I suggest that people download the new HL2 <a href='http://www.fileshack.com/file.x?fid=5290' target='_blank'>bink</a>. Really, it's a far better show of HL2's graphics than some solitary picture dragged up. (one that most likely comes from another set of pictures which have already been poked at because of their "poor" graphics)
As far as HL2's geometry goes, (since alot of people, especially EEK, seem to bring it up) can you give me any reasons why the geometry <i>wouldn't</i> be blocky? This is Eastern Europe, a very poor and downtrodden locale, did you expect the city to be filled with elegant arches and curves? Hell no! Instead it's filled with run-down, poor buildings, with a few arches here and there from previous eras gone by. Look at the screenshots of the "Citadel" if you want unique geometry, because it's there. Heaven forbid that Valve makes an Eastern European city that looks like an Eastern European city, in this age of plastic walls and Mars spacestations... Oh wait! I forgot that HL2 ISN'T Doom 3, so why should we expect it's geometry to look like Doom's?
And for the record, I think Doom 3 looks better than HL2 in most places, just sticking up for a game that certain people have taken a pleasure in bashing lately. (even though it isn't out yet)
It's like comparing a person who does graphics design all day against a person who codes all day. They don't do the same things, so it all just comes down to who you like more. Saying that the graphics design guy codes crappily, and that the coder guy can't do a thing with Photoshop is hardly a valid argument on who is better.
I don't really care if games these days require a six month old computer and newer to run the game - I'm really tired of developers having to accommodate every ancient PC out there. As a web designer, I too have to do the same thing for the backwards websurfers who don't use the newest version of browsers, or who use browsers like Internet Explorer that don't follow web standards. Let me tell you, it doubles my work load, because I have to make sure that not only does my page render properly on the screens of those who are in the current times, but also for every Joe and Jane who don't update! It's a lot simpler to make a website than to make a game. Think about the work required to make the game scaleable for the ancient PCs, and the graphical cutbacks required to make it playable on all sorts of different PCs, and you can see my frustration with users with old computers who complain they can't use games.
Yes, I know I just stated that I have a one year old computer. Thing is, if I can't play a game, I don't play it, or I upgrade. I accept that. I encourage games to require me to upgrade, because it shows they're advancing and not falling behind to cater to every computer system.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Upgrading your computer cannot be compared to upgrading your browser. Anyone can easily surf to the <a href='http://www.netscape.com' target='_blank'>Netscape</a> site and get a new version of the browser, for <b>free</b>. Upgrading your computer is a totally different matter - if you want to keep up with the technology (and if according to you, a 1-year-old computer is already "old"), you'd have to spent thousands and thousands every year. Some people can't afford that. You are being extremely ignorant by getting frustrated at people for not upgrading their computer. Many people who'll buy HL2 probably won't be able to run D3. So you can guess which game people will buy. I know which one I will.
[edit] Formatting text without resorting to buttons is a skill I have yet to master. [edit2] What a shame. I can't even quote properly!
2_of_8, regardless of it being free, people still don't change. Free doesn't always mean easy, heh.
My point still stands about upgrading. Cost or not, if a gamer really is a gamer, and not one who plays on the side, he or she is going to have to have a new computer. I accept that because of my finances, I won't be able to upgrade any time soon, and I also will not be able to play many of the new games. That's not ignorant, because I'm in the same boat as a lot of other people. It's called life. Not everyone will be able to update. Not everyone will be able to afford a new car. A Kia is not "better" than a Jaguar because it costs less. It just costs less. Same with the game engines. They are not "better" because an ancient PC can play them. Nice feature, but doesn't prove anything about the engine.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuSquirrel+Aug 24 2004, 10:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuSquirrel @ Aug 24 2004, 10:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me let you in on one little secret - <i>everything</i> in game technology is tricks. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also, I do think it's important to note that just because Doom3 uses these techniques of limiting player movement, that doesn't necessarily mean the tech can't handle it. We're talking the Martian surface here, after all, you're not really supposed to go outside into a low-pressure/low-oxygen environment, you know. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right, it could be just a big coincidence that Doom 3 never shows expansive terrain despite multiple opportunities to do so. However I'm still going to have to see it before I believe the engine is capable of doing so.
As for the tricks thing, yes tricks are used in every engine, but Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments. It limits what can be done and it puts a burden on modders. Many people would just rather skip the restrictions and work with Source instead.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 24 2004, 11:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 24 2004, 11:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My point still stands about upgrading. Cost or not, if a gamer really is a gamer, and not one who plays on the side, he or she is going to have to have a new computer. I accept that because of my finances, I won't be able to upgrade any time soon, and I also will not be able to play many of the new games. That's not ignorant, because I'm in the same boat as a lot of other people. It's called life. Not everyone will be able to update. Not everyone will be able to afford a new car. A Kia is not "better" than a Jaguar because it costs less. It just costs less. Same with the game engines. They are not "better" because an ancient PC can play them. Nice feature, but doesn't prove anything about the engine. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You said that yo are tired of people who don't upgrade their PCs:<!--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--> I don't really care if games these days require a six month old computer and newer to run the game - I'm really tired of developers having to accommodate every ancient PC out there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or did I misunderstand something?
