Doom 3 eat your heart out!

Doom 3 is a joke compairing with HL2! Look at the countless review (sites), almost every reviewer gives HL2 a higher score than D3.
 
Doom 3: Pretty lights.

HL2: Far better textures, models, facial animation, water, vartions in environments and atmosphere, level design, etc etc,..

And as for Doom 3's story? Ha!!

HL2 has real characters, emotion, mystery and intrigue.
 
Doom3: dynamic lights

HL2: supreme leveldesign, smooth and realistic animation, awesome facial animations,sounds and atmosphere, AI (still the best so far of any FPS game), at least HL2 got a decent story and don't forget the physics!
 
Sharpfish's comments are the only posts worth my time reading out of the whole thread. Very well-thoughtout posts, Sharpfish, GJ!
 
Doom 3 is the best survival horror game I've ever played. I'd call it a 'survival horror FPS'.
Half-Life 2 is the best game I've ever played.
They're different styles. Half-Life 2 is actually the better game, but you're comparing sawdust with rattlesnakes here.
 
one of my main irks with Doom3?
military facility, and it's BLOODY DARK!!! WTF?

Ever been to a military facility? It's well lit. Even submarines are VERY well lit. (Trust me, I've been in one) Research facilities are even better lit.
Add to that the insanely low polycounts on everything (Pipes were what? 8 sided? People were all cone heads, in short, the Quake 3 engine was pushing more polies, at least it seemed that way most of the time.
Then the general look of things. either WAY to shiney, or they looked like wax. Very very poor IMHO.

The lighting in Doom3 is the only thing that can possibly be called revolutionary, and in the end of the day, it didn't look that good. Shadows were pitch black no matter what, and sharp as a knife. The lighting as a whole SCREAMED that is was fake.
Then the low res textures...got better after you modieifed the ini's to use 1024x1024, but still....bleh
immersion? None at all. You felt like you were playing a shooter. The only good thing in D3 what the sound. And THAT I will readily admit, ROCKED.
Far Cry was much better, still the dark research facility syndrom, but the polycounts were there properly, the lighting, IMHO, was better then Doom3's overall.
Texture quality was excellent, sound was simply stunning...main gripe was that the charecters were all wet/glossy looking.

Then we get HL2...
Lighting: Probably my only complaint. Lighting = compleatly static. I'm betting dynamic shadows are somewhere in the code, just not activated. The static lighting everywhere however, absolutly ROCKED. I mean, just wow. SOOO realistic. Not not pitch black, not overbright. Real to life (Provided you bothered to adjust the brightness slider properly)
Models, sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet...finally, skin that looks real! In fact, ALL the materials look real!
Polycounts? A few places could have used more, cetain pipes, etc I noticed somewhat low poly counts, but for the most part, just peachy.
Sound, as with D3 and Farcry, EXCELLENT sound. positional audio ROCKS on source.


so overall:
Source/Cryengine = Tie: Very usable, fairly scaleable, multi purpose engines that rock
Doom3 engine = Far below the above. It's failure to do even moderately large enviroments, it's incredibly steep resource damands force it to lower game image quality incredibly...in the end, it's going to be used solely for corridor based shooters.
That said, I's like to see SS3 on either Doom3 or Cryengine....

So, Source/Cryengine >>>>>>>>> Doom3.

STALKER looks to have a good engine as well though. Can't wait to see it. Looks on par with Source and Cryengine. (Which is to say, above D3)
 
why is it that everyone always has a lot of bad things to say about games with a overall score of higher than 9/10?!
 
its because they have to much frickening time on their hands. they dont notice how fun it is to play. Instead of critisizing the game ... just live with it and stfu. Play and enjoy. I know everyone is entilted to their opinion... but come on IS IT REALLY WORTH IT!!? jeeezuz... lol

oooh half-life 2, doom3, and farcry are all amazing games in their own aspects.

PEACE

Mike
 
This thread seems to be entirely people's opinions of D3 vs. HL2 so I'll do the same, with the assumption that nobody's more correct than anyone else, myself included...

