id @ quakecon 2003 : in reply to competition from half life 2 and halo 2, "other games do not have to suck for ours to be good"

I'm just saying that sometimes the arguments here can get ridiculous. Half Life 2 is cool, but that does not necessarily make Doom 3 suck. They're both going to be cool. Besides, they're in semi-different genres: Half Life 2 is more of a fast paced war-against-aliens environment, where DOOM is more of a slow paced trying-to-escape-from Hell type of game.

But then again, my efforts are going to be futile. :).

Ciph

I have no idea how id has implemented the game, but I just can't see them (or anyone) making a game that synchronizes to the slowest player

You ever played any of the games with "anti-lag" feature?
Most new PC internet games now adays has that feature, and server admins can turn it on and off. In Wolf:ET players can even vote to turn it on or off.
Well, that is what it does, it synchronizes to the slowest (ie person with highest ping), trying to even out the playing field.

Bad boy does it suck when you have a 35 ping, then someone with a 300 ping jumps on the server, with anti-lag turned on! Your ping does not go up our anything, it just changes how the prediction routines work.

"Science is but an organized system of ignorance."

I've read mixed things about it. Some say it is synced to the slowest player, but that doesn't make sense. I'm more inclined to believe that it works by everyone sending their data to everyone else, rather than just a central server.

I have no idea how id has implemented the game, but I just can't see them (or anyone) making a game that synchronizes to the slowest player. I guess people are associating peer to peer with the original Doom, but remember that Doom was made a long time ago, and it wasn't even made for TCP/IP networks.

I mean, think about peer-to-peer networking for a minute. What's the difference between your computer receiving the game data from a server, or from other clients? Either way, your computer is sitting there listening for incoming data. When it gets the data, it updates the game state, and if it misses the data, or the data is slow, it attempts some sort of prediction. Who cares if the data is coming from one place (a central server) or from 3 different places (peer-to-peer model)? Why should your computer or your connection slow down because one of the clients is slow? Just like with the current client-server model... a server won't sit there forever waiting for the data from all the clients. In that case, if someone lagged out, the server would stop. I just don't see why a client would care if it's getting data from a server or from other clients. Does it really make a difference whether the server synchronizes the data for your computer instead of your computer synchronizing the data itself?

Maybe I'm missing something--I don't really know what id is doing, so any intelligent discussion is welcome.

Either way, Why is that better than client-server model? What happens to cheat prevention when there is no server than can do validation?

Oh yeah, and as for this point, I'm not too sure. I've been thinking that the peer-to-peer model for Doom3 is actually going to be the basis for the next id project, except the next project will be on a much larger scale. A game that can support tons of players because for each player that joins, the game gets more processing power (although perhaps uses more bandwidth!).

And as for cheat protection, I guess it's a glass is half empty/full thing. You say that there's no server that can do validation ... I say that in a peer-to-peer game of 4 people, there's 3 servers that can do the validation! Depends on how they've implemented it, I suppose... With my outlook, you'd have a problem with 2 people. I certainly don't want to see a return of the days where a game would stop because one of the players got out of synch. heh

DrEvil,
I'm not sure about the "synched to the slowest" thing, but IIRC the browser includes a chat room type set up that should help you avoid being tied down by people with slow connections. Good for setting the conditions for a game too.

As for cheat protection, if it's P2P I would think they could have your machine check incoming info and object to any imposibilities... or keep a log of it. Just a thought.

This comment was edited on Aug 18, 21:23.

jonathon7989: "P.S. Get a girlfriend nerd boys "

Well. first of all, my wife would object if I got a girlfriend... second of all, it always makes me laugh when somebody posting on a game site, definitely a "nerd boy" thing, says that. Welcome to Blue's nerd boy.

"So you think that peer to peer means that you're synchronized to the slowest player, huh?"

I've read mixed things about it. Some say it is synced to the slowest player, but that doesn't make sense. I'm more inclined to believe that it works by everyone sending their data to everyone else, rather than just a central server.

Either way, Why is that better than client-server model? What happens to cheat prevention when there is no server than can do validation?

Why are you guys freaking out and discussing this so early? First of all, I will agree Half-life 2 does look cooler right now BUT... We have seen more sources on Half-life 2. They have one video of D3 that doesn't really show that much. They have like 40 for Half-life 2. I dont think there is any need to judge D3 yet. I have faith that John Carmack will keep it under the legend.

P.S. Get a girlfriend nerd boys

I'll be damned if I'm going to play a game where my 2mbit cable connection is obsolete because some asshole on dialup refuses to leave the server or something.

