Torque - good enough in 2004+?

#1 I believe, the short answer is Yes.

The long answer...

First, I think perhaps you are asking,
"Will I be able to write a game that has competetive graphics, AI, sound, and performance (among other factors)?"

Yes and No.

To match up-and-coming graphics, you will have to make engine changes, or hope that others do in your absence. AI? Same answer. In fact, I don't see why Torque can't be adjusted/tweaked to match any specific feature you will see in a 2004 game.

Will Torque have all the features found in the latest-and-greatest multi-million dollar budget game? No. I doubt it.

Anyway, I think as an Indie, you shouldn't focus as much on competing with big studio productions as with making a game with good playable (and hopefully replayable) content. Granted, spiffy graphics are a selling point, but that is only one factor reviewers look at.

Remeber, a real saving factor is the GG community. We have many really talented folks adding cool gee-whiz features all of the time. That said, I hope you come back after your stint in the Army and make your own contribution as well as your own game. I'm sure we'll still be here to say, "Welcome back!"

[edit] I just thought of one more thing: Consider that the Torque engine as it stands actually has features in it now that you won't likely see (at the level they are here) in a 2004 engine.
Example:
-- Torque has an Excellent Scripting Engine (very nicely integrated).

Others may argue with me, but I do think that Torque is more scriptable and accessible via scripting than any game that I've had experience with. (pls don't hit me too hard if you think I'm wrong ;) )

#2 You'll have the source code, so you can upgrade it till your hearts content. That, and add a years worth a updates and resources by the community... I think it will be just fine in 2004.

I'm joining the Army too, so I'm in the same situation. Not worried about it at all.

But really.. what other option is there? $100 for a real good engine that might not be on the bleeding edge of technology (but still real nice) in a few years vs. an engine that costs more than my house that will be average in a few years. I can live with a slightly lesser engine if it means I'm saving $199,900 :)

#3 Thx you guys for exhaustive answers.

Give me that AK47, I am ready to go :).

#4 I spent 8 years in the Army. Good luck fellas and make the most of it. My unit going to Dahran in 1990 was the turning point of my life. Wouldn't change anything.

To answer the question, you bet! This community shines above all other IMO. And with such a community, updates will happen faster than any engine not currently funded by a major publisher.

Once again, good luck, and keep your damned head down!

BTW, that's where I got my nickname.

#5 No, out of the box in and in its current state, Torque won't be anywhere near the state of the art engines for 2004.

In fact, I don't think Torque is anywhere near state of the art engines from last year (maybe even the year before that).

That said, it shouldn't stop you from making a cool game.

#6 Queue the diehards.

#7 I think you'll enjoy the Service, I'm in the Air Force and I've enjoyed it so far (but I would change a few of my decisions if I could). Stay safe in the Army man and good luck.

#8 Actually Torque doesn't need much to compete with the latest engines. The latest engines aren't much better then Torque, Unreal uses quit a bunch of cheap tricks that could easely be implemented in Torque to get the same effect (or even better)

#9 The strange thing about technology, is that in general, technology tends to make it EASIER to create great graphics, rather than harder.

For instance, many years ago, we used to have to write a software rasterizer. Then we had to write all sorts of trickery to cull triangles, recently we had to use loads of sophisticated culling algorithms.

Now, its basically a matter of throwing things at the card as fast as the processor can handle it, using as simple a pipe as possible.

So, in effect, much of the trickery involved in torque is for LOW end machines, for high end machines, its relatively painless in adding all the things you see in other engines (because essentially, theyre easy to do, like using the hardware to cull grid-based mesh instances, or switching on a specific shader and letting it light the scene).

As has been said before though, technology doesnt make games. It very rarely sells them, much better to focus on gameplay, content and quality than trying to copy the latest engines.

Phil.

PS: read plans from John Carmack or Tim Sweeney to understand about how graphics pipelines have changed.

#10 I think that, looking back on the past year, the Torque engine as we know it will not be the Torque engine of 2004. Look at all the stuff that has been added through the contributions of the community.

#11

Quote:Queue the diehards.

Here we go again... (and again, and again...)

I think it's easy to blame our lack of experience and/or talent on a game engine. Granted, I have not tried the venerable UT2003, but I can not think of a single current (3D) computer game that can not be made with Torque given time and finances.

Battlefield1942 comes to mind. I've only demo'd it, but that game could have well been made with the Torque engine. The only part I spotted that isn't stock TGE (for the most part) was the reflection of the Sun off the ocean. Everything else, art-wise, was just nice textures and models.

Will Torque be competitive with DoomIII? Nah.
Does it need to be? Nah.
Which of us, here, need that kind of power?

But who knows. One of our 'leet' members may make a twenty-pass shader and put it in resources. One of the neater byproducts of the GG setup.

