Unreal Engine 3.0 -The Next Evolution In Gaming-

[Pi Mu Rho]

Second, it amazes me that so few of you realize that the system requirements for Doom3 are only slightly higher than Source. There is only a very small percentage of people who can run Source with acceptable framerates but not Doom3. Doom3 was made to run very well on todays hardware. There is no getting around that fact.

Could you make Half-Life 2 in the Doom 3 engine? No. Doom 3 was written with that style of game in mind.

Also, stop concentrating purely on the renderer. What other aspects make a game attractive to licensees? Netcode. Robust (and proven) mod tools. Those are major plus points to licensees.

 

[Gunner]

First you say:

Source will never be a major competitor in FPS. The engine is ugly by todays standards. Look at Bloodlines. Ugly. Look at CS:S. Ugly.

Then you continue to ramble on:

I am simply talking about how engines will evolve over time. HL2 looks decent to me

And you add:

The point is heavy hitters in the industry aren't using Source for major FPS titles like they are with Doom3 for a reason, because Source doesn't compete.

Just major FPS titles are you talking about? seriously I haven't heard of any game coming out that's going to use the D3 engine I don't know where you get your information from and it's certainely not making sense.

And you say Source doesn't compete, doesn't compete against what? against who? against D3? against imaginary future 3D FPS games? who are these "heavy hitters" you're talking about?

OH and FYI Valve porting CS to Source is relevant because you're talking about competition. So why don't you take your own advice and stop "changing the topic of discussion in order to evade the point".

 

[Devilphish]

I disagree. Licensees are irrelevant to the evolution of an engine. Games drive development of engines.

And who further creates games on an engine after the initial game is released? Lisencees. I never said liscensees are a driving force in the evolution of an engine. But they ARE a relevant aspect of this duscussion. How many developers liscense and engine give a hint as to what kind of role the engine will play in the industry over the next few years. As we can see with Source, you won't see it much outside of Valve's own projects and a few RPOGs. Maybe one or two FPS titles will use it, but they won't be major titles. The rest will flock to the Doom3 engine. Look at the facts.

Already behind in what aspect? Aside from you opining that it's "ugly", in what aspects is it "behind" and to what other current games?

Rendering ofcourse. We are currently undergoing a fundamental change in the way games are rendered. Engines using the old methods will be left in the dust in favor of the new and imporoved methods. Thats just the way it is.

You're basing that assumption on the two currently announced licensees.

No, I'm basing my predictions on the FACTS. Speculating that the secret liscensees are major FPS titles and change the whole landscape of the argument at hand would be an assumption. What I am doing is looking at the facts and leaving everything else, inluding liscensees we don't know about for ALL engines, out of it.

You also can't assert that it's not a competitor, when you have no idea of the competition. How many licensees does Doom 3 have? Far Cry?

We do have an idea of the competition. Doom3 has atleast 5 developers liscensing the engine for major FPS titles, leaving out the speculation on liscensees we don't know about. I'm not arguing in favor of the Farcry engine.

No it isn't

Yes, it is. The reasons why Source is behind are not relevant, the fact remains it is behind. Developers will liscense an engine depending on the state it is in, not the particular reasons it is in that state.

Not if they still want to target the lower end of the hardware market (which is where the majority of the sales are).

We are talking about games being liscensed today and will hit the market in a matter of years. What is considered low end today is irrelevant to such games. And it bears mentioning once more, the system specs for hl2 and Doom3 are virtually identical.

Living it's last days? Right....
Unified lighting is, indeed, the future. When the majority of the hardware can run it.

It can. And once more, we are talking about games that won't hit shelves for a year atleast, which means not only the majority can run it, but there won't be many gaming systems out there that can't.

Yes, I can really see people not buying HL2 because it uses lightmaps. "old tricks"? Are you basing your entire argument on the lack of unified lighting? That's a very weak house of cards.

=\ I never said people weren't going to buy the game. Don't argue against points I havn't even made, you are just wasting my time and yours. And it's not a weak argument. A unified lighting system isn't some superficial topping on the cake. It is the new revolution in gaming. It is the way future FPS will be rendered, and wether an engine has this feature is a huge determining factor as to wether it will be liscensed for many future games.

