Source vs UE3

[Devilphish]

I don't get it. It looks like metal to me, which it is supposed to be. I don't see where people read plastic into that. Doom3 looks damn impressive to me.

 

[brink's]

I we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[EVIL]

DOOM³ looked damn impressive 2 years ago. now its oke... Farcry and games like fear have surpassed its graphical quality. I will buy it but I will buy it because I am a huge doom fan.. I still play doom 1 and I really would like to know how the talented folks over at id took hell and represented it trough their art into something believable.

Deviliphish has some very true comments, but I also think he underestemates Source.
Only a Valve employee could argue him in a justified way, because to tell the truth, we and devilphish don't know shit because there is so much about source that we don't know about.

 

[billbo]

I'd like to add that the argument that they look like plastic is a straw man argument anyways, the discussion is about the lighting model. To address the "plastic" thing, I'm sure with right combination of diffuse and specular maps, almost any material should be able to be quite reasonably simulated. Look at the e3_2003 hi res movie. The shot of the outside with the monorail has what I consider to be the best replication of worn metal that I've seen in a game, in particular the way the light works of the worn areas of the surface. A very good use of diffuse and specular maps there. Also, the argument about "only black shadows" is completely false, see here for an example of better shadows: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=75 It is unfortunate that Devilphish has provided an insightful and articulate argument while being more patient then I would be, only to have his intelligence insulted by being labeled as a fanboy, subjected to straw man arguments, and outright false claims. As a final note, I concur with him completely that the unified light model is the next step, and a big step forward at that. Now, who's implementation will be the best is yet to be discovered.

 

[The_Don]

What I don't get, I why such convincing technology is being used to create a hell-like world. I'm not disputing Doom3, but I don't see why people enjoy the kind of game that it is. Farcry used the technology to create a beautiful world at first, which I found far more enjoyable, but then it went downhill (especially with the cliche storyline).
Just my opinion.

 

[urseus]

I think the most important thing to consider here is that i have a really good computer and will be able to run both games smoothly.

Can we all just agree on that....

 

[brink's]

I think the most important thing to consider here is that i have a really good computer and will be able to run both games smoothly.

Can we all just agree on that....

Of course that comes first urseus
How could we forget.

 

[billbo]

What I don't get, I why such convincing technology is being used to create a hell-like world. I'm not disputing Doom3, but I don't see why people enjoy the kind of game that it is. Farcry used the technology to create a beautiful world at first, which I found far more enjoyable, but then it went downhill (especially with the cliche storyline).
Just my opinion.

Good question. From what I understand, that's the kind of thing that the creator, John Carmack, likes so that what he makes. Keep in mind that Doom 3 is far more than just the game, it's also a showcase for the engine that game developers can license for big bucks. Remember Half Life was created on Carmack's OLD Quake 1 engine and I have no idea how many were created on his Quake 2 and 3 engines. Hmmmm, I wonder if his engines have powered more games then any other. Either way, I'm looking forward to Doom 3 for the potential of it being able to create a frightening environment, an interactive horror show. :E

 

[EVIL]

All in all, I think Devilphish has made one big mistake... and that is assuming that the gaming audience all have high end Graphic cards. You should be pretty stupid to buy a high end card in the same year of its release.

The target of source is to provide support for a large audience. This is the far opposite of what Unreal Engine 3.0 is for. The only thing they have decided is that they want to make an engine that will create graphics for high end graphical card users in 2006.

Only a few game developers create games for that audience and therefore I believe that Source will be more used then UE3.0 because developers still have to work for an audience that consists most out of gamers with low and medium end graphical cards.

Plus things like story, game play and interactivity overrule the demand for pretty graphics.. Maybe 2 years ago the gaming community was screaming for high-end graphics, but not any more and defiantly not in the future as things like interactive worlds, game play and originality will be the highest demand.

 

[billbo]

Of course that comes first urseus
How could we forget.

Heh, I bought mine in December specifically for these 2 games. It's been hard waiting. :angry:
I've been making due with UT2004se and learning how to mod. On a side note, If anyone is interested in learning to mod for games, I highly recomend the UT2004 dvd version for the absolutely amazing video tutorials on there. It teaches Maya and 3D studio Max from a gamers perspective. :thumbs:

 

[Devilphish]

What I don't get, I why such convincing technology is being used to create a hell-like world.

