Uh, no. It just means he would require everything be shipped to him, including sales receipt.

Screenshots of the cd, the casing showing the key, and the receipt fixes it all.

... or just the screenname/password of the steam account it was registered to...

Completely independent day and night cycles, orbiting entities, COMPLETELY dynamic lighting, not to mention the attention to detail in that map is just extremely good. The only thing that'd make it look better is soft shadows...but that'd put the framerate somewhere in the negatives.

Personally I liked Doom 3 better than HL2, because HL2 was just too boring...god that stupid buggy part was so lame. But I'm not going to berate anyone for not liking it. I'm just going to say this--at least Doom 3 will live on. I'm gonna tell you right now, though HL2 brings in revolutionary facial positioning technology...wait, that's ALL it brings that's revolutionary. The physics engine is outsourced (no pun intended), the lighting is just as good as FarCry's, not to mention its lighting's fairly static. Doom 3's inhoused technology is going to be a lot easier to develop for, and hopefully end up with better games which use the features to a fuller extent. For example, if I'm not mistaken, on that video they take advantage somewhat of penumbra lighting, etc.

I just can't wait to see Quake 4, RtcW 2, and id's next venture.

Day and night cycles aren't anything new or revolutionary. Completely dynamic lighting, while certainly a nifty feature, doesn't add much to the table... And personally, I thought that map looked really, really fake (more so than regular doom 3 maps), so I wouldn't say the attention to detail was very good at all.

Granted, the Doom 3 engine has potential, but it hasn't done very well at showing off that potential.

Completely independent orbiting entities and fully transitioning day and night cycles? The way the lighting transitions so smoothly...just awesome.

Of course, there have been games that have implemented similar things, but not to the same degree (i.e. Morrowind, GTA)

Right. Like I said, it's definitely a step in the right direction, but I wouldn't go as far to call it revolutionary, as games have been simulating the same effect for a while.

The completely dynamic lighting is revolutionary. It's the first game that has 100% dynamic lighting. Period. The orbiting entities? Not so much. But there's a lot more that's a lot better about the Doom 3 engine. This just does a good job showcasing some of it.

The video was really impressive to me and I can't wait to see more. My only real gripe is that the 'daylight' bits just didn't look anywhere near right.

not really, you can play Hl2 w/o having steam installed. i've seen people do it.

Okay, so it's the first game to do that. What's so special about it? Like I said, other games have been simulating lighting for a long time, and even dynamic lighting is nothing new. And all that aside, what does it add? Sure, it's a nifty graphical feature, but there's not much it can do to the actual gameplay of something. Sure, you could shoot out lights to make a room darker (or something to that effect), but splinter cell already did that. Enemies could cast shadows on walls, but a lot of semi-recent games already have simulated shadows. The same with day/night cycles; While this certainly makes them better, games have had day/night cycles for a very long time.

Like I said, sure, it's a good feature to have, but it's not revolutionary or groundbreaking in the fact that it's not going to change the way games are played much, if at all.

I was about to ask the same thing. So DOOM 3 is the first game to use 100% dynamic lights? So? Who cares when it looks worse than static lighting?

Looks worse? Doom 3 had the bet lighting I've seen from a game, ever.

Uhhh.. what lighting?

If only it used a variation of the Unreal engine... it'd be a damn great game to make levels and highly ambitious failure projects.

Granted, the game was dark, but the flickering lights, the colored lights, and the shadows cast by those lights were freaking amazing.

It was the darkness that helped make the lighting so impressive.
I just loved watching the imp's fireballs, lighting up everything as they went passed, showing glimpses of the horrors surrounding you.
I loved the darkness in doom 3, it made for awesome atmosphere.
But... it was still a boring game :p

And once again I show off my awesome posting skills by accidentally quoting my whole post instead of editing it.
I feel like such a tool.

Aye, a spanner. :p

Think about a Thief game made for the Doom 3 engine, or something along the lines of System Shock used on the Doom 3 engine. It doesn't need to change the way ALL games are played, only needs to change the way the ones on the engine are played, and it very well could.

And the lighting is amazing, I don't care if you go "OMG SOFT SHADOWS LOOK BETTER", well duh, but give technology a couple years to catch up with Carmack. Trust me, it always takes a little while to fully harness an id engine.

Poor people would have to use Radiant! Yuck.

For those who own Doom 3 and happen to have an aversion to the gameplay, you might wanna check out this TC. Once released, it'll allow for the creation of Thief-style Fan Missions, and later the creators will have their own campaigns available.

We already have a thief game with realtime dynamic lighting. Why is this new stuff so spectacular?



How is it amazing? Like I said, we already have games which largely use dynamic lighting; DX:IW, Thief 3, Splinter Cell... Granted, it's not as technically advanced as Doom 3's lighting, but how will Doom 3's lighting affect gameplay any more than what we already have?

It's definitely not a new concept, and it's certainly not a new game feature. While Doom 3 does do it better than anyone else, it doesn't do anything new to games. It makes them look better (to an extent; I'm still not much of a fan of the way D3's lighting looks anyway), but what can it do for gameplay that hasn't already been done?

I know you're not targeting me with that question, but I'll take the liberty of answering it with a quote from The Dark Mod I just linked to.

"There are a few reasons why we plan on pushing ahead with The Dark Mod even if/when the T3 editor is released. Doom3 is an engine designed for longevity, for starters. It will also allow us to do things the T3 engine may not. For example, Linux support, in-game cutscenes, improved AI, rope arrows, and swimmable water."

