Quake 4 is 'everything' Doom3 should have been

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Tequila
Quake4 -> dull
Doom3 -> dull
UT2004 -> dull

These games are the same old thing rehashed every generation with the same retarded weapons with better graphics. I simply cannot stand the idiotic weapons in these games and it's the reason why BF and BF2 rule over them.

Oh don't get me started at how super annoying all the retards that play battlefield and ruin the game for the rest of us are

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight

Naw. I just played the game last week and it had hte patches.

Maybe you didn't understand me. It's going to be in Episode Two. This is not a Source limitation.

i think you misunderstood You2

and i'll believe 'shadows' in the Source Engine when i see it.
. . . are they gonna 'gut' it to make some improvements? . . . it needs a complete makeover.

D3 is an awesome engine . .. Source is just old.

Source is way better looking than any ID created engine. Why? Because ID can't do anything other than inside a tight hallway.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight

Naw. I just played the game last week and it had hte patches.

Maybe you didn't understand me. It's going to be in Episode Two. This is not a Source limitation.

i think you misunderstood You2

and i'll believe 'shadows' in the Source Engine when i see it.
. . . are they gonna 'gut' it to make some improvements? . . . it needs a complete makeover.

D3 is an awesome engine . .. Source is just old.

source offers a far better outdoors experience than any doom3 engined game currently does. with megatextures, ETQW will be fine, i'm sure (thus making it an exception ). D3 and Q4 had great interiors, but the outdoors to Q4 sucked for the most part. HL2 tended to favor outdoors or large, expansive indoors, as opposed to tight corridors meant to scare the $hit out of you.

Source is a terrible, terrible engine... But, whatever...

And you say this why? oh wait you don't have a reason...maybe because it is done better than any other engine to date and runs flawlessly on a variety of hardware and doesn't need the latest x1900xtx to run 60fps?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: 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' . . .

Too bad Oblivion's engine will never be used for an FPS and if it did there would be no multiplayer because some of the most powerful computers out there have horrid framerates. It's ok for a slow RPG but when you are in an FPS game...you don't want 20fps.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight

Naw. I just played the game last week and it had hte patches.

Maybe you didn't understand me. It's going to be in Episode Two. This is not a Source limitation.

i think you misunderstood You2

and i'll believe 'shadows' in the Source Engine when i see it.
. . . are they gonna 'gut' it to make some improvements? . . . it needs a complete makeover.

D3 is an awesome engine . .. Source is just old.

Source is way better looking than any ID created engine. Why? Because ID can't do anything other than inside a tight hallway.

ETQW and megatextures >> you

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight

Naw. I just played the game last week and it had hte patches.

Maybe you didn't understand me. It's going to be in Episode Two. This is not a Source limitation.

i think you misunderstood You2

and i'll believe 'shadows' in the Source Engine when i see it.
. . . are they gonna 'gut' it to make some improvements? . . . it needs a complete makeover.

D3 is an awesome engine . .. Source is just old.

Source is way better looking than any ID created engine. Why? Because ID can't do anything other than inside a tight hallway.

ETQW and megatextures >> you

No, not at all...because when you are messing with that I'll be playing Crysis which is better than both based on looks alone.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight

Naw. I just played the game last week and it had hte patches.

Maybe you didn't understand me. It's going to be in Episode Two. This is not a Source limitation.

i think you misunderstood You2

and i'll believe 'shadows' in the Source Engine when i see it.
. . . are they gonna 'gut' it to make some improvements? . . . it needs a complete makeover.

D3 is an awesome engine . .. Source is just old.

Source is way better looking than any ID created engine. Why? Because ID can't do anything other than inside a tight hallway.

ETQW and megatextures >> you

No, not at all...because when you are messing with that I'll be playing Crysis which is better than both based on looks alone.

1) we all know graphics automatically = great gameplay:disgust:

2) ETQW will probably have much better MP, as it is an MP only game. i'm not saying crysis wont be fun though.

