New poll - Doom III engine vs Source engine at Firingsquad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Basing an opinion off thin air and marketing babble is even less credible.
 
"I have no defence to this argument, so I'll pretend it doesn't exist"
Click to expand...

Yes, being a fanboy who is terrified of breaking down the fictional walls he has built up around himself and facing facts, I'm sure thats exactly how you read it.

Continue to live in your zone of saftey, I will continue to enjoy an existance in reality. It's sad, but I can do nothing for you.
 
I really hate fanboyism..... Specially in threads like this.

IMO (and I'll be the 1st person to actually admit, as PiMuRho said, that this is My Opinion)


Source - better physics. HDR. best lip-synch & facial expressions (overall more user-friendly on caracther animation too). Note - I'm not sure if it's the textures or the engine rendering itself, but the Source has a more realistic & deep feel


DOOM 3 - best lighting. great use of bump-mapping on all surfaces ( although that is DOOM 3 xclusiv).
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
Yes, being a fanboy who is terrified of breaking down the fictional walls he has built up around himself and facing facts, I'm sure thats exactly how you read it.

Continue to live in your zone of saftey, I will continue to enjoy an existance in reality. It's sad, but I can do nothing for you.
Click to expand...

At least our fanboys stay in their proper forums.

I've already stated outright that both engines are appealing, and that I will buy both of them. What more do you expect to hear?

Are you hoping that everyone will say:
"By golly, Guy with Untypable Name, your lack of clarity and affront to decent composure conviced me! I only like Doom 3 now!"
?

If that's the case, I don't think that we are the ones living in fantasy.
 
Neither the alpha nor the beta are any real grounds for comparison, since they were different amounts of content, came from code made for different purposes (neither of which to show off the complete game), and so on. Doom3's alpha contained a few tight sequences meant to be played by card developers trying to fine tune hardware. Hl2's leak was patched together out of code and demo material, with a lot of the "events" and such missing.
 
Im fine with someone thinking Doom 3 looks better then HL2, but i ABSOLUTELY HATE IT when someone says "If you dont realise XXX is better then XXX you're a complete and utter fool". THATS what starts arguments like these.
 
Those graphics are awesome and generally looks better then HL2. But thats all the Doom 3 engine has thats better then Source.
 
Wesisapie:
Basing an opinion off thin air and marketing babble is even less credible.
Click to expand...

Yes, I should imagine it would be. Your point?

¿¿¿¿¿:

Yes, being a fanboy who is terrified of breaking down the fictional walls he has built up around himself and facing facts, I'm sure thats exactly how you read it.

Continue to live in your zone of saftey, I will continue to enjoy an existance in reality. It's sad, but I can do nothing for you.
Click to expand...

Or, "I have no valid argument, so I'll mumble something vague while still refusing to provide any evidence to back up my previous claims"
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
this is al lyou need to see folks.

If you think anything source can offer will top that level of graphics, you are obviously too far gone into your fanboy twilight zone to comprehend the truth.
Click to expand...


The graphics are fine, but they're really just a crutch for (what looks to me like) uninspired gameplay.
Sure, it's dark. And it's really pretty good at being dark, but what else can it do?

That screen really is "al lyou need to see folks."

It's far more persuasive than any of your arguments or your composure.
 
My point, as you already know, is that is exactly what you are basing your opinion from.
Some people prefer to experience things for themselves.
 
You all seem to be forgetting something also. Doom3 is just the first step into this new age of higher graphic fidelity. It will be taken to the next level progressively. Look at the unreal2 engine. It is just an attempt to jump ahead. The unreal3 engine is what Doom3 engine will be in a few years, as the engine is updated. Don't forget that Carmack intends to keep this engine as the industry standard for the next five years. This is what he has said will happen, and no one in the industry has a better reputation for predicting the turn of events than Carmack, as we have seen. he is virually a gaming industry psychic he has proven himself to be so reliable.

Fact is that in late 2005 when quake4 comes out with graphic capabilities that rival unreal3, and valve is just getting aorund to releasing their first upgrade to source(higher resolutiuon texture packs, gj valve ;o )then maybe you will understand.

