Func_Msgboard: Quake 4 Sp00ge Thread

News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in

|  | Quake 4 Sp00ge Thread

Posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/18 01:22:47

E3 video trailer: (various links to the same file that take you through an annoying series of download pages as usual)
http://www.3dgamers.com/news/more/...
http://files.filefront.com/Quake_4...
http://www.filerush.com/download.p...
http://www.ggmania.com/?smsid=1875...
Magazine article scans: (linked in GA thread, thanks whoever did that)
http://planetquake.ingame.de/q4/pi...
http://planetquake.ingame.de/q4/pi...
http://planetquake.ingame.de/q4/pi...
http://planetquake.ingame.de/q4/pi...
http://planetquake.ingame.de/q4/pi...
http://planetquake.ingame.de/q4/pi...
http://planetquake.ingame.de/q4/pi...
http://planetquake.ingame.de/q4/pi...
http://planetquake.ingame.de/q4/pi...
W3rd.
Now when the first shots and all came out, everyone was dissing it since it looked just like Doom3 but with slightly skinnier guns. Everyone except me, that is, as I was reading the words that accompanied the not-so-pretty pictures. Words like "future war", "fighting in a squad", "all out Strogg assault", "epic conflict". Words which conjured up an image of exactly what a Quake 2 remake should be - capturing, using modern technology, the essence of Q2's man Vs strogg battles. And thus, I was pretty excited.
Seeing the videos, new screenies and previews, I still am. They, albeit through the usually over-enthusiastic hype-ridden haze of marketing speak, are still saying the same thing, and it still sounds damn good to me. Of course, there's still a thousand things to go wrong, a thousand promises and features to drop. But even so, so far it looks like they are doing this game right, and doing it true to Quake 2. Hoorah for that.
Post angry refutations, accusations of fanboyisms, rants against Id, Raven, and indeed anyone who likes games, further screenshots, articles, whatever here =).
Oh, P.S. The logo blows. 999 things left to bugger up ;)

Well
#1 posted by Vondur [195.128.95.36] on 2005/05/18 01:51:49
i liked the screens and the teaser. only thing i hope is that the sideckicks won't be as buggy as in daikatana. i just want them be like in hl2 or something so you can order them to stay and don't fight and do all the job myself.
and q2 had awesome industrial atmosphere, d3 engine just created for that. hope, q4 will make that smell with burned oil and blood even better.
Ugh.
#2 posted by Jago [193.111.93.44] on 2005/05/18 01:58:42
The trailer makes me all excited in the been there done that a 1000 times way. It doesn't even LOOK visually impressive, let alone show interesting gameplay.
Letīs See What Will Come Out...
#3 posted by Trinca [194.65.31.249] on 2005/05/18 02:45:09
Doom3 was very disapointed to me...didnīt like the game much! Hl2 was a realy kick ass game, real fun with a great game play iīm still playing the single player and is real fun...let see if Q4 will be that fun or another crap like doom3...
Doom3 = dark and borred
Hl2 = fast, fun and very nice textured!
Hey Jago...
#4 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/18 03:01:41
If you've played games that have single player squad/team combat with vehicles and stuff, in a sci-fi universe against biomechanoids with Doom3 quality graphics "a 1000 times" already, can you tell me what games, as I'd like to play shit like that.
I've seen loads of sci-fi games, loads of single player games, and loads of teamplay games, but not very many at all that combine the 3...
Oh I Remembered One...
#5 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/18 03:03:15
Elite Force / 2. Done that already. Not exactly the same style though is it.
Quake 4 E3 Trailer
#6 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.255.30] on 2005/05/18 08:12:59
I was reading the words that accompanied the not-so-pretty pictures. Words like "future war"...
It's a Strogg conflict, did you think it was going to be medieval?
..."fighting in a squad"...
Yeah, I reckon it has that.
..."all out Strogg assault"...
Wait--you mean this isn't an all out Strogg teaparty?! Drat, now I'm all disappointed..
..."epic conflict".
"Epic" you say? All I've seen is the player and maybe one or two AI marines taking on one Strogg inside small enclosed spaces. Even the outside area was clearly enclosed and offered no sort of "epic" view of the world or area. This is not epic at all.
It still looks and plays and feels like Doom 3, but with a few AI marines thrown in the mix. (Keep in mind that lots of the Doom 3 monsters were also biomechanoids.)
It won't be a sequel to Quake 2 until it has bright orange lighting from the sky.
