So I Finally Played Doom 3

[Hercules331]

So I downloaded the Doom 3 demo and started playing it and I cant imagine how people can even compare it with HL2. The graphics are no where close to HL, theres no physics, the lighting is way too dark even if it is dynamic or whatever. And the gameplay just isnt that good. The only thing cool about it is the PDA u carry. Overall the game seem cools but I cant even compare it to HL2 so I dont understand how its supposed to be a real competitor. Any thoughts?

 

[Danimal]

1) There is physics, someone with half a brain could see it if they bothered to look.

a) Punch a can, or a bin. The physics are rather life-like.
b) Ragdoll counts as physics.
c) Grenades count as physics.

2) The graphics are better than HL2's on Medium and upwards.

3) The lighting is MEANT to be dark. It adds to the scary theme.

 

[Burn]

The gfx ARE better then Half life 2s. You cant disagree with that. Much higher polys, better textures, lighting etc etc. Maybe you are just running in low on everything, even then it looks better then hl2.

If its to dark, put your gamma up abit and use the torch.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

The gfx ARE better then Half life 2s. You cant disagree with that.

Agreed......Doom 3 is incredibly beautiful.

 

[Warbie]

I think HL2 looks much better.

It's all about art direction - and regardless of how many polygons Doom 3 has flying about, or the fancy lighting, the levels are dull, dull, dull (both visually and in gameplay)

I'd take H2 at a high res with plenty of AA/AF any day.

 

[Asus]

1) There is physics, someone with half a brain could see it if they bothered to look.

a) Punch a can, or a bin. The physics are rather life-like.
b) Ragdoll counts as physics.
c) Grenades count as physics.

Aye there are physics. Although you might find that bin that rolled before will never roll again after an explosion.

2) The graphics are better than HL2's on Medium and upwards.

What one sees as good graphics is different for each of us. I noticed low res textures outside in HL2 but it didn't make it look bad to me. I walked up to a panel in D3 and the low rez textures there and that turned me off.

3) The lighting is MEANT to be dark. It adds to the scary theme.

Yeah, its part of the game.

 

[MultiVaC]

The Doom 3 models aren't very high poly. They just use a lot of normal maps.

 

[Lucid]

Oh...christ...
I thought we were over the whole "Doom 3 vs HL2" thing.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

Oh...christ...
I thought we were over the whole "Doom 3 vs HL2" thing.

Oh yeah....it's already on it's way to becoming an opinionated pissing contest.

 

[Sparta]

Pffft.......

Chronicles of Riddick looks the best, everyone knows that.

I think HL2 looks much better.

It's all about art direction - and regardless of how many polygons Doom 3 has flying about, or the fancy lighting, the levels are dull, dull, dull (both visually and in gameplay)

I'd take H2 at a high res with plenty of AA/AF any day.

Agreed. (Although the Hell level in Doom 3 was very good, it was pretty much ripped right out of Clive Barker's Undying)

The gfx ARE better then Half life 2s. You cant disagree with that. Much higher polys, better textures, lighting etc etc. Maybe you are just running in low on everything, even then it looks better then hl2.

If its to dark, put your gamma up abit and use the torch.

The textures and polygons are much higher in Half-Life 2. No argument there. the only thing thats at a higher resolution in Doom 3, is the normal maps.

Doom 3
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=260
Half-Life 2
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/screens.html?page=308

Both screenshots are your average screenshot from each game. But to me its pretty obvious Half-Life 2 has more poly's and higher rez textures

 

[Cole]

It's all about art direction - and regardless of how many polygons Doom 3 has flying about, or the fancy lighting, the levels are dull, dull, dull (both visually and in gameplay)

Very very true. It is all about Art Direction. Look at WoW. It dosn't have anywhere near the polys as EQ2 but how everything looks is amazing.

 

[DarkStar]

1) There is physics, someone with half a brain could see it if they bothered to look.

a) Punch a can, or a bin. The physics are rather life-like.
b) Ragdoll counts as physics.
c) Grenades count as physics.

2) The graphics are better than HL2's on Medium and upwards.

3) The lighting is MEANT to be dark. It adds to the scary theme.

The physics in Doom 3 seem like they were programed by a 6 month old chimp smoking cigarettes and randomly punching keys on a keyboard.

Also, realtime lighting or not, the graphics in HL2 are about 10x as realistic as Doom 3.

 

[Yuri]

Haha, I bought and never bothered to beat Doom III.

 

[chu]

Haha, I bought and never bothered to beat Doom III.

ditto dot dot dot dot dot dot

 

[AmishSlayer]

Ok...I prefer HL2's graphics over Doom 3's...but there's something in Doom 3 seriously lacks....and that is interesting gameplay. ID had better come back with a game with somewhat interesting AI and varying combat next time around so I don't have to waste $55 on a boring-ass game.