3) as i recall, crysis does not use an engine by valve. therefore, your point is moot because we are talking Source vs. Doom3. You said Source > Doom3 due to outdoor ability, I countered by saying ETQW, which uses D3, will have great outdoors. Nowhere in this argument does Crysis enter, fit, or relate in any manner strictly related to the argument of Doom3 engine vs. Source engine. thanks for completely disregarding the argument at hand:disgust:

 

[Regs]

Source is a great engine for HL2 and games of its kind. The lighting ability of source does show its age as appoppin stated though. D3 didn't really shine either but Quake 4 showed what the openGL based engine can do for lighting.

I really don't know why people come in and agitate a war over it. People play HL2 like it's part of their religion and take it personally when coming to defend it. At least make an opinion admirably.

I enjoyed playing both HL2 and Quake 4 and both were well worth the money. End of story.

 

[BFG10K]

Why? Because ID can't do anything other than inside a tight hallway.

Except they can, like the martian surfaces and hell.

 

[Conky]

I just upgraded to a new E6400 to go with my X850XT AGP and am replaying Quake4 and loving every second of it!

I have the game up to the max resolution my monitor can handle(1280x1024) and the graphics setting on "high" and all settings maxed out.

The new cpu basically doubled my framerates and has made this game a lot more enjoyable.

I totally agree with apoppin's assessment that "Quake 4 is everything Doom3 should've been. :thumbsup:

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Why? Because ID can't do anything other than inside a tight hallway.

Except they can, like the martian surfaces and hell.

Or the maps of Q3: Team Arena where the distances were so large that there were points where a railgun wouldn't reach!

Or the tank and walker levels in Q4.

Don't mistake the choice of doing indoor scenes with an inability to do outdoors. Demons pouring out of hell into the dark hallways of a martian base are just a TAD BIT scarier than Demons pouring out of hell and hopping and skipping across a sunlit valley on mars.

cmdrdredd = Valve fanboy methinks.

It's ok to like more than one graphics engine, dude. There is some great stuff out there right now from several companies. Heck we haven't even mentioned the beauty that is lithtech. They won't take away your fanboy card if you recognize the merits of other programmers.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin
. . .
. . . try moving your torch in Oblivion and watch the interplay of multiple lighting sources with incredible shadows
:thumbsup:

Source is really showing its 'age' . . .

Too bad Oblivion's engine will never be used for an FPS and if it did there would be no multiplayer because some of the most powerful computers out there have horrid framerates. It's ok for a slow RPG but when you are in an FPS game...you don't want 20fps.

ooh lots of Misinfo . .

Gamebryo

Gamebryo does support more than 3D rendering, but 3D rendering is its focus and what it is best known for. Many game engines are normally more strict as to what and how things can be included in a game. Gamebryo is much more flexible so that it can be used for a numerous array of game types. The renderer makes use of a hierarchical scene-graph structure.

Though it uses a proprietary renderer, Gamebryo does not limit what type of graphics must or can be included in a game. A Gamebryo license comes with full source code so game-specific code can be added wherever a game programmer pleases.

Since it contains an extensive graphics renderer, Gamebryo can also be used for serious simulations and has several customers in this arena as well.

........................

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Source is way better looking than any ID created engine. Why? Because ID can't do anything other than inside a tight hallway.

more FUD . . . Q4 handles outdoor scenes fine . . . and the D3 engine is being upgraded for ET:Q4's more demanding outdoors.

There is 'no comparison' between no shadows and lighting Source and the more capable D3/Gamebryo Engines. . . .

. . . if you can't SEE the difference:

1) you are blind
2) your HW is older

:roll:

 

[PseudoKnight]

I enjoyed playing both HL2 and Quake 4 and both were well worth the money. End of story.

QFT, and the same goes for the respective engines.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin
. . .
. . . try moving your torch in Oblivion and watch the interplay of multiple lighting sources with incredible shadows
:thumbsup:

Source is really showing its 'age' . . .

