Support NeoGAF

[gofreak]

Probably the biggest technical claim Doom3 makes is that it offers completely dynamic lighting and shadowing - everything casts a shadow, or multiple shadows (with multiple light sources)...there are no tricks, no lightmaps (as far as I know?) etc. It's the most "correct" implementation of lighting in a game yet, at least technically. At least that is/was the claim. Is this still correct? Though we have had excellent visuals in recent games like Far Cry, can Doom3 still claim to one-up them technically, in at least this aspect (lighting)? Will it represent a new technical level where everything is lit "properly", or have we already hit that level with other games? In other words, have any previous games hit Doom3 quality lighting already, or can we expect to be wowed visually by the game? Does it offer something new, technically?

All id games have marked a technical watershed before..so I guess I'm curious as to what Doom3 can offer above its competitors, from that point of view.

edit - I didn't see the new Doom3 video thread before posting this, so I guess I can no longer complain of no recent media. I suppose people can now offer better judgement based on that (i've yet to see the vid myself)

 

[teepo]

yes.

 

[Teknopathetic]

Half-life 2's lighting is pretty swank. The difference is, it's not pitch black the majority of the game, apparently.

 

[Malakhov]

Doom 3's lighting is out of this world.

 

[budala1]

Yes

 

[Ghost]

It probably will have when it comes out.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Yeah, it's still the most advanced. Riddick has a similar implementation...but I think doom's looks a bit more accurate. Something seems slightly off about riddick's lighting.

 

[God's Hand]

Doom 3's lighting is unmatched, currently. The amount of possible light sources, and the variation of those lights, makes it the most impressive. Riddick is nothing. Of course, Unreal 3 is around the corner, which will shit on Doom 3.

 

[SKluck]

Doom 3 is per pixel, halflife 2 is per poly. As far as I can tell from my hands on, anyway.

Doom 3 lighting is weird, you can see shadows from your flashlight. So it looks almost like the shadow is floating next to the object that is casting the shadow. I guess that is because your flashlight is in your hand, not your face, but it still bugs me.

 

[Yusaku]

We'll find out AUGUST FUCKING 5TH! WOOOOOOOO.

 

[Yusaku]

Doom 3's lighting is unmatched, currently. The amount of possible light sources, and the variation of those lights, makes it the most impressive. Riddick is nothing. Of course, Unreal 3 is around the corner, which will shit on Doom 3.

If by around the corner you mean 2-3 years from now.

 

[Blimblim]

Half-life 2's lighting is pretty swank. The difference is, it's not pitch black the majority of the game, apparently.

Half Life 2's lighting is nothing more than what we get since the Quake 3 days but much much refined. You still get 2 types of shadows, one for unmoving objects (lightmap) and one for dynamic objects (stencil buffer or something more advanced ?). Remember that screenshot where some shadows were not in the same direction as the others ?
Like I usually say, the Doom 3 / Half Life 2 duel reminds me of the Duke Nukem / Quake duel back in the days. One engine was using some older generation technique (raycasting) but with lots of refinement (multiple floor levels, look up/down and other fun stuff) the other used a next generation true 3d engine.

 

[Gattsu25]

Duke 3D + LameDuke + Build Editor > *

 

[Buggy Loop]

Half life 2 is pretty much all lightmaps, for the majority of its visuals at least. Its static, not dynamic like doom3. For unstatic objects, like blimblim said they're likely using projected shadows, if they even use that, irrc some objects they were bouncing around while showing the physic engine didnt have any shadows. Since its lightmaps, its up to the artists to make the scene have good lighting, could explain why so many, including me, prefer half life 2's esthetics to doom3, but technology wise, its not comparable.

Doom3 is king currently, will be outmatched when other companies with the doom3 engine license will make games and optimizing the engine for better visuals, quake 4 for one, i think will have better visuals, not ground breaking different though.

 

[Lazy8s]

God's Hand:

Of course, Unreal 3 is around the corner,

Unreal 3 is a long ways off still.

 

[God's Hand]

*Unreal Engine 3. Uh huh.

 

[gofreak]

Thanks for the replies, they have answered some questions. So Doom3 uses *no* lightmaps at all? Even in static geometry/static light scenes? Pretty cool if they've finally ditched baking stuff into textures, and it's all completely done on the fly.