The reason they are doing a Doom remake is because they felt the technology was ideal for a horror game. Carmack said that Doom3 is what he wanted the old Doom to be, but the technology wasn't there. So now he is revisiting it to create the game he wanted to create back then. I think they had a new multiplayer franchise on the table before they decided to go with Doom3. I believe it's the same MP title Nerve software is now producing with the Doom3 engine. It's supposed to be something drastically different than id's other MP games, something like a MMORPG. Don't know much about it. I can't wait until we get more info on these other games in the works with the Doom3 engine.

 

[billbo]

All in all, I think Devilphish has made one big mistake... and that is assuming that the gaming audience all have high end Graphic cards. You should be pretty stupid to buy a high end card in the same year of its release.

The target of source is to provide support for a large audience. This is the far opposite of what Unreal Engine 3.0 is for. The only thing they have decided is that they want to make an engine that will create graphics for high end graphical card users in 2006.

Only a few game developers create games for that audience and therefore I believe that Source will be more used then UE3.0 because developers still have to work for an audience that consists most out of gamers with low and medium end graphical cards.

Plus things like story, game play and interactivity overrule the demand for pretty graphics.. Maybe 2 years ago the gaming community was screaming for high-end graphics, but not any more and defiantly not in the future as things like interactive worlds, game play and originality will be the highest demand.

So you think that the Unreal 3 engine won't play on the average pc of the time that it comes out? That's speculationas as far as I can tell, and I'll wait and see I guess. But, thus far the Unreal engine has been quite good and I see no reason to conclude that they will suddenly screw it all up and create an engine that will not run the average gaming pc of its' time. Also, where did you get the idea that "The target of source is to provide support for a large audience. This is the far opposite of what Unreal Engine 3.0 is for." Do you have a quote of them saying exactly that, or even words to that effect? Bear in mind that the creators of the Unreal engine have had numerous very successfull games for many platforms created on their engines... Splinter Cell, Raven Shield, and Thief 3 among many others come to mind? And that IS what they design it for.

 

[billbo]

The reason they are doing a Doom remake is because they felt the technology was ideal for a horror game. Carmack said that Doom3 is what he wanted the old Doom to be, but the technology wasn't there. So now he is revisiting it to create the game he wanted to create back then. I think they had a new multiplayer franchise on the table before they decided to go with Doom3. I believe it's the same MP title Nerve software is now producing with the Doom3 engine. It's supposed to be something drastically different than id's other MP games, something like a MMORPG. Don't know much about it. I can't wait until we get more info on these other games in the works with the Doom3 engine.

Hey, isn't that Carmack quote from the Legacy vid? I'll have to dig that out and watch it.

 

[EVIL]

So you think that the Unreal 3 engine won't play on the average pc of the time that it comes out? That's speculationas as far as I can tell, and I'll wait and see I guess. But, thus far the Unreal engine has been quite good and I see no reason to conclude that they will suddenly screw it all up and create an engine that will not run the average gaming pc of its' time. Also, where did you get the idea that "The target of source is to provide support for a large audience. This is the far opposite of what Unreal Engine 3.0 is for." Do you have a quote of them saying exactly that, or even words to that effect? Bear in mind that the creators of the Unreal engine have had numerous very successfull games for many platforms created on their engines... Splinter Cell, Raven Shield, and Thief 3 among many others come to mind? And that IS what they design it for.

DX8 will still be average in 2006 and UE3.0 simply doesnt support DX8

We are not in a time anymore when graphic cards are coming out each 6 month and are twice as fast as the one before it.
Don't expect DX10 to arrive soon to push the barrier from DX8 to DX9 as average.

But i'l leave this converastion to the sharks because I have a project to finish before tomorrow

 

[Devilphish]

Hmm, don't remember where he said that. I think it was in a mag interview. No idea.

