Doom3 Vs Hl2
An article which compares the two engines:
<a href='http://www.whutdufuk.com/?post=632287876827187500' target='_blank'>http://www.whutdufuk.com/?post=632287876827187500</a>
I'm personaltly impressed by this:
<a href='http://www.xylicon.com/spaniard/Facial%20Comparison.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.xylicon.com/spaniard/Facial%20Comparison.jpg</a>
<a href='http://www.whutdufuk.com/?post=632287876827187500' target='_blank'>http://www.whutdufuk.com/?post=632287876827187500</a>
I'm personaltly impressed by this:
<a href='http://www.xylicon.com/spaniard/Facial%20Comparison.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.xylicon.com/spaniard/Facial%20Comparison.jpg</a>
Comments
The author is right though, doom3 engine could have been so much more.
Oh, and dam gman is sexa
I need'nt to mention that the writer is trying to compare a non-released engine, from wich the only things we've seen are E3 shaky cam movies and a terribly built CS:Source, to Doom3.
Some excerpts I find to be rediculous:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As of now there is no vehicle code in Doom 3<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
False.
Though fortunatly he did mention:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but it is reported that it will be included in the SDK.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the first statement remains false.
<b>UN</b>fortunatly though he then says:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Problem is the engine is not tailored for very big environments<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wich brings us back at square one, simply not true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They come out looking pointy with many rough edges (<a href='http://www.xylicon.com/spaniard/Coneheads.jpg' target='_blank'>Coneheads</a>). And with a lack of detail texturing you can clearly see texture wrap creases on characters heads in many occasions making it look as if there is a fold going down the middle of their faces.
Half-Life 2 does not use real mapping but higher polygon counts and very high quality detail textures make the Half-Life 2 characters look vastly superior. (<a href='http://www.xylicon.com/spaniard/Facial%20Comparison.jpg' target='_blank'>Character Comparison Shot</a>).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So let's see here, he compares ingame shots of characters (wich I find to look quite nice IMHO) with a screenshot of the G-Man. The G-Man that was shown for exactly 3 seconds on the E3. Now I saw that particular piece of footage, and although it looked nice, it was most certainly decieving, as we only got shown his face making small gestures and his head moving JUST SLIGHTY. As Maus pointed, not exactly something i'm going to expect from ingame footage, so it's pretty much worthless for comparison.
BTW: Am I the only one to find the conehead screeny to have been taken from the most unfortunate place possible? I have to admit, ive completed Doom3 and I haven't seen such an edged head ANYWHERE in the game. Suppose I din't pay attention eh?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Characters truly look as if they are walking on the ground instead of gliding along with their feet moving back and fourth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is he hinting towards Doom3 animations with that gliding comment? If so, i'm not sure if he played the game at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HL2 can render highly detailed outdoor areas where as if D3 tried it would explode.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Been mentioned before, talking out of his arse.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You been wondering about this as well? I certainly was... Doom3 runs like silk on my system. Not to mention he doesn't really tell us a single detail about what kind of system he was talking about. Heck, he could've ran HL2 with low detail and Doom3 on ultra, and we'd have to believe him? Not quite, after the already biased parts of the article i've read.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now HOW many times must it have been said before people get it, the 4 player limit is by all means no indication of what Doom3 is capable. It's bypassed just like that *makes finger clicking gesture*. I also find it highly surprising he is already talking about a fantastic netcode while noone on planet earth has yet seen it in action, what? 64 player support? Oh well then it must be a fantastic netcode!! Hilarious article. (And the incredible dodgy netcode of HL ATM certainly doesn't convince me either, bloody hitbox-bugs *grmbl*)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-Life 2 is the best running, most dynamic, and adaptable engine of this current generation and for that it wins.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought that was exactly what the Doom3 engine was praised for, running very nicely on a GF4 and all... Suppose i've missed something in the new HL2 benchmarks, i'll just go read up on them now...
PS: Undoubtably stuff in this post can be untrue, bent from reality, or plain and simple rant. Too tired to read it over again so whatever.
Outdoor area's especially
If you think "Silk" is 20 fps then may I show you the door to this discussion
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.
