|Posted by Shambler on 2005/05/18 01:22:47|
|E3 video trailer: (various links to the same file that take you through an annoying series of download pages as usual)
Magazine article scans: (linked in GA thread, thanks whoever did that)
Now when the first shots and all came out, everyone was dissing it since it looked just like Doom3 but with slightly skinnier guns. Everyone except me, that is, as I was reading the words that accompanied the not-so-pretty pictures. Words like "future war", "fighting in a squad", "all out Strogg assault", "epic conflict". Words which conjured up an image of exactly what a Quake 2 remake should be - capturing, using modern technology, the essence of Q2's man Vs strogg battles. And thus, I was pretty excited.
Seeing the videos, new screenies and previews, I still am. They, albeit through the usually over-enthusiastic hype-ridden haze of marketing speak, are still saying the same thing, and it still sounds damn good to me. Of course, there's still a thousand things to go wrong, a thousand promises and features to drop. But even so, so far it looks like they are doing this game right, and doing it true to Quake 2. Hoorah for that.
Post angry refutations, accusations of fanboyisms, rants against Id, Raven, and indeed anyone who likes games, further screenshots, articles, whatever here =).
Oh, P.S. The logo blows. 999 things left to bugger up ;)
A Usual Problem
#58 posted by bambuz
on 2005/05/26 04:22:10
Ok, I'm talking out of my ass again, but:
Even in architechtural ray-traced images of buildings, the lighting very often looks totally shit and plastic. Everything is too "reflecting", can't describe it better. What is a porous wood or brick wall and should have ~the same brightness no matter what the light angle versus viewing angle against the surface normal, has this weird effect and looks like plastic. It is more easily pronounced on curved surfaces of constant color/texture where you can actually deduce that it's a lighting shift instead of texture brightness shift. In games you can see it when the brightness changes with moving -> it's a light effect, not an inherent texture effect.
If I had doom 3, I would
know if this looked realistic or not, but
it really looks shiny to me now that it's static. Most natural rocks around my part of the world are not shiny, except in the way sand is - tiny facets reflecting at random places.
I don't know more about the technology and I have not played doom3 but it is definitely a problem often in 3d image generation and it needs probably some unrealistic hand-tinkering to solve currently. Just like milk is hard to simulate correctly because of sub-surface scattering so they must use some non-realistic trick to make it right... I think. This 3d scene based image generation is always an approximation of reality, and there are always problems and artifacts associated with the chosen methods and levels of approximation.
But to settle this all, couldn't someone make a d3 demo level with wood, bricks and/or rock tile castle wall and make phait (and me) believe the d3 engine would work :) (Does that mean just a fainter specular map for those textures?)
About This Issue...
#59 posted by Shambler
on 2005/05/26 06:22:10
Sorry I haven't followed it that closely but I think people are off the mark a bit with the continual accusations of these new engines looking "plasticky".
Firstly, if they look too shiny in any way, they tend to look "metallicy", the shinyness is a metal shinyness not a plastic shinyness.
Secondly, most of them don't overuse the feature as much as one thinks looking at screenshots. IMHO most of them look fine in the game - maybe Riddick overdoes it a bit.
Thirdly and most importantly, a lot of surfaces (APART from dry rough stone) in our world have a slight sheen to them, whether it's all out gloss or just a subtle satin. They almost all reflect light with a sheen. Go look at some Anish Kapoor sculptures (often coated with very very matt paint/dust) which don't reflect at all, and you'll see the difference. Thus, it's appropriate for engines to display most surfaces in game with some sort of sheen. Then, the surfaces that don't have any sheen stand out more as obviously being dirty/grimy etc. It's like the stuff floating on the water in UT2kX or HL2 - the contrast with the reflecting water makes the nature of that stuff (plants, crusty slime) more obvious. Sure in a really dingy and DRY dungeon, you wouldn't need any sheen, but other than that it has it's role to play.
Thank You Shambler
#60 posted by Lunaran
on 2005/05/26 11:19:28
You are wise, and furry.
#61 posted by metlslime
on 2005/05/26 12:57:18
why does Doom 3 NEED to be realistic? It has a solid art style that is obviously unrealistic in a number of ways. I thought it looked pretty cool. I also liked Wind Waker.
#62 posted by BlackDog
on 2005/05/26 13:33:43
I'll agree that specular highlights in D3 are rather unrealistic. They're undetailed and far too broad, which I think results in an impression of overshinyness since the highlight is contributing too much light over the entire surface. But I can't agree that they are too intense. I can see quite a few surfaces right from where I am sitting that have far more intense highlights than any surface in that screenie.
OK, So Let's Get All Empirical
#63 posted by BlackDog
on 2005/05/26 13:49:35
Gimme 3 Steps...
#64 posted by generic
on 2005/05/26 14:06:00
I'll take the extra FPS over the extra shininess any day of the week, thank you very much.
New Star Wars Game
#65 posted by metlslime
on 2005/05/26 15:00:53
#66 posted by .
on 2005/05/26 17:47:20
Copy-paste To New Tab/window.
#67 posted by bambuz
on 2005/05/26 17:59:55
Talking about shininess...
