no more id tech?

(Joe999) #1

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH!!! :stroggbanana::penguin::stroggbanana:

(.Chris.) #2

This was known a couple of months ago.

(Breo) #3

What’s this about?
No id Tech in the unanounced game or do y mean RAD Soldiers? :smiley:

Edit: oh I already know what you mean :stuck_out_tongue:

http://forums.warchestgames.com/showthread.php/31861-Predicting-SD-s-next-game!?p=398076&viewfull=1#post398076

(Joe999) #4

:o from where? i lost track

(Mustang) #5

From the announcement asking for Unreal developers/testers

Maybe I’m in the minority but I prefer idTech 2/3

(Gir) #6

Call of Duty originally used the Quake 3/RTCW Engine and they have done amazing things with it, SD should of stuck with the W:ET Engine and developed there own engine from there.

When they started moving to the Idtech4 Engine they cared too much about graphics and realistic physics that it utterly destroyed the game play.

Quake 3/ET is Instant Action, its was Fast , FUN and Sarcastic, the gibs, the platforms, the rocket jumping, everything.
With Quake wars, the maps where too large, the players moved too slow, there was no fun no sarcasm. no instant action.

Quake 3 vs Cod

//youtu.be/j-mxGpshCDA

(.Chris.) #7

No it didn’t, moving to ideath 4 only hurt hit-registration and other net related shenanigans, in ET:QW at least anyway and Brink’s lack of gameplay had nothing to do with graphics. Also realistic physics? Neither ET:QW nor Brink contained such a thing.

Not even going to comment on the part…

(tokamak) #8

ETQW’s vehicle physics were pretty advanced for its time.

COD is based on the Quake engine.

(.Chris.) #9

I don’t really have anything to compare to personally in regards to vehicle physics but I remember a lot of BF players didn’t like how they were handled in ET:QW. Do remember they experimented with different handling for different terrain types and the like.

Yeah, was funny how he destroyed his own argument there.

(Exedore) #10

ohsnap

(tokamak) #11
(BioSnark) #12

I don’t know the entirety of the field of competition but I don’t think that’s accurate. They were infinity worse than Unreal Tournament 2004 (Unreal Engine 2.5) vehicles in terms of, well, everything from physics to handling to net and bugs. UT2004 was the game I came to ET:QW from and the difference was striking. Unreal Tournament 3 (UE3) is contemporary with ET:QW. As I said, I don’t know the entirety of the field and the unreal engines could have been extreme outliers. However, Farcry is another example of amazing in-FPS vehicle physics predating ET:QW (2004, as with UT2004) but I never experienced how well it worked online.

(Indloon) #13

[QUOTE=Gir;399688]Call of Duty originally used the Quake 3/RTCW Engine and they have done amazing things with it, SD should of stuck with the W:ET Engine and developed there own engine from there.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with that. SplashDamage should develop a engine based on Id Tech 3 :slight_smile:

It’s little unfair, because it showed black ops search and destroy match, which is camping game mode…

However, if you get your dogs, then camperrrrrrs will die!

And what is that supposed to say? How weak engine it is? Well, the consoles are ruining it, you can’t go over DX9 there :stuck_out_tongue:

However, I’m happy of Treyarch work, there are strong rendering engineers, but Activision doesn’t allow them to make lot tweaks on graphics side :frowning:

(tokamak) #14

Not at all, not at all! I’m deeply impressed with what spectacle the IW engine can conjure on my dated rig. I have no technical knowledge so I define the power of an engine by its capacity to make things look nice. I’m sure a great deal of artist and modelling trickery went into it but the Modern Warfare games look beautiful and run incredibly smooth.

As for the ETQW physics, they were just exactly right, not overly elaborate, just the proper way weights and moments are supposed to work. I wish I still had my video of railgunning off the front wheel from an armadillo and making it drift on top of a GDF player.

(Exedore) #15

Most of the CoD engine is unrecognisable from its idTech origins, save the editor, which does betray its heritage. They’ve re-written almost everything, and both their engineers and artists are some of the best at what they do.

A key difference between what they’ve done and what others have done is that they’ve never tried to make a business out of their engine, and have never tried to play ahead of the tech curve to establish themselves in that market as an engine of the future (whereas Epic, Crytek and id all have). Make it look as good as you can, but always at 60 fps on consoles. I can respect that.

(BioSnark) #16

Maybe, if they are a futuristic lightweight plastic. They don’t feel at all like real driving where weight and momentum are significant aspects of handling, not to mention the traction aspect of off-road driving. I’m pretty much a vehicle whore in ETQW as in other games so I may be overly critical and sensitive to vehicle handling and momentum.

(Humate) #17

From an enjoyment pov i cant really comment on vehicles in etqw, as i was inf only.
But I thought the paper feel did a good job of communicating vulnerability via damage.

(DarkangelUK) #18

I’m hard pushed to think of an idtech3 game I didn’t enjoy.

(Indloon) #19

[QUOTE=Exedore;399740]Most of the CoD engine is unrecognisable from its idTech origins, save the editor, which does betray its heritage. They’ve re-written almost everything, and both their engineers and artists are some of the best at what they do.

A key difference between what they’ve done and what others have done is that they’ve never tried to make a business out of their engine, and have never tried to play ahead of the tech curve to establish themselves in that market as an engine of the future (whereas Epic, Crytek and id all have). Make it look as good as you can, but always at 60 fps on consoles. I can respect that.[/QUOTE]

Well,I must agree most of it. Hitting 60fps in consoles is big thumbs-up for them.

But I would talk about their engine on PC, they have aimed 60fps on consoles, but on PC?

Why don’t they go over the newer DX series and let them tweak the rendering on PC…

(Nail) #20

[QUOTE=Indloon;399759]Well,I must agree most of it. Hitting 60fps in consoles is big thumbs-up for them.

But I would talk about their engine on PC, they have aimed 60fps on consoles, but on PC?

Why don’t they go over the newer DX series and let them tweak the rendering on PC…[/QUOTE]

but they are

“Call of Duty: Black Ops II will also take advantage of DirectX 11 video cards on the PC version of the game”