Been trying to get this pet project, but i'd like to hear opinions on it by the members of this community. What would the commercial possibilities of a new AAA title coming nowadays using idtech4.5? Would there be enough resources, talent, and would it make any sense commercially to do it ?
Biggest issue you're going to hit is the code/script department. Unlike other id games, you can't use any weapon/AI/etc. stuff as is, you have to make your own.
Quote from: rebarkillburst on November 05, 2015, 04:44:22 PM
Been trying to get this pet project, but i'd like to hear opinions on it by the members of this community. What would the commercial possibilities of a new AAA title coming nowadays using idtech4.5? Would there be enough resources, talent, and would it make any sense commercially to do it ?
What kind of engine is that?
Besides TheHappyFriar mentioned, getting engine to work on most modern PCs as stable as humanly possible will be another challenge. If you are aiming for multiplayer game, you are out of luck with this engine, unless you have good programmers on the team. If you are talking about Doom 3 BFG engine, it's another can of worms to deal with.
Not to mention you still have to make art assets.
So, if you have top tier gameplay, networking and rendering software engineers on the team and 5-10 artists, everything is possible :) But then you might want to ask yourself the following question - why not to use Unity or UE4 o.O
Yeah I was thinking UE4 too? For a full on brand new game I don't think there's any other way to go. Unity is good but I'm always hearing something bad about it one way or another. UE4 for sure.
Firstly, nothing is impossible... well come to think of it actually a lot of things are. Wow, I was always motivated by that simple string of words that had given me hope every morning but I had never stopped to think of all the things one can't do, not to mention shouldn't do.
Alright I'm going to rephrase that, firstly, some things are just not possible but you're in luck when it comes to idTech4 and commercialization, check out the GPL for full details but basically as long as you release any modified source code then you're in the clear, the assets or "game" is yours to sell. Grab the source code from GitHub, compile and make your dream a reality... Or do as some of idTechs loyal supporters suggest and just use UE4 or Unity. Or if you have an extra ~$25,000 laying around, Source.
It was the worse piece of advise, MrC. Although I'll leave it at that.
Motorsep: That may be but it's the truth, even my initial reaction was that of shock but after some thought I couldn't help but agree with you on the alternative technology suggestion, especially if it's a project from scratch.
rebarkillburst: Motorsep released a GPL game using DarkPlaces (an idTech engine) and would certainly be the person to ask on these matters and as far as I know is still using a modified idTech 4.5 for an upcoming title. I'd suggest, if time is on your side to wait for Storm Engine as it seems to be one of the more complete BFG engine projects out there with tools and everything.
If there is a small team, familiar with the tech and has working art pipeline, limited resources and time on their hands, then maybe it's ok to go with idTech 4. The main plus is that gameplay logic is in place already. It's something you don't have in Unity / UE4 and it's a lot of work to put it all together. The argument that Assets Store has a lot of stuff that can be used is flawed, because a lot of those assets don't play nicely with each other, or stitching them into coherent gameplay framework would be problematic.
While GPL can be used in commercial projects, you are doomed to be bound to PC/Linux platform. And believe me, right now and in the next few years, PC is the platform you don't want to be on, unless you don't mind massive trolling, oversaturated market, dealing with unresponsive support on Steam, lack of marketing opportunities, etc.
If you don't know the tech (Doom 3 that is), if you have resources, if you really want (and capable of) to make commercial project, go with Unity and make something that works on Windows, Android/iOS and release it. Make it small and just right to make some cash. Then use that cash to build a slightly bigger game with some replay value. Rinse / repeat until you can afford to pass certification on consoles. Then go there.
If your released game gathers sizable audience, then stop there and build on it.
The time when you could just release something on Steam and make some money is long gone.
Btw, VR is the next frontier. So you might want to skip everything else altogether and focus on VR.
Quote from: motorsep on November 06, 2015, 10:06:50 AM
Quote from: rebarkillburst on November 05, 2015, 04:44:22 PM
Been trying to get this pet project, but i'd like to hear opinions on it by the members of this community. What would the commercial possibilities of a new AAA title coming nowadays using idtech4.5? Would there be enough resources, talent, and would it make any sense commercially to do it ?
What kind of engine is that?
Besides TheHappyFriar mentioned, getting engine to work on most modern PCs as stable as humanly possible will be another challenge. If you are aiming for multiplayer game, you are out of luck with this engine, unless you have good programmers on the team. If you are talking about Doom 3 BFG engine, it's another can of worms to deal with.
Not to mention you still have to make art assets.
So, if you have top tier gameplay, networking and rendering software engineers on the team and 5-10 artists, everything is possible :) But then you might want to ask yourself the following question - why not to use Unity or UE4 o.O
Yes, I was talking about the d3 bfg. I've been working on the gameplay, detailing it and such. Yes, im aware i have to make the assets.
Quote from: motorsep on November 06, 2015, 02:44:46 PM
If there is a small team, familiar with the tech and has working art pipeline, limited resources and time on their hands, then maybe it's ok to go with idTech 4. The main plus is that gameplay logic is in place already. It's something you don't have in Unity / UE4 and it's a lot of work to put it all together. The argument that Assets Store has a lot of stuff that can be used is flawed, because a lot of those assets don't play nicely with each other, or stitching them into coherent gameplay framework would be problematic.
While GPL can be used in commercial projects, you are doomed to be bound to PC/Linux platform. And believe me, right now and in the next few years, PC is the platform you don't want to be on, unless you don't mind massive trolling, oversaturated market, dealing with unresponsive support on Steam, lack of marketing opportunities, etc.
If you don't know the tech (Doom 3 that is), if you have resources, if you really want (and capable of) to make commercial project, go with Unity and make something that works on Windows, Android/iOS and release it. Make it small and just right to make some cash. Then use that cash to build a slightly bigger game with some replay value. Rinse / repeat until you can afford to pass certification on consoles. Then go there.
If your released game gathers sizable audience, then stop there and build on it.
The time when you could just release something on Steam and make some money is long gone.
Btw, VR is the next frontier. So you might want to skip everything else altogether and focus on VR.
Another "PC is dead" argument? I'd say the appstores are dead. It isnt possible to make money there anymore, and I dont like the kind of games there.
Quote from: motorsep on November 06, 2015, 02:44:46 PM
If there is a small team, familiar with the tech and has working art pipeline, limited resources and time on their hands, then maybe it's ok to go with idTech 4. The main plus is that gameplay logic is in place already. It's something you don't have in Unity / UE4 and it's a lot of work to put it all together. The argument that Assets Store has a lot of stuff that can be used is flawed, because a lot of those assets don't play nicely with each other, or stitching them into coherent gameplay framework would be problematic.
While GPL can be used in commercial projects, you are doomed to be bound to PC/Linux platform. And believe me, right now and in the next few years, PC is the platform you don't want to be on, unless you don't mind massive trolling, oversaturated market, dealing with unresponsive support on Steam, lack of marketing opportunities, etc.
If you don't know the tech (Doom 3 that is), if you have resources, if you really want (and capable of) to make commercial project, go with Unity and make something that works on Windows, Android/iOS and release it. Make it small and just right to make some cash. Then use that cash to build a slightly bigger game with some replay value. Rinse / repeat until you can afford to pass certification on consoles. Then go there.
If your released game gathers sizable audience, then stop there and build on it.
The time when you could just release something on Steam and make some money is long gone.
Btw, VR is the next frontier. So you might want to skip everything else altogether and focus on VR.
btw, dont bfg edition support VR?
