Jump to content


Great Work! But Why Doom 3?


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Guest_Nefs_*

Guest_Guest_Nefs_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 January 2005 - 06:32 PM

First off I'd like to say great work all around, the screenshots and models look top notch. The new architecture sketches by KFMcCall are absolutely god-like.

Now the real question is, why the doom 3 engine? I understand that its dark, which suits the theify mood, but why not use the superior source engine from hl2? The editor seems more user friendly for makign FMs and the physics seem better tuned in general for picking up bodies, distractions etc. Anyways its probably too late now, i just wanted to know.

As a suggestion, why not try to allow FM authors to enable co-op of some sort? If it's at all possible i beleive it would make an awesome addition to gameplay.

#2 god_is_my_goldfish

god_is_my_goldfish

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1259 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 06:41 PM

Real-time lighting for all objects built in, earlier release date, and (from what i've been told) an easier to use editor. I'll let the programmers expand on this list.
http://www.thirdfilms. com
A Thief's Path trailer is now on Youtube!
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=QpCej-ZIQeg

#3 New Horizon

New Horizon

    Mod hero

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13907 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 06:49 PM

First off I'd like to say great work all around, the screenshots and models look top notch. The new architecture sketches by KFMcCall are absolutely god-like.

Now the real question is, why the doom 3 engine? I understand that its dark, which suits the theify mood, but why not use the superior source engine from hl2? The editor seems more user friendly for makign FMs and the physics seem better tuned in general for picking up bodies, distractions etc. Anyways its probably too late now, i just wanted to know.

As a suggestion, why not try to allow FM authors to enable co-op of some sort? If it's at all possible i beleive it would make an awesome addition to gameplay.

We started with the Doom engine mainly because it can do everything we need it to do. Half life 2 is a great engine no doubt but it doesn't offer us anything for a Thief Style mod that we can't do with Doom 3. There is also the inconvenience of Steam, which I personally do not agree with. I've tried the demo and gone through the registration. Now I'm not saying that my time is so valuable I can't spare a few extra minutes but it's an extra hassle that I don't want as a game player. I also wondered why I should have to pay for the game AND pay for the crime? :)

As for co-op. That would require changing the focus of the mod. Classic Thief is a single player experience and we really want to recreate that feeling. If you've played the Thievery co-op you know how different it is. For co-op enthusiasts there is the amazing "Night Blade" mod, no need to compete. Our efforts are best spent filling the single player gap.

#4 sparhawk

sparhawk

    Repository Manager

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21776 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 07:04 PM

First off I'd like to say great work all around, the screenshots and models look top notch. The new architecture sketches by KFMcCall are absolutely god-like.


Thanks! We really put a lot of effort in this and it is nice to hear that you like it. :)

Now the real question is, why the doom 3 engine? I understand that its dark, which suits the theify mood, but why not use the superior source engine from hl2?


Superior in what?

The editor seems more user friendly for makign FMs and the physics seem better tuned in general for picking up bodies, distractions etc. Anyways its probably too late now, i just wanted to know.


Well there are a couple of reasons.

1. When we started the mod, HL2 was not released. Changing the engine would mean to give up a lot of progress for a hyped up game. And Doom 3 has many advantages.

2. Id is know for very good support to the mod community. Additionaly, Id makes a habit of releasing the sourceode fof their engines after some time under GPL. This has happened for Quake 1/2, Doom 1/2, and Quake 3 is under planning. I have no doubts that Doom 3 will follow after an appropriate time.

3. Steam. Personally I feel this bneing so offensive and an intrusion on customer rights that I will not buy the game despite awaiting it qute anxiously. There are many legal tricks in the EULA that doesn't constitute anything remotely what I consider as my right as a customer. Just an example. Valve reserves the rights to charge fees or changing the terms on short notice, without the customer having any saying. This means, if Valve decides to charge a fee and you want to continue play HL2 which you already paid for, you will have to pay again.

4. The lighting engine of Doom 3 is far superior then HL2 engine. The clever use of textures covers this mostly, but one shouldn't just look at the game's surface to decide which engine is best to use for a particular gaem.

5. Portabillity. Doom 3 runs on Windows and Linux (and I think there is also a Mac version). This means that I can play my favourite game (Thief) on Linux natively, without any crutches like Wine (not meaning that Wine is anything bad, as I'm also a one-time developer for Wine myself, just in the context of gaming it's a crutch).

