Quake 4 is 'everything' Doom3 should have been

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: you2
It was ok but the id engine just kind of sucks. It has good graphics (esp lightng) but the user interface just kind of sucks - you're spinning around - your cursor passes intfront an interactive (or person) and arrrggggg you can't fire. There are other minor issues like that. The other thing I really dislike (specific about q4) is the artifical layout. You can jump on some boxes but not others (i.e., artificial corridor blocking); doors lock and unlock as needed to drive you in a particular direction and so on. While a little of this is ok i guess the way they did it in q4 (esp with the boxes was so dang artificial it was (in a few places) not obvious which way you can (or should go). Aha there's a stack of boxes - oh wait - you can't jump over the ledge - your not allowed to climb boxes - what - these are magical climbing boxes. Bleh.

I really liked far cry.

you probably played it before the patch[es]. There is nothing wrong with the D3 engine The Q4 interface is fine.

As to boxes blocking your way . . . do you prefer 'invisible walls' or "You cannot Pass, turn back" . . . HL2 sufferes from the same 'limitation' . . . FPSes are LINEAR. . . . . try a RPG . . . i'd suggest Oblivion with the no-boundries edit.

And you prefered FC's idiotic plot, giant plot-holes, amateur voice acting and 'no anytime save' and hard-as-hell Psychic enemies that can shoot the eye of a bug at 1 mile?

guess you like tropical foilage and pretty water.



FC does have good gameplay . . . but then so does Q4.

I totally agree with the comments about FC... It had great potential, superb graphics, great engine... But it just lacked in so many areas... Storyline, AI (either too good or too stupid) and the weapon sounds were pretty bad...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I finished Quake 4 twice.

same.

Ran through it the second time after I got the new rig. 1600x1200 4xAA, 16AF pegged at the monitor refresh rate

so beautiful.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Um... didn't D3 come out before source? So why is source considered out of date when its um... newer?

Because the doom 3 engine uses NO static lights. Everything is dynamic. Source is still using statically lighted levels with dynamic lights added for some objects...which makes the lighting look very artificial.

The doom3 engine is the first of the next generation graphics engines (Unreal 2k7 is the next one). Source is one of the best engines out there of the PREVIOUS generation.

I think Source looks great although I found the physics in HL2 more impressive than the graphics. D3 is indeed far superior though...by an order of magnitude.

 

[KeithTalent]

Woohoo, great thread! I just bought Q4, way to get me hyped up for it

 

[apoppin]

i guess we'll just have to leave it that PseudoKnight is either blind or tolerates an out of focus LCD if he can't SEE the difference between aging Source and the more capable D3 engine . . . perhaps on DX8 HW it looks similar.

. . . sadly he made a long post but said nothing of substance to demonstrate that Source was even in the same league as D3.



. . . even more sadly, i am nearing the End of the game ... lining up the lasers [do we HAVE to have silly "Puzzles"?]
. . . . OTHER than that it is a very solid fps-experience
:thumbsup:

any 'word' on an expansion' pack for Q4 . . . seems about the 'right' time.

 

[CrystalBay]

Yeah, that laser puzzle had me pulling my hairs for a while...

 

[BFG10K]

Doom 3 was crap IMHO,overhyped,

Overhyped? Most people seem to hate it.

I personally think it's very underrated.

Source is not old. In fact, the Doom III engine is slightly older if you want to base it on release dates.

Technology-wise it's a bit old. It's a good engine, no doubts there but on a technical level it's inferior to the likes of Doom 3 and Far Cry which came out the same year.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Doom 3 was crap IMHO,overhyped,

Overhyped? Most people seem to hate it.

I personally think it's very underrated.

I think by overhyped he means that even before release it was widespread that is was going to be the best fps ever since the first 2 were so revolutionary. There's a fine line between "overhyped" and "overrated", and I think you took it to mean overrated.

All in all it depends upon preference methinks. I could care less about shadows TBH, and so far the character models in source have been much more appealing to me then the D3 engine. I know that's not just a graphics thing but there is a correlation.