-Eric Forhan, MRT

EDIT: properly used the QUOTE markup lite so no one would mistakenly think I originally said that first. :-)

#12

Quote:Queue the diehards

When I said great community, I didn't mean crap like this of course. But, sarcastic comments by true guru's of game creation (counter sarcasm) leave the rest of the community with even more of a desire to see this indie experiment succeed.

That's really what this whole damned thing is about. Nothing else. So will Torque be good enough? You bet.

#13 Actually, there is stuff in BF1942 that Torque can't do right out of the box -- I'm thinking of object and vehicle interactions, like driving a tank onto the wing of a bomber, or jumping from the top of a building to the top of a tank.

However, it's been acknowledged that this kind of advanced physics is what has caused the HORRENDOUS server load and overall lag and network suckage in BF1942.

I think BF1942 is an EXCELLENT example to look at. In fact, it may well have been a better-looking game if made with Torque. You wouldn't have had the horribly laggy vehicles. I mean, dear God, a carrier that any dickweed can drive? With the lag that causes, they should have allowed admins to set a PASSWORD on carrier driving. Or more intelligently, they should have made the carrier waypoint-navigated, which would have made client-side prediction much smoother.

But again, this is a great example. Can Torque do it? Hell yeah. And in a lot of ways, better. You can make your own maps with Torque; I think this is still impossible (or at least impractical) with BF1942.

UT2k3? Hell, the whole engine is basically about ease of content creation, nothing more really. Otherwise, it's just about tossing polys at the graphics card.

Then there are the truly cutting-edge engines, like Doom 3. But just like the Q3 engine before it, there are trade-offs; for both Q3 and Doom3, content creation tools lagged behind engines capabilities. For instance, compiling Q3 levels. :P And in Doom3, it gets worse -- renderbumping? Doh! You need a Hollywood-quality model to begin from.

I like to think of those kind of engines -- very cutting-edge, but not particularly flexible -- as Formula One race cars. They're blisteringly fast, but very expensive, and not good for, say, street racing or a drive through the back country. Plus, they aren't comfortable. :)

Sure, Unreal and to a lesser extent Lithtec are great products, great tools. But so is a Lamborghini. I'll go with a Mustang any time.

#14 By diehards, I meant people that would BS someone into believing torque is currently (or in the near future) going to compete with any of the big leaguers.

As I also said, it really doesn't need to and doesn't stop anyone from making an enjoyable game.

However, it just goes to show how out of touch with reality some members of the community are.. and it's sad.

Be objective, be realistic, and enjoy what you are doing.

#15

Quote:However, it just goes to show how out of touch with reality some members of the community are.. and it's sad.

Now, that's funny.

-Eric Forhan, MRT

#16 Hey Luc, I meant to say that: yeah, I oversimplified the amount of programming needed for a Torque Bf1942. I was looking at it from more of an artistic viewpoint. I probably should have said that almost any game is going to take a significant amount of programming.

Airplane physics is a good example, too. :-)

Thanks for your insight, though. I understand that Torque's Net code is still state-of-the-art?

-Eric

#17 Although Torque's netcode is extremely well done, I seriously doubt it is still state of the art.

It still works perfect though, so I think it's probably the last thing torque needs for revising.

Today, there's probably better compression routines, packet design, etc.

#18 one thing EVERYONE seems to forget to mention is Audio. That is probably the most lacking part of the engine. Torque is serverly lacking in the audio feature support. I mean even Half-Life has player to player communications. And Torque IS lacking in the graphics department. The graphics for interiors in Torque are severly behind the interiors in Half-Life. The exterior engine part of Torque WILL be well behind the commerical engines very quickly. I believe the network code won't age nearly as quickly and is definately the most robost and strongest portion of the Torque package, not unless the fundemental basics of the internet change anytime soon.

All that said, you get the source code and it is definately possible to address any of these flaws yourself, that is if you see them as flaws.

#19 I guess it's a matter of opinion. I have no idea how much some of you guys have worked with Torque. I think that we cannot lay blame on the engine for our lack of experience and/or hard work. I do agree the engine needs work, but as I've been here from back in the "V12" pre-release days I've always known that. Maybe it's this that gives me a different perspective. Maybe it's from working with the engine for almost two years and having a better feel for it.

Jarrod, I'm not sure how we can get better than Dolby 5.x Surround sound? As for the communication you are talking about (if I understand you correctly): I'm not sure this has been implemented well on any game? Perhaps better left to TeamSound and Roger Wilco?

-Eric Forhan, MRT

#20 Jarrod is right. Altough I'm not to worried about audio... its the indoors that bother me a bit. But like I said, that can be solved using a couple of tricks. The indoor graphics for Unreal aren't that good. 90% of the levels are static meshes, something that can be done in Torque too. The difference with Torque is that these meshes are used to build the lightmaps too, then the meshes are rendered bright or darker depending on where they are standing....so basically this should be possible too by just changing map2dif a bit.
Torque can also handle 512*512 textures (ok, unreal is using 1024*1024...), but that doesn't seem to change much to the graphic quality because of the horrible mipmap effect on interiors.