My views on Source, CryEngine and Doom3

I

Intel17

Newbie
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
I think that on a pure raw technology side, Doom 3 is the most advanced out of the 3, CryEngine may have an edge on Source, but they're close. However the engine is only 1/2 of the graphics equation. I believe the art, textures, high poly models etc. that HL2 and FarCry allow, due to less complex engines make them look great. Half Life 2 and CryEngine are the renderers of today becuase they are fairly advanced, and use excellent art assets. Doom3 is the engine of tomorrow and not today, because its super advanced, but they are constrained due to hardware. Once faster HW comes out, we'll see the potential of the doom3 tech.

So who agrees with me that Doom 3's engine is more advanced, but not necessarily the best looking?
 
 
Wrong Forum
Belongs In General Gaming
*Moved*
 
Woah Mr-Fusion, thats quite a list

It's oh so tempting to merge ALL of them into one big thread........... then lock it :p
 
It's just, if I posted in one of the threads in that huge list, nobody would actually listen...
 
The Dark Elf said:
It's oh so tempting to merge ALL of them into one big thread........... then lock it :p
Click to expand...

The only reason you would want to do that is purely becasue you get to lock it, nothing else. Bugger the info - I'm just in for the locking, guv!

Why aye jimmy.
 
Well, I guess nobody wants to have a civilized discussion of the points i made in my first post.
 
Is anything new being brought to the table here? Or is it the same shuffling of Cards again and again? You might want to look also at the latest Unreal engine incarnation, and also consider the X ray engine which is powering the Stalker game for it's environmental strengths.
 
I have to say, this time you are all wrong about the appropriate-"ness" of this thread.

He CLEARLY stated that this is an opinionated thread, of his personal views, and not every other thread will have his personal views.
Just let him post his opinion, then debate on it, rather then flame him for not having the same opinion as someone else and forcing him to post there, which would be a bit opressive.

No I did not say you all flamed him so don't respond with "where did i flame you stupid little human 10-year-old obviously boy."
I'm pointing out this fact before the flaming gets worse.

Realistically, you can not put every post on a simular topic in a single thread. People will not keep going to the same thread to check for updates, hence what you say is never read.

New threads are a must for ideas that are different on a simular topic.

AND i'm not saying this is the best new thread ever, it's just the principle that people are eager to attack at others.

Just incase, I never said you all attacked him, just noticed in the past that some people do.
 
So, do you think what I stated is right? Doom3 for pure technical superiority, Half Life2 for super textures/models for graphical superiority and Cryengine in between?
 
the whole point of what everyone said before was that if you keep making threads with the same stuff in them it just clutters up the forums. seeing as there are so many of this type of thread, it would be much more organised to comment on another thread rather than start a new topic on the same old stuff.

Well, I guess nobody wants to have a civilized discussion of the points i made in my first post
Click to expand...
sure they do. it's happening right now in 97 other threads
 
If you care so little don't make posts like that Cybernoid, just ignore the thread. Saying that in no way helps the situation.
 
Are you basing your opinion of source on one ported beta level of CS? If so the data used to create your opinion is limited to the point that it makes your opinion non meaningful.
 
I am not basing my opinions on CS:Source, nor have I played the beta leak. And I have seen that level you mention, but I AM NOT using that for my comparisons either, I feel my compariston is fair.

I am saying Half Life 2 looks better, but raw tech, HL2 is advanced but Doom3 is more advanced.

And I dont particularly care for D3's Gameplay, but all it has is an engine ahead of its time. Gameplay is outdated and Half Life 2, in my opinion will beat it in that respect, as well as physics utilization, sound etc.

But, in all fairness Doom 3's renderer is currently leaps and bounds ahead of anything coming in 2004 and I believe engines will match it in 2005.

:)
 
Intel17 said:
Well, I guess nobody wants to have a civilized discussion of the points i made in my first post.
Click to expand...

Because you haven't really made any points.

Truth is, Source is by far the most advanced engine of the 3. Cry engine? :LOL: Doom3 is a graphics engine, it's physics are choppy as hell when you actually try and use them. Source, has photo-realistic graphics, is capable of many more features and things that the other 2 engines arent, and, the engine can be dynamically upgraded through steam. So imo Source is by far the most advanced.
 
I don't honestly understand the big deal about Doom 3's engine. The video screens and such are cool, but apart from those it's pretty standard fare.
 
Intel17 said:
But, in all fairness Doom 3's renderer is currently leaps and bounds ahead of anything coming in 2004 and I believe engines will match it in 2005.
Click to expand...


FEAR looks better than doom 3, i dont like its style, but it looks better than doom 3, STALKER, its graphics are crap, but the graphics engine itself is way more top notch than doom 3.
 
Source doesn't have photorealistic graphics, cause the graphics are easily distingushed from photos.
 
guinny said:
Because you haven't really made any points.

