New poll - Doom III engine vs Source engine at Firingsquad

[Xtasy0]

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If yo uwould rather have a game with outdated mundane graphics than a brand new game with the best graphical engine on the market, be my guest.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.

you keep saying we're not talking about the games, and then you go and bring hl2 the game into by saying

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.

you're not exactly the best person to be saying "don't avoid the topic at hand" since you seem to avoid many replies which point out issues you just happened to overlook, or mis-state, you seem very similar to evilewok/doom3/brassmonkey/whatever.name.you.chose.to.use.to.troll.one.day (or maybe all you doom3 evangelists are clones and you can only spew the same rhetoric time and time again...)

 

[¿¿¿¿¿]

It can't do the water.

Yes it can. Doom3 infact will have rather cool liquid effects, as Carmack has stated in an interview. you, sir, are too ill-informed to add to this conversation.

Can't have that many characters on the screen at once.

more bullshit. This theory that doom3 is limited to 4 players on screen at once(even though there are screens and video with 10 or more characters in a single scene) stems from the false assumption that MP is limited to 4 by default. It is not a limitation on the engine.

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).

This is false, Doom3 will light it's fair share of wide open areas just fine as has been stated by the developers and interviewers who have seen the developers drive buggys around sprawling martian terrain just fine.

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.

Firstly, the amount of graphical fidelity found in Carmack's lateast engine is quite a bit more than an update to source. Source would have to be rebuilt from the gorund up.

Secondly, there is no cost to what doom3 does. As the developers have said, they can do all of these things that source can do with water, terrain, many enimies, complicated physics, all with the supreme graphical fidelity of the doom3 engine. You need to read more about it before spouting misinformation.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

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.

The main problem with the "Ignoring Gameplay" stance is that, in this case, it applies.

Source's physics are more important that it's graphics, because they are an integral part of the gameplay. You use the physics as weapons and as tools.
Doom 3's physics are meant to complement thier shiny maps and textures in the "looking good" department. Thus, they aren't as accurate or elaborate. Nothing wrong with that, but it means that Doom 3's graphics are it's biggest asset.

Doom 3 specializes in rendering metalic corridors. Source specializes in being applicable to many situations. When making a mod with a form of gameplay outside of an FPS, Source provides more options.
Doom 3 is still great for mods involving dark, closed in spaces (Hell, I'm working for one) but it can't do much else without large changes.

So far, most all of your arguments have been graphics-based. Of course, Doom 3 is great at shading Doom 3. But, Half-Life 2 has comparable graphics working on a plethora of possible games and visual styles, as well as a better ability to cater to multiple forms of gameplay.

And if Doom 3 can do such wide open spaces, why haven't we seen one yet in the screens?

 

[Jackal hit]

¿¿¿¿¿¿ = evilewok/pseudonym_/brassmonkey 3.0 or so. "Now includes upgraded taunts to send foes to valhalla. Beware of the next iteration, kids. 4.0 with supercharged powers of backwards logic"

 

[¿¿¿¿¿]

"What does Doom 3 have on Source that Source can't do? (other then the graphics)"

It's not about what it can do that source can't, it's about the fact that it can do EVERYTHING that source can, but with the added graphical fidelity. Source is a capable engine, it just looks old. Doom3 is just as capable, but is next generation. Thats the point.

 

[Sparta]

Oh good you finally answered
Ok well if the Doom 3 engine can render about a mile of cliffside landscape with vehicles and monsters. Then, it'll be better. But until thats proven, Source remains better in my books. Because i've seen nothing but cramped corridors in Doom 3. And i haven't seen any screenshots with 10 monsters in it at one time.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

One point you're missing by a huge margin:

You're comparing engines.

id are an engine technology company. The game is secondary. They create engines and build a game around them.

Valve are a game developer. The engine is a means to an end. They create games and build an engine around them.

See the difference?

Doom 3 is a game and and engine. Source is an engine, Half-Life 2 is a game.