Too bad Oblivion's engine will never be used for an FPS and if it did there would be no multiplayer because some of the most powerful computers out there have horrid framerates. It's ok for a slow RPG but when you are in an FPS game...you don't want 20fps.

ooh lots of Misinfo . .

Gamebryo

Gamebryo does support more than 3D rendering, but 3D rendering is its focus and what it is best known for. Many game engines are normally more strict as to what and how things can be included in a game. Gamebryo is much more flexible so that it can be used for a numerous array of game types. The renderer makes use of a hierarchical scene-graph structure.

Though it uses a proprietary renderer, Gamebryo does not limit what type of graphics must or can be included in a game. A Gamebryo license comes with full source code so game-specific code can be added wherever a game programmer pleases.

Since it contains an extensive graphics renderer, Gamebryo can also be used for serious simulations and has several customers in this arena as well.

........................

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Source is way better looking than any ID created engine. Why? Because ID can't do anything other than inside a tight hallway.

more FUD . . . Q4 handles outdoor scenes fine . . . and the D3 engine is being upgraded for ET:Q4's more demanding outdoors.

There is 'no comparison' between no shadows and lighting Source and the more capable D3/Gamebryo Engines. . . .

. . . if you can't SEE the difference:

1) you are blind
2) your HW is older

:roll:

As said before, Source is being upgraded with dynamic lighting and shadowing similar to that in D3.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

As said before, Source is being upgraded with dynamic lighting and shadowing similar to that in D3.[/quote]

woulda coulda shoulda oughta. You are trying to compare something several years old to something that hasn't even happened yet. Furthermore having dynamic lighting has been around since GLQuake. The real generational jump is the abandonment of static lighting altogether. Sure screenshots can look really great on many games today but when you see the Doom 3 engine in full motion the full dynamic lighing just brings it to life. it's like going from a clock radio to dolby surround.

As always programmers and hardware manufacturers will eventually accomplish the same thing as John Carmack. What makes the guy such a genius is he pulls it off long before anyone else even thinks it's possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong here (I certainly could be and I won't take offense)...

Isn't UT 2007 going to be the first new game engine with no static lighting since Doom 3 was released?? That's a loooong time to wait for everyone to play catchup.

I'm pretty sure everything out there is still pre-rendering the lighting in their games. Some of it looks really great (FEAR, Crysis come to mind) but so far nobody has been able to completely go dynamic except Id software.

I would say I'm a Carmack fanboy. I've been impressed by the man's genius for years. I do however recognize the merits of other game engines and other games. There is some really great stuff out there. As much as I enjoyed Doom 3 I think HL2 was a much better game.

Really at some point though it all reaches a level of greatness where it doesn't matter. I don't think I could decide between HL2, FEAR or Q4. They each just scratch a different itch for me and I'm so glad I've played all of them and more.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
And you say this why? oh wait you don't have a reason...maybe because it is done better than any other engine to date and runs flawlessly on a variety of hardware and doesn't need the latest x1900xtx to run 60fps?

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
No, not at all...because when you are messing with that I'll be playing Crysis which is better than both based on looks alone.

Looking good = great game engine while requiring heavy hardware = bad game engine? So which is it?

Perhaps when you are running Crysis on your variety hardware at 2fps you'll have time to sit and ponder the irony of your conflicting arguments.

...sorry Cmdr, I saw the quotes and couldn't resist the cheap shot. I have no useful point to make in this particular post. hehe feel free to slap me one.

 

[KeithTalent]

I have finally gotten Q4 up and running...yay!

I have only played the first little bit of it, but I am already kind of annoyed with how dark everything is (maybe I just need to adjust my gamma?). I am also playing HL2 for the first time right now and as far as immersiveness goes Q4 does not even hold a candle..err a flashlight to HL2.

