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

So far I think HL2 looks better because the design team actually know how to model. The DOOM 3 models are horrible. The guy's face is very angular and just doesn't look very realistic. The monsters just look stupid. Like that one with really detailed hands, but a head composed of about 10 polys! Also the DOOM 3 palette is as bland as ever. Now compare that with Alyx' face which could almost be a photo with a bit more detail.

Also, although the HL2 engine is not as atmospheric in some areas, I think it has been designed to facilitate better / more interesting gameplay, whereas the DOOM3 engine has just been designed to look good. Features like displacement mapping, the materials system & the Havok physics engine all enable Valve to bring us a more interesting & varied game. Also, I wasn't overly impressed by the DOOM3 Alpha. I know it is only an alpha, but it was rather bland - scary yes, but not innovative and "clever" like HL1 was. DOOM3, even in the previews, is completely devoid of innovation in many respects. Purists will love it, but the lack of "fun things to do" (eg: buggy riding in HL2), means that it won't appeal to many people. I know ID must have a success, but every FPS they make is near identical. It just isn't fun any more after a while.

The water shader is stunning in HL2 - the only complaint I have is that it waves a bit too fast, I think it needs to be slowed down and moderated. It really is poetry in motion though. When I saw the bridge-at-sunset scene, my jaw just dropped.

I also agree with PvtRyan - Doom 3 over uses some effects such as bump mapping, HL2 uses them carefully to good effect.
 
Sublime_Guy, we do not allow the posting of new beta screenshots on this forum. Do it again, and you will be banned. Also, if you see someone break a rule on the forum (in this instance, new screenshots), DO NOT quote it.
 
i think you are being too hard on doom 3. The models look friggin scary enough to me, and in my opinion thats all that matters. And sure everything has been bumpmapped to hell and back (pun intended), How else are going to have the shadows respond accurately to the surfaces? Do you want the game to chug down even MORE resources?
 
Originally posted by Flyingdebris
i think you are being too hard on doom 3. The models look friggin scary enough to me, and in my opinion thats all that matters. And sure everything has been bumpmapped to hell and back (pun intended), How else are going to have the shadows respond accurately to the surfaces? Do you want the game to chug down even MORE resources?
Click to expand...

You can make a simple pipe with about 8 polygons, AND it reacts better to light because it isn't flat and it (self)shadows.
 
i think graphically doom3 and HL2 are very similar, both engines have little things that the other 1 doesnt. 1 thing that stands out for me is the physics in the HL2 engine, they really are outstanding.

i think what will put HL2 head and shoulders above doom3 is story and immersion, i dont really no much about doom3 story, but i can imagine it being maybe a lot more action orientated than story driven
 
Are there any videos of Doom3 out, If so Can We please have some links?

Thanks in advance :)
 
I'm sure Doom 3 will be great fun - but doubt it'll add anything new to the genre. If it's a good looking, shoot everything that moves, no brainer (like Doom and Quake) i'll be more than happy :) .... fun for a month.

It's HL2 that I expect to puch fps gameplay further, to make us think on our toes (as HL did) ..... if it's not a 'new' experience i'll be pissed :/

I think this is why there's more anticipation surrounding HL2 than Doom 3 ........ HL2 should raise the bar \o/
 
Personally I think where Doom 3 excels is in the environments. The bathroom scene (with one of the zombies getting eaten on the floor) looked more real than any other "real world" locale I have ever seen represented in the game. Now if the environment was fully destructible that would be the ultimate! You could blow tiles off the walls and shatter the urinals with bullets, shatter the mirrors...the mind boggles!
 
I think d3 looks better byfar because its trying to something in partiuclar.. scare you, the models are demonic, they shouldn't look normal, they should look scary so when you hear the roar behind you turn around and look into the face of this huge monster and just go "OMG"... waht i'm really looking forward too are doom3 mods and doom 3 liscenses.. the mods will just be kick ass and quake 4.. if raven does a good job it will be the best game of 2004(better than hl2 IMO) and someone said that the doom3 modelers dont have any skill.. the 2 owners/ artistic directors have booth had so much expereince in games/ games industry.. probally more than anyone at valve..
besides that.. they'll both be fun and there both differnt games that are sorta hard to compare
 
Who is so sure about the fact D3 will look better then HL2? Keep in mnid that even when an engine is capable of more that that doesnt make the game any prettier. f.e. you need well drawn textures, you need a good mapeditor, and all this has got to be easy to work with to make a pretty game. I personally think that for all the above HL2 is the best. Also i feel the level design of D3 generally sux...but when i saw that bridge level of HL2 on pics...wow that was way better leveldesign... another + for HL2.

Also HL2 is able to support textures up to 100*100, no gfx card can support that atm but they will in a couple of years...so if Valve releases the high res texture pack HL2 will be able to compete with the newest game for 3-4 years. Graphically that is...