BTW
#7 posted by Scampie [63.236.226.222] on 2005/05/18 09:02:26
If the trailer you watch has blue blood, be advised you got one of the crap versions floating around. I know Gamespot for sure had the right and good version.
Non-blue Version
#8 posted by Spirit [80.171.85.29] on 2005/05/18 09:33:54
just click "download":
http://doom3.planet-multiplayer.de...
~70 mb though
RPG...
#9 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/18 10:07:32
...you're clever enough not to need to act like an idiot to make a refutation. Yes we both know that those phrases taken literally and in isolation don't amount to very much, however taken in the context of describing a style and a vibe for the game, they still show a style and vibe that matches what Q2.2 should be.
And the video shows more than your description of the outside areas suggest. Also, "epic" does not necessarily mean what you can play with in the level, it's also about the atmosphere.
Point taken about the need for orange, though.
Eh
#10 posted by scar3crow [151.141.78.94] on 2005/05/18 14:45:57
Gears of War is looking more like a Q2 sequel then Q4 is... The enemies in the shots Ive seen just look... cartoony. Really much so. I dunno, Ill give it a go when it comes out but Im certainly not longing for it.
Shambler
#11 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.255.30] on 2005/05/18 16:29:45
Well, right now as I'm on the verge of having a heatstroke, and as I try to type without my blistered fingers touching the keyboard (clearly a difficult task for one who is not telekinetic), I'll have to say that my response will not be so clever.
Really, my only refutation was regarding the "epic conflict" and also pointing out that it did not feel like Quake 2.2 at all. The only reason I knew it was Quake 2.2 was because they jammed it down my throat with the monologue and the vague references to poorly-anesthetized surgery.
Regarding the "epic conflict" I stand by my previous assertion. They really didn't show that the gameplay or atmosphere of the game points to an epic conflict; they only showed that the trailer does. Considering that they didn't even show much gameplay footage, and that I wasn't convinced by what they did show, I still say that it does not appear to be epic in any meaning of the word.
Isn't This A Little Premature?
#12 posted by Maj [62.3.252.3] on 2005/05/18 19:25:46
Considering that all we've seen so far is an extended cut-scene with 5 milliseconds of game footage, couldn't your semen be put to more productive use?
Quake 4
#13 posted by Zwiffle [69.210.49.133] on 2005/05/18 19:42:00
Big frowny face.
:(
/\___/\
( @ _ @ ) Pikachu!!!
( ( ) ) (for czg)
Z
In conclusion, Quake 4 doesn't look so hot. I will not spooge for it. It looks like Doom3 and Prey, but with worse monsters. Although Prey looks kinda bad too.
Hexen 3!!!!
Imho, Is Kinda Epic
#14 posted by nanoSpawn [62.43.114.115] on 2005/05/19 05:44:35
At least from the video.
Ok, it's not a massive battle in a huge courtyard with thousands of soldiers right there fighting for you, and depending on you. But it sure is more epic than Doom 3. Way more.
One abandons the labs, warehouses and the likes to pick vehicles up, and fights big creatures, tanks, "striders", etc, that along with more than two mates (there may be 4 or 5). It's bigger than Doom 3, ffs. And that's what counts.
Anyway, after watching Enemy Territory: Quake Wars teaser, it looks deceiving, technically, Q4 is just D3, same mappery, new models, no new fancy effects. But ET:QW is a whole new thing, almost totally outdoors, vertex fragments to the max (steam refractions, HL2/FarCry water and stuff) better ligthing on the models and really good indoor areas... now that looks like the next step. I miss some trees, thought... too much stone and sand for my taste.
But anyway, looks like Q4 may be a cool game, maybe not the best, but I bet it will be way better and funner than Doom 3 was.
Hmm
#15 posted by than [62.189.9.161] on 2005/05/19 10:22:21
Q4 looks ok, but ET: Quake War looks PRIME.
Sod battlefield 2 - I want ET: QW!
Than
#16 posted by bambuz [80.221.25.15] on 2005/05/19 16:13:57
quake wars...
http://www.bluesnews.com/screensho...
hmm. What engine was that again? Says something
doomish with id megatexture.
Who said that depressing that it's quakecon 10 year anniversary and they don't have a quake tournament there.
Gaming Industry
#17 posted by bambuz [80.221.25.15] on 2005/05/19 16:47:27
:C
This is starting to go off-topic...
I've been looking at some game screenshots from E3 today and following a certain IT news message board where they talked about new consoles and everything is just disappointing. Even those nerdy linuxy types just discuss polygons, gigaflops and how the pc is dying since consoles generate more profit and are easy to code to etc etc...
