Doom3

[Laa-Yosh]

Seems like the first shots are out:

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/e3/doom1_frame.html

Impressive, as expected :)

[bystander]

http://i.cnn.net/money/images/specials/e3/gameshots/DOOM1.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/money/images/specials/e3/gameshots/DOOM3.jpg

It looks absolutely amazing, hard to believe those are actually in game shots! :o

[Kristof]

Lets collects the screenies here :

http://i.cnn.net/money/images/specials/e3/gameshots/DOOM2.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/money/images/specials/e3/gameshots/DOOM4.jpg

[Laa-Yosh]

It's interesting, that two of the images seems to be ones that were presented on QuakeCon 2001, that were also leaked by the german Gamestar mag. Since the resolution of the other shots is the same, they might also be almost a year old. A logical conclusion would be that ID or Activision have newer, high-res shots available - if only they'd post them...

[Kristof]

High Rez Versions :

http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/doom3b/9.jpg

http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/doom3b/10.jpg

http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/doom3b/11.jpg

http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/doom3b/12.jpg

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

Doom3 looks so... ID. :P

Serioulsy though, they really should get a few colourful artist or some guys from Irrational Games. :)

[Laa-Yosh]

Help! I think I'm melting... ;)

Well, after reading about the technology last year, I expected something like this, but it's still amazing. You really have to wonder what Carmack could create 10 years from now...

[Matt Burris]

JF_Aidan_Pryde:

How many military bases do you know have purple or orange walls? I don't know why people always complain about id's games being brown or grey (with the exception for Quake 2 which had an overabundance of colored lightings, due to its newness). It fits the theme of the game, and brown/grey is what a majority of what all buildings are made of.

Personally I find the color to be just perfect for the game, it looks scary enough. :D

[psurge]

Well they look really good :)

And I'd really need to see more shots to compare, but take a look at these shots of Everquest2...

http://avault.com/news/avscreenshots.asp?pic=everquest2&num=7&story=52220 02-34312

http://avault.com/news/avscreenshots.asp?pic=everquest2&num=8&story=52220 02-34312

http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/image.asp?/e32002/pc/eq2/6.jpg

http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/image.asp?/e32002/pc/eq2/1.jpg

http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/image.asp?/e32002/pc/eq2/3.jpg

IMHO these games have a very similar look (apart from the graphical theme).

Serge

[Matt Burris]

A video released for you to check out at WaitPlanet: http://www.fileplanet.com/index.asp?section=645&file=88339

Or maybe not... rumors is that this isn't the 11 minute video promised...

[bystander]

Well FilePlanet says the video is only 7 minutes long.

Mind you the waiting times at FilePlanet have skyrocketed. The average wait to download a file seems to be 2 hours when I looked.

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

Matt,

I know DOOM3 is aiming for the AvP, dirty and critty look.
It does that quite well. But that is not the only way you get "horror" expressed in.

I am really comparing it to System Shock2. That game had 180 polygon models but what I'd still call innovative graphics; It's how the artists did the levels. And they had great texture art.

And oh yeah, System Shock2 is probably scarier. :D

[muted]

Doom was apparently shown running on a 2.2Ghz system using some sort of ATI graphics card

ok , i didn't say that ..

Gamespot did ( so it's probably not true )

but i'd like to know what it was running on exactly !

[DemoCoder]

Of course, the solution is to just pay for a personal server on fileplanet. I did this awhile ago and its well worth it. A bunch of friends and I share it. Almost every single time I want to download anything on the internet, I go there and I am always guaraneted a 250kilobyte/sec transfer rate. Paying them to basically mirror everything and provide a high bandwidth download is worth it (if you have broadband)

[Humus]

I have put up a mirror on my server:

http://esprit.campus.luth.se/~humus/temp/doom_3_bts_big.zip

Please be kind to the server and don't post the link all over the place in other forums.

[Gollum]

Just watched the vid, quite cool, but I'd really like to see that 11 minute game vid instead of the pixelated Doom 1+2 footage...
What you get to see of the new Doom looks quite promising indeed. Not only the engine but the design too, which I find positively surprising, at least for an id game, lots of grey but less brown that Q3A at least. Hard to imagine its supposed to run well on todays hardware tho.

What I found interesting too, that after all the talk about primarily using Maya for the game, in this video you mostly get to see LightWave3D Modeler "behind the scenes". Guess its lightwave for modeling and Maya for animation then eh? Just had to bring it up, I'm a proud LightWave user so sue me, hehe... ;)

[Dave Glue]

I snagged it off Fileplanet, and it definitely does have many scenes of Doom3. The problem? It was recorded at 5 frames per second . That's right folks, this 100mb Quicktime file runs at 5fps - so forget analyzing the animation quality. Yeesh!