I did some digging on that Mp game I mentioned. It was being called Quest and was indeed the title id has on the table before the switch to Doom3. It was supposed to be a cooperative MP game with a fantasy type setting. The following concept art has been linked to it:

http://www.doom3world.org/quake3teamarena/img/images/quake3_team_arena_87.jpg
http://www.doom3world.org/quake3teamarena/img/images/quake3_team_arena_88.jpg
http://www.doom3world.org/quake3teamarena/img/images/quake3_team_arena_89.jpg

Those were done by an id artist back before they decided to do Doom3. It is believed these are concept images of The Quest, and it is believed that Nerve software is developing this game now. Nothing is official though.

Off-topic, maybe someone will find it interesting though. ;o

 

[EVIL]

ahh the imfamous Quake 3 character sketches from kenneth scott (My Hero) posted in an interview about the man on planetquake I believe.

 

[billbo]

Hmmm, never heard of that one. Learn something every day I guess.

 

[Neutrino]

What I don't get, I why such convincing technology is being used to create a hell-like world. I'm not disputing Doom3, but I don't see why people enjoy the kind of game that it is. Farcry used the technology to create a beautiful world at first, which I found far more enjoyable, but then it went downhill (especially with the cliche storyline).
Just my opinion.

Well, I think that's just a matter of preference really. Personally, I would much prefer the environment of Doom 3 over Farcry. I played Farcry and didn't like the environment very much. It was way to colorful and somewhat cartoony for me. (I'm not insulting the graphics with the "cartoony" comment, it's just that that is how the style and coloring appeared to me.) On the other hand, I much prefer the atmosphere and style of a game like D3. I just prefer dark scary games in general. They provide much more of an emotional impact for me.

 

[NeLi]

oh noes 11!

 

[Rupertvdb]

Far Cry was incredible because of the way it handled the environment, the outside scenic and gorgeous level design really made the game look amzing, i wasn't at all bothered by the cartoony thing. However, what has made it lose potential in my eyes is the replay value which is very low, i tried learning the sandbox editor's intricacies and it completely turned me off. Poor support for the community and when maps are produced they all basically consisted of something using the physics and terrible scripting.

Doom 3 could well be cursed by the same, on top of that it only seems capable of similar mods to the main game if any are made at all. It strikes me that an engine using real time shadows and all kinds of trickery it is introducing shall not allow for a diverse set of modifications, simple technology curve issues cripple it. If you want to do anythign except for a clone of the main game you could probably find a better engine, Source being the obviosu one as it is the most malleable and easy to edit out there.

Sorry if post is jagged, i woke up just now and meant to just check for news.

 

[Sparta]

No, I'm not. He worded it so that it sounded like he was talking about a unified lighting system being added to hl2 through Steam, which will never happen. They may update Source with a unified lighting system(we don't know), but never hl2. He used the words "through Steam", so it sounds like thats what he meant.

Maybe not HL2 but Source is certainly capable of having a unified lighting system applied to it.Look at what they have done with the Unreal engine being used in game like Splinter Cell 1/2 and Deus Ex 2

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we are talking about. I'm sure Valve can update Source with a unified lighting system if they wanted to. But it isn't updated RIGHT NOW. If you are liscensing a engine for a game in 2006/2007, you are liscensing the engine RIGHT NOW. Lightmaps will be obsolete and dead in 2006/2007, so who would you chose a lightmap based engine when there are other engines which will look killer in 2006/2007 with no or little updating. This is why I don't think Source wil lbe used very much, because there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to liscense the engine now for a game coming out in 2006/2007.

Again it depends on what the developer is looking for. Not to mention the leap in technology that will be used in the next version of Direct X (Were talking DirectX10 or something). The UE3 technology is an evolution of the current technology, so whilst it may not be Source, it may be Source 2 or something along those lines. Basically the same engine, updated. But since Valve are planning to update there engine through Steam, it is a possibility that they might not need to create a whole new engine with code from the previous engine. Instead they can just add on

No. They are showing it now because right now is the time developers need to liscense the tech if they are developing a game for the 2006/2007 timeframe. The engine is designed to run on hardware at that time, so they are pushing it to be liscensed by games that will come out at that time. because of that, Source and UE3 is on the same level in the eyes of a developer. You people say they are not comparable, you are wrong. A developer looking to liscense and engine for the 2006/2007 timeframe has to look at the conditions of the engines right now and what they will have to change to get it up-to-date for the projected release date. Source needs too much work it get it at UE3 level, and they have no incentive to use Source. Thats all I'm saying.

