DoomUK Posted August 20, 2004 Amaster said:Apples and oranges. Doom3 has a more cinematic look with lots of saturated colors and shiny surfaces. HL2 seems to be attempting more of a realistic look with light, "dry" colors and overall appearance. Seconded. You can't realy compare the two. 0 Share this post Link to post
S1lent Posted August 20, 2004 This is how I see it.. Doom - Single player HL - Multiplayer Want fun SP action? Get Doom 3. Want fun MP action? Get HL2 It's that simple :P 0 Share this post Link to post
fun-da-mental Posted August 20, 2004 I am not a HL2 fanboy but I honestly think HL2 to will be graphically and technically better than Doom3. Character models and facial animations in HL2 looks more realistic than plastic looking models Doom3. HL2 lighting system is more advanced and looks much better than than Doom3 ligthing system.(watch one of those HL2' DX9 blink videos). HL2 also will also feature large terrains, deformation, and advanced shader effects. http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide02_hi.jpg http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide05a_hi.jpg http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide05b_hi.jpg http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide13b_hi.jpg http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide16_hi.jpg 0 Share this post Link to post
Intel17 Posted August 20, 2004 fun-da-mental said:I am not a HL2 fanboy but I honestly think HL2 to will be graphically and technically better than Doom3. Character models and facial animations in HL2 looks more realistic than plastic looking models Doom3. HL2 lighting system is more advanced and looks much better than than Doom3 ligthing system.(watch one of those HL2' DX9 blink videos). HL2 also will also feature large terrains, deformation, and advanced shader effects. http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide02_hi.jpg http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide05a_hi.jpg http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide05b_hi.jpg http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide13b_hi.jpg http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide16_hi.jpg You couldnt be more wrong. Your mighty Half Life 2 is based on vertex lighting and lightmaps, which pale in comparison to Doom3's per-pixel lighting. Also all the lightsources in the Doom3 engine are unified, so everything is lit the same way and in real time. most of HL2's lighting is precomputed or per-vertex. Doom3 has a Cg interface which allows for any shader effects you see in HL2, but id chose not to utilize it much. Do your research before posting. 0 Share this post Link to post
Naitguolf Posted August 20, 2004 those screenies looks very nice but light seems very static. (i know its a screenshot) 0 Share this post Link to post
Linguica Posted August 21, 2004 Intel17 said:You couldnt be more wrong. Your mighty Half Life 2 is based on vertex lighting and lightmaps, which pale in comparison to Doom3's per-pixel lighting. Also all the lightsources in the Doom3 engine are unified, so everything is lit the same way and in real time. most of HL2's lighting is precomputed or per-vertex. Doom3 has a Cg interface which allows for any shader effects you see in HL2, but id chose not to utilize it much. Do your research before posting.SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP I SWEAR TO GOD I AM GOING TO BAN THE NEXT PERSON TAKING SOME IMAGINARY DOOM3 VS HALFLIFE2 RIVALRY SERIOUSLY 0 Share this post Link to post
DaJuice Posted August 21, 2004 They are static. I will say this, I think id software pulled the plug on precomputed lighting too early. It is still useful in areas where doom3's engine has a deficit. Its advantage is that it can simulate an enormous number of lights or radiosity, and it can give the illusion of soft and natural lighting, hence HL2's near photoreal appearance (in some places at least). With Doom you have the advantage of a true unified light system, but for performance reasons the number of actual lights you can put into a map is pretty small. This presents a rather big limit on the kind of visuals you can achieve. If you could put 300 lights in a map that wouldn't be a problem, a skilled lighter can do a good job faking radiosity with a lot of fill lights, and you'd still have the advantage of a true unified lighting system. But the hardware just isn't there yet. So in some ways the doom3 engine was actually a step backwards. 2 steps forward, 1 step back kind of thing. 0 Share this post Link to post
tsareppsun Posted August 21, 2004 From what I've reading and seeing on Doom3 after it's release people seem to me is saying the same things like when after Quake3 came out years back. Once you get past the superb quality graphics and *******, then the complaints start. The games to liener, The game's to dark, the AI is weak, not long enough, this, that, blah, blah, blah......... Why doesn't this suprise me. We(*OR MAYBE JUST ME) wanted doom to have MOST if not ALL of the coolest elements that made most of the todays BEST FPS standout. But what we got is an outstanding beautifully graphic masterpiece that was almost wasted on an old and played out 1st person concept. Simplistic, you against the world, room to room, run-an-gun shooter. FPS has EVOLVED to damn much since those days that old school simple run-an-gun stuff just not going cut it today. And from what I've expierence in the 1st HL, the people at VALVE understand this better than anybody. After all, they set EVOLVE pace in FPS. That why I know HL2 is going to out do DOOM3. Maybe not in terms in graphic quality, but overall fps style. 0 Share this post Link to post