6. Physics. Well. Everybody knows that HL2 uses Havoc which is an excellent physics engine. Still, I have seen physics demo from another mod which indicates that Doom 3 physics is much better, than the first impression will show. They implemented a gravitiy gun and from the demo I could see nothing wrong with it. Also Id released a gravity gun with their add-on. Also in Thief gameplay there is not THAT much need of perfect physics, and Doom 3 will do everything we need. Including rope arrows. :)

I guess that are enough points for now. I think there are some more, but these are the major points for me, anyway. Especially Steam.

As a suggestion, why not try to allow FM authors to enable co-op of some sort? If it's at all possible i beleive it would make an awesome addition to gameplay.


This is not something that can be "allowed". It needs to be coded. And as it is right now, nobody is willing to do this. Especially since there is already a multiplayer thief game out there. Thievery.
Gerhard

#5 Domarius

Domarius

    Mod hero

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7659 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 09:39 PM

Hey guys, feel free to use stuff from our "official response" (thread hidden to the public) and let me know if it needs changing.
http://forums.thedar...indpost&p=11426

One of the major selling points for me, is this;
http://www.doom3worl...=asc&highlight=

This tutorial shows how any texture can be used just like "stained glass windows", to project a colour image the same way an overhead projector does. This can be used for many dark moody effects, such as dappled moonlight coming through tree branches or windows, and obviously stained glass windows in churches.
The effect will fall onto static geometry and moving objects the same, because of Doom 3's dynamic lighting. Try and imagine what someone walking under the coloured image cast by a stained glass window in a church, or under the dappled moonlight through the leaves of a thick tree.

Also, the Doom 3 renderer excels at dynamic lighting and lighting quality. The shadows and lighting effects look much better than Half Life 2. The downside is that having many intersecting lights can slow down the renderer more than it's worth, hence, the Doom 3 engine is suited to really cool dark looking levels. Guess what Thief has always been about?

Edited by Domarius, 10 January 2005 - 09:43 PM.


#6 Gleemonex

Gleemonex

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 11 January 2005 - 04:17 PM

We had this discussion over at that other LGS-inspired Doom3 mod (Sapphire Scar) a while ago -- it got to the point that we were almost considering changing to the HL2 engine. In the end, we basically came up with all the same reasons that Sparhawk did. [1]

I'm glad to know we're not alone in our decision!

-Glee

------------------------------
[1] What clinched it for me personally, was the availability of a 3rd person mode. For a FPS engine to have a 3rd person mode, they must have really been thinking ahead, with expandability/mod-ability in mind.

#7 Renzatic

Renzatic

    I <3 Kool-Aid

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2314 posts

Posted 11 January 2005 - 04:22 PM

I think alot of long time modders were initially put off by Doom 3 because you have to unlearn some old habits to optimise your maps. Your lights have to be balanced with just as much care as your geometry, and in some cases more brushes can actually help improve performance...it's almost a complete 180 from the way oldschool maps were made.

I don't think it's a problem with just Doom 3, though. Every engine that uses realtime lighting will probably use similar optimization methods...considering that it's the next big step for first person games you might as well get used to it now and get a leg up.

#8 bad marine ass

bad marine ass

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 21 January 2005 - 12:30 PM

Actually, aside from the lifelike facial expressions, I thought HL2 wasn't as graphically immersive as Doom 3. What we need in the Dark Mod is the handling of lighting details, not the Pixar-lookalike facial expressions

A few people have stopped modding for Doom 3 mainly for 2 reasons: one group thinks that going over to HL2 has a chance of Valve recognising them. Another group thinks that Doom 3 has too many limitations. Over at Planetdoom, we have discussed this topic to death: Doom 3 has "apparent" limitations, but the magical thing is that these limitations only require a bit of work to get past

Remember the myth where people thought Doom 3 was dark because id software wanted to reduce lag? This myth has been busted. Not by the Mythbusters of course - I'm talking about the good folks over at doom3world.org and Planetdoom

I certainly am glad that the Dark Mod team has stuck to their stand, to push the mod out for Doom 3 engine. I have only mapped for 3 games: System Shock 2, Battlefield 1942 and now Doom 3, and frankly speaking the community is great - I have run into many many many problems, but 90% of these problems have been solved by the helpful people around. I'm going to return the favour by helping budding modders, and spurring the outstanding mod teams to move on and not give up halfway. Hopefully these unique-themed mods will be the inspiration for future modders and developers to move on to more complex engines

As Renzatic has said, Doom 3 is one of the first games to use per-pixel lighting and have an editor on the ready. Future engines such as the new Unreal engine would be more complex and should almost function in the same way as Radiant. If every modder can't get off his chair to figure out how to create light entities... =\

Btw am I the only one around who feels that Hammer looks very complex yet inflexible, as compared to Radiant? :ph34r:

Edited by bad marine ass, 21 January 2005 - 12:32 PM.