#68 posted by bambuz
on 2005/05/26 18:18:57
Buildings at least in this part of the
world are made of tiles or rough (don't know the word) wood planks which are that non-shiny stuff. Especially old wood painted with that red earth-paint. If you go up close you can see how the sun makes the wood porous.
Lower parts are of stone or concrete. Their shininess depends on the finish, but is 99% of the time non-shiny / very little shiny. There are a few polished rock houses. And most tombstones are such nowadays. But Quake doesn't use these polished materials much, at least not in my imagination. Although it uses metallics, which can have a lot of shininess, fine for me.
Also a lot of nature, like many tree species' trunks, sand, dry dirt or even dry old asphalt are all very porous and non-shiny.
It's not just rock.
Maybe someone's done scientific measurements of the shininess of materials. Hell, there must be a standardized unit for that. How could architechts and designers work otherwise? An architechture student told me once there was some "aging" software designed in some US university for 3d model rendering that would make the architechture renderings more realistic, add patina to copper etc...
Extra FPS Does Not Apply
#69 posted by BlackDog
on 2005/05/27 00:16:30
I hammered this scene with 6xAA 16xAF to take screenshots with lubbley smooth edges, which is why the difference (AA is a bandwidth hit on both screens, and turning off the specular maps is a bandwidth saving on one of them).
Running at normal settings there's no performance hit.
#70 posted by Shambler
on 2005/05/27 01:31:30
Buildings at least in this part of the
world are made of tiles or rough (don't know the word) wood planks which are that non-shiny stuff.
....because you live in the 3rd world??
Well back in civilisation, what I said applies. But yes obviously there are non-shiny materials and they shouldn't look shiny in games. Ummm.
#71 posted by bambuz
on 2005/05/27 08:41:25
My student apartment is actually built mostly of wood, although I don't live in the third world. It's a perfect legitimate organic building material, especially in a country with lots of forests (still left).
I should have made the point maybe like this to show what I think: mostly only new materials like aluminium, plastic, stainless steel or glass tend to be shiny, whereas quake uses mostly old castly-churchy materials (yeah there's the base part and some marble, but _mostly_, and that is at least to me, the real quakey part) like bricks, rock, wood, rusting iron, which are mostly not that reflecting. If you have a plastic mat in your apartment, live next to a glassy steel-beamy reflecting office building, it doesn't have much relevance to quake in my mind.
#72 posted by czg
on 2005/05/27 12:04:20
oh my god this is like the most toatlly lame argument ever like is this shiny is this not shiny? like what if there was a shiny wood or a not shiny metal it could be like totally wicked either way and my friend eric totally has this shiny table thats made from wood and it is totally a lot more shiny than metal if you understand the words i am trying to say?
#73 posted by Zwiffle
on 2005/05/27 14:21:30
You're so shiny down there.
Dont Make Yourself Look Like A Dumb Fuck
#74 posted by megaman on 2005/06/01 04:27:03
we know youre a smart fuck.
and yeah, i think specularity seems to get overused ( as in, specularity maps should receive a darken pass), but still, but every surface has some amount of shinyness.
Hm, Is This
#75 posted by Spirit
on 2006/11/11 13:23:38
I just finished the game. It was WAY better than I expected it to be. I'd say it is rather underrated. :(
Of course it could have been better but it is a damn good FPS, that's sure. Dunno if you would like a longer review with critic and stuff. There is quite a lot that sucks, but why be so picky and not enjoy the rest.
I hated the ending though. Dammit, no satisfaction AT ALL. Fuck it.
So, are there any good custom SP levels yet?
#76 posted by necros
on 2006/11/11 13:50:13
the weapon sounds were better than doom3 :x
#77 posted by tron
on 2006/11/11 23:38:39
There are a couple, I don't have time to dig them up now but check out 3dgamersedge.com for one, and the doom3world final maps section for a pretty cool level by Efx.
Q4 was exactly what it said is was going to be, a sequel to Q2, I still like the singleplayer in it. :)
#78 posted by Shambler
on 2006/11/12 01:39:29
Q4 was good. I like the Strogg :)
#79 posted by Text_Fish
on 2006/11/12 04:35:13
I had more fun in Q4 than I did in HL2, D3 or FEAR.
#80 posted by DaZ
on 2006/11/12 06:43:41
yeah it did seem to get better and better as you progressed, I remember loving the fully upgraded nailgun weapon, it just destroyed everything in its path :)
Favourite levels include the nexus (??) level, the stroggification facility, and a few others near the start I cant remember the names of :(
Its just a shame the vehicle sections blew so much stomach contents in comparison
#81 posted by Aquashark on 2006/11/12 14:37:39
Q4 singleplayer is average. i liked Prey a lot more.
#82 posted by Text_Fish
on 2006/11/12 16:08:52
had some breathtaking moments thanks to really 'interesting' level design, but I found the combat extremely weak throughout most of it. Later levels redressed this to some extent, but for the most part I think it suffered from 'Doom 3 Imp' syndrome. I haven't had the urge to replay it, and I usually forget it was even released.
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
Website copyright © 2002-2023 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.