Wow! Can I borrow your crystal ball? How on earth would you know what engine changes Valve have planned/already in development? Simple answer - you don't.

Neither do you. thats the point. We have no idea what they will do, so we must leave it out of the argument and only look at the facts.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Funtime!

And who further creates games on an engine after the initial game is released? Lisencees. I never said liscensees are a driving force in the evolution of an engine. But they ARE a relevant aspect of this duscussion. How many developers liscense and engine give a hint as to what kind of role the engine will play in the industry over the next few years. As we can see with Source, you won't see it much outside of Valve's own projects and a few RPOGs. Maybe one or two FPS titles will use it, but they won't be major titles. The rest will flock to the Doom3 engine. Look at the facts.

You're not stating facts at all. You're stating opinions. You can not state that Valve won't get any major FPS licensees, and that they'll all flock to Doom. That's pure speculation.

Rendering ofcourse. We are currently undergoing a fundamental change in the way games are rendered. Engines using the old methods will be left in the dust in favor of the new and imporoved methods. Thats just the way it is.

No, that just the way you see it.

No, I'm basing my predictions on the FACTS. Speculating that the secret liscensees are major FPS titles and change the whole landscape of the argument at hand would be an assumption. What I am doing is looking at the facts and leaving everything else, inluding liscensees we don't know about for ALL engines, out of it.

Then that's an assumption. Because two RPGs have announced that they're licensing Source, doesn't mean that all licensees of source will be RPGs. That's just asinine.

We do have an idea of the competition. Doom3 has atleast 5 developers liscensing the engine for major FPS titles, leaving out the speculation on liscensees we don't know about. I'm not arguing in favor of the Farcry engine.

Name the 5.

Yes, it is. The reasons why Source is behind are not relevant, the fact remains it is behind. Developers will liscense an engine depending on the state it is in, not the particular reasons it is in that state.

Subjective. Source being "behind" is not a fact. It's your opinion.

We are talking about games being liscensed today and will hit the market in a matter of years.

Licensees that will continue to use code drops from the licensor during that time. Look ma! Engine upgrades! Do you seriously believe that anyone starting development today will stick with the engine as-is?

What is considered low end today is irrelevant to such games. And it bears mentioning once more, the system specs for hl2 and Doom3 are virtually identical.

No, it's not irrelevant. It's the market. You write games to sell. To the market.

It can. And once more, we are talking about games that won't hit shelves for a year atleast, which means not only the majority can run it, but there won't be many gaming systems out there that can't.

That shows quite a vast lack of knowledge about the gaming market.

=\ I never said people weren't going to buy the game. Don't argue against points I havn't even made, you are just wasting my time and yours. And it's not a weak argument. A unified lighting system isn't some superficial topping on the cake. It is the new revolution in gaming. It is the way future FPS will be rendered, and wether an engine has this feature is a huge determining factor as to wether it will be liscensed for many future games.

I'm fed up with this. Prove it. I'm not going to take your word for it.

Neither do you. thats the point. We have no idea what they will do, so we must leave it out of the argument and only look at the facts.

Then don't bring it up.

 

[Devilphish]

Just major FPS titles are you talking about? seriously I haven't heard of any game coming out that's going to use the D3 engine I don't know where you get your information from and it's certainely not making sense.

How about Quake4 and RTCW2, to name a few.

And you say Source doesn't compete, doesn't compete against what? against who? against D3? against imaginary future 3D FPS games? who are these "heavy hitters" you're talking about?

I'm not talking agmes, I'm talking engines. Source can't compete in the next era because it's rendering technology is too far behind. Doom3 technology will no doubt dominate the next generation, just as Quake3 technology dominated the last generation, and Quake2 technology dominated before that. Do you not see a pattern developing here? Is there any reason to believe the pattern will be broken? No, there is only evidence to the contrary. How many developers have liscensed Source that we know about? 2 RPG developers. How many developers have liscensed Doom3 technology that we know about? 5 FPS developers, some of them the biggest names in the biz. Now, given id's past engines and the facts asthey are now, is it any mystery which engine will dominate this next generation of FPS gaming? It shouldn't be.