No, I'm tired of those who don't ugprade their computers <b>and complain when they can't run current games, or expect to be able to run said games</b>.
<!--QuoteBegin-RandomEngy+Aug 24 2004, 10:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RandomEngy @ Aug 24 2004, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're right, it could be just a big coincidence that Doom 3 never shows expansive terrain despite multiple opportunities to do so. However I'm still going to have to see it before I believe the engine is capable of doing so.
As for the tricks thing, yes tricks are used in every engine, but Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments. It limits what can be done and it puts a burden on modders. Many people would just rather skip the restrictions and work with Source instead. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Expansive environments like... The pic of the cyberdemon cavern eek posted?
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Aug 24 2004, 09:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Aug 24 2004, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-RandomEngy+Aug 24 2004, 10:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RandomEngy @ Aug 24 2004, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're right, it could be just a big coincidence that Doom 3 never shows expansive terrain despite multiple opportunities to do so. However I'm still going to have to see it before I believe the engine is capable of doing so.
As for the tricks thing, yes tricks are used in every engine, but Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments. It limits what can be done and it puts a burden on modders. Many people would just rather skip the restrictions and work with Source instead. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Expansive environments like... The pic of the cyberdemon cavern eek posted? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This expansive terrain:
Still don't see how the article writer knows how the engines work by playing the games. Frame rate, yes. Loading times, yes. But it's performance abilities? No.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 01:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 01:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't know if he was saying either one was better than the other. I think he was merely showing that both could do expansive environments. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, no they can't, EEK supposedly gets 60 fps non-stop but when it's in an open enviroment he gets 25... what the hell is that, that's not well done AT ALL
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Aug 25 2004, 05:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Aug 25 2004, 05:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-RandomEngy+Aug 24 2004, 10:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RandomEngy @ Aug 24 2004, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're right, it could be just a big coincidence that Doom 3 never shows expansive terrain despite multiple opportunities to do so. However I'm still going to have to see it before I believe the engine is capable of doing so.
As for the tricks thing, yes tricks are used in every engine, but Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments. It limits what can be done and it puts a burden on modders. Many people would just rather skip the restrictions and work with Source instead. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Expansive environments like... The pic of the cyberdemon cavern eek posted? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I already explained that. Thanks for reading the thread before posting. The reason it's able to render that environment is you're not able to actually go over there so it can just use huge, far-off polys. Hence my statement "Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments."
We have no idea how well this game will play on every computer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey, guess what comes with Counter-Strike: Source? A Half-Life 2 stress test.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 06:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 06:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And therefore it runs smoothly on every PC? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You said HL2 isn't out therefore we don't know how it will work with every PC. However there's a tool out there to test how it will work with any PC. And it looks like HL2 is <a href='http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=1193&s=3' target='_blank'>a lot more lenient</a> on a system than <a href='http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1634118,00.asp' target='_blank'>Doom 3 is</a>.
Let me clarify why it's worthless. My point has, from the beginning of my conversation here on this thread, that worrying over ensuring every computer in the world could play a game was pointless. Even worrying about getting 3/4 of the world's computer is pointless. Instead of constantly lowering the standards of computer gaming to ensure everyone can play, the bar should be raised. Those who don't upgrade, don't play - which is why <b>I</b> don't play. Which is why I don't <b>care</b> if Half-Life 2 runs on every computer system out there. That doesn't matter to me.
This thread began debating which engine was better due to which engine supports the most computers. Now, Doom 3's requirements are set for a computer, that in my case, is one year old. That's great for games. If it can run on an ancient PC (one year is ancient), that's fine by me.
Despite a Half-Life 2 stress test, we don't know for certain if every computer can run Half-Life 2. It doesn't matter, either. The engine could run on every computer out there - but that could very well be because it's not a cutting edge engine. We won't know until the game is released.
My confusion over this debate still is here - why is everyone so intent on comparing the two engines for superiority? There is no point in doing so. Doom 3 uses a great engine, Half-Life 2 looks like it could be a great engine. Who cares which one is "better", when there really is no point in worrying about it?
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 07:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 07:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, goofball. It's not worth debating with you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess my puny brain will never be able to comprehend why a Half-Life 2 stress test wouldn't be a decent indication of how Half-Life 2 would run.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 25 2004, 02:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 25 2004, 02:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would not be surprised in the least if users who passed the stress test found problems when playing the game itself, once it is released. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would be surprized if they were preformance issues, but not particualrly if they had crashing issues or visualization glitches...
