Real Time Enviroment Altering

[PhobosKosmos]

In one of the interviews I think I read something about that there will NOT be real time enviroment changing(like blowing up walls with the rocket launcher). This type of engine was used for the Red Faction game and I hope that it better damn well be in DOOM III.

[gatewatcher]

Doom's not Red Faction, btw.

[AndrewB]

Too bad. Experimental interactivity always makes a game better.

[Linguica]

Did you even play Red Faction? Geomod was a nice idea but it stunk up the game. Since they couldn't let you destroy EVERYTHING in the game it degenerated into a game of "figure out which walls you can blow up because 80% of them won't."

[[noob]plonker]

enny way who cares redfaction suxed and doom is gonna pwn and it doesnt have that option

[AirRaid]

Red Faction 2 was even worse.

And Meh, I don't really care about the whole Geomod thing. It was a nice gimmick, but like Ling said, it couldn't really be used properly.

[Lord FlatHead]

I'm sure it's still perfectly possible to blow up pieces of the scenery in certain special locations - in fact I think we'll be see a lot of destroyable/moving geometry, because the Doom III engine can keep lighting consistency whatever happens to the geometry.

[AndrewB]

Linguica said:

Did you even play Red Faction? Geomod was a nice idea but it stunk up the game. Since they couldn't let you destroy EVERYTHING in the game it degenerated into a game of "figure out which walls you can blow up because 80% of them won't."

Never played it.

Anyway, that doesn't even count as the kind of experimental interactivity that matters. A true interactive environment allows as many things as possible to happen freely and consequentially according to coded physics rules, rather than cheaply having each event pre-scripted.

But if the rest of the game sucks, that's another issue entirely. I maintain that it would suck more without the flexibility factor.

[Wobbo]

Doom 3s engine will have the capability to do what red faction did, but the designers said they wouldnt, except in scripted sequences.

mods and new levels migh have it if they give you strong enough weapons

[BNA!]

Wobbo said:

Doom 3s engine will have the capability to do what red faction did...

No.

Please don't spread assumptions as facts.

[Wobbo]

Well in that case we technically cant say anything about it, ALL of this board is assumtions! Just because you work with the illegal alpha doesnt mean you know what will actually happen in the final build so dont be a smartass.

Although in this particular case it turns out im actually 100% correct - what i said was paraphrased from an interview with one of the level designers. He said something to the effect of "we can have the player blow up the whole world if he wants, but for obvious design reasons we cant have you go through doors that need keys" <-- virtually a quote

To reiterate doom3 doesnt use as much precalculated data as other BSP games - its a portal engine somewhat like prey. Thats why you can view the real thing in real time in the editor and compile in minutes or less - and you should know this better than i do

[BNA!]

Wobbo,
technically you're right - no post could be made if only facts could be posted, so I take my reply back and appologize.

Doom³ still precompiles the visibility and stuffs the geometry data into smaller chunks not unlike BSP trees.
I don't think there will be dynamic auto-portal creation when you blow a hole into a wall to interconnect two rooms.

The talk about destructable environments in Doom³ relates more to the unified lighting model than to geomod style interaction.
Id software is all hyped about the fact that players wont be able to detect a breakable wall by simply looking at it since it's all lit the same way.

Carmack als emphasized that destructable terrain (and such a like) isn't viable for him due to the high grade of realism the renderer is aiming for.
He said he feels bothered by the fact that he would have to apply a new texture to the cracked pieces which may look too odd for his taste.

But well, time will tell :)

I assume we will have enough stuff to destroy with our mighty guns in Doom anyway :)

[toxicfluff]

BNA! said:

He said he feels bothered by the fact that he would have to apply a new texture to the cracked pieces which may look too odd for his taste.

Yeah, this would really be a problem. I mean, I haven't played Red Faction, but I would imagine that in Doom3 where the environment has a lot of attention to detail and carefully selected and themed textures, random and undoubtedly often misaligned cracked wall textures would kind of break up the visual seamlessness.

[Zaldron]

...and there's always the latent issue of blowing up stuff that looks like computers, terminals, machinery, pipes, engines; but in the end, it's nothing but a textured brush. How could the engine correlate this perceptual, subjetive data with actual geometry/texture replacement assets that consistently fit with our perception of the enviroment?

[toxicfluff]

Zaldron said:

...and there's always the latent issue of blowing up stuff that looks like computers, terminals, machinery, pipes, engines; but in the end, it's nothing but a textured brush. How could the engine correlate this perceptual, subjetive data with actual geometry/texture replacement assets that consistently fit with our perception of the enviroment?

Yeah, this is why I severely doubt that HL2 has arbitrarily destructible scenery - it has a large emphasis on realism and like you said, it would take one hell of an amount of AI (or preset stuff in the map) to figure out that although this standard wall texture was used on the side of a computer, it shouldn't crack like a wall.

[Lord FlatHead]

Wobbo said:

Just because you work with the illegal alpha doesnt mean you know what will actually happen in the final build so dont be a smartass

Watch it, fucker.

ToXiCFLUFF said:

Yeah, this is why I severely doubt that HL2 has arbitrarily destructible scenery

Of course not. If HL2 had anything like this, Valve would've hyped it to death already.

[gatewatcher]

Lord FlatHead said:

Of course not. If HL2 had anything like this, Valve would've hyped it to death already.

Or shamelessly marketed it at e3.

[AirRaid]

I thought the entire purpose of E3 was shameless marketing.

[Lord FlatHead]

Good point.

[gatewatcher]

Heh, yeah.

[toxicfluff]

Heh, has anyone here been to E3? I'm not really into gaming (or at least with most modern games) enough to go, but I've heard a lot of mixed opinions on the event.

[Linguica]

ToXiCFLUFF said:

Heh, has anyone here been to E3? I'm not really into gaming (or at least with most modern games) enough to go, but I've heard a lot of mixed opinions on the event.

I went in 2000, 2001, 2002...

2000: Went for all three days, stayed all day long each day, saw tons of games and booth babes and shit
2001: Went for one day, saw a fair bit of stuff, didn't feel like going back for the other 2 days
2002: Went morning of first day, got in line for Doom 3 movie, waited like 4 hours to see Doom 3 movie, left immediately afterwards
2003: Didn't even want to go

[gatewatcher]

How do you go about getting admitted?

[toxicfluff]

Gone steadily downhill then huh?