Doom 3 is screwed....
- Thread starter ApocalypseNow
- Start date
G
Gabe Himself
Guest
Im pretty sure he had an inkling....
marksmanHL2 :)
Spy
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 5,193
- Reaction score
- 0
lol, whatever. Gabe did once post here, just so you new people know. 
True story
WOW, i just noticed, i am a prowler. AND more importantly its mostly from usefull posts very different to this one.
oh.... i'll shut up now
True story
WOW, i just noticed, i am a prowler. AND more importantly its mostly from usefull posts very different to this one.
oh.... i'll shut up now
S
Sp0ck
Guest
Surak teaches that.....
"We have differences. May we, together, become greater than the sum of both of us." -Surak
As we meditate together on this saying, let us not create hostility a disharmony where there was none. Instead, let us remember that the sum of two great things that differ is always greater than the sum of two great thngs that are similar.
"We have differences. May we, together, become greater than the sum of both of us." -Surak
As we meditate together on this saying, let us not create hostility a disharmony where there was none. Instead, let us remember that the sum of two great things that differ is always greater than the sum of two great thngs that are similar.
G
Guest
Guest
Noobs? Noobs at what!?!
Lucifer Crass
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 0
Lol Doom 3 is gunna die within 1-2 months and i am glad, just another scare u game from a company based on pure looks and the ability to use all the best videocards and CPU's at max capacity
rather than playability and entertainment like Half-life 2 is doing
Because if u think about it all the Physics etc. all add to the game
but in Doom 3 the graphics take away from the game because of the FPS on lower end comps
rather than playability and entertainment like Half-life 2 is doing
Because if u think about it all the Physics etc. all add to the game
but in Doom 3 the graphics take away from the game because of the FPS on lower end comps
A
Arnaldo42
Guest
DooM³ has a revolutionary engine. Well they had it on that resolution for the multiplayer. But if you look at 5900 Ultra reviews, you'll see that it has been tested with the latest build of DooM³. And I'm glad to say (as a proud owner of a 5900 Ultra) that it does in DooM³ more than 60FPS in 1600X1200 with all settings on high. It does a HELL OF ALOT more FPS than any other card put to the test, including the Radeon 9800 Pro (256MB).
I consider the DooM engine alot more heavier and hardware demanding than the Half-Life² enigne. But remember that the DooM³ engine is state-of-the-art stuff than can easily rival first generation Pixar movies. For me the only revolutionary thing about the graphics engine in Half-Life² is the character models (the o eyes and facial expressions).
id Software (like Valve) is also making the engine as scalable as possible. That means that it'll run at a steady fram-rate with a middle class card. So you people saying that DooM is screwed because of the engine is wrong. DooM³ will not sell more than Half-Life², but it'll be as revolutionary in terms of graphics and sound.
DooM³ has graphics and sound, while Half-Life² has gameplay and mod support.
I consider the DooM engine alot more heavier and hardware demanding than the Half-Life² enigne. But remember that the DooM³ engine is state-of-the-art stuff than can easily rival first generation Pixar movies. For me the only revolutionary thing about the graphics engine in Half-Life² is the character models (the o eyes and facial expressions).
id Software (like Valve) is also making the engine as scalable as possible. That means that it'll run at a steady fram-rate with a middle class card. So you people saying that DooM is screwed because of the engine is wrong. DooM³ will not sell more than Half-Life², but it'll be as revolutionary in terms of graphics and sound.
DooM³ has graphics and sound, while Half-Life² has gameplay and mod support.
Flyingdebris
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 2,245
- Reaction score
- 5
I just hope they make the ai in doom 3 a little smarter. I just played the alpha a little while ago and decided to instead of kill everything, to lure monsters into other areas and see how well they navigate, interact with other monsters, etc.
it doesn't bode well. The pinky demon in level 2 could not jump over a simple railing to reach me, neither could it navigate 4 steps.
The same pinky didn't seem to have any reaction to a fat zombie that was wandering within the same area.
It also seems that therer are areas that zombies cannot follow you to, invivsible walls, per say.