But i'm just baffled.
I mean, you cannot tell the new games apart anymore. It's just hordes of zombies/skeletons/robots/crossover... of the previous. Why is everyone trying to do the same thing?
And quake 4 looked way too violent. Who wants to examine up close when convulsing people are cut into pieces with a rotating saw blade (don't know the word in english). Otherwise it seems just like a bad scifi movie. If other, older games weren't that much better, they still were first-timers and more stylized and thus could get away with it. Even fucking civ4 looks so stupid that... what the hell?
I wish id would next do something completely different... or maybe commander keens again. On the positive side, some new games Alan Wake and Gothic look a bit better with actual daylight and no maimed creatures.
I downloaded Master of Orion 1 the other day from the net (you can get it from some page), and been playing it then (and qw of course too).
I'll stop here.
Bambuz...
#18 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/20 00:30:58
Too much violence and all? Maybe you'd like this article...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technol...
*huh*
><((((š>
#19 posted by Mr Fribbles [220.253.115.250] on 2005/05/20 06:52:23
Where's the Quake 4 yawn thread?
They should have stopped at one.
Shambler
#20 posted by bambuz [130.233.220.23] on 2005/05/20 09:02:40
Yeah, he has a lot of good points... but making stuff easier to get women in ... well, that's taking his words out of context and we can never know what he really said - but still, to me it seems a wrong way to approach the problem, making games "easier". It's the content and feeling that has to be changed and rest is making them to have the first time try.
There are games like sim city (or at least were. maybe they're still out there somewhere) which are not based on domination and violence and thus would probably work better with women too.. and there probably are humorous and interesting adventure games like sierra and lucasarts did back then. In some of them you get to play even as a woman sometimes. Btw I also know women who play nethack. Tells about the place where I study. :/
And those booth babes are a goddamn awful idea. I checked a gallery from bluesnews too among looking game screenshots. How low can the publishers go? They apparently think it's ok to hookerize women or then they think that gamers are stupid jerks..... hey, wait a minute? They are!
#21 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.255.30] on 2005/05/20 13:15:36
There are games like sim city
The Sims. The Sims 2. I think those games are actually played by more women than men.
Actually, these days I find myself more interested in the gameplay styles that are more gender-neutral (except for The Sims). However, I still have a penchant for darker atmospheres, and it seems like those are almost soley available in violent games.
#22 posted by PuLSaR [80.80.111.129] on 2005/05/20 13:50:23
Unlike most of you around here I really liked Quake2. It had a great atmosphere where everything - design, style, colors, monsters, sounds - fit ideal to each other in a perfect industrial world. I wait for Quake4 to come.
I don't think that a lot of doom-like looks is good, but if Raven can re-create the athmosphere and feel of Quake2 I will love this game.
I Liked Quake 2 As Well
#23 posted by Scragbait [69.159.45.116] on 2005/05/20 14:18:24
I replayed it and both mission packs not so long ago. Q2 is rich in atmosphere (landscapes, sounds, lighting), has a bit of humor in how the enemies behave and was pretty fun.
Although I never really liked the orange sky, I think that Q4 should have it otherwise, it may feel as much Quake 2 as Unreal 2 felt Unreal.
I don't mind the gore as long as it suits the context of the game and butchering bodies to retrofit them with machine parts is pretty Quake 2 to me (they made marine hamburger in the original.)
If I have a good machine by then, I'll get this title. I liked the video. BTW, has anyone seen the Killzone 3 video? Wow - from the graphics standpoint.
I Liked Quake 2 As Well
#24 posted by Scragbait [69.159.45.116] on 2005/05/20 14:23:55
I replayed it and both mission packs not so long ago. Q2 is rich in atmosphere (landscapes, sounds, lighting), has a bit of humor in how the enemies behave and was pretty fun.
Although I never really liked the orange sky, I think that Q4 should have it otherwise, it may feel as much Quake 2 as Unreal 2 felt Unreal.
I don't mind the gore as long as it suits the context of the game and butchering bodies to retrofit them with machine parts is pretty Quake 2 to me (they made marine hamburger in the original.)
If I have a good machine by then, I'll get this title. I liked the video. BTW, has anyone seen the Killzone 3 video? Wow - from the graphics standpoint.
Yeah
#25 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.255.30] on 2005/05/20 15:07:58
I actually liked Q2, too. DM was not the best, although there were really great custom maps for it. But it was a fun game.
