Bjossi on 13/5/2006 at 21:12

---

If there is no way of converting MIS to Doom 3 engine supported map files, then that is true.
Or am I pulling the words out of my ass here? :erg:

Bjossi on 13/5/2006 at 22:46

---

The D3 engine itself is pretty decent, but the small community would make the hard work not worth it. But UEngine 3.0 will 99% likely have much larger community plus great modding ability. :D

ZymeAddict on 14/5/2006 at 06:04

---

People, PEOPLE! I was being PURELY hypothetical! I said I know pretty much nothing about mod making (though I am interested in learning more) and I was just giving my opinion about which engine might work/might look the best if you had unlimited time and UNRESTRICTED (i.e. not having to worry about copy rights) resources! Geez! :tsktsk:

That said, it is interesting to know why the Doom 3 engine (or any other) is not ideal. If you have any other reasons why or have an opinion on another engine that would be better (I think someone mentioned the FEAR engine) I would be quite interested. :thumb:




Yes, the overall quality certainly is excellent - and maybe this is just my opinion - but a few of them (that woman in engineering who you have to get the code from to open the door to the pump control room comes to mind) just don't seem as polished compared to the others.
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but their more amateurish performances always grates on me whenever I play the game and draws me out of its usually phenomenal atmosphere somewhat.

Also, yes I have heard of the Rebirth mod (and use it whenever I play now) but while very good it doesn't go far enough to improve the graphics for me and I don't like some of the changes it made (specifically how it changed the appearance of the Midwives).
I have never heard of that other one you mentioned - could someone post a link to it? Thanks.;)

Hemebond on 14/5/2006 at 07:12

---

*sigh* And again:* Easier to mod for whom exactly? What specifically is easier? How do you know this when the game isn't even out?* Game types are defined by game code, nothing more. Quake 3 came with, what, 4 game types? People seemed to be able to add new game types just fine.* It's just polygons. Doom 3 can do outdoor environments just fine.If you like the UE3 engine better, say that, don't start ragging on other products in an attempt to justify your preference to yourself. I like the capabilities of the UE3 engine too, but this kind of argument is old an useless.

I remember when the Thievery team were arguing about what engine to use. It was between Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament.Nothing to do with the engine really, except Q3 had support for shaders where UT did not.Quake 3 also had portals, BSP and many other functions that helped define the level geometry. In fact, the only thing UT had over Q3, which made it more suitable for Thievery, was additive lighting. That's it; but you wouldn't hear the UT fans admit that. In fact, if the Thievery crew had used the Quake 3 engine (and somehow gotten around the dynamic lighting issue, though I can't see how) they could now have created a completely free game with full access to the engine source code.

Oh, and when the original poster referred to Doom 3 in regard to asthetics, I'm sure he explained sufficiently what he was looking at. Dark atmospheric corridors instead of the large rolling hills with tanks as seen in UT2004.

JediKorenchkin on 14/5/2006 at 11:31

---

Hemebond, I'm not ragging. Doom 3 was a great engine when it came out.

In terms of it being better or not, maybe you should read (http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/technology/ue30.shtml) up on the engine because you're just coming off as sounding ignorant.