Doom 3 Vs. Half-Life 2 redux....

Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
OK, so this is my lameass attempt to talk about something besides the beta, or source, or what an asshole so-and-so is for asking where to find the above mentioned items. So here goes:

I love the way that HL2's source engine is being "tiered" so that it will run acceptably not only on lower end cards but it will also give the people who invested in a high end card something to show off. I am really excited about games that are using dynamic lights for one reason, I want to be able to shoot out lights in games! It's a stupid pet peeve of mine but I need to be able to do it at some point (just like at some point I would like a fully destructible environment, within reason). I think that both Doom 3 and HL2 have the chance to provide this little graphical flair. I know HL2's lighting model is not supposed to be fully dynamic (vs the fully dynamic model in Doom 3) but I think they could provide for this.

The physics in HL2 will be pretty sweet no doubt, but will the dedicated Havok physics engine be able to stand up against whatever comes pouring from Carmack's mind? I think that's possible only because that is all that Havok does. But I expect Doom 3's physics to be jaw dropping. If it follows the simple "ragdoll" model I'm not going to be happy.

Graphically I think both engines are pretty even. I like the shadows generated by Doom 3's totally dynamic lighting system better but Doom 3 also has slightly steeper system requirements to make that work (but seriously, if you're still playing with some DX6-class hardware and you expect to play either of these games, you need to be heading to Newegg or Best Buy right now). I expect a little more from the Doom 3 engine though because that's what Carmack does best.

On the sound front, I am totally thrilled that Doom 3 is going to have 5.1 sound. Being that it is basicaly shaping up to be a first person Resident Evil, the sound is going to be a huge part of the game. I expect we'll see something similar out of HL2.

And while I am really excited for the chance to play both these games themselves I think I am even more excited to see what some of the licensees can do with these engines.

I'll admit, I'm a Carmack fan. He consistently pushes things just that much further than the next guy. Granted Id's games tend to just be technology demos for whatever their latest engine is, but there's no doubt that they make some great demos.

Unreal Tournament 2004 doesn't stand a chance. :p
 
yeah, i hear you on the light thing. One time I was trippin, and i saw a light on the ground that was lighting up a sign. I ran over and kicked it (i was wearing workboots), and it didn't break. Then I kicked it harder, and it broke. Very satisfying. I like to break lights.
 
DooM III will look better than Half-Life 2, but who said it will play better? I think they'll both be just as enjoyable as one another. :)
 
Yeah...Anyway. I'm wondering when games will utilize 7.1 sound, or even 6.1. Why do we have it if nothing's taking advantage of it?

-Ghost.
 
Originally posted by GhostValkyrie
Yeah...Anyway. I'm wondering when game will utilize 7.1 sound. Or even 6.1. Why do we have it if nothing's taking advantage of it?

-Ghost.

Baby steps. First the hardware needs to be widespread then the games take advantage of the hardware.

Personally I like how there are a lot of 7.1 soundcards showing up but I have yet to see any 7.1 computer speakers. Hell, only Creative makes 6.1s.
 
Mods with both engines are gonna rock. I reckon they could license the D3 engine and make a really good first-person version of Resident Evil. And maybe a Silent Hill game.

Seeya.
 
Why do you keep linking to that picture from the leaked version?

... and pictures of DOG have been posted before.
 
Now why do you wanna go and ruin a perfectly good non-beta thread. There are plenty of threads to post beta shots in. That has nothing to do with Doom 3.
 
Yeah. Sublime_Ga- Err... Guy. You've already posted that in another thread.

Congratulations on finding it. Now bugger off.
 
Umm...off hand I would say that it's URL to a russian HL2 fan site with screenshots of the beta. Get me some side by side comparison shots from a russian D3 site and you might be OT! :cool:
 
Doom 3 will be awesome as in terms of Graphics, but in actual gameplay i think Half Life 2 will come out on top. When you compare Zombies and Demons in Doom to Combine Soliders and the Strider in Half Life 2. I just reckon Half Life 2 is abit more creative and fun to play anyway. But i'd love to see System Shock or System Shock 2 with the Doom 3 engine. That would rock
 
I heard that Id is charging a fee of $1 million to license the Doom 3 engine! That's freakin' outrageous. I'm sure people will jump all over it, but still, a million dollars just for the game engine is a little over the top. But if you want the best I guess you have to pay through the nose.
 
When it comes to sound, I think HL2 wil be better overall. The gun sounds in HL2 are better IMO.

But what I like about Doom3 is that it models recoil properly. That's a big plus for me.
 
