Half-Life 2/Doom 3 Tech Comparison ...

B

bandit55

New member
...
WhUtDuFuK …

Overall Tech and Preformance

Overall HL2 beats out D3 hands down. Doom 3 may be the wave of the future but many of it’s aspects are poorly implemented as with it’s characters and very taxing requirements. With higher polygon counts and better detail texturing D3 characters would have looked stunning. HL2 takes existing technology and polishes it to a brilliant shine. HL2 can render highly detailed outdoor areas where as if D3 tried it would explode. HL2 runs smooth as butter with my 2 year old computer getting 70+FPS with the HL2 benchmark while D3 stutters regularly, so in terms of performance HL2 runs laps around the hugely demanding D3. A fantastic netcode that can support up to 64 players with a consistent low ping where D3 comes with 4 player MP out of the box.
Click to expand...
 
Comparison? More like fanboy-ism.

If you want to talk graphics technology only, Doom 3 has the lead right now. Ask any graphics programmer and they will tell you the same. Even compare the average framerate of the game on the latest hardware, 120-150+ fps in HL2 compared to 60-80fps in Doom 3. And don't say it's because HL2 is more optimized, if anything you would say ID has better graphics programmers than Valve, and it (doom3) would be more optimized. However for this discussion we can assume they are optimized to the same level.

However, Half-Life 2's engine as a whole might (key word being MIGHT, we don't know yet) be more advanced than Doom 3's. It has better physics support, animation support and sound on paper than Doom 3. From a modders perspective (yeah I am a programmer and have done some private HL and Q3 mods) I am looking forward more to HL2 compared to D3, just because I think Valve have gone an extra level to make this game easier to mod and almost as an easy to use game-engine for nearly any project.

Doom 3 is pretty basic gameplay wise, so it will be interesting to see what the engine is capable of when the SDK is released. A more informed "which engine is better" can be made when both SDKs are available.
 
pistolgrip said:
If you want to talk graphics technology only, Doom 3 has the lead right now. Ask any graphics programmer and they will tell you the same.
Click to expand...
So you have asked graphics programmers and they have told you so? Just curious.
 
Even Though I agree With the whatdufunk, I still cant see how you can comapare 2 games which one hasnt came out yet.
 
I don't see how you can compare the two at all. Both companies were shooting for an entirely different graphical experience than the other and, from what I've seen, they've both suceeded admirably at what they set out to achieve.

It's a bit like comparing the Mona Lisa to a van Gogh painting, and deciding that one of them sucks just like that.
 
We dont have the HL2 yet,

how can anybody compare that game with Doom3?

..... and grafix programmers? they have the 2 game codes and they make tests?

i dont think so...... the programmers usually they try to rleash their own stuff and get some money...

i saw doom3 and i like it - but i didnt see any HL2 yet - and what about the HALO2 then?

kov
 
Smart1 said:
While we're here lets compare Metal Gear III with Splinter Cell III :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I did, I think Mario wins, but Sonic got a better grade from the Jury (yes the same one that reviewed the woman's synchronic gymnastics performances at Sydney 2000)
 
neliz said:
I did, I think Mario wins, but Sonic got a better grade from the Jury (yes the same one that reviewed the woman's synchronic gymnastics performances at Sydney 2000)
Click to expand...


Technology comparisons aside.

From all the video footage ive seen of HL2 (all 30 minutes of it), compared to the 15 hours i put into Doom3.

I literally saw more action, tension, drama, suspense, and was subsequently left wanting to see more and experience more in those 30 mins of HL2 than in all of Doom3.

Doom3 was nothing really more than a PREDICTABLE, in-door, claustrophobic, corrdior shooter with a fetish for overdone shadows and difficult to see lighting.
Pretty for what it was trying to do, but the same thing can be said of Picasso's abstract art.

Im sure the masses will appreciate HL2 much more.
 
I think the thing that appeals to me more with HL2 is the interactivity. From the few videos I have seen of HL2 there appears to be a ton of interactivity. Just watching that ravenholm video yesterday, just watching that person play with the gravity gun with the saw blades, the paint cans, the wood pallets, the fire bombs... the list goes on. That looks fun to me.

On the other hand, other than the occasional interactive computer screen, Doom3 does not offer much in the way of interactivity. I do believe Doom3 has the lead in the graphics dept. (esp. the lighting), but of course I haven't played HL2 yet. I have a feeling though that once HL2 is out, we won't be comparing it to Doom3 anymore. People will have forgotten about Doom3. I know I will. :)
 
Hamidxa said:
Technology comparisons aside.

From all the video footage ive seen of HL2 (all 30 minutes of it), compared to the 15 hours i put into Doom3.

I literally saw more action, tension, drama, suspense, and was subsequently left wanting to see more and experience more in those 30 mins of HL2 than in all of Doom3.

