DOOM Lives! Teaser trailer inside.

[Raptomex]

I'm excited. But skeptical.

[FireFish]

If that would be an in game (in engine) render then the system requirements for that piece of software would be high-end to astronomical, and severe
down-scaling of the image quality / polygon amount would probably be needed to get it onto the consoles.

Although i want to believe they can already render this playable with game-play and all being calculated at the same time, it still sounds so futuristic and far fetched,
as i doubt many game studios even optimize their engines anymore and use more processing power then needed they could maybe win a bit extra on the graphical side.

[Triple_sSs]

Raptomex said:

I'm excited. But skeptical.

Same here. I got chills toward the end of that trailer, but I'm not sure just how good this is going to be. id/Bethesda have a LOT to live up to.
I'm not sure I'll even be able to run the new Doom game but I hope it's at least good. At least.

[EternalWolf]

Pictures of head and face from the DOOM Teaser.

http://s11.postimg.org/qzw7rw1rn/Cyberdemon.jpg

http://s2.postimg.org/3t7f3ivt5/Cyberdemon_2.jpg

This will be the first game on id Tech 5 that isn't being held back by the hardware of the 360 and PS3 so I can't wait to see what the textures look like.

Hopefully DOOM will put an end to all the id Tech 5 bashing, which I believe suffered more from developers focusing on consoles rather than PC.

[Doom Marine]

CG Render Trailer showing no gameplay. Baseline console is X360 and PS3. No John Carmack. Not impressed.

That said, I will give Doom 4 a spin like a cheap whore when it's out.

[DooM_RO]

Doom Marine said:

CG Render Trailer showing no gameplay. Baseline console is X360 and PS3. No John Carmack. Not impressed.

That said, I will give Doom 4 a spin like a cheap whore when it's out.

"No. DOOM beta access correlates to your pre-ordered Wolfenstein: The New Order platform. If you purchase an Xbox 360 or Xbox One version of Wolfenstein: The New Order, you will receive an invitation to the Xbox One DOOM beta. PlayStation 3 or PlayStation 4 purchasers will receive an invite to the PS4 DOOM beta. PC purchasers will receive an invite to the PC DOOM beta. The DOOM Beta will only be available on Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC."


http://www.wolfenstein.com/en-us/doom

[Kaskaum]

DooM_RO said:

"No. DOOM beta access correlates to your pre-ordered Wolfenstein: The New Order platform. If you purchase an Xbox 360 or Xbox One version of Wolfenstein: The New Order, you will receive an invitation to the Xbox One DOOM beta. PlayStation 3 or PlayStation 4 purchasers will receive an invite to the PS4 DOOM beta. PC purchasers will receive an invite to the PC DOOM beta. The DOOM Beta will only be available on Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC."


http://www.wolfenstein.com/en-us/doom

Yes, basically:

PS3 and PS4 Wolf -> Win PS4 Doom beta
360 and Xone Wolf -> Win XOne Doom beta
PC obviously, -> PC Doom beta

If PS3 and 360 don't receive beta for Doom, probably because there won't be PS360 versions for Doom.

So maybe, graphically, they pushed the game to a point that it isn't worth to waste tome and money to downgrade the game for the old gen consoles.

[geX]

Liked it. Doesn't really say that much about the game. Will have to wait for QuakeCon.

If they are pushing texture quality up, that must mean > 50GB (wolf size) game. Only way to do it with idtech5.

[DooM_RO]

We're talking about Doom here so if the game is 100GB I don't think people will complain.

[Shaviro]

FireFish said:

Although i want to believe they can already render this playable with game-play and all being calculated at the same time, it still sounds so futuristic and far fetched,
as i doubt many game studios even optimize their engines anymore and use more processing power then needed they could maybe win a bit extra on the graphical side.

This is most likely 100% CG pre-rendered stuff. Probably made by the same people who put together the early Wolfenstein trailers. I also really doubt that optimization for engines like Cryengine, Frostbyte and snowdrop (which are seemingly all so far ahead of idtech5 it's not even funny) are low on their list of priorities. Keep in mind that the idtech engines were spearheaded by John Carmack, a man that is some kind of genius, but also has proven to be insanely conservative when it comes to rendering technology. In the recent years, everybody else has embraced the shift from CPU to GPU (generalized: smart preprocessing algorithms versus real-time shaders), a shift from forward rendering to deferred rendering and a general movement towards more dynamic rendering and physics. Idtech has stuck with trying to come up with new smart ways for the CPU to do graphics work and with idtech5 put all their eggs in the compile time basket. Idtech4 and 5 have plagued the games using those engines with two big missteps; volumetric lighting and megatextures.