I sure hope they fix that.
also the zombie commandos don't seem to have any noticable reaction to a fat zombie ambling around in front of him.
it doesn't bode well. The pinky demon in level 2 could not jump over a simple railing to reach me, neither could it navigate 4 steps.
The same pinky didn't seem to have any reaction to a fat zombie that was wandering within the same area.
It also seems that therer are areas that zombies cannot follow you to, invivsible walls, per say.
I sure hope they fix that.
also the zombie commandos don't seem to have any noticable reaction to a fat zombie ambling around in front of him.
DimitriPopov
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,384
- Reaction score
- 0
That opinion was thoroughly and clearly stated in your one sentence response "you damn newbs" :-/
Ridic
Tank
- Joined
- May 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
Its pathetic too....They bash games that cant even be compared.....like Max Payne 2 and HL2....you cant compare them. Its stupid to compare a fps with a 3rd person game. Since most of the time they are differenct in gameplay.
Also, ppl that bash doom3.....what ever you say probably dosnt make sense because doom3 is meant to look top notch and its meant to scare the shit out of you.
Flyingdebris
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 2,245
- Reaction score
- 5
i agree, a lot of people here think that if it doesn't equal counterstrike then it sucks
K
Kaban
Guest
I am on a truth campaign. I hate fanboys, I just can't figure out which fanboys I hate more, the Doom ones or the HL2 ones. Actually they both are incomprehensible load of fools. I'm surprised though, most of you guys aren't fanboys, I'm impressed even.
Before going into a discussion of the two games, their graphics, and what can be said and what can't be, I'd like to say that I beleive the intention of this thread on Half Life forums is a self ego boost. Whoever posts threads like this has confidense issues, and just screams "Doom 3 is screwed" in hopes that all his other fellow HL2ers scream the same thing to dismiss any thoughts that HL2 might be the one screwed (notice I'm not saying HL2 is screwed, I am just speaking out on threads like these). To the person who started this thread: if this was not your intention, I truly and deeply apologize. Let's move on.
Firstly the subject of framerates. Why did this game run on a high end machine with only 640x480 rez. There can be many reasons. There can be a bug with Linux and higher resolutions (the demo ran on Linux). Maybe they wanted to impress the people at how the game looked even at 640x480. Many people are spoiled and think that anything below 1024x768 is too low, and ID wanted to show them that's not true. And I think they've done that, everyone who came out of that booth said that 640x480 looked better than any game on any rez they have seen so far.
Most importantly I think they didn't want anyone experiencing any sort of hardware lag. Their MP is unoptimized, since it's a game that syncs every 60 seconds, any unoptimized network code is simply CPU strain. Higher resolutions might have lagged due to this, and they didn't want to dissapoint anyone.
And of course, they had to be aware of their audience. These guys who were at QuakeCon are the same people that play Quake III and RtCW at 200+ fps. The tournament machines I believe were capable of running those games at 500+ fps. These people are so spoiled that even a steady 40 fps would have appeared laggy to them. At least that seems logical.
Minimum requirements for Doom 3 are still 1GHz 256mb ram, with a GeForce 1 or a Radeon 7xxx. Please be sensible people.
Now onto graphics. Both HL2 and D3 look amazing. There are however some things that must be taken into consideration when comparing the two games.
First and most important thing to remember is that games look better when they are moving. When you stare at a screenshot, all the polygons and imperfections slowly creep out on you. In a video, or when playing a game, the little things are simply not noticed.
With that respect, Half Life has put out several incredibly high resolution movies. These are 1024x768. it's almost like a demo... that you cannot play. Doom III has put out two official movies, one of them is a fairly smudgy trailer encoded in your standard .MOVs or .MPEGS and the Legacy video which is considered hi-rez, also a .MOV or .MPEG and the legacy vid features maybe 20 seconds of doom footage at most.
2 smudgy vids are being compared to many super high rez ones. I think that's not fair to Doom. Also the official Doom screenshots are sparse compared to good HL2 ones.