Quote from: VGames on November 06, 2015, 10:18:33 AM
Yeah I was thinking UE4 too? For a full on brand new game I don't think there's any other way to go. Unity is good but I'm always hearing something bad about it one way or another. UE4 for sure.
Looks like a lot has changed in the idtech boards. back with d3w, unreal engine 3 wasnt usually called real lagger 3. Im surprised UE4 getting that much support. This game im trying to pull is somewhat close to id games, as in influenced by them, and as such idtech4.5 seemed the way to go. The entire industry either uses UE4 or Unity, and i frankly dont like either. Is source 2 a considerable option?
Quote from: MrC on November 06, 2015, 01:48:02 PM
Motorsep: That may be but it's the truth, even my initial reaction was that of shock but after some thought I couldn't help but agree with you on the alternative technology suggestion, especially if it's a project from scratch.
rebarkillburst: Motorsep released a GPL game using DarkPlaces (an idTech engine) and would certainly be the person to ask on these matters and as far as I know is still using a modified idTech 4.5 for an upcoming title. I'd suggest, if time is on your side to wait for Storm Engine as it seems to be one of the more complete BFG engine projects out there with tools and everything.
Im in early stages, yes. Is that the game he was working on using bfg engine? Steel storm 2?
Quote from: rebarkillburst on November 07, 2015, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: MrC on November 06, 2015, 01:48:02 PM
Motorsep: That may be but it's the truth, even my initial reaction was that of shock but after some thought I couldn't help but agree with you on the alternative technology suggestion, especially if it's a project from scratch.
rebarkillburst: Motorsep released a GPL game using DarkPlaces (an idTech engine) and would certainly be the person to ask on these matters and as far as I know is still using a modified idTech 4.5 for an upcoming title. I'd suggest, if time is on your side to wait for Storm Engine as it seems to be one of the more complete BFG engine projects out there with tools and everything.
Im in early stages, yes. Is that the game he was working on using bfg engine? Steel storm 2?
Yes, or Phaeton I think. As for some of your other points... Off the top BFG supports VR but not out of the box afaik, I think there's a mod (with source) that adds it back in as I think native support was stripped before the code was released or before BFG was released due to some sort of legal battle or something so you'd have to merge with that, not 100% sure about that so maybe someone can clarify - I could be completely wrong.
IMHO F**k mobile. *I don't see PC going anywhere, anytime soon, as always the constantly shifting landscape spells doom for some and opportunity for others and if becoming popular enough to warrant a console port becomes a problem for you than wow I wish I had your problems.
It would seem the community has divided down the middle with some favoring vanilla modding and others braving BFG, unfortunately we haven't seen a the release of a fork that blends the best of both worlds so you're stuck basically running a lot of batch files and shortcuts between two working copies.
Source 2 is interesting because we're not sure what exactly "free for content developers" means, but it's implied that the engine will be available under similar conditions to UE4 or Unity, right now one for sure is if you use Source 2 you have to distribute through Steam. I would be surprised if the full source code actually becomes available and instead figure we'll see a similar setup to what we have now with Source, some closed off parts that get updated and cause constant issues. It'll probably have a really awesome start and deteriorate quickly. On the plus side though you can already play with the new Hammer and tools with Dota2 and Source 2 will be backwards compatible so you can port your levels over - although the new mesh-based format may require a lot of fiddling.
Surprisingly that's actually something I could see idTech4 supporting relatively well given how it handles map data, collision and lighting, that is an in-game tool that works directly with meshes for levels instead of compiling from a .map file but who knows, probably wrong on that, it's off topic anyway.
*Argument Pending...
Torque is open source (MIT) and it doesn't include AI, but you can buy AI for it for under $100 (maybe $70). I like torque. I am slowing learning it because it does a lot of what I want and doesn't cost royalties.
I like D3 tech and know it pretty well, but the lack of AI/weapon/script code vs other id engines turns me off to it. IE you could take Darkplaces and make a whole game w/o touching the code. You could take Knightmare Q2 and remake HL1 if you wanted. You could take Q3A (not familiar with those engines) and make a game from that. With D3 you need lots of coding experience, or an experienced coder, to get off the ground.
That's the reason for the recommendation of other engines if you're not doing a mod, because the other engines have more support on the coding end.
PC isn't dead for AAA and III (AAA indies as they call them nowadays). For indies it's pretty much dead due to a need in actual marketing that costs a lot of money. Of course there is always a chance to break through without investing into PR / marketing, but it's an iffy gamble (which we will be taking with Phaeton).
The problem is that there is no alternative to Steam on PC and since Steam is a monopoly, they do a lot of shit that hurts indies. Plus their support became soooo horrible. And there is no way around it :( Releasing on Steam is the only option.
Mobile is problematic. Mobile VR is what I was talking about. It's entirely different market, a new frontier. In a few years it will be harder to get in. Now is a golden opportunity (more or less, we'll see when Gear VR CV1 is released this month).
Game dev is tough field to be in, regardless of the engine. Quake has game code w/ primitive AI, but no tools, no docs, no programmers to help you with it. I don't know much about Quake 2 scene and what's left of it, but Quake 2 has game code w/ better AI. Quake 3 has no tools (except mapping), no programmers, but solid gameplay code with bot AI and good networking. Doom 3 has tools (except ), some docs, but no programmers and no actual gameplay code (including AI/etc.) I has solid gameplay framework in C++, but that's all there is. UE4 has no gameplay, not whole a lot of programmers willing to work with you. Unity has no gameplay framework, a ton of programmers of different level of qualification. I don't know much of Torque and other engines. Source 2 (Dota 2 Reborn) seems to be pretty awesome from what I know, but not sure how many programmers are available and I do know it's tied to Dota 2 at this time. CryEngine is pretty but evil engine.
So either way, you need to engineer a lot of code (AI for sure, since gamers want to play against something better than what Q1/Q2/Q3/D3 offer), unless you are willing to stay with core mechanics of Quake, Quake 2 or Quake 3, which is still an option.
Quote from: motorsep on November 07, 2015, 10:01:41 AM
PC isn't dead for AAA and III (AAA indies as they call them nowadays). For indies it's pretty much dead due to a need in actual marketing that costs a lot of money.
I don't think this problem is PC specific.
The problem is that there are too many indie games so it's hard to get noticed in that mass.
When Steam opened for indies, just being on Steam gave you exposure and sales - this is not the case anymore, because so many (indie) games are there.
But, as far as I know, it's pretty much the same on mobile appstores that are also full of games, so it's (at least!) as hard to stand out there.
One other thing that should be kept in mind: Many types of games that work well on PC or consoles don't work well on mobile. Developers should accept that simulating a joypad or similar on touchscreens just sucks. So egoshooters, platformers etc don't really work that well on mobile.
I guess that's part of the reason why games like candy crush are so popular there: Their interface doesn't feel horrible on a touchscreen.
(Of course other kinds of games like point-n-click adventures, strategy games etc should also work well)
So I think the "target Windows and Android" advice should be taken with a grain of salt. So keep input in mind.
About VR: I don't know. If you can do something great there it might be an opportunity (especially in the near future while the market is small), but doing that right is probably hard and requires a very competent team.
I also wonder if VR is gonna be a success or if it turns out that in the end it isn't that awesome for most games (like 3D doesn't work that well for most movies).
Quote from: caedes on November 07, 2015, 11:42:31 AM
About VR: I don't know. If you can do something great there it might be an opportunity (especially in the near future while the market is small), but doing that right is probably hard and requires a very competent team.
I also wonder if VR is gonna be a success or if it turns out that in the end it isn't that awesome for most games (like 3D doesn't work that well for most movies).
