To settle the "Willit's comments" thread

In the Bible it says "If someone hits you turn the other cheek and love them".

I admire Gabe for doing this with iD. But I know deep in the Valve office they have talked about this comment.

Anyone remember the old .plan wars?
 
You should never really expect to hear Gabe badmouth anyone or even continue or respond directly to any acrimony. It doesn't match his philosophy of live and let live in the gaming industry, where someone elses success benefits Valve by bringing more people into gaming overall.

As I pointed out in the other thread, however, I think Willits should probably be a little less smug given that his engine ALONE already brings most systems to their knees just in rendering a static scene, let alone adding 100s of moving physics objects. I'm not talking about the alpha. Anyone notice what res the QuakeCon computers were at? 640x480 with no AA. The benchmarks that were released on several sites imply the same thing: anything less than a high end Dx8 need not apply for the major wow effects that would set the game apart, and even then only a lower res. My system certainly wont be brought to its knees by the addition of physics: it'll already be on its knees, on its way to being face down in the mud. Time to upgrade big time. :)

But it could well have been a dig at Havok (which many games are using) in that the reason they developed their own engine is that they tried Havok and found it to be too slow for their liking, or didn't think it worked well with their renderer. We'll just have to wait and see.

I think it's fairly clear, however, that id has not been working physics into the actual gameplay for very long, if at all. In the alpha and from comments from the id guys, it really sounds like they considered physics a mainly eye candy feature rather than a chance for new gameplay: boxes get knocked over by your gunfire, doors bend and blow open vividly, etc. The MP demo comments sound similar: a ragdolled body to add atmosphere, breakable windows, etc. But no major structures or elements, and certainly not much work making them into real server side events that affect gameplay.
 
Apos, the mp game they showed does not at all represent what the final game will play like. Yea the recommended requirements will be higher that that of hl2, that goes with the more advanced rendering goin gon in Doom3. Better gfx = better hardware to run it. But the system the mp game was running and the resolution it was set on is not representitive of the final game. You should know better than that.


But it could well have been a dig at Havok
Click to expand...

It wasnt a "dig" at anyone. Willits was simply saying that they can produce a good game, and that they dont need other games to suck in order for theirs to look good. He was asked if other games would steal the spotlight from Doom3, and he said no our game will be good reguardless of how good any other game will be. The only people who would construe this statement as a "dig" is someone biased against iD.

smug
Click to expand...

He wasnt being smug ffs. What he said is equivilent to "i dont need to be around chinamen to be secure with my dicksize". or "my mirror doesnt need to be around dirty mirros to give a good reflection". Hes not callin gall other mirrors dirty, hes just saying that mhis mirror will have a good reflection on its own. In other words, it stands on its own merit.

I think it's fairly clear, however, that id has not been working physics into the actual gameplay for very long, if at all.
Click to expand...

"...you have conflicting issues of great games to be made or making physics toys" -John Carmack

He wasnt talking about in particular game when he said that so dont get your panties in a knot, he was actually responding to a question about destructable game worlds. Anyway, i belive this statement describes the difference between hl2 and doom3 in the physics department. In doom3, the team is geared toward making a great horror game. To me and many others ive talked to, hl2 seems like a physics toy. I mean, you have maps spacifically set up to show off the physics, and play around with physics. Take traptown for instance, a dumpster on the roof of a building? An iron beam set up in a place it has no logical reason for being and just happens to be attatched to ropes that just happen to be long enough to swing near the ground in a place that just happens to be crawling with enemies? Ill cap the folloowing statemnt to be sure you dont miss it........

***I KNOW THESE THINGS WERE SPUUOSEDLY SET UP BY SOME MONK TO HELP YOU ON YOUR MISSIONS***

......just so i dont get a million replies by offended fanboys about that.

Anyway, my point stands. These things were worked into the game just so you can play with physics. Yea it looks like fun, hell i enjoy playing the havok physics demos on the web. But Doom3 is trying to accomplish something other than "ooo wow! GREAT PHYSICS!". They are trying to create immersion so that they can scare you. Its a horror game not a physics demo.


breakable windows, etc. But no major structures or elements
Click to expand...

