Unreal 3 engine demonstration

[Sharessa]

BBG said:

I actually agree with AndrewB for once.

Me too. Also, this stupid video hasn't loaded in the entire time it took me to read through this whole thread. Screw you guys and your retarded graphics engine.

/me goes beck to playing Civ3

[chilvence]

AndrewB said:

You can't tell me that you walk away from playing a game, humming and satisfied, because there are SOOOOO many polygons.

Why did you have to follow up my post with a pointless analogy, designed specifically to goad people in to an argument over graphics vs gameplay?

All I was trying to say was, I embrace developments in computer graphics. But I'd rather not have the developers wave them in front of my nose while I'm trying to enjoy Far Cry. It's like someone going round injecting heroin into cartons of Ribena.

[Zoost]

Danarchy said:

Me too. Also, this stupid video hasn't loaded in the entire time it took me to read through this whole thread. Screw you guys and your retarded graphics engine.

/me goes beck to playing Civ3

Is it that time of the month again?

To andrewB: I'm impressed by this engine, not by the game (there is no game). And thanks for derailing this topic ;/

[Shaviro]

Graphics (technical AND artistic) _can_ affect the gameplay heavily. Try to replace all the sprites in Doom with red 56*48 sprites and all the textures to a solid blue. The game would have no immersion what-so-ever because you can't see what the fuck is going on. You can't just divide a game into graphics and gameplay.

Gameplay = "how the game plays" and that is more a composite of all the factors; graphics, general design, sound, monster&item placement, AI, music, whatever. Having a gameplay vs. graphics discussion is just retarded, imo.

[Fredrik]

Heh, anyone notice that this demo has less color than Doom 3? :P

And I agree with Shaviro, graphics is very important to a game. You can't base a game on it alone, of course, but the same goes for every other individual factor.

The problem is simply that graphics receives a disproportionate level of attention, but that's sort of unavoidable considering that visual media are the most powerful.

[Shaviro]

Fredrik said:

Heh, anyone notice that this demo has less color than Doom 3? :P

Actually, I think the later screenshots of Doom3 have shown appropiate "amounts" of colour. The colourscheme, somehow, reminds me of Doom Episode 1

The problem is simply that graphics receives a disproportionate level of attention, but that's sort of unavoidable considering that visual media are the most powerful.

Indeed...but I think it goes both ways. Many people seem to be judging the games by their graphics, good or bad. Some people automatically lowers their expectations _greatly_ if the game has awesome graphics...just look at AndrewB :P

[Captain Red]

AndrewB said:
Also, playing a game for the graphics is the exact same thing as beng with a girl for the sex.

...


Oh that was your point.

[dsm]

I only hope this engine will be used for an Unreal 3 which is actually cool to play.

I loved the weapons in the UT2004 demo - if they manage to make guns that are on par, or even more satisfying than those, have a non-retarded bullshit story, an atmosphere more remniscent of Unreal 1's and overall fun gameplay, then this engine could turn out to be used for something good, rather than another lame UT clone - or even worse: an sp game that licks cow ass.

[pritch]

AndrewB said:

Also, playing a game for the graphics is the exact same thing as being with a girl for the sex.

Ah yes, but have you actually ever done the latter?

[Lengis]

He probably hasn't.

>>>>>I'm sure the next id engine will blow UE3 out of the water. What's your point?<<<<<<<

You think Epic is going to sit on their hands and let this engine rot for 2 years? Obviously they are going to work on it, and in 2 years when the first game using this tech comes out it will far exceed whatever this tech demo showed us.

I'm just sick of iD fanboys who don't give props to other companies even when it's painfully obvious that the tech is superior.

[Sharessa]

Zoost said:

Is it that time of the month again?

You're implication that I am a woman is insulting. I shall go back to washing clothes and cooking dinner. :(

[NiGHTMARE]

AndrewB said:

Also, playing a game for the graphics is the exact same thing as being with a girl for the sex.

Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be being with a girl for her looks?

[chilvence]

Lengis said:

I'm just sick of iD fanboys who don't give props to other companies even when it's painfully obvious that the tech is superior.

