Half-Life 2, Doom 3 and Halo 2 - A discussion

Originally posted by Feath
Videos show more. Like the G-man video. What gives him life like qualities is the lip syncing and facial expressions. Not any mapping technique.

Valve have concentrated on other areas than id have. They are different engines, remember that. I haven't seen any Doom3 lip syncing in action...

Valve has concentrated on facial animations more than any other developer, ever so far. However, not in terms of the actual whole character and facial details in terms of the model itself.
 
Anthraxxx's pre-breakdown of 2 upcoming games:

Half-Life 2

Graphics- some of the best! AnthraXXXXx -4.5 out of 5 X's
Gameplay- OMG, don't get me started. AnthraXXXXX -5 out of 5
Sound- I think I hear something around that corner.... AnthraXXXXx -4.5 of 5
Control- Duh! look at HL1. AnthraXXXXX -5 of 5
Value- OMG look at all the mods for this game!!! AnthraXXXXX -5 of 5


Doom 3

Graphics- That ghoulie looks soo scary, I think I need adult diapers!! AnthraXXXXX -5 of 5
Gameplay- DIE!!! DIE, HELLSPAWN, DIE!!! AnthraXXXXx -4.5 or 5
Sound- Is that just me, or can you hear my heartbeat......from 20 feet away? AnthraXXXXX -5 of 5
Control- I think I need to turn down my sensitivity because I might get a bit twitchy whill playing Doom 3 AnthraXXXXx -4.5 of 5
Value- This game is still gonna scare the shit out of me 20 years form now. AnthraXXXXx -4.5 of 5
 
Originally posted by Brassmonkey
Because Doom3 is focused on realism. Mars bases with pink walls? Marine uniforms in vivid purple and bright blue?

The game revolves around a story which takes place in martian bases, martian terrain, and hell. Therefore, you will have prodominetly grey martian bases(even though color actually varies a great deal), prodominetly orange/red martian terrain/atmosphere, and whatever the bois at iD dream up for hell. The story doesnt leave much room for frolicking through green pastures under a purple sunset.
Agreed. I don't want to see fruity colors in a scary game anyway. You can't even compare HL2 with Doom 3. They're two different games with different storylines and atmosphere. :)

Hmmm... [sarcastic]Here's a comparison. OMG the sun is one thousand times bigger than the Earth but it only has one color (red/yellow) and I don't like it because it's too repetative. [/sarcastic]:rolleyes:
 
Well if HL2 isn't any good, why are there so many people coming to Hl2 forums and protesting it sucks compared to this engine, or that engine? If it does suck so bad why come here and waste your time? You people are sad, just don't buy the game if you think it sucks so bad, that simple.
 
I would really like to know who said Half-Life 2 is no good.
 
Originally posted by Lifthz
I like Anthraxxx
And I like you.
love.gif
 
Originally posted by Yatta
Agreed. I don't want to see fruity colors in a scary game anyway. You can't even compare HL2 with Doom 3. They're two different games with different storylines and atmosphere. :)

Hmmm... [sarcastic]Here's a comparison. OMG the sun is one thousand times bigger than the Earth but it only has one color (red/yellow) and I don't like it because it's too repetative. [/sarcastic]:rolleyes:

Lets just leave it to two different styles of games.

Originally posted by Yatta
And I like you.
love.gif

I never said love. Either way, you're not Anthraxxx.
 
Heres a game that boasts Doom3 type technology. Check it out.

abducted_large3.jpg


abducted_large1.jpg


abducted_large4.jpg



Isnt it beautiful.
 
That could be done with Crytek as well. It's cool though. Difference is Crytek has strengths in both indoor and outdoor. Doom 3 engine.. I don't really know how it will handle outdoor yet.
 
the last one is very impressive imo... but if you look at the face... on hl2 they are better ... alot better

and i'm sure the character animation on hl2 are still better... imagine, doom III bump mapping and shadow with half-life 2 dynamic and characters animations ... :eek:
 
Duh. The art direction seems horrible. It's a cool bump show though.
 
Difference is Crytek has strengths in both indoor and outdoor. Doom 3 engine.. I don't really know how it will handle outdoor yet.

Crytek engine doesnt use a unified lighting system the way Doom3 does. It has dynamic lights and shadows but not to the degree DOom3 does. The ONLY negative thing about doing outdoor areas in Doom3 engine is that iD hasnt perfected ambient lighting in the engine yet, which is a very crucial element to good looking outdoor areas. Carmack said his main goal with the doom3 engine at this point was gettin ambient lighting working in it. He said that a few months ago so it may be implimented now, i dunno. But because Crytek doesnt use a unified lighting system, they didnt run into the same problems iD did with implimenting ambient lighting.