It would not go a long way for consistancy in the game world to have destrucable architechture in a game as detailed as Doom3. A game like hl2 can pull it off because the hl2 game world is built out of simple boxes like every other game before it. They can just take a box and break it, and apply a simple texture on the inside of the box to make it appear solid. With the detail you have in Doom3, it would not look convincing to do this.
 
I don't think it was a dig at HL2 but it was definitely a pretty cocky thing to say. I also don't think you (wickedewok)really thought out what you said. You could look at physics as just a toy and throw it into a game... a bad game. However, you could also see it as something that could enhance immersion, add a new depth to gameplay, allow for more innovative puzzles, make the game look better, open new doors for mods, etc...
If you've listened to anything Valve has said, everything they do in the game is to make it more consistent.

You could even say that what Valve is doing with physics, ID is doing with graphics- raising it to a higher level for a greater effect on the player... then again you could just call it a graphics toy.
 
Originally posted by WickedEwok
Anyway, my point stands. These things were worked into the game just so you can play with physics. Yea it looks like fun, hell i enjoy playing the havok physics demos on the web. But Doom3 is trying to accomplish something other than "ooo wow! GREAT PHYSICS!". They are trying to create immersion so that they can scare you. Its a horror game not a physics demo.
Click to expand...

What an utterly asinine thing to say, you're implying that all there is to HL2 is a physics 'demo' and that Valve have no intention to immerse (and perhaps even scare, perish the thought) the player?
What about the attention to character design and interaction, what about the vehicle gameplay, what about the fact that the manipulator actually functions as a multi-purpose (offense + defense) weapon in the game, what about the Combine mystery?

Seems to me that these "physics toy" and "physics demo" comments at least partially stem from a grudge born from the "id are only making tech demos" sentiment that has been doing the rounds for years.

It would not go a long way for consistancy in the game world to have destrucable architechture in a game as detailed as Doom3. A game like hl2 can pull it off because the hl2 game world is built out of simple boxes like every other game before it. They can just take a box and break it, and apply a simple texture on the inside of the box to make it appear solid. With the detail you have in Doom3, it would not look convincing to do this.
Click to expand...

That would go along with my appreciation that DooM III's partial technical advancement necessitates more profound compromise than it's worth.
 
Of course everyone forgets that Gabe was making little jibes at Deus Ex 2 when Half-Life 2 info was first released. Something along the lines of 'some people think that a total reliance on non-scripted systemic events is the future of games. It is not'.
 
But the system the mp game was running and the resolution it was set on is not representitive of the final game. You should know better than that.
Click to expand...

Actually, no I don't, given that they are saying that, yes, this is it. They've said that the technology is done, and it's mainly the game content that they still have to work on. So that excuse doesn't work any more.

Th rest of your post... seems kinda silly. Tim DID claim their engine could do something that othre engines couldn't without being brought to their knees. It wasn't just a keeping up with the joneses comment, it was a pretty obvious comparative brag.

Having physics worked into the gameplay (enemies based on it, vehicles, complex machinery) is what allows game worlds TO be more than just static boxy corridors: a world can be filled with realistically interacting objects that flesh out both it's realism and the complexity of a player's interaction with the world. It's the kind of thing that will really let Valve's creativity shine.

Your argument about the detail of breaking things is just nonsense. It would look great in both games. But breaking things is hardly the be all and end all of interactivity.
 
Something along the lines of 'some people think that a total reliance on non-scripted systemic events is the future of games. It is not'.
Click to expand...

No, what he said was that just dumping a character down in a rich environment and expecting gameplay to come out of that was an approach that had its limits. I'm not sure how that applies to Deus Ex 2, which is full of scripted elements.
 