To Rpg
#26 posted by bambuz [80.221.25.15] on 2005/05/20 17:43:34
about the sims: yeah, well, I find that games idea utterly horrible but of course someone had to do that.
A woman today chatted to me she is playing some CSI game. If the tv show is already familiar it can be an entry point and the game itself is adventure-type and said to be easy. (the fragging has already been done!?)
But I'll stop this off-topic bullshit here.
Uhm,
#27 posted by HeadThump [65.140.59.233] on 2005/05/20 18:13:48
have you noticed that CSI is several time more violent than any video game on the market at this time? Imagine what the ratings of the show would be if it curbed the violence and started to appeal to women. Perhaps, then it would not be on the chopping block for cancelation.
I'm just hoping the violemce in Quake IV is more artfully done than in Quake 2. I have always wanted to see one of those narrow waist Strogg grunts split in two with a rail gun.
Maybe
#28 posted by bambuz [80.221.25.15] on 2005/05/20 18:30:36
well yeah, hadn't thought of it. Maybe they think women watch just dramas or something...
Come to think of it, i haven't exactly thought what is the purported audience of csi. Surely they make careful studies about the segment (to the advertisers etc.)
It Is Not Easy To Quantify
#29 posted by HeadThump [65.140.59.233] on 2005/05/20 18:47:08
what is going to appeal to a demographic base. Take Law&Order. There is no real reason why it should appeal to women more that it does to men, it has a tough guy (non pretty boy) cast and often repugnant subject matter, yet every woman I know from 30 to 60 is hooked on the reruns.
I don't think Mr Lowenstein was sincere in his argument against violence and appealing to the mainstream and a female audience. He got publicity at the biggest trade show in his industry by telling the dead end and often technically illiterate mainstream media exactly what it wanted to hear. I'm suprised he didn't call for a brigade of sociologist and a gaggle of legislatures to propose solutions to the 'problem'. They really like that kind of language.
Shambler
#30 posted by Lunaran [68.51.209.251] on 2005/05/21 16:19:05
Oh, P.S. The logo blows. 999 things left to bugger up
Coincidentally, 999 is actually pretty close to how many logos they had to decide from.
It Better
#31 posted by pope [154.5.27.236] on 2005/05/21 18:07:03
fucking have COOP
What Pope Said.
#32 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/22 01:27:15
Q2 coop was cool. Q4 seems inherently suited to coop in most areas.
Unfortunately, I bet "niet" =/
Is This The Logo?
#33 posted by . [68.255.58.45] on 2005/05/23 00:47:29
http://wallpaper.microchiot.com/i/...
No
#34 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/23 01:21:11
This Is
#35 posted by Kell [82.41.10.46] on 2005/05/23 06:44:18
http://assets.jolt.co.uk/picdump/_...
Bleh
#36 posted by JPL [213.30.139.243] on 2005/05/23 07:52:00
Phait's logo is nicer than Kell's logo...
Logo
#37 posted by megaman [62.180.32.247] on 2005/05/23 07:59:45
is there any difference to the q1 one besides the 4 weird .. buckles?
#38 posted by Kell [82.41.10.46] on 2005/05/23 08:42:40
There's no head on the nail in the Q4 version.
They're cog teeth, not buckles btw.
It Is...
#39 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/23 10:37:01
A truly shit logo. For the obvious reason. I mean, you can take a crescent, the quantity of 4, and as many spikes as you need - it shouldn't take a genius to make something that looks like Q4 rather than Q1.
The Logo
#40 posted by Scampie [63.236.226.222] on 2005/05/23 11:03:09
I like it, very simple and effective. Much better than there was 4 spikes in the middle or something busy like that. I'd only wish they'd gone with the strogg-esqe wings on it's side (like the strogg's logo of 4 wing things with skull in the middle) rather than the small gears.
#41 posted by Kell [82.41.10.46] on 2005/05/23 11:44:34
Personally I think it's fine - not quite as effective as the Q1 logo obviously, but straight forward. Trying to add 4 spikes to the simple symmetrical elegance of the Q 'blade' is not as easy as RPG seems to think. Believe me I've tried :P
I'm more surprised that they went with a variant of the Q1 'flat' logo; I thought they'd do with the Q3 curvyness what they did with Q1 -> Q2 i.e. add an extra spire in the middle and modify the bottom 4 points to look like metal fangs.
Maybe this is another example of returning to "brand identity"...
Umm
#42 posted by Kell [82.41.10.46] on 2005/05/23 11:45:58
RPG = Shambler
D'oh, I just look at the nick color o_O
Well...
