Doom III Preview

By Kristan Reed Published 23 September, 2003

Dark, moody, and gory as hell. But when's it out?

For a company that has spent over a decade making games made in hell, to see Doom III apparently entering its own Hades - development hell - is a sad irony. Although Id wisely never promised us a release date, it was on Activision's release schedule for the end of this year for so long that it's clear that the powers that be hoped that Doom III was going to be almost in the can by now.

When we first caught Doom III running in real time back at Activate in August 2002 it seemed so far ahead of anything else, and for all the world a finished engine, it seemed inconceivable we were looking at a game as much as two years away from completion. But, whatever the real reason, be it the intensive amount of artwork involved in creating such a beautiful looking game, or a re-evaluation borne out of the shockwaves created by Valve's Source engine, or a bit of both, the truth is that Doom III is taking longer than any previous Id project, and certainly longer than anyone reasonably expected.

When it's nearly done... we'll take a bit longer

'Doom III' Screenshot 1

But as the well worn cliché goes, good things come to those who wait, and we're assured that quality control appears to be the over-riding concern here; not a luxury that many developers can afford. But while it's been great to see Id's most ambitious project at various stages over recent years, the delays have somewhat dampened enthusiasm. Fast forward a year from the original real-time presentation and the atmosphere among the collective audience of retailers, distributors and journalists has shifted from astonished awe ("this running in real time, right?") to a more irritable 'this is the fifth Doom III presentation I've been in'. Sure, the vibe is still positive, but we're just keen to play rather than merely spectate at this point.

But what is abundantly clear is that lead designer Tim Willits and CEO Todd Hollenshead still have the most impressive looking game out there, and they know it, with a degree of texture and character detail well above anything we've seen elsewhere. For all Valve's impressive (third party) physics and cunning AI, the eye candy in Doom III is still a cut above (even if it might not to be everyone's taste), and Id has its own proprietary physics solution too. We were treated to two out of the "28 to 30" of the "more finished" levels over the half an hour, a quick insight into the plot (yes Ladies and Gentlemen, a plot) followed by a quick demo of the engine's physics capabilities, to show us that, yes, Doom III will have lots of tumbling boxes, barrels and rag doll deaths too.

For some reason, Id's game was the only title of the 15 shown off at Activate not to feature any accompanying blurb, so we had to pay extra attention as we scribbled notes down in the dark. As you'll doubtlessly know by now, Id wants Doom III to be "an experience in intense, horrifying fear", meaning lots of spooky lighting, and evil otherworldly creatures that stalk you in the darkened metallic complex of the UAC base, situated on Mars.

War is hell... and so is Mars

'Doom III' Screenshot 2

For reasons not quite fully explained, hell invades the very structure of the UAC base, taking over not only the personnel, but the environments too, turning both into a bizarre amalgam that let Id's art team's imagination run riot. Willits showed off the Administrator Complex after hell has invaded, with your base "horribly outnumbered". Humans become eyeless, shambling zombies attacking everything that moves, while everything else is some twisted unrecognisable misshapen creature from hell. Funny that. Where they came from, we're not quite sure, but we assume the research team has brought along some kind of Noah's Ark with it, and it's all gone disastrously wrong.

Whatever the spurious reasons, even the spiders have mutated into gigantic creatures of death, and they're especially vile, slimy, hairy, and they're after you. In keeping with all the other evil monsters, they sport more detail and menace than anything you've ever seen in any game. The environments are similarly exquisitely detailed, with texture detail that still astounds. Constantly throughout the demo, the structure comes under attack from various ugly brutes that seem to like to burst though the steel structure as if it were wottle and daub, and makes Resident Evil look like Jackanory.

The scripted events come thick and fast, as if Id just wants to kill its already quivering audience. On the way through the complex Willits encountered a downed marine slumped in a bloody heap, alive enough to utter: "Don't wait for me buddy - they surprised us - they came out of nowhere", before pushing on to the Alpha labs to track down a member of the 63 Science Team, and grab a PDA.

Delicious demons

'Doom III' Screenshot 3

As he progressed through the labs, the impressive touches struck us literally at every turn. Such is the detail of the environment; your marine can walk right up to a computer screen and use it in a convincing fashion. Rather than clicking the 'use' button and your screen switching to the computer view, the screen you're looking at, is your view of the computer, and it's so sharp it's completely readable and all the more convincing because of it.

Seeing as you're on the hostile planet of Mars, you won't want to puncture the base, unless you fancy a quick death. Hollenshead revealed that if you do happen to shatter one of the complex's windows it creates a vacuum, forcing the area to automatically seal off from the rest of the base. Eeek. And with all the shooting you're going to be doing, what are the chances of not sending a stray bullet through the windows at some stage?

From what we've seen so far, the game's going to be a pretty gloomy affair, with lots of darkened environments to negotiate, and some chilling, swaying, lighting effects to boot. In one area, all the lights are out, and you need to get to another section of the complex to continue your mission. Sure, you have a torch (and a mind-blowingly effective looking one at that), but you can't shoot and wave your lamp at the same time. Handily, though, a kindly NPC appears bellowing "Don't shoot! I can help! Electromagnetic pulses have knocked out all the lights in the base... c'mon! I can't wait."

