This is gettin crazy!!

Good luck running your expansive open environments in Doom 3. :rolleyes:
 
Absinthe said:
Good luck running your expansive open environments in Doom 3. :rolleyes:

Someone never played Doom 3.

The outdoor areas are absolutely huge and run very well.
 
Who would want to play Doom 3. It is a graphical showcase for power house computers, it was one of the worst times i've had playing a game.

As far as TES 4 go, I'm actually really disappointed so far by what i've heard of the game. Apparently the development cycle this time is going to involve more graphical work and less plot/story/gameplay elements, in order to appeal to a broader market. The Elder Scrolls 4: Sell Out Central.
 
I knew this thread would turn into a flame war....VIVENDI JUST STOP HOLDING HALFLIFE 2 HOSTAGE SO WE CAN ALL BE FRIENDS AGAIN!
 
Shuzer said:
Someone never played Doom 3.

The outdoor areas are absolutely huge and run very well.

As somebody who owns, has played it, and beaten it, I think I can judge how well it ran thankyouverymuch.

And I'm curious as to what "huge" outdoor areas you may be referring to.

And I can tell you right now that you are never going to get as good performance on Doom 3 as you will with HL2 when it comes to rendering such things.
 
Noclip outside the tram (I forget which level), you'll see.

Also, Hell had a pretty large outdoorsy type environment that ran just fine.
 
Shuzer said:
Noclip outside the tram (I forget which level), you'll see.

I remember the tram ride. I'm pretty sure that was the part that made my machine chug the most.

Hell ran fine, but I would not consider it large and expansive.
 
What're your specs? Tram never chugged for me, even when noclipped outside of it.

The beginning of hell was pretty large.. and the boss fight in hellhole was also huge.

Eh, I dunno. One thing I will say, the huge outdoor area I'm talking about, the textures are absolute crap and look awful when you noclip outside.. but that's not really an engine limitation :)
 
Just finished Doom 3 this evening :). I just went and noclipped around hell, yeah its expansive, and the only thing you seee beyond about 50 yards is some floating boulders, and then the Skybox. Not exactly amazing detail.

Now the monorail level I'll give you has a lot of detail, and thats probably the max Doom3 gets to, yes its more detailed than HL2, but the maximum draw distance is never more than 100 yards in any direction. Doom3 just doesnt support the object culling tech required to render really large detailed enviroments. However doom 3 doesnt have any distance fog either :).
 
I think that by the screenshots HL2 looks good but when you get into the game and are fully immersed then people will realize that the graphics are amazing...
 
hl2 looks more realistic then every other game i have seen.

everything if very subtle, the lighting/models/textures it all adds to the atmosphere.

the badguys arent throwback wreslters, the animations look smooth and lifelike, and the textures look pretty damn photorealistic to me. then again i dont go running round using a scope to look at them at 25x magnification.
 
Subz said:
it would really be sad if hl2 was released in 2005. i mean i know it'll be a great game, but jesus in 2005 we will have games that have pixar level gfx(fear/tes;4)....and hl2 is reallly 2002-2003 level gfx. Not that gfx matter the most..but its almost embarrasing.

ddue what the hell ... 1. YOU HAVENT SEEN TEH GAME 2. fear is no way near pixar level grraphics lol ... :-/
 
Why do people think they aren't good or other games have better ones? I, for one, think they are great. If you acually look at all of the video clips and the pictures It's amazing. Like those pictures on hl2fallout where they were comparing photographs to the game, I could barely tell which one was HL2 and which was real. :eek: :)
 
Why do people analyze and nitpick every bit of every games graphics. When it comes to graphics the less you look for flaws/uglies (sure thats a word) or whatever the more you enjoy the game. Valve could have put HL2 on the freakin Quake engine and I wouldn't give a damn (only a slight exageration.) The case is that HL2s graphics are kick ass. If another game has some kick ass graphics that surpass the kick assage level of HL2, well whoopdie doo. That doesn't change the fact HL2 still looks awesome.

Bottom Line: HL2 looks super duper. No matter how any other game looks is going to change that.
 
Some of hl2s graphics are on the verge of actually looking real. You can see this as gordons driving up a hill in the coastline bink. Look at the roadsigns, telephone poles, trees, sky and stuff as hes driving past there. Of course that could be an illusion caused by video compression or the fact that its not very bright, but still. Other parts though arent so impressive with obvious graphical bugs and the fairly low resolution textures in css dont scream realism. However that coastline part in particular is the best ive seen (certainly most natural anyway) since the extremely convincing reflections on the cars that you can see at times in gt3.
 
Ballsaccio said:
If Painkiller had good game play, it could have been a contender. The environments were very well rendered, but it was awful and easy to beat the game. It was also predictable.
.

painkiller to me was all about gameplay, which was totally what D3 was lacking, painkiller felt more like the "good ol" shoot em ups of days gone by, shoot everything that moves, then shoot more, then wait for 50 more enemies to run at you, then shoot them too.

the gfx were pretty uninspired though, lame textuing job, but served it's purpose. can you imagine her head (D3) on HER body!? (painkiller)
 
Ahnteis said:
I dunno about you guys, but I'm waiting for the Unreal 3 engine.
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/TerrainShot.jpg
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/RagDoll.jpg

Of course, the unreal 3 engine isn't scheduled until 2006 and all these 2005 games people keep mentioning probably won't make it out until then either. (For some reason HL2 fans act like a year delay is something unusual.)

EDIT: Look to Quake 4 preview for information about Doom3 engine and outside.
Ue3 isnt quite as polished as it should be imo. Look at this for example http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/p_beast.jpg
At first glance youre like "wow, thats amazing!" but then look at the chains :x Sorta ruins the effect.
 
Reaktor4 said:
but then look at the chains :x Sorta ruins the effect.
I noticed that too. Crappy faked 2d chain. Why make such a killer model just to ruin it with such a cheap parlor trick?
 
Xenome said:
Just wait until you read the reviews, and then smack yourself on the head because of your stupidity.


I am stupid how? Becuase I think a games graphics arent the best anymore and I am just giving my opinion? I think you sir are the stupid and ignorant one.

EDIT: reading through this thread has showed me how stupid people can be when they get so offended when someone makes fun of a video game.
 
Someone should remake Mario or Sonic in the Source engine. Two of the all-time greatest games, in 3D with physics! Whoo-Tcha!

I'm just kidding, by the way. I like those games just the way they are, and I like the Source engine just the way it is.
 
BetaMaster said:
Someone should remake Mario or Sonic in the Source engine. Two of the all-time greatest games, in 3D with physics! Whoo-Tcha!

I'm just kidding, by the way. I like those games just the way they are, and I like the Source engine just the way it is.

Sonic was the stuff. So was Mario.
 
I remember I used to get up at 5:30 AM to watch Mario and then Sonic on...Fox? back in 3rd grade. Those were the days, man. Now I get up at 5:30 to take a shower and go to school....
 
Back
Top