KungFuSquirrelBasher of MuttonsJoin Date: 2002-01-26Member: 103Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin-DR_FUZZY+Aug 23 2004, 07:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DR_FUZZY @ Aug 23 2004, 07:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The MAJOR problem with doom3 is the lighting does not 'reflect'
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--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a 'major' problem with any engine. Quake 3 and HL are currently the only tech I know of that support radiosity, and neither (HL didn't, at least) shipped with it included - both had it added to compile tools later on.
You can find evidence of this in the old HL maps themselves, as included in the SDK. Even textured lights have a number of smaller point lights around them. The best example is in the intro area just past barney's desk. Down the hall, each ceiling texture light has a pair of lights under it. One is a fairly bright off-white, the second a darker greyish tone. Also, ZHLT compiles 'dynamic' lightdata on bounces as well, which is why you see lightdata usage skyrocket with even one or two flickering lights in a map.
Basically, lights in any engine have always functioned this way unless new functionality was added via compile tool modification. The difference is, in the past you could fill an area with as many lights as you needed to fake radiosity. Now, dynamic lights make this nearly impossible for 2 reasons:
1) The lights are simply too expensive for much overdraw. Large fill lights are often simply not an option.
2) shadows. You can't place lights anywhere and then have random shadows criss-crossing into the room (especially where shadow volumes are actually polygonal and increase tricounts dramatically within a scene if left unchecked). You can turn off shadows on some lights, but the calculations are still expensive, and this can lead to some very odd behavior.
<!--QuoteBegin-BadKarma+Aug 23 2004, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BadKarma @ Aug 23 2004, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's stunning the time and emotional energy that you people put into a discussion that half of you are calling totally bankrupt and pointless. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Something's wrong with bored people talking about stuff they want to talk about?
Isn't this forum a place for bored people to talk about pointless things?
<!--QuoteBegin-frostymoose+Aug 23 2004, 04:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (frostymoose @ Aug 23 2004, 04:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> they say they're comparing the engine, but a lot of those things aren't comparing the engines at all. instead of comparing capabilities, they're comparing mostly the content. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right! This is just what the developers have made with these games, models and all. It has nothing to do with the engines.. thats pretty pathetic that he'd even mention that.
I have a theory that will blow away every fanboy-based "Who has the better game" menality right out of the water. <b>Both. Games. Can. Be. Good.</b>. Is that <b><i>shocking</i></b> or what?
And another thing folks. Just because we're on a Half-Life modification forum does not mean we have to feed off the teat of Valve like a newborn calf! Make your own opinions, stop feeding into the rediculous hype generated by Gabe Newell and the rest of his lackeys, and realize that not only can you enjoy both games, but both games can be good (even if it is in different ways), can still be enjoyable, and can exist in the same universe at the same time! It's like people can't have a neutral opinion about these things! Who cares if Doom3 doesn't have the WOWOWO graphics that Half-Life 2 CLAIMS to have? We're on a forum for an engine that is OVER FOUR YEARS OLD. For crying out loud, there is no need to be so uptight about the graphics or the storyline. If it hasn't gotten through everyone's head yet, Doom 3 is Doom 1 revisited! It IS supposed to be the way it is! So please folks, just get over the peer pressure and enjoy the game without complaining or comparing it to the next great source of hype manufactured by a company that has trouble keeping it's own engine in one piece!
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 23 2004, 11:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 23 2004, 11:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have a theory that will blow away every fanboy-based "Who has the better game" menality right out of the water. <b>Both. Games. Can. Be. Good.</b>. Is that <b><i>shocking</i></b> or what? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He's right. I dont see how you can compare two like games when really it al lcomes down to personal preference. And imho, HL is going to be a great game, and Doom 3 is a good game.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 24 2004, 04:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 24 2004, 04:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have a theory that will blow away every fanboy-based "Who has the better game" menality right out of the water. <b>Both. Games. Can. Be. Good.</b>. Is that <b><i>shocking</i></b> or what?