#43 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/24 00:23:50
Unfortunately it's nothing to do with the Q1 brand....
#44 posted by Kell [82.41.10.46] on 2005/05/24 07:45:27
What I was referring to is that "brand identity" is part of the reason id decided to call Q2 "Q2", even though they didn't intend it to be a sequel to Q1.
I don't disagree that the basis of the logo is the only element in the game that has anything to do with Q1
#45 posted by Kinn [81.178.51.25] on 2005/05/24 09:30:50
Although this topic has been rehashed countless times, I feel it's probably worth adding some input. Quake was a complete accident of design. In its conception, it was intended as a sort of multiplayer fantasy hack-em-up with some RPG elements (maybe a little bit like how HexenII turned out, although we will never really be sure). For some reason, id decided at the last minute that this design spec was fundamentally flawed, and thus they crafted the game into a vaguely Doom-like shooter. (I still hold on to the belief that if id had a clearer idea of where they were heading, this game would have ended up as "Doom III").
Further blurring the distinction between the two "franchises" (that word should only be used for restaurant chains btw), Quake II comes along with effectively the weapons from Doom II, and a throwaway plot that could have easily been interchanged with Doom's (along with changing the human-cyborgs into more demonic monster models), and we'd have a bona-fide sequel to classic Doom.
Quake III was a cheap spin-off of the previous Quake games, having no real single-player component, and if anything they should have just Called it "Quake Arena" rather than using the misleading "III", which implies a true sequel to Quake I/II which it is far from being.
Doom III comes along, and although it bears a superficial similarity to the classic Dooms, there's nothing really gameplay-wise that makes this more worthy of the name "Doom" than Quake or Quake II are. (while we're here, I'd also suggest that Doom I and II are effectively the same game - Doom II just being a glorified Doom expansion pack).
So to conclude my rather tedious rant, i'd like to suggest that in the wibbly-wobbly world of id software game naming conventions - names mean pretty much sod all.
Kinn
#46 posted by bambuz [130.233.220.23] on 2005/05/24 10:49:05
Yeah.
Quake 1 wasn't that special.. I mean, the weapons were not anything super-fancy, the textures were nice but nothing very special either, the maps were average mazes, the combat and monsters were a bit boring and the ugly models were the weakest part graphically I think.
Duke 3d was more innovative and better-looking in many ways. (Although its monsters sucked bigtime.)
Part of why quake has lasted is it's inspecifity I think. And of course the source code release and modern full-3d background and the introduction of opengl. Quake didn't try to impress you so much on the first time - so you don't get bored of it when you play it again. It's not like "hey here's the gimmick that was awesome the first time, but now looks cheesy" - since there weren't that many such gimmicks.
It's also just that the fast-frag-multiplayer games since then have only introduced flashing colored lights, bigger textures and a few more polys in maps and models - all often just distractions and not improving the basic gameplay much. Quake 3 has a wobbly uncontrollable netcode and the maps look so clean and cheesy that they make me puke. I haven't tried the unreal series.
I actually think quake was not fully an accident. They had guys like John Romero on board. Remember that Doom had a nice coherent single player and furious and interesting multiplayer too. Even if quake was quickly redesigned in a lot of aspects, it still is somewhat consistent with its weapons and powerups.
I see these games being played at the computer science student's living room at our university and I can tell you that Serious Sam on Xbox loses hands down to Doom II on an old 486 in almost every category - The first just looks boring and uninspired as hell, while the second is exciting and thrilling to watch... will he make it past the enemies? Now there's some imps throwing fireballs. Oh! A revenant! You hear some sounds... The guy really has to use his reactions, aim and wits all the time to outdo the enemies... and he does die but tries again.
Carmack's been coding approximately the same thing almost his whole life: a raycaster or similar game at softdisk, raycaster for wolfenstein, first fast semi-3d in doom 1, real 3d introduced in quake, just a few extensions for q2 (colored lights) and q3 (shaders, better models, curves in map compiling), some lighting improvements for doom 3.
This group could probably create some really good shit for a new quake quake (adjective noun as compared to non-quake quake) if it had a decent engine (don't know of one, is darkplaces too limited?) and game design.
Sorry, had to rant.
Bambuz
#47 posted by Kinn [81.155.131.202] on 2005/05/24 11:11:49
Increasingly off-topic, but I still maintain that with the right textures and artwork, the Doom3 engine would be the perfect vehicle for a true Quake sequel/remake.
