HL2 on DOOM3 engine? take a look!!!

Shadows in DooM 3 was both good and bad.
At a distance it looked awsome (except being completely unrealistically sharp), but up close, if someone was standing infront of you, the shadow would work as a flashbang.
Namely when imps charged a fireball at you.

As far as I can remember, shadows don't work like that. They don't fill your eyes with blackness. Everything around the thing that's casting the shadow at you will still be bright.

I also think DooM 3's graphics is way better than HL2, but today's computers aren't ready for that kind of graphics, so HL2 will suffice (which looks just as blurry as the old HL1 textures, only more detailed).
HL2 clearly -allows- higher textures. At least on models. Not sure if wall textures can be as large (2048), but any higher would most likely be unplayable.

DooM 3's textures are also quite blurry actually, come to think of it, but that could be because of my graphics setting.
Monster models, however, definantley are not.

I also think DooM 3's ragdoll physics is far superior to HL2.

I would love to see HL2 on DooM 3, but I think that'd be a time consuming project to do.

I'm not a fan of either game, by the way. I'm open minded, not set on one thing.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
Tenebrae (a Quake engine modification) did realtime lighting several years ago.

As far as I know, it was released years after we saw Doom 3's shadowing system.

Eg. said:
another bad thing about doom, its unplayable to 1/2 of teh comps put there, ati owners, i have a x800, and i can barley play it. doom3 was a big tech demo, and no other game is going to linsence a engine that exludes half teh market

Doom 3 runs fine for me, while Half-Life 2 doesn't.
 
Eg. said:
i have a x800, and i can barley play it. doom3 was a big tech demo, and no other game is going to linsence a engine that exludes half teh market

You have something wrong with your computer then because i have a 9800pro and i can run the game 1024x768 High details @ ~35-40fps in game. I get ~55-60fps in the timedemo.
 
André Damli said:
I also think DooM 3's ragdoll physics is far superior to HL2.

If by that, you mean "non existant". IIRC, Doom 3 has no physics engine. Things fall and land in a set way. How "revolutionary".

Oh, and another thing. Doom 3's base AI was crap. By that, I mean "there was none". It was all scripted.

Ooh, fantastic.
 
Kangy said:
If by that, you mean "non existant". IIRC, Doom 3 has no physics engine. Things fall and land in a set way. How "revolutionary".

Oh, and another thing. Doom 3's base AI was crap. By that, I mean "there was none". It was all scripted.

Ooh, fantastic.

Doom3 has pretty decent physics (developed in-house by ID), and all the enemies ragdoll, including the huge boss. Nothing falls in a set way at all.

HL2's AI is pure crap as well, there is really nothing seperating the 2 games in that respect. And what do you mean there is no Ai in D3? you mean to tell me that you think the movements and actions of every character/enemy in the game is scripted?

Hl2 has easily the same amount of scripted sequences as Doom3 does, quite possibly more.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
Tenebrae (a Quake engine modification) did realtime lighting several years ago.

Another funny thing is that there's a very cheap engine out there called AMP, goes for as low as $200 for a license and had a unified lighting model at least a year ago (when I played the techdemo).
EDIT: When I check the newspage, may 2003 was the latest techdemo, so more than one and a half years ago.

http://www.slamsoftware.com/products.php

Really, it's not like Carmack invented it, nor is it revolutionary, it's just a very efficient appliance of it.

DooM 3's textures are also quite blurry actually, come to think of it, but that could be because of my graphics setting.
Monster models, however, definantley are not.

Sorta funny when you consider the fact that the maximum texture resolution for a monster in Doom 3 is one 512x512 sheet and that the G-Man uses a 1024x1024 texture for just his head.
 
Back
Top