 

[PseudoKnight]

YAWN... It looks like wannabeknight (actual translation of his handle) tried to offer a rebuttal. Wow, simply amazing at how someone can use so many words, yet say so little...

You say that as if you think I don't know the actual translation of my name, which is quite intentional. But your translation is wrong. It's not "wannabe". It's "fake" or "false". You can't use the name I picked for myself against me unless it was an unoriginal name like ArchAngel... oh snap! What's amusing is that you thought I said so little when you literally said very little. All you offered was an opinion in the form of a couple short phrases. I offered a factual correction to a statement apoppin made earlier.

i guess we'll just have to leave it that PseudoKnight is either blind or tolerates an out of focus LCD if he can't SEE the difference between aging Source and the more capable D3 engine . . . perhaps on DX8 HW it looks similar.

I use a CRT, I'm not blind, and I use DX9 in-game. Source and D3 are relatively similar in age, and since they're both in the same time and space, they're both aging. Yes, I can see the difference between the engines. That's my partially my point.

. . . sadly he made a long post but said nothing of substance to demonstrate that Source was even in the same league as D3.

First of all, I DIRECTLY demonstrated why what you said about the Source engine was simply not true. Furthermore, I am not comparing the two engines, you are. They were both designed with different intentions and are equally valid engines for new games this generation. I'm a huge fan of John Carmack and what he has accomplished, but I will not diminish Source because they chose higher performance over frivalous shadows. It's purely design decisions. Instead of denigrating me like some politician in a democratic race, why don't you stick to the issues.

 

[Mem]

I personally think it's very underrated.

I found it boring,gameplay is the key to any game not graphics,with Quake 4 I found it more enjoyable and fun,I felt part of a team,in Doom 3 it was hmm dark and boring,I could get that watching paint dry in the dark ; .

 

[apoppin]

howdy everyone . . .

i have been PLAYing Q4 . . . just taking a 'break' when the action gets too intense. :Q

[in the Finale tower that links the doohickey to the core . . . and the enemies are getting THICK . . . i better REload a save and keep my two teammates alive [the doc and the tech].

Anyway, PseudoKnight, i think you are taking this far more seriously than i am . . . you ADMIT:

I will not diminish Source because they chose higher performance over frivalous shadows

And you are just like Ross' commercials . . . you compare the two Engines and then say: 'there's no comparison'.
:roll:



and you 'demonstrated' nothing. . . . those "frivolous shadows" you dismiss [coincidently what Source 'lacks'] ARE important. Turn on that dinky flashlight in HL2's Ep1 and watch . . . nothing . . . no interactive shadows . . . it ruins immersion [if that is possible in Ep1 . . . it is on D3's level without the cheap 'Boos']
:thumbsdown:

Since you are agreeing with Archangel and me that Source sacrificed Shadows and lighting for Performance . . . that it IS visually INFERIOR . . . what is left to say?


anyway, what about a Q4 X-pack?
:heart:


D3 was OVERhyped for YEARS before its release. it even garnered good EARLY reviews - just because of the inpressive gfx . . . PLAYing it was horribly banal . . . there was [unlike Q4] Zero variety and mindnumbingly boring spawning of monsters behind you and the kind of 'scares' - repeated endlessly - in B- cheapass horror movies.

Worst of all, the End Boss was easy . . . EASY . . . with an UNbalanced weapon [kill . . . kill . . . kill . . . kill . . . kill . . . kill . . . use us] that made Hell WAay too easy. Q4 is not easy . . . the Enemies exhibit some form of 'team AI' . . . and even your guys stay OUT of the way.

Hl2 was OK but Ep1 suffers from lack of variety 'one-weapon fits all' for far too long . . . i can't bring myelf to finish it [maybe after B&W2 if nothing else gets released] . . .

 

[Maximilian]

Doom III was what it was intended to be, however what it was intended to be wasent what we wanted.