Alone in the dark

'Doom III' Screenshot 4

Naturally, you take him up on his offer, and concern yourself with killing everything in sight while he shows you the way. As you do so, he babbles away like a terrified child in the background, coming out with choice phrases such as "What was that?", "Kill it!!!", "That was close!", "Oh God, thank God it's dead!", "God, don't let it get me!" and so on. It's all very Half-Life, and very atmospheric, but does tend to repeat itself quite often at this stage. At least it gives the game some sense of personality, something every previous Id title sorely lacked.

Later on, Id showed of some explicit examples of the physics in action, with plenty of rag doll 'aftershock' if you're sadistic enough to keep pumping lead into bloodied carcases. Later we witnessed a crane game that tasks the player with clearing barrels with a winch and dumping them in an incinerator. To conclude Hollenshead showed off a white test room, with a tower of boxes stacked 100 high, and a dead marine dangling by the leg. Predictably, the poor limp guy was swung about like a rag doll and smashed into the box stack to show us what to expect in the game with boxes all falling to the ground in a convincing fashion. Admittedly, it wasn't in the same league of impressiveness as anything Valve showed off in its Half-Life 2 footage, but at least it shows Id keen to prove that this element of the game will be an important facet rather than a purely cosmetic way of showing enemies falling down stairs.

What was perhaps telling was Hollenshead's refusal to address the subject of physics in any detail. Asked how Id's solution compares to Valve's, Hollenshead spat: "you'll have to ask Valve that". Although he expanded the answer to "Valve's physics is a mod of the Havok 2 physics engine. Ours is a proprietary solution".

Licence to kill

'Doom III' Screenshot 5

That's all true, and Id's solution may well be far superior, but at the current time of writing, Half-Life 2 is on track to arrive six to nine months ahead of Doom III, and that's a long time for a company that's business model relies partly on licensing out its tech to other developers.

So when is Doom III coming out? "We have no plans to release it this year" said the Id CEO, and more recent information points to the release date being closer to summer next year, disappointingly. What about the Xbox version? "Vicarious Visions is handing the conversion". Any idea when that'll come out. "No". It's a downer for all concerned, especially Microsoft, which is desperately in need of more titles of Doom III's stature to emerge. Interestingly VV handled the conversion of Jedi Knight II and is also porting Jedi Academy, so judge for yourselves whether it has the technical nous to handle such a challenging conversion.

So why is Doom III taking so long? Is it down to the vast amount of artwork, or did Id shift the goalposts after seeing what Half-Life 2 was capable of? We're never going to get an official answer, and Id fanboys are probably busy penning barbed responses already at the mere possibility that the mighty Texans are playing catch up.

Tricky

It's a tricky situation for Id; it's arguable that in the short term it could have drawn a line in the sand and released Doom III in time for Christmas. The various playable, real-time presentations certainly bear this out, and even if it lacked certain engine features possibly present in Source, the game would still surely have sold millions on the basis of its stunning art and atmosphere alone.

In many respects, we suspect there's a pride issue at stake here; that Id simply wants to make the game as impressive as possible. And why not? Id always takes the long term view on whatever tech it produces to maintain its reputation as always being a front runner, so that three or four years down the line, publishers and developers still regarded it as the top middleware provider in the FPS genre (and with all the new features being crammed into these engines, potentially all manner of other genres for that matter).

The challenge now will be for Id to keep the pot boiling in the midst of Half-Life 2 mania, and fend off the inevitable taunts that come from showing off a product for, most likely, three consecutive E3s. But in true enigmatic style it'll just batten down the hatches and get on with making Doom III the stunning game we all expect it to be.

Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (73) Latest comment 8 years ago

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

  • Aretak #1 9 years ago

    Meh...I get the feeling I'm the only person in the world who couldn't care less about Doom III...

  • Thamuhacha #2 9 years ago

    First!

    Good article. Still not convinced by the game ... HL2 has a far better promotion campaign IMO, although even they couldn't stretch out my interest for three E3s.

  • Thamuhacha #3 9 years ago

    Bugger. Second.

  • TipTop #4 9 years ago

    Nice article btw. Very surprising they haven't gone for a December release. It could be pride, but money talks in this industry and if they have been delayed it's probably, as you point out, because HL2 stole it's thunder. ID make engines and licenses them. If they dont have the top tech then they dont sell the code. Given Valve's prepensity to 'share', then I think ID have gone back to the drawing board a bit. Bold move as it'll cost them money from potential licenses being snapped up by other developers. All that being said I think HL2 maybe a little delayed itself, after all we are supposedly 1 weeks and 3 days from release day and there's not a single Gamespot sponsorship ad in sight.
    Edited by 1 at 23/09/03 @ 14:13

  • Blerk #5 9 years ago

    Meh...I get the feeling I'm the only person in the world who couldn't care less about Doom III...

    Nope. I'm not overly enthused either. And it's not just because my PC has no chance of playing it. It looks very nice, but.... it's not Doom, is it?

  • Shivoa #6 9 years ago

    >the inevitable taunts that come from showing off a product for, most likely, three consecutive E3s.

    Did anyone see Breed on show at this year's ECTS (probably floating around the nVidia booth as CDV weren't about)? If so it will have been the 3rd ECTS that it was on show at.

  • otto #7 9 years ago

    I was never considering getting this game, even before I read this:

    "even the spiders have mutated into gigantic creatures of death, and they're especially vile, slimy, hairy, and they're after you."