That's the thing about VR - you don't need to do anything great :) VR isn't about just gaming it traditional sense. You could make Doom 3 in VR where you just wander the base and learn about the lore. You can make a puzzle in VR and it will work wonders. When I tried it, I was blown away momentarily, even with Cardboard (although I got motion sickness really quickly in it).
With Unity, you don't need a team to create simple experiences. Oculus has been doing pretty good job with their Unity Utils. Basically you drag and drop assets into your project, place player controller into your scene and off you go. At this stage, VR doesn't require any more effort than traditional games.
If you would make a new game engine for VR or add VR support to Doom 3 BFG, then yeah, it will not be easy. But with Unity and UE4 (more with Unity, since that's Oculus's officially supported engine and they work closely with Unity on VR) it's really more about building gameplay that doesn't eat up a lot of CPU time, and optimizing art assets (kinda like what game artists had to do in Quake 3 days).
I am not sold yet on desktop VR, due to high cost and being tethered to PC, but I am sold on mobile VR (Gear VR in particular), even though visuals in mobile VR are not as great as on desktop VR.
I like GOG for my indie games. As far as I can tell, it's the biggest competition to Steam. There was a great article I read about how for the older games they actually modify the code (if available) to make it work on modern OS's. If no code then they start hacking away as the executable.
I don't comprehend Motorsep sometimes, he is working on a idtech 4 engine and game but don't waste any opportunity to bad mouth idtech 4 and make people run away from it, then starts to complain that there's no coders that want to work on idtech games anymore ,so he can't find help to make his dream game on it.
Motorsep sometimes i wonder how you made a game on DarkPlaces that has even less documentation and even less user friendly and modern tools.
If you are a coder no matter what engine you use you will not have any problem making a game, even on idtech 4, if you are only a artist then idtech 4 is not really artist friendly, compared to UE4 or Unity that is, but if you can't code or don't find a coder to help you will never make a game on any engine.
Making a game using idtech 4 has cons but also some pros, like, you don't need to pay anything (if you don't want to release your engine source code modifications to the public you will need to pay id) and you have the full source code for the engine for free, and anything you make from sales is yours (and the publisher if applicable).
Quote from: The Happy Friar on November 07, 2015, 01:48:08 PM
I like GOG for my indie games. As far as I can tell, it's the biggest competition to Steam. There was a great article I read about how for the older games they actually modify the code (if available) to make it work on modern OS's. If no code then they start hacking away as the executable.
That is not entirely true, more times than anything they just use a wrapper around the game, like a emulator, for example they many times use NGlide (http://www.zeus-software.com/downloads/nglide)to make their games run on modern PC's, for thief they even implemented newdark (that is a user made mod for the thief engine).
Quote from: argoon on November 08, 2015, 12:06:51 PM
I don't comprehend Motorsep sometimes, he is working on a idtech 4 engine and game but don't waste any opportunity to bad mouth idtech 4 and make people run away from it, then starts to complain that there's no coders that want to work on idtech games anymore ,so he can't find help to make his dream game on it.
You don't need to comprehend me. Take my words/experience with a grain of salt and do you own thing :)
idTech 4 (or rather BFG engine in my case) is not a bad PC engine. It lacks a lot of optimizations unless you are willing to stick with Doom 3 type clone. There is a lot of work needs to be done for the engine to allow making something that is beyond Doom 3. Again, if you go Doom 3 route, you'll be just fine (even with multiplayer, if you are using BFG engine).
There are no coders for idTech 4 (in a sense of a pool from which you could hire/recruit some, as it's the case with Unity), and not because I "bad mouthing" the engine. All savvy programmers either moved on with their life outside of modding, or switch to more modern and easier to work with engines long time ago.
I give people a piece of advise, considering the circumstances. When I started with DP engine, Unity was utter shit and UDK had really bad terms. Plus I knew Quake 1 / Quake 3 modding on the level design / art end. DP's author was of a great help guiding us, fixing bugs and so on.
When I went with idTech 4, I already know art pipeline (not completely, but a lot of workflow can be carried from Quake 3 to Doom 3). I didn't know that AI, weapons, etc. are all in script and I didn't think it will be such a pain to rewrite it from scratch. When I already invested a lot of time into idTech 4, I realized it's a dead end for me. However, BFG engine was released and it seemed that on performance side it offered a lot more freedom than idTech 4. I found my team and we began working on it. Several years and thousands dollars down the road we have more or less production ready engine. I had to throw away most of the original design for the game due to engine's limitations. We still have a few major things on the list to get engine more optimized to allow just working on the game and not fighting the tech. The problem is that with all this R&D time, I don't have time to actually make the game assets.
That's why when someone comes across asking about making a commercial game with idTech 4, I make sure to be as open about as I can, so people make a right call. Commercial game dev is not modding. It doesn't even come close to it. If someone is starting from scratch, clean slate and looking to assemble a team, getting it done (along with the game) is possible with Unity / UE4 and maybe Source. It's almost impossible with idTech 4 / BFG (especially BFG in the state it is in at this time).
I'll tell you this - I had a long and very productive conversation with several id Software former employees, who worked on the tech up close and personal. Every one of them suggested to leave idTech 4 behind and use either Unity or UE4. Note how Carmack pushes Unity and UE4 and not fiddling with his own engine? That's for a very good reason.
So if you think I bad mouthing idTech 4 and id Software guys, including JC, don't know what they are talking about, then by all means you are the smartest developer on the planet and I shall leave it at that.
Quote from: argoon on November 08, 2015, 12:06:51 PM
Motorsep sometimes i wonder how you made a game on DarkPlaces that has even less documentation and even less user friendly and modern tools.
Oh, it took me a lot of R&D time, then server side QuakeC coding a basic prototype of Prophecy game (3rd person hack and slash), then showing it off at QuakeExpo 2008 (yes, there used to be such online trade show, before Unity / UDK / UE4 choked Quake modding scene). After that I found a QuakeC programmer who was interested in helping me. We planned the project and figured out it was too much work. So we went with plan B, Steel Storm. Which took us 3 years to complete, including 5 rewrites of AI. The community was strong back then, and word of mouth was a way of documenting things. Tools were there, made by Quake community and DP engine author. Some where developed along the way, during production. It wasn't easy, but there was continuous support, because a lot of community wanted to see Steel Storm released, as it was first commercial game using DP engine (maybe even first commercial game using GPL engine).
As there were no ragdolls, no particles as in Doom 3, no entity defs, no bitmap fonts, no complex materials, the only thing that needed tools was models. So, Blender exported into ASE and OBJ, and I happened to have Doom 3 MD5 exporter, so we had a tool to convert MD5 into DPM. Eventually IQM model format came to DP engine, along with nice IQM exporter. So we really didn't need any tools. It would be nice to have WYSIWYG tools back then, but the complexity allowed to work without those.
Quote from: argoon on November 08, 2015, 12:06:51 PM
If you are a coder no matter what engine you use you will not have any problem making a game, even on idtech 4, if you are only a artist then idtech 4 is not really artist friendly, compared to UE4 or Unity that is, but if you can't code or don't find a coder to help you will never make a game on any engine.
That is a common misconception. As I said, id Software programmers much rather work with Unity than with any if id Tech engines, including id Tech 5. That should tell you something.
If you already familiar with id Tech 4 code base, sure it would be much easier and less work to add stuff to existing gameplay code base. However, there are soo many unfinished features that it entirely depends on what kind of game mechanics you are pursuing.