I'd like to note that out of respect to ID Software no leaked material will be taken as a quality judge. If at some point ID used a solid red texture as a stand in for an imp texture, and that goe leaked, we wouldn't say "omg textures sux0r" would we? So we shouldn't judge anything in the leak.
From all I know about Doom 3 and Half Life 2, Half Life 2 has some things bump mapped, and Doom has everything bump mapped. Let's go into some comparison of Doom and Half Life in terms of graphics and detail, with examples of course.
Doom 3 has color appropriate to Doom 3. It's a horror game and when you're inside a mars base, you don't expect to see limestone walls. However, mars terrain looks like mars terrain in any movie (color wise), and so does hell (latest PC gamer screenshot, which sucks btw, but that's PC gamer's fault, not the engines's)
Example of martian terrain:
http://www.planetdoom.com/images/image.asp?screenshots/e32003/10.jpg
Also here's a nice red colorful pop machine:
http://www.planetdoom.com/images/image.asp?screenshots/e32003/17.jpg
(Quality of trailer captures are low, I know)
To those that speak of realism in HL2. I agree, the textures of Doom 3 are the best textures I"ve seen in many a game. However, when those textures are slapped on a flat surface, I don't fall for the illusion. It seems to actually look quite bad to me.
Example:
http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/half-life2/screenshots/07.jpg
Look at the rock jotting out of the water. It has 3 sides, and it forms a pyramid. On these 3 sides is slapped a hyper-realistic photograph of a texture, however I don't see any actual 3D in it. If I had to guess there was no bumpmapping here. It looks hi-rez but not hi-quality to me.
The whole subject of appearing plastic I think is very player-oriented. Some people percieve it one way, others not. When I look at the model in Half Life I see a lot of painted on detail, I don't see it as being quite real... just painted, even if it is in very high resolutions. When I look at Doom 3 I don't see as much texture detail, but I see more polygona detail, I see things smoother and more defined. Personally the latter seems to throw off my suspension of disbelief less than the former.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/screens.html?page=37
and
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=69
Both shots are very detailed. Both faces look very real. In the girl you can see skin, lips, eyes, nose... In the guy you can see all the same things. The skin looks fairly realistic... yet they look radically different.
Looking at these two shots my brain percieves the HL2 shot as being from a very well drawn cartoon, and Doom3 shot as being more of cinema realistic. It's hard to explain why exactly I think this way...
One example is that I don't see any blemishes and imperfections of the girl's skin. Looking at the security guard in Doom, I can see that the guy has his 5o'clock shadow, and he's not too keen on brushing his teeth. The girl looks like she came from a photoshoot, with all makeup done.
The major reason that many of you percieve Half Life to look more real is that it encompasses things that are more real. The maps are cities and buildings that do or can exist without stretching imagination. Military bases on mars don't really exist. Nor do spawns from hell. Guys in gas masks (combine soldiers) exist (not as combine soldiers, but as guys who don't want to breathe gas), and imps don't. Of course Half Life 2 looks more real.
The biggest problem I see with Half Life 2 is that some parts of it look amazing, and others look just OK. Some parts are brathtaking, with vivid characters, bumpmapped surfaces, others are "meh and beh"... In Doom everything looks equally good. Maybe the best looking scene in Half Life looks better than Doom 3. But I can tell you that Doom 3 looks better than many scenes in half life. It is this uniformity throughout all material that in my opinion helps a game encompass the person more, purely from a graphical standpoint.
It's really hard to argue again, because buildings and sci-fi bases look so different. When both games are out, I would like some mappers to take up a challenge. Make 2 maps for each game (4 maps total). One for each game will be a small part of a city, or an inside of the building. Something out of the real world. It is important that the basis of the map should be the same, but each map should be built in accordance to the capabilities of the game.
Then take some sci-fi'ish level and build it on both eginges.
Once all 4 maps are done they can be compared. It will be the same level done on two enginges. Only then can we say what looks better/real-er (not a word I know).