Doom III and Half-Life 2 are just too different to compare. Graphically I find Half-Life 2 to be superior to Doom III. I think the shader techniques Valve has employed with the Source surpass the admittedly excellent lighting system Doom III is using. I also prefer the sources DX9 enhanced soft shadows to Doom III's always hard shadows. I do realize the source has errors of it's own. The lighting is normally excellent, but when the flashlight is turned on everything becomes over bright and ugly. It seems as if the light from the flashlight is being cast on a per-pixel basis on walls floors and ceilings (I know that's not the case, but it sure looks like it) and per-vertex on any object. I know Valve wont let that go as it is right now, but if they keep the per-vertex lighting approach then there is only so much they can do. I do love the per-pixel lighting precision (hell, everything in Doom III uses per-pixel precision The one thing I think the source can really hold over the doom engine is the fantastic Havok physics engine (which went under extensive modification from Valve). I have never seen physics that perfect in a game before, ever. I was amazed at how well objects interact with each other and the environment Even the ragdolls are 10x more realistic than any other ever seen before. Not sure why that is, but it's the truth.

As far as game-play goes there is no doubt in my mind that Half-Life 2 is the better of the two. It's involving in a way Doom III will ever be (unless ID is making some major changes for the 2004 release). It has a great story, great action, great game-play, and great artistic design (that last one is a matter of personal taste).
 
Frankly i dont care too much for Dynamic lighting, its pretty damn cool, for atmospheric effect and what not, but i love the bump-maps in Half-Life 2, I love the 2 cylinders of liquid behind Dr.Kleiner. It looks like its almost real. I havent seen anything like that from Doom 3 yet
 
Yeah the HL2 flashlight looks like a hack. To be honest what little I have seen of the flashlight in Doom 3 doesn't look all that great either. I think that there are some things that the HL2 engine will be able to do that Doom 3 will not, since the OpenGL 2.0 spec isn't ratified yet and probably won't be in time for Doom 3's release.

I admit that gameplay-wise, HL2 may indeed turn out to be the better of the two but graphically I don't doubt that Doom 3 will be jaw dropping (provided top end hardware, of course). A lot of people point to the leaked alpha when they compare the two but seriously that was almost 2 years ago. I'm sure the engine is lightyears ahead of that stage by now.

As for the physics, I don't know for sure that JC is writing his own physics system but from what I heard they hired a programmer whose expertise was physics programming. So I wouldn't count Doom 3 out of the running just yet in that department.

If HL2 does get pushed back to April, 2004 is going to rock!
 
its pics like these that i find doom3 simply amazing
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=74
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=80
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=69
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=54

and the best part about doom3 is id has been saying from day one that the stills from d3 look like crap compared to in motion, and from watching severl of the movies theyve released i can vouch for that
 
Doom3 pushes the envelope for both light and sound. Hell, i baught my current 4.1 sound system specifically for Doom 3 after reading a preview in PCG about how much the sound immerses you in the game (and i just had to have surround for that game!). If you don't have at least 4.1 speakers, go out and find some for Doom 3 to get the *true* experience. I don't remember any of the details, but i know the sound inovations are very nice.
 
im actually steping up my speakers from these little 90watt 4.1s to the beastly logitech z-680s. 5.1 surround with 500watts and built in DTS decoders, doom3 is gonna sound godly with these things
 
Both of these games will rock.
I personally think I will like HL2 more.
The more the graphics in Doom3 look real...the more they look fake. The characters anyway, not the map or objects. They seem to look more and more like plastic or molded clay.
HL2's graphic technology may not match doom3's but it emulates reality so well in looks and in action. The tone/color is used perfectly in HL2.
Shadows on Doom3 look so real and give you a very creepy feeling ingame.
Although looking at the shadow itself, I also do not care for hard shadows.
HDR in HL2, great that they implemeted that now instead of into source later.
I will def. play Doom3 for some good fragin, the fear factor and gameplay that will keep me awake looking around each corner for the next surprise.
HL2 for its story, immersive gameplay/environment and of course multiplayer!
 
Yeah I just got my creative 6600s, and I have to say they really do make games 10x better. I was just wondering if halflife 2 will utilize 6.1 or atleast 5.1 surround sound?
 