Don't get me wrong, I like the dramatic lighting in Doom3, but the game was hurt by the fact that you couldn't really do anything bright or open in the engine at that time which also looked good and performed well. Quake4 opened it up, but was plagued by the usage of "ambient lights" which resultat in flat normals and in general looked pretty poor.

Idtech5 was a catastrophe at release and even though Wolfenstein looks pretty nice, it's far behind the cutting edge. Furthermore, it's still plagued by having a 99% static gameworld with the exception of a few grates and crates. Outside areas (that are not static wastelands) look downright horrible and it really shows off that it's not a well-rounded engine.

I love Carmack for his amazing work early on in the industry and he IS some kind of genius, but the last couple of engines have shown that his heart is not in it anymore. He has been chasing the next exciting algorithm instead of "just" building a robust and versatile game engine. Good luck to him in the future and I'm sure he'll do great things for VR (and possible with that, gaming). He's now working with something that he's far more passionate about - as was so clear in his latest 2-3 keynotes at Quakecon. But id? I'm pretty sure they're better off without him if they make the right hire(s).

All that said, we have no idea what kind of engine powers Doom. Is it more or less the same as Wolf or is it a completely different branch of the engine? I'm really looking forward to be getting the answer :)

[Gez]

Doom Marine said:

CG Render Trailer showing no gameplay.

They call it a "teaser", not a trailer, and said the actual unveiling will be at QuakeCon 2014. Don't expect any kind of trailer or gameplay footage before then.

[Touchdown]

*looks at the size of Shaviro's post*
"Let me guess, Shaviro is bashing Tech 5 again?"
*reads the first two lines*
"Yup. Shaviro is bashing Tech 5 again."

[Shaviro]

It would really suit you for once to engage in a discussion rather than simply whine about other people having an exchange of opinions, but I guess your horse is so high you're afraid of falling down.

[Krispy]

^rawr.

Here's a screenshot I took of the weapon arm thing. It looks like a flamethrower to me. I'm going to guess that this guy throws plasma like the baron of hell but looks like a cyberdemon.

[Captain Toenail]

It will be an explosive fireball cannon, as a way of justifying where the cyberdemon's infinite rockets come from. ;)

Anyway looks pretty cool, we will just have to wait another month till we can get some real information, but judging from the Cyberdemon design and the sound effects things seem promising.

[Shaviro]

Creaphis said:

Hey, I still use Doom 3 as a positive example in game design conversations. Sometimes it's the negative example, but usually not! Completely ignoring the expectations that come with the brand, it's a solid shooter with challenging but intuitive gameplay, well-constructed levels and a lot of visual variety.

As I discussed with a fellow level designer the other day, It's hard not to be annoyed or somewhat focus on all the flaws of the game. Especially when working with the engine, editor and its assets. That said, I still think the game is one of the best first person shooters of the past 10 years. While I do enjoy new shooters, the direction things have been heading, Doom3 really sports a lot of awesome design and more free roaming action than most contemporary shooters. It holds up pretty well, both due to its own design, but also due to the failure of others.

[Touchdown]

Shaviro said:

It would really suit you for once to engage in a discussion rather than simply whine about other people having an exchange of opinions, but I guess your horse is so high you're afraid of falling down.

You're trashing Tech 5 everytime you can, that's all I'm saying.

If I'm to give my opinion on that... All I can say is that I really like this engine, particulary in RAGE. The feel, the stability and the fact that it can look really good. Certain scenes in RAGE/TNO are breathtaking and I think with a little more work and attention it could look fantastic all around as it's usually small things that ruin the image for me (like the obnoxious fog or something).

I'm not arguing it's the best engine and some of your complaints are either valid or objectively correct. But all I care about is the final result. If it looks good, feels good and runs perfectly smooth, that's good enough for me. It's not like all those other engines exploit their dynamics all the time, considering gameworlds are still pretty much static and not interactive in many cases. But don't take it the wrong way, I think there's a lot of room for improvement in Tech 5.

Of course you say it looks bad and you didn't like RAGE. So there's not much I can really say. But some stuff is kind of puzzling to me. For instance you say that outside areas look horrible. If anything, outside areas look better than anything else in RAGE.