OH and FYI Valve porting CS to Source is relevant because you're talking about competition. So why don't you take your own advice and stop "changing the topic of discussion in order to evade the point".

ATM I'm talking about engines competing with engines for future games. Valve deciding to take CS into Source has nothing to do with that discussion.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

How about Quake4 and RTCW2, to name a few.

That's two. Name five

Oh, and your straw man about Quake 3 licensees is pointless. Valve had no engine to license out, and the other major licensor (Epic) had just about as many licensees during that period.

 

[Asuka]

Good post.

 

[ShinRa]

Unreal3 is not the next evolution, doom 3 was because it changed the way games are built. Unreal 3 seems to be like a beefed up Doom 3 engine. I expect the Doom 3 engine in 2006 to be able to do everything the Unreal 3 engine can. As of right now the Doom 3 engine can do 90% of the stuff the Unreal 3 engine is able to do. Epic like allways is one step behind ID and just ends up building a similar engine but then uses higher resolution textures and more polys to make it look better and fool people into thinking it is more advanced tech.

I love when people make up percentages and numbers, and when they think they know companies like they work for them.

 

[Devilphish]

You're not stating facts at all. You're stating opinions. You can not state that Valve won't get any major FPS licensees, and that they'll all flock to Doom. That's pure speculation.

It's a prediction based on and backed up by facts.

No, that just the way you see it.

You would have to be incredibly unaware to not see the change in direction in games. Just to get this straight, are you actually arguing that unified lighting systems will not very soon become standard? Are you actually arguing lightmaps will still be standard over the next few years?

Then that's an assumption. Because two RPGs have announced that they're licensing Source, doesn't mean that all licensees of source will be RPGs. That's just asinine.

I havn't assumed they are all RPGs. What I have done is refuse to assume anything and only look at facts. We don't know what any supposed unnanounced game is, therefore leave assumption of anykind at the door and only look at facts. Don't assume they are RPGs, don't assume they aren't. Just look at the facts, and the facts are that only RPGs have been announced on Source.

Name the 5.

Raven Software, Splash Damage, Human Head, Nerve Software, The name of the fith elludes me but the game being developed is called Abduction.

Subjective. Source being "behind" is not a fact. It's your opinion.

Gaming technology has continually moved forward since the beginning, using tracks and hacks and then adandoning those tricks for new and better methods. A unified lighting system is the new and better way to light the gaming world, therefore anything which uses the older method is behind.

I'm fed up with this. Prove it. I'm not going to take your word for it.

All that should be required for proof is to look at current and upcoming game trends. You can see game deve;lopers are abandoning lightmaps in favor of a UL system, and therefore setting a new standard. Anything that is not up to par with this new standard will be left in the dust. Thats the way it has always been and thats the way it will continue to be.

Then don't bring it up.

You brought up the unannounced titles, not me. I leave speculation at the door and look at the facts.

 

[ShinRa]

devil, lightmaps fit for what hl2 is trying to do. the engine still supports full dynamic lighting and shadowing. as for everything else your talking about, while i cant argue because im not knowledged in this area, sounds like pure speculation and doom 3 fanboy-ism.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

It's a prediction based on and backed up by facts.

Please provide some of these "facts" that you keep mentioning. You haven't shown any yet.



You would have to be incredibly unaware to not see the change in direction in games. Just to get this straight, are you actually arguing that unified lighting systems will not very soon become standard? Are you actually arguing lightmaps will still be standard over the next few years?



I havn't assumed they are all RPGs. What I have done is refuse to assume anything and only look at facts. We don't know what any supposed unnanounced game is, therefore leave assumption of anykind at the door and only look at facts. Don't assume they are RPGs, don't assume they aren't. Just look at the facts, and the facts are that only RPGs have been announced on Source.



Raven Software, Splash Damage, Human Head, Nerve Software, The name of the fith elludes me but the game being developed is called Abduction.



Gaming technology has continually moved forward since the beginning, using tracks and hacks and then adandoning those tricks for new and better methods. A unified lighting system is the new and better way to light the gaming world, therefore anything which uses the older method is behind.[/quote]

No, and if you read my previous posts, you'll see that I even stated that.