Valve is a newcommer company riding the dx platform. They are not seasoned developers, especially when it comes to engine development. On the other hand, we have the man who has driven gaming graphics since HIS COMPANY INVENTED THE MODERN FPS, and he will continue to do so with Doom3 wether you realize it or not.
 
My point, as you already know, is that is exactly what you are basing your opinion from.
Some people prefer to experience things for themselves.
Click to expand...

So please tell me, oh wise one, what my opinion is?

I'm looking forward to both Doom 3 and HL2, as entirely different gaming experiences. But I'd rather wait until both games are finished before playing them and developing opinions on them.
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
You all seem to be forgetting something also. Doom3 is just the first step into this new age of higher graphic fidelity. It will be taken to the next level progressively. Look at the unreal2 engine. It is just an attempt to jump ahead. The unreal3 engine is what Doom3 engine will be in a few years, as the engine is updated. Don't forget that Carmack intends to keep this engine as the industry standard for the next five years. This is what he has said will happen, and no one in the industry has a better reputation for predicting the turn of events than Carmack, as we have seen. he is virually a gaming industry psychic he has proven himself to be so reliable.

Fact is that in late 2005 when quake4 comes out with graphic capabilities that rival unreal3, and valve is just getting aorund to releasing their first upgrade to source(higher resolutiuon texture packs, gj valve ;o )then maybe you will understand.

Valve is a newcommer company riding the dx platform. They are not seasoned developers, especially when it comes to engine development. On the other hand, we have the man who has driven gaming graphics since HIS COMPANY INVENTED THE MODERN FPS, and he will continue to do so with Doom3 wether you realize it or not.
Click to expand...

Okay, Carmack=Love, we get the point.
People buy games because they are fun, not because they are new, and only new. Half-life has sold more copies than any other FPS. You don't need to be first to be best.
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
It already can :bounce:

There is nothing in that screen Doom3 engine can't do.
Click to expand...


I could say the same about the screenshot you posted.

EVIDENCE. Supply some, or your claims are utterly, utterly invalid. And statements like "it's common knowledge" or the other strawmen you've come out with don't constitute any kind of evidence.
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
You all seem to be forgetting something also. Doom3 is just the first step into this new age of higher graphic fidelity. It will be taken to the next level progressively. Look at the unreal2 engine. It is just an attempt to jump ahead. The unreal3 engine is what Doom3 engine will be in a few years, as the engine is updated. Don't forget that Carmack intends to keep this engine as the industry standard for the next five years. This is what he has said will happen, and no one in the industry has a better reputation for predicting the turn of events than Carmack, as we have seen. he is virually a gaming industry psychic he has proven himself to be so reliable.

Fact is that in late 2005 when quake4 comes out with graphic capabilities that rival unreal3, and valve is just getting aorund to releasing their first upgrade to source(higher resolutiuon texture packs, gj valve ;o )then maybe you will understand.

Valve is a newcommer company riding the dx platform. They are not seasoned developers, especially when it comes to engine development. On the other hand, we have the man who has driven gaming graphics since HIS COMPANY INVENTED THE MODERN FPS, and he will continue to do so with Doom3 wether you realize it or not.
Click to expand...

Like i said, other then the graphics. What is it that Doom 3 can do that Source can't? You are putting ALOT of emphasis on graphics, and after playing a game like Far Cry (a game with awesome graphics but dodgy gameplay) what makes you think HL2 wont have something thats just as or even more impressive than Doom 3's graphics?
 
Valve is a newcommer company riding the dx platform. They are not seasoned developers, especially when it comes to engine development.
Click to expand...

Gary McTaggart? Charlie Brown? Engine programmers? Or are you new to the gaming industry?
 
hl2 fans are such idiots, you can never keep up with the topic of conversation. EVERYTIME this debate comes up about engines, hl2 fanboys quickly revert to the "yea but hl2 gameplay owns" statements. This is because they know full well that source cannot hold it's own against the mac daddy of engines, doom3.

Incase the point hasn't gotten across, we are talking about engines not the respective games the engines are driving. The games aren't out and we know little to nothing about how good the gameplay will be. So stick with the topic.
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
Doom3: has one single feature that Source does in a different way to avoid being tied down, but still looks pretty darn good. Everything else is vastly inferior. Any real comparison?
Click to expand...