So you think that peer to peer means that you're synchronized to the slowest player, huh?

wheres the logic in going back to a peer to peer model? doom worked fine cuz it was a LAN game. From what little I know about it, it looks like its a horrible idea for the internet. I'll be damned if I'm going to play a game where my 2mbit cable connection is obsolete because some asshole on dialup refuses to leave the server or something.

Does Doom3 still not have the ability to join games in progress? (read about that long time ago)

Any clarifications as to why they would go back to such a model that appears to be a bad idea for internet games?

They should remake Leisure Suit Larry with the D3 engine... and include the text parser as well

8 bit nintendo legend of zelda shoudl be remade with the D3 engine. with multiplayer it would be great.

the lighting model and the multiplayer modes are unrelated

what you describe is in essence light-lag

this kind of thing is neglegible

its a far cry from important compared to clipping or other gameplay calculations, when it comes to synchronizing for multiplayer

physics, etc, are all the same across clients, and can be predicted easilly.

regardless of accuracy, physics is something present in all games (realistic or not), and has been handled previously in a client/server model, and can be handled again in a C/S model.

more realistic technical limitations are :
" average pc sucks and wont run this smoothely with too many players "
+
" average net connection sucks too much to run this with too many players USING p2p "

and p2p systems have less lag in general than client/server models, so long as the node count is low.

hence, a low node count (4).

(C/S imagine everyone with 100 ping, that's 100 to the server, and 100 out to the next person, 200.

p2p, same situation, that's 100 to the next person.
half the latency.)

if everyone has to talk to everyone, your bandwidth required is (basic requirement * (number of players - 1))

so if you need 4 K a sec to sync with someone, thats 12 K a sec up for a 4 way game. thats about the limit of any 768/128 kb/s dsl connection

quake3 currently needs about 3K a sec to sync properly at minimum.

so you have some trade offs.
basically doom3 will have half the ping it would have had with a client server model, but will need more bandwidth.

note : p2p usually is designed in a way where it runs at the speed of the slowest node, so it may also suffer if you get an HPB on there, but maybe they did a work around for this. it would be obvious to do so, but historically people haven't, and it wouldn't be very unlikely for doom3 to have this issue.

-scheherazade

DOOM 3 engine will be scalable, just like all id engines in the past have been. So no, you don't need a uber PC to play the game. And Carmack's netcode has always been brilliant. Even DOOM's P2P play was revolutionarily fast for its time.

If I'm not wrong, DOOM 3 will be extremely moddable. Robert Duffy stated that almost all game-related files of DOOM (except for media files) can be open as a text file using notepad. All you need is to learn D3's scripting language if you want to edit any part of the game, or mod for it. Kinda like learning HTML and using it to create webpages via notepad.

Then you mentioned, "if there is so little emphasis on Multiplayer, what good is it going to present to the MOD community which help put Doom and Quake the hits/classics they are?"

If you could remember, the original DOOM only supports 4-player P2P MP. Yet even up till today, people are playing it for the sheer visceral experience. Heck, I've even replayed DOOM SP for nearly 20 times!

AFAIK, Carmack's choice for having P2P MP for DOOM 3 is because of technical limitations. The main culprit is D3's unified lighting system, in which light from all sources bears exactly the same properties and reacts the same way to its surroundings. Unlike every other game, the ULS in DOOM 3 rules out projected textures, light maps, shadowmaps, and all other lighting solution. Everything is generalised and all lighting and shadow calculations+rendering are to be handled in-engine. That's a far cry from the "dynamic lighting" produced by prerendered shadowmaps, as witnessed in games like Splinter Cell, Half-Life 2, or even Deus Ex 2 (though shadowmapping is used sparingly in DX2).

However, the brilliant visual experience produced by D3's ULS comes at a price, since to can't "generalised" the game environment using the client-server model. Sure you can do lighting estimations using client-server model, but that's just that. Estimations are not always accurate (due to different ping rates from different players), and not wanting to break the consistency of his lighting engine, Carmack decided to implement the P2P system for D3's MP.

IIRC, Carmack also stated that the physics engine in D3 will be a generalised solution for all ingame applications. Unlike other licensed physics engine, D3's will be fully integrated into the game's core source code, allowing the ingame physics and lighting to mesh seamlessly together. The precision of the physics model will also not allow for inaccuracies, especially in high speed MP DM, hence further attributing to Carmack's decision to solely implement P2P MP model.