All that should be required for proof is to look at current and upcoming game trends. You can see game deve;lopers are abandoning lightmaps in favor of a UL system, and therefore setting a new standard. Anything that is not up to par with this new standard will be left in the dust. Thats the way it has always been and thats the way it will continue to be.

Sorry, that doesn't prove anything. Prove that people aren't going to license Source for FPS games.

You brought up the unannounced titles, not me. I leave speculation at the door and look at the facts.

Nice try, kiddo.

Source is the last engine of the last generation, it will not compete in the next generation, which we are entering right this moment, without major fundamental changes that are very unlikely to take place within the next year or two.

That's the quote I replied to. You claimed that Valve were unlikely to add any new tech within the next couple of years. I said you couldn't possibly know what they were going to do. Then you said "neither do you", so I said "don't bring it up then"

Don't try and turn it around.


Bottom line - Valve have said that it's entirely possible for a modder to implement full dynamic lighting. The engine is capable of it. Half-Life 2 wasn't written with it in mind, because Valve chose not to. That's a fact.

Source has the ability to use UL. Licensees can make use of that ability.

Simple enough?

 

[ShinRa]

not to mention valve has said through steam they plan to add 64 bit support, hdr64 support, and a ton of other features.

 

[Onions]

surprisingly, and this may shock you, i'd rather play a game that was great fun and looked like pi on a monday morning than a game that was as much fun as munro deleting a database and looked superb. i won't miss dynamic lighting in hl2, and i doubt you will either, so fux it

 

[Devilphish]

devil, lightmaps fit for what hl2 is trying to do. the engine still supports full dynamic lighting and shadowing. as for everything else your talking about, while i cant argue because im not knowledged in this area, sounds like pure speculation and doom 3 fanboy-ism.

I'm not arguing that lightmaps are wrong for HL2. It is the best solution for HL2 at the time being. But for future games there will be no need for lightmaps. Once we firmly plant ourselves in the next generation, lightmaps will be a thing of the past. And Source certainly does not feature an untapped unified lighting system. I am not a fanboy of anygame. Just because I am aware of the advances in the Doom3 engine does not mean I am a Doom3 fanboy. I look at the information in an unbaised light. I like both HL2 and Doom3, but I'm not so blinded by my love for either game that I can't look at information objectively.

Please provide some of these "facts" that you keep mentioning. You haven't shown any yet.

Fact number one: Future games will feature a unified lighting system rather than lightmap systems.

Fact number two: Source does not have a unified lighting system, while other engines which are just as advanced in all other respects, do feature a unified lighting system. There are currently no known plans by Valve to update Source with a unified lighting system in th enear future.

Fact number three: The only games we are aware of to liscense Source are two not so high-profile RPGs.

Fact number four: The only games we know have liscensed the Doom3 engine are 5 FPS, 2 of which are very high profile titles and 3 of the developers are very hgih profile developers.

All of these facts and others leade to the only logical conclusion, that Source will not be the dominate technology in the next generation, and that Doom3 will. This is the only logical conclusion one can reach when looking at the facts.

That's the quote I replied to. You claimed that Valve were unlikely to add any new tech within the next couple of years. I said you couldn't possibly know what they were going to d

This is only more opportunity for assumption, just like the supposed unannounced Source titles. We don't know what they will do, and they have not announced any plans to upgrade to a unified lighting system. We must not assume they will, and we must not assume they won't. We must operate without assumption and only look at the facts. The facts are thus: Source does not have a unified lighting system, and Valve have not announced plans to put one in.

Bottom line - Valve have said that it's entirely possible for a modder to implement full dynamic lighting. The engine is capable of it. Half-Life 2 wasn't written with it in mind, because Valve chose not to. That's a fact.

ANY engine is capable of it. The Quak2 enbgine was capable of it. just because an engine can be heavily modified to support a unified lighting system does not mean it can compete with engines that already have a unified lighting system. The Quake2 engine can't compete with the Doom3 engine, despite it's ability to be upgraded. IF Valve puts in a unified lighting system, then we can talk about Source competing. But we have no reason to believe this will happen any time soon, so it is useless speculation with no importance in this argument.

