Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nickp3d

Future of Game Engines

Recommended Posts

Excited as we are aobut the DOOM3 engine, where is the future of game engines lie? What is their left to do?is there anything left? New EAX will shape the sound world and ever faster PCs will be able to handle faster and more detailed graphics. What is left after this? Can their be another legendary ground breaking game like DOOM and Wolfstien 3d in the world of first person shooters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, put together all you said and you get real time games w/ realism level of final fantasy the movie or something. just imagine all those bump mapping and shader effects combines, real time shadows, etc. etc.

---
shurcool
wwdev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok we got the graphics down, now for the physics , then we got the AI, then we got to make it all in one big engine so that the game developers can save money and upgrade the engine. Don''t forget the VR stuff, it is a potential future (add force feedback, and you get the next in immersion). And then there''s the interface for the VR, and so forth... Until it''s getting so that we can''t tell difference between real and virtual

Imagine, Doom3 with VR ooo...



You know your game is in trouble when your AI says, in a calm, soothing voice, "I''m afraid I can''t let you do that, Dave"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Doom III engine is going to ROCK!

But..

What about Gameplay?
It seems ID is only trying to make a great Engine, and toss a little game logic in to make it playable..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don''t worry - there will be news in the future too - we are not even half way there
- and we never will be.
(he said with a mysteroius tone)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Snash
It seems ID is only trying to make a great Engine, and toss a little game logic in to make it playable..


Well, that''s what they always done in my opinion. I never really like any of the Quake games but they had good engines, engines that later was sold to other companie which made excelent games with them (Half Life for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I wonder is just how revolutionary is the Doom 3 engine. Is it more revolutionary as the jump from turn-based strategy to real-time strategy, or as revolutionary as the jump from hidden line removal to full 3-D polygons?
I mean, the best I can get is that it is the same we have been seeing, only now with dynamic lighting taken to an amazing extreme...Not that I think it is gonna be crap or something. I think it will be awesome! I just don''t see why it is so "revolutionary."
As for what''s next, that is what they said when Super Mario 64 came out. Now that they''ve done 3-D, what is there to do?
We have come a long way with basically the same dimensions. We can go further. And the future will be fun still. B-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
quote:
Original post by Snash
What about Gameplay?
It seems ID is only trying to make a great Engine, and toss a little game logic in to make it playable..


Watch the videos and read the interviews again. The are really striving to make this game the single player experiance of a lifetime.

The UI alone is supposed to be ten times better than anything before it, but they''ve been keeping it''s specs on the "low down". I''ve heard that it''s a flash like interface that they can texture across any surface, even in the game.

Honestly, I''m buying a $400 video card (at $309) so I can play it. That''s how sold I am on the game. (And I hate the first 3 quakes, since Quake IV is using this engine, maybe it will have better gameplay)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
games engines will continue to evolve until they reach the complexity of the Matrix. Now, I''m not kidding or anything. I really mean, that there will always be a next step until it is indistinguishable from reality.

a2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by a2k
games engines will continue to evolve until they reach the complexity of the Matrix. Now, I''m not kidding or anything. I really mean, that there will always be a next step until it is indistinguishable from reality.


I doubt we''ll ever come that far. When it comes to the point where games are so complex, that they are modelling individual atoms, the memory requirements will be so incredibly mindboggling, that it will simply be impossible. Technology will never be able to completely emulate reality. It may come fairly close, but never fully realized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the game engine of the future, the AI will be enormously complex. You''ll ask some guy, "What day is it?" and he''ll say "monday", and it''ll REALLY BE MONDAY. And then you''ll tell him "go mine that ore twenty feet away" and he''ll manage to walk straight over to it without taking a detour through FREAKIN'' PERU.

*** 500 ERROR ***

*** 500 ERROR ***




Don''t listen to me. I''ve had too much coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
What about Gameplay?
It seems ID is only trying to make a great Engine, and toss a little game logic in to make it playable..

i think that this is the 1st game that is allowed (by my standards) not to have a good story... i mean so many people are just going to get this game (and i say get, not buy) just for it''s gfx engine, to test their geforce 4 4600, or just because it''s made by ID and it''s called doom - one that started it all (well, almost).

now about the engine being revolutionary.. i don''t think it really will be. i mean, to me, revolutionary would be like trying out wolf 3d or doom for the 1st time after all those 2d shooters... i mean comapare the level of immersion.. i''m sure that would be sweet. but doom 3 isn''t all that. i mean sure, u add shadows and stuff, but it''s not really that new. i can imagine it right now (having seen those movies too), and it''s not that ground breaking. so i''d say it''s kind of revolutionary. quasi-revolutionary. the diet coke of revolutionary (i''m quoting dr. evil here hehe). but still worth checking out (if only my hardware would run it..).

however, i don''t think that the gameplay will suck or anything. first of all because of the amazing gfx, the whole dark atmosphere (compare to doom 1) w/ some heart stopping music (or so i imagine) etc. i was give that impression after watching one of the movies. but that impression was not aquired thru the whole movie, but just the ending part. when that huge monster came running after the player and he tried to run away. he jumped down just to find himself a locked door away from freedom. then he turns around and the monster is right beside him. the monster grabs the player and stabs him (or something). player falls on the ground and sees his left hand, still w/ a handgun in it. then the mosnter grabs ur head w/ one of his hands, lifts u up, and slashes ur throat w/ his other hand''s sharp thingy. u see ur body fall down on the ground, and then ur head peacefully goes in the monsters mouth. frankly, that''s the most impressive death sequence in a 1st person shooter game i''ve ever seen (what about those black screen -> u died .. game over messages? huh? do they suck now or what)... :-O

bah... don''t quote me on this.

