Jump to navigation

Table of contents

Page Previous 1 2 Next

Advertisement

id Tech 5 Interview

PC Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Interview by Tom Bramwell

9 August, 2007

Page 1 of 2. Page 2 ->

id Software has been synonymous with PC game engines since the concept of a detached game engine was first popularised, and with the launch of each successive round of technology it's been expected to occupy a headlining position.

With Doom 3, that didn't quite go according to plan. The engine - these days referred to as "id Tech 4" - pitched up during a console transition that ultimately saw id cede dominance to competitor Epic Games, whose combination of Gears of War and Unreal Engine 3 sold millions of games and sold licences off the back of them in a manner more accustomed to their great rival.

But if the shortfall in id Tech 4 licensing demonstrates anything then surely it's the fickle nature of the market, and with id Tech 5 the Mesquite, Texas-based developer is keen to right wrongs and regain its crown - if not more. Not only is id Tech 5 a multi-platform solution, but business development director Steve Nix believes it's the cleanest multi-platform solution available; and not only does id claim that it takes as much advantage of the present generation of consoles and PC hardware as anyone is likely to, but it also claims to do away with texture memory limits that often diminish a game's latter-stage graphical fidelity in order to secure frame-rate.

Following id's unveiling of Rage at QuakeCon last Friday, we caught up with Nix to talk about where id Tech 5 came from, what it offers, and what id has to do to get back in the game.

Eurogamer: Apart from multi-platform support, how would you summarise the strengths of id Tech 5?

Steve Nix: Clearly it's an entirely new rendering solution. It's a massive extension - id Tech 4 with the MegaTexture approach being applied to the terrain is basically the first cut at it. In id Tech 5, all the textures are virtualised on everything - your characters, your buildings, cars, everything. So you have unlimited texture memory, which is huge, because - particularly when you're developing console games - one of the main things you'll see developers getting upset with each other and fighting with each other about is texture budgets, because one guy wants more texture memory for the characters, another guy wants more texture memory for the weapons or the view models, and it's a huge problem.

What happens is, as the game development goes on, you're trying to get your performance to the minimum specs, and you make the game look worse and worse and worse as you get closer to gold. With id Tech 5, with the virtualised texture system, we completely eliminate that. You can lock down the geometry and the gameplay and put a number of artists simultaneously working on the world and they can just make it look better and better and better until finally you're at the point where the game looks as good as you need to ship. It's a huge paradigm shift in the way game developers can work.

'id Tech 5' Screenshot 1

The Doom 3 engine - now known as id Tech 4 - struggled to find its feet despite the game's huge reception.

Eurogamer: What's the reaction been to that when you've put that to developers?

Steve Nix: Phenomenal. It's funny - we thought it was cool and that we knew what we were doing, but the more we started talking to people about it, their excitement level was so high we were surprised. Their response was, 'Oh my god, are you kidding me? We don't have to worry about texture limits any more? That's a huge breakthrough. That's our number one problem in development.'

Eurogamer: Was the fact that memory limits are a huge problem the thing that prompted you to take that developmental path - or did it come about more accidentally?

Steve Nix: I think it was a little more organic than that. I know that when we started working with Splash Damage on Enemy Territory they wanted large, detailed outdoor terrains, and they had some ideas on how to dynamically load the textures and everything, and John [Carmack] said, 'Why don't we try this new approach and make the entire terrain one massive texture, and then just load blocks of texture in dynamically that you can see at any one given time?' So John did the initial work on it, got it up and running, and it just so happened that that work was the basis for what we have in id Tech 5.

I don't know whether or not John would have gotten to that result without id Tech 4 and Enemy Territory, but I know it's something he's been thinking about for a while. I think with id Tech 4 that greatly accelerated us getting to that point in id Tech 5.

'id Tech 5' Screenshot 2

The coupling of id Tech 4 with Enemy Territory's MegaTexture technology forms the basis of id Tech 5's offering.

Eurogamer: Last night Todd made a very impassioned claim for the engine. He called it "another option", and people will assume he meant "besides Unreal Engine 3". How do they compare?

Steve Nix: I don't spend much time looking at Epic's current offering or what their product line is - we've always just done our own thing at id, so we don't spend too much time thinking about them.

When we look at the competitive landscape, of course Epic's frequently mentioned, and you have other sort-of pure rendering solutions and they have some tools too, but the other competitor we have is people who do in-house development, so if people want to start a multi-platform game they ask themselves - should they adapt and alter technology? Should they write their own technology? So there are a number of competitors in the marketplace, but clearly no one has our virtualised texture solution with MegaTexture, and I'm not aware of anyone who runs as cleanly as we do out of the gate across the platforms - especially not the Mac.

We have the PS3, the 360, the PC and the Mac all running at a very high frame-rate - basically all running at 60fps right now - and what's really unique is that when an artist builds an asset they don't know what they're building it for. They build the exact same model, the exact same level, and it doesn't matter what platform they're putting it on. That's a huge breakthrough. A lot of times you'd have your PS3-optimised assets, your Xbox-optimised assets, your PC-optimised assets, and at the end of the project you'd do this ugly Mac port. If not an ugly PC port. We think that the fact developers can cleanly simultaneously develop all four platforms is a huge change.

From the beginning we had seen that multi-platform was the way to go, and when John first architected this new engine he said it's going to work and have multi-platform, and it was built with that in mind and that's why it works so well. Everything from the fact that you can almost instantaneously get new assets into the game, but also crazy stuff, like an artist can be working on a map and you're driving around in the car and, the next time you come around to that part of the track, in real-time what the artist has just done is there on the walls.

It's an amazing piece of technology. John's sort of assessed where game development was going a few years ago when we started working on this new tech and I think he's really knocked it out of the park. As the guy who manages the technology licensing business, he's made life very easy!

To Page 2 ->

Advertisement

Are you excited about Rage on PC/PlayStation 3/Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-49 of 49 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
sn3jk
09/08/07 @ 07:50
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
i dont get the unlimited texture thing, but if its gonna look great when i play im happy :)
TonyCocaCola
09/08/07 @ 07:59
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Yeah man, whats with the cryengine, you've been giving it large about that all morning -
ostrasized
09/08/07 @ 08:02
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Better graphics =/= better games.

Of course the tech companies are desperate for punters to believe this, but they've been saying this since the 1990s and it's still not true.
UncleLou
09/08/07 @ 08:17
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Better graphics =/= better games.

Of course the tech companies are desperate for punters to believe this, but they've been saying this since the 1990s and it's still not true.


It's true for me. Do graphics alone make a game good? No. Is a good game with brilliant graphics better than the same game with shit graphics? Yes.

Games are a visual medium.
Trip SkyWay
09/08/07 @ 08:20
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Nice interview. Interested to see what comes out of the engine.
mkreku
09/08/07 @ 08:20
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Hurry up with part two already! HURRY UP YOU LAZY BUMS!
UncleLou
09/08/07 @ 08:25
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Oblivion's game engine is the mile high club fucking all the virgins whilst, to succintly state it, IdSoftware and Epic


Oblivion is pretty, but it has a blatant construction kit look, and everything looks a bit too clean for my taste. Of course that also has to do with art direction and development time, but I am not expert enough to judge an engine on its own merits, I can only judge them by the games that make use of them.

Oblivion also completely relies on the lighting. As soon as the lighting is a bit less spectacular (on a grey "day" in the gameworld), it's starting to look a bit poor.

Personally, I've found Stalker's graphics, with its razor-sharp textures, hand-made look and plethora of details everywhere (and the dynamic lighting) far more impressive, for example.
lambtron
09/08/07 @ 08:29
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
People buy Unreal because of UnrealED and the toolchain.