#9 sparhawk

sparhawk

    Repository Manager

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21776 posts

Posted 21 January 2005 - 12:45 PM

Actually, aside from the lifelike facial expressions, I thought HL2 wasn't as graphically immersive as Doom 3.


Can't comment on this, as I haven't played HL2 yet. I have it already now, but I couldn't be bothered to install it. :) I was waiting quite anxiously for it, but now that I learned about Steam I was totally put off and I wouldn't buy. So I had to borrow a copy from a friend. If I like it, I may buy it when it is around 10Euro, but considering Steam I think that not even then I will do.

What we need in the Dark Mod is the handling of lighting details, not the Pixar-lookalike facial expressions


Yes. That was one reason why we choose it. And considering the implications of Steam and their Eula, I must say. Valve doesn't do an impressive job to show customers that they care for them.

A few people have stopped modding for Doom 3 mainly for 2 reasons: one group thinks that going over to HL2 has a chance of Valve recognising them.


Maybe. But there is just as much chance of Id recognizing them. :) I don't know why working for Valve would be more attractive then for id. It is a hard job for both and given the public image (that I have from these comapnies) I would rather work for Id then for Valve.

Another group thinks that Doom 3 has too many limitations.


Somehow I don't believe this. What I have seen so far the D3 engine performs very impressive and doesn't have the limitations of small maps, so it can be used even for outdoor levels.

But you forgot the third reason. HL2 is 3771. :) Every h4x0r must do a mod for HL2 if he wants to be something important. :)

Another reason why we didn't switch. Every game company has the problem that they have to commit to an engine at one time. If you don't you know what happens. Duke Nukem Forever. So I guess if we really would have switched I seriously doubt that we would have a chance of finishing the Darkmod, because when the next Uber New And Cool Engine comes out we probably would have switched again. And again and ...

I certainly am glad that the Dark Mod team has stuck to their stand, to push the mod out for Doom 3 engine.


There are many advatnages to it. :)

I'm going to return the favour by helping budding modders, and spurring the outstanding mod teams to move on and not give up halfway


That's always appreciated. :)
Gerhard

#10 Liquidize105

Liquidize105

    Newbie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 04:04 AM

While I'm apathetic about STEAM, I'd like to say that HL2's envir simulation is better than any previous precedents. Warren Spector was shaken in his boots after E3-2k3, and he was right, it's that great.

Nonetheless, doom3 is still a decent platform for :ph34r:. Heck it's a great platform for AvP too.

Only time will tell I guess.

Make it snappy ;)

JASHIN/Liquidize105

Edited by Liquidize105, 26 January 2005 - 04:05 AM.


#11 Guest_AndyBear_*

Guest_AndyBear_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 January 2005 - 03:19 PM

Man, I can't belive how hype guided people can be.
The (all I do is Flash ActionScript 2, which is not actuall programing), engine is not superior to any of the noteable engines of the current generation. I am no moder, and I am defenetlly not to be called a programer*, but I am a person who is very interested in technology, I am also a hobby site/game designer, and as one I am allways looking for ways to optimise my "products".
I know that if i'll program a VB6 tettris game, and use graphics in a way which is not optimised, I will never be able to run the game on a Pentium 1, with 2 mb RAM, but I am able when I am done.

This long paragraph, was here to say that optimisation is importent in order to achive a good product. And as far as I have seen Source is either not optimised as a whole, or just hasen't been used in such a way in any game that ran on it. Let's say this, DOOM 3 ran on my system** with no slowdown at all, I would gues taht I had a frame rate of about 30-35, I had all options on(in low quality, but shadows ware all on, as well as "special effects"), exept for resolution which was set to the minimum. Half-Life 2 ran on my system with a frame rate of about 25-30, with slowdowns every time I had more then 2 "characters on screen, I had all options off, resolutin was minimal. I had loading times of 30 secounds betwen levels in doom 3. The loading times in Half-Life 2 ware 1-2 minutes, and the "maps" in both games are the same size. I had the same expiriance with the other Source game out there, Vampire Bloodlines. The same preformence issues ware present through out several computers, every one belongs to diffrent users, and I don't mean that HL2 was unlayabe, I mean That DOOM 3 ran better.