We got our engine to where making art for it is almost like making art for UE4 / Unity. As in until you get to import your art into the engine. Getting your art to show inside idTech 4 is a way more work than with Unity (haven't worked much with UE4 yet, so I can't say much about the process there).
Quote from: argoon on November 08, 2015, 12:06:51 PM
Making a game using idtech 4 has cons but also some pros, like, you don't need to pay anything (if you don't want to release your engine source code modifications to the public you will need to pay id) and you have the full source code for the engine for free, and anything you make from sales is yours (and the publisher if applicable).
If you don't want to release you code, you are screwed - ID no longer licenses engines. Publishers stay away from GPL engines (Steam is not a publisher, they are distributor). They much rather have an ability to release on consoles than be stuck with PC only.
You don't pay anything if you are using Unity 5 either. All proceeds from sales of your game are yours (and Steam's or GoG's or Origin's; except only Steam and GoG would allow GPL engine).
You pay 5% from your sales if you use UE4. 5% is nothing, compare to the time savings, pool of available talent (who are willing to work on your game), available platforms and promotions you get with UE4. Plus, if your sales are only so many dollars per month, you pay nothing at all.
Quote from: The Happy Friar on November 07, 2015, 08:31:27 AM
Torque is open source (MIT) and it doesn't include AI, but you can buy AI for it for under $100 (maybe $70). I like torque. I am slowing learning it because it does a lot of what I want and doesn't cost royalties.
I like D3 tech and know it pretty well, but the lack of AI/weapon/script code vs other id engines turns me off to it. IE you could take Darkplaces and make a whole game w/o touching the code. You could take Knightmare Q2 and remake HL1 if you wanted. You could take Q3A (not familiar with those engines) and make a game from that. With D3 you need lots of coding experience, or an experienced coder, to get off the ground.
That's the reason for the recommendation of other engines if you're not doing a mod, because the other engines have more support on the coding end.
Would using either darkplaces or those other engines be reasonable to make a commercial game? Heard that darkplaces is very versatile but isnt it based on the first quake?
Quote from: rebarkillburst on November 08, 2015, 06:47:02 PM
Quote from: The Happy Friar on November 07, 2015, 08:31:27 AM
Torque is open source (MIT) and it doesn't include AI, but you can buy AI for it for under $100 (maybe $70). I like torque. I am slowing learning it because it does a lot of what I want and doesn't cost royalties.
I like D3 tech and know it pretty well, but the lack of AI/weapon/script code vs other id engines turns me off to it. IE you could take Darkplaces and make a whole game w/o touching the code. You could take Knightmare Q2 and remake HL1 if you wanted. You could take Q3A (not familiar with those engines) and make a game from that. With D3 you need lots of coding experience, or an experienced coder, to get off the ground.
That's the reason for the recommendation of other engines if you're not doing a mod, because the other engines have more support on the coding end.
Would using either darkplaces or those other engines be reasonable to make a commercial game? Heard that darkplaces is very versatile but isnt it based on the first quake?
Some more information about your project might help aid you in this process, if I understand correctly so far you want to make an something along the lines of an id game, is that old id or new id? I.e Doom/Quake fast combat or Doom 3 slower linear survival horror or hub based FPS with complex story etc...?
DarkPlaces is rooted in Quake 1, yes. It's also a mish-mash of Quake 2 and 3. If you're going to use DP you might as well take advantage of Q3BSP and Q3Map2. The use of lightmaps and realtime lighting (edited in-game) make it more performance friendly. Programming will be done using QuakeC which has been criticized for being limiting but it has also been greatly extended upon, it's also pretty easy to use and a good starting point for learning procedural programming. As for starter code, you get all the Quake 1 QC code with server side AI so if you're doing a coop game this is a big plus. Speaking of which, there are lots of cool QC resources to get you on your way, https://www.quaddicted.com/webarchive/minion.planetquake.gamespy.com/tutorial/main.htm (https://www.quaddicted.com/webarchive/minion.planetquake.gamespy.com/tutorial/main.htm)
http://www.insideqc.com/qctut/ (http://www.insideqc.com/qctut/)
A few areas you'll find lacking compared to D3 is a more robust system for dealing with skeletal animation (blending layers) and root motion movement. Also, single threading vs. that nice multi-threaded jobs system that BFG does. Physics works through ODE but so far ragdolls are the topic of much debate, as in they're technically supported but there's no real system or anything past some early tests to actually take advantage of anything that complex - mostly a tools / docs / code related issue. You'll also have limited shader support, Q3 shader that is compared to D3's material scripts as most of the materials in DP are done through a naming convention of the image files themselves. I.e: rock1.tga, rock1_norm.tga, rock1_gloss.tga. If you want to reuse textures then you'll end up with a lot of duplicate image files sitting around taking up unnecessary memory - this has been one of my biggest gripes with the engine. Anyway for more information read dpextensions.qc included pretty much in every distribution.
Is DP a viable option to create a commercial product? Sure. The engine might not be the issue here, are you yourself ready to undertake such a task? Or do you think perhaps you should get in some modding time first?
If this is one one your first commercial projects I would say aim small and this is where the whole Unity or UE4 recommendation comes in. Follow some of their starter tutorials, perhaps take them a bit further and ship something. Unity has some very nice starter tutorials for all kinds of different games that help get you familiar with different types of controls and a game manager like a Space Shooter or Roll-a-Ball although with Unity 5 there's some outdated code in those tuts but a quick search will get you going again on some of the changed API.
Hey, motorsep,
first you dream then you die
life is in motion, do not care achievements :)
I think idTech4 like first love - charm passes, but memories remain.
And begin to better understand women gamedev.
Quote from: MrC on November 08, 2015, 08:05:05 PM
Quote from: rebarkillburst on November 08, 2015, 06:47:02 PM
Quote from: The Happy Friar on November 07, 2015, 08:31:27 AM
Torque is open source (MIT) and it doesn't include AI, but you can buy AI for it for under $100 (maybe $70). I like torque. I am slowing learning it because it does a lot of what I want and doesn't cost royalties.
I like D3 tech and know it pretty well, but the lack of AI/weapon/script code vs other id engines turns me off to it. IE you could take Darkplaces and make a whole game w/o touching the code. You could take Knightmare Q2 and remake HL1 if you wanted. You could take Q3A (not familiar with those engines) and make a game from that. With D3 you need lots of coding experience, or an experienced coder, to get off the ground.
That's the reason for the recommendation of other engines if you're not doing a mod, because the other engines have more support on the coding end.
Would using either darkplaces or those other engines be reasonable to make a commercial game? Heard that darkplaces is very versatile but isnt it based on the first quake?
Some more information about your project might help aid you in this process, if I understand correctly so far you want to make an something along the lines of an id game, is that old id or new id? I.e Doom/Quake fast combat or Doom 3 slower linear survival horror or hub based FPS with complex story etc...?
