New poll - Doom III engine vs Source engine at Firingsquad

Status
Not open for further replies.
they both have their good points. im not going to take sides, im just going to buy both games. :)
 
same here both games will be sweet... i wana have the !@#$ scared outa me (dousent come easy) and i wana have sweet !@# game play and graphics from hl2... SS2 rebirth freaked me out pretty good you should try it... if your card will run it
 
It's all opinion. Personally I'm more looking forward to Source, but I will still be buying Doom³ and will love it :)
 
It's not about opinion, one is better than the other. Just look at the link provided. Ofcourse source would win here, and the doom engine would win on a doom3 site, but the poll is taking place on an independant 3rd party's website with no biased, and doom engine is the preferred choice. That speaks loud and clear.

Source is decent, but Doom3 engine is definitely the better of the two.

Doom3 engine vs source:

Graphics: Doom3
Physics: equal
Sound engine: Doom3(it has the most advanced sound system ever seen in an FPS)
Longevity of engine: Doom3
Skill/experience of developers: Doom3
Reputation of developers in the industry: Doom3

The choice is obvious for any un-biased reasonable human being.
 
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?
 
:dozey: Sheesh, just get both. You'll enjoy both games, dang. But, yeah... I think Doom 3 will have better graphics, but i'm guessing Half-Life 2 will have better physics, interactivity, and story in my opinion.
 
The choice is obvious for any un-biased reasonable human being.
Click to expand...

Or for a Doom 3 fanboy who just registered here to post this tripe.

Here's a criteria that you missed:-

Multiplayer: Source
 
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?[/quote[

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...
 
Multiplayer: Source
Click to expand...

Seems now that you are comparing the games, which is not what this is about. we are talking about engines. If you mean to say hl2 has better MP capabilities, that is a very ignorant thing to say considering Doom3 is not limited by the default out of the box MP(as most ignorant fanboys think it is), and that you know next to ntohing of hl2 MP in the first place.

The only reason you can get away with naming MP support is because Gabe has squashed any info about it under his fat ass.
 
I have to feel that it is all opinion until the engines are out in the open because there are so many ways that you can see each detail. So many Doom3 fans have taken the fact that Id included physics to mean that D3 physics = Source based solely on assumption. Likewise so many HL2 fans reacted by saying D3 physics sucks because in a preview it said D3 can't handle many objects getting sucked out into space. As long as none of us have the actual material, all are arguments are just us using vague facts and mixing in our personal opinions.....
Having said that I think Source is cool because there are FPS/RPG's made on it (2 at least).
 
Graphics: Doom 3
Physics: HL2
Sounds : Doom 3
Multiplayer: HL2
Enviroments: HL2 (From what i've seen of the Doom 3 engine suggests it can handle outdoor enviroments but that doesnt mean any computer NOW can)
Skill/Experience: Too earlier to say for Valve, they've only made Half-Life, but still, its Half-Life
Overall: Too early to tell which will be better, as no one's actually played a game on the engines (Leaks dont count)
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
Seems now that you are comparing the games, which is not what this is about. we are talking about engines. If you mean to say hl2 has better MP capabilities, that is a very ignorant thing to say considering Doom3 is not limited by the default out of the box MP(as most ignorant fanboys think it is), and that you know next to ntohing of hl2 MP in the first place.

The only reason you can get away with naming MP support is because Gabe has squashed any info about it under his fat ass.
Click to expand...
Dude don't call us fan-boy's when all you've done is register to tell us how much better Doom 3 will be, when you haven't played either. We're giving our honest opinions, not bias opinions, like you.
 
lip synching is a TINY thing. hl1 was advanced enough for my liking. lip synching and facial animations do not concern me in the slightest, and physics has been blown out of proportion. its a tiny part of the game.
 
;( Sorry to add this one in. What about STALKER? Does this game actually go head to head amongst Half Life 2 and Doom 3? Looks pretty advanced from what i've seen and read, the realism and physics. Not to mention graphics looked pretty good from those video previews.

To me lip-sync is a pretty big part of the game, even if it IS some minor detail in it. If you're like me where realistic behavior even on the most minor things amaze, lip-sync is no less. When I saw the STALKER weapons demo video, the bullets actually shooting through the cabinet was JAW DROPPING. Some other day I read in an article that in STALKER you'd be able to shoot through cars n stuff, JAWS DROPPED! I mean it's not often games to this stuff.
 
also, there are actually some wide open spaces in doom3, as i recall someone talking about from the alpha. but it was just in the real time intro or something, not in actual gameplay. so the engine can do it, the game doesnt.
 
There's something about Doom III's lighting that I just don't like, and I can only explain in comparison to paintings. I will liken Doom III to Caravaggio's style, where his shadows are Impenetrable. They are solid. At least from the screens given, where as Source's are likened to Rembrandt, where as they not solid. You can make out things in the darkness. This is much more realistic than what Doom is doing.