Bottom line - they'd be better off worrying less about "MegaTextures" and instead focusing on making something that isn't a broken mess like Radiant.
TonyCocaCola
09/08/07 @ 08:30
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@Unclelou - Yeah I agree. You always know what your gonna get with oblivion. Lots of white ruins made of playdoh. Stalker feels more unique.
ostrasized
09/08/07 @ 08:30
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
No. Is a good game with brilliant graphics better than the same game with shit graphics? Yes.
Well, I downloaded the id pack off steam. Frankly, Hexen, Heretic and so on are much more fun than Doom 3, even though it's prettier and draws more poly-muh-gans.
Hog-lumps
09/08/07 @ 08:31
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Better graphics =/= better games.

True, but doesn't 'easier development = better games'?

I.e; instead of the developer spending a significant portion of time in optimising the textures on a particular game, they can spend that time creating extra content? Or is that a simplistic viewpoint?
TonyCocaCola
09/08/07 @ 08:33
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
He didnt mention the wii though
3william56
09/08/07 @ 08:43
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
If what he says about the same assets being used for PC, 360 and PS3 is true, will this finally lead towards more equivalent ports, and an end to the endless whinging about which version is better (massive bags of MicroMoney for exclusive downloadable content notwithstanding)? Please God let it be so!

For the techy types: does the "unlimited texture memory" mean that the supposed problem with the PS3 - inadequate onboard memory - is going to be less of an issue with games based on Tech5? Or is it horsefeathers?
Amajiro
09/08/07 @ 08:46
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Was Doom 3's engine ever licensed for a decent third party game? Apart from maybe Quake 4 which is really 2nd party and not really decent. I can't think of one.
drumbaby
09/08/07 @ 08:46
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Well, I downloaded the id pack off steam. Frankly, Hexen, Heretic and so on are much more fun than Doom 3, even though it's prettier and draws more poly-muh-gans. "

They're more fun, despite their shite graphics, because they're not the same game.
Dr.Haggard
09/08/07 @ 08:49
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'm surprised at some people's attitude to this. The 'mega-texture' thing really is a huge leap forward. I'm not suggesting id's game will be any good or even weighing in on the debate about how important graphics are, but in the grand scheme of things this particular development is huge.

Other developers will of course follow suit and start working on their own solutions and in a couple of years tiled textures will be a thing of the past. I think that's a pretty big deal.
mkreku
09/08/07 @ 08:59
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
3william56: For the techy types: does the "unlimited texture memory" mean that the supposed problem with the PS3 - inadequate onboard memory - is going to be less of an issue with games based on Tech5? Or is it horsefeathers?

If everything turns out like it should, then yes, the onboard graphics memory won't be much of a constraint anymore. That's of course also dependant on other parts of the system, as in I/O for streaming textures.

Basically what it does is, instead of having millions of small textures puzzled together to form a gameworld, it uses one GIGANTIC texture to represent the entire world instead. iD Tech 5 uses a "clipmap" technique that only loads the parts of the gigantic texture visible to you at any given moment in time into memory. Everything else lies dormant on the HD/DVD/Blu-Ray, waiting to be streamed into memory as you move around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipmap
Dizzy
09/08/07 @ 09:02
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"It certainly sounds like good news for PS3. If there is "unlimited texture memory" - the only limitation then is what you can physically store on the disk, "

Err... in the other interview Id said that the PS3 was the problem child with limited texture memory. It will run id 5 the "weakest", but yeah... you will have it all one one Bluray.
Mentalist(air)
09/08/07 @ 09:03
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
TRUUUUUUUUUST BODY-FO-OOOOOOORM!

BODY-FORMED FOR YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU!

Steve 'blow-hole' Nix rules.
peak_performance
09/08/07 @ 09:05
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The demonstrations of idstudio (the tech5 editor) are reeking of pure awesomeness. It's hype, of course, but it really looks as if the development times can be cut down big time on polising the levels, not to mention that no extra detail at all counts towards the texture limit thanks to Megatexture. Fantastic stuff.