DarkPlaces is rooted in Quake 1, yes. It's also a mish-mash of Quake 2 and 3. If you're going to use DP you might as well take advantage of Q3BSP and Q3Map2. The use of lightmaps and realtime lighting (edited in-game) make it more performance friendly. Programming will be done using QuakeC which has been criticized for being limiting but it has also been greatly extended upon, it's also pretty easy to use and a good starting point for learning procedural programming. As for starter code, you get all the Quake 1 QC code with server side AI so if you're doing a coop game this is a big plus. Speaking of which, there are lots of cool QC resources to get you on your way, https://www.quaddicted.com/webarchive/minion.planetquake.gamespy.com/tutorial/main.htm (https://www.quaddicted.com/webarchive/minion.planetquake.gamespy.com/tutorial/main.htm)
http://www.insideqc.com/qctut/ (http://www.insideqc.com/qctut/)
A few areas you'll find lacking compared to D3 is a more robust system for dealing with skeletal animation (blending layers) and root motion movement. Also, single threading vs. that nice multi-threaded jobs system that BFG does. Physics works through ODE but so far ragdolls are the topic of much debate, as in they're technically supported but there's no real system or anything past some early tests to actually take advantage of anything that complex - mostly a tools / docs / code related issue. You'll also have limited shader support, Q3 shader that is compared to D3's material scripts as most of the materials in DP are done through a naming convention of the image files themselves. I.e: rock1.tga, rock1_norm.tga, rock1_gloss.tga. If you want to reuse textures then you'll end up with a lot of duplicate image files sitting around taking up unnecessary memory - this has been one of my biggest gripes with the engine. Anyway for more information read dpextensions.qc included pretty much in every distribution.
Is DP a viable option to create a commercial product? Sure. The engine might not be the issue here, are you yourself ready to undertake such a task? Or do you think perhaps you should get in some modding time first?
If this is one one your first commercial projects I would say aim small and this is where the whole Unity or UE4 recommendation comes in. Follow some of their starter tutorials, perhaps take them a bit further and ship something. Unity has some very nice starter tutorials for all kinds of different games that help get you familiar with different types of controls and a game manager like a Space Shooter or Roll-a-Ball although with Unity 5 there's some outdated code in those tuts but a quick search will get you going again on some of the changed API.
Well, yes, both old and new id as in fast combat, but with additional perks like different melee attacks, an additional iron-sight like look, and such. I'm trying to pull off a fps but with magic, spell casting, and such replacing weapons. Like hexen, and such.
Ideally, with so many engines out there now a days, the "best" one is the one you know.
With what you described want to do, Quake 1/Dark Places can do that and has everything you need minus art. Motorsep started game based on a RPG-style game with Darkplaces. I enjoyed several hours of MP in just the alpha that was released. :)
Looks interesting, but it still looks kinda similar to quake. This is a commercial game, and thus it would look like a AAA-looking game. Does this engine support art assets at AAA or close level? Does this engine support an expansive, large levels? It'll have mostly melee combat, but there's ranged weapons by means of spells, it'll have full player awareness, as in your character isnt just a floating gun or floating set of hands. That will allow you to finish off enemies when theyre down. It'll have inventory, items to pickup, lore to read, which i am working on intensively. But it'll still be a mostly linear fps, any other kind of game like an rpg is too overwhelming to make at least as of now.
So you mean you want the graphics to be on par with the new Doom? How many people are you planning on working on this? :)
Darkplaces can support the texture quality of any modern engine. Not sure about poly counts but I'd figure it would support relatively high. After all, Source is built of the Quake engine. :p
Quote from: rebarkillburst on November 09, 2015, 02:08:53 PM
Looks interesting, but it still looks kinda similar to quake. This is a commercial game, and thus it would look like a AAA-looking game. Does this engine support art assets at AAA or close level? Does this engine support an expansive, large levels? It'll have mostly melee combat, but there's ranged weapons by means of spells, it'll have full player awareness, as in your character isnt just a floating gun or floating set of hands. That will allow you to finish off enemies when theyre down. It'll have inventory, items to pickup, lore to read, which i am working on intensively. But it'll still be a mostly linear fps, any other kind of game like an rpg is too overwhelming to make at least as of now.
Anything with AAA class art assets will be overkill for you to make. Hell, Steel Storm has stylized assets and it tool me 3 years of mostly part time work on it to get it all done. Phaeton has stylized assets, but more complex than Steel Storm (more complex shapes, animations, some normal/spec maps, ragdolls, damage effects, etc.) and it's freaking close to impossible to work on part time.
And you think AAA-looking assets are not going to be overwhelming... Good luck with that.
P.S. You'd be better off making interesting game (better off in a sense that you would get more people buying/playing it) with non-AAA look, rather than yet another linear AAA-looking game.
Well, i understand that AAA assets cost a lot, im mostly referring to whether this engine could support assets that could be around today's standards. Doesnt haven to be AAA.
Yes.
Quote from: rebarkillburst on November 12, 2015, 01:38:37 AM
Well, i understand that AAA assets cost a lot, im mostly referring to whether this engine could support assets that could be around today's standards. Doesnt haven to be AAA.
Ok, Capt Obvious time: if you don't intend to use super-high quality assets or pipeline, why worry if the engine supports it?
I don't wish to hijack the thread, so please let me know if I should open a new topic and delete this post overall.
I've been planning a game, and similarly to rebarkillburst, I'm a bit unsure whether an idtech engine (particularly dp/idtech4/doom3bfg) would be a viable option, even tho I stil find idtech4's use of lighting/dynamic shadows hot as hell after all these years, so it's a strong candidate for me.
The game would basically be a turn-based dungeon crawler rpg with roguelike-ish elements and grid-based movement and varying themes, heavily inspired by Wizardry, Grimrock, Elminage Gothic and Paper Sorcerer.
Gothic and PS might be the closest points of reference of them all. Note how there's no enemy, only when a combat event triggers, which means there's no pathfinding and stuff like that, only combat AI, which shouldn't be insanely hard to implement even in idtech4 (wherein you said AI is practically non-existent aside from Doom 3). I'm also very much interested in grid-based movement and map layout randomization - that's where the roguelike part comes in, among other things, like random enemy placements, etc. So how hard would it be to add these features to the existing codebase? Or which of these could be done on the doomscript level?
Sorry if I'm being totally ridiculous with these questions, I played around with gtkradiant some time ago, but that's how close I ever came to idtech stuff, so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKvMDNsEc14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFP255RtptM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfUZipYEd-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu7zwZwheTU
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 11:12:15 AM
I don't wish to hijack the thread, so please let me know if I should open a new topic and delete this post overall.
I am no boss here, but I have a gut feeling it's fine :)
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 11:12:15 AM... I stil find idtech4's use of lighting/dynamic shadows hot as hell after all these years, so it's a strong candidate for me.
As if lighting is what makes or breaks video games ::)
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 11:12:15 AM
Note how there's no enemy, only when a combat event triggers, which means there's no pathfinding and stuff like that, ...
So, there are enemies then. And there is basic pathfinding. Pathfinding is how enemy find its way from where it is now to the player. So when you get into a room with an enemy, it needs to get from where it stands to you. Note that idTech 4 already has pathfinding solution, and that solution is pretty clever. I doubt an average programmer can make a better one (hell, even above average programmer will have hard time making a better pathfinding solution).
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 11:12:15 AM
only combat AI, which shouldn't be insanely hard to implement ...
You think? :) Probably easier than fully fledged FPS combat, but by no means trivial.
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 11:12:15 AM
... even in idtech4 (wherein you said AI is practically non-existent aside from Doom 3).
Behavior logic is primitive in Doom 3 (most of it is script based). Pathfinding and navigation are quite good. Not superb, but really good. There is room for improvement of course, but it's pretty solid for a lot of types of FPS/TPS indie games.
Pathfinding and navigation are implemented in C++. Behavior logic (states and animation control) are in scripts, which you have to write from scratch and it's not that easy as it might appear to be at first sight.
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 11:12:15 AM
I'm also very much interested in grid-based movement and map layout randomization - that's where the roguelike part comes in, among other things, like random enemy placements, etc. So how hard would it be to add these features to the existing codebase? Or which of these could be done on the doomscript level?