His point was that it is useless comparing tech levels that are more than 2 years apart. It's like saying "Your older brother is more intelligent than you by 2 whole years of education!"

[AndrewB]

Shaviro said:

Graphics (technical AND artistic) _can_ affect the gameplay heavily. Try to replace all the sprites in Doom with red 56*48 sprites and all the textures to a solid blue.

Quality of graphics and hi-tech of graphics have nothing to do with each other. Just because a game has advanced graphics features, it doesn't necessarily look good.

NiGHTMARE said:

Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be being with a girl for her looks?

Arguably.

[Lord FlatHead]

I'm very, very impressed. Though I really think this level of detail on both characters and geometry isn't suited to action games at all. Environments like the one in the first part of the demo obviously took hundreds of man-hours from the modeller(s) working on them, and using stuff this detailed in any type of game just seems really, really excessive.

[toxicfluff]

There's a singular sharp screenshot of this techdemo on Unrealops. It's got one of the models in it, and I must say it did look better with the blurriness.

[Rellik]

Meh, I'd rather have a good game with mediocre graphics than a mediocre game with good graphics.

[Coopersville]

That was beautiful... I wish I never saw it.

[DaJuice]

Got a link Toxic? I'm too lazy to hunt for it.
I haven't seen the video, but yeah, bluriness is always deceiving. How come games always look so much better in blurry videos? Even Doom3.

[AndrewB]

DaJuice said:

Got a link Toxic? I'm too lazy to hunt for it.
I haven't seen the video, but yeah, bluriness is always deceiving. How come games always look so much better in blurry videos? Even Doom3.

Because polygons are hidden, things appear more rounded, shadows appear softer, et cetera. Also, they're not doing any close-ups on any objects, because you would see flat, jagged polygons. Another sleazebag tactic.

[Job]

DaJuice said:

Got a link Toxic? I'm too lazy to hunt for it.

Here.

[Lord FlatHead]

Job said:

Here.

No, I think you mean this.

[toxicfluff]

Oh it's a close up all right:


http://www.unrealops.com/

Doesn't look leaps ahead of a Doom3 model to me - and a Doom3 model is a model which is going to be in a game long before 2006.

[Shaviro]

ToXiCFLUFF said:

Doesn't look leaps ahead of a Doom3 model to me - and a Doom3 model is a model which is going to be in a game long before 2006.

I'd even say the D3 marine looks "a lot" better.

[dsm]

The "U3" model probably looks better - but it's the art that looks a *tad cartoonish. Doom 3 characters only look better because of the high-poly "lighting info model" and Id's superior art.

I'll wait until the "U3" engine has been in development longer - by then I'll be playing Doom 3 regularly, so I'll be having a much better impression of what the Doom 3 engine is truly capable of and where its weaknesses really lie, so I might have a better base of comparison by then.

[Lengis]

ToXiCFLUFF said:

Oh it's a close up all right:


http://www.unrealops.com/

Doesn't look leaps ahead of a Doom3 model to me - and a Doom3 model is a model which is going to be in a game long before 2006.

That's a bad example. It's the entire package which should be taken into account. If you want to compare models, you can compare that 10,000 polycount model to DOA 3's 70,000 polycount models. Doesn't mean DOA 3 looks better on the whole.

[dsm]

Lengis said:

That's a bad example. It's the entire package which should be taken into account.

He's right - I saw a different shot on some page and it looked like something out of Doom 3, but barely with any hard edges. (the critter kinda reminded me of a weakling version of the D3 Hell Knight - as if the HK had lost all its big muscles :-P)

[toxicfluff]

Lengis said:

That's a bad example. It's the entire package which should be taken into account. If you want to compare models, you can compare that 10,000 polycount model to DOA 3's 70,000 polycount models. Doesn't mean DOA 3 looks better on the whole.

Except, it was the only sharp shot I could find.

[Sharessa]

I think that Skaarj looks a lot better than any of the Doom monsters I've seen so far.

[toxicfluff]

Danarchy said:

I think that Skaarj looks a lot better than any of the Doom monsters I've seen so far.

In design terms or graphics quality?