As for the gameplay, well i have a feeling that this is going to own D3 so hard...
 
I think it'll go gameplay to HL2 but graphics will go to Doom 3. John Carmack has consistently proved that he is one of the best, if not the best, 3D engine programmers out there. Think about how many programmers that are working in the games industry now that have cut their teeth by hacking on Carmack's old code.
 
Dynamic lights have been around since theif, so why wouldn't there be dynamic lighting for hl2?
 
Originally posted by MiG
Dynamic lights have been around since theif, so why wouldn't there be dynamic lighting for hl2?
Click to expand...
There is.
They implement still shadows for non moving objects/walls and dynamic lighting for other things. Saves resources and allows for better performance. Also, they seem to be more soft shadows than hard and to me, that looks better and more appealing.
 
Ok, this is an interesting thread...i played the Doom 3 Alpha Demo *cough* *cough*, and yes the graphics were outstading and yes i know it was only an e3 demo but it was still just shooting, that was all. Dont get me wrong it looked graphically spectacular and it was scary as hell but it was still just "oh theres a zombie, bang its dead". im sure it will be more than this in the final game but HL2 just looks that much more fun as it is different to any other game.
ill probably still have to get Doom though as it looked awesome and the multiplayer looks like its going to own!!! (not as ownij as HL 2but still good)
 
Originally posted by MiG
Dynamic lights have been around since theif, so why wouldn't there be dynamic lighting for hl2?
Click to expand...

Thief had a partially dynamic lighting system. It still used lightmaps extensively. HL2 also uses a lot of lightmaps mixed with dynamic lights. I assume they did that to accomodate some lower end hardware. To have a fully dynamic lighting system is pretty hard on system specs (especially when you're talking about generating realistic shadows). With Doom 3 Id chose to go with a fully dynamic lighting system, and because of that I expect their minimum requirements to be a bit higher than what they've stated in the past.
 
I agree with the people saying that D3 abuses bumpmaps as a replacement for environmental detail. There was one instance where in D3 where there was a pipe that wasn't modelled, it was 1 poly with a bump map. It looked like a piece of paper with a picture of a pipe on it. What the hell is that? Are they going to be fixing this in the final game?
 
I am not questioning if your telling the truth or not but I have read every single email in that thread since it was begun as I am working on a mod and I want/need to know everything technical about the game. And I can't remember seeing such a comment. And its quite an important statement too.
All I remember is that Gabe said that they did a combination of different lighting techniques and that they did dynamic lighting but in a different way to DOOM3. I cant think of anything else important on the subject.
I will email gabe about it but I dont expect him to answer. He must be incredibly busy right now. :(
 
i find it funny when ppl say hl2 has better graphics...or even funnier...better lighting. reminds me of when ppl used to says duke nukem was better looking the quake1...

and i keep reminding my friend the world is not flat...but he refuses to believe me...
 
I know for a fact DOOM3 has beter graphics. I just want to know about the source though. I dont wana compare it :)
 
D3 does overuse bumpmapping in place of more polygons to help performance. That is a down side to full dynamic lighting with multiple sources.
 
Originally posted by ferd
you need a good mapeditor, and all this has got to be easy to work with to make a pretty game. I personally think that for all the above HL2 is the best. Also i feel the level design of D3 generally sux...but when i saw that bridge level of HL2 on pics...wow that was way better leveldesign... another + for HL2.
Click to expand...
The Doom3 mapeditor rocks. It's integrated into the game. Lights can be adjusted and moved around and the mapper can immediately see how this effects the environment.

And your judgment of the level design of Doom3 is based on the 3 technology showcase levels that were in the alpha. Like EvilEwok said, you can't judge the game on those.
 
if your gonna post a picture, post a released one.. and quit ruining it for other people by posting a picture of alyx's dog robot...

idiots!
 
Originally posted by EvilEwok
hl2 uses textures in place of more polygons to improve performance.

But normal maps make an object appear fully 3d, where textures look flat.

Like Freakaloin said, the world is not flat. Objects have form and shape, and doom3 has normal maps on every object to give it that form and shape. You cant do it all with polygons, thats why every other game uses textures to get the form and shape. But instead of painting on geometric details like hl2 does, doom3 actually makes it appear to be real geometry.

I dont see how it could be considered overuse.
Click to expand...
You can overuse any feature... that is, until we all have supercomputers that can handle anything.

I doubt even Doom3 uses normal maps on absolutely everything, because some things are flat... and using a normal map for no added effect is a waste of GPU time and I doubt people as talented as those at iD would make a mistake like that.

In high-performance games you should not use something unless the performance hit is worth the visual gain.

"You cant do it all with polygons"

Actually... you can do anything with polygons that you could do with normal mapping (and it would look better), but not the other way around... and eventually I think normal maps will be abandoned in favor of displacement maps once video cards are powerful enough.
 