  • Tiger_Walts #8 9 years ago

    Such is the detail of the environment; your marine can walk right up to a computer screen and use it in a convincing fashion. Rather than clicking the 'use' button and your screen switching to the computer view, the screen you're looking at, is your view of the computer, and it's so sharp it's completely readable and all the more convincing because of it.
    This is also possible in Valve's Source engine but will require a bit work for a modder to implement, Doom III has a specific part of the engine tailored to produce useable consoles, in fact it uses a markup language a bit like HTML.

  • Gl@eken #9 9 years ago

    I personally think the Valve Source engine will become the license engine of choice. The DOOM3 engine is nice but there are obviously technical reasons as to why they limiting DOOM3 multiplayer to 4 players. Presumably all the graphical loveliness is just not going to scale to a large user count during multiplayer. I guess we will have to see how Quake IV turns out to really know the multiplayer capabilities of the DOOM3 engine. I suspect most of the dynamic lighting will be removed in order for a reasonable amount of players to be supported.

    I also notice no mention of vehicle support in the DOOM3 engine. This seems to be being listed against every other next generation engine so I wonder if the DOOM3 engine is up to such versatility.

  • Thamuhacha #10 9 years ago

    "If so it will have been the 3rd ECTS that it was on show at."

    Republic The Revolution anyone?

  • El_MUERkO #11 9 years ago

    My computer, it cries. Look at the reflection of the wall in that marines goggles, If thats real time generated we're all boned.

  • Killerbee #12 9 years ago

    It looks very nice, but.... it's not Doom, is it?

    I think that's the thing that's the main problem with Unreal II. Not that "it's not Doom", but more that the problem with all these FPS games with ultra-cool graphics technology, is that the playability suffers a bit as a result. The hardware is being used too much on pushing the graphics that it can't deliver the rest of the gameplay in the way it needs to.

    Unreal II has that problem - you only ever seem to get a handful of enemies at best on the screen at any one time, so there is never any sense of the frantic battles the old Doom used to give you. Yet it doesn't sell itself as a stealth shooter either. One on one gun battles with some uber-hard mech warrior just aren't much fun as wasting a load of more puny baddies with a couple of shots. imho.

  • Psi #13 9 years ago

    strange that this article was even posted :S

    HL2 engine games will use the valve sdk so anything published with the valve engine would be downloadable through steam... or id kinda think it would.

    Doom3 does look good and that leaked demo *cough*im told that was really scary*cough* no way it needed another year, now its another 6months till we get doom3?

    Looks like gabe's kicked carmaks arse here then, they should have pushed a release out before hl2

  • lost_soul #14 9 years ago

    I read somewhere (possibly in the original thread for this article) that Valve are charging significantly less up front for developers wanting to use the Source engine than id is for Doom3 (or at least was for Quake3). Instead they want a %age of the profits.

    It's going to be very interesting to see who wins this round of the engine wars.

  • Mike_Hunt #15 9 years ago

    Wasn't this the article that was pulled a month ago?

    /looks over right shoulder for men in black stalking him

    [MH]

  • krudster #16 9 years ago

    Correct. ID embargoed all information from Activate until today. We messed up.

  • lost_soul #17 9 years ago

    'Twas.

  • pjmaybe #18 9 years ago

    See, as good as this looks (and yes, it does look good) it just ain't gonna be much else than a "wander round, shoot things, open doors" kinda exercise is it....

    HL2 at least has a modicum of puzzlement thrown in there. And as for Deus Ex 2, methinks that'll be a better prospect. Doom was and probably always will be a mindless FPS with lots of gore chucked in for good measure.

    Peej

  • Mike_Hunt #19 9 years ago

    Correct. ID embargoed all information from Activate until today. We messed up.

    Yay \o/ My memory still works!

    [MH]

  • Gl@eken #20 9 years ago

    Although I am looking forward to HL2 single player I think it is going to be the mods for the Source engine that really start the Source revolution.
    If anyone is keeping track of the mods already in development for Source there is already some dam impressive work being done and this is before the SDK even turns up. Ok pretty much all these guys can do at the moment is 3d modeling and art work but the early stuff I am seeing is of a very high standard so I have high hopes.
    Valve seem to understand that mods may well be the future of gaming and I don't ever remember a developer taking such a proactive stance towards modding. I guess that little mod called CS made converts of Valve to the modding cause.

  • tiddles #21 9 years ago

    3 consecutive E3s? Pah! Duke Nukem Forever will piss all over this...

  • Pirotic #22 9 years ago

    I think the real war wont be the retail sales of Doom3 and HalfLife2, but which engine the developers will choose to licence out.

    Idsoftware are normally ok with releasing a bare-bones FPS game to accompany the engine, which will make good use of the features and convince developers to buy into it, but Valves approach of making a great game first, and building up the engine based upon the game means they have a far greater showcase, which is why i suspect Id have delayed Doom3 in order to create more of a game and less of a tech demo.

  • Errol #23 9 years ago

    Hl2 blows this out of the water (although I will be purchasing Doom III). And just wait for Counter Strike 2 (which will probably be out by the time doom 3 surfaces) !

  • Mugwum Verified Operations Director, Eurogamer Network #24 9 years ago

    "Correct. ID embargoed all information from Activate until today. We messed up."

    Did 'we'? I thought it was 'they'?

  • Sko #25 9 years ago

    Ahh. I was beginning to wonder about that awful sense of deja vu...

  • mugwump #26 9 years ago

    krudster - phew, thanks for putting my brain at rest!

    Coulda sworn these words seemed dauntilly familiar

  • jonww74 #27 9 years ago

    Im just wondering if those 'dark' bits in DoomIII will show anything up on my tft monitor...