Doom 3, I found to have very impressive graphics if one looked only at the technology. The realtime lighting and various other eye-candy kept me playing the game. Unforunately, every level is identical, and contains the same boring lo-res textures, and the designers didn't make use of the technology fully imo. However, as someone pointed out, that is how the game is supposed to be: a horror story on Mars. Don't be quick to diss its story either, if you listen to the audio logs in the PDA, there's quite a bit of detail put in. By the way, I did actually enjoy the game, and as predictable and repetitive as it was, it scared the shit out of me several times.

Half Life 2, even if lacking some tricks that D3 has, overall I find to be much more impressive graphics wise (and obviously gameplay wise!). (Note that I haven't beaten HL2 yet, as I have D3, so I haven't seen every level..) The textures are plentiful and beautifully rendered. The physics engine not only creates lots of distractions to fool around with, but actually enhances combat situations a lot. And to trump D3 once and for all, the characters: wow... facial expressions in particular.

Doom 3 was fun, and fits its genre, despite its dark and simple levels. Good game, enjoyed it thorougly, but definitely not in the same league as HL2 when you look at the big picture.
 
For once, someone who also believes more realistic looking doesn't necessarily mean better looking.
 
depends what you are looking for.. i in any case much prefer realistic environments, because IMHO its more immersing. For me, in any case, HL2 owns D3.

Oh, and thanks for all the interest in the dicussion :p (if you can call it discussion)
 
thankyou gentlemen, some good "discussion" for a change rather than flames...

I have for some unknown reason been able to play Hl2 now with MINIMAL stutterting, up to the part where you turn the valve to raise the water.. now the stuttering is not as present, and I have been able to stay "immersed" in the game for more than 30 minutes before giving up I have found it to be a decent experience, I have noted a couple of "cool" graphical aspects, and the gameplay is ok. THe game is ok and I could take back a little of the harshness I had posted due to my frustrations with the initial sound bug and LOADING TIMES (my pet hate). Graphically, though, overall, while looking more "real" in the sense of based on the real world, I still feel other games "felt" more real due to understanding the medium better rather than trying 100% to simulate the Look. Overall I am more pleased with this game at the end of my 4 hours play of it today than before. The scripted parts have seemed to die down a bit and I have had more chance to explore.

Basically, as I said before, I knew the game was good - Just couldn't stand all the knocking of other games, when I could see so many average areas (done better in other/slated games) just because HL2 is "the king" in so many peoples eyes. But yes, it is a decent game - I still say it was overhyped and possibly overscored in most reviews but that is just an opinion.

Happy gaming
 
I found Doom3 good looking but for the hard ware demands it's dissapointing,so is the game after some 5or so hours,it get boring pretty fast.

I like HL2 better in any regard,grpahs,sound (except the ocassional stutter),gameplay,level design basicly everything i like better in HL2.
 
The whole dynamic light/shadow thing is very technically advanced, but personally, I don't like the look of it!

1) The razor-sharp edges of the shadows are very harsh. It works for Deus Ex and Doom, but I think Half-Life wouldn't work so well with that look. My complaint about the Half-Life method, however, is that shadows are sometimes too soft in places where they should be sharp. The solution to that is dynamic subdivision of the lighting map in the RAD phase, using tighter subdivisions in areas that need more detailed shadows.

2) No radiosity. Radiosity is the term for any algorithm designed to simulate light bouncing off of a surface and illuminating another surface indirectly. Radiosity tends to smooth out the lighting somewhat, getting light into the cracks here and there that aren't directly lit. Without it, again the lighting looks too harsh and you need to put lights *everywhere* to make sure everything gets lit. And of course, every light you put in the scene kills your frame rate just that much more.

Basically, once you can do soft shadows and radiosity in real time, *then* I'll buy fully dynamic lighting.

I think the best way to do things is really a combination of dynamic and static lighting. Precalculated lighting is lighter on your machine and looks better under more conditions than dynamic lighting, plus dynamic lighting is really unneccessary 99% of the time when you're talking about static architecture.