Ok so i've just watched the Doom2 E3 vid and it looks like I may have been wrong D3 looks 100 times better in motion than it does in the screen shots. It just looks so slick and smooth.

Just goes to go you can't really judge a dynamic media by static shots.
 
Originally posted by OCybrManO

Actually... you can do anything with polygons that you could do with normal mapping (and it would look better), but not the other way around... and eventually I think normal maps will be abandoned in favor of displacement maps once video cards are powerful enough.
Click to expand...

I doubt that normal mapping is going to be abandoned anytime in, let's say the next ten years. Yes you get more detail out of polygonal models built from displacment maps, but you can then use normal mapping techniques over the top of those and add even more detail to a particular scene or object. Human facial features will be massively realistic within the next five years using such a technique.

Doom 3 is going to be hugely graphically intensive. They are making allowances for low end machines, of course, but John Carmack has stated repeatedly that Doom 3 is really targeting the high end. It'll run on lower end stuff, but as gamers we should all know that there's a difference between "it'll run" and "it'll run well enough to be playable".

To EE: Since you seem to have been following D3, is Id using the Havok physics system and modifying it like Valve or did they write their own from scratch?
 
Originally posted by Unnamed_Player
To EE: Since you seem to have been following D3, is Id using the Havok physics system and modifying it like Valve or did they write their own from scratch?
Click to expand...

They wrote their own.
 
The Doom 3 alpha physics engine wasn't anything impressive, but that;s probably because it was a bloody alpha :p.

Plus, I don't think Doom 3 has an environment conducive to using the physics as a gameplay strategy. In the screens, the close-quarters hallways are rather sparse, and you can't really pull Traptown sorts of things in it. It would be interesting to be able to shoot pipes off of the ceiling, which fall onto zombies and pin them. Then it's just about....say, 22 shotgun shells to the head, and he's dead.
 
I think the whole HL2 vs. Doom3 thing is a bit too apples and oranges and I don't really understand why people get so angry when someone challenges one or the other.

An apple and orange are both fruit, and both good for you, and both round, but they are still very different. It's all in what taste you have. Is one better than the other? Only in the eye of the beholder...only in opinion/taste...and nothing else.

It's also rather hard to compare two games which are not even out yet too.

Personally, I will buy both games when they come out and I'm sure I will enjoy both, but I will enjoy each for different reasons. I won't be playing one while worrying that it doesn't look the same as the other.
 
Agreed, but the game is mostly close-quarters from what I've seen in screens. That's pretty much tunnel-shooting without much room to show off the physics.
 
EvilEwok, are the any screens of Hell yet? I'm kind of interested to see how they do it in Doom 3.
 
Originally posted by EvilEwok
cmon, thats silly.

hl2 uses textures in place of more polygons to improve performance.

But normal maps make an object appear fully 3d, where textures look flat.

Like Freakaloin said, the world is not flat. Objects have form and shape, and doom3 has normal maps on every object to give it that form and shape. You cant do it all with polygons, thats why every other game uses textures to get the form and shape. But instead of painting on geometric details like hl2 does, doom3 actually makes it appear to be real geometry.

I dont see how it could be considered overuse.
Click to expand...

Like I said, normal mapping is fine, you're right that it's best used to create small imperfections in geometry and nicer shading, but Doom 3 actually tries to replace geometry (polygons) with flat normal maps. And no matter what you do, normal maps are flat, with the illusion of relief.
A normal map doesn't change the outline of an object. It can't be used to replace a geometry pipe or doorhandle.

Some parts look like a low detail room with lots and lots of nice shiny textures they rely on to provide detail. It's a shame really.
Still I'm looking forward to Doom 3.

And you're acting like HL2 doesn't use any normal mapping, in fact, a lot of surfaces have normal maps. It uses normal mapping for relief on bricks and walls, used to add detail to objects, not to become objects themselves (or try to become).
 
I saw a screen of what looked like Hell in the PC Gamer "Great Shooter Shoot-Out" issue. Red glow to everything, the walls were rock and there were stalagmites hanging from the ceiling (or are those kind on the ground?). There was a pinky eating what looked like a thin zombie.

I've read previews that mention pentagrams, blood smears, and red vines that grab you.
 
bit harsh summarising the HL2 community by one person. i dont see why u have to keep slicing up everyones posts and arguing why doom3 is going to be better. are u trying to get more ppl to get d3 or something, thats the only reasoning i can see
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ennui
HL2 20th Anniversary Update + Documentary
Replies
8
Views
354
Xtremecherry95YT
Xtremecherry95YT
Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
ktimekiller
The "other" ValveTime website...
Replies
2
Views
700
Shem
Shem
Lizardizzle
  • Poll
A proposition: ValveTime Half-Life 1 co-op event
Replies
5
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Lizardizzle
2019: The year of Half-Life SFX videos
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ennui
Ennui
Back
Top