And another thing folks. Just because we're on a Half-Life modification forum does not mean we have to feed off the teat of Valve like a newborn calf! Make your own opinions, stop feeding into the rediculous hype generated by Gabe Newell and the rest of his lackeys, and realize that not only can you enjoy both games, but both games can be good (even if it is in different ways), can still be enjoyable, and can exist in the same universe at the same time! It's like people can't have a neutral opinion about these things! Who cares if Doom3 doesn't have the WOWOWO graphics that Half-Life 2 CLAIMS to have? We're on a forum for an engine that is OVER FOUR YEARS OLD. For crying out loud, there is no need to be so uptight about the graphics or the storyline. If it hasn't gotten through everyone's head yet, Doom 3 is Doom 1 revisited! It IS supposed to be the way it is! So please folks, just get over the peer pressure and enjoy the game without complaining or comparing it to the next great source of hype manufactured by a company that has trouble keeping it's own engine in one piece! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The whole point of the article was to compare the technology in Doom 3 to the technology of HL2. It never said "Doom 3 is a bad game." It said "overall HL2's engine is more promising."
And it isn't just "fanboyism." The article makes some solid points: the characters/faces in HL2 are leagues better. HL2 can easily handle large outdoor areas, while Doom 3 has to stick to corridors. HL2's system requirements are far easier to meet.
And you say that HL2 only claims to have those graphics. Well you might have a point if:<ul><li>There weren't already extensive gameplay and techdemo trailers that show off the graphics</li><li>They didn't release the Bink videos that let your own video card render the scenes</li><li>They didn't release Counter-Strike: Source that lets people play on engine and witness the graphics firsthand.</li></ul>
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Aug 23 2004, 04:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Aug 23 2004, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I saw that article as well, and then I read <a href='http://theinquirer.net/?article=18029' target='_blank'>this article.</a>
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ATI pointed out that their NEXT-GEN cards are still in development. The X800 series is basicly just a boost of the 9800 series.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crono5788+Aug 23 2004, 08:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crono5788 @ Aug 23 2004, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're just angry because Painkiller wins :X <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm buying that game as soon as I can... it looks so badass.
I'll just keep it short and sweet as for the on-topicness
COMPARE THE TWO GAMES WHEN HL2 IS ACTUALLY RELEASED, FULLY FUNCTIONAL, AND FULLY PLAYABLE.
<!--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 didn't release the Bink videos that let your own video card render the scenes<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How did you ever come to that conclusion? Binks do no such thing. It's just a regular codec, allbeit a kick-*** one.
"Bink is a hybrid block-transform and wavelet codec that can encode your video using 16 different compression techniques (wavelet, DCT, motion compensation, a variety of vector quantizers, Smacker-style, etc). With all of these techniques in one codec, Bink can handle any type of video."
<!--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 have a theory that will blow away every fanboy-based "Who has the better game" menality right out of the water. Both. Games. Can. Be. Good.. Is that shocking or what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some people like doom 3, some hate it. It's going to be like that for every game ever released. When a game is good, objectively, all that could possibly mean is that a majority of people like it. It's not a priori that people who disslike doom 3 are brainwashed fan boys.
People do not like to compare games because they are rabid fan boys, they do it because it's fun to get a different point off view on things(which is the opposite of being a fan boy) and to kill time. I see annoying people using "OMG fanboyz" as a way to try and end a discussion they don't care for all the time.
Not sure if any of you have been closely following the development of Quake 4 but one of the mappers (I think it was a mapper but it was definately a ravensoft guy) mentioned that the doom3 engine did out door areas perfectly fine you just had to go about it a different away instead of using high polygon counts on the terrain you had to do something else to make the lighting look good.
<!--QuoteBegin-Soylent green+Aug 24 2004, 01:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ Aug 24 2004, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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 didn't release the Bink videos that let your own video card render the scenes<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How did you ever come to that conclusion? Binks do no such thing. It's just a regular codec, allbeit a kick-*** one.
"Bink is a hybrid block-transform and wavelet codec that can encode your video using 16 different compression techniques (wavelet, DCT, motion compensation, a variety of vector quantizers, Smacker-style, etc). With all of these techniques in one codec, Bink can handle any type of video." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If it's just a regular codec why does it have to be in .exe format?