Before going into a discussion of the two games, their graphics, and what can be said and what can't be, I'd like to say that I beleive the intention of this thread on Half Life forums is a self ego boost. Whoever posts threads like this has confidense issues, and just screams "Doom 3 is screwed" in hopes that all his other fellow HL2ers scream the same thing to dismiss any thoughts that HL2 might be the one screwed (notice I'm not saying HL2 is screwed, I am just speaking out on threads like these). To the person who started this thread: if this was not your intention, I truly and deeply apologize. Let's move on.
Firstly the subject of framerates. Why did this game run on a high end machine with only 640x480 rez. There can be many reasons. There can be a bug with Linux and higher resolutions (the demo ran on Linux). Maybe they wanted to impress the people at how the game looked even at 640x480. Many people are spoiled and think that anything below 1024x768 is too low, and ID wanted to show them that's not true. And I think they've done that, everyone who came out of that booth said that 640x480 looked better than any game on any rez they have seen so far.
Most importantly I think they didn't want anyone experiencing any sort of hardware lag. Their MP is unoptimized, since it's a game that syncs every 60 seconds, any unoptimized network code is simply CPU strain. Higher resolutions might have lagged due to this, and they didn't want to dissapoint anyone.
And of course, they had to be aware of their audience. These guys who were at QuakeCon are the same people that play Quake III and RtCW at 200+ fps. The tournament machines I believe were capable of running those games at 500+ fps. These people are so spoiled that even a steady 40 fps would have appeared laggy to them. At least that seems logical.
Minimum requirements for Doom 3 are still 1GHz 256mb ram, with a GeForce 1 or a Radeon 7xxx. Please be sensible people.
Now onto graphics. Both HL2 and D3 look amazing. There are however some things that must be taken into consideration when comparing the two games.
First and most important thing to remember is that games look better when they are moving. When you stare at a screenshot, all the polygons and imperfections slowly creep out on you. In a video, or when playing a game, the little things are simply not noticed.
With that respect, Half Life has put out several incredibly high resolution movies. These are 1024x768. it's almost like a demo... that you cannot play. Doom III has put out two official movies, one of them is a fairly smudgy trailer encoded in your standard .MOVs or .MPEGS and the Legacy video which is considered hi-rez, also a .MOV or .MPEG and the legacy vid features maybe 20 seconds of doom footage at most.
2 smudgy vids are being compared to many super high rez ones. I think that's not fair to Doom. Also the official Doom screenshots are sparse compared to good HL2 ones.
I'd like to note that out of respect to ID Software no leaked material will be taken as a quality judge. If at some point ID used a solid red texture as a stand in for an imp texture, and that goe leaked, we wouldn't say "omg textures sux0r" would we? So we shouldn't judge anything in the leak.
From all I know about Doom 3 and Half Life 2, Half Life 2 has some things bump mapped, and Doom has everything bump mapped. Let's go into some comparison of Doom and Half Life in terms of graphics and detail, with examples of course.
Doom 3 has color appropriate to Doom 3. It's a horror game and when you're inside a mars base, you don't expect to see limestone walls. However, mars terrain looks like mars terrain in any movie (color wise), and so does hell (latest PC gamer screenshot, which sucks btw, but that's PC gamer's fault, not the engines's)
Example of martian terrain:
http://www.planetdoom.com/images/image.asp?screenshots/e32003/10.jpg
Also here's a nice red colorful pop machine:
http://www.planetdoom.com/images/image.asp?screenshots/e32003/17.jpg
(Quality of trailer captures are low, I know)
To those that speak of realism in HL2. I agree, the textures of Doom 3 are the best textures I"ve seen in many a game. However, when those textures are slapped on a flat surface, I don't fall for the illusion. It seems to actually look quite bad to me.
Example:
http://www.planethalflife.com/screenshot.asp?src=/half-life2/screenshots/07.jpg
Look at the rock jotting out of the water. It has 3 sides, and it forms a pyramid. On these 3 sides is slapped a hyper-realistic photograph of a texture, however I don't see any actual 3D in it. If I had to guess there was no bumpmapping here. It looks hi-rez but not hi-quality to me.