  • Thamuhacha #28 9 years ago

    "Im just wondering if those 'dark' bits in DoomIII will show anything up on my tft monitor... "

    Yep. Reckon I will have to whack the gamma up to the point where it all becomes irrelevant.

  • RedMercury #29 9 years ago

    It amazes me the amount of people comparing the gameplay in the two games, considering that neither of them are on the market yet :)

  • Mike_Hunt #30 9 years ago

    This article got Valve fanboy writen all over it

    That post has ID fanboy written all over it ;)

    [MH]

  • Dirtbox #31 9 years ago

    I want this ere game quite a bit now.

    Can't wait to check it against my specs and see that I'm already due for another upgrade.

    :|

  • striker #32 9 years ago

    The tards appear normally after 16h, I wonder what country is waking up by then?...

  • Dis #33 9 years ago

    I am. Big fan of ID titles. Mind you, pretty excited about HL2 as well. Bit of a strange person I suppose...I can be excited about more than 1 game at a time. Still, Deus EX 2 will blow both these away :)

    I'm happy for HL2 around late October, Deus Ex 2 for Xmas and Doom 3 around Easter time. Might actually be able to afford all 3 if they are spaced out like that.

  • Khanivor #34 9 years ago

    Solid article there.. I'm wondering: seeing as HL2 will be out first and then Doom 3 follows, what chance this numerical count-up will result in the release of Duke Nukem Forever?

  • Khanivor #35 9 years ago

    Aye, that's right, bugger all.

  • Mike_Hunt #36 9 years ago

    Sure, you have a torch (and a mind-blowingly effective looking one at that), but you can't shoot and wave your lamp at the same time.

    You can in the alpha version...

    [MH]

  • Pirotic #37 9 years ago

    and ^ that is whats wrong with the comments system, even retards can use a keyboard :p

  • Shrui #38 9 years ago

    For a while I thought it was just me who thought the creatures in Doom 3 were a tad silly. Thank god for Penny Arcade!

    http://www.penn y-arcade.com/view.php3

  • striker #39 9 years ago

    I had thought of that too. Really bad use of recent technology to reproduce Doom's original monsters IMO

  • striker #40 9 years ago

    Well I tend to care about both: information and opinions, and I know which of us isn't normal...
    Edited by 1 at 25/09/03 @ 21:07

  • kissoon #41 9 years ago

    Shrui wrote:

    "For a while I thought it was just me who thought the creatures in Doom 3 were a tad silly. Thank god for Penny Arcade!

    http://www.penn y-arcade.com/view.php3"


    Absolutely right. I really hope there are other, more menacing, creatures in D3, otherwise I doubt the 'scare factor'.

  • krudster #42 9 years ago

    Hey, I'm so hurt and shocked by your cutting comments. I might even cry.

  • savant #43 9 years ago

    100 box demo room or not, Carmack and co have admitted that the physics engine in Doom3 will not play a part in the gameplay. It will just be eye candy, like monsters falling down realistically or things falling off shelves when an earthquake hits. A bit of a missed opportunity in my opinion. This is why I'm firmly rooting for Half-Life 2, where the interactivity of the environment is paramount.

    It's good to see that CultureShock has gotten over his shame at the pile of poo that is Judge Dredd though ;)

  • KnickKnack #44 9 years ago

    I think that the big addition to Doom 3 might be better lighting, perhaps the inclusion of some kind of indirect lighting or Global illumination. I know Carmack stated a year ago he would have liked to have included it but didn't think it would work well on all graphics cards. Having probably seen that Half Life 2 has global ilumination, and seeing as it makes scenes look much more incredibly real (it's the reason stalker looks so good) then I wouldn't be surprised to find it added with this extra time.

  • Amnesia #45 9 years ago


    Well genuinely laughing my arse off at Error and Cultureshock here. I mean *guys* if you come out some insanely rabid about stuff people just assume that you are fanboys or publishing hacks on the defensive. There's nothing wrong with the article and you, hysterically, seem to decide that the journalists in the audience thought Hollinshead reacted a bit off-ly to a comment about HL2 is a lie. And you were there were you?

    Legally speaking I think the phrase is.... hrm.... oh yeah.... "arsewipes". That's the term.

  • KnickKnack #46 9 years ago

    Why are all of you getting pissed off with each other? We should be celebrating a renewed flux of great games and the technology that will hopefully bring more great games in the future.

    There has been alot of stupid rumours over the past year or so, saying computer gaming is dead, with consoles becoming the mainstream. I'm just thankful that we can see some great games that really lead the field and show all gamers how great the PC is as a gaming platform.

    I can't wait to play Stalker, Far Cry, Doom III and Half Life 2. So grow up people; we're all winners.

  • KnickKnack #47 8 years ago

    CultureShock, you sound like you want too much, too soon. I think the graphical leap from Doom 1 to Doom III is an important and necessary one; yes it takes time for graphics card manufacturers and games developers to conitnually advance and adapt to the needs of rendering realistic looking worlds, but there are real benefits for this evolution.

    I think we are all beginning to understand that increasing the number of polys and textures in a scene, doesn't necessarily make it more tangible, and I'd agree with you that there is still something indelibly missing from computer games, but that's because we're not looking at their face value; they are still simple forms of entertainment, meant to while away your time with enjoyment; not alter your take on reality and push you to higher plains. However, I can imagine a time in the future when that may be possible. Virtual Reality, or technologies not yet in existence are the key to adding that 'something' to computer games, pushing them past the simple forms of pleasure they currently exist as.