 

[Hazar]

hahaha, I never have played it

 

[AIDisabled]

The only thing cool about it is the PDA u carry.

Which is ultimately a ripoff from System Shock 2, so it doesn't get any marks in the innovation category.

I've played Doom 3 on a friend's computer, and I can't say I didn't like it. The graphics are good, the mood is creepy, the animation is quite good for fast action, the sound is on par with anything I've heard from games in the past three years. The story is not as engrossing as Half Life 2 or even the original Half Life, perhaps; but really, that's something we should know about every FPS we play. Matching a classic is often impossible.

 

[Sparta]

Ok...I prefer HL2's graphics over Doom 3's...but there's something in Doom 3 seriously lacks....and that is interesting gameplay. ID had better come back with a game with somewhat interesting AI and varying combat next time around so I don't have to waste $55 on a boring-ass game.

I agree. Whilst the FPS genre owe everything to Carmack and Co at iD, they really need to get with the times and make a fun game that isn't all just deathmatch like Q3 (Which was pretty damn cool for the time, but UT was better)

 

[diluted]

If ID had released Doom3 with co-operative mode it would've made the game 100 times better. I don't understand why most game companies don't bother with co-op mode.. it pisses me off 'cause I love co-op mode. ;(

*still waiting for sven coop 2*

 

[AmishSlayer]

If ID had released Doom3 with co-operative mode it would've made the game 100 times better. I don't understand why most game companies don't bother with co-op mode.. it pisses me off 'cause I love co-op mode. ;(

*still waiting for sven coop 2*

Co-op is definitely the most under-used feature in gaming...but it's definitely one of the best features in games.

While playing BiA I kept thinking how my friend could've been controlling the assault team as he goes in on the enemy's flank as I lay down the suppressing fire.

I've been playing some Mercenaries lately on Xbox as well...how I wish my roomate and I could man a humvee - one on the turret one driving and just regulate on all the North Koreans. Or even the 1st player driving a tank while the other is zipping around in a helicopter providing air support from a UH-60. Co-op should be in every game.

 

[nutcrackr]

HL2 has great texturing that really makes it look at times real, but true beauty is 2 Hellknights coming towards you with half their body covered in shadow casting a very dynamic shadow. And no screenshot will do it justice because Doom 3 looks much better than any screenshots you take of it.

Overally I still prefer HL2, but Doom 3 does a excellent job at what it tried to do, create a scary, action packed and graphically stunning game.

 

[Sparta]

HL2 has great texturing that really makes it look at times real, but true beauty is 2 Hellknights coming towards you with half their body covered in shadow casting a very dynamic shadow. And no screenshot will do it justice because Doom 3 looks much better than any screenshots you take of it.

Overally I still prefer HL2, but Doom 3 does a excellent job at what it tried to do, create a scary, action packed and graphically stunning game.

Yeah Doom 3 certainly looks better then HL2 in most departments, thats for sure. It probably has the coolest normal maps out there.

 

[Asknoone]

I think HL2 looks much better.

It's all about art direction - and regardless of how many polygons Doom 3 has flying about, or the fancy lighting, the levels are dull, dull, dull (both visually and in gameplay)

I'd take H2 at a high res with plenty of AA/AF any day.

Word, totally agree with you there.

 

[Max_Payne]

ahah they were both amazing games peeps... why cant we all just agree on that?

PEACE

Mike :cheers:

 

[Bleeder]

Yay, we get to do this discussion AGAIN.
I beleive I can boil this whole argument down to the definition of a single word - "better". I think that in the context of the question, if you're defining "better" as meaning "sheer tech horsepower" then DIII wins, but if you see it defined as "more realistic", then HL2 wins out.

Very very true. It is all about Art Direction. Look at WoW. It dosn't have anywhere near the polys as EQ2 but how everything looks is amazing.

To me this is exactly right.....it's about what style or look a person prefers, and how that look is presented in a cohesive way in the game. To me it seems like ID made the tech, and went, "Holy shit! Look what I can make it do!" and went crazy with all the gimmicks they could now pull off, where as Valve went, "Ok, so what tech could we come up with to add to immersion?" and THEN they made the tech. It might not seem that way to you.

Eyecandy or Realism (or both)? It's all just opinions based on the definition of one word, nobody's "right" here. So state your opinion, or ask someone else theirs, but don't try to convince me you're the king of the castle.

*me pulls out a raygun and blasts the conversation*

ahah they were both amazing games peeps... why cant we all just agree on that?

PEACE

Mike :cheers:

no doubt :cheers:

 

[Dr. Freeman]

It's all about art direction - and regardless of how many polygons Doom 3 has flying about, or the fancy lighting, the levels are dull, dull, dull (both visually and in gameplay)

and this is where gamers decide what they are looking for.
Doom3's atmosphere (graphically speaking) is just as good as HL2's but if one is looking for the feel of HL2 in Doom3 and vice versa, it just isn't gonna happen.

completely different styles/atmosphere...obviously a gamer who loves horror/scary themes will tend to like Doom3 whereas a gamer with a "me against the world" feel would lean toward HL2.