Also, the video linked in the other thread also helped answer my questions..it does indeed look like a different breed of game, technically.

 

[ManaByte]

*Unreal Engine 3. Uh huh.

2006. Uh huh.

 

[DSN2K]

yes by a very long way.

 

[teepo]

2006. Uh huh.

i don;t think we'll see a game until 2007 using the engine.

 

[refreshZ]

Doom 3? Meh, Silent Hill 2 gave it a run for its money not too long ago...

 

[Gattsu25]

Doom 3? Meh, Silent Hill 2 gave it a run for its money not too long ago...

spoken like a true console-only gamer™

 

[teh_pwn]

Silent Hill 2....bhahahaha

 

[Pimpbaa]

Silent Hill 2?! God, not even close.

 

[Yusaku]

I dunno, how can Doom 3 compete with Silent Hill 2's single dynamic light?!

 

[Mrbob]

Silent Hill 2 LOL!

Doom 3 sez SM 3.0 ain't worth sheeeit.

 

[dark10x]

SH2 can't compare today, but in 2001 there was nothing like it. Naturally, all objects were capable of casting shadows upon all other objects. Not only that, SH2 boasts soft shadows (which Doom 3 hasn't matched). It isn't nearly as funny as some of you seem to think when you get right down to it. SH2's shadows still crap all over 99% of the games available on the PC. Only Far Cry, DXIW, Thief, and now Doom 3 exceed it (though SH2 is the only one with SOFT shadows at this point). SH2 on the PC couldn't even stand up to the console versions...

I believe Doom 3's is going to be tops. Honestly, though, I think Thief DS can stand close.

Half-Life 2 has nothing on Doom 3. Dynamic moving lights are only per-vertex (at least based on all previous screenshots) and there is no unified lighting model. HL2 places lighting focus on surface texture (using shaders).

 

[Hitokage]

Call me when Doom 4 is released with the new technology called ambient lighting.

 

[Yusaku]

Psst, ambient lighting is bad.

 

[tenchir]

Doom3 will have the most technical or correct lighting, but 95% us wouldn't be able to tell the difference(or just won't notice much) between it and the lightings in games like Far Cry, Thief, and HL2.

 

[cybamerc]

gofreak:

> everything casts a shadow

Mostly everything. Some objects, like wire fences, are just too complex for stencil shadows. Also, stencil shadows don't work with alpha textures.

> no lightmaps

Flashlight.

> Is this still correct?

Well, there's Riddick which uses a Doom 3 renderer. While I haven't played it myself it seems to do everything that Doom 3 does.

> can Doom3 still claim to one-up them technically, in at least this aspect (lighting)?

Yeah but keep in mind that Doom 3 is a very limited game. It's mostly indoors with the odd exterior scene. You can't make something like Far Cry with the Doom 3 engine (unless you turn off every feature that makes it cool to begin with).

> Will it represent a new technical level where everything is lit "properly", or have we
> already hit that level with other games?

The first Shrek for Xbox did the whole bump-map/stencil shadows thing back in 2001. Dunno if it was as general as Doom 3 but even so Doom 3 is a hack anyway. Things can always be improved on and Doom 3 is no exception.

> can we expect to be wowed visually by the game?

The fascination with the engine doesn't last long as the environments aren't all that exciting. What I think is cool are the scripted events where creatures break through walls, bash in doors etc. That just looks awesome.

> Does it offer something new, technically?

No.

> All id games have marked a technical watershed before..

Not really. And quite honestly I think Doom 3 is their only engine worthy of some kind of praise. It's also their first engine to do their otherwise fairly generic art any kind of justice.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

gofreak:

.

> no lightmaps

Flashlight.

> Is this still correct?

Well, there's Riddick which uses a Doom 3 renderer. While I haven't played it myself it seems to do everything that Doom 3 does.


> Will it represent a new technical level where everything is lit "properly", or have we
> already hit that level with other games?

The first Shrek for Xbox did the whole bump-map/stencil shadows thing back in 2001. Dunno if it was as general as Doom 3 but even so Doom 3 is a hack anyway. Things can always be improved on and Doom 3 is no exception.

