Doom3world

They were both crappy games for single player and they're both just shining examples of how companies are stuffing improved graphics down our throats, with shittier story lines... and people are buying into it.

Now, if Doom3 had been released a year before HL2 do you think anyone would even be whining about it?

So sillllllllllllly.

I dont see why people have problems running doom3edit. I run on a CLEAN (adware/virus free) AMD 64 bit FX and it runs fiiiiine. The only problem I have with it is the strange UI, which I THINK was the same as all the older versions... but I dont know I never edited the old ones.

I used the HL2 editor and yeah it was pretty simple, MOSTLY because the game is simple, the engine is simple (by that I mean looks like junk heh ). But I still didnt get any of the major need to know things until I looked up a video tutorial. The only editor I have not ever needed to look up a tutorial for was UnrealED, that editor made it easy for somebody like my dog to make an awesome map! But I think the thing that makes the HL2 map editor better than the D3 map editor better is because of the UI, the rest is basically the same besides a few things you have to edit to make a few things run faster and so on!

Doom3editor is more flexible because of the engine, but HL2 is easier to use.

Now I have something to say about this "It's easy to make something simple complex. But its difficult to make something complex simple."

I also have to say that HL2 gets a lot of fame for the engine and people believe a lot of the lies that people say of the HL2 engine being better than the Doom 3 engine. Mostly just because hardcore HL2 fans dont want to admit doom 3 has that incredibal engine and HL2 doesn't.

Just the other day my cousin was over my house for a small lan party. I of course brought doom 3 into the conversation and he then brought in HL2, and I mearly wanted to bring the point across that Doom 3's engine was much more powerful than the HL2 engine. We had a... maybe 30 minute conversation (some would say arguement hehe) about HL2 being better than Doom 3 (his opinion), even though my only point I was discussing with him was the engine, he would only bring up gameplay and what he thought was better or more fun. He was doing his best to avoid the engine, I dont think he was purposefully though. Finally after repeating to him over and over again that I was only saying the engine is more powerful he finally agreed! Though my father said that after I went back upstairs that my cousin said to him that he only said that for me to shutup.... I cant believe my cousin could be such an ignorant person! He a die hard quake fan was trying his hardest to avoid saying doom 3 had any advantage over HL2.
Even though my father and I were the ones to bring him into PC gaming and introduce him to Quake 1 in the first place, he still wanted to avoid my thoughts on the two engines. I also told him that when quake 4 releases, he'll be shutting his mouth. I just hope so. Maybe because I am much much younger than him he doesnt want to listen to my 'childish' envies and thoughts ... dont get me wrong, I have been gaming since I was about 2 or 3 years old and Doom was one of my first and most loved games as a small child... now I'm 15 and for almost 6 years I have been working on web coding/designing, animation, modeling and all that fun stuff (tried C++ coding but I suck at that!!!). Anyway thats not stuff anyone cares about.

I personally hate HL2, it sucks it was short and easy even on hard egh, and it got WAY too much hype. I loved HL1 it was INCREDIBALLY fun and even more fun when those awesome expansions released. But the only thing worth getting HL2 is Counter Strike, that game/MOD is the only thing holding me until Quake 4 or Doom3Jedi(I hope it succeeds). I definetly enjoy Doom 3 much more than I do HL2. And not only were doom 3's predecessors (Doom 1, Doom 2 and Final Doom of course) classics but they were my childhood games, so I have a softspot for Doom along with the rest of the hardcore ones.

Hl2 is britty much about basics, FarCry is better game.

Doom3 is the best game because of support for Linux. =)

All these games are britty much about same. So all they are as good when making preview from gameplay elements. Who cares about really small differences?

fanboys.

or people like me who can't stand valve's lofty status and untarnishable reputation. everything they do turns to gold no matter if its really worthy or not.

hl2 was a great game, but not as great as every fanboy and game review made it out to be. hl2's faults like steam, omitted features, bugs, inconsistant lighting and shadows, etc... are ignored while other games like d3 get torn apart eventhough its one of the most polished games that was released last year.

gamplay is one the biggest features in a game and hl2 had a lot of fun gameplay. but i think professional game review sites also need to pay more attention to other features as well. such as how well was the game made? animations, graphics, bugs, polish, story line, sound, etc... are other important features.

i love the game development proccess (eventhough i don't know how to map or model anything). and without a doubt, d3 was a more polished product.

you forgot mention MAC fans too

If you think that doom 3 have the best engine, all of you should see The Chronicles of Riddick using the Starbreeze engine.

