New Unreal engine vs Doom3s

Just saw the Unreal engine screenshot realsed by NVidia for their new card. Besides being completely bumpmapped (with specular highlighting), it apparently has the soft shadows that Doom3 lacks for it's core shadowing capability. I'm assuming that these soft shadows are dynamic (else, it just be light mapping), and from the screen shot, we're talking self shadowing included, here. If this assumption is true, and this engine runs reasonably in real time, then this could be the very kind of engine that Carmack was thinking about building for id's next technology step. It probably uses the floating point pipeline, it has soft shadows, and they'll probably have some sort of tone-mapping effects and flare effects. The scary thing about game engines nowadays is that you could put a year of work into one, and then, a month later, something twice as good comes out just because those guys started a month later than the first guy did.

It's very daunting, in a way.

Do you think so? I assume that developers target at a certain installed base of technolgy what will restrict their use of features. It would be very dumb (sales wise) to include all new features a card offers just beceause they are cool.

That's why i think Id is cool. They don't try to estimate what the installed base of technology will be, they drive the installed base of technology.

I'm not trying to be negative about Unreal 2's engine just because I'm a Doom-fan, but from what I've seen, Doom III's graphics look superior to me. Unreal 2's graphics look really bright, shiny and happy to me, while I prefer the dark, moody look. Don't get me wrong, Unreal 2 is probably gonna be a good game, but I think graphically speaking Doom III's graphics are just better.

Disorder said:

I'm not trying to be negative about Unreal 2's engine just because I'm a Doom-fan, but from what I've seen, Doom III's graphics look superior to me. Unreal 2's graphics look really bright, shiny and happy to me, while I prefer the dark, moody look. Don't get me wrong, Unreal 2 is probably gonna be a good game, but I think graphically speaking Doom III's graphics are just better.

Yup, exactly my how I feel..

I never liked Unreal.. The only Unreal that I've played more than just 1 or 2 times was UT and that wasn't because of it's GFX.. I liked the CTF of it..

I prefer DOOM III's as well.. even when it's not fulfilled with so hi-end GFX..

[url removed]

Side by side...

timmie said:

[url removed]

Side by side...

It's easy to tell which of those two is the better.

Doom 3 hands down. Now beat it Unreal 2. :-P

Elaboration: Unreal 2's graphics look cartoonish next to Doom 3's and kinda reminds me of Q3A's graphics (but with a higher polycount). This is due to the simple fact that U2 does not have the lighting that Doom 3 has, plus I like the colours used in D3 better.

Again, I'm sure that U2 will be a great, badass game, but so far, I just like Doom 3 better because of superior graphics (and they ARE) and a far more badass concept (the latter is one of the same reasons why I think the old Doom is still unchallenged by any fps out there).

Heh he is speaking about the LATEST unreal warfare engine, not unreal 2. Watch this screenshot and you will pee in your pants

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/screens/0,10865,2898008,00.html

AIRmichael said:

Heh he is speaking about the LATEST unreal warfare engine, not unreal 2. Watch this screenshot and you will pee in your pants

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/screens/0,10865,2898008,00.html

Well, it's better than Unreal 2's but since I don't see these figures cast shadows I'm having my doubts.

I wouldn't judge it from this *one* screenshot - I'd rather wait until we see some more.

Heh, they cast soft shadows on themselfs

AIRmichael said:

Heh, they cast soft shadows on themselfs

Right. This is one of the "intractable" problems Carmack mentioned would be tackled in his next engine.

Zoost said:

Do you think so? I assume that developers target at a certain installed base of technolgy what will restrict their use of features.

Carmack said that the next engine will be targeting, at the base level, cards like the 9700 and the new NV30, which is the hardware platform the screen shot was rendered on. All I was saying is that, from what I heard from the QuakeCon keynote and other places, that this new Unreal engine (not the Unreal2 engine) has a lot of the same features that Carmack said would be in the next engine after Doom3's. Perhaps I was overexagerating about the one month offset, but signifigantly better cards come out on a six moth basis. So it's not unreasonable to think that a developer starting a few months after another would target an installed base that was one notch higher than the first developers. If the jump was, say, from a GF4 to a GFFx, the second engine would have a significant increase in visual quality and performance.

I was not implying in any way that either company was doing anything more intelligent than the other. It's just a matter of what hardware installation platform the developer can jump on at the onset.

dsm said:

I wouldn't judge it from this *one* screenshot - I'd rather wait until we see some more.

That's probably the much more sensible reaction, so I yield on that one ;)

AIRmichael said:

Heh he is speaking about the LATEST unreal warfare engine, not unreal 2. Watch this screenshot and you will pee in your pants

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/screens/0,10865,2898008,00.html

Still looks a bit cartoonish, don't you think?

NO IT DOES NOT, in fact that screenshot there is the next step as far as technological progression is concerned.
In all the reviews I read, and I glad esh pointed it out, they are talking in depth about the new unreal engine, and I did some additional research and by the looks of it, it seems to be a step further than the doom3 engine. Now I am a doom fan, but i beg for ur objectivity, HOW IN THE FUCK DOES IT LOOK CARTOONISH?

It does. Trouble is, I just can't figure out why-- it's not the colors, there's just something wrong the way the light falloff is calculated... This happens in the Doom3 engine in similar lighting situations, too, it appears.

Shaviro said:

Still looks a bit cartoonish, don't you think?

What are you smoking?

