Wolfenstein: End of the road for idTech 4?

By Richard Leadbetter Published 31 August, 2009

Digital Foundry analyses Raven's latest.

There's a very real sense that Wolfenstein is something of an old-skool style of shooter, and this extends from the gameplay to the base tech: it's an enhanced version of the classic idTech 4 engine, which dates the core rendering code to 2005 and with it, the release of Doom 3. With that in mind, the game has a somewhat dated look and feel, particularly in the over-high use of glossy texture embellishments; even the character skintones are particularly "plastic". The tech here is older than the Xbox 360 itself.

There are a range of small-scale enhancements to the engine though: shadowing is more advanced, animation is better, some scenery is destructible, and the outdoor environments are detail-rich, although impactful on performance when it comes to screen tear in particular. A lot of the game's improved look and feel is down to the implementation of the Havok physics technology. However, other limitations of Carmack's last-gen code are still in effect: while the game is native 720p, there is no anti-aliasing whatsoever, and the PC enthusiast sites reckon this extends to the home computer version too.

Performance analysis of the Xbox 360 version of Wolfenstein, with excerpts from the single-player mode. Tech annotations provided by Digital Foundry's Alex Goh.

Performance itself is basically acceptable, but not hugely remarkable. There are some ambitious scenes in there, and the old Doom 3 limitation of showing a maximum of three characters on-screen at any given moment is not an issue here: bearing in mind that the old ATI 9800 Pro was state-of-the-art back when idTech 4 was devised, it's interesting to see what the additional horsepower of Xenos does to enhance the old engine.

Combat can be pretty intense, but the fairly solid 30FPS frame-rate takes a remarkable dive when certain special effects are in play. The transition sequence when supernatural weapon "the Veil" is in play is hugely impactful on the smoothness of the game, for example. Screen tear averages out at around 10 per cent of the captured clips in the video, but varies dramatically in any given scene. When it's good, it's good, when it's bad, it's hugely impactful on the image quality.

Overall then, performance here is seemingly as average as the game itself. With idTech 4 seemingly pushed to its limits here, it'll be interesting to see how the engine performs on PS3. Keep a look out for that in the next Face-Off.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (26) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Adi-C #1 2 years ago

    "classic idTech 4 engine, which dates the core rendering code to 2005 and with it, the release of Doom 3"

    Doom 3 was released in 2004 :)
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/09 @ 11:52

  • Bagpuss #2 2 years ago

    "bearing in mind that the old ATI 9800 Pro was state-of-the-art back when idTech 4 was devised"

    Didnt they use 9800 Pro's in the first 360 Dev kits that they sent out in late 04?.....

    Until the 360 Gpu was finalised. (Radeon X1800 class)....i think.


  • DaemonSpawn #3 2 years ago

    DOOM 3 barely ran 35fps at high detail 800x600 on that "state-of-the-art" Radeon 9800Pro back in 2004.
    And how are that "last gen" thing and lack of AA connected?
    DOOM3 tech is ancient ok, but every game based on it featured antialiasing (at least on PC) be that Quake 4, Prey or ETQW.
    Edited by 1 at 31/08/09 @ 13:41

  • Bagpuss #4 2 years ago

    "DOOM 3 barely ran 35fps at high detail 800x600 on that "state-of-the-art" Radeon 9800Pro back in 2004. "

    Err no it didnt....back in 2004 i had a Pentium 4 3Ghz and a Radeon 9800pro.....and i could run Doom 3 at 1280x1024 @40-50Fps.

  • DaemonSpawn #5 2 years ago

    @ Bagpuss
    impossbile. Even with updated drivers from ATi with there wasn't good gameplay above 1024x768 high on R9800. At least with 800x600 framerate was stable enough still far from 40-50! On GF6600 256MB I had 45fps in demo1 with high detail and 1024x768 (the other specs were Athlon XP 2.3GHz (that's more than 3200+ for sure) and 768MB of memory). 1280x1024 was possible only with GF6600GT and Radeon X800.
    And I'm not talking AA here, of course. For me only 7900GS gave enough perfomance to enable 4x MSAA (plus C2D ~3GHz and 2 gigs of RAM) at 1280x1024 and get solid 60+ fps. Of course 8800GT was even better - it allowed 16xQ (MSAA8x + CSAA if I remember correctly) and much higher resolution - and good excuse for just one more playthrough.
    Edited by 3 at 31/08/09 @ 15:03

  • Bagpuss #6 2 years ago

    @Demonspawn.

    Apologies, i was thinking of when i upgraded my 9800pro to a X850XT PE in 2005 for those frame rates.....DOH!!!!

    There, a rarity, someone admitting they were worng and apologising on an internet forum.......

  • DaemonSpawn #7 2 years ago

    @ Bagpuss
    "There, a rarity"
    No. Kinda like you are the first one=). I really am awed.

  • ukgamer #8 2 years ago

    ugh...this old PC engine isn't going to run any better on PS3. DF always tries to find a way to knock the PS3.

  • Perfecto #9 2 years ago

    Id Tech 4 is notoriously bad at anti-aliasing, they probably couldnt get adaquate performance with it enabled.

  • Bigglesworth #10 2 years ago

    @ukgamer
    No, no, surely a 4 (5?) year old graphics engine will be *amazingly* well suited to the PS3 hardware!