That's not idTech 4's strongest point. Visibility culling is pre-compiled, meaning your random levels will have no culling, if you do it without some dark magic. So performance will be super crappy.
To get it done right, you would have to generate map and re-build it, before loading it for gameplay. That means you need to implement a way to manipulate brushes and groups of brushes (which you can't do anything with at runtime at this moment). Good thing Doom 3 has all the foundation for such task embedded, thanks to built-in Radiant. It's a complex task. Basically anything procedurally generated would be like making a game inside the game.
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 11:12:15 AMSorry if I'm being totally ridiculous with these questions, I played around with gtkradiant some time ago, but that's how close I ever came to idtech stuff, so.
You should play around with DarkRadiant 2.03. It's the only 3rd party Doom 3 mapping tool that is quite advance. There is built-in DoomEdit, but DarkRadiant is better.
I hate to retype my lines, but if you have no clue about Doom 3 modding (and I mean on a level of making total conversion) and you want to make whole game from scratch, you might want to reconsider. If you know Doom 3 modding really well, and you just want to make a solid mod for Doom 3 that is in line with what Doom 3 has to offer, by all means - it's the best tech you can get today in terms of flexibility/freedom/iteration capacity/visuals/performance (I know Dota 2 and StarCraft 2 offer decent modding tools, but it's mostly maps and it's pretty rigid modding; I think anything Source-built is moddable).
thank you for your reply!
Quote
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 11:12:15 AM... I stil find idtech4's use of lighting/dynamic shadows hot as hell after all these years, so it's a strong candidate for me.
As if lighting is what makes or breaks video games ::)
Obviously not, but it always gives me some ideas :)
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 11:12:15 AM
Note how there's no enemy, only when a combat event triggers, which means there's no pathfinding and stuff like that, ...
Quote
So, there are enemies then. And there is basic pathfinding. Pathfinding is how enemy find its way from where it is now to the player. So when you get into a room with an enemy, it needs to get from where it stands to you. Note that idTech 4 already has pathfinding solution, and that solution is pretty clever. I doubt an average programmer can make a better one (hell, even above average programmer will have hard time making a better pathfinding solution).
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 11:12:15 AM
only combat AI, which shouldn't be insanely hard to implement ...
Quote
You think? :) Probably easier than fully fledged FPS combat, but by no means trivial.
Sorry I wasn't very clear about this. The combat and AI that I "dreamt up" is pretty much identical to what's seen in Elminage Gothic. The player basically would just go around in the map, room-to-room, until it encounters an enemy, then the game would stop to switch on a combat state - similarly to Final Fantasy -, so the combat may begin, which would go in an oldschool RPG fashion. A solution like this would strip down the whole navigation/pathfinding business and I could get around some heavy C++ AI programming and might be able to script it up. If you see it that way then it really would be just combat/behavior logic.
Also using still and/or animated sprites for enemies. Maybe via GUI-scripting? Would that be possible?
Quote
I hate to retype my lines, but if you have no clue about Doom 3 modding (and I mean on a level of making total conversion) and you want to make whole game from scratch, you might want to reconsider. If you know Doom 3 modding really well, and you just want to make a solid mod for Doom 3 that is in line with what Doom 3 has to offer, by all means - it's the best tech you can get today in terms of flexibility/freedom/iteration capacity/visuals/performance (I know Dota 2 and StarCraft 2 offer decent modding tools, but it's mostly maps and it's pretty rigid modding; I think anything Source-built is moddable).
Could you please then recommend me an engine that might meet these demands and is also available on Linux and uses GPL? Would DP do the work? Thx in advance!
Quote from: vladdrak on November 12, 2015, 10:56:58 PM
Could you please then recommend me an engine that might meet these demands and is also available on Linux and uses GPL? Would DP do the work? Thx in advance!
I only saw stuff like that done in Unity. I am sure UE4 can do it too.
The thing is that you will have to program stuff in C++ or C#. Regardless of the engine.
Unity is a clean slate. It's like id Tech 4 without gameplay code. And by gameplay code I mean C++ code. UE4 has templates, but it's pretty much the same.
So I can't really say go with that or this. It's entirely up to you and your skills/team. Any of those engine is free. Download it and try it. It will take time to learn at least foundation, but you will have decent idea about each engine.
thanks!
I'd still suggest you try out Torque too. The purchasable AI has downloadable demo's for you to test too. here (http://www.garagegames.com/community/blog/view/22610/2#comments)
The specific AI you want might be doable w/o ever making a monster in D3 just by using level scripts. Since it's all just if/then's & changing animations/etc.
The TL;DR summary of this entire thread is: If you want to make a new game from scratch, use UE4.
Done :)
Quote from: bkt on November 13, 2015, 01:50:48 PM
The TL;DR summary of this entire thread is: If you want to make a new game from scratch, use UE4.
Done :)
If this forum dies you only have this thread to blame and the ones that on it encouraged people to go away from idtech 4.
Quote from: argoon on November 13, 2015, 02:00:38 PM
If this forum dies you only have this thread to blame and the ones that on it encouraged people to go away from idtech 4.
This statement is silly.
Quote from: bkt on November 13, 2015, 01:50:48 PM
The TL;DR summary of this entire thread is: If you want to make a new game from scratch, use UE4.
Done :)
I would say rather this: if you want to make a game from scratch - become a good programmer or find one that will stick around to see the game completed.
Quote from: The Happy Friar on November 13, 2015, 06:59:14 AM
The specific AI you want might be doable w/o ever making a monster in D3 just by using level scripts. Since it's all just if/then's & changing animations/etc.
that's what I was thinking, thx
Quote from: argoon on November 13, 2015, 02:00:38 PM
Quote from: bkt on November 13, 2015, 01:50:48 PM
The TL;DR summary of this entire thread is: If you want to make a new game from scratch, use UE4.
Done :)
If this forum dies you only have this thread to blame and the ones that on it encouraged people to go away from idtech 4.
Last year I released a mod for idTech 4 and if the circumstances were right I'd happily make another. I'd never make a new game from scratch with the intent to sell it using idTech 4. In every aspect I value UE4 is a better prospect for a fresh project. There's no need for me to elaborate either, because if you're familiar with both idTech and UE4, the distinctions are clear. If you're not familiar with what UE4 is capable of, go do some research to find out. Then make an
unbiased comparison and tell me which is more suitable.
Quote from: argoon on November 13, 2015, 02:00:38 PM
If this forum dies you only have this thread to blame and the ones that on it encouraged people to go away from idtech 4.
I am not going to lie and say the d3 gpl engine is necessarily worth it to make everything from scratch.
Quote from: motorsep on November 13, 2015, 02:09:51 PM
Quote from: argoon on November 13, 2015, 02:00:38 PM
If this forum dies you only have this thread to blame and the ones that on it encouraged people to go away from idtech 4.
This statement is silly.
Thanks for your opinion and if you don't like idtch 4 is time for you to give up on your custom idtech 4 BFG engine and go to UE4, you are wasting yours and others people time and not helping idtech 4 GPL evolve by being so negative about it, i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one that feel the same on this forum.
If idtech 1, idtech 2 and even idtech 3 add people like you constantly complaining about them and saying "got to unreal engine" we would not have Darkplaces or any other modern custom idtech GPL engine out there.
Quote from: The Happy Friar on November 13, 2015, 08:19:11 PM
Quote from: argoon on November 13, 2015, 02:00:38 PM
If this forum dies you only have this thread to blame and the ones that on it encouraged people to go away from idtech 4.
I am not going to lie and say the d3 gpl engine is necessarily worth it to make everything from scratch.