You're comparing UE3 technology that will be used in the future to current technology made in 2002 for today. It would be more suitable to compare the current Unreal engine to Source if your talking "timeframes" here.

There is no reason to believe Source is more flexible than the UE3 or Doom3 tech. Cheaper by a couple hundred thousand is a small matter for a high budget title. These games cost tens of millions to develope. Doom3 is the most pricey of them all, yet it is liscensed more than the other engines already(that we know of, and you can be sure there are some Doom3 liscenses we don't know of as well). It's priced high for a reason, it will be in high demand in the coming years because it's a damn fine engine.

Have you seen Doom 3 on the Xbox with Direct X 8.1?
Look at some of the screens for HL2 on the Xbox with Direct X 8.1 and there's almost no difference, the game still looks good. New technology does not automatically mean something looks better then something else. Ninja Gaiden and Halo still look good today after all. Its to do with how that technology is applied.

Quake3 and Unreal engines use similar lighting techniques, unlike the debate at hand where one engine(Source) is using a technique that in 2 years time will be obsolete. Besides that, Quake3 has dominated for so long for a good reason. It was built to. Carmack makes lasting technology, and he has again with Doom3. He says Doom3 tech will dominate for the next 5 years, I believe him.

Last i checked Global Illumination and Radiosity looks alot better then solid black shadows.(I'm comparing to doom 3 not UE3) UE3 lighting however does beat Source technology, as of now, but again that technology is being created for the future. Now if it comes to a time where the UE3 is complete, but isn't updatable, then that allows Source and Doom 3 to get the drop on it with technology that becomes available after its completion

The argument here is that Source is no competition for other engines right now. Wether it will be updated to match other engines is not known, but developers liscensing engines for games in the 2006/2007 timeframe are liscensing engines RIGHT NOW and RIGHT NOW Source is too far behind for there to be any incentive to liscense it.

Source can easily compete with other engines. Look at the HDR video and you'll see. The only thing it doesnt have is a bump/normal map on every single damn surface. It could easily have that though. But frankly i didn't like the look of Far Cry

Again, I'm not bringing the games into the argument. I'm just speculating on which engines will be the proper choice for future games, and Source engine doesn't stack up in it's current form. hl2 looks fine, but it wouldn't look fine if it was coming out late 2006. Thats the whole point.

You are talking about FUTURE games and your saying in Source's CURRENT form that it can't compete. Its like saying Q3 technology can't compete with Source.

 

[urseus]

Doom 3 could well be cursed by the same, on top of that it only seems capable of similar mods to the main game if any are made at all. It strikes me that an engine using real time shadows and all kinds of trickery it is introducing shall not allow for a diverse set of modifications, simple technology curve issues cripple it. If you want to do anythign except for a clone of the main game you could probably find a better engine, Source being the obviosu one as it is the most malleable and easy to edit out there.

Sorry if post is jagged, i woke up just now and meant to just check for news.

Doom3 is a tech demo for other game developers to buy their engine. Half Life 2 is a tech demo for mod makers to utilise their engine.

ID wont give anywhere near the mod support valve will, and thats why HL2 will survive long into the future, whereas doom3 engine will remain something only to be utilised if you buy Carmack another porche.

 

[The_Don]

Yeah, I can see why Doom is so popular now. What I would love to see is a world that you can relate to more, perhaps in a more of an espionage or conspiracy story (similar to DX1). Modern cities and such can make interesting environments, with many avenues for complexity. I thought that would make a better showcase for an engine.
I'll probably get D3 anyway just for a laugh.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Far Cry was incredible because of the way it handled the environment, the outside scenic and gorgeous level design really made the game look amzing, i wasn't at all bothered by the cartoony thing. However, what has made it lose potential in my eyes is the replay value which is very low, i tried learning the sandbox editor's intricacies and it completely turned me off. Poor support for the community and when maps are produced they all basically consisted of something using the physics and terrible scripting.

Doom 3 could well be cursed by the same, on top of that it only seems capable of similar mods to the main game if any are made at all. It strikes me that an engine using real time shadows and all kinds of trickery it is introducing shall not allow for a diverse set of modifications, simple technology curve issues cripple it. If you want to do anythign except for a clone of the main game you could probably find a better engine, Source being the obviosu one as it is the most malleable and easy to edit out there.