For me, the original Quake was all about the contrast between light and dark, and the nameless horrors that it spawned in the subterranean dungeons of that dream-like netherworld.
Kinn
#48 posted by bambuz [130.233.220.23] on 2005/05/24 15:27:40
Well, I haven't played it so I don't really know. I've heard it looks plastic. Maybe that can be fixed in the future with more machine power to calculate the speculars right or something. :( How often do you need to see shiny stuff anyway? I don't think almost anything could be shiny in quake - maybe water. Everything is rusted and oxidized in lava and acid fumes. I mean come on! The ogre has a dirty apron.
It seems a bit hard to make quakeish gritty dirty rash brown stuff - everything seems to come out so smooth, clean and shiny nowadays. :) Especially in other engines. But I mean even the new high-res 24-bit "remake" textures for modern gl quake clients that are almost carbon copies - they just don't have that something. [1] Maybe it's some magic Adrian Carmack or Kevin Cloud personal touch combined with the 8 bit and low-res limits that is next to impossible to imitate. But it probably isn't. I'm not an artist. In fact, I know nothing. About anything. Just ranting off. (Where was that project of redoing q1 with d3? there were shots of start.bsp... can't google it now.)
[1]:
http://facelift.quakedev.com/retex...
Kinn
#49 posted by DaZ [80.42.195.193] on 2005/05/24 15:30:55
Have my man-babies plz!
Yes if there was a *proper* ( u all know what I mean) q1 remake on d3 tech, it would fucking pwn everything ever, you all know it...
q4 yay striders, I get to be strogg with a 24 inch electronic penis and shoot stuff. whatever as long as its fun.
Bambuz
#50 posted by Lunaran [68.51.209.251] on 2005/05/24 19:22:24
How often do you need to see shiny stuff anyway?
Look around you and you'll be really surprised. All surfaces reflect some light, even gritty old castle walls.
#51 posted by Vigil [194.100.92.63] on 2005/05/25 00:40:12
I've seen loads of sci-fi games, loads of single player games, and loads of teamplay games, but not very many at all that combine the 3...
Republic Commando. Yes, a Star Wars game. Yes, worth playing. Go get it now! The demo (if there is one), anyway.
</derail>
Yes
#52 posted by Kinn [81.178.51.25] on 2005/05/25 01:14:21
The whole "Doom3 looks plastic" argument is bollocks and anyone who has an elementary knowledge of how materials and specular maps work will realise that rust, dirt and other gritty stuff is easily done on the Doom3 engine.
Also
#53 posted by Vigil [194.100.92.63] on 2005/05/25 02:18:03
I just want to add that I agree with Kinn's big rant/post/venting/speculation.
_
#54 posted by . [68.255.58.45] on 2005/05/25 03:09:13
The whole "Doom3 looks plastic" argument is bollocks and anyone who has an elementary knowledge of how materials and specular maps work will realise that rust, dirt and other gritty stuff is easily done on the Doom3 engine.
Yes, with a wonderful layer of Saran wrap.
No
#55 posted by Lunaran [68.51.209.251] on 2005/05/25 07:31:17
Yes, with a wonderful layer of Saran wrap.
And thus Phait demonstrates that he does not, in fact, have an elementary knowledge of how materials and specular maps work.
I Don't Have To Understand
#56 posted by . [68.255.58.45] on 2005/05/25 08:09:08
graphics engine tech to know that real life rust does not give off the same specularity of say a polished marble countertop.
Good
#57 posted by Lunaran [68.51.209.251] on 2005/05/25 08:26:12
Now, do you know what a specular map is?
Highlight size and highlight intensity are not the same thing.
A Usual Problem
#58 posted by bambuz [130.233.220.23] on 2005/05/26 04:22:10
Ok, I'm talking out of my ass again, but:
Even in architechtural ray-traced images of buildings, the lighting very often looks totally shit and plastic. Everything is too "reflecting", can't describe it better. What is a porous wood or brick wall and should have ~the same brightness no matter what the light angle versus viewing angle against the surface normal, has this weird effect and looks like plastic. It is more easily pronounced on curved surfaces of constant color/texture where you can actually deduce that it's a lighting shift instead of texture brightness shift. In games you can see it when the brightness changes with moving -> it's a light effect, not an inherent texture effect.
http://www.infosprite.com/members/...
If I had doom 3, I would
know if this looked realistic or not, but
it really looks shiny to me now that it's static. Most natural rocks around my part of the world are not shiny, except in the way sand is - tiny facets reflecting at random places.
