Guest ZarcyB Posted July 8, 2000 Im new here, so tell me if im doing something stupid. Doom 3 has to be my most eagerly awaited game of all time, second only to Unreal 2. I hope id get the technology right - Doom just wouldn't be Doom if it was restricted by polygon counts and the like. I think id should make an engine that is fast and can cope with loads of enemies on screen at once. Now i think i'll stray a little from the topic and talk about - Unreal 2 Has anyone heard the polygon counts for the models? 3,800+!!!!!! And individual features will be able to move freely (esp. the eyes!!!!!!). I think this is gonna be one mutha of a game and I can't wait. 0 Share this post Link to post
Guest micpp Posted July 9, 2000 ZarcyB said:Im new here, so tell me if im doing something stupid You are DEFINATELY doing something stupid. You are saying that Unreal 2 will be better than Doom III. We like Doom, not Unreal. 0 Share this post Link to post
Guest mr maker Posted July 9, 2000 micpp said:You are DEFINATELY doing something stupid. You are saying that Unreal 2 will be better than Doom III. We like Doom, not Unreal. fuck yeah mother fucker this is after all a Doom site. 0 Share this post Link to post
sirgalahadwizar Posted July 9, 2000 It is a cardinal SIN to compare the new doom 3 to unreal 2. Doom 3 will probably look better than UR2 and only use HALF the polygon count because it would make it faster which in turn makes it lots more enjoyable to play. Maybe even I, chugging around in a P333 w/64 meg of ram and NO 3D accelerator would be able to play in some capacity while still looking better than UR2 (might happen because I can play quake 2 and they always seem to make these things more and more damn efficient). 0 Share this post Link to post
Guest ZarcyB Posted July 9, 2000 mr maker said:fuck yeah mother fucker this is after all a Doom site. I never compared Doom III to Unreal 2. If i gave the wrong impression, what I was TRYING to say was that I am looking forward to Doom III more than Unreal 2 (I might have got mixed up, sorry). And the fact is, I'm still playing Doom II these days and Unreal has been gathering dust for the past few months. I'm just hoping id can repeat Doom II's success in Doom III. Doom II and Unreal are different games, you can't compare them. 0 Share this post Link to post
DiSTuRBeD Posted July 10, 2000 Doom3 eagerly avaited secound to Unreal2?? my god man.. The polycounts may sound sweet, but keep in mind that in unreal, you fight 4-5 monsters at once tops, while doom3 puts you through ... well.. maybe 50. I guess that Doom3's models would propably have pretty damn high polycounts as well, maybe even bigger that U2's. My guess is that ID will use technology that lowers the ammount of polys after the user's choice (as in quake3), and allso after the ammount of enemies that is drawn. 0 Share this post Link to post
DiSTuRBeD Posted July 10, 2000 sirgalahadwizar said:It is a cardinal SIN to compare the new doom 3 to unreal 2. Doom 3 will probably look better than UR2 and only use HALF the polygon count because it would make it faster which in turn makes it lots more enjoyable to play. Maybe even I, chugging around in a P333 w/64 meg of ram and NO 3D accelerator would be able to play in some capacity while still looking better than UR2 (might happen because I can play quake 2 and they always seem to make these things more and more damn efficient). yea, 3800 polys is excessive, there's no need for that on monsters that's standard-size. I could imagine the Cyber-deamon being modelled with that kind of polys, since he is so big and detailed. Quake3's models look just about as sweet as they need to, there's not much to improve by the polycount here, really. q3's player model + gun = about 1500 polys if im not mistaken. It's enough. 0 Share this post Link to post