Sorry if post is jagged, i woke up just now and meant to just check for news.

Wasn't there that short film done by Carmacks wife or someone, looked about as different from Doom as it could, but used the same DIII engine

 

[Rupertvdb]

Wasn't there that short film done by Carmacks wife or someone, looked about as different from Doom as it could, but used the same DIII engine

what is in it? Plus that's a film not people playing a game. If it is a game she made using the D3 engine then that's cool but explain how it differed from the D3 setting.

I'm talking about the ability to create wide open spaces or small enclosed spaces, both running well and having equal levels of atmosphere and decent FPS on various computers. From what i have seen i am assuming the high demand D3 makes on comps is reduced with enclosed spaces with low VIS so the engine doesn't have to render so much at once in order to handle the detailed levels and the real time shadowing.

 

[^Ben]

Yeh nice one devilphish way to completly sidestep what i said and only reply to one little bit. Just for emphasis here it is again!

Because it runs great on older hardware is hella flexible in what you want game the developer would want to create. And apart from the lighting technologies used which would honestly would not take more then probably half a year to a year to implement. It can do everything the UE3.0 engine can do.

Shaders? Check!
Displacment Mapping? Well it's just a shader so that's a check!
HDR? Check!
All those pretty effects in the UE3.0 techdemo vid? Shaders again Check!
As it stands at the moment better phys engine implementation then UE3.0 Check!
Large Terrains? Check!
Vehciles? Check!
Tools? Check!
Better performance on past hardware? Check!
Xbox 1 support? Check!
And a whole bunch of other things? Check!

And probably the most important aspect that a developer would consider. Is the engine complete? Check!

All games that have used a unified lighting system have mainly been indoors afairs with tricks for when they go outside. Because the power it takes when the player goes outside is tremendous on the cpu and GPU.

Oh and heres one for you. Only 2 titles have been announced. Does not mean there are only 2 companys using it.

 

[billbo]

So far the discussion seems to be this, and correct me if I'm wrong:
-Source has all the stuff except unified lighting(ul)

Now this is what is confusing me, the argument that ul is coming in source is speculation at this point as I've seen no evidence to support this, none. However, there is a good reason that Half Life 2 does not have that feature at the moment, performance. You'll get no argument from me concerning the performance difference on current hardware. Now whether unified lighting looks better is a subjective, and pointless arguing. But, I'm convinced that ul is the future, and how soon games graphics seem outdated without ul is yet to be seen. I already notice the lack of it in Half Life 2, and wish it was there. But, I also notice the lack of realistic character detail such as facial movements etc in the Doom 3 vids. In short we are, I believe, in a very exciting time with the gaming industry's a whole. The gaming environments are becoming far more realistic and interactive through advanced characters, interactive environments, and realistic lighting. Good times indeed. :cheers:

Oh yeah, stop saying/implying that Doom 3 only has black shadows, I already debunked that. :frown:

 

[what!?]

Devilphish is correct in most regards. (Except for his avatar picture choice )

The question is whether Source graphics and technology will be acceptable in 2006/2007. They won't be compared to UE3 and Doom III, both of which have unified lighting already in place. Plus UE3 simply blows away Source graphics (from the HL e-3 demos and the UE3 tech demo). By 2006 everyone will have a DX9 video card. DX9 cards have been readily available already for over a year. The 'advantage' of Source being scalable to DX7? cards will be a detriment by then. Games coming out in 2005 will likely be the bulk of Source engine licensing as the average video card will not be able to handle UE3. But those games have already been in development because it takes well over a year to design a new game.

Right now dev's have 3 main engine choices: UE3, DoomIII, and Source. Source is at a major disadvantage to UE3 & DoomIII already. Unified lighting systems are the way of the future, and most devs will choose an engine that gives them access to a solid platform RIGHT NOW without waiting for a disruptive core Source upgrade.

 

[lans]

Yeh nice one devilphish way to completly sidestep what i said and only reply to one little bit. Just for emphasis here it is again!

Because it runs great on older hardware is hella flexible in what you want game the developer would want to create. And apart from the lighting technologies used which would honestly would not take more then probably half a year to a year to implement. It can do everything the UE3.0 engine can do.

