Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Intel17

Which Game do you think has the best Graphics?

Recommended Posts

hmm... i was actually thinking this as i posted. If that's the case then Doom is definately that much farther in the lead.

But i think both games implement DX9 function calls or however you say it. Both have per-pixel lighting, but yeah, Doom is the only one with exclusively dynamic, real-time lighting and no static lightmaps.

On another note, Far Cry's physics is pretty cool but often I find that the bodies remain in these partially standing positions after they're dead. It doesn't really matter, but it looks kinda funny. The whole momentum exchange works strangely too.

Half life's physics looks BAD ASS. I'm excited about that.

Share this post


Link to post

DOOM III

and

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. ("And this final section is our pride and joy, it's the Dx9 renderer. It's a full featured Dx9 renderer. Unlike other games(Far Cry) that have Dx9 features, this is everything included." E3)

Share this post


Link to post

This will be a great summer, as i am both a fan of the Half-life and DOOM series.

But if i were to choose between the two of them, i'll go with the FPS game that made me a fan of FPS games..... DOOM.
Then i'll check out Half-life 2.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think HL2 can compete with Doom3 in graphic-wise.
Doom3 still has the best graphic...

Share this post


Link to post
Crix said:

On another note, Far Cry's physics is pretty cool but often I find that the bodies remain in these partially standing positions after they're dead. It doesn't really matter, but it looks kinda funny. The whole momentum exchange works strangely too.

Half life's physics looks BAD ASS. I'm excited about that.

They use the same physics code.

Share this post


Link to post

Doom 3 looks ok (the alpha) HL2 ok too. Far Cry was ok too. But i vote a game wich i spent a lot of time whit it:
Morrowind is impressive. The nights are beautifull. And you can install some mods to make the game prettier.

Share this post


Link to post

They all look great...

But for Doom 3 to get its unified lighting model, it has to throw out realistic light effects like radiosity and HDR that shade and glare characters and objects in subtle and complex ways. As long as Valve can solve the overlapping double dark problem with its projected shadows, HL2's shadowing is going to get done most of the major "wow" elements of Doom3's lighting system (like a zombie creeping out of the dark with the shadows sliding over it) at a much reduced cost, leaving room for all sorts of other effects and much bigger and more complex environments. HL2 can also do real time lighting when it needs to: it's lighting effects have a very wide scale to accomodate a wide variety of effects and environments.

But of course we all still haven't seen the final product of Doom 3, so it might look significantly better than what we think based on the knowledge of the 2k3 trailer.

EDIT:Fixed a minor punctuation error.

Share this post


Link to post

you guys are comparing doom to the wrong games. I am a Unrealtournament2004 kinda person right now, and I have created some levels and when i looked at the new screen shots of doom3 i was shocked. Someone should really go and check it out because the static meshes and the textures are very much the same. Im sure the lighting and the new game engine will blow unreal 3.0 out of the water but the textures and the static meshes are almost scary alike. The graphics cant be that much better because unreal is breathtaking in detail and scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Naitguolf said:

Doom 3 looks ok (the alpha) HL2 ok too. Far Cry was ok too. But i vote a game wich i spent a lot of time whit it:
Morrowind is impressive. The nights are beautifull. And you can install some mods to make the game prettier.

Morrowind is definitely one of the best games in a few years. However, there haven't been any truly revolutionary graphics advancements in the past few years, and none are visible on the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the High Dynamic Randge and 64-Bit color (the two go together) count as a revolutionary graphics advancement.

you probably wont see them put to use until four or five years from now, because most developers would sacrifice the potential for more GPU power to be spent on Polygons, textures etc.

I think the most important advancement is gonna be having gigabytes of virtualized texture memory excactly as Carmack said... Basically streaming incredibly large amounts of texture data from anywhere, DVDs, Hard Drives, not just AGP.

with that technology you could go BACKWARDS in terms of polygons and ligthing and games would *still* look more photorealistic than they do now, as the major thing holding them back is really the textures. Also something Carmakc mentioned at quake con 2 years ago was that alot of the special effects you see in movies have nothing to do with advanced geometry of lighing effects, just really complex 2d texture manipulation

see http://www.daionet.gr.jp/~masa/rthdribl/ for a sorta approx of what i mean, its not 64 bit and the textures arent streamed but you get an idea of what im talking about

Share this post


Link to post

Wobbo said:with that technology you could go BACKWARDS in terms of polygons and ligthing and games would *still* look more photorealistic than they do now, as the major thing holding them back is really the textures.[/B]

I'd say it's more the lighting than the textures which is preventing games from looking photorealistic (although photorealism isn't really what I desire graphically).

Share this post


Link to post
Arioch said:

They use the same physics code.



I couldn't find any info that backs this up. Seems like they use their own code.

Share this post


Link to post

hey Wobbo, isn't the reason they don't do that already because of the high latency and low bandwidth of hard-drives/cd-roms as compared to onboard memory?