Personally, I would rather sacrifice large MP player capacity for all the eye-candy and intense atmosphere of 4-player DMs. After all, I'm really tired of 32-players DM or TDM with noobs scoring high no. of "lucky" kills.

On to your last comment. DOOM 3 MP is gonna be scalable, believe it or not. Robert Duffy even hinted that a 8-player DM MOD can be easily achieved. With hardware advancements, you probably can have 16-player or even 32-player MP MOD in 2-3 years time. Id doesn't want to invest their time working on the MP portion because they expect ample participation from their fans. And what's wrong with SP MODs? They are the rearest and most valuable type of MODs in the community today. To me, a good SP MOD has longer shelf life (or disk life) than a good MP MOD, since the former is few and far between.

Finally, I would like to add that I'm very much in anticipation for DOOM 3's Single Player game. From the looks and sounds of it, it seems to be shaping up as a new System Shock, with better level designs, scarier and more bizarre monsters (demons), plus an exclusive trip to Hell!

Wasnt Hitman the first game to employ ragdoll?

~Halo

This comment was edited on Aug 17, 21:47.

MoNk
Yes I can believe id wouldn't care about multiplayer. Just like I can believe that Carmack expressed ragdoll physics as a gimmick then included it in a later build. Did you happen to read that interview? Probably not. It became very appearent that the graphic and computational load would bring online play to all but a halt unless one had an uber PC with T1 connection.

Maybe you should step back and realize if there is so little emphasis on Multiplayer, what good is it going to present to the MOD community which help put Doom and Quake the hits/classics they are. Are we going to have MOd teams making Single Player games? Do you foresee Modders taking the time to make 2 vs 2 multiplayer mods?
I will never say Doom 3 is going to suck, I am simply stating that single play has very limited appeal once the game is finished.

richcz3

This comment was edited on Aug 17, 17:38.

Richcz3, do the many press conferences and displays made by ID stating that DOOM III will be directed towards single player and that ID couldn;t really care less about multiplayer even ring a bell. And I suppose the fact that DOOM 3 won "Best of Show" 2002 E3, and has been and still is atop the lists of most wanted games in magazines like PC Gamer and on websites like GameSpy. ID is doing what no other company can do and that is develope a single player game that people will want to play, the whole idea of Doom III is to create a blockbuster title.

And to the comment before this one, Doom III will not blow, however, Half-life 2 won't either, both are going to be instant hits, and to tell you the truth, the people who buy one will buy the other, because true gamers support even the smallest of titles and will sample everything, for all you know, Half-life 2 gameplay could be the shitiest thing in the world and like many movie previews, you only got to see the best parts of the game in the E3 trailer. Don't bash before you've sampled there buddy. :-D

Just read what Hollenshead and others at id say about single player. That's the focus of Doom3. Not a bad thing, but in this day and age of 32+ multiplayer games, single player games are few and far between.
Even Quake IV will focus on Single Player. This a big irony in that both Doom and Quake blazed the trail for the many multiplayer games that followed.

The 4 player Doom3 deathmatch playing at 640x480 on PC's with unknown procs was not a pleasent surprise. id is going to have to pull a rabbit out their hat to convince gamers that this is the direction games are going to go.

richcz3

Doom 3 will suck!!! Dont any of you read any thing on the net half life 2 is going to destroy Doom 3 by a long shot. dont get me wrong doom is going to be a good game but half life 2 has a whole new engin with real time stough you have to read about it its all over the net. any way have fun with doom 3. while i will be having fun with half life 2.

This comment was edited on Aug 17, 11:12.

Well, that's the fundamental difference. Of course there's shitty art. I can make a recording of my own flatulence tuned to different pitches and claim that it moves me more than a Chopin sonata, but it's absurd to claim that my work would be equal to or greater than his.

Of course there are snooty and obnoxious and uninformed critics, but don't act like since experiencing art is personal everyone is equally informed about it and is just as qualified to judge it. There are plenty of people who don't know shit about music, and as a result we get crappy music that's really popular.

~Steve

I am of the opinion that there is no shitty art as well. Art to me is something that people have to experience and appreciate on their own. Yes, you can look at art that doesn't move you personnaly, and appreciate the skill put into it, but it's still art and it can be neither wrong nor right. Again, this is my view. I'm sure there are plenty of art "scholars" who would disagree. Mostly they just fancy the idea that might know more than other people, even if no one else cares. Don't even get me started on music and movie critics.

This comment was edited on Aug 16, 14:24.