Now HOW many times must it have been said before people get it, the 4 player limit is by all means no indication of what Doom3 is capable. It's bypassed just like that *makes finger clicking gesture*. I also find it highly surprising he is already talking about a fantastic netcode while noone on planet earth has yet seen it in action, what? 64 player support? Oh well then it must be a fantastic netcode!! Hilarious article. (And the incredible dodgy netcode of HL ATM certainly doesn't convince me either, bloody hitbox-bugs *grmbl*)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you tried playing Doom 3 on servers with 10+ people? I played Doom 3 multiplayer exactly 2 times, once on ultra, and once on medium in a six person server. On medium it ran less than crap and once I figured out all the maps were tiny and all you could really do was camp chain gun rooms to get any kind of score I went back to playing NS.
Keep in mind, I completely disagree with his opinions on the Source engine. His comments about the engine being "a year old" annoy me, because the Doom III engine and the Far Cry engine are that old as well. I'm quite sure that many of the things that Doom III can do, HL2 can do as well.
He apparantly also did not read that Valve made the Source engine very updatable. Valve engineers in interviews have talked about how Source will be able to move up to DX10 when it comes out.
However, some of his observations on ATI are right on the mark. Keep in mind, I've always leaned a little towards the ATI side of things, but even the real die hard fanboys will admit that not including FP 32 bit and PS 3.0 was a dumb idea. Is the X800 series quality? Damn right it is. But, and this is where they underestimated things, this new generation of cards was critical because they forgot about the "next generation" aspect of the whole year 2004.
Think about it: all the new gaming engines are next generation, nvidia invested in next generation, 64 bit processors are making a hit on the market, and ATI went conservative, in a time when it was good to be risky and include new things. SLI technology and PS 3.0 are two major talking points about new cards, and ATI is lacking both.
I'm thinking they'll realize the error of their ways and be working on a PS 3.0 and FP32 card soon. As in, real soon.
Outdoor area's especially
If you think "Silk" is 20 fps then may I show you the door to this discussion <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, actually I detest people claiming silk\smoothing when they're around 20-30FPS. When i'm talking silk, i'm talking about hitting Doom's 60(ish) FPS cap constantly (wich it does over here, fortunatly for me).
The game shouldn't run at 20FPS though, sounds like you're stuck with something outdated.
This is like argueing over which gladiator won a battle when one competitor has yet to turn up. We can wait until HL2 is actually out to make this as objective as possible, but even then it'll be a pointless exercise in heated opinions.
This is like argueing over which gladiator won a battle when one competitor has yet to turn up. We can wait until HL2 is actually out to make this as objective as possible, but even then it'll be a pointless exercise in heated opinions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. CS:S Beta would be more fitting as it uses the Source engine to compare with Doom 3 / Q4 Engine.
Probably a good idea to suspend that argument as well, since CS:S is supposed to be in it's Beta stages as well (It'd better be, what a crock of *cens*).
Thanks, makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
The facial comparison shots aren't even from running the game on high settings, for crying out loud. Of course there's no contest, because the moron thinks that low-res and low-detail can equally be compared to the highest detail of any character in another engine. *rolls eyes*
Article is a joke, and the fact that it's receiving publicity moreso. You want a real comparison? Wait until HL2 is out and make actual direct comparisons on equal settings on equal machines, not this take a PR screenshot from one company and mix it with your own gameplay shots from your 486 to compare the other. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
EDIT: I should clarify my own position here a bit. For all we know at this point, HL2's tech may come in and wipe the floor with the Doom3 tech. It's unlikely, given a number of categories in which portions of screenshots of HL2 have notably unimpressive bits compared to counterparts in D3, but it's still possible. They've got great art direction and very impressive content and hopefully a very impressive game. My only complaint is with this particular article, and to me it just seems to be someone justifying their own feelings on the HL2 tech rather than doing a real objective comparison. All this HL2 <b>vs.</b> Doom3 stuff is really getting tiring, when it should be HL2 <b>and</b> Doom3 helping to make one of the best years ever in PC gaming, if not the absolute best to date.
I'm guessing a healthy portion of the people that posted.
Therefore, lights cast by one light souce will not dim the hall around the corner, the corner will be pitch black. Don't trust me, go look at it on the planetdoom forums, theres a big rant about it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But, hl2 is mostly high-res textures/high poly models anyways, and not so much bumpmapping <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->