Quake Wars Video from nVidia's GeForce 8800 launch

B

Burpy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
504
quakewarsstart.jpg


This footage was first shown at nVidia's GeForce 8800 launch event.
Video Shows several minutes of gameplay footage from the "Ark" mission.

- nVidia Geforce 8800 launch video - 198MB

- Quake Wars nVidia 8800 launch video @ nVidia
- Quake Wars nVidia 8800 launch video @ FileFront
- Quake Wars nVidia 8800 launch video @ FileShack
- Quake Wars nVidia 8800 launch video @ Planet Quake 4

- Quake Wars nVidia 8800 launch video @ GameTrailers - Streaming HD QT
- Quake Wars nVidia 8800 launch video @ GameTrailers - Streaming HD WMP
- Quake Wars nVidia 8800 launch video @ PlanetQuake4 - Streaming Flash Video
 
looks good but doesnt like like "next gen" or anything.... just looks like a good looking dx9 game...
i mean draw distances and srtufff are good, and some effects, but doesnt looks ground breaking..
 
Yeah, that looks great. I'm really looking forward to it. It'll be a good excuse to upgrade for me.
 
I thought it looked a bit um...underwhealming?

It doesn't look bad but for a game thats been delayed and is essentially a DX9 title at the end of the DX9 era it's not turning out to be anything impressive :/
 
Frosteh said:
I thought it looked a bit um...underwhealming?

It doesn't look bad but for a game thats been delayed and is essentially a DX9 title at the end of the DX9 era it's not turning out to be anything impressive :/
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing when I saw the video yesterday. Some of the other videos I have seen make it look like it has the gamplay down and should be fun, but graphics wise, etc. Looks like just about every other decent DX9 game. Nothing really "wowed" me in the video. Actually kept thinking to myself "Why do they have a guy that sucks this bad doing the movie?" :p Doesn't highlight anything, no new features shown, and is incredibly slow paced.

Meh, we will have to wait and see. I knew 2142 would flop before the demo even came out. Just gonna sit back and wait for more info/reviews to roll in before I decide on this one.
 
ffs why the hell they use quicktime? i refuse to install that piece of shit.
 
Sweet!!! and its linux as well!!!

going to rock this (perfect excuse for ppl to check out linux as well)
 
this game is not direct x 9.. its using the doom engine, which is OpenGL.. stop saying crap if you have no idea what your talking about
 
mjz_5 said:
its using the doom engine, which is OpenGL
Click to expand...

Although, I'm pretty sure you are right about Carmack coding in strict OpenGL. Prey used the Doom 3 engine as well and was D3D.
 
Frosteh said:
I thought it looked a bit um...underwhealming?

It doesn't look bad but for a game thats been delayed and is essentially a DX9 title at the end of the DX9 era it's not turning out to be anything impressive :/
Click to expand...
I hope you and a few other people arn't making decisions about a game based on it's graphics. Who cares? I want a fun game.
 
Banyan said:
ffs why the hell they use quicktime? i refuse to install that piece of shit.
Click to expand...
Use the wmp streaming link.


Yeah that video wasn't as impressive as others I've seen.
I don't think ET QW was promising to be "next gen".
Like people have said, it's based off the doom3 engine with some new tech
like megatexture. I think the gameplay will deliver.

I never had any doubts that Crysis and even UT2007 will be superior graphically.
 
mjz_5 said:
this game is not direct x 9.. its using the doom engine, which is OpenGL.. stop saying crap if you have no idea what your talking about
Click to expand...

Apologies on this one, however my point was not about what technology it was using rather how good it looked for era it's produced in.

The game doesn't really offer up anything new graphically, I don't even think it looks that good from the video, a lot of the geometry is really basic.

I hope you and a few other people arn't making decisions about a game based on it's graphics. Who cares? I want a fun game.
Click to expand...

We all play for different reasons, some people play for fun, others play to escape to a reality which is not part of their every day one, the more imersive the game is the more you feel encapsulated in another reality, this is especially important in games like RPG's or any game where the world has been designed to pull you in like that.

Gameplay is important but if a game doesn't have decent graphics for me personally it makes me think twice about buying it.

*edit*

Oh yeah and if you want to play quicktime media or just about any other media formats then download VLC media player, you install the media player and that's it, it comes with it's own codecs for everything, I rarely come across anything it cannot play.
 
Looks like a HL2 and Doom3 mix. Nothing ground breaking.. maybe more smooth..
 
do you want to look and the rendered grass or shoot some thing!!!

if I wanted real-life killing I would of joined the marines.


plus anyway looks a whole lot better then BF2/2142
 
beanman101283 said:
Quicktime Alternative FTW!
Click to expand...