Truth is, Source is by far the most advanced engine of the 3. Cry engine? :LOL: Doom3 is a graphics engine, it's physics are choppy as hell when you actually try and use them. Source, has photo-realistic graphics, is capable of many more features and things that the other 2 engines arent, and, the engine can be dynamically upgraded through steam. So imo Source is by far the most advanced.
Click to expand...

I believe you are incorrect in your thinking. First off, I was talking about the renderer (sorry if i didnt make that clear in my first post) so physics aren't included. Second, it isn't Source that has photo realistic graphics, its Half Life 2 the game, which has VERY impressive texture and model work. However, the core technology of Half Life 2 is lightmapping, and vertex lighting, which is ok for Half Life 2 since it doesnt need the advanced lighting, but we ARE talking about the engines. Doom 3's renderer uses a per-pixel, unified lighting system which means all lights (that are actual light sources and not "texture" lights) are treated equally and light the environment correctly. Second, Doom 3 has stencil volumes on almost everything so the shadowing is position correct. Half Life 2 uses either precomputed shadows for everything or dynamic characters get projected shadows.

Half Life 2 has a flexible shader interface, but the doom3 engine is capable of all that with its Cg interface.

That said, I think the good texture and model work in Half Life 2 puts it ahead of Doom3 graphically, but technically, Doom3 wins, but technical is only 30% of the equation and the art, and use of resources is 70%.

Thats why Half Life 2 looks better, but honestly Doom3 is more advanced as a renderer.

And Half Life 2 will be more fun probably.
 
Doom 3 may have the graphic engine of the future, but HL2 is the physics engine of the future.
And because source can be easily updated they can easily add more accurate and better physics coding easily, and even Fluid Physics ^_^.

So maybe The Rendered goes to Doom 3
But the Physics goes to HL2.

And Graphics dont make the game, the gameplay does... What adds more to the gameplay? Physics or Graphics? Physics.
HL2 Wins!

Now i was looking on a FarCry forum once.. and well i remember them saying that CryEngine was better than Doom 3's.
They said a few times that its engine can pull off anything Doom 3's can?
Can anyone clarifly that for me(I just wanna know).

Raxx Source does have Photorealistic, meaning they look somewhat real, i mean look at some games that look like metal!
Thats what were saying.


So all in all, since HL2 can be dramatically updated and physics add to gameplay i think ~~~~
Source Wins OVERALL.
 
Minerel said:
Doom 3 may have the graphic engine of the future, but HL2 is the physics engine of the future.
And because source can be easily updated they can easily add more accurate and better physics coding easily, and even Fluid Physics ^_^.

So maybe The Rendered goes to Doom 3
But the Physics goes to HL2.

And Graphics dont make the game, the gameplay does... What adds more to the gameplay? Physics or Graphics? Physics.
HL2 Wins!

Now i was looking on a FarCry forum once.. and well i remember them saying that CryEngine was better than Doom 3's.
They said a few times that its engine can pull off anything Doom 3's can?
Can anyone clarifly that for me(I just wanna know).

Raxx Source does have Photorealistic, meaning they look somewhat real, i mean look at some games that look like metal!
Thats what were saying.


So all in all, since HL2 can be dramatically updated and physics add to gameplay i think ~~~~
Source Wins OVERALL.
Click to expand...

FarCry does dynamic lights through lightmap interpolation and faked stencil volumes. Doom3's renderer is MUCH more advanced than the CryEngine renderer.

And I'll agree HL2's physics are great and add a level of immersiveness.

But rendering wise Doom3 beats STALKER, CryEngine, and Source...but thats the only thing doom3 beats those games in.
 
Depends where. haven't played farcry, doom3's physics suck, hl2's lighting is apparently buggy. I think hl2 looks better than doom3, though, having seen the stress test and the interesting lighting effects and the not pitch black and all.
 
Intel17 said:
FarCry does dynamic lights through lightmap interpolation and faked stencil volumes. Doom3's renderer is MUCH more advanced than the CryEngine renderer.

And I'll agree HL2's physics are great and add a level of immersiveness.

But rendering wise Doom3 beats STALKER, CryEngine, and Source...but thats the only thing doom3 beats those games in.
Click to expand...
Those aren't HL2's physics, they're Havok's :)
 
Dude, HL2 uses a insanley customized Havok physics Engine. There nothing close to the oringal Havok's.
Its like taking Havoks Engine, then improving the physics massivly. So really most of the physics engine is valves.
So really it isnt Havok's..
 
Doom 3's renderer is only more advanced in lighting. As far as DX 9 and shaders go, I think the Source engine has it beaten.
 
just to make things perfectly clear, NO game has photo-realistic graphics. you're all going to have to wait a long, long, LONG time for anything that good.

as far as doom3 v hl2 v far cry, it's all just apples and oranges. they all have different styles. doom3 may look better, but if you make a map in doom3 that is as big and open as the coastline level in hl2 you'd get like 4 fps.