I have played Chronicles of Riddick and it's a great game. But the engine is technically not 'better' than D3. Feature-wise they're quite similar, but D3 is performing better I think. Ofcourse it's hard to tell without benchmarking under similar conditions, like a level with the same lightcount and texturecount.

In the aspects other than the engine, I was not impressed by the level graphics. That's partly due to the nature of the game, since it takes place in a prison mostly. But the characters looked great, better than the humans in D3, and the animations ingame and in the cinematics were the best I've seen yet. They used motion capture on everything, I believe. There were lots of cinematics, telling a good story, just my cup of tea.

You are right,there is not perfect game yet

Well, on my part, I can't say that I've experienced a sensation that "HL2>Doom 3", for generally if I find one game substantially better than the other, I will mainly play the better game, and lose interest in the inferior game, at least for a while.

In the HL2 vs D3 case, I have got into both games and greatly enjoyed them. When I first got HL2 working, I played HL2 a lot more than D3, but over the past month or so, if anything I got a bit bored of HL2 and went back over to D3 again. That appears to be a sign, if nothing else, that in my book HL2 does not "wipe the floor with Doom 3".

DOOM 3 and HALF LIFE 2 are both great games. But I enjoyed Half Life 2 both single player and multipayer better. And yes, I am a Doom fanboy. I have been with and had love with Doom since...well.....it released
Just kidding. But I seriously have played alot of Doom back in the day and I still do. Doom=my favourite PC game. Doom=the most revolutionary game of the 90s

How the hell did you know what i was going to say and posted it first, huh?

Doom 3 would be absolutely unbeatable if it had two things that Half-Life 2 has and does well: a fully functional physics system (don't tell me Doom 3's is perfect -- it's almost nonexistent in some aspects, such as crucial object-on-object physics), and fully functional vehicles. Nothing could touch the game if it had those two.

As of late I've been toying with the idea of working on the buggy Buggy / Locust (the one I prefer more) myself since no one else seems to be doing so.

I agree with you, and hope that the expansion pack will provide more use of the capabilities of the D3 physics system and vehicles, and make putting them into custom levels easier.

this is my css spray logo

The valve fanboys have been owned

well, in css my new one is now animated so its cooler, but not as sharp because of size issues with spray logos

LOL that spray is hilarious. Anyway I think that Half Life two is too much like the first one just updated with better graphics with a couple new guns. Same rocket launcher and same cossbow and same hanguns and same shotguns. Even same aliens with the crab creatures on thier head and everything. All it is is a new story line and some new features. Doom3 is COMPLETLY DIFFRENT from the way older versions. Same guns though, but much much better.

Guys look, you all got it so wrong:

DOOM3, an amazing game. Based on the surface of mars fighting of aliens from some strange pheonomena from hell.

HL2, an amazing game. based on a futuristic earth enslaved by some freak, mass producing strange mutant beings...

Both this games have completely different detailed story lines. (ok doom3 the lesser), based at different times, different places, by two different companies...

You need to understand the DOOM3 is, really, a beautiful piece of artwork. with amazing lighting affects and a taste for fear. That is what is was made to do, and as you will agree does very well. I personally was on the edge of my seat for hours (when i finaly got it working on my low spec computer). Many of you have also complained about doom3 being...well...boring. I could not dissagree more. You must realize that its fills its purposes, delivers the story we were promised and is a dam site better than the orrigional doom/doom2/final doom. And in the end that is more than we should be greatful for (and i am a BIG fan of the orrigionals. If you took away the lighting effects, you would by no means have a plain game. If that were true, it could be said for almost any game. e.g: Halo 2 (absolute shite) is just an enhanced version of space envaders...

And on to Half-life2. Wow, this game was fantastic, but once again you need to calm down and realise what this game is and what it is meant to offer; HL2 is designed for open, heavy combat with a more in depth storyline (it seems i am the only one so far who can understand what is going on) and to have top of the line graphics. And once again it delivers. Many of you have complained about the game being to short...well... start a new game. look at that train. carry on through the station and out into the town centre (if you can call it that). look up and around and then come and tell me that you personally could go off and design 14 levels of gameplay, 40 characters, 7+ wepeons and fukin miles of detailed wallpaper, to that standard. I wont see you anytime soon. If you r that desperate 4 more game play check out:

http://www.ga-forum.com/archive/index.php/t-25139.html

This game is entirely based upon its graphics and storyline, to doom3's metalic graphics and cold fear rushes. give them a break, they are both truly great games, that in my mind are true classics.

