Doom III's models don't stand a chance against Half-life 2's

[Thorn of Death]

Did anyone notice how clear the edges are in Doom's models? especially for humans.

I ran the Half-life trailer to make sure I wasn't being picky, but I realised how much better they are.

Your oppinions?

 

[Fly en Shoes]

mmmmmm yeah i always saw something in my D3 trailer and i notice that the people were well done, D3 has an feeling too it cause of all the creepy evil nutzness, that is really showing the peoples animation(or i am just full of it)

 

[iamg30hd3]

I think they are focused on textures rather poly counts... imo I think it's better like that than creating a scene with too many polygons.. less laggy too?

Oh yes and also.. less sides = less polygons for the light to reflect on..

 

[PvtRyan]

Doom 3 relies on normalmapping because polygons make the lighting calculations much more complex.
Generally, the HL2 models are better, since they have more polygons (HL2 has more polygons in the face than Doom 3 has for a complete monster) but both methods work pretty well.

But the point of this?

 

[Feath]

That's lucky because it's unlikely they'll ever get into any sort of fight.

 

[CrazyHarij]

Yeah, let's all take a big nice shit on Doom 3, shall we?

Half-Life 2 blows almost all character polygons on the faces, by the way. And the doom 3 environments are alot better looking than Half-Life 2's environments.

 

[Thorn of Death]

Thought about that.

So ID goes for preformance and Valve goes for graphics?

Wait...surely in Half-life we can decrease the number of polys for better preformance? if that's right then Valve gives a much better chance for people with better PCs, AND gives a chance for lower comps to run it.


Well, I guess since ID is more of a professional in game engines, I'm betting they'll give the best preformance/graphics combination.

Surprising it is though how good of an engine Valve designed for a first engine.

 

[Thorn of Death]

Stop hammering me will ya? even makes me wonder if I accedintly bumped into a Doom forum.

So how do you know? environments haven't been seen in detail, have they?

One thing that impressed me is the lighting effects in Doom.

I don't have anything against Doom, really. Except maybe the storyline. But the polygons caught my attention, so I only mentioned what I had in mind. I didn't say Doom's graphics suck by any means.

 

[Warbie]

Either way, the models in Doom 3 look solid and chunky. The bad guys seem to have a real presence and weight to them (which is one of the few things I found lacking in HL)

Who wants a skinny chick when you can have a whole lotta woman?

 

[brink's]

And the doom 3 environments are alot better looking than Half-Life 2's environments.

Many would disagree, like me

 

[qckbeam]

Half-Life 2 does, in my opinion, have better models. I think it has little to do with sheer polycount (although HL2 models do look better around the edges) and more to do with the developers and their differing goals. Valve has spent a ridiculous amount of time making sure facial animations are spot on. The eyes really make the characters come alive when combined with appropriate expressions and the very good lip-syncing technology they have spent so much time on. It also seems that the artists spent a great deal of their time making very believable characters; there can be no doubt that the main players in HL2 were crafted in a very meticulous manner. I'm sure id could have pulled this off as well, they certainly do not lack the talent. However, when you consider the fact that most of the story in Doom 3 is told via the PDA and not human interaction, it wouldn't have made sense to focus so much time on creating characters which possess the level of detail seen in Half-Life 2, which basically relates the story to the player via scripted sequences and conversation.

 

[lans]

True, HL2 models are much more detailed - but it has a specific purpose. HL2 has a skeletal-bone facial expression system. The monsters in D3 don't need complex facial expressions - they're just to scare the hell out of you with a couple of scary expressions.

 

[Some_God]

2 different games... 2 different game-styles... why argue?

 

[lans]

Yeah, let's all take a big nice shit on Doom 3, shall we?

Half-Life 2 blows almost all character polygons on the faces, by the way. And the doom 3 environments are alot better looking than Half-Life 2's environments.

Don't know how I missed this - but you are really mistaken about this one. We've just seen indoor areas of D3 and outdoor (mostly) of HL2. IMO, techno metallic indoors are a thing of past (halo had it, Far cry, now Doom 3) - and that kinda of futuristic style wouldn't go well with HL2, however that's not the point. Compare it with STALKER (I'm talking about HL2), they are games that are trying to achieve photorealism - not pre-rendered CGI. Their approach is totally different. Both HL2 and D3 are massively detailed in their own right.

 

[Axyon]

This thread was un-necessary. Doom 3 vs. Half-Life 2 threads always end in flames anyway, so I'm just going to close now. Additionally, please pay attention to the new sticky at the top of this forum.