Well this is it guys, John Carmack's final chance at showing us the revelation, and whether or not it will be an apogee for a new world in gaming.
Seriously though, ID will put a stand for Doom 3, finally showing us what the hype is all about. They say they are so psyched about it, they are claiming it will change and revolutionize(big words there) the PC!
 
I keep asking myself the question though: Why am I so hyped on it!
Is because John Carmack is behind it?
Is it because I loved Doom 2?
Is it because the name sells so well, and that it comes from a company that introduced FPShooters?
 
I dunno but I am just hyped, even though I'm disappointed our PCs are not enough to handle the full gameplay.
 
--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime!  

I saw doom 3 shots at the macworld expo(not in person on tech tv) the faces look funny.
 
 
Unreal 2 now....nummmy.
 
  The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

Make a guess, what videocard will that PC have when running DOOM III!
 
I can give you all my guess... http://www.matrox.com/mga/home.htm
 

Wow really?
Hmm well they might've been early ones, or anyway, it is still something to see.
Unreal sounds fine too, however it seems DOOM 3 IS the bandwidth hog on GFX, and WILL put the step forward.
 
--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime!  

Doom? Isnt that UT2's grandfather or something?
 
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURP.
UT FOREVER.
 
nVidiot: Message board Troll employed by nVidia to terrorize aTidiots.

Doom is for ID, the other is....hmmm I forget who owns UT, but I do know it's Tim Sweeney who did it. Personally I never liked the Unreal engine, it has those little weird filters over the graphics, especially in Deus Ex, and it also has poor performance on my WinXP system. Q3 game engines worked best, and had always top performance on almost any setup.
But as for Doom, John Carmack is known in almost the entire industry, if not the most famous.
Of course UT2 will be amazing, I've seen screenshots (unless this isn't the one? UT2003?), however the way they described Doom 3 since, it looks like it's the killer thing. Graphically, it is the most challenging thing ever, and as Carmack puts it, even GF4s are not up to the full job. I'll be probably running it at 640*480 on my Ti200, until I upgrade.
 
--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime!  

Didn't i hear the name Carmack in connection with Dickatana or however you speel it?  UT is made by a faaaar cooler company in my opinion which in called EPIC!
 
Doom...is by the creators of Quack...Quack III is very ugly, its full of pastels and washed out colors and big huge chunks of bleep which are supposed to be body parts.
 
Unreal Tournament is shiny and pretty and detailed and colorfull and bright and sounds better too....a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT better.....
 
Quack Quack Boom
 
UT FOREVER!
 
Get phsychadelic here:
<A HREF="http://mediaviewer.ign.com/ignMediaPage.jsp?media_id=1478066&object_id=17386&channel_id=59&page_title=Unreal+Tournament+2003+Hands-On&adtag=network%3Dign%26size%3D468x60%26channel%3Dpc%26site%3Dpc_hub%26channel%3Dpreviews%26type%3Dpartner" target="_new">HERE!</A>
<A HREF="http://mediaviewer.ign.com/ignMediaPage.jsp?media_id=1478064&object_id=17386&channel_id=59&page_title=Unreal+Tournament+2003+Hands-On&adtag=network%3Dign%26size%3D468x60%26channel%3Dpc%26site%3Dpc_hub%26channel%3Dpreviews%26type%3Dpartner" target="_new">HERE!</A>
<A HREF="http://mediaviewer.ign.com/ignMediaPage.jsp?media_id=1478065&object_id=17386&channel_id=59&page_title=Unreal+Tournament+2003+Hands-On&adtag=network%3Dign%26size%3D468x60%26channel%3Dpc%26site%3Dpc_hub%26channel%3Dpreviews%26type%3Dpartner" target="_new">AND HERE!</A>
 
nVidiot: Message board Troll employed by nVidia to terrorize aTidiots.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by williamc on 05/08/02 06:38 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

I think I might be detecting some extrememly subtle hints of fanboyism from you. Could it just be might my super sensitive senses. Nah.. you're just making you're self sound like an a$$.
 
Both engines are good. I haven't seen anything from Unreal 2 but the Doom 3 Engine is gonna be great.
 
Wasn't there supposed to be some duke nukem game coming out or did I miss it?
 
 
<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>

Um I'd ask you to go look at MOHAA, SOF II, before you say any further about this very lasting engine. Not alot of Unreal engine games recently, no? When you compare UT's engine which is so CPU intensive compared to Q3, you know that developping games using Q3, will allow more and more systems to enjoy it, as it uses both CPU and card, therefore performance stays up. (In Q3 at 1024*768 full, you get 200FPS with GF4s, in UT, it's a bit above 100 FPS, or last time I seen... if they developped a hugely revamped UT engine for a new game, guess the FPS)
 
My point is not to dishonor UT2's engine. I've seen many pics, and I agree completly, it is very impressive. BUT, almost everyone knows, DOOM 3 has been long rumored to have some graphics nobody has ever touched in quality. There is no doubt, it will be the most impressive one ever, and even UT2003's would not touch it. You'd probably ask for proof...wait for E3 to see. But this is Carmack, and he spoke several times, the game is powerful, it will require above GF4s to run perfectly, what else does that describe the engine? Of course, I am hoping for his sake, that this includes GF3 optimizations. I'd hate him to do a game with no DX8 benefits, that would allow GF3s to play the game at nice FPS. If it has been optimized like Aquanox to the max, then indeed this is one helluva GFX hog, and a GF2 would barely start the game, heck getting past the 10 FPS menu would be great lol.
 
--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime!  

I'm not sure which engine goes where, but so far serious sam and UT are at the top of my list.  Quake always sucked as far as I was concerned, and Doom, well...it's been a while.
 
I put Doom3 in the same pile as WarCraft III.  It's all hype, and we still haven't seen shite.
 
<font color=red>I have a computer and it does weird stuff. please help.</font color=red>

Warcraft 3 is in the final beta testing stage actually. There is tons of info on the net about it. "World of Warcraft" is a whole 'nother story, however...

Hmm you mean you never visited blizzard.com to see the entire site revamped under W3? And the tons of tons of pics?
 
You're right, they did not show anything yet for D3, I am maybe hyping, you can refer to my first post to why I might be! Anyway we will finally see the truth come E3, and that is what I can't wait.
 
--
I set my graphics aperture to 1024MB, why can't I open anything now?  

Actually the warcraft 3 beta pretty much owns everything...Puts command and conquer multiplayer absolutely to shame.  It puts its predecessors to shame too...i go even so far as to consider it better than starcraft and Total Annilation and Sudden Strike and Kohan...well maybe not Kohan (that had to be the best rts ever).  You will LOVE WC3 if you like rts at all....its got some really cool rpg elements to it as well and you can play it smoothly on the net all the way down to a 28.8 modem in 6 to 8 player games, i know from experience-)
 
About UT...of course...i'm definitely a fanboy of UT...because i cannot stand Quake 1 2 or 3....MoHAA was pretty...sure...but severely lacked in gameplay, it ALMOST got by without the washed out look of quake but not quite.  RTCW definitely had the washed out pastel look alot and waaaaaaaaaaaaaay overused that damned fog to try to cover it up.  I enjoy the halflife engine more cause its sharp, carefully textured, and uses more brilliant colors.  UT is the same way as halflife.  UT doesnt try to cover up its ugly engine cause it doesnt need to.  Hopefully Doom 3 will change that but i have serious doubts, I dunno what SoF2 will look like yet cause i'm not in the beta, screenshots never look like the actual game on your pc, sometimes they're better, sometimes their worse.  SoF1 looked the same as Quake 3...few colors, washed out, pastels...bloody ton of fog to cover it all up.  Check out NOLF....it has a far prettier engine than Quake 3 too.  Ghost Recon's engine puts quake 3 to shame in every department.  You get 325fps in quake 3 for a reason man...and it aint cause its pretty.  If you wanna be a 325fps twich fanatic for life go right ahead, i got nothin against people who do that..its not for me though, i wanna actually enjoy the game, not just the blowing people into little chunks.
 
nVidiot: Message board Troll employed by nVidia to terrorize aTidiots.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by williamc on 05/09/02 09:46 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

Blasphemy!!!! Total Annihilation is the best rts game ever made!!!
 
 
Ok ok ok it's MHO but still like to play TACC from time to time,the problem is that I can't find a good partner to play with...my friends don't want to play me anymore and the AI gets pretty easy when you get to know how it's playing and the people on the M$ Zone are a:using cheats or  b:not strong enouth...
 
My frog asked me for a cigarette...dunno what happened he's all over the place

OK, now you're confusing the actual game engine with the game elements. The textures say diddly squat about the engine. Halflife uses an ID engine. Of course the developers made their tweaks. I don't remember if it was a highly modified Quake Engine or an early Quake 2 engine.
 
I'll give you that on UT using vivid textures. It kinda reminds me of the marvel action comics. But that says virtually nothing about the engine. There are tons of good/better engines out there but between Q3 and UT engine, Q3 wins hands down. The serious engine is supposed to be good.  
 
Another engine that has to be mentioned is the Torque Game Engine, a modified form of the Tribes 2 engine. If you want to develop games or something, you can spend $99 to get the full engine source under a restriced license allowing you to distribute your games based on the engine via <A HREF="http://www.garagegames.com" target="_new">http://www.garagegames.com</A>. If it is good enough for boxed distribution, then sierra get publishing priority.
 
 
<font color=red><b>A man is only as old as the woman he feels</b></font color=red>

Yeah the Serious engine has got to be the sharpest one ever. All details when put to max, really show sharpness like hell, yet the frame rate is very decent, even with tons running at you.
 
{to Wiliamc)
Half-Life itself lacks a lot in detail and texture detail, and although it is more brightish, like Counter Strike, it is no longer used in any new game. Q3 engines have been used solely because there was some reason, otherwise it'd had been trashed a long time ago, but it didn't now did it? MOHAA has awesome textures, proving you don't need the new DX8 features of GF3s to render beauty.
As for SOF1, it used a highly advanced Q2 engine, much different from it anyway. It ran smooth of course, and had some nice sharpness in textures. SOF2 is already on multiplayer demo, it's very fun, and again the Q3 engine is put on the longevity test. UT2003 will arguably require a good PC setup, the textures are definitly something DX8 is used in. I don't know if so far, anyone has ever defied Massive with its Aquanox Krass engine, because it is the one that pushes GF3s to their utmost max, yet even with intense battles, flying laser balls, torpedoes, flashing explosions and moving ships, the game keeps a sound 30 FPS average on my Ti200, and even as it stutters below, it still feels awesome and I forget the lag. If UT2003 uses the GF3 well, but does not push it so much, it will run very well on our GF3+ systems, Rad 8500+.
But as for Doom 3, forget it, it's a new engine, it's something we've wanted to know more about, but no screenshots bring pain, however if it lives up to its expectations, Johnny has indeed retained his crown as the most known game programmer in the industry, and continued to keep his title for the shooter of the year, as Doom and Doom 2 had shown. I still sometimes enjoy playing D2, classical yet fun. I wonder if he'll put the hero's face on the bottom hud, it'll be funny but nice and nostalgical!
 
--
I set my graphics aperture to 1024MB, why can't I open anything now?  

Ooooooooooooooh.  Parhelia.
 
I can't think of a good signature so I'll use this one.

Yeah... thats funny that you are putitng down all the Quake engines when Half-life runs on the Quake2 (modified?)  engine. I think you are confusing the engines with the games that have been using them. From my limited knowledge, the game engine is what effects things like, lighting, physics, rendering, map construstion, etc. You can take any texture set you want and apply it to the Quake3 or UT engines and things like fog can be turned on and off. I think the only logical way to compare engines is to apply the same game (or as close as possible) to each engine and see how it plays.
IMO, I think the Quake3 engine has the upper hand. Since you could create UT on the Quake3 engine and it would most likely play/perform better. I think UT is a better game though. Ironic, eh?

One of the big deals about how Valve modified the engine for Half Life was redoing allt he pallates and textures to create a whole new appearance that was more b