Xiphos, you're still smoking. Lambtron, they are giving their tools a lot of focus this time around with a few exlusive tools programmers - watch the demonstrations on Gametrailers. They are most certainly worth the time.
andromeda
09/08/07 @ 09:10
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I would personally love to see Carmack take the throne again.
Don't give a monkeys nuts for unreal shite..
i've loved every ID release except for quake 4 ( which wasn'y them anyway)

Even Doom3 which i didnt ever finish, was friggin awesome for that first hour.
peak_performance
09/08/07 @ 09:13
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Wonga, the problem is to make tech5 fit on the PS3 with its limited texture memory, while the games made out of tech5 will work out of the box once it's complete. That's the way I've understood it, at least.
Rodney
09/08/07 @ 09:21
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@ Xiphos

Why do you seem to hate ID? Have you some vested interest in some other middleware company?

I really hope this is not the dawn of engine/middleware fanboism

yes crytek is a very very nice engine. But its a monster and may not run optimally on some consoles.

Tech-5 sounds like a nice mulitplatform/texture memory solution for developers.

I dont think we want one game engine to 'pawn' them all. compeition and variety can only lead to better games for the consumer.
bivith
09/08/07 @ 10:10
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"For the techy types: does the "unlimited texture memory" mean that the supposed problem with the PS3 - inadequate onboard memory - is going to be less of an issue with games based on Tech5? Or is it horsefeathers? "

Actually the problem with PS3 according to Carmack is that it has much more video memory than the engine needs, and not enough system memory, due to the way the PS3 splits it's memory 256MB each for system and graphics. Add to that, the PS3 apparantly requirea about 90MB of that system memory for its OS, so the PS3 has been causing the biggest problems. They didn't have to worry about that on the 360, due to its unified memory system. They only used what they needed for the graphics ( and I've read the video memory requirements are fairly low for this megatexturing thing ), which leaves much more for the rest of the game, plus the 360 OS requirements are fairly low too.
miiiguel
09/08/07 @ 10:12
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
And Elite is coming on the 24th of August!

/excited/
Mentalist(air)
09/08/07 @ 10:24
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Didn't Elite come out 25 years ago?
Azazel
09/08/07 @ 10:49
#27
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I really hope this is not the dawn of engine/middleware fanboism

That day is upon is!

/wailing and gnashing of teeth
NonnyMouse
09/08/07 @ 12:28
#28
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Virtualised textures are like Virtual Memory - probably a good thing BUT there is no free lunch, you rattle the hard disc rather than literally running out of texture store. So, if artists are lazy and stop worrying about texture size, then your game gets gradually slower and lumpier...
Nithron
09/08/07 @ 12:40
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
But does it have Blast Processing?
bivith
09/08/07 @ 12:53
#30
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Virtualised textures are like Virtual Memory - probably a good thing BUT there is no free lunch, you rattle the hard disc rather than literally running out of texture store. So, if artists are lazy and stop worrying about texture size, then your game gets gradually slower and lumpier... "

You haven't been paying attention. Carmack repeatedly stresses the point that there is *no* constraints on texture size as far as the engine is concerned. There is no impact in performance for having whatever arbitrarily sized texture you want.
bivith
09/08/07 @ 12:57
#31
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Oooh, I've just read a quote from Carmack stating that Rage will have some "sandbox play".

"I think there’s going to be some neat stuff in it. We’ve got the whole outdoor wasteland – big areas, going between lots of different areas. We’re doing some of the sandbox play there. "
JP
09/08/07 @ 12:58
#32
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Nitpicky factual correction:

"but it also claims to do away with texture memory limits that often diminish a game's latter-stage graphical fidelity in order to secure frame-rate."

