There is one thing that Doom 3 does better than HL2...

[jmjneary]

if ya wanna talk shaddows i think splinter cell 3 is pretty kick ass

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Shadows don't mean better atmosphere. How do you come to that conclusion?

Strolling down the streets of c17, through an empty childrens playground, you hear the distant echoes of childrens laughter. That is atmosphere to me. Shadows don't = atmosphere. Sorry.

 

[Adabiviak]

Man, you can't even say Doom 3 without people complaining about it, regardless of the topic at hand. Regardless of which has the better technology, I liked the shadows in Doom 3 better than Half Life 2, but that's because most of the environments in Doom 3 were shadows. This doesn't mean that the shadows in Half Life 2 sucked, or that Doom 3 was a better game, or even that Doom 3 has a better shadow rendering system. It means that, during game play, I noticed the shadows more in one than another.

...by the way, has anyone played the F.E.A.R demo? It's got pretty good shadows. ~640MB was a bit much for a demo, but if you liked Doom 3, you'll probably like this.

 

[dream431ca]

You took the time to make several contributions to this "stupid" thread.



Yes, Dream, I agree that Doom 3 does lighting and shadows much better than HL2, but I don't think that was meant to be a point of emphasis in HL2. Source still does a good job , however. Carmack and Co put a lot into those effects because of the setting, IMO.

Well, I'm not saying Half-life 2 has bad graphics or anything. Doom 3 does put a lot of atmosphere into the game, I think shadows and dynamic lighting do help a little...not by much, but it's neat to see it happen.

 

[ríomhaire]

Man, you can't even say Doom 3 without people complaining about it, regardless of the topic at hand. Regardless of which has the better technology, I liked the shadows in Doom 3 better than Half Life 2, but that's because most of the environments in Doom 3 were shadows. This doesn't mean that the shadows in Half Life 2 sucked, or that Doom 3 was a better game, or even that Doom 3 has a better shadow rendering system. It means that, during game play, I noticed the shadows more in one than another.

...by the way, has anyone played the F.E.A.R demo? It's got pretty good shadows. ~640MB was a bit much for a demo, but if you liked Doom 3, you'll probably like this.

But it did, that's the point.
We also can't talk about Halo without people saying how crap it was(I liked it)

 

[Lt. Drebin]

We also can't talk about Halo without people saying how crap it was(I liked it)

We are posting in a HL2 forum. I think it's safe to expect a touch of fanboyism. Same situation posting in the Doom 3 forums....just a touch of bias.

Other places I post are a bit more open to enjoying both games for what they are and offer.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Just thought I'd throw this point out, but a good movie director knows that the key to "selling" a scene to the audience is the lighting and shadowing.

Doom3 does have completely real-time dynamic shadows, which is damn cool, but it's not at it's full potention (mainly, right now it's only doing the umbra, which is the hard inner "core" of a shadow... in the next engine, JC said he would also do the penumbra, which is the "soft shadow" that people think of)

HL2 does have some nice shadows, but obviously it's all static and not 100% great. BUT, it has served it's purpose of providing a good atmosphere and sense of immersion, while still maintaining low system requirements.

Doom3's unified lighting and shadowing system also has served it's purpose of dark, foreboding environments, where everything has a shadow (and I'm sure there are times when you jumped because you saw a shadow... they do provide immresion more than you think they would be)

All in all, HL2's lighting and shadowing is fine, it gives more realistic looking shadows, but not in real-time... Doom3 has completely real-time shadows, but not as great looking. Obviously John Carmack is trying to blend the two and have great looking real-time shadows.

Oh, and if you guys don't believe that lighting/shadowing is a big part of any scene, try playing through Ravenholm with r_fullbright 1

 

[Absinthe]

Oh, and if you guys don't believe that lighting/shadowing is a big part of any scene, try playing through Ravenholm with r_fullbright 1

Of course it plays a part in creating atmosphere. It is not, however, the sole defining aspect. You need to take into account audio, scripting, level design, aesthetics, etc...

The insinuation that Doom 3 has more atmosphere because it has real-time shadows is an absurd one. IMO, Doom 3 made good use of its shadows when it came to the "shock" scares, but HL2 had a more persistent underlying chilling feeling when in Nova Prospekt, City 17, or Ravenholm. Which is harder to create and more appealing is up to the player, but I side with the latter.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

I'm glad this thread got back on track. Halfway through, I could feel the heat coming off of my monitor, especially when Pesmerga was jamming on the number keys in anger.

My contribution: Doom 3's engine can only be used to scare you, and it does very well, better than Source even, at creating suspenseful hallways and evil shadows, that kind of thing. Source, being more flexible, can make a variety of environments with any gamut of moods behind them. So for me it's a coinflip.