No more U2 vs Doom threads

its a matter of opionion anyways.

imo UNREAL ][ ROCKS, the story lines are better, and thats what i want perfect balence of story line and graphics, and unreal ][ is best choice for this

Bright sunny locales, huge gorgeous chunks of landscape, flashy weaponry, able sidekicks, crafty enemy AI, playable on current systems = Unreal II
Dark narrow corridors, light&shadow play, creepy sounds, 'horrific nightmare' like visuals, blood-chilling creature design, shotgun-rocket launcher arsenal, blood curdling system reqs = DooM

My money's on the both of 'em. Unreal Warefare, I'll pass on. I'm an SP man anyways.

U2 will run on slower machines, I guess if ID is aimming for even more extra detailed graphics. I like to have primary and secondary fire modes.

Don't think so SW, Carmack's policy for id games has always been Keep It Simple Stupid. Alt fire modes have been deliberately avoided in all id offerings to date.

pfffff those requirements will drop with a min of 200 mhz
i mean max payne had those requirements, and it runs on a 350 with tnt2 or something i heard.
P3 1gig all the way

Hey shag, I don't see any posts that suggest I was ignorant about the status of either Doom or Unreal 2. I am a regular visitor to PU and other gamesites and have seen all the relevant quakecon articles as well so there
and FYI,
U2's sys reqs atleast upto what you've said have been pretty obvious from the start, and even Legend guys have made official statements to the effect that all the footage they've shown the press to now has been on PIII machines with 128MB ram and Geforce 1/2 cards. U2 officially requires a card that can handle T&L, although Mike Verdu has also said that they might later add support for older machines with Voodoo 3 onwards cards.

Doom's reqs Stryker will be pretty high since it will predominantly feature real-time lighting effects as opposed to pre-set lighting that we've all been used to uptil now. Put in the bargain hi-res textures and fancy particle FX and well, expect to make the big upgrade. I think what Carmack mainly intends to say is that Doom3 will not be as scalable to lower sys reqs as previous engines if the quality of the game is to be maintained. I mean if you shut off the realtime light and shadow you may get a lot better frame-rates but hey you lose the enitre novelty that is Doom3's SP experience.

Thanks for the clarification shag.
Oh btw regarding your comment on UT's sys reqs, I have played it on that system
Specs
Celeron 266
32MB RAM
2MB vid card PCI

Game settings
Res 512 x 384 (windowed)
Software Mode
World Textures Medium
Skin Textures Low
Sound Low Qual (11Mhz)
Set min framerates 30

And no its not unplayable (at least offline), although I wouldn't exactly say it rocks

Yes, we've all seen the Doom3 video, and yes, its impressive stuff. I'll probably be playing D3 when it's out.

But my guess is that both Q4 and D3 won't be out before X-mas 2002; rather early 2003. This means they are almost 1 year behind in development compared to U2. And progress is so fast in PC technology that 1 year makes a huge difference. So probably U2 will set new standards when it is released in early 2002 and D3 will rise the standard a bit more when it is released in late 2002 or early 2003.

Anyway ... eyecandy isn't everything. Certainly a game must have a certain graphical standard, but in the end its the gameplay that decides whether I play the game for long time or dump it after a few hours.

Originally posted by Shaguar:

Not worrying so much on requirements when designing a game will be a benefit

Click to expand...

Like f**k it will be a benefit. Anyone who remembers the Trespasser game back in 1998 will rememeber that people refused to buy it 'cause the system requirements were rather steep. Any decent coder will always take system requirements into account.

Originally posted by Shaguar:

The new games should be released on Mac before PC

Click to expand...

Well if they don't, you can always play warcraft2 in the meantime. No I'm not picking on you Shaguar.

Originally posted by -The-Tetris-L-:

Anyway ... eyecandy isn't everything

Click to expand...

True, gameplay is everything, but having eyecandy as well makes it a million times better. Slight exaggeration, but you get my point.

BBT,
Trespasser was not a flop solely on the basis of its sys reqs. It sank because it had a clunky interface, an evil physics engine whose concepts of reality stretched out to accomodate whatever was likely to completely frustrate the gamer (crates that fell off stacks as soon as you touched them), graphical glitches galore that were not always the result of systems falling short, and most of all never reaching a point where the game felt like it was fun for the people who played it (I admittedly didn't)

Hardcore gamers will upgrade if they feel a game deserves it. Q3A was fairly hardware-trying when it was released and I guess a lot of P3's and Athlon's got snapped up by fraggers wanting the best out of this offering. Quake and its sequel virtually sold 3d cards to the masses.

Agreed that coders should definitely look into optimizing their work. Unfortunately that's the drawback of a PC's upgradability. The people who buy newer systems always want some thingamagig effect to cater to the capabilities of their new rig and this always seems easier for the dev's than trying to get it to work on a previous machine. Hardware is getting so advanced so fast they don't feel it worth the trouble to code the software in an economical way.

DooM ]|[ is going to rawk!! All of the DooM games were among the best games ever conceived, crafted, and released. I have the same expectations for DooM ]|[.

I dunno about Q4...

I have both Q3A and UT, I play UT more cos I have more fun with it, and that's what games are about. I expect I'll buy all the upcoming 'nex-gen' games as I want to experience all the PC gaming seen has to offer.