Doom3 is unlike other previews I've seen, where it looks incredible in small shots, until you see it blown up. Doom3 is the opposite, the larger shots I see, the more in-game footage, the more detail is obvious. The snippets in this video do show that it truly will be something special. I've seen many impressive shots from E3, but no title on the console or PC approaches this in preventing a realistic graphical experience. The only thing that could compare is Resident Evil for the gamecube, the difference is this is completely real-time.

[Doomtrooper]

Thx Humus for the download :)

[noko]

Ditto also Humus :).

[JavaJones]

While these are highly impressive shots (looking near pre-rendered in some parts) and while I certainly don't intend to take away from what Carmack and Co. have done, I think they've relied too heavily on the high poly source model, low poly in game model trick. Or rather I think it's balanced a bit too heavily towards low poly in game models. I think the in game poly count (for characters mostly) should be doubled if possible.

I don't know if anyone else noticed it, but the polys are pretty obvious, even those not on silhouette edges. That's somewhat dissapointing. Frankly EQ 2, though it doesn't look as impressive overall, seems to handle the characters in a bit more balanced way. The overall first impression isn't as striking, but further examination of EQ2 doesn't reveal surprisingly low poly models as Doom 3 seems to.

None the less the high rez shots are pretty awesome, particularly the environments IMO. They look almost pre-rendered. Can't wait for a Doom 3 Test. :-)

- JavaJones

[Althornin]

While these are highly impressive shots (looking near pre-rendered in some parts) and while I certainly don't intend to take away from what Carmack and Co. have done, I think they've relied too heavily on the high poly source model, low poly in game model trick. Or rather I think it's balanced a bit too heavily towards low poly in game models. I think the in game poly count (for characters mostly) should be doubled if possible.

I don't know if anyone else noticed it, but the polys are pretty obvious, even those not on silhouette edges.s

Agree with you on this one.
The models look like they could do with some TruForm/ tesselation of some kind.
But the lighting is amazing!

[John Reynolds]

Maybe it's just me, but the most impressive aspect of those shots is the way the blood is smeared across the bathroom floor.

[Jerry Cornelius]

Thanks a lot for the download Humus.

Looks good and creepy like Quake 1 :).

[V3]

An interview with JC on Doom 3

http://www.gamers.com/news/1156460

JC: The rendering engine is still my primary focus, and it has been a lot more interesting on this project than the last couple ones. At the fundamental level, the basic rendering paradigm hasn't really changed much in the industry since the original Quake-light mapped worlds and shaded characters. I am quite confident that the new Doom paradigm of discrete, projected lights, full-time bump mapping, and global unification of light-surface interaction will become the new standard. Once you experience the consistency of the Doom world, other games start to feel more like puppet shows.

What is full-time bump mapping ?

[Humus]

He probably means that everything is bumpmapped, not just some part for a certain effect or so.

[Laa-Yosh]

The low poly count is because of the shadow volume based lighting. With higher poly counts or truform (which IMHO wouldn't make them look that more impressive) the engine's speed would come to a crawl. That's also the main difference between EQ2 and the Doom engine.

[Reverend]

There is no contest between the EQ2 shots and those of Doom3. See JC's comment about "toon-like" and life-like. As mentioned, looks almost pre-rendered. Should have better curves though :)

And look at the toilet bowls and wash basin!

[pcchen]

If you want to use some hardware accelerated HOS along with voluemtric shadow, you may have to rely on the vertex shaders to produce shadow volumes, and it is not very reliable.

[PVR_Extremist]

Does anyone else feel it looks a little too evil?

[Laa-Yosh]

As I see the topic has been moved to Games talk... I dunno, I originally wanted to discuss the engine tehcnology in this topic...

[pascal]

Few things:

- Thanks id there is no flashy colours
- Textures are great and clean
- It doesnt look like a carton (thanks again)
- The polygon level is perfect. It will probably run well in the GF1 at low resolution.
- The lighting is the king of the show 8)
- Very evil
- The immersion feelling is great 8)

The only observation is there is no large environments. I would like to see some large environments pics.

Could you imagine adding some displacement mapping to this engine and do some great outdoors? 8)

[At The Gates]

What i want to know is what will be a reasonable spec system to run this game at say 1024x768 with full details...

Those shots look like a serious leap above anything out at the moment, can GF3/R8500 class hardware really cope with a game like that, at full detail? I guess you'll need a 2Ghz+ CPU behind it!

[pascal]

Maybe CPU will not be the problem because they are not going with incredible amount of polygons. Some people say it will top 150k polygons (worst case). This is more or less the 3Dmark2001 Car test low detail.

GF3 and 8500 will not be fillrate limited but will be bandwith limited. I guess 3D card memory bandwith is the name of the problem.

[At The Gates]

I take it iD is using OpenGL for this game?

[pascal]

OpenGL for sure.