---
shurcool
wwdev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Estese
When it comes to the point where games are so complex, that they are modelling individual atoms, the memory requirements will be so incredibly mindboggling, that it will simply be impossible.


Thats what B.Gates said, and then we were stuck with a 640Kb limit for several years.

Don''t get too short sighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by DBX
[quote]Original post by Estese
When it comes to the point where games are so complex, that they are modelling individual atoms, the memory requirements will be so incredibly mindboggling, that it will simply be impossible.


Thats what B.Gates said, and then we were stuck with a 640Kb limit for several years.

Don''t get too short sighted.


my thoughts exactly. who would have f**kin thought cloning would have been possible....

a2k



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by DBX
Thats what B.Gates said, and then we were stuck with a 640Kb limit for several years.

Don''t get too short sighted.


You don''t seem to understand the difference between the memory necessary to operate DOS, and the memory necessary to model the universe. There is a distinct difference.

In order to perfectly model the universe, it is necessary to model it downt to the quantum level (ie model every single atom and their properties). This has been discussed before, but I will just say this: in order to accomplish this feat, you will need to use every single atom in the universe as memory. Unless we find a way to create matter from nothing (violating the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy), this problem is fundamentally unsolvable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No need to get that realistic (atom modeling) because we can''t see individual atoms, why should we bother with them? The best way to improve the 3D engine by adding physics (as in you play this racing game, and you crash in brick wall, the brick wall crumbles and crushes your car). Anyone read Otherland books?



You know your game is in trouble when your AI says, in a calm, soothing voice, "I''m afraid I can''t let you do that, Dave"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Zeraan
No need to get that realistic (atom modeling) because we can''t see individual atoms, why should we bother with them? The best way to improve the 3D engine by adding physics (as in you play this racing game, and you crash in brick wall, the brick wall crumbles and crushes your car). Anyone read Otherland books?


Well, in order to simulate that car crash, as indistinguishable from reality, you would need to model the wall as minute pieces of cement on the quantum level, so that it would crumble "correctly". Any type of lesser complex modelling would make the wall crumble less realistically than it would in real life.

This is why I said that games will come *close* to modelling reality, but they will never actually model it perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Estese

In order to perfectly model the universe, it is necessary to model it downt to the quantum level (ie model every single atom and their properties). This has been discussed before, but I will just say this: in order to accomplish this feat, you will need to use every single atom in the universe as memory. Unless we find a way to create matter from nothing (violating the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy), this problem is fundamentally unsolvable.


I agree with what you were saying, but no one mentioned an exact replica of the universe, I only read modelling atoms. So to my knowledge a smaller scale version is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by atcdevil
I agree with what you were saying, but no one mentioned an exact replica of the universe, I only read modelling atoms. So to my knowledge a smaller scale version is possible.


I was referring to this post:

quote:
Original post by a2k
games engines will continue to evolve until they reach the complexity of the Matrix. Now, I'm not kidding or anything. I really mean, that there will always be a next step until it is indistinguishable from reality.


In his own words: "Indistinguishable from reality". This means that it would be impossible to tell the difference between this game world, and actual reality. This means that the universe would indeed have to be modelled with perfect accuracy, in order to be consistent.

[edited by - Estese on July 29, 2002 6:26:08 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see why anyone would buy a graphics card NOW to play Doom 3, which realistically will be released three years from now. Now, I can understand if someone were to buy the Radeon 9700, due to the fact that it can render every frame in the new engine in just one stage, but even with that in mind, why get a card that will be old news once the game comes out?

Pixel shaders have yet to be used effectively in any way (i.e. to do something beyond just having the pretty water in Morrowind), and it''s quite possible that Doom 3 will have the first implementation of full per-pixel shading. I''m personally looking at an upgrade for Deus Ex 2 (this winter, baby!), but if you''re just looking forward to a game that won''t be out for a few years, wait a few years before you start upgrading for it.

Oh, and lastly: Flash-like interfaces do not inherently make a good game. Even if they can be put anywhere. Really, I''m not kidding.

_________________________________________________________________________________
The wind shear alone from a pink golfball can take the head off a 90-pound midget from 300 yards.
-Six String Samurai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Mordoch Bob
I fail to see why anyone would buy a graphics card NOW to play Doom 3, which realistically will be released three years from now.


ID have repeatedly stated that DoomIII will be released in 2003. When was the last time an ID game was delayed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites