolution textures. We now have come to a point where game designers have to choose between features like fully dynamic lighting, large amounts of pixel shading, or heavy use of a physics engine. But, I guess that is the state of PC gaming.

 

[The Dark Elf]

***moved***

 

[Jeremy]

STALKER definately.

 

[vann7]

CyberGeek

I think ID have in many ways lost sight of the end product in the process of development. What can be done has taken precedent over what needs to be done.

well.. i really dont think they lost the sight of what they wanted to do.. the game is more on less on schedule ,and have not been delayed by that much.. 4months?,the basic concept,the main ideas of Doom3 is still the same.. a scary sci-fi Fps game. it just that during the development of the game many new good ideas came to the game. at the beguining carmack wanted Doom3 to be a Single player only game. without any of MP.with nothing fancy in the Physics department. same with Ai ,wich is still basic ,but not as simplistic as they originally wanted. this should be something normal to happen in any game that its under development. to loss the sight of a game in the development ,means to change the main ideas of the game and can delay the game for years.. cough.. (Dukenukem:forever,Daikatana and very possible Hl2 and you will know why..)

im really sure that there will be no way for valve to foresee what Hl2 will looks like in the end , -> 5 1/2 years ago.. (features like) when there were no pixel shaders/vertex shaders/ neither other Dx9/DX8/Dx7 effects. Team fortress2 was supposed to be the next game ,since Hl1 ,and there were already many trailers and screenshots that i have somewhere of the work in progress. a work that they totally dropped ,for Hl2. according to internet info they began from scratch 2 times!! since their engine was not the way they wantedfor their game.

an interesting note ,is that in quake1 idsoftware loss the sight of what they wanted in their game ,since i have read that originally the game was not mean to be a Fps game. but something like an RPg game ,the name [quake] was chosen because they wanted the main character to hold a hammer and create earthquakes ,and destruct enviroments with that weapon..
it was a cool idea ,but i guess the technology at that time what to far ,to do something like that.and its obvious that the the final game was in no way what they wanted to do in the originall game. however fortunately for Idsoftware they managed to quickly adapted the new concepts for a fast action Fps game ,at the end the game was just another best seller in the gaming community.

the most interesting games (features like)are yet to come .. from source engine and D3 engine ,since the first generation of games only explore the tip of the iceberg of what is possible in those engines.. in my case ,im looking really forward for D3mods with vehicles or game like quake4/AVp3 andhopefully MOH/Call of duty too. of course D3 too

in Source engine.. looking forward Hl2 , Day of defeat/CS and the many cool other mods that the community will do in that engine. im also very interesting to see Stalker and hopefully a counterstrike style games there too. for me 2004 will be the year of the new evolution gaming graphics.

 

[Kadayi]

CyberGeek - Thanks for writing an informative post.

Kadayi Polokov - I don't see the physics calculations in Doom3 as superfluous. I think it is more of an another example of what physics engines are made to do. Instead of doing something predictable like giving mass to objects and creatures in the game world, ID is using physics to do other things. How much more realistic would a game like Rainbow Six be if it used those physics calculations?

The more and more I think about it, we are in a horrible time for PC gaming. It used to be that the only way to improve a game was to add more triangles or higher resolution textures. We now have come to a point where game designers have to choose between features like fully dynamic lighting, large amounts of pixel shading, or heavy use of a physics engine. But, I guess that is the state of PC gaming.

I was thinking superfluous in the respect that, such fine levels of detail are not really essential if they seriously compromise other aspects of the game through the system demands they place. The programming technology is there to generate highly advanced and sophisticated games, the real problem is getting those games to run on peoples systems without having to compromise particular elements.