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

Damn, just can't believe the "Preformance" is so much better in HL2...

Seriously, no sh*t sherlock!

id make games to break systems. Actually, I thought Doom3 was incredibly forgiving compared to their previous games relative to the hardware that was around at the time.

Valve take a more conservative approach and want to reach as big a market as possible. id simply don't care if little timmy never plays Doom3 'cos his daddy's pc is way out of spec...
 
I think Doom3 and HL2 are just different games. It depends on what you like.

I've played Doom3 and I've already finished it. I was impressed with everything, lights, enemies, story, etc. I was a Doom and Doom II fanatic... and this helps a lot with doom3. I think Carmack wanted to scare you with the game, and he did it. If you know how to play Doom3, you'll be scared. Now... if you play thinking that nothing can hurt you, and you're just a guy sitting in front of a computer... of course.. the game will be boring.

About HL2, I'm waiting for that game!! I'll love it :D But I'd never compare it with Doom3.
 
Doom 3 looks like **** you just don't know it since 95 % of the screen is covered with black pixels that are too heavy for DX8 cards :P
 
Doom 3 is nothing more than a 20 hour tech demo. Great sound and graphics but the story and game play are lacking. If HL1 was any indication then HL2 will be a much more satisfying experience. I for one am looking forward to cracking some alien skulls with Mr. Freeman's crowbar!! :D
 
Doom 3 may be great at shadows and lighting, but to say it even approaches Source in terms of overall capabilities - THAT's blind fanboyism.

I think the article is good. just look at the characters and animations - Source blows D3 out of the water and over the horizon. imo the crappy blockheads in D3 ruins the "realism" (used a bit loosely since we're dealing with zombie games) the lighting establishes. Source also has great lighting and while the shadows aren't as good they don't have such a negative impact on the game as D3's Quake3-era low-polygon ugliness.
 
painkiller said:
Doom 3 looks like **** you just don't know it since 95 % of the screen is covered with black pixels that are too heavy for DX8 cards :P
Click to expand...

Wow every review I read says Doom3 has cutting edge great graphics, and since I have played it I agree. Comparing only graphics quality...and NOT game play which are as different as apples and tires, I would say the graphics of HL2 the single player game and Doom3 are probably the same.

How they achieve those graphics is another story....that personally I dont care about as long as it runs good on my system.

I think Doom3 was a good enough single player game....with great graphics, but I am thinking it was more to show of the technology so game makers would license the engine.....just like many did with the Q3 engine.

As far as scripted game play....Far Cry was no different and niether will HL2 be. Its not like you can decide go into a bar in the game and get sh!t faced and play checkers while playing HL2, instead of following the game script.
 
Two different game engines made for two different purposes. You can't compare two COMPLETELY different games. It's just another endless arguement. Doom 3 will be better at certain things, while HL2 will have better things about it.

Doom 3 is too dark and too gloomy and has too much of an evil atmosphere to even compare level design, polygons, and character expressions.

Maybe in the future when a lighted outdoor city game is created using the Doom 3 engine, maybe then it would be logical to compare the two games, but right now we have a horror based game on a dark facility of mars, vs. a futuristic alien invasion game on earth.
 
The_Spaniard wrote that not whutdufuk
me and teh span were going to do a hl2 mod but the sdk never came out :cry:
 
smarterchild said:
You can't compare two COMPLETELY different games. It's just another endless arguement. Doom 3 will be better at certain things, while HL2 will have better things about it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

But STILL im waiting HL2 more than D3. D3 the shadows were nice, but thats about it. The game is REALLY good in some parts, but then boooooring in others.

As a HL1 FAN im hoping HL2 is better.. and what i have seen.. it is.

Btw, not dissing D3 in any way.. it was worth the $$ i payed for it. But i want more than worth my money... i wanna a GREAT experience.

Pe-Te
 
smarterchild said:
Two different game engines made for two different purposes. You can't compare two COMPLETELY different games. It's just another endless arguement. Doom 3 will be better at certain things, while HL2 will have better things about it.
Click to expand...

get off the fence you politically correct coward.

how the f*ck are they completely different games?

you might have a point if we were comparing Doom 3 to real life football, but we aren't.

-both Doom 3 and Source are engines primarily for FPS games.
-both allow for realistic lighting.
-both allow for realistic shadows but D3 is better.
-both allow for facial animation but Source kicks the **** out of D3.
-Source has fully implemented vehicles, D3 might have code but it's so far unused.
-Source allows for small rooms and open areas, D3 has so far only been good at small rooms.

OMG I just compared them even though you said I couldn't !!!111~~~
is your world falling apart now?
 
