Is Doom3's renderer revolutionary?
- Thread starter Scali
- Start date
No offense, but I'd like to pick between "Yes," "No," and "Not really." I may agree with "No" but not with "No, the main ingredients are bumpmapping, Blinn-Phong shading and shadowvolumes, which were all invented in the 70s. It was only a matter of time until they were applied in realtime."
Do you think that fair?
Do you think that fair?
Spaceman-Spiff
Regular
I sense a little contradiction...
Is Doom3's renderer revolutionary?
No, the main ingredients are bumpmapping, Blinn-Phong shading and shadowvolumes, which were all invented in the 70s. It was only a matter of time until they were applied in realtime.
Won't it be revolutionary too if this is the first time those all above are done in realtime for games?
Is Doom3's renderer revolutionary?
No, the main ingredients are bumpmapping, Blinn-Phong shading and shadowvolumes, which were all invented in the 70s. It was only a matter of time until they were applied in realtime.
Won't it be revolutionary too if this is the first time those all above are done in realtime for games?
gokickrocks
Regular
they have been done in games, just not all of them in the same game, at least none that i know of...
as for, would it be revolutionary since it is done in real time, the answer is no...that would be due to hardware rather than the renderer
as for, would it be revolutionary since it is done in real time, the answer is no...that would be due to hardware rather than the renderer
I think it is reasonable to say that for any rendering technique there are three distinct revolutionary phases. The first is the invention of the technique usually in an offline (non-realtime, software) rendering context. The second phase is when the technique is applied for the first time in a realtime context, usually in a techdemo situation (think Humus' demos, or the ATi/Nvidia techdemos). The third phase is the application of the technique in a real application or game. I think that each of these stages can be considered revolutionary, and in that case, yes, Doom3's renderer is revolutionary.
If you think only the original invetion of a technique is revolutionary then I think we can pretty safely say that no game ever has been revolutionary in terms of computer graphics. In fact nearly every technique has evolved out of other, similar techniques so the entire process can be looked on as being evolutionary depending on your point of view.
I think Doom3 is a revolutionary game renderer, and it is totally useless to look at it outside of that context.
If you think only the original invetion of a technique is revolutionary then I think we can pretty safely say that no game ever has been revolutionary in terms of computer graphics. In fact nearly every technique has evolved out of other, similar techniques so the entire process can be looked on as being evolutionary depending on your point of view.
I think Doom3 is a revolutionary game renderer, and it is totally useless to look at it outside of that context.
gokickrocks
Regular
Goragoth said:
the reasons you gave are not revolutionary, they are evolutionary
If that is how you look at it then no computer game has ever had a revolutionary renderer and the whole argument is moot. The difference between revolutionary and evolutionary is just a (fuzzy) degree of change. You could well argue that humans are impossible of revolutionary thought, that everything we have ever done has been an evolution of previous ideas.
Luminescent
Veteran
Scali, give us an example of a renderer that you consider a revolutionary point in the history of real-time (w/some reasons). A developer's idea of revolutionary may defer from that of an end consumer or enthusiast.
I honestly don't want to vote. If John says the Doom3 renderer is not "revolutionary", who am I to argue with him.
I think the point Scali is trying to make is that what John has done with the Doom3 renderer wasn't created by John himself. Duh. Even his reverse isn't his original idea according to Creative. Duh again.
The Doom3 renderer is not "revolutionary". It is an example of an implementation, in a retail app, of various software techniques that came out years ago.
Heck, you can argue that there isn't even a "revolutionary" piece of 3D hardware, since all of them have features that are the result of software researches implemented offline beforehand. What's "revolutionary" is that the hardware is a reality. Was the original Voodoo "revolutionary"? Depends on how you look at it. Was the Unreal engine that made its debut in the original Unreal game "revolutionary"? Depends on how you look at it. Was the first beer made "revolutionary"? Depends on whether you have tasted any kind of alcohol before.
Stupid little outdated poll.
I think the point Scali is trying to make is that what John has done with the Doom3 renderer wasn't created by John himself. Duh. Even his reverse isn't his original idea according to Creative. Duh again.
The Doom3 renderer is not "revolutionary". It is an example of an implementation, in a retail app, of various software techniques that came out years ago.
Heck, you can argue that there isn't even a "revolutionary" piece of 3D hardware, since all of them have features that are the result of software researches implemented offline beforehand. What's "revolutionary" is that the hardware is a reality. Was the original Voodoo "revolutionary"? Depends on how you look at it. Was the Unreal engine that made its debut in the original Unreal game "revolutionary"? Depends on how you look at it. Was the first beer made "revolutionary"? Depends on whether you have tasted any kind of alcohol before.
Stupid little outdated poll.
Secret Service: Security Breach and Chronicles of Riddick both beat DooM3 to market. Secret service by the better part of a year (released Oct. 2003). not to mention Tenebrae, and various game tests in 3dmark2003 (i know, not a game, but it's renderer has a similar overal feature set). if DooM3's renderer is revolutionary then wth are those renderers?
Bingo. It's not some CRAZY PREVIOUSLY UNIMAGINABLE RENDERER, it's an evolution of real-time renderers.