I don't know more about the technology and I have not played doom3 but it is definitely a problem often in 3d image generation and it needs probably some unrealistic hand-tinkering to solve currently. Just like milk is hard to simulate correctly because of sub-surface scattering so they must use some non-realistic trick to make it right... I think. This 3d scene based image generation is always an approximation of reality, and there are always problems and artifacts associated with the chosen methods and levels of approximation.
But to settle this all, couldn't someone make a d3 demo level with wood, bricks and/or rock tile castle wall and make phait (and me) believe the d3 engine would work :) (Does that mean just a fainter specular map for those textures?)
About This Issue...
#59 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/26 06:22:10
Sorry I haven't followed it that closely but I think people are off the mark a bit with the continual accusations of these new engines looking "plasticky".
Firstly, if they look too shiny in any way, they tend to look "metallicy", the shinyness is a metal shinyness not a plastic shinyness.
Secondly, most of them don't overuse the feature as much as one thinks looking at screenshots. IMHO most of them look fine in the game - maybe Riddick overdoes it a bit.
Thirdly and most importantly, a lot of surfaces (APART from dry rough stone) in our world have a slight sheen to them, whether it's all out gloss or just a subtle satin. They almost all reflect light with a sheen. Go look at some Anish Kapoor sculptures (often coated with very very matt paint/dust) which don't reflect at all, and you'll see the difference. Thus, it's appropriate for engines to display most surfaces in game with some sort of sheen. Then, the surfaces that don't have any sheen stand out more as obviously being dirty/grimy etc. It's like the stuff floating on the water in UT2kX or HL2 - the contrast with the reflecting water makes the nature of that stuff (plants, crusty slime) more obvious. Sure in a really dingy and DRY dungeon, you wouldn't need any sheen, but other than that it has it's role to play.
Thank You Shambler
#60 posted by Lunaran [69.41.96.11] on 2005/05/26 11:19:28
You are wise, and furry.
And Hell...
#61 posted by metlslime [209.213.199.133] on 2005/05/26 12:57:18
why does Doom 3 NEED to be realistic? It has a solid art style that is obviously unrealistic in a number of ways. I thought it looked pretty cool. I also liked Wind Waker.
Hrmm
#62 posted by BlackDog [220.235.132.3] on 2005/05/26 13:33:43
I'll agree that specular highlights in D3 are rather unrealistic. They're undetailed and far too broad, which I think results in an impression of overshinyness since the highlight is contributing too much light over the entire surface. But I can't agree that they are too intense. I can see quite a few surfaces right from where I am sitting that have far more intense highlights than any surface in that screenie.
OK, So Let's Get All Empirical
#63 posted by BlackDog [220.235.132.3] on 2005/05/26 13:49:35
Here are two screenshots of that area, one with r_skipspecular 1.
http://www.infosprite.com/members/...
http://www.infosprite.com/members/...
Draw your own conclusions.
Gimme 3 Steps...
#64 posted by generic [69.244.213.162] on 2005/05/26 14:06:00
I'll take the extra FPS over the extra shininess any day of the week, thank you very much.
New Star Wars Game
#65 posted by metlslime [209.213.199.133] on 2005/05/26 15:00:53
The new star wars game using the doom3 tech:
http://image28.webshots.com/29/0/7...
Forbidden
#66 posted by . [68.255.58.45] on 2005/05/26 17:47:20
Copy-paste To New Tab/window.
#67 posted by bambuz [80.221.25.15] on 2005/05/26 17:59:55
Talking about shininess...
Shambler
#68 posted by bambuz [80.221.25.15] on 2005/05/26 18:18:57
Buildings at least in this part of the
world are made of tiles or rough (don't know the word) wood planks which are that non-shiny stuff. Especially old wood painted with that red earth-paint. If you go up close you can see how the sun makes the wood porous.
Lower parts are of stone or concrete. Their shininess depends on the finish, but is 99% of the time non-shiny / very little shiny. There are a few polished rock houses. And most tombstones are such nowadays. But Quake doesn't use these polished materials much, at least not in my imagination. Although it uses metallics, which can have a lot of shininess, fine for me.
Also a lot of nature, like many tree species' trunks, sand, dry dirt or even dry old asphalt are all very porous and non-shiny.
It's not just rock.
Maybe someone's done scientific measurements of the shininess of materials. Hell, there must be a standardized unit for that. How could architechts and designers work otherwise? An architechture student told me once there was some "aging" software designed in some US university for 3d model rendering that would make the architechture renderings more realistic, add patina to copper etc...