[Reverend]

What i want to know is what will be a reasonable spec system to run this game at say 1024x768 with full details...

Those shots look like a serious leap above anything out at the moment, can GF3/R8500 class hardware really cope with a game like that, at full detail? I guess you'll need a 2Ghz+ CPU behind it!

See this interview (http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/carmack/). Looks like NVIDIA is still his reference for work.

[pascal]

Carmack interview ate gamespy: http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/carmack/

Carmack: There are interesting things to be said about the upcoming cards, but NDAs will force me to just discuss the available cards.

In order from best to worst for Doom:

I still think that overall, the GeForce 4 Ti is the best card you can buy. It has high speed and excellent driver quality.

Based on the feature set, the Radeon 8500 should be a faster card for Doom than the GF4, because it can do the seven texture accesses that I need in a single pass, while it takes two or three passes (depending on details) on the GF4. However, in practice, the GF4 consistently runs faster due to a highly efficient implementation. For programmers, the 8500 has a much nicer fragment path than the GF4, with more general features and increased precision, but the driver quality is still quite a ways from Nvidia's, so I would be a little hesitant to use it as a primary research platform.

The GF4-MX is a very fast card for existing games, but it is less well suited to Doom, due to the lower texture unit count and the lack of vertex shaders.

On a slow CPU with all features enabled, the GF3 will be faster than the GF4-MX, because it offloads some work. On systems with CPU power to burn, the GF4 may still be faster.

The 128 bit DDR GF2 systems will be faster than the Radeon-7500 systems, again due to low level implementation details overshadowing the extra texture unit.

The slowest cards will be the 64 bit and SDR ram GF and Radeon cards, which will really not be fast enough to play the game properly unless you run at 320x240 or so.


edited: Reverend you are really fast :)

[Colourless]

I have a feeling that in a years time my V5 6000 is going to be doing nothing but gathering dust.

[pascal]

The best/safest thing to do now is wait the game and the new upcoming cards.
I will keep my GF3 until I find it is not capable to do the work.

The CPU side we have no answer. What is slow and fast?

[Hellbinder]

your DAMN right it was running on an ATi card! infact the presentation setup says "NEXT GENERATION ATI GRAPHICS CARD".

So NO!!!! it probobly is not, is not true... errr something like that :)

[V3]

I also hope, Id adds some chaos to Doom 3. At the moment, the Zombie or whatever, is looking like identical twin, with the same scar and everything.

When graphics starts to get that real, they should at least take into consideration such thing, and put more noise into the scene as well, instead of just the same bump map.

[Reverend]

I have a feeling that in a years time my V5 6000 is going to be doing nothing but gathering dust.
You mean it isn't already? :wink:

[Gollum]

Got to agree on the Character Poly Count, I too find it looks almost a little bit too low compared to the surroundings, but I guess its a compromise that has to be made to keep the performance acceptable with full real time lighting, shading and shadowing - one of the greatest advantages of the new engine could be part of a disadvantage too that way, hmm. Looking forward to see how they go about creating everything fo the game, I'd love to make a character or two using this tech...

I'm really excited about what Carmack called "the new Doom paradigm of discrete, projected lights, full-time bump mapping, and global unification of light-surface interaction" though - I think he's right that in many of todays games, the game world, and the characters or objects within usually "feel and look" seperated (which they are in all engines I know of) because they are often much differently shaded and lighted than the immediate vicinity. You get used to it and kinda ignore it, but its a feeleing that hardly ever went away for me. A good example would be UT, where objects like the skycars, barrels or spaceships and so on never felt nor looked really integrated into the great looking levels around them. If Doom3 really takes the step and removes this - by fully treating environments and objects/characters the same way in the renderer - then it might really be hard to go back to the "old" way of percieving 3d games after having been immersed in the "real thing"... :)

[hughJ]

much better quality version of the video... complete ~30fps, so ya can see the character animation fully..

http://www.mymtw.de/files/downloads/36/517_doom_iii_legacy_high.zip

[Saem]

Don't know if anyone has read this, but have a look... http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/doom3c/

Two folks from gamespy saw the game being played. Seems the physics and collision detection are great and the lighting is as spectacular as expected.

[Johnny Rotten]

I have a 50 meg file of the actual demo footage. Shakey cam mind you. Still it gives you an amazing glimpse of this title that is simply light years ahead of anything else out there right now (or that I've seen currently in development).

[Saem]

A lot of folks don't like Id's insistance on making games that a really simple and quick to learn. They consider them shallow. For those people, I think you'll find this really, really funny.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view2002-05-24rl.html

[Gollum]

you can grab the vid with the 10+ minutes of gameplay footage from http://www.gamesweb.com or http://www.fragland.net

[pascal]

An interview with the id team: http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/id/

[pascal]

AVI video and some pics: http://www.dailyrush.dk/files/movies/925/

[muted]

Camera work is.. Craptacular .. but at least you get to see more.