Anyway, this screenshots doesn't show any actual characters only architechture and some still statues - I wouldn't judge it until I see at least some actual characters.

I think what Shaviro is talking about is the rather "play-doughy" look of the materials used in the scene. I think this goes back to dsm's observation that this is only one screen shot of an engine demo. It obviously doesn't have the sort of detailed fine-tuning in terms of art that Doom3 might have. I don't think it's the engine, but rather the shader material the artist chose for this particular scene-- it's just the wrong material. It needs more falloff--it's an content rather than a technology issue. This new Unreal engine should be able to control falloff more easily (than Doom3's) because of the advanced pixel shaders it has access to on it's base level platform (GFFx).

doomedout, thanks for your support-- I'm not being argumentative, because it's is a stunning new technology. It was just unfortunate that they didn't take the time to adjust the shaders a bit more to do the new engine more justice.

Looks OK, but really static and artificial.

Doom 3 impresses me more in that materials look very authentic.

Fredrik said:

Looks OK, but really static and artificial.

Doom 3 impresses me more in that materials look very authentic.

A screenshot is always static:p. BTW i dont agree that those textures looks to artificial. It's quite good. The more light there is, the more you notice the "bad" stuff. In doom 3 alot is very dark, so they are able to hide tiny bits.

Unreal Warfare...isn't that another of these blasted mp-only games? What the Hell does it need better-than-Doom 3-graphics for? You don't waste time looking at the environment when you're busy fragging (another reason why I generally prefer sp).

dsm said:

Unreal Warfare...isn't that another of these blasted mp-only game? What the Hell does it need better-than-Doom 3-graphics for? You don't waste time looking at the environment when you're busy fragging (another reason why I generally prefer sp).

Well it doesn't have better graphics, judging from the screenshot.

Shaviro said:

Well it doesn't have better graphics, judging from the screenshot.

Such a comment requires elaboration.

Shaviro said:

Well it doesn't have better graphics, judging from the screenshot.

Doomer in denial...heh heh...always a treat.

doomedout said:

Doomer in denial...heh heh...always a treat.

Stop being provocative - your track record on this isn't looking too good already.

Though I admit that unless Shaviro elaborates on his views, it will look like he just denies the supposed greatness of the Unreal Warfare engine because he's a hardcore doomer.

dsm said:

Unreal Warfare...isn't that another of these blasted mp-only games? What the Hell does it need better-than-Doom 3-graphics for? You don't waste time looking at the environment when you're busy fragging (another reason why I generally prefer sp).

Unreal 2 is single player only, it uses the unreal warfare engine. Unreal warfare is the engine name... Pls dont discuss stuff when u dont know anything about it...

What's with the hubbub over which looks better? Has everyone forgotten that Unreal looked better than Quake 2?

If that new Unreal-engine screenshot is totally legit then it only means that that engine is targetting a higher-end system than Doom 3. I am positive that the Unreal engine programmers haven't found some sort of miracle algorithm that allows them to do realtime soft shadowing on your currently average PC. It's just hardcore number crunching.

doomedout said:

Doomer in denial...heh heh...always a treat.

I gotta be honest and say that the unrealisticaly low polycounts and ligthing makes these unreal screenshots look MUCH worse than doom 3s. Doom 3 still looks more like real life. When you see statues in real life on real blocks they look much different

Dynamic Soft shadows? are they serious? is it per-pixel perpolygon or just crap?

The indefinite sharpness of the shadows in Doom 3 leaves a lot to be desired. We might not realize just how poopy the Doom 3 shadows look until we see the game...

Look at the tree shadows in UT2003 Demo's outdoor stage. It looks quite nice on the ground waving around, but when you look up and see that the trees are completely motionless, it kills the neatness.

Soft shadows look WAY nicer, but when done in a manual, tacked-on way, it just feels too cheap. It's like watching a movie where a guy is playing a saxaphone, but his fingers aren't moving. Just too cheap.

I have a feeling that Doom 3's non-soft shadows will be enough to kill the feeling of realism.

AIRmichael said:

Unreal 2 is single player only, it uses the unreal warfare engine. Unreal warfare is the engine name... Pls dont discuss stuff when u dont know anything about it...

Heh he is speaking about the LATEST unreal warfare engine, not unreal 2. Watch this screenshot and you will pee in your pants

So Mr Smartypants, would you please explain to me what the Hell everything is?
The screenshot with the statues, which game is that from?

Is this "Unreal Warfare" engine the very engine that Unreal 2 uses? - If so, how come we don't see soft shadows and all that in those Unreal 2 screenies?

Explain, explain, explain and stop fucking turning people down just because they don't know everything. *scowls evilly at AIRmichael*

We might not realize just how poopy the Doom 3 shadows look until we see the game...

Having seen the game, I conclude that they're not poopy at all. They fit very well (consider that in high-tech environments, you'd expect sharp and somewhat sterile lighting anyway).

It doesn't matter what the environment is. The sharpness of shadows in real life depend on the width of the light source, and the proximity of the light to the object causing the obstruction. It doesn't matter whether the environments are techy, outdoorsy, or anything else. The fact is that no shadow real-life ever attains the same sharpness of Doom 3's shadows. In situations where the only light source is bright, broad, and close to the Doomguy, sharp shadows would look especially horrible, assuming that there are indeed shadows in such situations.

Every environment is filled with soft shadows. If they cannot be emulated, disbelief cannot be suspended.

[url removed]

I thought we weren't supposed to link to screenshots of the Doom III Alpha ?