  • Darren #11 2 years ago

    Wolfenstein looks OK even its visuals are very 2005 (bar nice transition effect). I'm surprised there's so much tearing though especially as the graphics are hardly state-of-the-art. A very blergh game though, pretty graphics wouldn't have made it any more enjoyable to play.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/09 @ 21:47

  • pinochet_cz #12 2 years ago

    RIP

  • Gearskin #13 2 years ago

    I still think PREY is an amazing looking game. The engine does that art style justice in a big way.

  • makeamazing #14 2 years ago

    I actually think the look of Wolfenstein is not bad, its retro feeling in gameplay, but actually i am liking that. Shame other people are giving it a hard time for it :|

  • Sharzam #15 2 years ago

    Iam playing it on pc at 1920x1080, you can really tell its getting dated as the detail at that resoultion is just not there. Sure lines smoother and overall it is ok looking but as soon as look at a book shelf for example its a mess as books just look like rows of boxs. Althourgh of course it being on pc i dont get any of the mentioned framerate issues, with v-sync on its a rock solid 60fps all the time regardless.

    Id tech 4 is a nice engine and personally like the the way its shaders work to give great shadows, however as with all things times move on . and as others have said its a nice change from unreal 3 which frantically everything looks like plastic on that engine.
    Edited by 1 at 01/09/09 @ 20:12

  • Bigglesworth #16 2 years ago

    @Donnie
    As a mere gamer, a simple statistic in the actual target audience of the product, your opinion is clearly meaningless. After all, you're simply playing the game it is intended to be experienced. If you're not using your eyeballs to analyse captures losslessly derived from the HDMI ports of both consoles at full range 24-bit RGB precision, in 1080p where possible, then how could you possibly contribute a worthwhile opinion??

    /sarcasm overload - no dig at you, Donnie =)

  • thesombrerokid #17 2 years ago

    total pish, idtech4 is one of the most advanced game engines in the industry it hasn't stayed static since 2004 and the physics engine in doom3 is in a lot of ways more advanced than the havok engine in wolfenstein it's just that in some key areas it's lacking.

    wolfenstein on the pc is a very nice looking game with massive poly counts and draw distances, maybe the 360 port is a little weak but that's because it's a PC game, this is evidence that the consoles are starting to show thier age and are going to see bigger and bigger gaps between thier gameplay experience and the PC's, not that wolfenstein's tech is lacking, it's no better or worse than any other game released this year.

  • Baranga #18 2 years ago

    Looks a lot like BioShock to me.

  • An1m4l #19 2 years ago

    Wolfenstein looks good. On both PC and 360. I honestly dont know where the slagging comes from. There are some very nice shadowing effects particularly noticeable int he safehouses, some nice depth of field effects (again stuff that was not available in games like doom 3 or prey). Its easily the best looking IDtech4 game. And honestly i dont think it looks out of place alongside something like bioshock.
    And yeah there are some ridiculous errors int hat story, my 9800 pro could only run doom 3 in 800x600 and got about 30fps max. And doom 3 was released in 2004, not 2005. And hello, i have AA turned on in all id4 games like prey, doom 3, quake 4 etc.

  • sneetch #20 2 years ago

    @Sharzam

    That's HDMI res? Are you playing it on a TV and if so what's it like?

    and as others have said its a nice change from unreal 3 which frantically everything looks like plastic on that engine.

    Yep, Vaseline smeared plastic. There was a time about two or three years ago when I bought four games in a row that used U3. I didn't buy a fifth because I'd grown so sick of looking at wet plastic.

  • TheGuvernor #21 2 years ago

    I've always loved this engine - thought it way ahead of its time. Haven't played this Wolfenstein due to early negative feedback & hefty price tag but I'm reconsidering...
    If you compare this to the much loved Fallout 3, which I thought looked shambolic ( & was frankly piss boring), it has far greater visual appeal. Animations, particle effects, etc.
    I agree with Carmack (& the Crysis dude, Uri Geller or something!) - I think we'lll just see further refining of existing tech for the next while & what's the problem with that? Most quality current stuff looks awesome.
    Edited by 1 at 05/09/09 @ 23:07

  • LeonardMcCoy #22 2 years ago

    Mr. Leadbetter, do you think an in-depth analysis of the 360/PS3 game Alone in the Dark by Eden Games would be worthwhile? The engine is still a very capable with massive strengths in the lighting department.

  • TheGuvernor #23 2 years ago

    Moderator

    please delete 2sw2r 's posts.
    these could well be the ramblings of an islamic madman for all we know.

  • Postumo #24 2 years ago

    @2sw2r

    You're right man. This game looks dated and i agree with you about its design flaws. A dated engine could be improved with good ideas, with imagination... I played a bit of the game, and it looks far older than it seems, more 2001 than 2005
    Edited by 1 at 06/09/09 @ 20:09

  • pureartist #25 2 years ago

    doom 3(id tech4) runs well on a nvidia gpu,that is well known

    half life 2(source engine) benefits ati gpu

    on that time and with that gpus

    i remenber even with my sapphire x1600xt,the gpu had trouble running the game.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/09 @ 04:41

  • Arwin #26 2 years ago

    I suddenly had this silly idea that you could capture a frame using your equipment, and then compare this to the XMB screenshot feature that this game seems to support according to GAF, and see if those XMB screenshots are indeed proper framebuffer grabs or if they do more than that.