However, a few dynamic extensions to the precalculated lighting model are clearly called for. For example, muzzle flashes lighting up the room and casting shadows, or your flashlight casting shadows, or if you want a hanging light that can swing around from the ceiling and have the shadows move around to match. Doom-style dynamic lighting would work great for those, just add the light from those sources to the existing lighting map.

Now, we know Source already stores information about how much influence each light source has at a particular location in the lighting map. You can tell because bump maps reflect the true directions of multiple lights. Now all you need to do to make your dynamic shadows 1000x better is, instead of drawing shadows the way they're currently drawn (you see what happens when shadows overlap, it sooo kills the effect), draw shadows by subtracting the influence of the light source you're drawing the shadow for from the light map at that pixel. Now repeat for all nearby light sources. Bam, now you have Doom-esque dynamic shadowing for a fraction of the cost.

If any graphics programmers are lurking around, please tell me why I'm wrong, because I'm not a graphics programmer. =D
 
i don't understand why these threads are created really.
i mean there are pple out there who will like both games for different reasons.
is it not good enough to like both games? or is there something i missed here?
 
Guys, guys, guys, here's one xtra argument!

One of the games' appreciation criteria is its price, right? I mean we all know how stores like BestBuy etc (or the publishers) tend to reduce the price when the game gets old or is a major flop, or smth... The Doom 3 price is $54.99 in BestBuy, and it's probably going to stay thay way for a while...

Now, here's the real thing: eBay is a major marketplace, where the prices are controlled by the demand, and people themselves... Hm... Usually the survey shows that good just released games "new and unopened" there go for about 5-10 bucks cheaper than retail.

Latest price query on Doom 3 shows price of ONLY $20-30. Those who price more than that never get any bids, people do not buy the game for higher than $30, which is almost HALF of the retail price... Any questions? Doom 3 has gained publicity and generated a lot of hype, which allowed it to stay 2 weeks on top of sale charts, but now everybody's not so happy with it... Either they do not like the game, or have the poor system to run it on, and we all know how demanding Doom 3 is...

So, let's wish the best of luck to retailers who still want to sell doom 3 for $55 while there is another great game for the same price just next to it.
 
what is all this about doom3 and half-life2? i played 'em both and i think doom1 really kicks their ass :afro:
 
I enjoyed all of them doom3, farcry and definately HL2.

Where half-life2 wins is in game design, immersion, use of phisics (not just the presense) and character detail/animation. Not in pure graphics.

And whoever said Doom3 story is better.... The difference is that in Doom it is presented on a silver plate. While in HL2 it creates an awsome sense of mystery, there are subtle clues that hint at the story but never fully explain anything.

In HL2 the story is deep and mysterious while Doom was straight forward.
 
I liked them both. I played both untill I beat it and both were fun.

I could probably say i liked half-life 2's realistic feel a little better but theres one thing doom 3 has that half-life 2 doesn't. BOSSES

Also Doom 3 did get a little repeaditive after awhile i was starting to get bored right around the end of Delta labs
 
Half life 2 had a bit of bosses, the odd occasional Gunship or big ant lion, not to mention a couple striders here and there. I guess you could consider them bosses, mostly because ususally you have to hit them 3 times with something in order to kill them, or just throw a lot of firepower at them.
 
i think its stupid u are saying hl2's gfx are better then doom3 while u are saying u are playing at the lowest quality settings....

i loved both games, i liked halflifes2 gameplay a bit better (hell nothing beats a gravity gun lol)

hell i even loved farcry, and problably gonna love STALKER etcetcetc.

maybe im just weird that i can like more games and once without having to bitch about the other games :p
 
Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 are now out. Gamers can now enjoy two quality games on their PC's.

So why the **** is this shit still going on?
 
Half Life 2 looks beautiful today and runs amazingly.

When everyone has the power to run the Doom3 engine and developers have played around with it for a while, it will most likely show it's superiority.

They are both good at different things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sui
Doom 3 turned me into a horror fan... then i found out it wasnt scary.
Replies
27
Views
2K
Mr. Redundant
Mr. Redundant
Back
Top