    The advancement of graphics hardware in the quest to create ever more realistic worlds is an important step in the development of games. Once we have reached a critical limit to how 'real' something can look, we will find fault with the inhibiting controls that we use to navigate these virtual worlds, and perhaps then, a revolution in gaming and interaction will take place. But like the space race, you must take little steps; you can't have the moon on a stick straight away.

  • KnickKnack #48 8 years ago

    I actually work in the games industry; have done so for over a year now, working for a games company in the UK. I've seen and been a part of the game creation process, and I will say the production schedule, and the people who have control over the games that are produced make it very difficult to really advance and develop what would be considered tertiary elements of a game; the plot, character and story arcs\ devlopment etc. The roles of all the team members on any particular game are focused on just two things: graphics and gameplay. There doesn't seem to be the creative force, or even the time to concentrate, explore and develop great naratives and characters that do more than just look good or work well as an interactive control to reach an end goal. Im not even sure how games could actually use film narrative techniques to change or enhance games in such a way that would make them better. Steven Poole's book Trigger Happy goes into some depth on this topic, and can't conclude a viable solution or way forward for games and a convergence with cinematic elements.

    I do find myself less inclined to play games these days; I would put this down to time management, and my busy schedule. We are nearing completion of the last milestone before the game goes gold, and the last 9 months have meant late nights, and some weekends. I find it hard to go home after spending all day making a game, and pick up a controller to start playing one. Have I grown out of it? It would seem so, but I find alot of comfort in multiplayer online gaming; interaction far more complex and involving than any single player game currently offers. Perhaps this is the future; always online gaming. Epic quests set against a backdrop of war, espionage, or something else just as grand and unifying for millions of players.

  • krudster #49 8 years ago

    You make some interesting points FB. You'd be welcome around here if you didn't merely attempt to wind up the staff with inflammatory comments.

  • otto #50 8 years ago

    We reached a useful point in graphical fidelity and world interaction years ago. Where games have been falling down is in the areas of characterisation, story, and scene design. The missing element is derivative of this rather than the underlying delivery mechanism which became credible years ago. Both Doom III and Half-Life 2 make this inevitability more obvious rather than the solution they both pretend to be.

    My God, how true, if only this were more widely recognised. It's so true, it's almost glaringly obvious, and yet virtually the whole community, from developers to publishers to journalists to gamers to interested third parties still buy into this absurd myth that cutting-edge graphics a good game doth make.

    Surely the whole point of the original Half Life, the reason why it was such a stellar hit, was because it proved that there was more to first person shooters than pretty graphics? It was hardly Shakespeare but the fact that it had a storyline at all meant that its ageing Quake 2 graphics were simply irrelevant. Unreal and Sin should have won that round in the FPS wars hands down if conventional thinking about the industry were valid.

    All the signals are that HL2 and Doom 3 are focussing all their resources on the graphics and letting originality and innovation fall by the wayside. They may well sell stacks of copies, but they won't win the kind of place in our hearts that the original Doom, the original Half Life, or games like Thief, System Shock, No-one Lives Forever did - by doing things that little bit differently. In the long run, their brands will suffer as a result.

  • KnickKnack #51 8 years ago

    But neither yourself or Cultureshock put forward an alternative to the current hardware trends and the implications of that alternative for the IT industry as a whole; slowing or halting the production and evolution of graphics hardware is something that your argument seems to necessitate.

    I am not saying your arguments are invalid; I can totally sympathise and agree with your desire for a greater emphasis on stronger narrative and character development, but I think the continual persual of graphics and it's verisimilitude will bring about a slow change in the industry, with the introduction of talented artists, script-writers, technical directors, composers etc. from the film industry, as computer graphics in games becomes as sophisticated as any block-buster of today.

    With better graphics hardware comes the oppurtunity for better interaction, and so arises the chance of stronger characterisation, and story development.

  • eviltobz #52 8 years ago

    i think we may be starting to approach a point where the average punter wont really be able to tell the difference between different generations of graphics hardware or consoles, and this may be the point where development focus shifts from graphics to other aspects of the game as having the latest, spanglyest 3d engine wont be such a draw.

  • otto #53 8 years ago

    You seem to be saying that the purpose of games first and foremost should be to drive technology. If so, then I disagree. The purpose of games first and foremost should be to entertain. If they can do that, affordably, with existing technology (which they certainly can), why the constant push for games that exploit new, more expensive technology?

    The way I see it, the big gaming franchises are onto a winner. Thanks to the PC industry's dependence on programmed obsolescence for the long-term health of its business model, game developers can get away with releasing the same game over and over again, with slightly prettier graphics every time. This isn't the way technology should be driven. Technology should be driven by creative people coming up with innovative new ideas that require new technological fixes.

    Unfortunately, the market connives with this formula and the result is an industry that looks increasingly like Hollywood, where they remake old films again and again, losing any soul that might still be left in the old corpse, and replacing it with some rather snazzy but ultimately hollow CGI sequences.

  • KnickKnack #54 8 years ago

    Im not saying games should be, or even are, driving hardware devlopment; it's the other way round, and theres nothing we can do about it. Just as processors are getting faster and faster, so too are the graphics chips that are engineered by ATI and nVidia. Even if we could, I see no reason why we should stop it, to be honest; hardware development got us from Pong and Space Invaders to Half-life and Halo. Should we be so cock-sure that we have gone as far as necessary with graphics hardware and concentrate soley on gameplay? There are solid unchanging platforms out there for playing games; they are called consoles and generally don't change for a period of 5 - 6 years. What about the crap games that emerge from these stable platforms? You can't blame the obsession with state of the art graphical finesse for a dud xbox game can you?