 

[Paratus]

Well I will compare them:

While I admit Doom3 has the superiour lighting tech I can't help but say the HL2/Lost Coast just looked more "real" to me. I think it was the combination of physics, excellent character modeling, and hi res textures. I remember looking closely at some of the rooms in HL2 and thinking I was almost looking at a picture. I never got that from D3. The textures were pretty bad in some spots and the charcter modeling was overly plasticy.

Basically I keep coming back to the fact, (i.e. my opinion ) that Valve did a better job spending system resources where it counted in making the world "real" than D3 did.

That being said I still have to play Q4 as it's sitting in its box waiting for me to finish Far Cry. However I'm really looking forward to playing it after some of the positive remarks in this thread.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Well I will compare them:

While I admit Doom3 has the superiour lighting tech I can't help but say the HL2/Lost Coast just looked more "real" to me. I think it was the combination of physics, excellent character modeling, and hi res textures. I remember looking closely at some of the rooms in HL2 and thinking I was almost looking at a picture. I never got that from D3. The textures were pretty bad in some spots and the charcter modeling was overly plasticy.

Basically I keep coming back to the fact, (i.e. my opinion ) that Valve did a better job spending system resources where it counted in making the world "real" than D3 did.

That being said I still have to play Q4 as it's sitting in its box waiting for me to finish Far Cry. However I'm really looking forward to playing it after some of the positive remarks in this thread.

back from a break . . . fighting the Big Guy Outdors [with the jetpacks . . . afterlinking the final tower].
:Q

ANYway . ..we are talking ENGINES. , , , there is NO doubt that the Artists at Valve are much better . . .

anyway Q4 is MUCH nicer than D3 . . . it's gfx are a year newer . . . .
compare HL's 2nd Generation [LC/Ep1] with D3's 2nd gen [Q4] . . . and D3 is easily outstripping Source. AND, afaik, ET:QW is gonna be even 'more so' . . . while Ep2 isn't going to be much more than Ep1 unless they 'gut' Source.

e.g. take Oblivion's Gamebyro Engine . . . although the Foilage and trees are OUTstanding, the rest is "meh" in the vanilla game . . . BUT . . . IF your rig is capable, add the hi res packs that are much more detailed than HL's LC and the Chars come to 'life'. .. . add the landscape texture packs and you can even make the water look better than FC's. . . . it is barely recognizable is is so improved. . . . the Engine can 'handle' it.

OTOH, you can add NOthing to Source - no matter how powerful your rig - except perhaps higher res character packs that look little better than the origiinal . . . and there are still NO interactive shadows and lighting . . .
. . . try moving your torch in Oblivion and watch the interplay of multiple lighting sources with incredible shadows
:thumbsup:

Source is really showing its 'age' . . .

 

[Paratus]

Good points. I guess we're in agreement then.

What I'm going to take out of this is that the D3 engine is the more capable tool but that it requires more than just a good tool to make a great looking game.

It sure takes more than a great engine to make a fun game!

 

[Nightmare225]

Source is a fully upgradeable, modular engine that can be stripped down and upgraded accordingly for games. Valve has stated that they may never make another engine again because it's so upgradeable. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Engine and then find out how much of it's "age" Source is really showing.

And here's some self-shadowing, dynamic lighting and shadowing for all of you who doubted Valve http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Tf2_pyro_crop.jpg

The bottom line is, Source will end up looking better down the line then D3 will look at it's peak.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225
Source is a fully upgradeable, modular engine that can be stripped down and upgraded accordingly for games. Valve has stated that they may never make another engine again because it's so upgradeable. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Engine and then find out how much of it's "age" Source is really showing.

And here's some self-shadowing, dynamic lighting and shadowing for all of you who doubted Valve http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Tf2_pyro_crop.jpg

The bottom line is, Source will end up looking better down the line then D3 will look at it's peak.

that's NOT what it says

Source is designed from the ground up to be highly modular. This allows for the easy upgrade and modification of certain features without breaking other areas of the engine, or breaking engine continuity . . . Entirely new features such as High Dynamic Range (HDR) Rendering have been shown to require developer input, however.

and from your same "source":

A new dynamic lighting and shadow mapping system is being developed for Source, replacing the somewhat limp existing system.

in other words, they are gonna "gut" it. . . .

thats what i said

. . . D3 Engine already has the L&S . .. . they also have the "upgradeability' . . . all engines do like Unreal's . . . all D3's need are more talented artists.

and i do believe all the curent engines have to be re-written completely for DX10 . . .