Now let's say that I would as a user look at the "stuff" I would get from each game. DOOM 3 has "Real time Shadows", what I as a user see on screen is an actuall visual effect of shadows in a pixel per pixel ratio. HL2 offers me as a user only "Real Time Lightning" it may not state so, and shadows may be present, but they are not real "Geometric" shdows. They are, in effect, projected on each "Polygon" of a model in the world, as far as a user can see.
DOOM 3 has "normal mapping" used in game. HL2 does not.
"Real mapping" is by far one of the best technologies develpoed ever. it gives us the ability, as we all know, to give textures the feel of 3D objects, I don't actually know the way of it's work, but as a user I can see it probabbly just controls the gamma/contrast that is applied to parts of a texture in any give situaltion.
In the modern ara, you can't have a sneaking game with out shadows. It just adds to much, both graphically, as well as gameplay wise.

Now we have the Havoc engine. Havoc was used better in HL2 it is true, but it is also present in DOOM 3. And is going to be used in a "similer" (well let's admit it will be a rip-off) way in the expention pack. So as far as Physics go, which are also importent in the kind of game the Dark Mod wishes to be, are included in TDE.

Will someone please tell me what makes anyone belive that Source is superior to TDE, or even Unreal 2.5?

So, as you can all understand I fully support the Dark team in thier wise choise, and I hope that they will make full use of TDE, so we can all enjoy a quality game.

*I only use Flash ActionScript, which is really no programing language.
**My specs are: 1.3 Ghz of CPU power; 256 RAM(ya I know this sucks, but I could still run and play DOOM 3 and HL2[not as good as DOOM 3 but even so], so ha!) and a Gforce 3 GPU. I base my viwes on the Demo versions.

I am sorry for my poor writeing, I am not a native english speaker, I will fix the text when I get home, and get my word to work.

#12 sparhawk

sparhawk

    Repository Manager

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21776 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 03:29 PM

I wonder where people got the idea that id used Havoc as physics engine. That's now the second time I hear that. :) Id developed their own physics and it is fully included in the SDK. This means that it can be replaced with a better one if the need be. Now I saw some physics demos for D3 and I'm no longer of the opinion that D3 physics sucks (as I was before). It simply was not put to good effect in the D3 game. And I talked to some physics engine developers who also said the the D3 physics is really good because it can do highspeed collision which not all engines can handle. This means that you can let bullets ricochet from map geometry and such things.
Gerhard

#13 Dram

Dram

    Disco Inferno

  • Campaign Dev
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7463 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 04:00 PM

I second Sparhawk. After I said on another thread that Doom3 uses Havok, Sparhawk said it does'nt. True to his word I checked out the Havok website and there it showed which games use it (Half-life2, Medal of Honor Pacific Assault, Full Spectrum Warrior, Painkiller, and Max Payne2 are the ones shown on the main webpage) and D3 and UT2004 are not one of them. LOL, if you had a company, you could get an evaluation copy of Havok2 :) .

Anyway, just sayin that i was wrong too. (I personally thought that doom3 used havok cos it looked the same like in 3dMark. ;) )

--Dram

#14 Campaignjunkie

Campaignjunkie

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 04:48 PM

EDIT: Oops, didn't realize the screens kind of broke the forum layout. Forgive me!

Hey, been following you guys for a while, ever since the first few posts on TTLG. Keep up the good work, loving the media updates! But... I can't stand all the Source engine bashing going on in this thread! :D I think Doom 3 is overall a better engine for a Thief mod, yes, since it has a unifed shadow system and such. Except there's one huge problem: I don't own Doom 3, and I've been working with Half-Life for 3-4 years already! :)

Anyway, here's the beginnings of my own Thief map-pack for HL2. Still using HL2 graphics and assets for the time being, because I'm much too lazy to make my own! Just wanted to show you that HL2 is just as good of a choice as Doom 3 in some respects. ;)

[screens removed]

Oh, and AndyBear: Source has normal-mapping. Quite a lot of it. It just isn't used on everything because it isn't neccesary and doesn't always fit with the environment.