 

[stocky021]

ok cant you guys just say each source has its good and bad points. unless one of you single-handedly created each engine from scratch and know every single detail about each, then who are you to say which is better?

also, why dont you guys wait until the games are out and you can judge the FINISHED product.

 

[Jackal hit]

ok cant you guys just say each source has its good and bad points. unless one of you single-handedly created each engine from scratch and know every single detail about each, then who are you to say which is better?

also, why dont you guys wait until the games are out and you can judge the FINISHED product.

apparently that's not good enough for troll v 3.0 this discussion is about "the engines and the engines only" anything else would be unsatisfactory. he also is the be all and end all authority of the d3 engine.

 

[Jackal hit]

i guess i'll add in my own silly opinion, which is this: i think doom3's graphics look nicer, but i definitely like the style of source's graphics much more.

however, if source does full-time HDR(as seen in that dx9 trailer) in halflife2, then i must say that hl2 will look better. aside from the u3.0 graphics, i think the hdr movie contains the best graphics shown for any game so far. but that's just my opinion. please flame me, ¿¿¿¿¿. :cheers:

 

[Sparta]

i guess i'll add in my own silly opinion, which is this: i think doom3's graphics look nicer, but i definitely like the style of source's graphics much more.

No you can't think that, you must an uneducated HL2 Fanboy. Oh, sorry i'm stepping on ¿¿¿¿¿¿'s toes. :dozey:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

ok cant you guys just say each source has its good and bad points.

I dunno about the other folks, but I did.
The sum-up:
-Doom 3 has a great focus on asthetics.
-Source has a great focus on interactivity.

The only thing that bugs me is when the new kid on the block pops up and tries to stir up shit over different games/engines.

Some are wowed by the eye-candy, like our annoying question-marked friend.
Some, like myself, prefer dynamic physics and AI.

 

[Jackal hit]

No you can't think that, you must an uneducated HL2 Fanboy. Oh, sorry i'm stepping on ¿¿¿¿¿¿'s toes. :dozey:

read the edit on my last post that'll really get his blood boiling. and yes, sigh, i guess having an opinion that i don't try to pass off as fact makes me a stupid fanboy to the almighty question mark *sniffle*

edit: typos

 

[¿¿¿¿¿]

Ok well if the Doom 3 engine can render about a mile of cliffside landscape with vehicles and monsters. Then, it'll be better.

It can.

But until thats proven, Source remains better in my books.

It is proven by:

1. The screenshots of the huge martian urban complex from the alpha.

2. Statemeants by developers and journalists who have seen ladnscapes in action inside the egine.

3. The fact that quake4 has a different scope in mind, and that we know for a fact it will feature quite large vehicles.

People get it twisted and think that since doom3 doesn't have vehicles that means it must not be capable of rendering areas large enough to drive them, and that must mean it can only do corridors. This, ofcourse, isn't true. Doom3 the engine is very capable and applicable to a wide range of types of games, as the developers have said. you could create hl2 within the doom3 engine if you wanted without excluding a single element. It's just that doom3 the game is very focused on a singular type of experience, which is creeping through very creepy and tension building environments, and being frightened around every turn. Doom3 is the way it is not because of engine limitations, but because thats the type of game id wants to develop.

 

[Apos]

Secondly, there is no cost to what doom3 does.

What a ridiculous statement. Carmack has said himself that the lighting is extremely costly, and creates some limitations and things that need to be avoided for performance's sake. This is not a bad thing: it's a tradeoff they decided was worth making in order to get the sort of game they're after. But it can't do absolutely everything the best AND feature this sort of lighting. That's total nonsense.

This theory that doom3 is limited to 4 players on screen at once(even though there are screens and video with 10 or more characters in a single scene) stems from the false assumption that MP is limited to 4 by default. It is not a limitation on the engine.

It's "not a limitation of the engine" in the same way that cars only going 200mph isn't a limitation of the road. But most cars can't go that fast, so the point is moot: the key is how much you can do on your target range of hardware. Any idiot could program a game that looks like Finding Nemo, but if no one could play it in real time, what would be the point?