I'm definately going to buy Doom 3 and I'm sure I'll love it. HL2 appeals to me a lot more. One thing I'm not crazy about in games is hallways and confined spaces. Black Mesa (while still excellent) wasn't my idea of the perfect setting for an FPS. I liked the outdoor levels in HL1 the best. City 17 is my idea of a perfect map. The cars, buildings, alleys and debris really give it that tactical element. With the great physics and vehicles it will be a great game. Graphically, I think the incredible lighting will give D3 the edge, but the HDR in HL2 will keep it pretty close. Both will have tons of detail, bump maps, etc. For atmosphere it's a matter of opinion, I like HL2's better for this reason: when I go out at night, I see alleys that look like the ones with the zombies in traptown, and lots that look like the one with the Combines. During the day I see docks and Alcatraz out on the bay, which reminds me of the jail in bugbait. HL2 seems so familiar, but with a twist. When I look at Alcatraz, I imagine Ant Lions crawling out of their holes and running around inside. HL2 just seems so connected to real life, like City 17 is actually a real place. It's really eerie, and I just don't get that feeling from D3. Also, people talking about flashlights, have you seen the one in the D3 Alpha? It's horrible, just a big lens flare that floats around on the screen. I don't think either flashlight we've seen is an accurate representation of the final version flashlights.
 
Doom 3 will have a very different feel to hl2. For my mind (and the same applies to Q3 really) everything appears too shinny in Doom 3 some diffuse reflections and matt surfaces would go a long way to making D3 look more real.

The one thing though that I think will make hl2 stand out above Doom 3 is the art work and creative content. Most id stuff is way over the top and looks quite stupid in some cases. Going back to quake 3 the player models there are a case in point they just have no style and look like they were put together by a five year old who was given some basic parts to fit together however he saw fit and to be honest the doom 3 stuff looks like it's following the same ethos.
 
From what I have been reading Doom3 is going to be good in spite of John Carmack on some fronts. He seems to see ragdoll physics as a gimmick and is too interested in simplicity for my tastes, he is also content with keeping the AI at a q3 technology level.

While he's great at making engines I think his design decisions are going to fall more and more into question.

If D3 had halflife 2's AI (well, for the smart demons anyway) and made the game a tad bit more complicated, don't YOU think it would be a bit better?

Well I'm still getting doom 3 and i'll most likely love it/hate it for making me crap my pants

I think doom 3 will be the best at what it does, no way can halflife do that same dark shadowy feel, claustrophobic, over technological feel like d3. However halflife 2's outdoor levels and HDR will be flat out undoable with the D3 engine.

I will love both for different reasons
 
YOU GUZ R JUZT TRINING TO DOO AZID ANN CONTROOL THE TRIP...calm down you bothz kno yorr gettin bothz
 
i thing both are good, but the athmosphere (sry i don't know the right english word) is in doom 3 much better, because of the dark ares and the damn light pending over you :D
 
graphically...i think HL2 looks much better and much more believable.


I dont know why people think doom3 looks better.....everything is shiny metal and the monsters look like messed up cartoon characters....

mabey something is wrong with my eyes.
 
Can i play hl2 with just geforce2mx?

Coz you say it can support lower end graphic card?

I hope so...! No money to buy new computer...

Thanks.
 
Well, first of all, the discussion which engine is more capable is pretty useless. They have totally different uses, really.
HL2 will feature more open area's and lot's of buildings, combined with indoor. Doom 3 will feature almost completely indoor area's.
The engines are designed with those perspectives in mind, so don't expect large area's with vehicles in Doom 3 or creepy dynamic lit hallways in HL2.

It's a matter of taste which one you like best, I personally like the Source engine much better for creating believeable cities and realistic enviroments. But the Doom 3 engine is excellent in creating a creepy atmosphere and a high tech sci-fi look.
So it's a matter of taste if you like that sci-fi shiny metallic look on everything.

But I must say Doom 3 abuses bumpmapping, virtually everything is bumpmapped, in my eyes in the wrong way. Bumpmapping is for small details that add a bit to the realism, it isn't meant to replace models. Doom 3 tries to replace a lot of polygons with simple normal maps, which just looks ugly close by. No matter what you do, normal maps are and will always stay flat, but still id tries to replace tubes, doorhandles etc with bumpmaps. I don't like it.
HL2 uses bumpmaps in a lot more subtle and better way, it creates the relief on bricks and stones, the imperfections on an alien skin etc.
But on the other hand, bumpmaps look better with the dynamic lighting from Doom 3 versus the lightmaps from HL2.

Dynamic lighting is the future, but at the moment lightmaps are better suited because most gamers don't have the newest Radeon. And the dynamic lighting swallows most of the rendering power Doom 3 needs.

From what I've seen the shaders from HL2 outclass Doom 3 shaders by far, water for the first time in realtime rendering looks like actual water.
 
Back
Top