Share this post


Link to post
Crix said:

I couldn't find any info that backs this up. Seems like they use their own code.

Yeah, I see Havok mentioned in conjunction with Far Cry a lot, but I'm pretty sure they use their own proprietary system. It'd seem that way from the Cryengine licensing info.

Share this post


Link to post

In genearl beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Consider the fact that this is the Doom 3 forum. It is not surprising hearing many people praising for Doom 3 over other games. For myself, I am mixed in between Doom 3 and Half Life 2 at this point based on what I have seen so far. I have only looked at screenshots of Far Cry and Stalker so I can't say much about those two. Far Cry's graphics don't look real at all but more of a painting to me. Stalker has graphics that look incredibly realistic in certain aspects than Half Life 2 actually, however when I saw HL2 in motion in trailer, there is something in it attracting me in a great depth. Probably it is its atmosphere that makes it look different, but that is another case since we are supposed to focus on graphics in this thread. Although in many Doom 3 released shots objects in them quite often look blocky and sharp-edged, I have heard that the graphics in the game look better than what we see in screenshots and at this point I'm still holding their words for it until I see for myself. Also id's style of art is always as attractive as ever.

Share this post


Link to post
ToXiCFLUFF said:

I'd say it's more the lighting than the textures which is preventing games from looking photorealistic (although photorealism isn't really what I desire graphically).

I disagree. If you look outdoors, nobody really cares about individual shadows or soft ligthing... As AndrewB has mentioned, Doom3s lighting is a step BACk in realism in still shots

The only problem with Quake 2s lighting was that it was static, otherwise it was perfect- basically rasterization.

What really impresses people are complex textures, like being able to see tiny specs of dirt on class and extremely detailed patterns on clothing or whatever. Virtualized texture memeopry woudl make this possible with YESTERDAYS tech - remmeber that no matter HOW big a scene is it doesnt take up more that 8 mb or so in any still scene.

So you can imagine what will happen in the future

Share this post


Link to post

There's no question that Far Cry is stunning to look at, Half-Life 2 even more so from the videos and screens that I've seen so far. But you can't argue with the way Doom 3 is looking. As 999cop said, id's art is always in a class of it's own; D3 may not be on the "superrealistic" plane with HL2, Stalker etc but it's just so juicy to look at you want to eat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Wobbo said:

I disagree. If you look outdoors, nobody really cares about individual shadows or soft ligthing... As AndrewB has mentioned, Doom3s lighting is a step BACk in realism in still shots

The only problem with Quake 2s lighting was that it was static, otherwise it was perfect- basically rasterization.

There's just a different look to actual light and the lighting in games, which still looks pretty false. Q2's lighting could never really make any scene look photorealistic no matter how high-resolution the textures.

Share this post


Link to post

So it seems like the latency/bandwidth issues aren't really issues... what's up with that? Maybe ATI and nVIDIA don't like the idea because it messes up their marketing of "this great card with 128 onboard" vs "this mega card with 256 onboard." Just a thought.

Oh, and I feel compelled to tell everyone how cool Far Cry is. :) It's very Doomish in feel actually. There are cyberdemonesque monsters whose rockets are so damn loud... they scare the shit out of you the first time you hear them. Walking around in dark hallways is great with the monsters making noise in the distance... it has been reminding me of those days and nights back in middle school playing Doom, hah! All the swearing and jumping in my seat out of fear, it's been really fun reliving it all. Now I remember what Doom was all about, so I'm really looking forward to these feelings again, except in a more Satanic, gorey way, which is better >:)

Gameplay is difficult also, which was a big part of Doom for me. Having to play the same part over and over in order to get past. I wouldn't mind if Doom3 were based on an autosave/checkpoint format.

Far Cry is a real "sleeper" of a game. The totally boring cover art of the box does not do it justice. I thought it was going to be some cheezy vietnam type setting, but's it turns out it's nothing like I expected. Military mutation experiments gone wrong result in most of your enemies... damn, there are these mutants that spring at you very much like the new Imps that make me think that Imps are going to be a huge pain in the ass in Doom3.

Another great thing is the way the levels are setup. I realized a big part of feeling a sense of fun and challenge is walking into some room in the game and know it is there not necessarily because it's trying to be realistic, but because it provides a really fun/scary environment. When you can tell the level designers were sitting at their desks with an evil grin, trying to make your life hell... that's when a big smile crosses my face as I say "Oh shit..." and I run into the darkness, my heart pumping, my hands cold. The classic Doom environment of a room full of stacked boxes is a perfect example. Add some darkness and voices yelling at you and it's really perfect as far as fear factor. I just got past this type of room in Far Cry after a couple tries. It's really great to see that people out there know what works. :) Fortunately, the carnage will continue all summer. And I think Far Cry will have my aiming skills back in tune in time for Doom 3. Yay!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×