In HL2 I feel like I am Gordon Freeman and that I am actually participating in the story. In Q4, so far at least, I feel like I am just directing some guy through the motions of killing Strogg.

As far as the lighting goes, I am no expert, but the flashlight does seem to give more realistic light in Q4, though I may just be noticing it because I need to use the thing so damn much

Anyway, maybe things get better once I get further along, I'll have to wait and see.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: apoppin
. . .
. . . try moving your torch in Oblivion and watch the interplay of multiple lighting sources with incredible shadows
:thumbsup:

Source is really showing its 'age' . . .

Too bad Oblivion's engine will never be used for an FPS and if it did there would be no multiplayer because some of the most powerful computers out there have horrid framerates. It's ok for a slow RPG but when you are in an FPS game...you don't want 20fps.

ooh lots of Misinfo . .

Gamebryo

Gamebryo does support more than 3D rendering, but 3D rendering is its focus and what it is best known for. Many game engines are normally more strict as to what and how things can be included in a game. Gamebryo is much more flexible so that it can be used for a numerous array of game types. The renderer makes use of a hierarchical scene-graph structure.

Though it uses a proprietary renderer, Gamebryo does not limit what type of graphics must or can be included in a game. A Gamebryo license comes with full source code so game-specific code can be added wherever a game programmer pleases.

Since it contains an extensive graphics renderer, Gamebryo can also be used for serious simulations and has several customers in this arena as well.

........................

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Source is way better looking than any ID created engine. Why? Because ID can't do anything other than inside a tight hallway.

more FUD . . . Q4 handles outdoor scenes fine . . . and the D3 engine is being upgraded for ET:Q4's more demanding outdoors.

There is 'no comparison' between no shadows and lighting Source and the more capable D3/Gamebryo Engines. . . .

. . . if you can't SEE the difference:

1) you are blind
2) your HW is older

:roll:

As said before, Source is being upgraded with dynamic lighting and shadowing similar to that in D3.

we are talking 'NOW' . . . not some possible future. Source was originally delayed a full year due to stupidity and other Source games were held back to wait for HL2.

you wanna talk future?

BEFORE then D3 will be Upgraded to take advantages of huge outdoor scenes . . . and Soft shadows are being added.

By the time Source is upgraded - next year - the New engines will stuff it back in the closet. D3's upgraded engine, GameBryo, Cryteks' and Unreal 3 will again be more 'capable' than aging Source.


a case of too little too late
:Q

. . . except for older HW, of course . . . for that it is an excellent Engine.

. . .

and that "flashlight" in HL2 is more annoying than useful.
:thumbsdown:

and KeithTalent, glad you got it working. No, Q4 is not dark - except in areas that you are intended to use your flashlight . . . nowhere as dark as D3.

and i had the 'opposite' . . . although i really liked HL2, i thought Ep1 was garbage. . . . silly puzzles, as linear as it gets and having just ONE weapon for so long is damn irritating.
:thumbsdown:

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
I have finally gotten Q4 up and running...yay!

I have only played the first little bit of it, but I am already kind of annoyed with how dark everything is (maybe I just need to adjust my gamma?). I am also playing HL2 for the first time right now and as far as immersiveness goes Q4 does not even hold a candle..err a flashlight to HL2.

In HL2 I feel like I am Gordon Freeman and that I am actually participating in the story. In Q4, so far at least, I feel like I am just directing some guy through the motions of killing Strogg.

As far as the lighting goes, I am no expert, but the flashlight does seem to give more realistic light in Q4, though I may just be noticing it because I need to use the thing so damn much

Anyway, maybe things get better once I get further along, I'll have to wait and see.

mmm, yea tweak your gamma or something methinks. There are parts where they intended for you to use it. You'll know it when this is happening. The rest of the time the flashlight shouldn't be needed.

As far as immersiveness... I found Doom3 to be more immersive but Quake 4 isn't bad. However, coming in second place to Halflife (both 1 & 2) in terms of immersiveness is nothing to be ashamed of. Valve did an awesome job with this and I think FEAR is the only recent game that does it as well.