While Doom's may look cool because it shadows and lights everything, it doesn't look natural, and I guess, that's the style. There is just something about Source and it's shadows, even if they aren't all dynamic that just give it this very natural and convincing look. Just look at some Paintings by Caravaggio and Rembrandt and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
 
Seems now that you are comparing the games, which is not what this is about. we are talking about engines.
Click to expand...

Doom 3: Limited peer-to-peer multiplayer

Source: At least 32-player client/server

And really, stop trying to present your opinions as facts. You're not providing any evidence at all for what you say other than your own bias.
 
I'm not biased at all, all I am posting is fact.

For the record, Doom3 can easily render outdoor areas in todays hardware. Look at the e3 demo from 2 YEARS AGO that had a huge martian city and mountain range behind it. It's in the alpha and I have modified the map to walk around in it, it's absolutely huge and consist of more than 20 seperate skyscraping buildings, and lots of small ones. Too many people think that since Doom3 doesn't focus on large open areas it must be limited. these people don't realize that this is by design, not due to limitations. Cramped dark complexes are scarrier then an open field. Tell me, how scared would you be of a 2MPH moving zombie stalking you from a mile away across a field? Ok then.
 
upside down question mark guy actually raises points of relevance, without the abrasive aftertaste of PiMuhRo.
 
I'm not biased at all, all I am posting is fact.
Click to expand...

Let's see your "facts" shall we?

Graphics: Doom3
Physics: equal
Sound engine: Doom3(it has the most advanced sound system ever seen in an FPS)
Longevity of engine: Doom3
Skill/experience of developers: Doom3
Reputation of developers in the industry: Doom3
Click to expand...

Sorry, I see no supporting evidence there. Not facts, opinion. Learn the difference and we'll all get along much better.
 
Doom 3: Limited peer-to-peer multiplayer
Click to expand...

News update: Doom3 utilizes a client/server system like quake3 did, no longer peer to peer. The fact that you don't know this, which has been common knowledge for a while, shows that you are too ill informaed to have an opinion that means anything more than a promise form Gabe Newell.

I am not biased or a fanboy in any way, I am just being reasonable and looking at the facts. If I am misrepresenting either engine, quote a developer and show me I am wrong. If you can't do that, then obviously you are unwilling to face the truth.

You challenged the truth of my posts, so now I challenge you to prove it. If you ingore the challenge it only shows what I am saying is all the more right.
 
I didn't supply the evidence because it is common knowledge. Look at the interviews and article by the developers. I can't quote it all here.
 
True he does, but the only thing more advanced about the Doom 3 engine is that it has per-pixel shading system. Other than that, there's nothing else that makes it stick out from the rest. The reason i like HL2 more, is because of the realism, both in its graphics and its physics. And from what i've heard about the Pc Zone preview, the animations are supposedly dead-on realistic.
 
¿¿¿¿¿ 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?[/quote[

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...

He means tying down the system by having shadows too complex for most computers. Have you ever played the new splinter cell in multiplayer? The lighting causes significant lag. Source eliminates that by using low-resource alternatives on places where shadows will not be moving.

Using texture to hide low polies is exactly what doom 3 does. Take away the polish, and you get the X-Box screens that look lower poly than any. Source combines higher polies with more subtle effects, eliminating the notorious "plastic" sheen.

While you're checking out interviews about Trent Reznor's work with id, you can also check out how he quit early on.

Mediocre is subjective, If you think that the graphics aren't in-your-face enough, then don't buy the game. Or, better yet, buy it and make a mod.
Otherwise, what is the point of arguing?

Also, where do you get the idea that Valve are either inexperienced or of ill repute? They're the most reknowned developpers currently in existence, and have well over a half-dozen high-quality games. What has id done since daikatana?

Also, saying that lip-synch is all source has is nonsense. It has integrated physics. Not just zombies falling down good. Half-life 2 uses physics as apart of the gameplay, rather than a gimick.

If you want a shiny corridor, buy Doom. If you want a shiny exterior, buy farcry. If you want an actual game, by HL2.
Or, just skirt the problem and buy them all, like I am. Playing favorites is fine, but starting an argument over it is childish. All engines have merits.
HL2 has gotten fantastic reviews thus far. Doom 3 will too.
At least in HL2 you can use a flashlight and a gun at the same time.
Click to expand...
 
A lot of people are counting out valve's engine simply because they have never built an engine before and because of their poor marketing. They don't even take the time to look at the features of the engine. Those people are just dumb fanboys.
 
ek0st0ns said:
A lot of people are counting out valve's engine simply because they have never built an engine before and because of their poor marketing. They don't even take the time to look at the features of the engine. Those people are just dumb fanboys.
Click to expand...

Actually, its because we've seen more impressive things done in the Source engine then we have with the Doom 3 engine (What's impressive about that other then its graphics?)
 
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.
Click to expand...