Again, Carmack himself has said that they have to limit the number of creatures in an area for performance reasons: no waves and waves of enemies, no 32 player multiplayer. No complex surfaces. Not because the engine couldn't be fed the poly information, but because with everything else the engine does, no one could run the game at that point. They can maybe have more lost souls in an area than they can demons, but you are not going to get hordes of enemies piling at you all at once in a huge battle sequence.

And again, that's not bad, it's just the kind of game they chose to make, and no doubt will probably make the best SP game they've done since the original Doom.

Every choice has tradeoffs. We're willing to admit that HL2 has tradeoffs. But no: inyour fantasy world, magical engines have no tradeoffs or performance issues. They are just magically the best at everything because id is the best, rah rah rah.

As the developers have said, they can do all of these things that source can do with water, terrain, many enimies, complicated physics, all with the supreme graphical fidelity of the doom3 engine. You need to read more about it before spouting misinformation.

Oh, the engine now has a magical component called "graphical fidelity" that is impossible to replicate? Color me ever so impressed...

We'll just see how complicated the amazing box stacking physics engine is when the game comes out.

 

[Jackal hit]

People get it twisted and think that since doom3 doesn't have vehicles that means it must not be capable of rendering areas large enough to drive them, and that must mean it can only do corridors.

people get twisted and think that since source doesn't have the exact same effects as doom3 that it means it must not be capable of rendering the same lighting effects and normal/bump mapping, meaning it is only an outdated engine and not worth our time as gamers.

Doom3 is the way it is not because of engine limitations, but because thats the type of game id wants to develop.

i agree with you on this one, but...
source is the way it is not because of engine limitations, but that's the look/feel that valve want to give to the game they are developing.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

We'll just see how complicated the amazing box stacking physics engine is when the game comes out.

Nonono, you can't stack boxes. Only knock them over.

Oh, and before Marky Mark flames, I'm talking about the gameplay, not the engine.

 

[Sparta]

It can.

It is proven by:

1. The screenshots of the huge martian urban complex from the alpha.

2. Statemeants by developers and journalists who have seen ladnscapes in action inside the egine.

3. The fact that quake4 has a different scope in mind, and that we know for a fact it will feature quite large vehicles.

People get it twisted and think that since doom3 doesn't have vehicles that means it must not be capable of rendering areas large enough to drive them, and that must mean it can only do corridors. This, ofcourse, isn't true. Doom3 the engine is very capable and applicable to a wide range of types of games, as the developers have said. you could create hl2 within the doom3 engine if you wanted without excluding a single element. It's just that doom3 the game is very focused on a singular type of experience, which is creeping through very creepy and tension building environments, and being frightened around every turn. Doom3 is the way it is not because of engine limitations, but because thats the type of game id wants to develop.

Fair enough then, your point is proven. But like Jackal Hit mentioned, "Can it do HDR"? Or better yet, show me an image of a city in the Doom 3 engine, that looks as good as it does in Source

 

[Styloid]

I think this whole discussion will be very different when ¿¿¿¿ realizes that many engines can/are doing what Doom3 plans to do and that real-time lighting can be added into any engine if you are willing to sacrifice soft shadows, large environments, computer requirements, AI, physics, etc. Much like Doom3 can be modded to add a few more players in MP, Source (or Unreal 2, or CloakNT, or Crytek, or anything really) can have real-time lighting if they are willing to make the sacrifices.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think this whole discussion will be very different when ¿¿¿¿ realizes that many engines can/are doing what Doom3 plans to do and that real-time lighting can be added into any engine if you are willing to sacrifice soft shadows, large environments, computer requirements, AI, physics, etc. Much like Doom3 can be modded to add a few more players in MP, Source (or Unreal 2, or CloakNT, or Crytek, or anything really) can have real-time lighting if they are willing to make the sacrifices.

Thank you!
I've been saying all along that Doom 3's graphics are a result of downscaling the rest of their features. You just worded it better.