Don't be an idiot.

Firstly, source does more than "do it alittle differently to avoid being tied down". Source can't even touch Doom3's lighting, not by a long shot. Source uses a pretty old technique to project the occasional shadow on the ground. Per pixel dynamic lighting and shadowing is on a whole nother level, and doesn't tie the enigne dow at all. Infact, it opens new doors that source can't even fathom.

List of some things Doom3 does better:

Detail. Hl2 is sparce and dry, lacking detail everywhere. This is mostly due to the almost non-existance of normal maps. They could have used them alot more to give their world some detail. hl2 also lacks geometric detail. We are past the time where a 5 story building is just a box with ever detail textured on. Get with the times Valve.

Sound engine. Check out some of the interviews from Duffy and the other id programmers, the sound engine is easily the most advanced ever seen in a FPS. It was also co-designed by Trent Reznor. Vastly superior to sourc's sound engine.

Reputation of the developers goes a long way when deciding which engine to go with, and lets face it: Carmack owns the engine developing business. Valve are first-timers, and their work looks mediocre so far.


Come to think of it, it would be much easier for you to list the things you think source does better. I could go on for quite a while. the only thing Source has an edge on is that it handels facial expressions and lyp-synching real-time, which isn't a big deal since an animator can make it look better than the neigne can anyway. There isn't ANYTHING else about source that sticks out. Name one thing.
Click to expand...


normal maps are not the be-all end-all (actually at this point they're kind of boring on their own), in addition to that source supports them and the mappers use them where necessary.

as for the lighting/shadowing issue, source uses dx9/pixel shader2.0 soft shadows (for most objects in the world that move) much like unreal 3 engine uses, where are doom3's soft shadows? OH WAIT thats right, doom3 is using a rather crappy hard edged volumetric shadow system. in addition source uses lightmaps (like FarCry) for outdoor areas where brushes aren't going to be moving.
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
hl2 fans are such idiots, you can never keep up with the topic of conversation. EVERYTIME this debate comes up about engines, hl2 fanboys quickly revert to the "yea but hl2 gameplay owns" statements.
Click to expand...

When did anyone say that? And stop avoiding the questions at hand.
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
There is nothing in that screen Doom3 engine can't do.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it won't.
FPS have advanced to the point that you don't need to stay in corridors.

I'd rather have a game have great graphics while trying something new instead of an perfect-graphics version of a game I've played before.
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
hl2 fans are such idiots, you can never keep up with the topic of conversation. EVERYTIME this debate comes up about engines, hl2 fanboys quickly revert to the "yea but hl2 gameplay owns" statements.
Click to expand...

Doom 3 fans are such idiots. They can never come up with actual evidence to back up their spurious claims.

This is because they know full well that source cannot hold it's own against the mac daddy of engines, doom3.
Click to expand...

If you were to provide some actual concrete evidence of that, I might actually believe you.

Incase the point hasn't gotten across, we are talking about engines not the respective games the engines are driving. The games aren't out and we know little to nothing about how good the gameplay will be. So stick with the topic.
Click to expand...

Probably the one thing you've said that I agree with.
 
Yes, but it won't.
Click to expand...

A crappy boatyard has no business being in Doom3 maybe?

FPS have advanced to the point that you don't need to stay in corridors.
Click to expand...

Doom3 doesn't need to stay in corridors, it features alot of compact spaces to build tnesion/feelings of helplessness/create more firghtening situations. With that said, it is well known from comments by the developers that doom3 also features plenty of wide open areas.


I'd rather have a game have great graphics while trying something new instead of an perfect-graphics version of a game I've played before.
Click to expand...

You have never played Doom3 before. ;o

If yo uwould rather have a game with outdated mundane graphics than a brand new game with the best graphical engine on the market, be my guest. My granpa still likes 8-tracks and refuses to buy CDs, go figure.

Now don't avoid the topic at hand, which is the engines, not the games.
 
It'll be back down to zero if you carry on.
 
On the other hand, we have the man who has driven gaming graphics since HIS COMPANY INVENTED THE MODERN FPS
Click to expand...