Extra FPS Does Not Apply
#69 posted by BlackDog [220.235.132.3] on 2005/05/27 00:16:30
I hammered this scene with 6xAA 16xAF to take screenshots with lubbley smooth edges, which is why the difference (AA is a bandwidth hit on both screens, and turning off the specular maps is a bandwidth saving on one of them).
Running at normal settings there's no performance hit.
Eh...
#70 posted by Shambler [82.38.192.54] on 2005/05/27 01:31:30
Buildings at least in this part of the
world are made of tiles or rough (don't know the word) wood planks which are that non-shiny stuff.
....because you live in the 3rd world??
Well back in civilisation, what I said applies. But yes obviously there are non-shiny materials and they shouldn't look shiny in games. Ummm.
Shambler
#71 posted by bambuz [130.233.220.23] on 2005/05/27 08:41:25
My student apartment is actually built mostly of wood, although I don't live in the third world. It's a perfect legitimate organic building material, especially in a country with lots of forests (still left).
I should have made the point maybe like this to show what I think: mostly only new materials like aluminium, plastic, stainless steel or glass tend to be shiny, whereas quake uses mostly old castly-churchy materials (yeah there's the base part and some marble, but _mostly_, and that is at least to me, the real quakey part) like bricks, rock, wood, rusting iron, which are mostly not that reflecting. If you have a plastic mat in your apartment, live next to a glassy steel-beamy reflecting office building, it doesn't have much relevance to quake in my mind.
#72 posted by czg [81.191.27.124] on 2005/05/27 12:04:20
oh my god this is like the most toatlly lame argument ever like is this shiny is this not shiny? like what if there was a shiny wood or a not shiny metal it could be like totally wicked either way and my friend eric totally has this shiny table thats made from wood and it is totally a lot more shiny than metal if you understand the words i am trying to say?
Czg
#73 posted by Zwiffle [69.210.42.201] on 2005/05/27 14:21:30
You're so shiny down there.
<giggle>
Dont Make Yourself Look Like A Dumb Fuck
#74 posted by megaman [62.52.37.231] on 2005/06/01 04:27:03
we know youre a smart fuck.
and yeah, i think specularity seems to get overused ( as in, specularity maps should receive a darken pass), but still, but every surface has some amount of shinyness.
Hm, Is This
#75 posted by Spirit [213.39.223.26] on 2006/11/11 13:23:38
I just finished the game. It was WAY better than I expected it to be. I'd say it is rather underrated. :(
Of course it could have been better but it is a damn good FPS, that's sure. Dunno if you would like a longer review with critic and stuff. There is quite a lot that sucks, but why be so picky and not enjoy the rest.
I hated the ending though. Dammit, no satisfaction AT ALL. Fuck it.
So, are there any good custom SP levels yet?
At Least
#76 posted by necros [74.111.254.57] on 2006/11/11 13:50:13
the weapon sounds were better than doom3 :x
Spirit
#77 posted by tron [202.126.104.71] on 2006/11/11 23:38:39
There are a couple, I don't have time to dig them up now but check out 3dgamersedge.com for one, and the doom3world final maps section for a pretty cool level by Efx.
Q4 was exactly what it said is was going to be, a sequel to Q2, I still like the singleplayer in it. :)
Yerrr
#78 posted by Shambler [82.38.197.90] on 2006/11/12 01:39:29
Q4 was good. I like the Strogg :)
Aye
#79 posted by Text_Fish [82.32.1.90] on 2006/11/12 04:35:13
I had more fun in Q4 than I did in HL2, D3 or FEAR.
Actually
#80 posted by DaZ [80.41.156.78] on 2006/11/12 06:43:41
yeah it did seem to get better and better as you progressed, I remember loving the fully upgraded nailgun weapon, it just destroyed everything in its path :)
Favourite levels include the nexus (??) level, the stroggification facility, and a few others near the start I cant remember the names of :(
Its just a shame the vehicle sections blew so much stomach contents in comparison
#81 posted by Aquashark [86.104.34.195] on 2006/11/12 14:37:39
Q4 singleplayer is average. i liked Prey a lot more.
Prey
#82 posted by Text_Fish [82.32.1.90] on 2006/11/12 16:08:52
had some breathtaking moments thanks to really 'interesting' level design, but I found the combat extremely weak throughout most of it. Later levels redressed this to some extent, but for the most part I think it suffered from 'Doom 3 Imp' syndrome. I haven't had the urge to replay it, and I usually forget it was even released.

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

Website copyright © 2002-2013 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.