Framerate and memory budget are two different things, and paring down textures helps the latter but not the former. A game can run at a perfect framerate but be over budget, or vice versa.
monkie_king
09/08/07 @ 13:55
#33
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@bivith: that's clearly an oversimplification--i'd imagine you need to have mipmaps stored at different resolutions, so that you don't end up streaming arbitrarily large amounts of data in when, say, you're up high and can see most of the level.
i'm guessing it'll pull in a high-res clipmap for the stuff nearby, then progressively lower LODs for the stuff that's further out. even so, i wonder about the transfer rates (and seek times) on optical media. presumably the physical layout of the data on the disc can be engineered to mitigate this.

@JP: maybe that's a reference to running a PC game that uses more texture RAM than there is physical memory? in that case it'd start swapping, which i'd imagine is pretty catastrophic for the framerate.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 09/08/07 @ 14:57
Machiavellian
09/08/07 @ 14:13
#34
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I believe the difference we see here with the Rage engine and lets say CryEngine is that Rage works on all the major platforms and from what Carmack states at a very fast rate. CryEngine from my understanding only works on the PC is optimized for the PC only. This in the end can hurt the engine because cross platform is the way to go for a lot of studios who are looking to reap more of a return and audience for their games.

If the CryEngineengine is not built from the ground up to work on the PS3 and 360, you can believe it will not find the same success like UE3 (even with it's PS3 problems). I can really see the Rage engine taking off from what I was able to see from the engine video on gametrailers.com.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 09/08/07 @ 15:13
Ranger101
09/08/07 @ 14:42
#35
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Pffff.... this idTech5 Engine has nothing on 3DRealm's BUILD engine. You know it makes sense. The BUILD engine is the best engine out there hands down.
TonyCocaCola
09/08/07 @ 14:44
#36
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@Ranger101

F*ck yeah, build.exe was the most easy and fun tool to use. Duke nukem for XBLA
bivith
09/08/07 @ 15:02
#37
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Clearly all the potential IO issues regarding optical/HDD seek times, texture loading etc. must have been solved a long time ago by Carmack, otherwise they wouldn't be about to ship a game using the tech, or halfway through another game using it.
bivith
09/08/07 @ 15:04
#38
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Carmack quote from last year

"So when Splash Damage was starting on, really early with Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars, they were looking at some of these different ways to render the outdoor scenes with different blends and things like that. And one of my early suggestions to them was that they consider looking at an approach where you just use one monumentally large texture, and that turned out to be 32,000 by 32,000. And I - rather then doing it by the conventional way that you would approach something like this (i.e. - chopping up the geometry into different pieces and mapping different textures on to there and incrementally swapping them for low res versus high res versions), just let them treat one uniform geometry mesh and have this effectively unbounded texture side on there, and use a more complicated fragment program to go ahead and pick out exactly what should be on there, just as if the graphics hardware and the system really did support such a huge texture. "
Embattle
09/08/07 @ 21:55
#39
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
IF you've been playing computer games for long enough then you would find that if you thought about some of your all time favourite games in terms of gameplay I would seriously doubt any of them have so called 'Mega-Texture' style graphics or any thing like it.

John Carmack and company may make some rather decent engines for games but sadly on the actual finished product of games they've lacked for some time now but that won't stop the myth of Carmack spreading and developers spending large amounts of money buying the rights to the Tech-5 engine.
peak_performance
09/08/07 @ 22:50
#40
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@ Embattle
Sorry, but that's just a stupid argument. One could have argued against 3D graphics in the same way when they were on the way (I'm sure some people did it as well.), 'How many of your favorite games has had 3D or something like it?' No, it's not really the same situation since some pseudo-3D titles had been released before the real tech arrived, but it's on the same road (On the other hand, procedural loading of textures and areas resembles some of the stuff Megatexture does and ETQW is very funny in Beta-stage...).

Take MT for what it is - an experimental and hopefully successful way of giving artists the ability to craft unique detail across every inch of their maps without reaching a limit. I have thought it sounds terrific since they first announced it for ETQW.