What everything from scratch? Gameplay code? Animations? Art?
This is what you need to do in any engine even UE4 or Unity, that is not a valid reason to go away from idtech 4, the ONLY true reason to go away is better artist friendly tools and new state of the art technologies and of course if you want to make a open world game or a MMO you will not have a easy time with idtech 4 that's for sure, you should chose the engine that better suit your vision.
Frictional games made a successful game (Penumbra) on a engine with worse tools and even less power than idtech 4 and they made it using the strengths of the engine and none of the weakness, anyone using idtech 4 should do the same.
P.s - Btw even HPL3 the SOMA engine uses tools that compared to UE4 and Unity (and in some ways even idtech 4) are a joke, but that didn't prevented them to make a visually appealing game.
Quote from: argoon on November 14, 2015, 08:45:09 AM
What everything from scratch? Gameplay code? Animations? Art?
This is what you need to do in any engine even UE4 or Unity, that is not a valid reason to go away from idtech 4,
Compared to those engines, I agree. I recommended a previous id engine or Torque, not UE4 or Unity. I never bothered to look up what game engine powered a game I buy, normally I'm notified because of the requirements of the engine itself (IE must have a start graphic/video, etc). However, both of those engines (UE & Unity) have much more info on how to program AI & gameplay code for them, D3 engine doesn't.
Is true that documentation on idtech 4 is very sparse but that is because it is all over the place, there's enough documentation, and knowledge out there to make a game on vanilla idtech 4, the problem is that is not on the same place on a easy to read easy to study online local, like UE4 and Unity have.
Btw lack of documentation on AI didn't prevented the Darkmod guys from coding a impressive custom AI system of their own, so if anyone want to know more about coding AI for idtech 4 i would recommend studying the Darkmod source code and read their wiki and perhaps ask the developers.
@argoon: it's quite obvious you have no idea what you are talking about, so it's pointless to break it down for you why is idTech 4 / BFG are not suitable for indies.
I have invested into BFG engine _a lot _ of time and money. Once I release Phaeton in one way or another, I might or might not abandon it. Meanwhile it makes no sense to abandon it after putting so much into it. It makes sense to finish what we've started and then reflect in it. With all this experience I've gained working with idTech 4/BFG engine, there are bright sides to it and there are dark sides to it. And that's what I an legitimately say it's not a good engine for indie devs. Whether Doom 3 modding keeps going or dies is irrelevant to this thread, because this thread isn't about "is Doom 3 good for modding or not".
If you don't know the history, then learn it. DP engine was in development for 16+ years. When we began working with it, there was no UE4, no Unity 4 around. It was literally a viable option, because most mobile games were made using custom engines, UDK and Unity didn't run on Linux, and it was literally impossible to publish on consoles. And there was no VR in sight. So using DP engine was beneficial _short term_, no matter how you look at it. Coupled with the fact that engine's author had literally a lot of time on his hands and willingness to help with engine fixes / enhancements, and QuakeC coding, and active large community (many times larger than Doom 3 modding community), using DP engine was clear choice.
Also, the farther we get into SS:BR development and as years passed by, DP engine author recommended to start looking elsewhere. And when UE4 came out (and Unity 4.6+), he said we are better off using one of those two engines. Not Torque, not DP, no idTech 4, not anything else open source and without a company that provides on the clock support.
So there you have it. DP engine happened not because the author thinks it's better for game dev than UE4/Unity, not because he wanted to make commercial game with it, but because he wanted to learn how to make a game engine and to have Quake looking the way he imagined it. That's all.
When you say "oh, look at those games - poor tools, great games". Sure, they had programmer(s) pushing project for years, artists and money to outsource what they needed to be outsourced. It's like saying - look, ID Software made all those great game with shit tools. Yeah, because A. there was no other option, B. They had John Carmack onboard.
If having solid programmer on the team isn't an option, it most likely means the end of development.
Another big + for Unity / UE4 is the community. Doom 3 had a few programmers who never wanted to open source their code for other's to learn (even in this century, programmers who haven't modded Doom 3 could have learned from the released mod code). Recently Doom 3 community lost all programmers to life and other companies. Why? Because people moved on. Even Quake no longer has the same community as it used to have, so getting into QuakeC coding is a pain.
Art pipeline for idTech 4 is documented rather well, plus all assets are in ascii format and more or less self explanatory. There a lot of hidden obstacles we've discovered working on Phaeton, but for Doom 3 modding an artist will not face them most likely. It's the programming where idTech 4 / BFG has the problem.
Btw, argoon, when you release a complete total conversion using Doom 3, or a scratch game using idTech 4, then we can have discussion on why new comers should or should not use id Tech 4 for commercial games built from scratch. Right now you are not listening to reasonable arguments (posted here by several people) against using Id Tech 4 for game projects made from scratch, because you just have no idea what it takes to make a game from scratch using any engine.
Quote from: argoon on November 14, 2015, 09:45:28 AM
Btw lack of documentation on AI didn't prevented the Darkmod guys from coding a impressive custom AI system of their own, so if anyone want to know more about coding AI for idtech 4 i would recommend studying the Darkmod source code and read their wiki and perhaps ask the developers.
Do you even understand the difference between modding and commercial game development?! Your statements show you don't.
Ask TDM team how they did it. I'll save you the time and let you know a short version - they have been working on TDM for years. I mean, YEARS!!!! They went through several programmers, mostly retired folks who had all time on their hands and they were/are HUGE fans of Thief. So they had necessary skills and passion and time to work on the game. TDM team is huge, it has many programmers working on the game code alone for years. There are still massive bugs with AI, shit breaks all the time. Just check their forums and bug trackers.
When making a game from scratch, you can't afford YEARS of development using tech that has no support and simple platform to release on. Especially for an indie game. And while TDM managed to get team together over the years, they struggle to get new blood into it. There are virtually no people interested in digging dead tech. The only way someone gets on either DarkPlaces or id Tech 4 is if they know the tech intimately, or they have curious mind and skill and willingness to unlock Pandora's box. Usually the former folks do mods for Doom 3, but not whole games.
Why don't you do you homework on current state of game dev business and come up with valid arguments why should anyone use id Tech 4 for a commercial product?
Oh, and don't forget that idTech 4 has no free shaders either - you'd have to find someone (again, virtually impossible nowdays) to write all the shaders in ARB assembly from srcratch.
Quote from: motorsep on November 14, 2015, 09:46:30 AM
@argoon: it's quite obvious you have no idea what you are talking about, so it's pointless to break it down for you why is idTech 4 / BFG are not suitable for indies.
Btw, argoon, when you release a complete total conversion using Doom 3, or a scratch game using idTech 4, then we can have discussion on why new comers should or should not use id Tech 4 for commercial games built from scratch. Right now you are not listening to reasonable arguments (posted here by several people) against using Id Tech 4 for game projects made from scratch, because you just have no idea what it takes to make a game from scratch using any engine.
You can say anything you want but i'm fine with my knowledge on idtech 4, modding and engines in general.
I don't need to prove you anything but is true i've never made a game, what i've done was play with engines tools and tech ever since Max Payne, i know what it takes to make a game, how engines work, i've messed around with Unity, i've messed around with idtech 4 and i still do, hell i even messed around with Cryengine and UE4, and even the now dead C4 engine from Terathon Software, but in the end i would still come back to idtech 4, this is my hobby not professional ambition, but even so i don't think i'm being unreasonable or biased. I have talked about the "dark side" of the idtech 4 engine myself, i have said first that
a programer was essential to work with it
QuoteIf you are a coder no matter what engine you use you will not have any problem making a game, even on idtech 4, if you are only a artist then idtech 4 is not really artist friendly, compared to UE4 or Unity that is, but if you can't code or don't find a coder to help you will never make a game on any engine.