Doom 3's renderer uses a per-pixel, unified lighting system which means all lights (that are actual light sources and not "texture" lights) are treated equally and light the environment correctly
Click to expand...
yes, it uses a unified lighting system, but it cuts corners. static object aren't treated the same as dynamic objects. with static objects, a copy of the model is projected into the air, rather than it interacting with the surrounding environment. if you're just running and gunning it doesn't matter, but it's really bad if you're looking for a pda and all of a sudden there are two lamps on the table.

again, they are all good, and have different strengths. apples and oranges.
 
Doom 3 is the most advanced when it comes to lighting, quite easily.
As for Crytek VS Source...well i haven't seen anything one can do that the other can't so i can't say one's better or not.

With Far Cry the Crytek engine was used primarily to show off its enviroments. Everything it did there, it did quite well, but the game just doesn't look nearly as good as Doom 3.

Half-Life 2 looks to be aiming more towards photo-realism as you can see from the SIGGRAPH demonstration over at PlanetHalflife. And as you can see in the some of the Vampire:Bloodlines screenshot, Source is capable of dynamic lighting on the same scale as the Crytek engine is.

But as for now doom 3 is definately the best engine.
As for Crytek VS Source...i'll have to wait until more games come out using those engines. I suppose it also depends on how much polish the developers put on the visual aspect of the games as well. Anyway enough of this for now, i'm gonna try and preload HL2 again :D YIPPEE!!
 
If you notice, valve was trying to approach realism - I mean think about it, they used hi-res wood textures in that shed in Ravenholm. Now many would say, "why didn't they use bump mapping there?" - because well it wasn't required - wood isn't all bumpy, it's flat. Similarly, where do you think they could use bump mapping in an apartment - I mean are the walls in a rundown apartment bumpy (generally)? no.

They used specular highlights on the wood to give it a polished feel - did someone notice that?

To me it seems that valve is restricting their use of new techniques which their engine is capable of because they perfer realism over looks. So if there is a smooth wall in an apartment - they'll try to make sure that how it looks in the game, not bump mapped and have spiffy effects all over it.

To some this seems "dated", to some it feels as "realistic". I'm in the later category.
 
Of course it will be interesting to see how many other game companies buy the rights to the these engines to make their own games.

Modding Difficulty

Half-Life 2 - Simplicty

Doom 3 - Cool man, but ouch to the learning curve

Farcry - Pfft who cares?
 
Intel17 said:
Half Life 2 has a flexible shader interface, but the doom3 engine is capable of all that with its Cg interface.
Click to expand...
What do you mean when you say CG interface? Are you talking about displaying menu's and such on polygons in-game? Such as those nifty interfaces in Doom 3? Because Half-Life 2 has that feature as well, you can see some of it at work in CS:Source when someone plants/defuses a bomb
 
What a lot of people don't understand is the coding behind an engine. The HL2 source will be extremely easy to customize for programmers and can be made to do a lot of things. Sure, I think that Doom 3's lighting is great; but, that doesn't mean that would look good in most games. In HL2 you can have indoor and outdoor environments, light and dark, Doom 3 is really more of an engine for dark indoor levels.

Getting back to my original point. The HL2 source engine is written so you can customize every aspect of it. Once the hardware is available you will easily be able to make dynamic lighting in the source as you have in Doom 3 but it will look 100 times better because of the advanced physics and better visuals.

I think that lighting is great in Doom 3 but good lighting but I personally think there are a lot more important things than really good lighting. Speaking of which, has anyone turned on the flash light in CS : S, looks pretty darn good.
 
Intel17 said:
I think that on a pure raw technology side, Doom 3 is the most advanced out of the 3, CryEngine may have an edge on Source, but they're close. However the engine is only 1/2 of the graphics equation. I believe the art, textures, high poly models etc. that HL2 and FarCry allow, due to less complex engines make them look great. Half Life 2 and CryEngine are the renderers of today becuase they are fairly advanced, and use excellent art assets. Doom3 is the engine of tomorrow and not today, because its super advanced, but they are constrained due to hardware. Once faster HW comes out, we'll see the potential of the doom3 tech.

So who agrees with me that Doom 3's engine is more advanced, but not necessarily the best looking?
Click to expand...

you should add the engine of cronicles of tiddick:escape of butcher bay

cuz is very awsome and similiar to the Doom3 engine
but I prefer the cronicles of riddick engine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Valve offers more core virtual reality technologies to device manufacturers
Replies
0
Views
23K
Barnz
B
CombineAdvisor3
Source 2 expectations?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Gabe Newell's AMA summary (January 17, 2017)
Replies
1
Views
24K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
-smash-
Valve at GDC 2016
Replies
7
Views
5K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
Back
Top