WOW
:o
WOW

[pascal]

One more id interview at Gamespy: http://www.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/id2/

With all this real time animation and sound production it looks like they are making a movie :) Will it be a trend?

[hughJ]

"Will it be a trend?"

i don't think it will so much..

from what I've seen of the Unreal2 engine, I think it will have more to offer on the lines of gameplay than Doom3 will.. which will likely translate to more interest from developers whom buy engine licenses..

Quake4 is going to be more of a test than Doom3 will, imo.. as we'll likely get to see how well the engine plays into the standard fast paced games.. and how the lighting engine affects performance in the high-octane firefights with multiple characters on screen, etc..

Unreal2 will undoubtedly handle open environments much better than Doom3 will, and the skeletal character physics, imo offer more practical features to gameplay than lighting does.. Doom3 only really shows off what it can really do by having moving lightsources.. and in real environments, moving light sources aren't nearly as common as static ones..

now that I think about it.. I can't imagine Doom3's lighting engine working at all well in out door environments.. would there be some kind of set limit as to how far the light can cast? I would think you'd run into major performance problems if shadows were to wind up trying to be cast across a kilometer of map space..

if ya guys haven't had a chance to see the unreal2 skeletal physics in action, I suggest ya do..

[Saem]

from what I've seen of the Unreal2 engine, I think it will have more to offer on the lines of gameplay than Doom3 will.. which will likely translate to more interest from developers whom buy engine licenses..

Tips in arguing a point, compare apples to apples. You are comparing an engine to a game, please reword this so it conveys what you meant it to say.

Now as for lines of gameplay, I don't think you're correct. Here is why. When was the last time we had such an incredibly sophisticated lighting model available in a game? Llighting does amazing things on a persons state of mind and is definately going to be a hot feature for those that want a game with drama - I think single player games will LOVE the Doom3 engine over the Unreal2 engine. Another reason is that you make the underlying assumption that things won't progress. This is likely unintentional but by the time people start considering the two engines for liscencing and when they launch Doom3 will likely offer superior graphics. Perhaps, you haven't considered this, but games which focus on realism will especially enjoy this engine seeing as realistic lighting effects are very immersive and add a completely new dynamic to gameplay.

Quake4 is going to be more of a test than Doom3 will, imo.. as we'll likely get to see how well the engine plays into the standard fast paced games.. and how the lighting engine affects performance in the high-octane firefights with multiple characters on screen, etc..

Perhaps, you don't know this but Raven is developing the game and it will be very story driven and heavly single player focused. Large amount of characters on the screen by the time it comes out will be a far lesser problem. Lower quality source art and the natural progression of technology under the hood of consumers everywhere will likely make this a moot point. Might not, however.

Unreal2 will undoubtedly handle open environments much better than Doom3 will, and the skeletal character physics, imo offer more practical features to gameplay than lighting does.. Doom3 only really shows off what it can really do by having moving lightsources.. and in real environments, moving light sources aren't nearly as common as static ones..

Yes, chances are it'll handle outdoor enviroments better - we can't say for certian but it's HIGHLY likely. As for the skeletal character physics and what not, well Doom3 does a great job at this too, as noted by those who watched the video. Collision detection and the physics for other objects are also well done.

now that I think about it.. I can't imagine Doom3's lighting engine working at all well in out door environments.. would there be some kind of set limit as to how far the light can cast? I would think you'd run into major performance problems if shadows were to wind up trying to be cast across a kilometer of map space..

Well using less sophisticated version of the lighting model, in otherwords you might have a light engine LoD (that'd be neat), geometric (rendered model and source model for lighting) and texture LoD. I'm sure there are ways to do get some larger spaces. Even with all that, chances are Unreal games will still hold an advantage, in performance.

I suppose the best way to put it is that, lighting is very important in movies and television, finally, a powerful lighting engine exists which can make use of techniques (in scene description) that lighting afford, though it may not be evident to us at this point, I think good if not great use(s) of this feature will be made, which have been learned from the aforementioned industries.

[muted]

Talking about sound/music

I'd prefer if john zorn and friends ( merzbow , yamatsuka eye ) were doing the music/sound

trent is alright , but he's not even halfway there yet

[nggalai]

I'd prefer if john zorn and friends ( merzbow , yamatsuka eye ) were doing the music/soundNow we're cooking!

*seconds the notion*

And make Mike Patton do all the creature sounds. :D

ta,
.rb

[muted]

Well , Eye can throw in a moan and a throat clear like nobody can

some good stuff to hear it
Boredoms
naked city

some good john zorn story telling music

The bribe , Godard/spillane his filmworks serie

and i prefer mike's musical side

but i'm not afraid, Trent can pull this off