Also a quik extra wor: yes far cry was a great game, but chek out the others avaliable guys. you gotta learn to live an let die...

It is impossible to judge one over the other. they r completely different. so stop whinin an go play the fukin game's guys....

If you have any problems (like i give a shit) e-mail me at:

josh_quarrie@tiscali.co.uk

PS(I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TAKE THIS TIME TO SAY:) Halo 2 is shiiiittteee. IT really is boring. it has no storline. the graphis are very dated, almost the same as the orrigional, and the AI is almost laughable. Though of course there r those stupid stuk up priks who think because the first ruled, that h2 is the best game of the lot. WELL GUESS WOT W@NKERS. IT AINT........................................

Oh a D3 vs.HL2 post. I'll give this a shot it sounds like fun. Oh and mark me up for another one who fully understands the HL storyline (becuase HL2 is actually a continuation to HL1, a sequal unlike Doom3 becuase Doom3 is a remake - although ID denys it's a "remake"). It's justa game with a number after it's title and some similarities to the game they made with the same title only of a lesser number. Yea.

And of course this is all personal opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I for one have to say that Doom3 bored the crap out of me. NOT becuase it wasn't scary, far from it in fact I had nightmares of going through life needing to pull out a flashlight all the time just to see what I was doing even outside. Or cliche it's becuase I already played Half-Life1 back in '98'. And also Doom1 'back in the day' which was fun back then becuase back then becuase that type of gameplay was still new. "Wow it's first person is great, this is amazing.. I'm actually looking through the characters eyes." No body cared about story. You knew you just had to run around blowing things up. And I think think that's exactly what ID software was aiming for with Doom3 by not giving it a story, ok not true they did have a story in fact it'll be easier for me to give it a comparison (if memory serves correctly).

D3: New marine goes to UAC to do what marines do.
HL1: New MIT graduate goes to Black Mesa to do what science people do.
D3: All hell breaks loose shortly after arrival.
Hl1: Gordon had to work a little bit before breaking the facility.
D3: Get back to Marine HQ.
HL1: Get to the surface.
D3: Marine HQ broken, get a communication out for help.
HL1: Surface broken, get to satalite delivery rocket to get help.
D3: Send for help. Or don't send for help. It doesn't change the gameplay.
HL1: Sends for help (no choice). But it doesn't matter anyway iether.

The only difference is HL added mystery (G-Man), Doom3 just said "here.. this is what's going on I'm stepping out for a smoke."

You can see where I'm going with this. So maybe I found it boring becuase I had already played HL1 + add-ons.

Now I did enjoy the game, even though i found it boring it loaded up much faster than HL2 and that's why I enjoyed it better. Other than that sorry but I like HL2 way better. Ok so why am I not hanging around the source people, well I'll tell you. I hate steam. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Ok so let's see, pros and cons for me would be:

D3 technology pro:

* Unified lighting system (good job wish i could see it - just kidding).
* Doesn't use steam, or any type of ID Software delivery system, you actually have to get off your fat @ss go to the store and pick it up (excercise = good).
* Scripting, GUI, basic physics system allows for MODs/games to have incredible freedom when designing missions.
* Source code to almost everything except tools (but most of the tools are easy to re-create third party.. no idea why you'd want to do that but you can)
* If DoomEd isn't your thing, use the GTK-Radiant + D3 realtime preview.
* No long compile times!! Oh thank the good lord that crap is over with.
* In editor true WYSIWYG.
* Support for industry standard file formats that can be exported right from your favorite app and work in Doom3. Almost everything can be edited in my favorite tool (notepad).
* Doom3 also has vehicle support.

On a side note, for Doom3 you don;t have to install a gig of Doom3:Counter Strike to play Doom3.

D3 technology con:

* Unified lighting system (it's both good and bad)
* Stencil shadow volumes (they suck, end of story).
* No radiosity (this is a BIG hit as to the type of look you can achieve in the Doom3 world)
* No lipsync system (this can be good and bad, good becuase you can get the exact look you want.. bad becuase you have to hire some guy from an animation house who probably isn't cheap just to make people say such memorable one liners as "aarrgh" or "blaaagh" or "the devil is real, I know, I built his cage".
* No water, but I'm sure this is being fixed. And I don;t mean just some material for it, that's easy. I mean full fledged sounds, splash gfx, physics, etc...
* No displacement surfaces for terrain, or alpha painting tools. (You must do this is your favorite 3d modeling program).
* Requires a high end system to work correctly, or at all for that matter.
* You actually have to write a bloody script to have something as simple as a swinging door. (proove me wrong please)..
* Too bad the vehicle support sucks.