> can we expect to be wowed visually by the game?

The fascination with the engine doesn't last long as the environments aren't all that exciting. What I think is cool are the scripted events where creatures break through walls, bash in doors etc. That just looks awesome.

> Does it offer something new, technically?

No.

> All id games have marked a technical watershed before..

Not really. And quite honestly I think Doom 3 is their only engine worthy of some kind of praise. It's also their first engine to do their otherwise fairly generic art any kind of justice.

First of all, what do flashlights have to do with lightmaps? It's a dynamic light source and not pre baked into the textures at all.

Second...I really hope you're not trying to compare shrek to Doom 3. Shrek was iirc, completely devoid of dynamic lights in which shadows and the like would need to be recalculated, and I don't recall any times when lights were casting multiple shadows on the charachters, though I could be wrong about that one.

As far as offering new things technically, while it's not exactly new, it offers hands down the best implementation of an engine of it's type into a game. Having played riddick and doom 3 both, doom 3's graphics are, despite doing much of the same things, on a completely different level than riddick's.

And lastly, I'm not sure where you get off saying that doom 3 is the only engine worthy of any sort praise. What about Quake 1, with it's fully 3d environments and dynamic lighting? That was unheard of at the time, quake 2 brought a huge refinement to that, with colored lighting, more expansive environments. Then Quake 3 brought stencil buffer shadows(if your card supported it), scalable curved surfaces allowing for a level of architecture never seen before, without a huge framerate hit. Not to mention, for how much better they looked than everything else at the time, they ran like butter. id has always pushed the limits of graphics with each game they release, it's part of what people know the company for. While their engines aren't very impressive now(save doom 3 of course), they were mindblowing at the time.

 

[dark10x]

As far as offering new things technically, while it's not exactly new, it offers hands down the best implementation of an engine of it's type into a game. Having played riddick and doom 3 both, doom 3's graphics are, despite doing much of the same things, on a completely different level than riddick's.

The lighting engine used in both games is extremely similar. Doom 3 manages to look superior simply due to more complex environments.

 

[Shompola]

I thought Quake 1 used lightmap rendering?

 

[SantaC]

GLQuake (voodoo1) was the most impressive 3D game back int he days.

 

[Dice]

Duke 3D + LameDuke + Build Editor > *

I went back and played that game one time, I got all nauseous/dizzy and broke into a cold sweat. That game just isn't right, it's not 3D as it claims.

 

[TekunoRobby]

I went back and played that game one time, I got all nauseous/dizzy and broke into a cold sweat. That game just isn't right, it's not 3D as it claims.

How come? Did you have some sort of severe motion sickness? Sorry for the questions but I'm actually curious.

 

[Shompola]

Duke 3D was awesome, almost perfect.

 

[Dice]

Because it wasn't 3D. Look up and around, especially in places like the elevator on the first level, everything is bent and warped kind of like a fisheye lens. I don't get motion sickness or anything, but that had to have done something weird to me.

Didn't matter anyway, once Quake came out (especially with Rune Quake) it was all over for Duke. Then GL Quake kept it going, I played GL Quake w/ Rune Quake all the way until Unreal came out. Quake 2 was ok but not as good as Rune Quake, then Quake 3 brought back the raw, barebones feel of the original but better and I think it's still the best.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

Duke 3D + LameDuke + Build Editor > *

??? elaborate OR DIE

 

[Mrbob]

And lastly, I'm not sure where you get off saying that doom 3 is the only engine worthy of any sort praise. What about Quake 1, with it's fully 3d environments and dynamic lighting? That was unheard of at the time, quake 2 brought a huge refinement to that, with colored lighting, more expansive environments. Then Quake 3 brought stencil buffer shadows(if your card supported it), scalable curved surfaces allowing for a level of architecture never seen before, without a huge framerate hit. Not to mention, for how much better they looked than everything else at the time, they ran like butter. id has always pushed the limits of graphics with each game they release, it's part of what people know the company for. While their engines aren't very impressive now(save doom 3 of course), they were mindblowing at the time.