Source has the ability to use UL. Licensees can make use of that ability.

It is a fact that Source can be updated to a unified lighting system, and it is a fact liscensees can do this. But there are already other engines designed around a unified lighting system and have no drawbacks compared to Source for them to liscense, therefore there is no incentive for them to liscense Source and upgrade it themselves when they can liscense an already modern engine. Do you think we will see developers continuing to liscense the quake3 engine and updating it with a unified lighting system? No. It would be better to just liscense Doom3 wouldn't it? Yes. Same goes for Source.

Simple enough?

 

[Gunner]

How about Quake4 and RTCW2, to name a few.

Hmmm Quake IV and RTCW2 are property of ID software so it's only logical that they would use their own engine you nitwit.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

All of these facts and others leade to the only logical conclusion, that Source will not be the dominate technology in the next generation, and that Doom3 will. This is the only logical conclusion one can reach when looking at the facts.

I'm sorry? When did this turn into a Doom 3 vs Source argument? Frankly, I couldn't give a flying Munro which one gets more licensees.

This is only more opportunity for assumption, just like the supposed unannounced Source titles. We don't know what they will do, and they have not announced any plans to upgrade to a unified lighting system. We must not assume they will, and we must not assume they won't. We must operate without assumption and only look at the facts. The facts are thus: Source does not have a unified lighting system, and Valve have not announced plans to put one in.

And to then draw conclusions from that is foolish.

id haven't announced plans to put HDR in Doom 3. Therefore, we must assume that they never will.

That's exactly what you're doing.

ANY engine is capable of it. The Quak2 enbgine was capable of it. just because an engine can be heavily modified to support a unified lighting system does not mean it can compete with engines that already have a unified lighting system.

Slow down there, boyo.

Heavily modified? No no no. Valve said that a mod could do it. As has been pointed out (and ignored by you) the engine does support dynamic lighting. A mod could use purely dynamic lighting - that's UL. Ergo, the engine is capable of supporting UL.

The Quake2 engine can't compete with the Doom3 engine, despite it's ability to be upgraded.

Quake 2 had UL added after the source was released. Not the same thing at all.

IF Valve puts in a unified lighting system, then we can talk about Source competing.

Are you being deliberately ignorant? The. Engine. Already. Supports. Unified. Lighting.

But we have no reason to believe this will happen any time soon, so it is useless speculation with no importance in this argument.

See above. In fact, read it twice, just to make sure that you get it.

It is a fact that Source can be updated to a unified lighting system, and it is a fact liscensees can do this.

See above. Again.

But there are already other engines designed around a unified lighting system and have no drawbacks compared to Source for them to liscense, therefore there is no incentive for them to liscense Source and upgrade it themselves when they can liscense an already modern engine.

Subjective. You pick the engine that suits your needs. As was already discussed, Valve chose not to use UL because their style of game didn't require it.

Do you think we will see developers continuing to liscense the quake3 engine and updating it with a unified lighting system?

Quite possibly, yes. Much like what was done with Splinter Cell on the Unreal engine. And Deus Ex 2. Sometimes, licensees replace the renderer....

No.

Don't presume to answer questions for me. Thanks.

It would be better to just liscense Doom3 wouldn't it?

No. There's so many other factors that you're ignoring. Cost, tools, staff experience etc. There's a lot of good reasons that a developer may choose to continue using Q3 and modify the renderer.

Yes.

Oops. You did it again.

Same goes for Source.

See above.

Simple enough?

Undeniably simple.

 

[Devilphish]

Doesn't matter, they are liscensing out their engine to Raven and whoever it is that is developing RTCW2. Well, I'm out of time for now. It's been interesting. The unwraveling of time will no-doubt prove me right. id's engines have always been and will continue to be masterpieces and the major driving force of each generation. Hell, the release of id's engines have defined the generations. You should know how it goes by now.