The whole subject of appearing plastic I think is very player-oriented. Some people percieve it one way, others not. When I look at the model in Half Life I see a lot of painted on detail, I don't see it as being quite real... just painted, even if it is in very high resolutions. When I look at Doom 3 I don't see as much texture detail, but I see more polygona detail, I see things smoother and more defined. Personally the latter seems to throw off my suspension of disbelief less than the former.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/screens.html?page=37
and
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=69
Both shots are very detailed. Both faces look very real. In the girl you can see skin, lips, eyes, nose... In the guy you can see all the same things. The skin looks fairly realistic... yet they look radically different.
Looking at these two shots my brain percieves the HL2 shot as being from a very well drawn cartoon, and Doom3 shot as being more of cinema realistic. It's hard to explain why exactly I think this way...
One example is that I don't see any blemishes and imperfections of the girl's skin. Looking at the security guard in Doom, I can see that the guy has his 5o'clock shadow, and he's not too keen on brushing his teeth. The girl looks like she came from a photoshoot, with all makeup done.
The major reason that many of you percieve Half Life to look more real is that it encompasses things that are more real. The maps are cities and buildings that do or can exist without stretching imagination. Military bases on mars don't really exist. Nor do spawns from hell. Guys in gas masks (combine soldiers) exist (not as combine soldiers, but as guys who don't want to breathe gas), and imps don't. Of course Half Life 2 looks more real.
The biggest problem I see with Half Life 2 is that some parts of it look amazing, and others look just OK. Some parts are brathtaking, with vivid characters, bumpmapped surfaces, others are "meh and beh"... In Doom everything looks equally good. Maybe the best looking scene in Half Life looks better than Doom 3. But I can tell you that Doom 3 looks better than many scenes in half life. It is this uniformity throughout all material that in my opinion helps a game encompass the person more, purely from a graphical standpoint.
It's really hard to argue again, because buildings and sci-fi bases look so different. When both games are out, I would like some mappers to take up a challenge. Make 2 maps for each game (4 maps total). One for each game will be a small part of a city, or an inside of the building. Something out of the real world. It is important that the basis of the map should be the same, but each map should be built in accordance to the capabilities of the game.
Then take some sci-fi'ish level and build it on both eginges.
Once all 4 maps are done they can be compared. It will be the same level done on two enginges. Only then can we say what looks better/real-er (not a word I know).
K
Kaban
Guest
The only reason you assume HL2 will have a good story is because HL1 did. A completely valid and reasonable assumption.
The only reason you assume Doom 3 will have little or no story is because Doom 1 and 2 had none, as well as Quake 1 and 2. Also a completely valid and reasonable assumption.
However, people are unpredictable things, both companies may surprise us. I'm not aware of Valve "loosening up" on the story department, but I did hear that ID was "stepping up" in it. Half Life comes out almost a year before Doom 3. I'll have plenty of room in my heart for both. I just think that surprises can be found in both games.
K
Kaban
Guest
Ah, my apologies, ignorant on the issue. Well, I don't know what is final and what not, so I guess I cannot judge before either game is out. I'll just wait. Still seems to me that HL2 is going for simpler geometry, more detailed textures, and Doom is kind of going vice versa. But again, I think it's because of the whole real vs sci-fi environment.
Btw, I didn't even try and touch on any game aspect other than graphics. Gameplay, ai, physics, and all that require a separate train of thought.
Ridic
Tank
- Joined
- May 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
I didnt play doom1 or 2 so i actually dont know about their story. I just think that this game is meant to scare, not get you to like the story. Im fine with that, having a scary ass game that looks realy ncie is just as good as having a pretty game with good story lines imo
K
Kaban
Guest
They had no story except for what was written in between episodes really.... No question there.
It's just that the whole d3 = graphics hl2= story and gameplay have become so cliche, it gets on my nerver. I'd like to propose something new:
D3 and HL2 = fun :cheers:
It's just that the whole d3 = graphics hl2= story and gameplay have become so cliche, it gets on my nerver. I'd like to propose something new:
D3 and HL2 = fun :cheers:
ApocalypseNow
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Messages
- 375
- Reaction score
- 0
Apology accepted...