, so again i'm not being unreasonable or unrealistic, i know the engine paradigm have changed i'm not blind but i still think idtech 4 is a good engine for indies even tho you don't, Darkmod and Grimm are living proof of that.
QuoteDo you even understand the difference between modding and commercial game development?! Your statements show you don't.
Hum didn't knew there was a difference? Don't we all work with the same tools? Don't we all need the same knowledge about code, gameplay and design etc? Is not true that many professional game dev's born from modding teams? For example, making the Oblivion TC, Nehrim - At Fate's Edge, is that different from making Oblivion itself? (taking ofcourse the usage of the Oblivion existent assets)
QuoteWhy don't you do you homework on current state of game dev business and come up with valid arguments why should anyone use id Tech 4 for a commercial product?
Because if you have the necessary team (one or more c++ coders, capable artists) money and a game idea that plays with the strengths of idtech 4 plus you can look past the old gen tools, there's nothing preventing anyone from making game with it, and that's is all i have to say.
QuoteOh, and don't forget that idTech 4 has no free shaders either - you'd have to find someone (again, virtually impossible nowdays) to write all the shaders in ARB assembly from srcratch.
afaik ARB code can't be closed yes you can't copy exactly the Doom 3 shaders but there's nothing preventing you from writing them in a slight different way but still using the same methods and i don't think that is a problem with idtech 4 BFG as it uses cg shaders (nvidia shader language) and convert them to HLSL and GLSL automatically.
After the last two paragraphs or you reply, argoon, I'd am not going to waste my wrists typing detailed responses.
Btw, it's not what I think. It's the fact that idtech 4 is not good for making a scratch game for an indie team. I said it, bkt said it, THF said it, and the whole world uses other, more suitable engines, for the same reason.
Quote from: motorsep on November 14, 2015, 10:33:50 AM
After the last two paragraphs or you reply, argoon, I'd am not going to waste my wrists typing detailed responses.
You do what you think is best.
Quote from: motorsep on November 14, 2015, 10:33:50 AM
I said it, bkt said it, THF said it, and the whole world uses other, more suitable engines, for the same reason.
And D3 tech is tied as my favorite engine tech with Q2. If D3 had the weapons/AI/map entities/graphics stuff GPL'ed I would rather use it then Q2. I even e-mailed someone @ id years ago saying it would be great if those code portions were GPL'ed so it's as complete as Q1/2/3 in GPL code, but no answer.
Quote from: The Happy Friar on November 14, 2015, 10:51:05 AM
Quote from: motorsep on November 14, 2015, 10:33:50 AM
I said it, bkt said it, THF said it, and the whole world uses other, more suitable engines, for the same reason.
And D3 tech is tied as my favorite engine tech with Q2. If D3 had the weapons/AI/map entities/graphics stuff GPL'ed I would rather use it then Q2. I even e-mailed someone @ id years ago saying it would be great if those code portions were GPL'ed so it's as complete as Q1/2/3 in GPL code, but no answer.
Are we still on the subject of "making indie game from scratch using id Tech 4 while not being familiar with it intimately" or are we on the subject "
if only idTEch 4 had this and that, I would use it to make an indie game from scratch because I am intimately familiar with the game engine" ?
Quote from: motorsep on November 14, 2015, 10:53:48 AM
Are we still on the subject of "making indie game from scratch using id Tech 4 while not being familiar with it intimately" or are we on the subject "if only idTEch 4 had this and that, I would use it to make an indie game from scratch because I am intimately familiar with the game engine" ?
Still on the "from scratch" debate, just saying that
IF D3 had the ai/weapon/etc. stuff GPL'ed it would most likely be the option I'd want to use. I just don't want to reinvent the wheel by myself.
Quote from: The Happy Friar on November 14, 2015, 03:02:35 PM
Still on the "from scratch" debate, just saying that IF D3 had the ai/weapon/etc. stuff GPL'ed it would most likely be the option I'd want to use. I just don't want to reinvent the wheel by myself.
Eventually, it will happen with Phaeton ;)
Quote from: motorsep on November 14, 2015, 03:40:57 PM
Quote from: The Happy Friar on November 14, 2015, 03:02:35 PM
Still on the "from scratch" debate, just saying that IF D3 had the ai/weapon/etc. stuff GPL'ed it would most likely be the option I'd want to use. I just don't want to reinvent the wheel by myself.
Eventually, it will happen with Phaeton ;)
Another reason I inclined to try idtech4 was because of the editor itself. I'm very much acquainted with gtkradiant, and yes, I understand it mostly supports id tech 3 games, like rtcw, but i think gtkradiant is much simpler to use to me, than Unreal 4's ugly editor. I find it difficult to use. As to commercial use of idtech4, i think that there was going to be a game that was going to use idtech 4, i think it was called Quadrilateral Cowboy. Was that released?
Not yet. Still no hard release date.
That's true about id tech editors, the editors still support brush work so you can still create levels w/o using a 3D editor for everything. But you can you GTK for any id engine, not just D3.
It's true, CSG level building has been abandoned for no good reason in all engines, except Source (not mentioning idTech 5 since it can't be used). However, Unity has this: http://www.protoolsforunity3d.com/probuilder/ and it's coming for UE4. Not quite CSG, but very close.
The problem with old idTech 4 (at least The Dark Mod) and its tools and Radiants, is that they don't work quite correctly on Win10 (reported on TDM forums). I don't know if the same is true for other idTech engines (Quake, Quake2, Quake3).
Quadrilateral Cowboy is a good measuring stick for this tech - the guy knows idTech 2 inside and out, was working on the game full time (at least in the beginning), doesn't have elaborate art, and yet, the game is still WIP.
By all means, use idTech 4 (sounds like reverse psychology :P ). Start off by making a fully animated and textured model with sounds and effects and a map, and some new game mechanics as Doom 3 mod (you can re-use it for your game). Get a feel for what it takes to get that done. If you still feel on board, good for you.
Quote from: motorsep on November 22, 2015, 09:48:08 AM
The problem with old idTech 4 (at least The Dark Mod) and its tools and Radiants, is that they don't work quite correctly on Win10 (reported on TDM forums). I don't know if the same is true for other idTech engines (Quake, Quake2, Quake3).
I haven't done much dev with Q2 since I got Win 10, but 10 doesn't seem to like Radiant as much as I thought it would. It might just be security issues (IE, Radiant wants to write to it's own folder & it's currently locked), but my non-install of Radiant 2.5 doesn't even startup now. Haven't resintalled it yet.
That probuilder tool for unity looks interesting, you said its coming to UE4 too? Is it as simple and fluid with brush editing as gtk? What did id tech 5 use?
Quote from: rebarkillburst on November 23, 2015, 12:08:33 PM
That probuilder tool for unity looks interesting, you said its coming to UE4 too? Is it as simple and fluid with brush editing as gtk? What did id tech 5 use?
I wouldn't say working with brushes is fluid. It's cumbersome. The benefit of CSG is in lack of need in 3D app and 3D artist. You can build levels, good looking levels, without any 3D models.
I haven't worked with Pro Builder, but it seems that you can move verts/edges/faces in 3D, which you could never do right in Radiant. So that alone makes it more fluid than Radiant.
If you have RAGE, you can download idStudio and try it. It still has CSG, but afaik RAGE levels were made almost entirely with 3D models.