My biggest problem with this engine is that it looks inconsistent. It either looks really good or very subpar. I've taken a couple of screenshots in TNO. On the lowest details. And some of the scenes look as good as you can get. Whereas some other time the game looks like crap. Then again, I think it's more of a problem with the way the designers handle those areas rather than engine not being good enough.
__________________

Going back to DOOM 4, I think the only way it can really show us anything better would be abandoning 360/PS3. It's almost confirmed but I'll wait until they announce the platforms.

[Shaviro]

Touchdown said:

You're trashing Tech 5 everytime you can, that's all I'm saying.

No. First of all it's not trashing, but observations and comments made as objectively as possible. They're based on, of course, personal experience with the engine(s) as well as technical documents, articles, Carmack's keynotes, presentational videos and so forth. Does that mean it's 100% truth? No, but trashing and bashing? Absolutely not. Second, the rate of my idtech5 posts corresponds to the common misconception that id software is still a leader on the tech side and the common misconception that id with Carmack is lost. I believe quite the opposite to be true.

If I'm to give my opinion on that... All I can say is that I really like this engine, particulary in RAGE. The feel, the stability and the fact that it can look really good. Certain scenes in RAGE/TNO are breathtaking and I think with a little more work and attention it could look fantastic all around as it's usually small things that ruin the image for me (like the obnoxious fog or something).

It's fair that you like the engine and RAGE. That's fine and your business. It can look really good, we agree. I like the feel just fine as well. The stability part has got to be a joke though. The RAGE release is a long standing internet joke. Carmack even went on stage and apologized for the horrible instability of the game the following Quakecon. The game didn't work properly for 50% of its audience. That is incredibly bad. It is the most unstable release I have ever played, including old sketchy DOS games. That was with my AMD/ATi. I played the game with AMD/ATi as recently as 1½ years ago and it was still unstable as hell. It is my understanding that Wolfenstein runs badly on several AMD/ATi today. I could be wrong though. I personally played wolf on nVidia and it worked fine. Just as stable as any other top release. Not more, not less.

All that said, the great looking scenery in RAGE and Wolfenstein is much more dependent on great art than the engine itself. As I've said many times, I've felt that id software has the best artists around - and the work made by Machinegames was amazing on many levels. The problem is that you'll get just as good (if not better) visuals on other engines with less amazing art. My "bold" statement would be that id's artists paired with a leading modern game engine would make a game that would blow anything else out of the water, visually.

I'll of course concede that all that, at least greatly in part, comes down to personal preference. So let's take visuals out of the equation and for a moment say that the idtech5 engine produces the best looking games. Graphics aren't the main problem for idtech5 games. The main problem stems from the insane tradeoffs that they made with the engine - sacrificing all kinds of dynamics for the ability to paint the scene. All partially in the name of trying to kill off tiling textures. Something that has been a non-issue in top shooters for many years. RAGE conveniently takes place in a dead static wasteland where they can hide the problems of the engine. There is no weather system, no daycycle, there's nothing for you to interact with. The shadows are prebaked, no dynamic lighting. You're running around in a backdrop.

Game engines are about more than just visuals. They're supposed to be a framework that allows for expansion, a foundation for your game. Not a cage.

For instance you say that outside areas look horrible. If anything, outside areas look better than anything else in RAGE.

Well I did say anything non dead wasteland. Take a look in Wolfenstein outside the asylum. Those trees. 2003 level. Also, why does the grass tile so badly out there? I guess they forgot to paint that part ;)
The texture tiling problem could have been taken care of with decals, a smart noise based pixel shader and or other cheap tricks. That is what everybody else does and it works great. Even when you forget to hand-paint.

Going back to DOOM 4, I think the only way it can really show us anything better would be abandoning 360/PS3. It's almost confirmed but I'll wait until they announce the platforms.

Yes. And a lot more development on the engine itself.
With megatexture, you can double the resolution of the texture(s), but remember that is a 4x increase in storage. A 100-200GB Doom game is just insane.
I'm pretty sure it'll be next gen only though. Maybe later they'll make a downgrade.