1st off: I AM NOT A HALF-LIFE 2 FAN BOY
My point of this thread:
I wanted to show that I am worried about DOOM 3, IF THE DEVELOPERS are running the game in 640X480 IN order TO ENSURE good FRAME rates on todays latest and most expensive hardware.
And for all you people who say its not optimized yet:
I say how much more can you do!?! Im sure in the last week of developing doom 3 they will not implement some magical code that makes the game run x10 faster then It does now.
I played the Doom 3 Alpha and it sounds like to me that they really haven't done to much optimization (as far as having it run better on todays hardware) in the last 1 and a half years that they have been developing it!
With my system:
P4 3.0GHz 800mhz FSB
1024mb Corsair Low Lantacy 400MHz DDR SDRAM
AIW 9800 Pro 128mb
I want Doom 3 to Atleast run in 800x600 or even better 1024x786 at a steady 30 Fps with everything turned up...
P.S. Im still buying doom 3 really no matter what..
K
Kaban
Guest
I think numerous people in this thread have already answered your question on that subject. Your system imo will run Doom 3 at those resolutions at those framerates easily.
Remember there are many factors besides rez that affect performance. I'm sure MP demo had every trick and effect turned on that was possible. And I'm sure they wanted at least 60fps MIN on the mp demo so that everyone wouldn't complain about slowdowns. And I think any slowdowns that did occur were CPU-side.
There can be a lot of optimization done yet. But, even the modern benchmarks have shown a system like yours can run Doom very very well, even higher than what you just asked for. As far as I can see you have nothing to worry about.
Remember there are many factors besides rez that affect performance. I'm sure MP demo had every trick and effect turned on that was possible. And I'm sure they wanted at least 60fps MIN on the mp demo so that everyone wouldn't complain about slowdowns. And I think any slowdowns that did occur were CPU-side.
There can be a lot of optimization done yet. But, even the modern benchmarks have shown a system like yours can run Doom very very well, even higher than what you just asked for. As far as I can see you have nothing to worry about.
Ridic
Tank
- Joined
- May 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
Well if you look at this in a sales point of view....i bet your system can run it at 1024 with max detials and 35+ fps. AS will mine.
I say this because i dont think good things would come out of this game if you can barely play it on the best machines around.
I say this because i dont think good things would come out of this game if you can barely play it on the best machines around.
Styloid
Newbie
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 0
Doom 3 looks 'computer generated'. It looks incredible but nevertheless still like a computer game- not because it takes place on mars, but because the textures are not yet realistic for skin or cloth, the lighting engine doesn't produce ambient light and the polygon count is often a little low. A lot of people think Doom3 looks 'real' because they are so used to seeing CGI that that is what they measure it up against whereas others who aren't exposed to that much technological input would say that it looks completely fake. Personally I think that HL2's characters look more convincing because their faces are built from research into human facial expressions and musculature systems rather than what they think people should look like.
And Kaban, don't criticize HL2 for inconsistency from early screenshots etc. If there's one thing that I really admire both ID and Valve in both their graphics against most other games, it's their consistency.
There already is another game engine called Amp 2 that has real-time lighting and all that stuff, but if you look at some of their test screenshots, they look like crap because they just don't have the artistic skill to use it like ID.
And Kaban, don't criticize HL2 for inconsistency from early screenshots etc. If there's one thing that I really admire both ID and Valve in both their graphics against most other games, it's their consistency.
There already is another game engine called Amp 2 that has real-time lighting and all that stuff, but if you look at some of their test screenshots, they look like crap because they just don't have the artistic skill to use it like ID.
K
Kaban
Guest
Well, you know how in movies even the best CG looks like CG? I think that's the direction Doom 3 is moving, and Carmack's next engine will take a step even closer in that direction. An interview with him said that the same engine will be used to render games and cinema graphics, but live time engines will take less passes at the ordeal.