Of course it ties it down: it's a HUGE drain. It ties it down because it throws most of the limited amount of power of your computer all at this one, major, brute force feature. That means a lot less left to spend elsewhere.

Doom3 lighting adds a feature that Source only approximates. But then Source adds lighting features that Doom3 doesn't even have, like light refraction, true radiosity, HDR color and lighting, etc. It's shadows are a blend of dynamic, static (for static objects to save performance), and self-shadowing. And frankly, for most purposes, they do just fine. So they won't have more than one swinging light moving the shadows around in a given scene. Big deal. The lighting still looks and works great.

It's not like Doom3's perpixel solution is some work of magical genius. It's actually the simplest and crudest of the various methods for perpixel lighting: essentially a simple brute force solution. And it sacrifices quite a lot of the properties of real light.

Unreal3 is the only engine we've seen so far that combines all the different elements of realistic lighting into one package, rather than focusing on different elements to save performance.

Detail. Hl2 is sparce and dry, lacking detail everywhere.
Click to expand...

So you say: yet Source features higher resolution textures, more and more diverse shader effects, and a game world litterally overflowing with objects and creatures all in play at once, compared to the Doom3 engine which gets bogged down when they try to put more than a few enemies into a scene at once even into its tiny rooms and cooridors. I would guess from HL2's giant vistas that it's pushing way more polys than Doom3 regardless, largely because it can afford to.

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.
Click to expand...

So you say, but what are the specifics? Source features all the latest methods for blending, occulsion, displacement, etc.

It was also co-designed by Trent Reznor. Vastly superior to sourc's sound engine.
Click to expand...

LOL. Reznor is a musician. He recorded some sounds for the game, but it's not even clear if he as able to finish the project. Recording some sounds is not a "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.
Click to expand...

So says you. But Doom3 falls apart on the multiplayer needs of most mods and games. It can't handle complex scenes or complex outdoor areas. It's far far less flexible. It's physics engine is rudimentary: good for crates (oh boy, crates) and that's about it. No vehicles. It's enemies are simplistic.
 
What has id done since daikatana?
Click to expand...

Id had nothing to do with that game. Romero broke off from id to develope that, id didn't have any interest in the matter.

The rest of your post is fanboy dribble whcih I will henceforth wipre from my memory.
 
I didn't supply the evidence because it is common knowledge. Look at the interviews and article by the developers. I can't quote it all here.
Click to expand...

Convenient get-out.

So which articles cover subjects like "engine longevity" then? If, as you say, it's "common knowledge" then you should be able to quote that part as an example.

Or how about "skill/level of experience"? Do you think all the Valve employees just popped into existence a couple of years ago? Or did they, perhaps, work at other developers prior to Valve?

Your "facts" are poorly researched and badly presented. I'll say it again for you in the vain hope that you will comprehend:

OPINIONS
 
Duke Nukem Forever is going to be better than HL2 or Doom III.

Stop laughing at me!
 
The rest of your post is fanboy dribble whcih I will henceforth wipre from my memory.
Click to expand...

Or, to translate:

"I have no defence to this argument, so I'll pretend it doesn't exist"
 
Apos said:
<snip>
Click to expand...

Okay, so Apos wins in the line-by-line analysis department.

And, Question Mark Guy, everything I said was true. You can't just plug your ears and make it go away.

Doom 3 looks slick, but it's gameplay is just a shiny version of Half-Life 1.

That's not bad, but also not great.
 
also, there are actually some wide open spaces in doom3, as i recall someone talking about from the alpha. but it was just in the real time intro or something, not in actual gameplay. so the engine can do it, the game doesnt.
Click to expand...

I had the alpha, but apparently not the right copy, because I never saw any such thing. The only such thing id has shown is in the intro movie they played at e3: which basically showed a martian desert mostly obscured by distance fog, no real lighting to speak of and eventually a single building. This is just not an engine optimized for large, complicated outdoor scenes.
 
Well while i am really hyped for hl2 at the moment, i also am hyped a bit for doom3. at first when i saw about doom3 i was disappointed, being a HUGE fan of doom2.
but again, having played both doom3 alpha and hl2 beta, i'll say there were LOTS more "wow" moments in doom3, than in hl2.
 
¿¿¿¿¿ said:
I didn't supply the evidence because it is common knowledge. Look at the interviews and article by the developers. I can't quote it all here.
Click to expand...
Why don't you just look in the Doom3 fanboy database... I mean... that's where I assume you got all your... information.... from right?
Right now there are very few facts. Here's a fact that's not in your database: Valve has said that all surfaces in Source can be made to react to dynamic lighting/shadows with a very high cost on resources. Now here's opinion.
D3 = Valve must be lying again, by dynamic lighting Valve might not mean self-shadowing, it's not unified, etc.
HL2 = Source can do everything like D3 but chooses not to, this will be a patch in the future, etc....
There are some 'facts'.
 
Wesisapie: Basing opions off two unfinished leaks destroys any credibility that your argument may have had.
 
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