. . . just back to ay 'hi' . . . deep in the Core
[no, i am NOT playing continuously , , , , i have things to do that keep damn interrupting my game!] :disgust:

 

[Mogget]

Eh?

If we're judging entirely on technical aspects, surely the F.E.A.R. engine gives the D3 engine a good hiding? But I still think HL2 (and instalments) are better, because Source is so much more versatile. Anyway, didn't Quake 4 get average reviews? I played it for a few minutes and wasn't impressed at all. It felt just like Doom 3.

The Source engine has always looked better than D3. Yes, better lighting and shadows are present in D3, but that doesn't even begin to make up for the crippling 'fake' look of the engine. Honestly, look at games like Prey... they just look like Doom 3, and not in a good way. Don't get me wrong, I liked Doom 3, and I feel all the criticism is a little unfair, but saying the engine is all-round better than Source is a bit silly.

 

[0roo0roo]

heh yea the whole plastic look and bump map or whatever on top of low poly just didn't cut it. it was a strange combo of primitive barely hidden by fancy features. you get the feeling carmack stopped caring, he's too busy being mr spaceman these days.

 

[imported_Imp]

Finally picked up Quake 4 for $20, and wow is it a blast. Just finished a six hour session, and I am impressed. It is a run of the mill shooter, but the story is interesting (not novel good, but keeps you hooked). Graphics are superb, and sound isn't bad either.

I've run through FEAR, BIA: Earned in Blood, HL2 & Episode 1, Oblivion and GRAW this summer; I can honestly put Quake 4 in third behind Oblivion and GRAW. My system sucked so I only got to play HL2 two years after release, and maybe it was all the raving about it being the best shooter ever, but I didn't think it was all that. It did rock, but Episode 1 seemed better. Also, I thought FEAR was the sh!t when I played the demo, but after picking it up, it just didn't seem all that. Maybe I was too spoiled by GRAW (short + stalky models to super thin ). The Source engine actually looked better than FEAR.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Mogget
Eh?

If we're judging entirely on technical aspects, surely the F.E.A.R. engine gives the D3 engine a good hiding? But I still think HL2 (and instalments) are better, because Source is so much more versatile. Anyway, didn't Quake 4 get average reviews? I played it for a few minutes and wasn't impressed at all. It felt just like Doom 3.

The Source engine has always looked better than D3. Yes, better lighting and shadows are present in D3, but that doesn't even begin to make up for the crippling 'fake' look of the engine. Honestly, look at games like Prey... they just look like Doom 3, and not in a good way. Don't get me wrong, I liked Doom 3, and I feel all the criticism is a little unfair, but saying the engine is all-round better than Source is a bit silly.

silly . . . perhaps . . . but it's true . . . D3's engine is simply more 'capable' [that's what 'better' means]
and FEAR engine is nothing special - EXCEPT for the particle effects [and soft shadows, i guess] . . . . evidently another inefficient resource hogg compared to D3's Engine.

and the entire POINT of this thread is - despite the mediocre reviews, despite the 'look' - Quake 4 is EVERYTHING Doom3 should have been . . . a solid FPS.

and i am done. :Q


ok . . . criticism . . . the entire decent to the core reminded me of the build-up in SS2 to the showdown with Shodan . . . hard multiple enemies, that dark sense of despair and excitement . . . a "real build up" . . .

and then . . .

. . . too damn easy.

i guess i had too much Dark ammo left . . . those bosses fell WAaY too easily . . . almost as 'bad' as D3.