Hmm compairing these 2 games till death is indeed gettin ridiculous..but what is really really ridiculous was like they started to compare mr carmack with mr newell and now someone at ID said"would bring other game engines.." and they are startin to make stupid ridiculous conclusions..man oooh man... it shouldn't even have come this far ...some people are really tryin to **** up and all the proof they have is some few lines a guy said...

respect to ID and Valve..but a lot of disrespect to people who start these rumors
 
I thought this Id Vs. Valve topic would never be spoken. Id is the master of FPS games, Valve just has Half-Life, etc...
Id is the Grand Daddy of FPS Games.
 
Originally posted by Tredoslop
Id is the master of FPS games, Valve just has Half-Life...
Click to expand...
Ooooh! Flame-bait! I'll bite:

"One Half-Life is worth 10 id games."

There, I said it.
 
Ok ok here is a point I have just thought.

Has iD, until HL2 was announced, ever mentioned about there physics in Doom3? Never. It was always the graphics. But now since HL2 shows off awesome physics and they realise that is where games are heading they are bringing it up.

Tell you something else? I think this is why Doom 3 was delayed. To put physics in the game instead of just 'ragdoll' effects. lol.

You think I'm wrong? :D
 
And one id engine is worth 10 Half-Life engines...oh wait, original Half-Life was based on Quake 1. :cool:

id = Engines
Valve = Games
 
Business is business... If I were id boss, I would shit in my pants about HL2 because the first Half-Life was a huge sucess, and Doom 3 can suffer the comparison with this game that looks awesome (Doom 3 does too, but that's not the point). I would probably add physics in the game, to be more competitive, to make it more attractive. Not everyone will buy two games, and I don't know for you, but I played Half-Life a looooong time. I perfectly understand id, and I think they're right to do it (if they really do). Competition is good, because with Half-Life 2, Doom 3 will be a better game maybe.
 
Has iD, until HL2 was announced, ever mentioned about there physics in Doom3? Never.
Click to expand...

Wrong! I know it makes you guys feel so proud to belive that iD is so impressed with hl2 and so insicure about their own game that they borrow features from hl2 that they didnt plan on implimenting before they saw hl2. But you are only deluding yourselves.

FACT: Carmack stated world objects and bodies will ALL have physics applied to them way back at e3 2002 when doom3 was first shown. This took place a entire year before hl2 was shown.

I think this is why Doom 3 was delayed.
Click to expand...

First off, the game wasnt delayed. A release date was neevr even given. iD doesnt give release dates, never have. They just work on the game until they are satified its as good as possible then aanounce its completion.

Now everyone expected that it would be done by christmas season this year, but now we hear that they just arent done with it yet. This could be for uncountable reeasons. Because they had planned to have the same physics they are working into the game at this point, there is no reason to belive that the reason the game is not done yet is because of the work to be done on the physics system.
 
the first Half-Life was a huge sucess
Click to expand...

So was the first doom.

and Doom 3 can suffer the comparison with this game that looks awesome
Click to expand...

Doom3 wont suffer in sales due to hl2, nor will hl2 suffer due to Doom3. The games will come out 5 to 6 months apart at best, and im pretty sure 90% of all people who call themselves FPS gamers will own copies of both games. How can you not own such a milestone game in FPS gaming as Doom3?

Not everyone will buy two games
Click to expand...

Why the hell not? Do you really think there are many gamers out there that will only buy one game a year?

Competition is good, because with Half-Life 2, Doom 3 will be a better game maybe.
Click to expand...

iD is not adding physics to their engine because of hl2 any more than valve is adding a unified lighting system to their engine because iD is doing it. iD is not phased at all by what valve does, and the only people who would think so are hl2 fanboys. iD is focused on making their game as good as it can be, they arent worried about what other people are doing.
 
In the absence of the moderators, seeing as I'm the only person that can delete this thread as I created it, I suggest you start turning this thread back around otherwise it will be gone.

And I have NO idea why you're still arguing about who had physics first because Gabe admits in the e-mail that "[he's] copying Tim, so he can comment...".
 
I think you're confused: that means: he's sending a copy of the message to Tim so Tim can comment.
 