Crisis King Posted August 21, 2004 The only major flaw in the Source engine is the SHADOWS! They're garbage. This is meant to be a next generation game yet characters' shadows are in a different direction to the buildings shadows. I've seen shadows that are cast on a guy and he's standing next to a pole and there is no shadow on the pole. Also sometimes the shadows don't even connect to the characters foot sometimes. It's garbage, they need to implement realtime lighting in that source engine! I'll get screens for you if you want... 0 Share this post Link to post
Wobbo Posted August 21, 2004 Regardless, the gameplay will be better in the SP, although that isnt saying THAT much. Graphics dont make a great game, as doom3 has just proved. Graphically doom3 is revolutionary, but it isnt a awesome game overall 0 Share this post Link to post
Kinsie Posted August 21, 2004 Crisis King said:The only major flaw in the Source engine is the SHADOWS! They're garbage. This is meant to be a next generation game yet characters' shadows are in a different direction to the buildings shadows. I've seen shadows that are cast on a guy and he's standing next to a pole and there is no shadow on the pole. Also sometimes the shadows don't even connect to the characters foot sometimes. It's garbage, they need to implement realtime lighting in that source engine!I highly doubt you'll notice when you're being attacked by nasty flying things, zombies, a corrupt police state and the Illuminati. 0 Share this post Link to post
wildweasel Posted August 21, 2004 I care nothing about graphics. If the game is good, I'll play it. As for gameplay...let me put it this way, I play games so long as they aren't steaming piles of crap, or games in genres that I don't play (sports and MMO games). Neither HL2 nor Doom3 are steaming piles of crap. 0 Share this post Link to post
KLittle123 Posted August 21, 2004 wow didn't know that I would start this big of a topic. I was just wandering if the graphics were good. 0 Share this post Link to post
Linguica Posted August 21, 2004 It's been a long time since I cared about graphics in a game. Sure it can't be monstrously ugly but I don't give a shit if that texture has 4 shaders on it or 44. Oh no the shadows arent projected the same direction as the building shadows. Well this game is thus unplayable, time to toss it in the refuse heap. Doom 3's engine is very nice but it's no more "realistic" than anything else. Yes those shadows are cast realistically but they're also blacker than india ink. 0 Share this post Link to post
KLittle123 Posted August 21, 2004 Ralphis said:DOOM3 FUCKING SUCKS HALFLIFE 2 IS GOD mmm Im a big fan of Doom 3 but I have to ask you something...how do you know that Half Life 2 is god. You haven't played it. Like many people in this topic have said graphics don't matter. Maybe the graphics are good and the gameplay really blows. 0 Share this post Link to post
Crisis King Posted August 21, 2004 Linguica said:It's been a long time since I cared about graphics in a game. Sure it can't be monstrously ugly but I don't give a shit if that texture has 4 shaders on it or 44. Oh no the shadows arent projected the same direction as the building shadows. Well this game is thus unplayable, time to toss it in the refuse heap. Doom 3's engine is very nice but it's no more "realistic" than anything else. Yes those shadows are cast realistically but they're also blacker than india ink. Well we are talking about a "Next Generation" game here aren't we? Imagine if all the new games/engines such as Unreal Engine 3 weren't making progress. If that were the case and no companies tried to improve their engines we'd still be playing on the Build engine or the original Doom engine...All I'm saying is with "Source" being a next-generation DX9 engine, I'm sure they couldv'e done something better with their Nintendo-like shadows. I agree about Doom 3's shadows though. No shadow is 100% black. 0 Share this post Link to post
Use Posted August 21, 2004 KLittle123 said:mmm Im a big fan of Doom 3 but I have to ask you something...how do you know that Half Life 2 is god. You haven't played it. Like many people in this topic have said graphics don't matter. Maybe the graphics are good and the gameplay really blows. hah don't you know anything? ralphis is one of the programmers of hl2 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaviro Posted August 21, 2004 Use3D said:hah don't you know anything? ralphis is one of the programmers of hl2 That would actually be an improvement. 0 Share this post Link to post
chilvence Posted August 21, 2004 DaJuice said:So in some ways the doom3 engine was actually a step backwards. 2 steps forward, 1 step back kind of thing. It could have been a bit premature, but I reckon Carmack probably did it just for the sake of being different. Doom 3's engine seems to do other things different from the crowd as well, eg portals instead of BSP. So if anyone was going to experiment with this new stuff, why not id ;) Also, I think for now at least, there isnt really anything limiting about Doom 3's lighting method, as far as game style goes. To me its not really any better or worse than pre-compiled lightmap lighting, its just nice to have a different way of doing it. Though they werent actually on D3's engine, Thief 3 and DX2 (whatever you want to say about the gameplay) both looked very nice and show that as long as the game is dark, it doesnt matter what the subject is. The main thing is, that we're still a long way from having fully dynamic soft shadowed radiosity lighting in real time, so while Doom 3's technique is by no means the ultimate, it still gives people a whole new set of tools to play with. Now we can try out things that previously were not even possible. Which is nice :) 0 Share this post Link to post