I'd expect the "Stress test" to be a good indicator of the performence you can expect, maybe even higher in most places. After all a "Stress test" by it's very nature would give you the best (or worst depending on how you look at it) that the game will offer. Like MMORPGs when they do a server load stress test, they don't just have a few dozen people standing around, they try and push the server to its upper limits to check the stability under extreme loads.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuSquirrel+Aug 23 2004, 10:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuSquirrel @ Aug 23 2004, 10:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Thursday-+Aug 23 2004, 04:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thursday- @ Aug 23 2004, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just know someone stupid is going to say Quake 4 over them both. lol <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 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.unknownworlds.com/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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That post makes me cringe ... just imagine if Valve and id teamed up to make a game <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Best two designers of first person shooter games.
Graphics don't make the game, if that were the case the next unreal game would win, its graphic enging is sick. You cannot take a piece of the game and over analyze it, and forget the rest of the game. To sit here and compare to games because on has better graphics is ridiculous, wait til HL2 comes out (if ever) and than compare the games as a whole.
As far as I am concerned Doom 3 is a great game. It acomplished what it set out to do, make a game that will make the haid stand up on the back of your neck while playing. I hope HL2 is able to acomplish its goals, as I am going to be buying it as well.
Comments
"Then, it appears that we won't have an opportunity to cooperate"
As far as HL2's geometry goes, (since alot of people, especially EEK, seem to bring it up) can you give me any reasons why the geometry <i>wouldn't</i> be blocky? This is Eastern Europe, a very poor and downtrodden locale, did you expect the city to be filled with elegant arches and curves? Hell no! Instead it's filled with run-down, poor buildings, with a few arches here and there from previous eras gone by. Look at the screenshots of the "Citadel" if you want unique geometry, because it's there. Heaven forbid that Valve makes an Eastern European city that looks like an Eastern European city, in this age of plastic walls and Mars spacestations... Oh wait! I forgot that HL2 ISN'T Doom 3, so why should we expect it's geometry to look like Doom's?
And for the record, I think Doom 3 looks better than HL2 in most places, just sticking up for a game that certain people have taken a pleasure in bashing lately. (even though it isn't out yet)
I don't really care if games these days require a six month old computer and newer to run the game - I'm really tired of developers having to accommodate every ancient PC out there. As a web designer, I too have to do the same thing for the backwards websurfers who don't use the newest version of browsers, or who use browsers like Internet Explorer that don't follow web standards. Let me tell you, it doubles my work load, because I have to make sure that not only does my page render properly on the screens of those who are in the current times, but also for every Joe and Jane who don't update! It's a lot simpler to make a website than to make a game. Think about the work required to make the game scaleable for the ancient PCs, and the graphical cutbacks required to make it playable on all sorts of different PCs, and you can see my frustration with users with old computers who complain they can't use games.
Yes, I know I just stated that I have a one year old computer. Thing is, if I can't play a game, I don't play it, or I upgrade. I accept that. I encourage games to require me to upgrade, because it shows they're advancing and not falling behind to cater to every computer system.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Upgrading your computer cannot be compared to upgrading your browser.
Anyone can easily surf to the <a href='http://www.netscape.com' target='_blank'>Netscape</a> site and get a new version of the browser, for <b>free</b>. Upgrading your computer is a totally different matter - if you want to keep up with the technology (and if according to you, a 1-year-old computer is already "old"), you'd have to spent thousands and thousands every year. Some people can't afford that. You are being extremely ignorant by getting frustrated at people for not upgrading their computer.
Many people who'll buy HL2 probably won't be able to run D3. So you can guess which game people will buy. I know which one I will.
[edit]
Formatting text without resorting to buttons is a skill I have yet to master.
[edit2]
What a shame. I can't even quote properly!
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->[QUOTE=MedHead,Aug 24 2004, 02:42 PMRant]*text*[/quote]<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
You need to put another bracket at the end of the name, date, time stamp.
My point still stands about upgrading. Cost or not, if a gamer really is a gamer, and not one who plays on the side, he or she is going to have to have a new computer. I accept that because of my finances, I won't be able to upgrade any time soon, and I also will not be able to play many of the new games. That's not ignorant, because I'm in the same boat as a lot of other people. It's called life. Not everyone will be able to update. Not everyone will be able to afford a new car. A Kia is not "better" than a Jaguar because it costs less. It just costs less. Same with the game engines. They are not "better" because an ancient PC can play them. Nice feature, but doesn't prove anything about the engine.