HL2 (source) technology pro:

* Complete engine source code, tools, sdks.. you name it it's been leaked. (thanks annon, thanks microsoft internet security, thanks valve). Don't like the way something works in HL2 download the complete source code and fix it.
* Ability to create reaslistic and believable characters (no? go make something better then get back to me and we'll talk)
* Water, with the above mentioned stuff.
* Displacement surfaces, with in-editor support for changing terrain and painting terrain surfaces. (maybe this will be added for Quake4?)
* Works most of the time and runs on most systems.
* Radiosity, for realistic lighting and as well as deluxe mapping so bumpmaps are still lit appropriatly, as well as when a per-pixel light hits the surface can change dynamically.

HL2 (source) technology con:

* Proprietary file formats, everything must be compiled!!
* No in-editor lighting preview (it could have been done, but wasn't).
* STEAM!!
* Long loading times...
* Source is comprised of more third party SDKs than there are stars in the milky way galaxy.

On that side note, you have to install counter-strike to actually play HL2, AND have an internet connection to play a SINGLE PLAYER game. (But steam stops cheaters you might say good for it.. is someone trying to cheat my single player game!? oh right piracy.. good idea I think I'll do that for HL3.. I was going to buy HL3 but why bother now less hassle to just pirate)

As for the games I liked HL2 better despite the above steamy bullsh|t. Sorry but there's more variety and actually some comedy. It's not just a game, it's an adventure.

I not sure I agree with most of your cons. It's not very accurate to claim that a unified lighting model is a flaw even if you're talking about poor performance in scenarios with lots of lights.

I can understand the frustration with trying to light an area. All it takes is a set number of lights striking a single surface to put a big dent in performance.

But is this a problem with the engine?

I suppose it is in the sense that id could have used a different lighting model for the sake of improving performance in these well lit scenarios but what would this alternative model be? Lightmaps? So much for a unified lighting model and short compile times.

It's not so much the solution that the engine uses that everyone dislikes but rather the fact that current hardware simply can't deal with the problem of multiple lights fast enough to satisfy everyone.

It's really the same problem with stencil shadows. What alternative would you propose and would it allow for the same kind of interation that currently exists? If so, how big of an effect on performance would it have and would it be the straw that broke the camel's back? We already know Doom 3 struggles on current hardware as it is.

This also applies with the lack of radiosity. Infact, now we're talking about multiplying the stress applied to your system per pixel factorally by the number of light bounces.

Currently there are no bounces. The game simulates light reflecting off a single surface into you're eyes and you get somewhere between 10-60fps depending on your hardware.

Want radiosity with 1 bounce? Divide your FPS by the number of texels in the scene. Why? Because each texel will need to take into account the amount of light striking it from all the other texels in the scene.

Let's say you have a couple thousand texels to factor in. Well, that's more texels than FPS regardless what hardware you have so you can be certain that your framerate would suck.

You'd get quicker results using a non-realtime renderer like Lightwave, Renderman, ect...

As far as terrain and vertex painting goes, there's really no excuse not to learn how to use a modeling package when you have a free, capable tool like blender. Not to mention the skills you learn in doing so would apply to all other aspects of content creation.

I can't help but feel like people are just looking for an excuse not to take on the task of learning 3D software when they say things like ... "Boy, it sure would be nice to render normal maps for my textures. Boy, it sure would be nice to make character models. Boy it sure would be nice to animate characters."

It's funny. Doom 3 can make use of all three of those skills and the only thing holding anyone back is a bit of free time and some reading.

Being able to push, pull and paint terrain in the level editor is something you really don't give two shits about when you actually know how to use a modeling package. All I can say is I can make quality terrain faster than anyone can push and pull vertices around in a the level editor that does support terrain creation and vertex painting. Why? I've got more tools at my disposal than you can shake a stick at.

Lipsync is really in the same boat. If you knew how to animate properly, you wouldn't use lipsync because you would find the results poor in comparison.

Realistic water is being worked on so I won't comment on that but the vehicle code is there in the SDK. It's a very rudimentary implementation but that's no excuse for someone not to modify it. All I can say is people must not be interested enough to make it happen. They want it handed to them on a silver platter.