Just to support WickedEwok's point: I am one of those self-proclaimed FPS-Gamer, and I will buy original copies of both games and I will force my friends to do as well or else...

Offtopic: But seriously I played the original Doom when I was twelve, and I loved the whole frightening experience. There is no way I'm going to miss the third chapter of the series especially after disappointing "would-be" sequels such as Quake. :D
 
Just to support my claim that D3 is still cripplingly system intensive even with the technology "pretty much done":

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/5530

"...the relatively slow performance of the game running on the demo systems. I don't know the specs of those boxes, but whatever they were, the game didn't run smoothly enough on the demo system I used for truly playable deathmatching."

" Perhaps it was just the low frame rates, ..."

And it's already been stated that the demo systems were 640x480 with no AA.
 
...so that demo was used to create feedback on the whole concept...and it was very positive for most people..most reviewers said it was fun,and graphics wise the best game they ever saw,so that needs some juicy hardware,i bet res was low but all detail was set to max ...ok if i have a slow framerate dip to 20 fps ...who cares? if i'm having fun..they can easely pull of that 10 fps more with optimizations both on the gameside as on the hardware driverside...

nvidia's drivers will be still very young according the engine types like doom3... and so on and so on... even the MP demo was not the final game...just something to have feedback from from the fans..you al pick on the negative points..but never on the pro's..that's fanboyism..i can pick on every negative aspect from HL ..but i don't wanna i think it'll be a fun game(even if it doesn't furfill me a 100 pro)
 
NO offense there apos..it'll be heavy on system demands ...we all know that for more then a year know... people did major upgrades for Quake1 too..and the'yll probably do it again for HL2 and DOOM 3..peace bros
 
Think about this: you are so excited about this game that you ranted off topic about what I said without even thinking about what I said or what the context was. The reason I pointed this out was that someone else earlier in the thread was scoffing at my suggestion that Doom3 all by itself brings "most systems" to their knees, physics or no. It isn't about whether it's a good or bad game: it's about the comment that Willits made. If your average system is already on its knees, how seriously can we take the claim that the physics system is somehow able to do what it does without bringing the systems to their knees?

As for optimizations, they said that the rendering technology was done, so I don't think we'll see much in the way of further performance optimizations. Drivers are not going to make that big of a difference.
 
Do you think ID will lose some sales because of that? I mean average gamer will look up at the game requirements on the box and will go "holy shit, this is too high".
 
Originally posted by Mr.Reak
Do you think ID will lose some sales because of that? I mean average gamer will look up at the game requirements on the box and will go "holy shit, this is too high".
Click to expand...

it wont be too high for me:cheese:

doom3 will be on my harddrive the day it comes out, as will hl2 and call of duty.

My perspective on doom3 and hl2...'

hl2, good for the top notch engine and story line

doom3, good for more realistic graphics(im not saying hl2 graphics are bad, not at all) and good for scaring the shit out of you.


The game i wont the most are those 3.....hl2, doom3, and CoD. I really dont care for max payne 2 though. Max payne 1 was fun for about a week, then it just becomes to unoriginal.
 
Whoo you guys sure analyze much..100 barrels in an empty room may work..but 100 barrels in a detailed room with 5 monsters will probably be way to much...you see i don't post everything that comes into my head..

THis tread sure is about "putting other people in a bad daylight because of what they said"....others went off topic and back to comparing those 2 games

I'm really going to stop arguing know.... i've read so many pos. reactions from the doom MP demo that i believe i will have fun with it..and i've seen enough from HL2 to believe that too...


PS the only thing i'm excited about now is moving to a bigger place to live(november) if you really wanna know..gaming is just something to pass the time when i'm alone ...a computer upgrade will even have to wait because of that

I will be excited when i play those games, not before...shure trailers and previews are fun,but not the real thing

I rest my case
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

-smash-
Valve at GDC 2019
Replies
0
Views
25K
-smash-
-smash-
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
Valve offers more core virtual reality technologies to device manufacturers
Replies
0
Views
23K
Barnz
B
Back
Top