Edited by Campaignjunkie, 26 January 2005 - 06:32 PM.


#15 Dram

Dram

    Disco Inferno

  • Campaign Dev
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7463 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 05:13 PM

Campaignjunkie, everyone was discussing it earlier, but what I hate the most uberly about HL2 is not that the source engine looks a bit dated (which it does cos valve had been sitting on it's ass for a while expecting no comp till Doom3 came out) but the main reason is Steam. The most annoying thing in the universe (unless you Download a steam-crack, thus removing steam :) ).

But I played HL2 and i enjoyed it, so im not saying it is "the worst game of the century", just saying that they got a bit lazy in production ;) .

--Dram

#16 Dram

Dram

    Disco Inferno

  • Campaign Dev
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7463 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 05:14 PM

Oh, should add this. Nice maps btw :) .

#17 oDDity

oDDity

    Former Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6146 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 05:15 PM

WHat the hell are tyhose two screens supposed to prove.
Christ, the old Quake 3 engine looked as good as that.
Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.
- Emil Zola

character models site

#18 Dram

Dram

    Disco Inferno

  • Campaign Dev
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7463 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 05:16 PM

I can see the fuse is lit :(

"Get out of there, it's gonna blow!!!"

#19 Campaignjunkie

Campaignjunkie

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 06:32 PM

I can see I made a mistake sharing my work here, I'll remove the screens right away. :P

Anyways, good luck, Dark Mod team. :)

Edited by Campaignjunkie, 26 January 2005 - 06:33 PM.


#20 Dram

Dram

    Disco Inferno

  • Campaign Dev
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7463 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 06:33 PM

I appreciate it!!

#21 Dram

Dram

    Disco Inferno

  • Campaign Dev
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7463 posts

Posted 26 January 2005 - 06:34 PM

AARGH! Why remove them. Oh well.

#22 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 January 2005 - 06:53 PM

Oh, DOOM 3 does not use Havoc? Well as I said I am not someone who is moder, so I have no iterest in all technical stuff. I do know however that I have seen stuff done with DOOM 3 physics which ware at least at the level of the HL2 physics.

I did not say HL2 was not capable of normal mapping, just that it was not used, or at least not used enogh. Face it, normal mapped characters look better. I do not "hate" the Source engine, I just say that it is not all everyone belives it is. the faceial animations, well I don't see too many uses for that gameplay wise, and if you screw up with them, you screw up big time (take VtM:B for example, the sometimes sloppy work makes it so some of the characters are sometimes stuck with the same dumb smile when someone else is acting during a sceen.

In addition, you all must understand that Source has one major drawback. the shadwos And not just that, even with many fetures unimplemnted the preformence ratio of the game is worse then the DOOM 3 one. HL2 may be a great game, but the fact is that you can do much more with a better engine, and Source is either not polished enough, or not known well enough by it's creators, to make a stable pruduct.

When I speek about polish, all I want you is to take a look and compare Unreal 2/ Unreal turnament 2003/2004 to a game such as Postal, they both use the same engine, but the Unreal sires creators know how to optimise the engine, while Runing with Sisors don't. And it appears that Valve has no idea how to optimise Source.

The screens you posted are nice looking by the way.

#23 sparhawk

sparhawk

    Repository Manager

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21776 posts

Posted 27 January 2005 - 02:52 AM

Comparing a game is quite differnt with comparing an engine. As a game HL2 is undoubtedly better. I havben't played it yet, but from what I have heard from it , it seems pretty good, while I know for sure that D3 sucks as a game.
Looking at it as a modder it is quite different, though, because the game itself is not very important for us. And I already explained enough reasons why D3 is the better choice for us, no matter if it is overall technically better or not. You can select an engine only based on the requirements of a particular game, thus it is not meaningfull to say this or that engine is better, because it depends on the task. At least when the engines in question are similar enough.
Gerhard

#24 bad marine ass

bad marine ass

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 27 January 2005 - 04:27 AM

I respect id because everything is in-house. The physics engine, the graphics engine (though IIRC the physics engine was also aided with the help of one particular modder or something?), the maps, the models...everything is done by them (and let's not forget there are less than 20 employees). Valve on the other hand nearly had 3 times as many employees as id, yet they had to enlist the help of XSI

(speaking of HL2, I was quite unimpressed, I felt D3 was the better game, but if I had to nominate a GOTY for 2004, it'd most probably be Thief 3 :P)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users