Certainly Half Life 2 take a step from what is traditionally CG. Everything in it is very very very detailed. I think it looks great. I am not critisizing HL2 in any way. It's going to be quite the game to be reckoned with.
D3 and HL2 are on the two paths for which the ultimate ends are both really good, but quite different. HL2 seems to take the painting approach. It's like an old portrait, a very very good one. If you look at it, it's full of detail and life. It almost seems real. But it's not.
D3 takes the road that ultimately leads to Final Fantasy or other pro-grade CG renders. It also has detail, imperfection, to the point of looking real. Yet it still isn't.
Both roads look excellent, they're just fundamentally different.
Certainly Half Life 2 take a step from what is traditionally CG. Everything in it is very very very detailed. I think it looks great. I am not critisizing HL2 in any way. It's going to be quite the game to be reckoned with.
D3 and HL2 are on the two paths for which the ultimate ends are both really good, but quite different. HL2 seems to take the painting approach. It's like an old portrait, a very very good one. If you look at it, it's full of detail and life. It almost seems real. But it's not.
D3 takes the road that ultimately leads to Final Fantasy or other pro-grade CG renders. It also has detail, imperfection, to the point of looking real. Yet it still isn't.
Both roads look excellent, they're just fundamentally different.
trantjd
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 477
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree with your statements on a lot of points. Thanks for taking the time to write out your opinion on the graphics.
Someone already pointed out that the rock in the water in that first screenshot will not look the same in the final game (and doesn't look the same in the recent vids).
I'd like to point out something in the second screenshot that I quoted you on. If you look out the window at the terrain outside, you'll see that the mountainside looks just as bad, if not worse than the piece jutting out of the water in HL2. I'll admit that we're seeing it from an angle that allows the polygons to stand out even more, but I do think that HL2 will be able to handle terrain better than Doom3. Of course, that's without seeing a later build of D3 (I'm sure they'll have that looking better in a later version, just like Valve fixed the rock). Source does seem more oriented to large outdoor scenes where terrain needs to look better though.
Anyways, just throwing in my 2 cents. I definitely plan on buying HL2 (I loved the first and have been waiting for this game for quite a while). Doom 3 is more of a side interest of mine. I liked the earlier id games, but I haven't been following every detail about Doom 3, but barring absolutely terrible reviews, I'll probably be buying it as well.
X
Xtasy0
Guest
Originally posted by Rabid Llama
Those shots were originally in 4000X3000 (!), I saw the originals on a site a few days ago. They were NOT gameplay shots, obviously. They were shrunk down to 1024X768 for/by gaming sites. They look better at 1024 anyway, because at 4000X3000 you couldn't tell what was going on
Oh, but that was the map we played. The red glow is only there when the reactor thing is actually firing, though. The room's normally just a cold, dull, metallic grey. Very Doom3-ish :cheese:
no, the images were resized to 4000x3000 from a MUCH lower resolution.
kelisis
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, Doom 3 is sheculed for a March 2004 release. I think they will have enough time to tweak the fps enough so lower-grade systems can run it at a stable fps without sacrificing visual quality, which it will. Just hopefully, my o/ced P4 2.4ghz and next-gen graphics card will be up to the task.
Ridic
Tank
- Joined
- May 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
- Reaction score
- 0
Originally posted by kelisis
Well, Doom 3 is sheculed for a March 2004 release. I think they will have enough time to tweak the fps enough so lower-grade systems can run it at a stable fps without sacrificing visual quality, which it will. Just hopefully, my o/ced P4 2.4ghz and next-gen graphics card will be up to the task.
hehe yea. I hope doom3's multiplayer is co op though, i hear its 4 players. I would LOVE a co op multiplayer game where you and 3 others played the single player missions together. There is so much teamwork in horror/coop games.
I wouldnt really like doom3 with 4 players if it was just deaht match though. :dozey:
K
Kaban
Guest
No co-op for sure, but they did talk about having the ability to put monsters in multiplayer maps.
By the way, 4 person deathmatch is a different kind of fun, but it's still fun
By the way, 4 person deathmatch is a different kind of fun, but it's still fun