Doom3 stil ldoes outdoor areas well, its just the shadows in outdoor areas are pitch black because of lack of ambient lighting.
 
Perhaps. But i'll tell you the dynamic lighting in Far Cry is in fact close...

Either way... there are pros and cons to everything. One of the other more impressive things about Crytek is the rediculously amazing draw distance.

All i'm saying is I don't know how Doom 3 engine would compare in the outdoor department yet.
 
Not a very good example... aside from the amazing lighting. ;)
 
well, i dont have a good pic of the outdoor city from the e3 2002 presentation. Its much more expansive than even a TeamArena map, but with the same problem of pitch black shadows seen in th epics above.

I hope they get ambient lgihting working before the release of Doom3. If they dont though, the engine will steadily progress and improve liek any other, and it will get sorted out eventually.
 
I saw the Doom 3 E3 stuff. Didn't show too much outdoor at all.


If anyone saw the FarCry trailer though, they zoomed with a sniper rifle at like 100x or something. Lol.
 
The Doom 3 outdoor area is from a cutscene anyway, so that doesn't really tell us anything.
 
Watch the e3 2003 vids, the scientists walkin animation looks TOTALLY natural. The lipsyncing is quite good and does look more natural than hl2's (doom 3's is staged, while hl2's is not.) Everyone in the intro to the alpha looks completely real.

Also, doom 3 can easily render huge outdoor environments, its such a huge misunderstanding and people always throw that at doom3 fans that it cant render outdoor environments, when it can.
 
Originally posted by LoneDeranger
The Doom 3 outdoor area is from a cutscene anyway, so that doesn't really tell us anything.

Well yes, but we all know Doom 3 isn't using anything pre-rendered.

Originally posted by Reaper978
Watch the e3 2003 vids, the scientists walkin animation looks TOTALLY natural. The lipsyncing is quite good and does look more natural than hl2's (doom 3's is staged, while hl2's is not.) Everyone in the intro to the alpha looks completely real.

Nah, I guarantee you HL-2 facial animations own any game coming out anytime soon.

And no, no game looks totally real.
 
yea i saw that vid, the guy was liek on top of a mountain and zoomed into a vally below form liek 3 miles away and sniped those foos. Pretty cool. I dont liek the way farcry outdoor maps look htough. Something about the way they did the trees bother me.
 
Originally posted by Lifthz
Well yes, but we all know Doom 3 isn't using anything pre-rendered.

No, I wasn't saying it's pre-rendered but in a controlled fly-by scene like that they could have cut down on the detail easily.
 
I wish you guys would watch the alpha intro again, especially the face on the german dude, watch it right when the guy says "thats not for you to worry about" you can easily see concern and fear in his face.
 
Originally posted by Reaper978
I wish you guys would watch the alpha intro again, especially the face on the german dude, watch it right when the guy says "thats not for you to worry about" you can easily see concern and fear in his face.

And HL-2 doesn't do that either?
 
I was simply saying this because people seem to think facial animations in doom 3 are non-existent, they are perfectly well done, even in a year old alpha.
 
I agree. But I don't think they're as well done as HL-2's facial animations specifically.
 
Yeah, I wish the foliage in Far Cry reacted more to people touching it: a lot of it just looks like intangible detail brushes. Still pretty sweet stuff though.

BM, you know exactly what I'm talking about, because you are the exact same troll who was banned for it last time.
 
Originally posted by Apos
Yeah, I wish the foliage in Far Cry reacted more to people touching it: a lot of it just looks like intangible detail brushes. Still pretty sweet stuff though.

What do you mean passing through bushes? Or what specifically?
 
Originally posted by Reaper978
I was simply saying this because people seem to think facial animations in doom 3 are non-existent, they are perfectly well done, even in a year old alpha.

But are they being done dynamically (just by specifying a .wav file)? Like in HL2?
 
i still beleive(guesstimate) hl2 will have better gameplay. You can't really change my mind on that one until i have played both.
 
What do you mean passing through bushes?

I didn't even mean brushes: things like the ferns and so forth: a lot of them aren't actual physical objects, they're just detail. Same thing with the grass in HL2: it's not really "there."
 
Oh, you mean texture instead of simulated objects? Yeah, annoying. :p

Originally posted by subs
i still beleive(guesstimate) hl2 will have better gameplay. You can't really change my mind on that one until i have played both.

Well, I don't think anything until I play all of them. I'm betting HL-2 environmental physics should amaze me though...
 
Back
Top