EDIT: No, Source does not have UL in it right now. Yes it has dynamic lighting, and yes a modder can put all dynamic lights into a map. No, that would not be a unified lighting system producing DOom3 type lighting. No, all shadows would not be correct. No, dynamic objects would not selfshadow and cast shadows onto other dynamic objects. You have to accept the fact, Source has a very primitive lighting system and shadowing system compared to Doom3. It's Quake3 ear stuff.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Doesn't matter, they are liscensing out their engine to Raven and whoever it is that is developing RTCW2. Well, I'm out of time for now. It's been interesting. The unwraveling of time will no-doubt prove me right. id's engines have always been and will continue to be masterpieces and the major driving force of each generation. Hell, the release of id's engines have defined the generations. You should know how it goes by now.

And once, again, failing to address any of the salient points. I applaud you.

EDIT: No, Source does not have UL in it right now. Yes it has dynamic lighting, and yes a modder can put all dynamic lights into a map. No, that would not be a unified lighting system producing DOom3 type lighting. No, all shadows would not be correct. No, dynamic objects would not selfshadow and cast shadows onto other dynamic objects.

and your source for this is?

You have to accept the fact, Source has a very primitive lighting system and shadowing system compared to Doom3. It's Quake3 ear stuff.

As used by the game Half-Life 2, it uses a method of lighting that is static and baked. "Primitive" is the wrong word. It also goes far beyond Quake 3. But hey, you've already left. Bye!

 

[EVIL]

Fact number two: Source does not have a unified lighting system, while other engines which are just as advanced in all other respects, do feature a unified lighting system. There are currently no known plans by Valve to update Source with a unified lighting system in th enear future.

Source has UL (EDIT: stated as fact, my fault)

Fact number three: The only games we are aware of to liscense Source are two not so high-profile RPGs.

Known since 2003

Fact number four: The only games we know have liscensed the Doom3 engine are 5 FPS, 2 of which are very high profile titles and 3 of the developers are very hgih profile developers.

known since 2000

Simple enough?

 

[Onions]

who cares? its only lighting

 

[SidewinderX]

EDIT: No, Source does not have UL in it right now. Yes it has dynamic lighting, and yes a modder can put all dynamic lights into a map. No, that would not be a unified lighting system producing DOom3 type lighting. No, all shadows would not be correct. No, dynamic objects would not selfshadow and cast shadows onto other dynamic objects. You have to accept the fact, Source has a very primitive lighting system and shadowing system compared to Doom3. It's Quake3 ear stuff.

anyway, i'd jsut like to add that Evolution is defined as "the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time"

So if all engine, in 3 or 4 years, have unified lighting, then yes, it will have been an evolution.

So UE3 can't be an evolution, as it's not all of the population. Mutation, yes. And mutation is a force behind evolution....

 

[Gunner]

who cares? its only lighting

It appears to be a matter of life and death to this man...

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

No, the only thing that's important to him is that Doom 3 has more licensees than Source.

That's all this was - Doom 3 vs Source. Notice the lack of any "other engines" that he frequently mentioned? How every single post was about Doom 3, and how it was better than Source? Seen it before, we'll see it again.

He just needs the attention, bless him.

 

[EVIL]

It appears to be a matter of life and death to this man...

I wouldnt even commented if there wasn't a gun in my neck *auch* "you don't have to shove it in my spinal cord .. SJEESH"

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

btw - in case none of you had realised, devilphish is none other than our dear friend, EvilEwok 2.0, the well-known Doom 3 fanboi and serial arguer.

 

[Gunner]

btw - in case none of you had realised, devilphish is none other than our dear friend, EvilEwok 2.0, the well-known Doom 3 fanboi and serial arguer.

Well well, I see what he was trying to do now.

So this was a another D3 vs HL2 thread in disguise!

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Yep. It's what he does. He hijacks a convenient thread, and starts his argument. He initially comes across as knowledgeable, but on closer in spection, his "facts" tend to be strongly-presented opinions or speculation.
If there's a point which he can't argue against or deny, he just ignores it.
He attempts to twist what you've said by arguing against points you haven't made.
He always loses and quits in the same way.
He's been banned numerous times.

 

[^Ben]

Hot digidy damn!

Wel we didnt see that one coming (yeh right)

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

btw - in case none of you had realised, devilphish is none other than our dear friend, EvilEwok 2.0, the well-known Doom 3 fanboi and serial arguer.

I thought I recognised his posts from somewhere....