    Perhaps we shouldn't be blaming graphical leaps and rapidly evolving technology for bad games, but see it as an excuse or a scape goat for developers and publishers who are too scared and/ or pressured by ever tighter deadlines and budgetary constraints. Or maybe a lack of focus, a lack of good ideas, maybe even a simple lack of talented people. I'm working with some artists who couldn't model their way out of a paper bag, so I should hardly expect them to design a game rich in narrative and character design.
    Edited by 1 at 29/09/03 @ 19:38

  • eviltobz #55 8 years ago

    chuck - Well, photorealism is still a while away.
    certainly is. its a bastard long way off. but thats not my point, the steps being taken are getting smaller, so that most people aren't going to notice the difference between consecutive generations, certainly a few generational leaps will be more obvious. in my gaming i've gone from the colour clash of my speccy, to the pretty okay graphics of the st, to the high colour of the snes, to the joy of 3d on the pc, to accelerated, texture correct, bilinear filtered 3d goodness with my voodoo1, but everything since that has been less in your face with the improvement. its better certainly, but there are no huge jumps anymore. no single step that can leave your jaw on the floor. well, until we get hold of better than life anyway :)

  • KnickKnack #56 8 years ago

    Be careful not to make a sweeping glance at a game that isn't released yet and immediately dismiss it as phantasmagoria. The marketing department will only ever be interested in something more tangible than the promise of great gameplay to wet the appetites of cynical journos. Showing a demo level and saying "This game uses High Dynamic Range Image based lighting solutions" is always going to win over rhetorical promises of advances in AI, or greater depth in gameplay.

    I see no reason why graphical superiority and deeper gameplay can't go hand in hand; why do people immediately assume one negates the other? What I would say is games developers lack the focus and perhaps the expertise to develop greater narratives; something that will only change if we get more script writers and artistic and technical directors on board. And, as I've said before, to do this we need to further up the stakes in digital image quality. Im sure that once the boundaries of film and games have merged in terms of what is graphically feasible, it will be much easier for the talented film people to cross over from one medium to another. Which brings up another interesting argument

    ""As per my signal processing argument this is proof enough we've passed beyond the critical point. All further advancement does is move closer to the point where graphical fidelity becomes indistinguishable from reality, and that won't happen until we start going beyond 200 dpi @ 200 Hz territory, which requires graphics cards with at least eight times faster fillrates than the current generation""

    I think you are missing the real issues here that are being tackled by companies such as ATI and nVidia. Since the third generation of Geforce 3 they have become less interested in poly power and more interested in image quality. Fill Rate has advanced, yes, but so has the architecture for rendering more advanced effects that will alow gameplay elements that weren't feasible or possible before. Pixel shaders and better optimised texture pipelines have given programmers and artists infinitely more flexibility in areas such as skinning and vertex deformation, for more advanced body and facial animation, greater pixel level control for effects such as depth of field and motion blur, ocular effects like glows, halos and other such things that will render a scene more realistically. These elements aren’t in and of themselves a sign of great gameplay, but they do offer more choice and flexibility to the artist which, when trying to tell interesting or more involving stories, can make a real difference. Take the girl from Half-Life 2 as an example. She has the most complex facial animation ever seen in a computer game, with facial movements that allow the character to emote more than was possible a few years ago. Again, this does not necessarily make a better game, but the possibilities for greater characterisation and human empathy can only be guessed at.

    To surmise, Im not too sure all the arguments against the progress in graphics are valid, but I can see where your fundamental concerns are. I’d proffer a good reason as to why most computer games today are lacking in the gameplay stakes, and it’s nothing to do with our quest for bigger better faster. The need for good story tellers and professionals from other industries, including film is key to better videogames, and I’d venture so boldy as to say the continual advances (and there are advances) in computer graphics could be the catalyst to this crossover.
    Edited by 1 at 30/09/03 @ 12:34

  • otto #57 8 years ago

    Well, photorealism is still a while away.

    Thank the flipping Lord! Who needs photorealism?? Even if photorealism were possible, can you imagine the time and effort required to make "photorealistic" environments actually realistic? Miyamoto made the point very well in some interview I read - they went for the cel-shaded Zelda because the world would have looked utterly bland and fake if they had tried to go for a 'realistic' look, with a tree here, a shrub there, a few blue jars in between.

    Which would you rather read? A graphic novel by D'Israeli, or a photo love story by Bravo?

  • KnickKnack #58 8 years ago

    Yeah, and how do you think they achieved that beautiful cell shaded look? Could they have done that on an N64, or Snes? No way.

    The point of improved graphical hardware doesn't just mean increased realism. It means increased choice and power for a games devloper; what they do with it is upto them.

  • otto #59 8 years ago

    Yeah, and how do you think they achieved that beautiful cell shaded look? Could they have done that on an N64, or Snes? No way.

    The point of improved graphical hardware doesn't just mean increased realism. It means increased choice and power for a games devloper; what they do with it is upto them.

    Well, er, yeah! That's kind of my point! I'm not having a go at new technology, don't know where you got that idea from. I'm having a go at the quest for ever great photorealism at the expense of creative and imaginative solutions.