The whole atmosphere that the two games, and thus their engines, are aiming for is completely different. It's blindingly obvious why you can't compare the two directly. Sure, they're both FPSs, but the similarities basically end there.
 
Hanners said:
The whole atmosphere that the two games, and thus their engines, are aiming for is completely different. It's blindingly obvious why you can't compare the two directly. Sure, they're both FPSs, but the similarities basically end there.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand why not.

aren't they both trying to present realistic graphics? isn't it fair to say, for example, that Source facial detail and animation is better than D3?

or is the poor facial animation in D3 essential to its spooky atmosphere? I don't think so but maybe I'm wrong.

I guess computer magazines should stop reviewing games any more now that it's deemed unfair to judge games and compare them to other games...
 
Since a) you can't compare tech between the two games because they are not both out yet b) the thread is about the kind of gaming experience both provide (or seek to provide), this is moved to the PC Gaming section.
 
rth said:
isn't it fair to say, for example, that Source facial detail and animation is better than D3?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's totally missing the point. D3 does not equal the maximum capabilities of the engine. Heck, the SDK is supposed to have some sort of vehicle in it, for example. And yet there were none (useable ones) in the game.

Realizing the full potential of a game engine takes much more than looking at pretty screenshots/videos. Or reading hype. After both engines have spawned mods and other games, they can be properly evaluated.
 
rth said:
get off the fence you politically correct coward.

how the f*ck are they completely different games?

you might have a point if we were comparing Doom 3 to real life football, but we aren't.

-both Doom 3 and Source are engines primarily for FPS games.
-both allow for realistic lighting.
-both allow for realistic shadows but D3 is better.
-both allow for facial animation but Source kicks the **** out of D3.
-Source has fully implemented vehicles, D3 might have code but it's so far unused.
-Source allows for small rooms and open areas, D3 has so far only been good at small rooms.

OMG I just compared them even though you said I couldn't !!!111~~~
is your world falling apart now?
Click to expand...

so basically you're totally clueless of what the doom 3 engine is capable of, and you want to try to put together a comparison based on opinions straight from your own ass.
 
Last edited:
rth said:
Doom 3 may be great at shadows and lighting, but to say it even approaches Source in terms of overall capabilities - THAT's blind fanboyism.

I think the article is good. just look at the characters and animations - Source blows D3 out of the water and over the horizon. imo the crappy blockheads in D3 ruins the "realism" (used a bit loosely since we're dealing with zombie games) the lighting establishes. Source also has great lighting and while the shadows aren't as good they don't have such a negative impact on the game as D3's Quake3-era low-polygon ugliness.
Click to expand...

and to make a statement like that, THAT's blind ignorance.
:rolleyes:
 
scificube said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nah, you're not crazy... but I sense many people here were left a "bit" disappointed with HL2. However, this in no way means that HL2 will be better... I say "will" assuming it is released at all, and since it will be sometime in the future, which we dont know. Before Doom3 came out, people were saying lots of great things.. But proof is in the pudding.

Doom3 = bleh.. I understand
HL2 > Doom3 ... pretty quick to judge a game you've never played since it hasn't come out.

Lindy said:
As far as scripted game play....Far Cry was no different and niether will HL2 be. Its not like you can decide go into a bar in the game and get sh!t faced and play checkers while playing HL2, instead of following the game script.
Click to expand...

I concur. (Doom3)The high-graphics detail made high expectations for gameplay. Doom3 is not supposed to be a "thinking" game, but hopefully staying true to previous ones... unforunate though that you take on so few monsters at a time (Serious Sam kinda Doom3 would be out of this fricken world!!).

I just feel people are now hyping HL2 too much, and setting up for disappointment when it isn't everything they imagine and more (since people are so imaginative). As far as nostalgia, nothing will replace HL(1), and you'll never get a game experience like that. Back then it was a new adventure in a time of infancy for 3D games... now, 6 years later, you're a seasoned gamer, and your fond memories might be somewhat hyped by your imagination... cause you know, back then, in the 512x384 or 640x480, blocky 16bit world, you needed quite a bit of imagination to carry the artists view across. Play Far Cry for 1 hour, and then Half-Life, to see what I mean.
 
Pe-Te said:
Exactly.

But STILL im waiting HL2 more than D3. D3 the shadows were nice, but thats about it. The game is REALLY good in some parts, but then boooooring in others.

As a HL1 FAN im hoping HL2 is better.. and what i have seen.. it is.

Btw, not dissing D3 in any way.. it was worth the $$ i payed for it. But i want more than worth my money... i wanna a GREAT experience.

Pe-Te
Click to expand...
Well said :up:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top