 

[PvtRyan]

The gfx ARE better then Half life 2s. You cant disagree with that. Much higher polys, better textures, lighting etc etc. Maybe you are just running in low on everything, even then it looks better then hl2.

If its to dark, put your gamma up abit and use the torch.

Polygons? Hah. Doom 3 is based around normal mapping to replace the polygons which add to the lighting calculations. I estimate around 1500-3500 polygons a monster, for characters HL2 uses 4500+.
Textures? The biggest Doom 3 uses is 512x512, not exactly big when you consider the G-man uses a 2048x2048 sheet for just his head.
Lighting? Sorry, I'm not getting a boner out of a 'unified lighting model', all fun from a technical standpoint, but horrible from an aesthetic one with only direct lighting. "It's meant to be dark" isn't an excuse, like darkness is the only thing that makes a game scary.

Doom 3 may be better from a technical point of view, but I simply can't call it pretty.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

"doom gets slagged on a half life 2 forum"

didn't see that coming like a freight train:upstare:

wonder if HL2 gets a warm reception over at www.doomfanboysunite.com ???

 

[Asknoone]

ahah they were both amazing games peeps... why cant we all just agree on that?

PEACE

Mike :cheers:

Because strangley enough, we all have different opinions

 

[StardogChampion]

Doom 3 was no more or less fun than HL2 was, but this is fan boy dome here, so nobody can really look at both games objectively.

Nice of the first guy to pick the worst screenshot he could find...

HL2 went for realistic, but when you go for that it's easier to spot the flaws.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/screens.html?page=192
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/screens.html?page=185
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/halflife2/screens.html?page=194

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=244
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=261

 

[Lt. Drebin]

"doom gets slagged on a half life 2 forum"

didn't see that coming like a freight train:upstare:

wonder if HL2 gets a warm reception over at www.doomfanboysunite.com ???

LOL.

So true.

Polygons? Hah. Doom 3 is based around normal mapping to replace the polygons which add to the lighting calculations. I estimate around 1500-3500 polygons a monster, for characters HL2 uses 4500+.
Textures? The biggest Doom 3 uses is 512x512, not exactly big when you consider the G-man uses a 2048x2048 sheet for just his head.
Lighting? Sorry, I'm not getting a boner out of a 'unified lighting model', all fun from a technical standpoint, but horrible from an aesthetic one with only direct lighting. "It's meant to be dark" isn't an excuse, like darkness is the only thing that makes a game scary.

And after reading this thread...I'll say ignorance is truely bliss. This post is a model for how a lot of people approach Doom 3 and many games in general. If all the stuff you just rambled through takes away from your gaming experience then you know too much. Last I checked, games are an escape....from reality, life, jobs, etc, etc.

Hang on...Doom 3 and HL2 looked great, sounded great and were a blast to play. That's all I need. Does that mean I'm easy and will buy every game that looks and sounds good...NO, but I'm not going to produce a rant like that for the sole purpose of making one product inferior to the other when it's so close that evey comment made about either game will never leave the realm of opinion....regardless of what technical jargon anyone here can produce.

Honestly...did you bitch about all that shit as you played through Doom 3?

 

[PvtRyan]

Why do I need to talk about gameplay all of a sudden when all I do is pointing out the stuff that's simply not true in her post? I said NOTHING about gameplay. For all you know, I loved Doom 3.

 

[Asknoone]

I didn't enjoy doom 3 on PC, and probably never will. At the time i was playing things such as far cry and when playing through Doom 3 I found it hard to enjoy going through section after section of repeated corridors.

Don't get me wrong, i thing the graphics are wonderful but i feel its just the gameplay that bogs it down. I loved the first half of the game up until Delta labs, from there on in i just found it pretty hard to go on.

I might have liked it more if it was scary, because ID went on the assumption that the dark was a very scary thing. When to me, it isnt.

 

[Lemonking]

Agreed......Doom 3 is incredibly beautiful.

and its fun to. I dont understand the poeple that say D3 sucks I like it very much

 

[Lt. Drebin]

Why do I need to talk about gameplay all of a sudden when all I do is pointing out the stuff that's simply not true in her post? I said NOTHING about gameplay. For all you know, I loved Doom 3.

I never mentioned gameplay either. But gFX are part of the gaming experience.

My whole post was focused around someone, anyone, trying to compare HL2 and Doom 3 from a graphical standpoint. It's ludicrous....apples and orange laced with opinion.