That's why I said that doom 3 is good at being doom 3, but source can do lots.

All of source's applications will look the same as Hl2, but Doom 3 will need to reduce it's graphics fit in lots of enemies, vehicles and open spaces.

 

[Jackal hit]

I think this whole discussion will be very different when ¿¿¿¿ realizes that many engines can/are doing what Doom3 plans to do and that real-time lighting can be added into any engine if you are willing to sacrifice soft shadows, large environments, computer requirements, AI, physics, etc. Much like Doom3 can be modded to add a few more players in MP, Source (or Unreal 2, or CloakNT, or Crytek, or anything really) can have real-time lighting if they are willing to make the sacrifices.

hmm how about this: after playing farcry, i'm far less impressed by what doom3's graphics do. sure i still think they're pretty. but they don't have the wow-effect anymore. i think farcry looks every bit as good as anything i've seen of doom3. oh man that must be blasphemous

 

[Apos]

Let's just wait and see if Doom3 can do a shot like this:
http://media.pc.gamespy.com/media/492/492830/img_1984529.html

 

[Apos]

Heck, Tenebrae Quake did basically the exact same effect, and that was just a bunch of dudes who modified the QUAKE engine. It's a really simple, standard technology, not some ultra secret thing that only id could figure out how to use.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Let's just wait and see if Doom3 can do a shot like this:
http://media.pc.gamespy.com/media/492/492830/img_1984529.html

Strongly agreed.

 

[¿¿¿¿¿]

Perhaps I should go on the record and say flat out that I don't favor either of the games more than the other. They are both very different in focus and design, and I can appreciate each for what it offers.

hl2 is like Lord of the Rings(the movie) in scope, in that it focuses on a very large and all encompassing story, many diverse locations, plot twists, character developmeant, and everything else. Doom3, on the other hand, is like Dawn of the Dead. Very focused and singular in theme, smaller range of locations, story is meant to be cool rather than intricate, pure scarefest. Both movies are very cool, and both should be appreciated for what it does. As gamers, we should be happy that both of these games are coming,m and we have two greate games to play rather than one. We shouldn't be fighting and bickering about which is better.

As the wise Vulcan Surak once said, "I am pleased to see that we have differences. May we together become greater than the sum of both of us". This pointy eared philosopher was onto something, my friends. We should appreciate that such great games are so different, because it gives us more than if they were the same. We have veriety, we have somethign that is fresh and new with both experiences. We should rejoice in that, rather than bicker.


Try to get out of this competitive mode. It's not even your game. Can you imagine sitting in a art gallery and debating one picture of a tree is better than one picture of a cityscape? no, because it's not your work, you have nothing invested, and it's obvious they are both valuable for what they each bring to the table. Games are no different. try to realize this.

 

[Sprafa]

OMFG!!

So ,after 3 pages of useless ramblings, you've finally realized what we were trying to say since post 2....

 

[Jackal hit]

what the hell? are you someone else or still same person at that computer.... wow. wow. well at least you sound like you can be spoken to now :thumbs: :bounce:

edit: shit, i wasted my 500th post on this?! bahh!! and, i almost urinated on my screen when i saw that flipflop

 

[Neo_Kuja]

From page 2 :

I am not biased or a fanboy in any way,

* Cough * Doom 3 Fanboy* Cough*

You should be http://forums.newdoom.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=58 here, not in these HL2 forums ......

 

[Apos]

LOL, brassmonkey, you saying "Try to get out of this competitive mode..." after you've made it your life's mission over the past several MONTHS to jump into any thread on HL2 boards to pump doom3 as being superior to all other engines in every respect regardless of whether anyone was even talking about it or not, is pretty darn funny.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Um, hooray?

At least it's over.

I was mostly annoyed that he called pimurho an idiot in his second post here.

 

[Crusader]

Can't wait til the game comes out so all the doubting Thomases have to eat their words.

Lets face it, Doom 3 looks about as real as Pamela Anderson's breasts, but people new to the gaming scene think that making every bloody object shiny and plasticky = good graphics. I think it's ten times harder to make it look like real life, and Half-Life 2 is a lot closer to that.