  • KnickKnack #60 8 years ago

    Apparantly my signal processing argument's passed you by. I point you to the nearest reference books on graphics and psychology, and the past fifty years of animation films, just in case you need a prod.

    No your signal argument didn’t pass me by, but you don’t even seem to have a cohesive point to the argument (the lack of deeper playing experiences in games), you are just bemoaning the lack of decent games out there, drawing criticism on Doom III and Half Life 2 for providing nothing more than spectacle when you have played neither game and so have nothing to back up those arguments.

    The signal processing argument is a mute one, because you are supposing that we (and by we, I mean developers, graphics card manufactures, publishers etc) should forego the development of graphics hardware and software because we have already reached the point where we can fool the eye or the brain successfully enough to warrant no other visual advances in games. Your argument is a mute one because graphics technology is not just linked to games development but other areas such as manufacturing, the film industry, sceince and as such, will always advance even if games tech didn't. I therefore see no wrong in publishers and developers wanting to ride the wave of technological development, and to allow the artists and programmers a better and richer environment to flex their muscles.

    HL2 duplicates my own work in this area. Again, it's a matter of record if you know where to look. It was perfectly possible, though at a lower degree of polygon and/or texture fidelity. Plenty of older games prove that. Excuse me for not being wowed, this was old to me over two years ago.

    Arrogance aside, your declaration that HL2 duplicates your own work seems to counter your other arguments that games are making advances in the wrong area. You obviously consider such things as normal mapping and facial animation as key to your project, whatever that may be, so why do you show such abhorence towards graphics technology as a whole, and the industries supposed obsession with it?

    In the end, you are starting to sound slightly bitter, or I may be confusing that with an underterminable arrogance. Either way, I fail to see the point you are making about todays games, and wait with interest to hear more about your game.

  • KnickKnack #61 8 years ago

    Well, er, yeah! That's kind of my point! I'm not having a go at new technology, don't know where you got that idea from. I'm having a go at the quest for ever great photorealism at the expense of creative and imaginative solutions.

    Sorry Otto, I didn't get the gist of what you were trying to say. However, photorealism isn't being strived after for the sake of itself; most games today rely on making you believe you are doing something, whether it's being a terrorist, driving a car or destroying legions of armies, the whole experience is trying to draw you into that world. The verisimilitude of videogames is inherent to the whole gaming experience; A cartoon version of counterstrike wouldn't be the same, nor would max payne, or Doom 3. Photorealism isn't the term I'd use, more hyperrealism. There's nothing wrong with striving for it, providing of course the game stands up to other factors like gameplay and playability.

  • KnickKnack #62 8 years ago

    Ok, we seem to be saying the same thing. We both acknowledge that games need better narrative and character driven elements, with more focus on gameplay rather than graphical finesse. Indeed, we both understand the lack of creativity in this area, and perhaps the reasons for it's absence.

    The problem Im having is primarily your assumption of Doom III and Half-Life 2 as mere eye candy and your inability to accept the real benefits of increased graphics technology and the chances it offers for better games. Im also not too sure what you are saying about the animation industry. As I see it, we have only just about reached the level of sophistication that was possible in the short pixar animation KnickKnack (you'd be right in assuming that I love that film) with regards to shaders, particles, animation quality etc. That was produced 14 years ago. Could existing hardware cope with animation quality of the likes of Toy Story (1995)? No, definitely not.

    I just don’t think advances in graphical fidelity are done for the sake of it. That’s just like saying advances in processing power are just for the sake of it, or that advances in film technology in the early part of the twentieth century was just for the sake of it. Did we really need colour to tell a better story, or better matting techniques? Or more advanced optical effects?

    The Republic is a brave attempt at something very complex and ingenious. I totally respect what it’s trying to do, and for all the talk of the infinite poly engine, the game was praised for it’s attempt at recreating a whole city with inhabitants that live and think autonomously. However, the game seemed to have its failings, or so I read from reviews, and it was apparently clear the game needed more balancing. Perhaps The Republic 2 can iron out the issues; I really hope it does because it’s an important game for the games industry at a time when originality is virtually non-existent (even though I regard originality as a little overrated).

    I am looking forward to Half-Life 2 and Doom III and I’m willing to hold my breath in the hope that the gameplay offered will be groundbreaking, graphical splendour aside. I really do hear what you are saying, but I’m afraid I have a different outlook on the possibilities of the new advances. Im also slightly biased, being an artist ;)

  • otto #63 8 years ago

    However, photorealism isn't being strived after for the sake of itself; most games today rely on making you believe you are doing something, whether it's being a terrorist, driving a car or destroying legions of armies, the whole experience is trying to draw you into that world. The verisimilitude of videogames is inherent to the whole gaming experience; A cartoon version of counterstrike wouldn't be the same, nor would max payne, or Doom 3. Photorealism isn't the term I'd use, more hyperrealism. There's nothing wrong with striving for it, providing of course the game stands up to other factors like gameplay and playability.

    Mmmm. I dunno. I still think the industry is locked into a way of doing graphics in games which has more to do with hardware manufacturers' business models and less to do with the needs of the game designer. I stand by my opinion that 'realism' in games would be easier to achieve with an alternative approach to graphical representation. Look at it this way: it's far easier to make a believable fictional world in a book or on radio than on TV or in a film. OK, so games are ultimately a visual medium, but in my opinion they'd be better off following the lead of graphic novels rather than Hollywood action flicks. This is why I think XIII looks far more interesting than, say, Doom 3.