Shaders? Check!
Displacment Mapping? Well it's just a shader so that's a check!
HDR? Check!
All those pretty effects in the UE3.0 techdemo vid? Shaders again Check!
As it stands at the moment better phys engine implementation then UE3.0 Check!
Large Terrains? Check!
Vehciles? Check!
Tools? Check!
Better performance on past hardware? Check!
Xbox 1 support? Check!
And a whole bunch of other things? Check!

And probably the most important aspect that a developer would consider. Is the engine complete? Check!

All games that have used a unified lighting system have mainly been indoors afairs with tricks for when they go outside. Because the power it takes when the player goes outside is tremendous on the cpu and GPU.

Oh and heres one for you. Only 2 titles have been announced. Does not mean there are only 2 companys using it.

and to add to that:

Better animation technology, check
Facial expression technology, check

Can't say much about the A.I, but knowing epic mega games (all unreal titles) I can assume that source does this best to. However, this has to be seen.

 

[Rupertvdb]

By 2006 everyone will have a DX9 video card.

I don't think that's true. I still have my Geforce 2, that's what is in my comp right this second, i don't think i am that unusual, people aren't always able to update as much as some people seem to presume.

 

[Styloid]

Alright, I've offended people. I'd better pull out of this one.
It's just that I've been here on this board so long and have heard everything that Devilphish is saying from... other forum members of the past... over and over again so I didn't really feel like arguing the same points as I have done so in the past. I was lazy did not argue specifically to the point and that should not be acceptable.
Now I would like to graciously ask (no sarcasm, I mean it), what is your point Devilphish? What have I been missing in your posts so far? Why would Source no be a viable option as opposed to other engines in the past or the future?

 

[lans]

Alright, I've offended people. I'd better pull out of this one.
It's just that I've been here on this board so long and have heard everything that Devilphish is saying from... other forum members of the past... over and over again so I didn't really feel like arguing the same points as I have done so in the past. I was lazy did not argue specifically to the point and that should not be acceptable.
Now I would like to graciously ask (no sarcasm, I mean it), what is your point Devilphish? What have I been missing in your posts so far? Why would Source no be a viable option as opposed to other engines in the past or the future?

Devilphish's point is that people won't choose source because it doesn't have a unified lighting system. And game developers would want to liscense an engine that uses a unified lighting system for the next gen games. Main argument he puts forward is that no developer would want to wait while source updates slowly through the years to get it's own unified lighting system. Therefore the source engine is inferior to the others. JUST becuase of it's lighting system.

yes I know - most pointless argument ever....

 

[Neutrino]

Far Cry was incredible because of the way it handled the environment, the outside scenic and gorgeous level design really made the game look amzing, i wasn't at all bothered by the cartoony thing. However, what has made it lose potential in my eyes is the replay value which is very low, i tried learning the sandbox editor's intricacies and it completely turned me off. Poor support for the community and when maps are produced they all basically consisted of something using the physics and terrible scripting.

Doom 3 could well be cursed by the same, on top of that it only seems capable of similar mods to the main game if any are made at all. It strikes me that an engine using real time shadows and all kinds of trickery it is introducing shall not allow for a diverse set of modifications, simple technology curve issues cripple it. If you want to do anythign except for a clone of the main game you could probably find a better engine, Source being the obviosu one as it is the most malleable and easy to edit out there.

Sorry if post is jagged, i woke up just now and meant to just check for news.

Of course we don't know until it is released, but I see no reason why D3 mods would have to be similar to the original game at all. The style of a mod merely depends upon artwork like levels, textures, models, particle effects, etc. There's no reason you can't completely change all these. Heck you could just create all cell shaded textures and create a cartoon mod. I just don't see the limitation your talking about.

 

[Lukes Wall]

Wasn't there that short film done by Carmacks wife or someone, looked about as different from Doom as it could, but used the same DIII engine

'twas the Q3 engine.

 

[Rupertvdb]

Of course we don't know until it is released, but I see no reason why D3 mods would have to be similar to the original game at all. The style of a mod merely depends upon artwork like levels, textures, models, particle effects, etc. There's no reason you can't completely change all these. Heck you could just create all cell shaded textures and create a cartoon mod. I just don't see the limitation your talking about.