 

[EVIL]

Artwise HL² kicks the sjit out of DOOM³ the enviorments of HL² are alot more creative, beautifull and imaginative then the boring steal walls floors and surfaces of the supposed to be scary DOOM³, lighting wise? HL² is alot more subtle, wich is something that ads to the believability of HL², the subtle reflections of the pavement, to the beautifull lighted enviorments in ravenholm. Engine wise doom3 may have a nice shadow and lighting engine, but they did not understand how to use it subtle, everything is in your face. That is something I personally hate about it, the arrogance behid it, the whole lets show all our effects this engine can pull of is something I hate about doom3. They could have used the lighting alot more effective to create an outstanding scary game.

anyway nothing they can do about it now, they lost my vote, wich in itself doesnt mean alot to the developers, but I could have played a really scary game but unfortionatly they ****ed it up by rambeling it trought the commercial grinding machine. to mutch action and to mutch, "omg a monster is coming trough the walls" moments, wich makes the gameplay repedative and boring.

the story didnt saved the game either by reveling the story trough the pda, wich becomes borign really fast, "ooh another pda, lets pick it up, again.". nah, they could have revealed the story trough alot more fun and creative ways. then the eventually did.

 

[KagePrototype]

Oh...christ...
I thought we were over the whole "Doom 3 vs HL2" thing.

I hear they're making it an olympic event.

Doom 3 was great the first time around, albeit repetitive in areas (it was too long, something I thought I'd never say about a game negatively). It's just not as much fun to play over again though, because it's so linear and the best thing about it is the scary atmos. Since you know everything that happens once you complete it, it loses it's appeal.

Great visual rush in some areas, though, and a fantastic first impression. I'm hoping that Ressurection of Evil will improve upon Doom 3's bad points.

 

[Baal]

I like the water in HL2, but other than that I think Doom3 graphics win.

But overall HL2 is better.

 

[AmishSlayer]

Doom 3 was no more or less fun than HL2 was, but this is fan boy dome here, so nobody can really look at both games objectively.

I'm a person that didn't really like HL2's SP...and I could hardly stand Doom 3...I'm looking at the gameplay of Doom 3 from how I played the game and was terribly disappointed.

First off...the shotgun was the best gun in the game... I used it the entire game. It can kill most enemies in 1 or 2 good shots. There were only a couple monsters I had to use another gun against if I didn't wanna get hurt a lot.

Second...the reason you can use the shotgun the entire way through is because of the lack of AI. Zombies just walk towards you of course. Imps run at you and either leap at you or just swipe you...hell...pretty much every enemy just comes after you to try and kill you. You just wait...*BLAM* fire your shotgun when they're at point-blank range and they're done. Now the guys you can't just wait for them to charge you would only really be the guys that have a chaingun that just open up on you when they see you. They don't chase you...so I just lobbed a few of my 50 grenades at him until he was dead...moving on...

Third...the scares sucked after like 2 zombies tried to attack you from a dark corner or the lights went off and things started attacking you. It was so easy to pick out moments where a dead body would fall from a table...a zombie would attack you from a corner when you see armor or health in a corner... It also ruins the scare-factor that you are loaded with ammo with all kinds of guns...and you know whatever will pop out at you can probably be killed with a shotgun blast...if not...you've got all kinds of ammo stockpiled for other weapons if there are tons of monsters or something.

HL2 is better...but only because the fighting was a little more interesting. Plots equally sucked and graphics are a matter or preference. Sure the overall story of HL 1 & 2 is more in-depth than Doom 3's...but the way it's told just blows. Everyone was saying after release that, "Do you all need your plots layed out right in front of you?" "I like a game that leaves me with questions" and so on... I said the same thing about Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions before I realized I was in denial and both movies weren't nearly as good as the first because they were missing main elements that made Matrix great. Same goes for HL2. The main thing that makes a good story is how it's told. HL1's story was simple...but the way it is told is through your eyes. The scripted events really kept me engrossed. HL2 had very few of these...I was hoping the plot would pick up to make up for the lack of little events...but I was wrong. I'd bet that 75% of the game is you travelling somewhere to meet somebody. Sure HL1 was all about you finding a way out...but the simplicity of it was just fine because it made perfect sense and along the way some really cool shit happened.

 

[Frank]

God damnit... the only reason why people diss Doom III is because they're all HL2 fanboys! Seriously, Doom III was ****ing spooky, HL2 wasn't and never will be. I got shocked ONCE when playing HL2 and I was scared to death when I played Doom III at least every 10 minute!
And stop complaining about the lights in Doom III!
"Oh but I can't see shit with that tiny little flashlight and it makes the game all poopoo"
OOOH SHUT UP! I think ID Software had a plan about the flashlight and that was probably to make the game a hell of a lot scarier and you know what... it worked, some of you just won't admit it...

But still - whatever floats your boat... Nobody's forcing you to play Doom III