Verdale Posted August 21, 2004 Crisis King said:The only major flaw in the Source engine is the SHADOWS! They're garbage. This is meant to be a next generation game yet characters' shadows are in a different direction to the buildings shadows. I've seen shadows that are cast on a guy and he's standing next to a pole and there is no shadow on the pole. Also sometimes the shadows don't even connect to the characters foot sometimes. It's garbage, they need to implement realtime lighting in that source engine! I'll get screens for you if you want... Those are old screenshots, ValVe already told us they fixed that problem, mostly because me and the guys at the Half-Life forums over at Sierra pointed it out. Don't ask why they didn't fix it before-hand, but according to Lombardi (yes, I know he was the one that said HL2 would not be delayed) the shadow problem has been corrected. And, I for one, could care less if HL2 has lower quality graphics, at least I'll get a higher framerate then. I really like the "dry-brush" look on all the textures that give it that realistic look. Doom III has a nice "heavy arcrylic paint" feel to it, which is good considering the location (metal mars on base being invaded by Hell). Both have their ups and downs and you can't compare them, because Half-Life 2 isn't even out yet. Once you have played through Half-Life 2, you can compare them. Until then don't say "DOOM 3 SUX, HALFLIFE 2 IS GOD" or visa versa, because really, we don't know that. 0 Share this post Link to post
KLittle123 Posted August 21, 2004 Use3D said:hah don't you know anything? ralphis is one of the programmers of hl2 No way, is he seriously? 0 Share this post Link to post
Deathmatcher Posted August 21, 2004 tsareppsun said:FPS has EVOLVED to damn much since those days that old school simple run-an-gun stuff just not going cut it today. And from what I've expierence in the 1st HL, the people at VALVE understand this better than anybody. After all, they set EVOLVE pace in FPS. That why I know HL2 is going to out do DOOM3. Maybe not in terms in graphic quality, but overall fps style. You know, I like the way the fps genre has evolved over the years. And whenever a new fps comes up with new features or a new kind of sub-gameplay (in addition to the actual "shoot everything that moves"-gameplay) I can´t wait to play it. But id has always shown a kind of different attitude, one, that really caters to my taste. They don´t try to re-invent the genre by creating gameplay like HL, NOLF, Jedi Knight II (or whatever examples you like) but instead they create a real great new engine. And only by means of this engine, they create a true unique atmosphere and the gameplay derives from it. So, they do the gameplay that they´ve done 10 years ago - but still, it´s a unique and new look and feel when you play the game. And that´s why I love id and their games. Every single time they do a new game, they achieve the goal to create a new step of immersion in terms of gameplay by simply putting the same kind of gameplay that they´ve always done into this new phenomenal engine. Of course, I like other games, and if a game with a really good and innovative gameplay comes up with a good graphics engine - so much the better. So you could say, that I really like playing super-innovative fps with good to average engines, but I LOVE playing id games for their superior graphics, as these add so much immersion and depth to the game experience - even if the gameplay is rather average. 0 Share this post Link to post
Naitguolf Posted August 21, 2004 i agree with Deathmatcher. ID make their games as easy as can be to play, but inmersive and FUN to play as any complex game out there. 0 Share this post Link to post
Xulld Posted August 21, 2004 chilvence said:It could have been a bit premature, but I reckon Carmack probably did it just for the sake of being different. Doom 3's engine seems to do other things different from the crowd as well, eg portals instead of BSP. So if anyone was going to experiment with this new stuff, why not id ;) Also, I think for now at least, there isnt really anything limiting about Doom 3's lighting method, as far as game style goes. To me its not really any better or worse than pre-compiled lightmap lighting, its just nice to have a different way of doing it. Though they werent actually on D3's engine, Thief 3 and DX2 (whatever you want to say about the gameplay) both looked very nice and show that as long as the game is dark, it doesnt matter what the subject is. The main thing is, that we're still a long way from having fully dynamic soft shadowed radiosity lighting in real time, so while Doom 3's technique is by no means the ultimate, it still gives people a whole new set of tools to play with. Now we can try out things that previously were not even possible. Which is nice :) And could very well lead to effects that are more advanced than we would have thought or lead to a discovery of limitations and a possible solution, having different methods and exploring the outer bounds is what keeps the software tech advancing. 0 Share this post Link to post
SyntherAugustus Posted August 21, 2004 I'm probably going to end up preordering HL2 when it gets gold, but not now, I have quite a small amount of money these days. CS:* will always be just a modification to me. 0 Share this post Link to post
Scuba Steve Posted August 21, 2004 tsareppsun said:FPS has EVOLVED to damn much since those days that old school simple run-an-gun stuff just not going cut it today. And from what I've expierence in the 1st HL, the people at VALVE understand this better than anybody. After all, they set EVOLVE pace in FPS. That why I know HL2 is going to out do DOOM3. Maybe not in terms in graphic quality, but overall fps style. It's too bad they don't know about delivering products on their release date lol 0 Share this post Link to post
Combustable Posted August 21, 2004 It's a goddamn game! Get over it. Oh yeah, Ralphis' wit = godlike 0 Share this post Link to post