What you should really be looking forward to is some heavy firefights! IMHO Quake beats out HL in this regard. Put the hard work in that's required to kill enemies with your lesser weapons. If you burn up the ammo on your heavy hitters you'll be in trouble when it's needed.


I tell you guys what. All differences of opinion in this thread aside: FPSes rock!!!! I love the whole genre and there are so many great games out now and soon to be released. We are all now enjoying the great-grandfathers of Virtual Reality. The future of FPS gameplay and graphics is very bright indeed!

 

[VIAN]

I like that Source runs on older systems. I think more engines should stay in use longer. Anyway, they're probably waiting for DX10 to hit before making the jump.

Then again, Valve is known to be lazy.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: 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 ; .

Gameplay is defined as how much fun the game is to play, which includes the feel the all the elements in the game put together. Basically the only real score that matters when reviews rate graphics, sound, etc. It is not, how you play the game, as it is commonly known. This is always a little too simple and is very repetetive. The only thing different from Doom3 and Quake4 in that area is that instead of shooting 1 person per room, you shoot more than 1 person per room, respectively. Everything else is not considered how to play the game. I would say that fact that you have a team, belongs to the graphics category. The point here is that Doom3 is not all about graphics, it's about atmosphere and how it contributes to gameplay.

Anyway, Doom3 stands out for me because of the story, atmosphere, and environments/enemies. Doom3 had plenty to keep me focused on. I took each step carefully and never knew what to expect on the otherside of the next door. And I really enjoyed the PDAs. I started to get a bit fatigued from the game during the last few hours, but it was nothing compared to Quake4.

Quake4 had much more action and may have been more fun to play since it was more fast paced, but the story started to lose it's drive after about halfway through the game. Then with nothing else covering the fact that you just kept entering rooms and killing a bunch of people, the game became repetitive and boring. And I spent a while longing for it to end. Hence, why I consider Doom3 a better game.

 

[KeithTalent]

Thanks for tips guys, I will try adjusting my gamma on Q4 when I get home tonight.

Two more question:

1. I'm playing HL2 right now, but you guys keep mentioning 'Episode 1'...is that different than what I am playing now? The one I am playing started with a guy saying 'Rise & shine Mr. Freeman' or something like that. I only had Lost Coast to play after that I thought

2. Does anyone think the HDR made a noticeable difference on HL2? When I first started playing it I did not have it on, but I noticed my rig was more than capable at max everything else, so I turned it on. To me it seemed to add a little lustre to everything and just made all of the scenes a little more realistic and crisp. Maybe I am way off, but it sure felt that way to me.

:beer:

 

[VIAN]

Episode 1 is the continuation of HL2. After HL2, Valve decided to take the Episode approach to releasing games. The benefit being that instead of 5 years to make one 15 hour game, they could release a 5-hour game every 1.5 years. You are playing HL2. The episodes also include the HL2 name for ex. Half-life 2: Episode 1.

HDR adds bloom to light sources. When you look at a lamp, it should become too bright to see. However, I think this effect is unrealistic. I think Bloom does a better job of looking realistic. With Bloom, the light becomes bright, but not unrealistically bright.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Episode 1 is the continuation of HL2. After HL2, Valve decided to take the Episode approach to releasing games. The benefit being that instead of 5 years to make one 15 hour game, they could release a 5-hour game every 1.5 years.

HDR adds bloom to light sources. When you look at a lamp, it should become too bright to see. However, I think this effect is unrealistic. I think Bloom does a better job of looking realistic. With Bloom, the light becomes bright, but not unrealistically bright.

So where do I find this Episode 1? I'm so lost...do I have to buy a whole new Half-life game now?

 

[VIAN]

You can buy Episode 1 at retailers. It exists as a standalone, so you don't need HL2 installed to play it. You can also order it from Steam with a credit card.