 

[Sparta]

How do you know its brassmonkey?

 

[Styloid]

Can't wait til the game comes out so all the doubting Thomases have to eat their words.

Lets face it, Doom 3 looks about as real as Pamela Anderson's breasts, but people new to the gaming scene think that making every bloody object shiny and plasticky = good graphics. I think it's ten times harder to make it look like real life, and Half-Life 2 is a lot closer to that.

Let's not start anything controversial again.... for a couple of days. I think one important thing was established and that is (it's been said a literally a million times) all games are made to be different... therefore D3 vs. Source is pretty dumb poll.

 

[Sparta]

Can't wait til the game comes out so all the doubting Thomases have to eat their words.

Lets face it, Doom 3 looks about as real as Pamela Anderson's breasts, but people new to the gaming scene think that making every bloody object shiny and plasticky = good graphics. I think it's ten times harder to make it look like real life, and Half-Life 2 is a lot closer to that.

Agreed. If anyone has ever tried perfecting Radiosity in 3d render to make the scene look as realistic as possible, they can appreciate ALOT more then putting a couple of specularity shaders in for a shiny metal effect.

 

[Jackal hit]

How do you know its brassmonkey?

it's gotta be him. it's just too... odd not to be anyone else. unless doom people are

he's just been upgraded a little is all.

edit: teehee i think this thread should be moved to rumors and speculation.

 

[Apos]

Clues:
1) sounds like exactly the same guy
2) has exactly the same things to say, in the same way, same insults, same everything
3) he just joined the boards to post in this thread, out of the blue (now how did he find it and focus on this one thread if he's a doom3 fan, hasn't been reading the boards, but is suddenly so focused on this single thread right after randomly wandering in here and randomly joining?), but he sounds like he's been having this same discussion here forever, knows us all, etc.
4) Brassmonkey creates a new account here like every other week after the last one gets cut off, and he was due to come back any day now



Okay, fine, I don't know for sure, and he'll deny it like he always does, but unless he's figured out to post from an internet cafe or something else with a different ip from the one he normally uses, we'll know soon enough....

 

[.:KrusT:.]

Oh god, these discussions again.
Well, it's like buying cars. It's not just which is the best one.
There's also the purpose you have to use it for. You don't go plowing your land or transporting horses with a ferari.
Id wants to create a horror shooter. There's no need for large open spaces, or vehicles (which are coded, but not implemented). These are features in which source will probably easily outperform d3, same for the physics, and thus will add a lot to the immersiveness of HL2. Doom3 focuses on sound and vision to create it's immersive environments. If there's lip sync, we don't know. Animations however did look sweet in the E3-trailer.
I'm not going to talk about multiplayer, because i don't care for these games, since there are already a lot of MP-based games on the market. An immersive SP-game in a non-real world is what i'm waiting for.
I'm a fan of both genres, and will end up buying them both. It's comparing apples and oranges.

 

[¿¿¿¿¿]

However, it is also important to realize that although doom3 the game is focused and singular, that does not mean doom3 the engine is also focused and singular. The engine itself is very flexible and can do any type of game you wanted. Look at quake 4. Its huge in scope and in design. Much larger focus than doom3. Also, there is a MMORPG in developmeant on the doom3 engine.

No one knows the doom3 engine better than carmack, and he says he fully expects doom3 to be the leading technology in the industry for 5 years to come. he said this in full knowledge of what epic was doing I'm sure, and also of source. So does he think most games for the next five years are going to be zombie gorefests with small scope like doom3? No. He said it because he knows how flexible the engine is.

 

[Neo_Kuja]

Just wait until they're released and then you can talk about the engines all you like.
Basing judgements on "Pre/post Alpha Videos" doesn't do anything.
BTW, if you like "spooky and creepy" corridors, get Silent Hill 3 for PS2.
That'll scare you ......

 

[¿¿¿¿¿]

Who is this brassmonkey you speak of?