    Obviously in some genres, realistic graphics are desirable (I'm thinking racing, sports sims), and developers should strive for that to add to the experience. But in the kind of games I enjoy (ones which tell a story), I've actually found that the move to 3D has extinguished a lot of the atmosphere.

  • UncleLou #64 8 years ago

    I must admit that the idea of photo-realistic games fascinates me. While I'd love to see more original (graphically speaking) games like Homeworld, XIII, REZ, Zelda, etc., in the end it's the possibility of a real-world environment (that looks like one) in games that holds the most interest for me. I think it's only natural that the development goes into that direction, and if every game would go for an "original" look, I bet this would become boring very fast. After all, how many cartoon movies can you watch before you want to see a real film again.

    And what's wrong abput photo-realism, is it automatically less creative than a comic look? Surely not. Why should a photo-realistic rendering of a not really existing location be less creative than an "original" graphics style?

  • otto #65 8 years ago

    graphics slut! ;p

    Yeah, I think it's "less creative" than (say) a cartoon-ey look because you're competing with nature/real-life and you're locked into making things look a certain way, if you want to be believable.

  • KnickKnack #66 8 years ago

    Going on that assumption Otto, are you saying Constable was less creative than say Van Gogh?

  • UncleLou #67 8 years ago

    Well, the problem is that photo-realistic painting (though Constable surely isn't a photo-realist) was more or less a failure, that's why I carefully avoided such an example. :-D

  • otto #68 8 years ago

    What he said. :)

    edit - actually, there's a point to be made here. Although (obviously) what fine artists are trying to do and what games art directors are trying to do are two different things, the same point can be made in reference to fine art. The attempt to perfectly capture content (as opposed to spirit) is a technical, not an artistic, undertaking. Which is why art in general has moved away from realism.
    Edited by 1 at 01/10/03 @ 16:27

  • KnickKnack #69 8 years ago

    No, art has moved away from everything that has gone before it, and not just realism. The problem with modern art is it relies too much on the instantaneous shock and sensationalism that most "artworks" elicit upon first viewing. The modern art movement has also become the emporers new clothes, with only a select few actually feigning delight at it's supposed integrity and leaving others scratching their heads. But this is going off the subject somewhat.

    My point is that art took new avenues with expressionism and surrealism with the invention of photography; a medium that could perfectly capture the real world, and also stood up as an artistic tool in it's own right. The art of photography is still valid, wouldn't you say? A creative photograph can show awareness of composition, mood, lighting, timing etc. and kind of kills the argument that trying to represent what is real cannot be considered creative.

    Could existing hardware cope with animation quality of the likes of Toy Story (1995)? No, definitely not.

    Start reducing texture and mesh resolution to the point where the message can't be carried. I reckon a P200 with 4MB Voodoo could do the job. That's what I meant by it being a signal processing problem. Could it achieve the same level of fidelity? No.

    But you'd also lose the strong characterisation and wonderful subtleties that only highend 3D CG captures in that animated film. If you start to lose the details, you also start to lose empathy with your protagonists, which is what I was trying to say about the improved facial animation in Half Life 2; it can only enhance the empathy we feel towards the characters.

    It's just too easy these days to dismiss realism in CG as passe, or worthless of any artistic merit. It isn't the be all and end all of CG expression, but it's one of the mediums main strengths and should therefore be praised; what would the point be of creating all this new software and hardware if we were then to use it to produce the same effects that are possible with paint, pastels and pencils? That, to me, sounds less creative than the hyperrealism that CG is good at. Not any less valid for certain types of games or films, but definately not as useful.

  • UncleLou #70 8 years ago

    gameplay, characterisation, story, scene building, and the methods and technology to deliver it have been ignored at the expense of mere novelty

    I agree with you here, to a degree. Yet, saying HL2 (apart from the fact that we all haven't played it yet) fails in that area is a bit like saying the latest Hollywood action blockbuster doesn't reach the same depth of characterisation like the Nouvelle Vague did.

    What about Stalker though, for example, doesn't that sound promising in many respects (and I mean apart from the fact that it looks brilliant)?

    And another question, have you played Gothic? Or Gothic 2, for that matter? There's a level of believable characterisation, NPC interaction and "living, breathing world" design here that hasn't been accomplished by any other game I've played, let alone surpassed. While it might still be far from what you're hoping for, I'd say it's definitely a step in the right direction (yet they got more or less ignored in the UK/USA, afaik).
    Edited by 1 at 02/10/03 @ 09:33

  • KnickKnack #71 8 years ago

    The real point of this argument is that gameplay, characterisation, story, scene building, and the methods and technology to deliver it have been ignored at the expense of mere novelty. This isn't an argument against increases in graphical fidelity it's an argument against non-delivery in other areas.

    Then why are we arguing?

    As for Stalker, that is a good example of a game built around a strong story and gripping atmosphere; I haven't heard anything about it's graphical splendour (and it does look splendid). I seriously hope that game delivers on it's promise of free roaming non-linear gameplay; that is, after all the fundamental difference between games and film - non-linearlity.

    We are witnessing exciting times in the games industry; saturation and repetition have caused a backlash from gamers as we seek for a new way forward; Im sure we will have an answer soon.
    Edited by 1 at 02/10/03 @ 16:13

  • gheese #72 8 years ago

    patience patience great work cannot be rushed

  • Lutz #73 8 years ago

    When is the xbox release chaps?