Doom3 was nothing really more than a PREDICTABLE, in-door, claustrophobic, corrdior shooter with a fetish for overdone shadows and difficult to see lighting.
Pretty for what it was trying to do, but the same thing can be said of Picasso's abstract art.

Im sure the masses will appreciate HL2 much more.
Click to expand...

I wasn't able to run HalfLife really well when it came out.
I bought it hoping that it wouldn't be too bad..
Well it ran quite well except for a few moments were it really became a slideshow...

But the story.. does anyone remember the storyline from Doom? Doom2? You all know the loveable characters from HalfLife, the professor, Barney.. you get a kind of "emotional" tie with them.. the G-Man was really helping with the X-Files feeling you got in those days .. that's a brilliant game, good graphics (not the best.) but an intriguing storyline and characters you maybe can't compare with, but for whom you do feel passion when they team up with you and run down corridors shooting at aliens..

That's the same thing that made Halo a good game and with that it earned tons of respect and even more money for Microsoft...

Someone sacrificing himself in a game gets more respect than the mindless NPC's in Doom3 " You can't go through here, you need to go to the captains office"
kak
 
Hanners said:
I don't see how you can compare the two at all. Both companies were shooting for an entirely different graphical experience than the other and, from what I've seen, they've both suceeded admirably at what they set out to achieve.

It's a bit like comparing the Mona Lisa to a van Gogh painting, and deciding that one of them sucks just like that.
Click to expand...


Doom III was pretty but the over all game play and AI's sucked....

everyone in review game doom III like scores of 90% when they desverd about 75%.

Alot of people got board with the game about the 3rd level...

the story line was obvious

the over all game is boreing...

it wan't scary and relied on cheap tricks.....

HL2 allready has 1,000,000X the fallowers of doom III.... all thouse hl1 and millions of counter strike players will be upgradeing not to mention the update draws in way more people...

honestly counter strike sucked to me untill they CS sourse!
now it one of my favorite games...

doom III played it beat it, letf it for testing porposes only no interests in it what so ever.....
 
I don't know which one is technically better. I can tell you that thus far I do like the way HL2 looks more than the way DooM3 looks. That said they both probably look like a** on my 8500. :(
 
Hamidxa said:
Technology comparisons aside.

From all the video footage ive seen of HL2 (all 30 minutes of it), compared to the 15 hours i put into Doom3.

I literally saw more action, tension, drama, suspense, and was subsequently left wanting to see more and experience more in those 30 mins of HL2 than in all of Doom3.

Doom3 was nothing really more than a PREDICTABLE, in-door, claustrophobic, corrdior shooter with a fetish for overdone shadows and difficult to see lighting.
Pretty for what it was trying to do, but the same thing can be said of Picasso's abstract art.

Im sure the masses will appreciate HL2 much more.
Click to expand...

Perfect rendition of my thoughts. :heart: word up. :D
 
For how arrogant Carmack is, thinking he's the graphics god... I wasn't that impressed.

Sure the lighting was amazing - but if you can't have good gameplay, what's the point? Didn't we go through this already with people getting sick of blockbuster movies that were just about special effects? Long live the old Star Wars - not the new pieces of crap they're putting out... new special effects only get you so far.

HL2 seems to have amazing graphics, physics, AND good gameplay. They seem to be the underdog that consistently focuses on making a good game - and then spank down iD. Carmack seemed more intent on making an engine that he can sell to other people and make $$$$ than delivering gameplay.

For somebody who is so obsessed with PDAs, I wonder if Carmack uses one or not? :lol:
 
the_neon_cowboy said:
everyone in review game doom III like scores of 90% when they desverd about 75%.

Alot of people got board with the game about the 3rd level...
Click to expand...
Heh, I stopped playing in Alpha lab something about a week ago... just couldn't bring myself to click on that icon. Since then, I've gone through CS:CZ, played some CS:S.

I think some of the latest FPS's like CoD, with missions and storylines just spoiled me to this kind of gameplay... "find pda, kill monsters - repeat over and over." And having to use a flashlight practically all the time is just way over the top.
 
Hamidxa said:
Technology comparisons aside.

From all the video footage ive seen of HL2 (all 30 minutes of it), compared to the 15 hours i put into Doom3.

I literally saw more action, tension, drama, suspense, and was subsequently left wanting to see more and experience more in those 30 mins of HL2 than in all of Doom3.

Doom3 was nothing really more than a PREDICTABLE, in-door, claustrophobic, corrdior shooter with a fetish for overdone shadows and difficult to see lighting.
Pretty for what it was trying to do, but the same thing can be said of Picasso's abstract art.

Im sure the masses will appreciate HL2 much more.
Click to expand...
QFT, qft...
I couldn't have said it better myself...
 
I fully expect to be more impressed with HL2 both technologically and gameplay wise, but to be honest no real comparisons can be made right now as HL2 has not been released. Call me crazy...that's just what I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top