OTHER than that . . . i loved it!
:thumbsup:

solid 8.3/10

and of course the ending is ambiguous . . . needs an x-pack [wth don't they just nuke Straggos? . . . now]

of course Oblivion gets a 9.5/10 . . .
[over 1,000 hours for $50 can't be beat . . . and the mods are top-notch]

 

[PseudoKnight]

apoppin... you frackin' retard... EP2 has shadows lit by your flashlight. That's all that needs to be said in regards to your fallacious back-handed remark at Source in a thread that is otherwise about Quake 4. I never qualitatively compared the two engines like you're doing. Pointing out the differences is not the same thing. Source is a great, versatile engine (I don't think Doom III can run on DX7 HW) with tools focused on good narration and texturing for a subdued real life look that's continually evolving to take advantage of faster machines including things like better particle systems and advanced lighting. The Doom III engine, in comparison, is a great engine with heavier use of shadows and bumpmapping for a stronger flashy sci-fi look that's continually evolving with new technology including megatextures and everything that goes along with that.

http://7ref.com/36Q

I like what I've played of Quake 4 so far. It's nothing new, but it's solid gameplay that's just plain fun. I have nothing against Doom III, personally. I mean, I don't like minor triggered events everywhere (I prefer the only triggered events to be major) but other than that it's darn good monster killing with some freakish creatures that could potentially scare the crap out of people. I'm personally looking forward to ET: Quake Wars. I think that game will bring that particular engine home to stay. Advanced tech + great gameplay! Can't lose.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight
apoppin... you frackin' retard... EP2 has shadows lit by your flashlight. That's all that needs to be said in regards to your fallacious back-handed remark at Source in a thread that is otherwise about Quake 4. I never qualitatively compared the two engines like you're doing. Pointing out the differences is not the same thing. Source is a great, versatile engine (I don't think Doom III can run on DX7 HW) with tools focused on good narration and texturing for a subdued real life look that's continually evolving to take advantage of faster machines including things like better particle systems and advanced lighting. The Doom III engine, in comparison, is a great engine with heavier use of shadows and bumpmapping for a stronger flashy sci-fi look that's continually evolving with new technology including megatextures and everything that goes along with that.

http://7ref.com/36Q

I like what I've played of Quake 4 so far. It's nothing new, but it's solid gameplay that's just plain fun. I have nothing against Doom III, personally. I mean, I don't like minor triggered events everywhere (I prefer the only triggered events to be major) but other than that it's darn good monster killing with some freakish creatures that could potentially scare the crap out of people. I'm personally looking forward to ET: Quake Wars. I think that game will bring that particular engine home to stay. Advanced tech + great gameplay! Can't lose.

'tard yourself . . . we are talking about current games and game engines . . .

Ep2

next year . . . maybe with shadows . . . maybe not . . . . . . if their source code isn't stolen again [you Do realize that HL2 and it's engine was a year late?]
:Q

:roll:

i never said Source isn't a good engine . . . just 'aging' . . . and it suffers in comparison with more capable engines . . .
. . . who CARES if Source runs on DX6? ...
:disgust:

 

[BFG10K]

I found it boring,

I disagree. I found Doom 3's gameplay to be tight and extremely polished plus the PDA rocked.

I'd give the game 10/10 because I liked it so much. I've also finished it four times.

anyway, what about a Q4 X-pack?

Unless someone else does it it's probably unlikely as Raven is hard at work on RTCW 2.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I found it boring,

I disagree. I found Doom 3's gameplay to be tight and extremely polished plus the PDA rocked.

I'd give the game 10/10 because I liked it so much. I've also finished it four times.

anyway, what about a Q4 X-pack?

Unless someone else does it it's probably unlikely as Raven is hard at work on RTCW 2.

you already know i gave D3 a 3.5 out of 10 . .. .
[- just for the gfx . . . it has the distinction of being the worst game i completed [i did the 'godmode walkthru in 'Drakkan' and a few other games to see how they ended]

so . . .

what did you give Q4?
[a 'score' beyond solid]

and i am looking forward to returning to the castle W . . . again . . . D3 engine, right?