[Touchdown]

Shaviro said:

The RAGE release is a long standing internet joke. Carmack even went on stage and apologized for the horrible instability of the game the following Quakecon. The game didn't work properly for 50% of its audience. That is incredibly bad. It is the most unstable release I have ever played, including old sketchy DOS games. That was with my AMD/ATi. I played the game with AMD/ATi as recently as 1½ years ago and it was still unstable as hell. It is my understanding that Wolfenstein runs badly on several AMD/ATi today. I could be wrong though. I personally played wolf on nVidia and it worked fine. Just as stable as any other top release. Not more, not less.

The release. It was not the engine. They've screwed up the timing with the drivers and their only fault was not including the Texture Cache option right off the bat. The engine itself was rock solid and the problems were not related to bad coding.

I've heard about AMD problems. As an nVidia user I had zero problems (except with Texture Cache that I had to fix through launch options).

Shaviro said:

I'll of course concede that all that, at least greatly in part, comes down to personal preference. So let's take visuals out of the equation and for a moment say that the idtech5 engine produces the best looking games. Graphics aren't the main problem for idtech5 games. The main problem stems from the insane tradeoffs that they made with the engine - sacrificing all kinds of dynamics for the ability to paint the scene. All partially in the name of trying to kill off tiling textures. Something that has been a non-issue in top shooters for many years. RAGE conveniently takes place in a dead static wasteland where they can hide the problems of the engine. There is no weather system, no daycycle, there's nothing for you to interact with. The shadows are prebaked, no dynamic lighting. You're running around in a backdrop.

Game engines are about more than just visuals. They're supposed to be a framework that allows for expansion, a foundation for your game. Not a cage.

True but not every engine has to be universal. Unless it's made with licensing in mind. Then again, I don't know what id artists and designers think of their tech, it really comes down to that.

Also, I really don't know how far can you push this engine, if you're looking at it from the 'can it keep up' perspective. They've said it was made so that it can scale up and be expandable, don't know how true is that statement.

Shaviro said:

Well I did say anything non dead wasteland. Take a look in Wolfenstein outside the asylum. Those trees. 2003 level. Also, why does the grass tile so badly out there? I guess they forgot to paint that part ;)

That's the problem I mentioned, it looks inconsistent. I wouldn't say tree quality is an engine problem, though.

[Koko Ricky]

I'm not sure what to think about idtech5. TNO looks anywhere from nearly cutting edge to blatantly last-gen, something I think can be attributed almost entirely to the lighting. Textures, models, animation and general level of detail all look fine. But I cringe at all the missing shadows and harsh looking normal maps (mostly on faces). However, TNO looks way better than Rage, so we should expect Doom to look way better than TNO.

The vague narration for the trailer really makes me wonder how id will handle the story. There's a sense of maturity to the presentation that makes me strongly doubt they'll use high school fanfic like they did with Doom 3. The best parts of Doom 3's story were the little reveals, like the educational/informative video discs or the research labs where demons were being stored for examination. But the cutscenes were just fucktarded, enough to feel embarrassed while watching them.

If they go with literal demons from Hell, I wonder how they'll make it work in an industry where it's not unheard of to try to make a story seem scientifically plausible. Such an approach might take away from the ambiguous nature of the demons. If they go for a comical edge (which seems doubtful), it might be too try-hard and end up being eye-rolly. And yet, the original Dooms had their share of brutal humor, and even Doom 3 had Super Turbo Turkey Punch or whateverthefuck.

As for as Brutal Doom's influence...it's doubtful id isn't aware of its existence to some capacity. I know a lot of you guys loathe it, but, aside from its rampant immaturity and ear rape, the use of alternate fire modes, I found the new enemy attacks, headshots, barrel tossing, alternate death animations and the ability to pick up enemy weapons to not be excessive or stupid; they're novel, sure, but in a new Doom setting, and implemented with more restrain than Brtual Doom, I think they could work extremely well.

[DooM_RO]

I never knew whether Id wanted Betruger to be scary or funny...

[DooM_RO]

Is it sad that the most exciting thing for me was the door (and the shotty pumping)?

[Shaviro]

Touchdown said:

The release. It was not the engine. They've screwed up the timing with the drivers and their only fault was not including the Texture Cache option right off the bat. The engine itself was rock solid and the problems were not related to bad coding.

I've heard about AMD problems. As an nVidia user I had zero problems (except with Texture Cache that I had to fix through launch options).