Also, I do think it's important to note that just because Doom3 uses these techniques of limiting player movement, that doesn't necessarily mean the tech can't handle it. We're talking the Martian surface here, after all, you're not really supposed to go outside into a low-pressure/low-oxygen environment, you know. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right, it could be just a big coincidence that Doom 3 never shows expansive terrain despite multiple opportunities to do so. However I'm still going to have to see it before I believe the engine is capable of doing so.
As for the tricks thing, yes tricks are used in every engine, but Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments. It limits what can be done and it puts a burden on modders. Many people would just rather skip the restrictions and work with Source instead.
You said that yo are tired of people who don't upgrade their PCs:<!--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-->
I don't really care if games these days require a six month old computer and newer to run the game - I'm really tired of developers having to accommodate every ancient PC out there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or did I misunderstand something?
As for the tricks thing, yes tricks are used in every engine, but Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments. It limits what can be done and it puts a burden on modders. Many people would just rather skip the restrictions and work with Source instead. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Expansive environments like... The pic of the cyberdemon cavern eek posted?
(Painkiller wins, btw.)
As for the tricks thing, yes tricks are used in every engine, but Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments. It limits what can be done and it puts a burden on modders. Many people would just rather skip the restrictions and work with Source instead. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Expansive environments like... The pic of the cyberdemon cavern eek posted? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This expansive terrain:
<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/uploads//post-10-1093379977.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
or this expansive terrain?
<img src='http://www.planethalflife.com/features/articles/sigg04/phl_c17_Slide15_hi.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Hmmm, which one, which one...
Still don't see how the article writer knows how the engines work by playing the games. Frame rate, yes. Loading times, yes. But it's performance abilities? No.
Oh and by the way, 25 FPS is how shall we say... CRAP?
That kills the theory of expansive enviroments in Doom 3, it just chugs like a chugger
No, no they can't, EEK supposedly gets 60 fps non-stop but when it's in an open enviroment he gets 25... what the hell is that, that's not well done AT ALL
Chug-a-chug-a-chug-a-chug-a-chug-a-choo-chooo!
Half. Life. 2. Has. Not. Yet. Been. Released.
We have no idea how well this game will play on every computer.
As for the tricks thing, yes tricks are used in every engine, but Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments. It limits what can be done and it puts a burden on modders. Many people would just rather skip the restrictions and work with Source instead. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Expansive environments like... The pic of the cyberdemon cavern eek posted? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I already explained that. Thanks for reading the thread before posting. The reason it's able to render that environment is you're not able to actually go over there so it can just use huge, far-off polys. Hence my statement "Doom 3 requires these tricks to depict outdoor environments."
Half. Life. 2. Has. Not. Yet. Been. Released.
We have no idea how well this game will play on every computer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, guess what comes with Counter-Strike: Source? A Half-Life 2 stress test.
You said HL2 isn't out therefore we don't know how it will work with every PC. However there's a tool out there to test how it will work with any PC. And it looks like HL2 is <a href='http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=1193&s=3' target='_blank'>a lot more lenient</a> on a system than <a href='http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1634118,00.asp' target='_blank'>Doom 3 is</a>.
Translation: I got owned.
Let me clarify why it's worthless. My point has, from the beginning of my conversation here on this thread, that worrying over ensuring every computer in the world could play a game was pointless. Even worrying about getting 3/4 of the world's computer is pointless. Instead of constantly lowering the standards of computer gaming to ensure everyone can play, the bar should be raised. Those who don't upgrade, don't play - which is why <b>I</b> don't play. Which is why I don't <b>care</b> if Half-Life 2 runs on every computer system out there. That doesn't matter to me.
This thread began debating which engine was better due to which engine supports the most computers. Now, Doom 3's requirements are set for a computer, that in my case, is one year old. That's great for games. If it can run on an ancient PC (one year is ancient), that's fine by me.
Despite a Half-Life 2 stress test, we don't know for certain if every computer can run Half-Life 2. It doesn't matter, either. The engine could run on every computer out there - but that could very well be because it's not a cutting edge engine. We won't know until the game is released.
My confusion over this debate still is here - why is everyone so intent on comparing the two engines for superiority? There is no point in doing so. Doom 3 uses a great engine, Half-Life 2 looks like it could be a great engine. Who cares which one is "better", when there really is no point in worrying about it?
I guess my puny brain will never be able to comprehend why a Half-Life 2 stress test wouldn't be a decent indication of how Half-Life 2 would run.
I would be surprized if they were preformance issues, but not particualrly if they had crashing issues or visualization glitches...
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.unknownworlds.com/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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That post makes me cringe ... just imagine if Valve and id teamed up to make a game <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Best two designers of first person shooter games.
As far as I am concerned Doom 3 is a great game. It acomplished what it set out to do, make a game that will make the haid stand up on the back of your neck while playing. I hope HL2 is able to acomplish its goals, as I am going to be buying it as well.