Edit: Adress.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 10/08/07 @ 00:36
Rodney
09/08/07 @ 23:24
#41
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@ Embattle

I have to admit, that is not the best arguement. of course none of my favourite games have mega texture style graphics. no game currently released has mega texture style graphics. please elaborate.
Rodney
09/08/07 @ 23:30
#42
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I just re-read what you wrote. I think I kind of get what you mean. what, of my favourite games, have had the same graphical stlye as tech-5. meaning how graphics are rendered is irelevant to gameplay.

well, how the graphics are rendered is at the back of your mind when you are playing a game. (I hope for most people it as least any way). This is true. But graphics do enhance the game experience more often than not and more powerfull tools for developers can only lead to greater gameplay?

would you not agree?
samadriel
10/08/07 @ 00:05
#43
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Is there something wrong with me?"

Xiph', ol' buddy... I wouldn't know where to begin.
Lacero
10/08/07 @ 00:15
#44
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Rodney:
"meaning how graphics are rendered is irelevant to gameplay."

But how graphics are made is very relvant to gameplay. The more artists you need working on a level and the more fragmented they are (one team for each platform) the harder it is to get changes made to levels due to design issues. This can only make games better.
bivith
10/08/07 @ 08:22
#45
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
As Carmack himself said "Well for the user the bottom line is just that it looks better. You wind up with something that has the diversity that you don’t get with more conventional terrain generation systems out there. As the developer, looks are still important for games. If you look at a game and you make it look better, it’s a better game, so long as you don’t impact the gameplay negatively.So it’s nothing profound and fundamental, it’s just one tiny little aspect of graphics rendering that’s just better now."
Embattle
10/08/07 @ 13:27
#46
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@peak_performance

If you read my comment properly you might get the gist that I'm not against such advances but what I am against is selling games on graphics when the games that use it lack the most important ingredient for a great game....Gameplay.

@Rodney

Yeah you got the idea on your second post, T5 was what the article covered so it was just used as a general guide to developers/gamers over obsession with how good a game looks, Carmack & Co are a great example of graphics over substance judging by a lot of there recent games.

As for good graphics, I would agree without doubt they can help gameplay the same way good physics engines can etc but having a good graphics engine with average other parts is like sticking a 1.1L engine in a Ferrari shell.

peak_performance
10/08/07 @ 13:41
#47
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that was what you wanted to say. The thing is that the article is about the engine, as should the discussion be.

Your comment about it (MT) not having been needed until now just seems pointless in an engine discussion.
Embattle
10/08/07 @ 16:00
#48
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@peak_performance

I never said it (MT) wasn't needed and ironically your quote about what this discussion should be about tends to add weight to my argument but oh well you have your view and I have mine.
montdidier
11/08/07 @ 12:33
#49
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
As a game developer I think that the MT will be quite a boon. It's advantages were not immediately apparent to me, but as I have found out more about it and seen a little more about how one actually works with the technology - I can see that it's quite a potential winner for developers. For me I'm already convinced it will be a better technology for PS3 than any competitors and that in itself has put it ahead of the crowd in that market. I know very little about the tools used for content creation in tech 5 but from what I've seen so far it's a significant improvement on previous offerings.

I'm not sure why people feel id is being a show pony here. If anything I think they are generally lax when it comes to putting their best foot forward in the public eye. I believe the quote in the article about how the technology was arrived at organically. The benefits of this technology were clearly not even originally completely obvious to Carmack, he's always been very focussed on what he wants to achieve (his small team have an amazing rate of output). In this case he wanted to solve a particular problem, and as it turns out the solution he devised also has production benefits.

Epic are by far the most marketing savvy of the current major middleware providers. I feel they have sometimes promised more than they can really deliver, but their technology is very sound none the less.

Crytek have gone from strength to strength. They've done a great job considering the challenges they've faced over the years. The strongest European player by far in this small pond. Their technology and tools are amazing but I'd have reservations about another team picking up their technology and getting the same results. I'm also not convinced their technology will do that well off of PC and perhaps 360 - I get the feeling they've pretty much admitted that.

Comments: 1-49 of 49 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

X View gallery