But that IS the engine. They relied on some experimental in-progress drivers. Or at least that was the excuse. I played it with an AMD card and it was unplayable for the first couple of days. Entities would disappear completely, the textures would fuck up constantly. I had to play through the game in 30 minute (max) sessions because the game would crash or fuck up beyond repair. The entire world would go black, save a couple of surfaces. This got better with time, but was never completely fixed and Wolf still has AMD problems. It's not just a timing issue. It's great that it worked for you, but the engine has had massive problems for many people. That is bad code. They can directly or indirectly blame AMD from now and to eternity, but in the end they have the responsibility. Of all the parties involved, they are the ones who are most interested in a clean release and a game that works for everyone. Shit happens, but it was never fully fixed.

True but not every engine has to be universal. Unless it's made with licensing in mind. Then again, I don't know what id artists and designers think of their tech, it really comes down to that.

Not that it matters now, but the engine was made with licensing in mind. I know they're stating otherwise now, but think back to 2007. They didn't reveal the game, they revealed the engine. They even took it so far as to retroactively rename their previous engines to idtech1-4. Anyway. I know id has never really made nature scenes, but having almost zero support for foliage, "realistic" swimmable water, wind, day/night cycle etc. etc. is a pretty big deal. Part of why Doom3 failed in the public opinion was because it buried itself in endless hallways when the trend at the time was going outside with Far Cry and Half-Life 2 as prime examples. This lack of support severely limits what kind of scenes you can pull of with the engine and most AAA games would suffer from that. Every engine doesn't have to be universal, I agree with you on that, but supporting "nature" features should be right up there on the list of priorities for a triple A shooter.

Also, I really don't know how far can you push this engine, if you're looking at it from the 'can it keep up' perspective. They've said it was made so that it can scale up and be expandable, don't know how true is that statement.

Well, I think it was behind even before RAGE was released so I'd say it's more of a "can it catch up" than a "can it keep up". Crysis 2 is by no means a favorite of mine, but the presentation of the engine shows you just how much more flexible it is. No archaic compile time wait there. Dynamic solutions for dynamic games. As for how far they can take the engine? I think they'll have to cannibalize and force it like idtech4 was to make it look like it's keeping up when it in reality is not. I hope I'm wrong though.

That's the problem I mentioned, it looks inconsistent. I wouldn't say tree quality is an engine problem, though.

A tree in a modern gaming engine is much more than just a model. A lot of technology goes into making nature look "natural". The engine has to support this.

[Tristan]

DooM_RO said:

Is it just me or is the door at 0:58 a remake of BIGDOOR2?!!

Indeed it is. BIGDOOR3 to be precise

[Kaskaum]

If there is a good team behind the game, even if they use an old engine, they still can improve-update the engine.

Naughty Dog still use the same engine since Uncharted 1, they just have improved it. And I'm sure that Uncharted 4 will win the title of best graphics of 2015.

[LANEGRACABRA]

The teaser is indeed very promising, only thing slightly bothering me is the Diablo-monster-underbite on that cyberdemon...

[DooM_RO]

I'm quite sure that door was added at the request of Willits. He always talks about how he thought the first room in shareware doom was cool but that a whole new world was opened for him once he opened the first door. He mistook it for a wall lol.

[Clonehunter]

You know, looking at it again, a new kind of Mancubus might be fitting, using Doom 64 inspiration. It'd be kinda nice to push another game mascot. I mean, the Cyberdemon is probably one of the more popular monster, but I think the Cacodemon is generally the more iconic monster, if not because if it's Beholder roots. Doom 3 pimped up the Pinky demon for its promos, as well as the Hellknight. Maybe it's time for Fatso's limelight.

[LANEGRACABRA]

EternalWolf said:

Pictures of head and face from the DOOM Teaser.

http://s11.postimg.org/qzw7rw1rn/Cyberdemon.jpg

Is there... another face on the side of it's head?

[LANEGRACABRA]

Clonehunter said:

You know, looking at it again, a new kind of Mancubus might be fitting, using Doom 64 inspiration. It'd be kinda nice to push another game mascot. I mean, the Cyberdemon is probably one of the more popular monster, but I think the Cacodemon is generally the more iconic monster, if not because if it's Beholder roots. Doom 3 pimped up the Pinky demon for its promos, as well as the Hellknight. Maybe it's time for Fatso's limelight.

Cacodemon in Doom3 was one of the biggest disappointments to me. It looked like a flying goldfish. IMO Cacodemon is the iconic monster.