 

[Brian Damage]

btw - in case none of you had realised, devilphish is none other than our dear friend, EvilEwok 2.0, the well-known Doom 3 fanboi and serial arguer.

Bloody hell! I made a guess at that weeks ago. I think I even PM'd the guess to a mod... err... probably Fenric, if memory serves...

Never thought I got it right...

 

[Eywanadi]

I love when people make up percentages and numbers, and when they think they know companies like they work for them.

All I said was the Doom3 engine is 90% of the way to what was shown in the Unreal3 engine movie at E3. Sure it may not be exactly 90% but it is close. The only things U3 has that D3 does not is virtual displasment mapping, multiple cube maps for soft shadow effects (BTW it is a hack and only one shadow from that light can be soft shadowed and even then it has to be a 2d image and not a 3d object.) and HDR lighting ... but that may be allready be in D3.

Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way games are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?

 

[kidrock450]

All I said was the Doom3 engine is 90% of the way to what was shown in the Unreal3 engine movie at E3. Sure it may not be exactly 90% but it is close. The only things U3 has that D3 does not is virtual displasment mapping, multiple cube maps for soft shadow effects (BTW it is a hack and only one shadow from that light can be soft shadowed and even then it has to be a 2d image and not a 3d object.) and HDR lighting ... but that may be allready be in D3.

Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way games are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?

I dont think this debate(arguement?) would be going on if the game was released last year...For me I think Source is still a good engine but definetly not top of the line. If it were released last year before Far Cry and all the new Doom3 footage we (well I) would have been a little more pleased with the engine. Just my honest opinion...flame away.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

All I said was the Doom3 engine is 90% of the way to what was shown in the Unreal3 engine movie at E3. Sure it may not be exactly 90% but it is close. The only things U3 has that D3 does not is virtual displasment mapping, multiple cube maps for soft shadow effects (BTW it is a hack and only one shadow from that light can be soft shadowed and even then it has to be a 2d image and not a 3d object.) and HDR lighting ... but that may be allready be in D3.

Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way games are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?

I'd just like to modify your statement a bit here...


Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way engines are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?

In terms of gameplay, Half-Life beat anything that id have ever done. Half-Life redefined the FPS genre.

 

[PvtRyan]

Devilphish, Evil Ewok, whatever your name is, can you show me what's so special about the unified lighting system of Doom 3? Basically, all it does is dump lightmaps and bruteforce per pixel lights. So all Source has to do, is dump lightmaps and implement per pixel lights and switch from projected shadows to the per pixel shadows.
This isn't blind fanboyism, it's just plain true, there's no reason why Valve wouldn't be able to do this.

Stop promoting UL like it's the best thing since sliced bread, it's not a brilliant secret in a conspiracy only Epic and id know of.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

PvtRyan:

Don't bother. He's a troll.

 

[PvtRyan]

PvtRyan:

Don't bother. He's a troll.

No, a troll just likes to piss people off, I think this one actually believes everything he says.

 

[Eywanadi]

I'd just like to modify your statement a bit here...


Face it people ID software was the company that was inovative and re-defined the way engines are built not Epic not Valve. It has allways been this way so is anyone really surprised that it happened again?

In terms of gameplay, Half-Life beat anything that id have ever done. Half-Life redefined the FPS genre.

Yes you are 100% right, I worded it wrong.

 

[IchI]

Tbh, I am on Devilphish's side. Pi Mu Rho is totally missing his point.

Also I am getting pritty sick of everyone bumbing out the Source engine. Its basiclly HL1 with better textures and loads of small features put together. The main problem with the Source engine is the fact that it still uses textured lighting. I can proberly see it been the last game to use it as well.

Just to mention something, HL2 was never about pimped out graphics it was about gameplay. They could have done this and that blah blah blah but they didn;t want to to nor did they need too. But this doesn't mean that the engine still isn't crap in terms of eye candy. The End...

HL2 will be good, but the engine is the end of its kinda. FACE IT!

 

[Gunner]

HL2 will be good, but the engine is the end of its kinda. FACE IT!

omfgz0r not again... here face this!

 

[EVIL]

UL the way of the future huh? what if somehow everyone desides to use VOXELS :O