VideoLAN's VLC player FTW!, I think you'll find :D

I'm a bit shocked by this, tbh. It looks nice enough, but unfortunately I don't have the same PC budget as ID do. As for gameplay, I was excited from what i'd read but that video just seems more vague and rambling than BF2 did. The guns seem nice enough, and the explosion effects impressive (though the FEAR-style shockwaves are a bit dubious), and it's nice to see that there's a substantial sprint period, but it seems the knifing is even more fucked than 2142, and it's a lot less intense and far more vehicle-oriented. But that's just one map, of course.

I'll probably end up getting it anyway, as it's one of those titles. It just doesn't seem to be shaping up in any way other than impressive explosions so far :(
 
hmm it looks kind sparse as far as stuff, goes, and the guys look like stick figures, not meaty kick ass guys.

but probably if i play i will like it :D


-Pharacon
 
BF 1942 wasn't anything special graphics wise but all know how well it did.
 
IceWind said:
Please, its better then most avi and mpeg coded shit stuff out their :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Fact: XviD AVIs are the best.

I'm glad that OpenGL isn't dead yet. OpenGL has a way higher IQ/minimum hardware ratio than D3D ever dreamed of having. Kudos to ID for continuing to use a clearly superior albeit more difficult to code for API. I seriously do not know what will happen to gaming when ID exists the industry.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Fact: XviD AVIs are the best.

I'm glad that OpenGL isn't dead yet. OpenGL has a way higher IQ/minimum hardware ratio than D3D ever dreamed of having. Kudos to ID for continuing to use a clearly superior albeit more difficult to code for API. I seriously do not know what will happen to gaming when ID exists the industry.
Click to expand...

its the true cross-platform backend.
DX means windows and Xbox

OpenGL means Windows,linux,MAC,Wii,PS3...


OpenGL is actually very good. it got stalled (at 2.0 for well over a year) as the owners were loosing money (2.0 >DX9 for hardware). Problem was the s/w front and all s/w games were OpenGL-1.4 ( somewhere between DX9 and DX8).

However, licence was sold and big movement in OpenGL. OpenGL-2.1 specs got signed off and nvidia have support for it in their new drivers, hopefully QW uses OpenGL-2.0 since GL-1.4 is dated
 
Dated or not, no one can deny that Quake 4 was without doubt the best looking game that required the least hardware of this generation. Heck, Quake 4 on my dad's 6200 looked and ran as good as Far Cry on my 6800nu.
 
Compared to all the other videos, this video doesnt excite me. The graphics look good, but the gameplay looks boring. Looks way to open, and just a tiny shootout here and there.
 
Yes VLC player loaded this particular .mov file just fine, it's run quicktime for as long as I can remember, although the quicktime codecs change a fair bit so theres probably times when its lacked support for one of them.
 
Nate_MachV said:
Although, I'm pretty sure you are right about Carmack coding in strict OpenGL. Prey used the Doom 3 engine as well and was D3D.
Click to expand...

Linkage?
 
man i got all psyched up about a new video...and for what?
that was some lame shit. it was like 10 guys on a map, trying way too hard to look cool.

oh well, i still think it will kick ass.



and i think it is straight up ridiculous how many people are knocking it for its graphics.
who gives a fuck as long as its fun...
 
maybe directx is used for keyboard and mouse input, but not for the graphics part
 
Looks like quake wars is going for more gameplay innovations then graphics which is how the games should have their priorities in the first place. This looks like its going to put a nail in the BF franchise coffin... hopefully EA can go down in flames with its BF franchise. Quake Wars is the official BF killer :). Lets hope it lives up to that!
 
I think a lot of people (myself included) have dismissed it as a Battlefield killer ever since it was revealed that there would only be 24 players maximum.

Not to say its going to be a bad game (although the graphics/gamplay in that video aren't all that impressive) but the large scale battles have always been one of the biggest appeals of the Battlefield series.
 
We'll see how smooth it goes as opposed to BF and DICE/EA. If it launches with fewer issues and is less of a headache, it may very well be a BF 'killer'.
 
Banyan said:
ffs why the hell they use quicktime? i refuse to install that piece of shit.
Click to expand...
LOL, did it steal your girlfriend?

I could care less about where the graphics are at this stage. Alot of us that played WET know we didnt play it for the eye candy. I really like the fluid feeling you get when you play WET. I can see it in the videos for Quake Wars. It wont be much longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top