The limitation i see is related to the demands placed upon the computers that run the game chosen specifically by the debeloper. In D3's case it relates to the lighting thrust. With complete real time shadows and a huge slant towards lighting accuracy, large out door environments with lots of models shall be difficult to produce. Sure you could totally revamp the engine as you suggest but i would presume that there are easier engines to modfiy for different purposes.

Basically i assume that by creating a game that uses such cpu intensive effects as D3 then you have automatically cut out large sections of possibility for future mods. Add to this lack of things like vehicles and the style of model creation (focusing on layered textures with normal mapping or something) and you'll find people shall want to mod for other engines more suitable for a variety of effects.

I think in this case the Source engine provides the best results.

 

[Neutrino]

The limitation i see is related to the demands placed upon the computers that run the game chosen specifically by the debeloper. In D3's case it relates to the lighting thrust. With complete real time shadows and a huge slant towards lighting accuracy, large out door environments with lots of models shall be difficult to produce. Sure you could totally revamp the engine as you suggest but i would presume that there are easier engines to modfiy for different purposes.

Basically i assume that by creating a game that uses such cpu intensive effects as D3 then you have automatically cut out large sections of possibility for future mods. Add to this lack of things like vehicles and the style of model creation (focusing on layered textures with normal mapping or something) and you'll find people shall want to mod for other engines more suitable for a variety of effects.

I think in this case the Source engine provides the best results.

Hmm, I would tend to disagree with that, but we'll just have to see what happens when the game comes out and people start messing with the engine. Until then it's just so much speculation really.

 

[billbo]

Ok, here's a question that directly relates to the main point of argument at hand:

Does any one here think that unified lighting will NOT be the way it is done for all 3D games at some point in the future?

I believe that it will be the norm at some point, and the only thing that will slow its adoption is performance on current hardware. Devliphish seems to believe that the adoption of it will be sooner than later, or at least the absence of it in source will hurt the adoption/licensing of source.

Edit: to remove ambiguity in question

 

[Rupertvdb]

Hmm, I would tend to disagree with that, but we'll just have to see what happens when the game comes out and people start messing with the engine. Until then it's just so much speculation really.

In a completely non angry way, what do you think is not valid?

 

[Devilphish]

Don't have much time, just swooping in and out.

Doom3 is not as limited as you think. Obviously a Battlefeild type mod isn't right for the engine at this time, but a Counterstrike sized mod would be no problem. You didn't see many large scale terrain maps with the Quake3 engine either when it was first released, but thats all changed. It won't take long for hardware to catch up with Doom3. Many are underestimating the engine because all they see in Doom3 screens is enclosed rooms. This is not and never was because of a limitation of the engine or hardware. Does no one remember the martian city from the alpha shaky cam video? The damn thing was huge. As long as you excersize some restraint with polies, just like any other game, you can make whatever you want.

And ofcourse, Doom3 mods don't have to be Doom3 style. Thats ridiculous. You can take the Doom3 engine and make a smurphs mod if you want, or a nascar mod, whatever. You are only limited by your imagination.

 

[Sparta]

But the same can be said for Source. Also Source already looks good on Direct X 8.1 cards unlike Doom 3 (Xbox anyone?). If you look at the HDR video it shows what Source can be capable of, just like the martian city in the Doom 3 Alpha would be like.

Lighting is always important, but a unified lighting system is only neccessary for certain games, like Doom 3 or Splinter Cell, or any game that wants to have you creeping around corridors. As of now anyway.

Another reason a developer would/could g with Source is because of the moddability. Whilst we don't know what it is capable of we can only go with Valve's track record on moddability. iD and Valve both have tons of mods made for the games, but obviously Half-Life has more then any other game. If there is huge success with the modding side of Source, then developers might see how easy it is to create your own game with this engine. Same can be said for Doom 3. But if you look at moddb.com you'll see theres something like 500 mods already registered for HL2 and there's not that many registered for Doom 3.

I'm not saying one engine is better then the other, i'm just saying that there is still enough reason to choose Source and make a game with it, even if it does come out in 2006. Look at Max Payne 2. Max Payne 2 has the exact same engine with a few updates to it, and it looked awesome when it came out, thanks to those updates. Same could be Source