As could be divined from that paragraph, as of now, Thief 3 doesn't have an editor released. And, apparently, Doom 3 has an engine much better suited to Thief-style gameplay than the one that was used for Thief. So while not any more spectacular, per se, it seems a better choice than to wait for a now-debunk team at Eidos to release an editor.

Ugh, this has spurred me to try to beat DOOM3 again, and I spent 5 hours straight last night playing. All so boring. Every area looks exactly the same, all the fights are exactly the same. I just keep telling myself, "go through one more door, go around one more corner.. you might find something that looks a little different, and the game might stop sucking."

Unfortunately, I am telling myself this in vain. It just keeps dragging on and on..

You mean a pirate copy?

why not stop whining about engine power and just stick to the fact doom 3 was dark and repetitive, with two levels... a level with metal walls and a level with lava.

I finalllllllly got into hell just now, and it's a much needed change of pace from the inside of the base the last 20,000 levels. I actually am enjoying id's rendition of hell quite a bit right now. I really like it, and this is the only place in the game that is freaking the crap out of me...

It's only semi-dynamic. The ability to make every light in the game changable, every texture in the game lit or not...something NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. How will it affect gameplay? I don't know, like I said, it could be applicable to games like Thief or Deus Ex. The fact is, nobody knows how it's going to change anything, until it does. So stop pressuring me for answers okay?

I can't wait for all the amazing mods that will come out for HL2. TFC, TF2, NS, and since theres nearly NOTHING you cannot do in Source, there are going to be some VERY clever mods coming out soon (hopefully).

Our tastes do differ, cause when I play HL2, I have to look to find things that don't look realistic, as to finding things that are realistic. If that makes sense.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!! DAMNIT! They're making me go back into the base?!! WTF IS THIS?! When I walk into hell, I expect resolution IN HELL. They're making me go back into the base.. don't do it, anything but that! NOOOO!!!

Well, I don't think I can finish the game now. Give me a few months and I might be able to stomach Delta complex.

HL2 looks realistic, but, IMO, Doom 3 looks better still. All HL2 has is radiosity and some photoraped textures. The engine itself has no bearing on its look, as all it adds is the ability for radiosity, some nice shaders, and...well that's it. The mods for the Source engine are going to be fun, but subsequent games won't have much in common with HL2. I mean, play Bloodlines, for example. The only way you could tell it was HL2 were the faces.

Freelancer, face it... you're scared aren't you? :p

If you don't like D3 fine. But stop saying the engine is bad. Just because a game is bad, doesn't mean the engine is bad - I think this engine will really take things off. I've edited the D3 engine for a while now, I haven't released anything but I can say this - Scripting is possible for anybody, its easier and more logical. Moving statics etc is much easier too - the editor is fantastic for creating dynamic events.

Games that use the Doom 3 engine have a good chance of success, but it's no suprise that the repetative gameplay got some people annoyed

This man gets it.

I plan on trying to script for the D3 engine after I'm done learning the C++ basics. Any suggestions?

It already is applicable to both Thief and Deus Ex, because both of them already have dynamic lighting. This would make them look that much better, but it wouldn't change the gameplay much at all.

If you don't know how it can do something revolutionary, don't say that it can. That's like making a car with 17 wheels on it, and saying it's going to be revolutionary. Sure, it has more wheels than any other car. Sure, it's never been done before, and sure, it might have some benefits. But the fact is, it's not going to change how the car is driven.

Likewise, fully dynamic lighting is better than the semi-dynamic lighting games currently have. Sure, it's never been done before, and sure, it might have some minor benefits. But the fact is, it's nothing new, and it's not going to change how games are played. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Don't take this the wrong way; The D3 engine has a good amount of potential, and though I'm still skeptical, I'm also eager to see what future games will do with the technology. I just don't think it's anything revolutionary.

Cars with 17 wheels aren't revolutionary. They're big rigs with a wheel that has fallen off.

I believe both engines have about equal potential to produce some astounding games. We'll just have to wait and see what people do with them.

About textures though, HL2 did use some very low-res textures, but the high-res textures looked decent up close. None of Doom 3's textures look very good up close. So I don't know how that's going to go.

They have semi-dynamic lighting. Imagine being in a game and having time actually apply, being able to tell the time just by looking at the sky. Imagine having to complete missions at a certain time at night, when it's darkest, or...hell, I don't know, but there's endless possibilities.

Imagine if Thief actually had a daytime aspect. Etc.

But I fail to see how the HL2 engine has any real possibilities past your standard engine. There's really absolutely nothing special about it. And by nothing, I mean nothing. It's literally just a lighting and effects engine. :\

The reason I say Doom 3 has so much potential is because it has all the things packaged into the engine--physics, lighting, effects, EVERYTHING. That's how id does their engines. Hell, I've heard amazing things about the vehicles...

But none of that would actually affect the way the game is played. It would definitely be a nifty gimmick, but in the long run, it won't change games significantly. Games have been simulating that same effect for a very long time; The fact that it no longer needs to be simulated and can be done in real-time just makes it better.

Like I said, if you disagree, and you think that this new lighting technology will change the way games are played, by all means prove me wrong. I just don't see how improving something we already have is going to revolutionize the way games are played.

I like all games equally, because I am fair and balanced.

*foghorn*

Thread going down-hill, sir!!

Crank her up, and hope to not sink!

-


[edit- dont do that again]