Yes this is one thing I love about ID games. They push the boundries of technology at the time, yet they make sure the game run and look proper even if you don't have the most powerful system. They are very streamlined in how they accomplish things technologically. To me, Crytek seems to be the opposite. Not very streamlined and relies on brute force to help accomplish their graphical goals.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

I thought Quake 1 used lightmap rendering?

It did for static lights and then gl quake added dynamic lighting to rockets and grenades I beleive.

 

[cybamerc]

morbidaza:

> It's a dynamic light source and not pre baked into the textures at all.

Lightmaps don't have to be static. I don't know how the effect is done but I suspect they're using projective texturing due to the maps included in the leaked alpha.

> Second...I really hope you're not trying to compare shrek to Doom 3.

The point is that Shrek has already done many of the things Doom3 is doing now. Of course Doom 3 is more advanced. It's also coming out three years later.

> What about Quake 1, with it's fully 3d environments and dynamic lighting?

Maybe if you didn't know what a console was.

 

[dark10x]

Maybe if you didn't know what a console was.

Help me remember here, as I was pretty much a PC-only gamer back then...but which console FPS games boasted fully 3D engines around Quake's release date? I keep thinking Turok, as I remember the comparisons, but I thought that was released a bit later.

 

[cybamerc]

dark10x:

> but which console FPS games boasted fully 3D engines around Quake's release date?

Why does it have to be an FPS?

> I keep thinking Turok, as I remember the comparisons, but I thought that was released
> a bit later.

Turok was released a little bit later yeah. Compared to glQuake it isn't all that hot though. Of course dinorsaurs beat goth monsters any day of the week.

 

[dark10x]

Oh, I simply figured we were comparing FPS engines here...

Regardless, I think Turok actually stood up VERY well to GLQuake. While it had a very limited view distance and less complex level design, the actual worlds were massive and the level of polish was WELL beyond Quake. The animation in Turok 1 is still far ahead of many more recent FPS titles. When I replayed Turok 1 again this past Fall, I was absoloutely SHOCKED at how smooth the game looks in motion. It also had flashy explosions and effects everywhere (including some very smoothly animated water, which was also rare for the time).

In comparison, Quake featured lower poly character models with few frames of animation (with no frame interpolation like Quake II) and a general lack of polish. However, the levels themselves were consderably more complex than anything Turok could manage. One thing I DID find rather funny was that Turok 1 and 2 featured VASTLY superior animation when compared to the other three Turok titles. I know a lot of the team departed by that time, so I'm not suprised...but it was quite a shocker to see how poorly animated Turok Evolution was in comparison to the original game.

Thinking back to GLQuake again, though. My first 3D card was actually a PowerVR PCX2 based card (Matrox M3D). It was a terrible D3D card, but anything using PowerSGL ran and looked incredible. After upgrading to a Voodoo card a year later, I was shocked to see that GLQuake lacked the rich appearance found in the PVR version. Of course, the Voodoo was capable of much higher framerates...sooo...

 

[Hitokage]

Thinking back to GLQuake again, though. My first 3D card was actually a PowerVR PCX2 based card (Matrox M3D). It was a terrible D3D card, but anything using PowerSGL ran and looked incredible. After upgrading to a Voodoo card a year later, I was shocked to see that GLQuake lacked the rich appearance found in the PVR version. Of course, the Voodoo was capable of much higher framerates...sooo...

D3D wasn't even a respectable API back then.

 

[Mason]

Go watch those new S.T.A.L.K.E.R. videos. Impressed the shit out of me with the lighting.

 

[dark10x]

D3D wasn't even a respectable API back then.

Oh, I know that...but that doesn't mean I wasn't playing some D3D games and getting shit performance. When I grabbed a Voodoo card, I was shocked at just how much higher my framerates were in both D3D and OpenGL. OGL on the PCX2 was certainly slower than a Voodoo...but unlike the major display issues with D3D, the PCX2 actually pumped out a better image. Voodoo cards always had that nasty line dithering effect that really became an issue in dark areas.

 

[Yusaku]

It isn't nearly as funny as some of you seem to think when you get right down to it.

No, it's funnier. SH2 is great aesthetically, but we're talking about technical dick-waving here, and it can't compete with Splinter Cell, never mind Doom 3.