anyone else think Quake4 looks terrible?

DemoCoder

Veteran
It's STILL BLOCKY like D3, and the shaders still make everything look like they are made out of the same material! Walls, armor, flesh, it all looks the same.

Tim Sweeney really put the smack down on iD with UE3. I don't understand why polybumps in the D3 engine have to yield suck blocky looking models on next-gen HW.
 
Yeah, they could have upped the base geometry that's for sure. Or take more time tweaking them.
 
Well it must be said, the Doom3 engine is just not the Unreal Engine 3. It was never supposed to be on the same level.
So, my contribution would be, they should just license the UE3, everyone does anyway, and develop Quake4 around that :devilish:
I mean, even my granma has a UE3 license now.
 
It seems that the Doom III engine doesn't have much of future. It was really made just for the current generation of GPU.
 
Bohdy said:
It seems that the Doom III engine doesn't have much of future. It was really made just for the current generation of GPU.

Actually, for the one before the current ones... UE3 is made for the current ones, on a feature level, it runs a bit slow with today's top GPUs, and will run just fine on the next PC GPUs.
 
Games running on the Doom 3 engine just look archaic. Low polygon characters and environments, crappy specular and hard edged shadows. Doom 3 didn't even look that good when it was finally released.
 
Yeah Carmack and company just need to quit.

They still make good engines and stuff....but their legendary status is getting diminished with every new release.

Sweeney and company are clearly superior.
 
london-boy said:
Well it must be said, the Doom3 engine is just not the Unreal Engine 3. It was never supposed to be on the same level.
So, my contribution would be, they should just license the UE3, everyone does anyway, and develop Quake4 around that :devilish:
I mean, even my granma has a UE3 license now.

Yeah and that's the problem. All UE3 games have a similar look/feel.
 
Tommy said:
Yeah Carmack and company just need to quit.

They still make good engines and stuff....but their legendary status is getting diminished with every new release.

Sweeney and company are clearly superior.

You kidding? Carmack's engines are always more optimized and have the new tech sooner. (ie, Doom3 is on Xbox and has the nice shading, whereas UT on Xbox looks like ass). UE3 runs slooooow...even on a top end modern system.
 
The big difference between the two is that Doom 3 has been out for a year already, and UE3 will not be out for another year...of course it looks better. That's just like saying PS3 looks better than PS2, therefore PS2 is crap.
 
I thought Q4 was hit and miss artistically.

As for tech, some parts--that played to the D3 engines strengths--looked good. Other parts were meh (still better than this gen of consoles by a lot).

Obviously it is far below the UE3 engine in featureset, but even that is not released yet. If id gets an engine out in 2006 maybe we can compare, but comparing the D3 engine that shipped in 2004 to an engine that wont ship until 2006 is kind of pointless.
 
Riddlewire said:
Don't blame the engine.
Prey looks excellent.

Link to any Prey ingame media? I saw a single shot, but it was not of any gameplay or even gameplay like.
 
Apparently not.
I just went to look for the link and the post has been deleted.

There were five or six magazine scans of Prey screenshots. They weren't 'final' (no HUD, not first person), but they were in-engine shots just like all the Quake 4 media.

As for Quake 4's appearance, I'm going to blame Raven. I think they just didn't have enough experience working with the technology at the time they put together their preliminary designs and artwork. I don't think it looks bad. Just too much like Doom 3's style.
 
Prey looks crap as well. Everything running on the Doom 3 engine looks awful IMO. Some softshadows and better specular would help a lot though.
 
Back
Top