Tenebrae is not a game (and I don't think the authors of the Tenebrae2 solely-rendering engine will make a game based on Tenebrae2). 3DMark2003 is not a game. That is the big difference -- collating various technologies, choosing which of them is to be implemented in a game, and eventually releasing such a game. ANYBODY, as long as they are willing and patient enough to learn emerging technologies -- software and/or hardware -- can write a program that shows such technologies.
Nobody is claiming that Carmack is God (well, ok, some do... and they're the folks Scali is attempting to address with this poll of his) -- I remember emailing him during the Q3 dev period that stencils is probably not the best way forward. What Carmack has done, whether with Doom3 or Wolf, was to turn certain ideas, whether they have been revealed publicly or kept to himself if he created them, into an actual game. And in the process, shape the way 3D hardware (but not CPU since that is a dead route) are/can-be designed. The last sentence is "revolutionary" for a single individual involved mainly in the industry of making games and not 3D hardware (though he was tempted to make the switch some time back).
Maybe a breather is in order?Reverend said:
I really don't think the topic is worthy of such emotional investment.
Scali would know why I said that. I'm not even the least bit concerned about this thread... or if Doom3 is "revolutionary"... or if Carmack is a Really Good Programmer -- we have a game called "Doom3" using the various algorithms, expressed in Scali's poll header, that I have not witnessed in any game prior to the game called "Doom3". Scali has told me via PM why he thinks he is entitled to expressing his opinion about Doom3 and Carmack ("Carmack's stupid little outdated game" was what he said in the ending pages of the UE3 radiosity thread here in this same forum) and shouldn't be criticized for doing so (which I agree). I'm just doing the same thing, since I believe in the underlying truth of Scali's perception of "forum participation".Inane_Dork said:
My own opinion:
Doom 3 was revolutionary. With all the tech it placed at the forefront of gaming technology, it had to be. Anyone remember the first demos? The ones on a GF3 powered Mac? That changed my expectations of game graphics. id has also affected hardware designs (as Rev mentions), which is quite important. And they inspired other developers to include such technology in their games.
But to me, that's about where it stops. By the time the game itself came out, it was not much of a pioneer. This only makes sense, as D3's tech remained constant while years went by. It's only rational that everyone else caught up some. Doom's exceptional surface detail was equaled by Far Cry (and Deus Ex: Invisible War and Chronicles of Riddick). The shadows are basically the same way.
The only serious claim, in my opinion, is that of unified lighting. This seems to me more of a particular implementation of some effects than anything else. That is, other games could've made similar claims if they limited their level designers enough. I think it's great that, overall, the lighting is more unified. But I don't see how that's much more than an effect of game design decisions in this instance.
Also, it's important to keep points of reference here. Other guys have done revolutionary things in the past 2 years as well. Ubi Montreal made the first game to make extended use of shadow mapping (to my knowledge). Bunkasha's Wreckless brought lots of post processing effects to the eyes of gamers. Lots of games have been revolutionary from a tech perspective. Doom 3 is one of them, though you have to go back a little ways.
Doom 3 was revolutionary. With all the tech it placed at the forefront of gaming technology, it had to be. Anyone remember the first demos? The ones on a GF3 powered Mac? That changed my expectations of game graphics. id has also affected hardware designs (as Rev mentions), which is quite important. And they inspired other developers to include such technology in their games.
But to me, that's about where it stops. By the time the game itself came out, it was not much of a pioneer. This only makes sense, as D3's tech remained constant while years went by. It's only rational that everyone else caught up some. Doom's exceptional surface detail was equaled by Far Cry (and Deus Ex: Invisible War and Chronicles of Riddick). The shadows are basically the same way.
The only serious claim, in my opinion, is that of unified lighting. This seems to me more of a particular implementation of some effects than anything else. That is, other games could've made similar claims if they limited their level designers enough. I think it's great that, overall, the lighting is more unified. But I don't see how that's much more than an effect of game design decisions in this instance.
Also, it's important to keep points of reference here. Other guys have done revolutionary things in the past 2 years as well. Ubi Montreal made the first game to make extended use of shadow mapping (to my knowledge). Bunkasha's Wreckless brought lots of post processing effects to the eyes of gamers. Lots of games have been revolutionary from a tech perspective. Doom 3 is one of them, though you have to go back a little ways.
see colon said:
Do you know what's common of all those four programs?
It's pretty much a certainty NONE of them would have been designed the way they are had not the people behind them seen the Doom3/Geforce3 presentation at that macworld fair in 2001.
That's right. 2001. You speak about this and that beating D3 to market, SO WHAT. D3 was still first. The D3 renderer existed pretty much in its final form THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO, in the sense it used reverse stencils, bumpmapping, cubemaps, all that stuff. Later it was of course optimized, updated for DX9 etc. But the thing is, without that presentation, the smattering of per-pixel lighting/stencil shadow games we have would most likely have been ZILCH. Witness the power of "me-too"...
Oh, and btw, you forgot about Deus Ex: Invisible War...
Similar threads
- Poll
