5punk

Sequel to Quake 2?! UTTER MADNESS!


/will buy a copy

Nickface wrote:/will buy a copy

this

looks alot like teh Q3 engine

didn't like teh q3 engine, source easily beats it

wyrd wrote:looks alot like teh Q3 engine

didn't like teh q3 engine, source easily beats it

ERR. No.. I think it won't be the Q3 Engine.. Really.


It's the Doom III engine.

Grimmie wrote:It's the Doom III engine.

didn't like teh d3 engine, source easily beats it

Jinxx wrote:

Grimmie wrote:It's the Doom III engine.

didn't like teh d3 engine, source easily beats it

Ah know zees.

i would disagree on the D3 Vs. Source Vs. FarCry engine argument, no matter what your lean was.


D3 = very good at being very pretty in enclosed spaces
Source = not quite as pretty, but very good at doing large and small spaces pretty well, also entirely moddable to last many years.
farcry = less pretty still, but very good at large, massively detailed natural enviroments.

the fact is doom3 was ugly because it was pitch black the entire game.

Source and FarCry were used in better ways, but the doom3 engine is vastly more powerful and better looking.

deject wrote:the fact is doom3 was ugly because it was pitch black the entire game.

Source and FarCry were used in better ways, but the doom3 engine is vastly more powerful and better looking.

i'm afraid i have to disagree on that one, doom3 is actually very pretty, just an utterly shit game.

the engine is, (from what i've seen) great in enclosed spaces and industrial lighting. but massively underpowered in natural light

Source's graphics can be improved, even though they rock atm.

And I fear that Q4 will be like DOOM III.. clinging to a name.
Doom III was just another first person shooter.

i think Q4 might work, the quake series almosy had a storyline, somewhere.

Doom never did.

well, I will just say that the real-time lighting of Doom3 will trump Source's lightmapping when we get the right hardware. Hopefully Q4 will be a better game than D3...

I disagree, Source was made very modular indeed, take for example the HDR that they're adding in.

As soon as hardware can support full dynamic lighting properly, i'm sure it'll be added.


Unfortunately i'm pretty sure the D3 engine is as much as we get.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:I disagree, Source was made very modular indeed, take for example the HDR that they're adding in.

As soon as hardware can support full dynamic lighting properly, i'm sure it'll be added.


Unfortunately i'm pretty sure the D3 engine is as much as we get.

while this may be true, it is not currently using full dynamic ligiting, and probably won't by the time Q4 comes out.

this is true, and do you not think that fully dyn lighting is a little, well needless?

i mean, look around you, what is currently lighted that couldn't be hard-coded into the world?

shadows and suchlike stay constant in constant lighting, stuff doesn't need to be lighted dynamically unless it's in motion, or reflecting stuff.

that covers, probably 70% of stuff.

that leaves a lot of little non-interactive things, and stuff that's not affected by your presense (such as higher windows)

then there's the intereractive stuff that should be dynamically lighted.


90% of the time, only your shadow and reflection (and any other characters') will be affecting stuff. given that shadows are cheap to render and dynamic even in HL2 (expect from yourself, well get to that soon)

so, all we're really looking for is dynamic lighting on mostly unimportant objects, for example, look at your TV, what's reflecting in it? move one of those things, send that info to the TV, then send the updated TV view to anything reflecting the TV, send those items' reflections to everything reflected on or by them. now remember to apply the correct distortion and filtering

all in, in any given space, moving something 1", will result in hundreds of changes and thousands of calculations.

now move 2 characters around a room, such as a large bedroom, one picking up a glass of water and drinking a little.


also remember, currently in most* FPS games, you're a view and 2 arms, to give geniune reflections and shadows, you'd need a full body, and once you look down, that body has to be fully modeled, mapped and physically dynamic.




Other than that, genuine fully dynamic lighting is wonderful.


Personally, i'd like my CPU time to go to making the game play well and look pretty good.



*it seems possible in Q3 and D3** and UT03/4 that you have a proper char model

** though, only for reflection's sake, and i'm not sure how or if these are truely dynamic

dude, settle down lol...


what you're saying is true for the most part, and I'd rather have a screen that allows me to use my perhiphiral vision in the game, instead of missing that terrorist behind the box that I would have seen in real life.


I'm just saying that currently, the Domm 3 engine is capable of more realistic graphics than Source.


that said, I think the overall graphics in HL2 are better than D3 because of the better attention to detail, better looking environments, and better textures. I mean it's easy to design a game where it's almost always pitch black.

pfft, i was mostly trying to cover it in some detail, rather than shallow bitching.

and yeah, D3 is prettier and has cool shit going off, but is hugely underpowered in many ways compared to the source engine, maining because it (the d3 engine) is so powerful.


hl2 will run on near anything, very well on any semi modern graphics cards.

D3 on the other hand, is crippled largely due to it's hardware needs.

Am I the only person who prefers to have a good storyline and good gameplay, rather than fancy shadows?

Anyone?

I feel so alone

I'm a big fan of the story and gameplay, far more important than prettiness