Personal computing discussed
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?
tanker27 wrote:Whats so disappointing about the graphics? I find it very impressive.
NIKOLAS wrote:With all the years that have passed, the degree to which this game looks better than Quake 4, isn't enough in my view.
derFunkenstein wrote:
Skrying wrote:They've been beat to the punch every time.
grantmeaname wrote:
Also: thank god someone finally made an apocalyptic game with sufficient lighting.
tanker27 wrote:So far from what I have seen of Rage is that its actually visually outstanding. But yeah I do agree that its not anything more impressive then lets say, Bulletstorm.
Well as far as development cycles go you have to draw the line somewhere.
I dont think they have been beat to the punch everytime. I think they are just doing their thing. Take a closer look at the 12 min Rage video, the grass movements, the dust, the lighting; its all pretty impressive.
Again, id is a engine maker and Rage is just their proof of concept.
michael_d wrote:BTW people this is DX9 engine. John Carmack had shunned DX10 years ago when they first announced Rage. I think he is of the same opinion about DX11.
Skrying wrote:tanker27 wrote:So far from what I have seen of Rage is that its actually visually outstanding. But yeah I do agree that its not anything more impressive then lets say, Bulletstorm.
Well as far as development cycles go you have to draw the line somewhere.
I dont think they have been beat to the punch everytime. I think they are just doing their thing. Take a closer look at the 12 min Rage video, the grass movements, the dust, the lighting; its all pretty impressive.
Again, id is a engine maker and Rage is just their proof of concept.
First, I would disagree with your characterization of id has an engine maker first. I would guess for some time they've generated more revenue from their games. The Quake 3 engine was a massive success but Doom 3 certainly wasn't and internal competition, let along external, will keep "id Tech 5" from being the foundation for numerous games. Even then, why would a company invest massive amounts of money to create a visually behind-the-times proof of concept? They wouldn't, that makes zero sense. I will say, you're pretty good at turning bad news into kinda-sorta-not-that-bad news.
Skrying wrote:why would a company invest massive amounts of money to create a visually behind-the-times proof of concept? They wouldn't, that makes zero sense. I will say, you're pretty good at turning bad news into kinda-sorta-not-that-bad news.
Airmantharp wrote:.... and I'm really excited to see what Bethesda can do when marrying Tech5 with their RPG assets. Having an engine centric house in their organization is probably a plus .
michael_d wrote:BTW people this is DX9 engine. John Carmack had shunned DX10 years ago when they first announced Rage. I think he is of the same opinion about DX11. However he claimed that Doom 4 will look significantly better so much better that you would think this is a whole new engine. Now I am curious about visuals in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, Metro 2034 and Doom 4.
This technique allows the engine to automatically stream textures into memory as needed, meaning that the developer need not concern themselves with memory restraints or texture limits. This has the advantage of simplifying the creation of content, by eliminating the need to adapt content for different platforms. The engine automatically optimizes resources for cross-platform development, making it possible to render the same models on different platforms, while only creating them for one platform, further simplifying cross-platform development.
Our role will be to provide publisher support through Bethesda Softworks and give id Software the resources it needs to grow and expand.
"This puts id Software in a wonderful position going forward," said John Carmack, who will continue to serve in his current role as Technical Director. "We will now be able to grow and extend all of our franchises under one roof, leveraging our capabilities across multiple teams while enabling forward looking research to be done in the service of all of them. We will be bigger and stronger, as we recruit the best talent to help us build the landmark games of the future. As trite as it may be for me to say that I am extremely pleased and excited about this deal, I am."
JustAnEngineer wrote:Doom 3's lighting was too harsh. With that much bright light, there should have been some diffuse lighting in the rest of the scene reflecting from the brilliantly-lit surfaces.
I could live with the graphics shortcomings. What spoiled Doom 3 for me was this incredibly stupid game mechanic where after you had cleared out a room, a new enemy would appear out of thin air directly behind you. Okay, it's funny in an amateur horror flick way the first time, but when it's repeated dozens of times, it's just lame.
l33t-g4m3r wrote:michael_d wrote:BTW people this is DX9 engine. John Carmack had shunned DX10 years ago when they first announced Rage. I think he is of the same opinion about DX11. However he claimed that Doom 4 will look significantly better so much better that you would think this is a whole new engine. Now I am curious about visuals in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, Metro 2034 and Doom 4.
You need to be whacked with a stick. Where the Hell is this FUD coming from? id Tech 5 is OpenGL, and Carmack has shunned DX since FOREVER. In case you haven't been around, Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3, Doom 3, Quake Wars, etc, are all OpenGL. .
Skrying wrote:Carmack: Direct3D is now better than OpenGL
He also explained that the developer has no plans to move over to Direct3D, despite its advantages.
'OpenGL still works fine,' said Carmack, 'and we wouldn’t get any huge benefits by making the switch, so I can’t work up much enthusiasm for cleaning it out of our codebase.
l33t-g4m3r wrote:he isn't planning on switching.
He also explained that the developer has no plans to move over to Direct3D
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?
grantmeaname wrote:He also explained that the developer has no plans to move over to Direct3D
How is that a unique interpretation?
Skrying wrote:Your interpretation is rather unique.
SPOOFE wrote:While Doom 3's lighting was harsh, especially by today's standards, at the time it ran on very modest hardware and still looked good doing it. Heck, that game looked good even at 640x480 with no AA.
l33t-g4m3r wrote:That's true. Doom3 could even run on a GF4MX, which was a GF2, and on the high end supported 512mb dx9 cards.