Doom3 graphics vs. Battle of Proxycon (GT2)

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

What do you think? How does the Doom3 graphics compare to game test 2 in 3D Mark 2003? They look very similar to me, uses similar techniques and even have the same 'feel'. Depth of field is used in GT2 but it wouldn't make sense for Doom. I think Doom3 wont' have as much busy detail but will have more manipulation of the lighting effects / shadows.

 

[Rodéric]

can't .... resist....

DOOM III alpha leaked demo runs at far more than 5 fps on my system, unlike Game Test 2.

I knew I couldn't resist.

 

[Ostsol]

Similar idea, but Doom 3 does it much more efficiently. In that sense, NVidia's anti-3dMark flames are accurate.

Depth of field isn't very useful in games except for in the case of cinematics, where the goal is to direct the audience's attention to a specific detail. In actual gameplay it's pretty useless.

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

But GT2 has a whole army of guys moving around, not 1 or 2 monsters And it also has the outside scenes. .

 

[BNA!]

I see enough busy details in Doom3.
Or to be honest, I've never seen so many busy details in a game yet.

Don't forget - Futuremark has to provide only a small level section, id software will feed us a full game.

I somehow think that 3Drealms are shooting for the "most busy detail" award in Duke Nukem 4 Ever. The result shall be seen someday.

 

[Ostsol]

Oh, yeah. . . it has 4 or 5 guys moving around. . . Also, the outside sequence is empty space with ships moving around -- not too difficult a feat as compared to large scale terrain.

 

[Nick[FM]]

Similar idea, but Doom 3 does it much more efficiently. In that sense, NVidia's anti-3dMark flames are accurate.

Please read our tech response for more info concerning this:

http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/Response_to_3DMark03_discussion.pdf

Depth of field isn't very useful in games except for in the case of cinematics, where the goal is to direct the audience's attention to a specific detail. In actual gameplay it's pretty useless.

You can use it in actual gameplay (IMHO), if you use it as an special effect or something. As you said, it can not be set on all the time, but for some certain effects, sure (+ cinematics, of course). Maybe for sniper rifle zoom, hit effect etc. I could come up with several ideas where it could be used in actual gameplay.

 

[Nick[FM]]

The result shall be seen someday.

hehe.. You still believe that they will someday ship that game? I hope so too, but..

 

[Doomtrooper]

I somehow think that 3Drealms are shooting for the "most busy detail" award in Duke Nukem 4 Ever. The result shall be seen someday.

Yes we will all be in wheel chairs by then.

 

[Ostsol]

]

Similar idea, but Doom 3 does it much more efficiently. In that sense, NVidia's anti-3dMark flames are accurate.

Please read our tech response for more info concerning this:

http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/Response_to_3DMark03_discussion.pdf

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was refering to the comment and discussion around here that 3dMark extrudes all vertices on a model rather than just the edges to create a shadow volume. Admittedly, though, I haven't been paying a huge amount of attention to the discussion.

Depth of field isn't very useful in games except for in the case of cinematics, where the goal is to direct the audience's attention to a specific detail. In actual gameplay it's pretty useless.

You can use it in actual gameplay (IMHO), if you use it as an special effect or something. As you said, it can not be set on all the time, but for some certain effects, sure (+ cinematics, of course). Maybe for sniper rifle zoom, hit effect etc. I could come up with several ideas where it could be used in actual gameplay.

I'm still unsure. . . As I intimated, film directors use it to focus audience attention. In a game it is the player who needs to choose where to focus his/her attention, making it entirely inappropriate to force such a thing on the player. The only instance I can think of in active gameplay where depth of field would be appropriate is in skyboxes, which are meant to provide ambience and not distract. As such, it would be appropriate to blur it (as is already done in many games).

 

[BNA!]

When I posted the "D-word" I had a feeling some of you might pick it up in some way or another...

While I don't know if we'll ever see it, let alone our physical constitution at this point, I'm still looking forward to it.

Just in case we're indeed old and sitting in our wheelchairs - the 3D strippers might come in "handy"

 

[Doomtrooper]

Oh very much so myself, I still play the Original with the GLmod , IMO one of the best single player experiences in its time and funny as hell mulitplayer.

The delay for the game has gone past unbelieveable.

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

Just in case we're indeed old and sitting in our wheelchairs - the 3D strippers might come in "handy"

ROFLOL

 

[Nick[FM]]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was refering to the comment and discussion around here that 3dMark extrudes all vertices on a model rather than just the edges to create a shadow volume. Admittedly, though, I haven't been paying a huge amount of attention to the discussion.

Well, in any case, do read the pdf. It really is worth reading if you want to know what's going on.

I'm still unsure. . . As I intimated, film directors use it to focus audience attention. In a game it is the player who needs to choose where to focus his/her attention, making it entirely inappropriate to force such a thing on the player. The only instance I can think of in active gameplay where depth of field would be appropriate is in skyboxes, which are meant to provide ambience and not distract. As such, it would be appropriate to blur it (as is already done in many games).

You are correct in saying that games should not use DOF in-game to eg. force the player (at least if a first-person shooter) to look at some certain point. But as I said, it could be used as some special effect or when using sniper rifle etc. I think it's more up to who will be creative enough to use DOF as something else, than "DOF as we know it". I think RavenShield has some very neat post processing effects. When you walk into tear gas, the whole scene is motion blurred, and it is actually quite difficult to hit anyone. The flash bang "burns" an image on the screen and then starts to fade out (+ you hear that high pitch noise!). And more.. It's all up to how you use such effects really. As time goes by, cards get faster, we will see more and more of those post processing effects. They look very nice, and gives a great "finalized" touch to the game.

3DMark03 uses DOF and "bloom" as post effects.

*edit: Edited some typos.. Too tired!

 

[Nick[FM]]

Just in case we're indeed old and sitting in our wheelchairs - the 3D strippers might come in "handy"

ROFLOL

I second that ROFLOLOFLOFLRRLFOLF!

 

[Ostsol]

remark]

I'm still unsure. . . As I intimated, film directors use it to focus audience attention. In a game it is the player who needs to choose where to focus his/her attention, making it entirely inappropriate to force such a thing on the player. The only instance I can think of in active gameplay where depth of field would be appropriate is in skyboxes, which are meant to provide ambience and not distract. As such, it would be appropriate to blur it (as is already done in many games).

You are right that the any game using DOF must not use it in game to force the player (at least if a first-person shooter) to look at some certain point, but as I said, it could be used as some special effect or when using sniper rifle etc. I think it's more up to who will be creative enough to use DOF as something else than DOF as we know it. I think RavenShield has some very neat post processing effects. When you walk into tear gas, the whole scene is motion blurred, and it is actually quite difficult to hit anyone. The flash bang "burns" an image on the screen and then starts to fade out (+ you hear that high pitch noise!). And more.. It's all up to how you use such effects really. As time goes by, cards get faster, we will see more and more of those post processing effects. They look very nice, and gives a great "finalized" touch to the game.

3DMark03 uses DOF and "bloom" as post effects.

Ah. . . I was only thinking of the obvious use. . .

 

[Grall]

Metal Gear Solid 2 uses DOF in-game as a special effect when using the zoom goggles. Works very well.

An example of good use of this feature.

*G*

 

[BoddoZerg]

Yeah, for using a mechanical zoom lens, a slightly delayed DoF effect makes sense in-game.

 

[Sxotty]

Duke nukem 4ever, will probably have to change engines again .

 

[breez]

BTW, is 3DMark03 engine a new design or based on MAX-FX?