Sure, then almost killed it by pumping out uninspired junk for games that only modders kept alive and fun. id invented FPS singleplayer idea, but Half-Life showed us what could actually be done with it once you got past filling a bunch of formless cooridors and boxes with random enemies.

There is nothing in that screen Doom3 engine can't do.
Click to expand...

It can't do the water. Can't have that many characters on the screen at once. Can't light that scene without slowing to a dead crawl (don't you read about the tech? Stuff in doom3 has to be built of polys and avoid complex edges which multiply the lighting calcs exponentially). Don't think it can do all the cables and such.

The fact is, the one feature doom3 has on hl2 is something that's really easy to add later as long as you have all the source art. It's not a complex method by any means. It's just that the performance cost takes away from other things.

this is al lyou need to see folks.
Click to expand...

What? A scene that is an unplayble cinematic that temporarily uses two high detail models in the entire scene (this is what Carmack said about scenes like that)? Big deal.
 
Ok, PiMuRho, you lazy bastard. I will go hunting for you and find quotes to back up the common knowledge I have posted that elludes you. What is it you are having a hard time with? Post a few and I will go do the legwork for you. Only a few, however, as I have allotted myself a limited amount of time with which I can participate in a dead discussion with mindless valve groupies.

chop chop.
 
well my honest opinion on all this is "who cares". two games; one will be better. you guys really have no idea so why bother pretending.
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
A crappy boatyard has no business being in Doom3 maybe?



Doom3 doesn't need to stay in corridors, it features alot of compact spaces to build tnesion/feelings of helplessness/create more firghtening situations. With that said, it is well known from comments by the developers that doom3 also features plenty of wide open areas.

You have never played Doom3 before. ;o

If yo uwould rather have a game with outdated mundane graphics than a brand new game with the best graphical engine on the market, be my guest. My granpa still likes 8-tracks and refuses to buy CDs, go figure.

Now don't avoid the topic at hand, which is the engines, not the games.
Click to expand...
Thank you for proving you're a Doom 3 fanboy by avoiding my question for almost 2 whole pages. Nice work, oh and by the way, what i asked was "What does Doom 3 have on Source that Source can't do? (other then the graphics)"
 
answer the question ¿¿¿¿¿ or jsut admit that you have no answer
 
okay, "¿¿¿¿¿¿¿"... so what if doom3 has the most advanced engine as far as graphics? herein lies your neurosis. the entire point of you coming here is to say that the doom3 engine is better than the source engine. okay... now what? what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? maybe you're a dev with id software? no, i doubt that, they seem like mature people. the issue isn't who has the bigger penis, the issue is what form of psychosis do you suffer from?
 
I already told you: Give me quotes about longevity of the engines, and the skills/experience of the developers. Hurry along now.
 
Fact is, HL2's graphics have plenty of things Doom3 doesn't have, a wide array of different shaders (please, tell me that even just the eyes in Doom3 come anywhere near to HL2 character's eyes) instead of Doom3's single "plastic" shader, a much more realistic rendering of light radiosity, HDR effects, etc. Doom3 has one thing HL2 doesn't have: a pretty big and cool thing, but a bit of putting all your eggs in one basket. To say that Doom3 is new and HL2 is outdated is just silly. You can say that you like Doom3's graphics direction better, but the reality is that both have plenty of advancements.

And I'd really like to hear what makes Doom3's sound "the most advanced in a FPS ever" other than just the developer saying it's so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Omnomnick
Source 2 Left 4 Dead 2 Prototype Screenshots Leaked
2
Replies
68
Views
358K
SoylentGamer
SoylentGamer
Omnomnick
Half-Life 3 Referenced in Source Filmmaker Render Code
2
Replies
40
Views
39K
Schru
S
Omnomnick
"Free To Play" Dota 2 Documentary Release Date Announced
Replies
4
Views
6K
Vegeta897
Vegeta897
Hectic Glenn
UPDATED: Half-Life 3, Left 4 Dead 3, Source 2 + Much More Found on Valve Project Tracker
2 3
Replies
92
Views
391K
Stigmata
Stigmata
Back
Top