<!--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--> If it's just a regular codec why does it have to be in .exe format?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Portabillity. Some games use .bik files(they are binks), but I don't think any of the major media players have .bik support so it's easiest to include the player with the actual file, hence the .exe, you don't have to download and install any separate codec. Also they have games as the target market.
Let's make use this shameless-bump and flame some more:
<!--QuoteBegin-RandomEngy+Aug 24 2004, 07:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RandomEngy @ Aug 24 2004, 07:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The article makes some solid points: the characters/faces in HL2 are leagues better. HL2 can easily handle large outdoor areas, while Doom 3 has to stick to corridors. HL2's system requirements are far easier to meet.
And you say that HL2 only claims to have those graphics. Well you might have a point if:<ul> </li><li>There weren't already extensive gameplay and techdemo trailers that show off the graphics </li><li>They didn't release the Bink videos that let your own video card render the scenes </li><li>They didn't release Counter-Strike: Source that lets people play on engine and witness the graphics firsthand. </li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would love someone to post me a screenshot of a HL2 character ingame, witnessed firsthand (No biased E3 shaky camm footage) to justify this claim. It's been mentioned several times the Doom3 engine does large enviroments better than you think it would (Quake3 for example, wich was thought to be a corridor shooter as well, and we ended up with Jedi fckin Knight being built on it). System requirements yes... hmm... I think both games will have about the same requirement ranges, DX8 videocard was it not? And a 1.3GHz(ish) CPU.
HL2 techdemo? I missed something... you mean the E3 footage? Hardly reliable as shown by the HL2 leak... Bink is a videocodec, you probably mean the HL2 stresstest. And CS:Source sucks balls, nuff said <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin-Soylent green+Aug 24 2004, 04:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Soylent green @ Aug 24 2004, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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--> If it's just a regular codec why does it have to be in .exe format?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Portabillity. Some games use .bik files(they are binks), but I don't think any of the major media players have .bik support so it's easiest to include the player with the actual file, hence the .exe, you don't have to download and install any separate codec. Also they have games as the target market. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahh. I stand corrected then; I guess I was fooled by the screen's resolution changing and stuff. Man the quality of those videos is really darn good.
But my original point still stands. You can still see the quality of the graphics and actually play and look at the graphics in CS:S.
Erhm, uhm, Doom 3 was on <b>GOD DAMN MARS</b>, of course it's not going to have wide open outdoor places. Did you even think this through before you typed it out? Obviously not. A wide outdoor place on Doom 3 would suck since you'd, oh, I dunno... DIE? **** DUH. This is like saying that Source engine is utterly incapable of rendering a BFG weapon since there isn't one in-game.
<!--QuoteBegin-RandomEngy+Aug 24 2004, 01:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RandomEngy @ Aug 24 2004, 01:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The whole point of the article was to compare the technology in Doom 3 to the technology of HL2. It never said "Doom 3 is a bad game." It said "overall HL2's engine is more promising."
And it isn't just "fanboyism." The article makes some solid points: the characters/faces in HL2 are leagues better. HL2 can easily handle large outdoor areas, while Doom 3 has to stick to corridors. HL2's system requirements are far easier to meet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First off, nobody knows (except Valve and its beta testers) how promising the engine really is. What people are doing is buying into the hype from Valve, and accepting it as truth. If we have learned anything, it should be that Valve talks big. Really big. Team Fortress 2, anyone? Half-Life 2 in September 2003, anyone? The point is, Gabe Newell authorizes too much hype, and the fanboys here are gobbling it up. Yes, it's fanboyism, because if anyone here (well, except for EEK, he seems intelligent) had a brain on their shoulders, they'd see through this hype.
We don't know how good the faces are in Half-Life 2. We have videos of close up shots (like the screencaps shown on this thread), but we have no knowledge of these being in-game or not. What we do know was these were rendered on the engine. Great. But that doesn't prove that we'll see this quality in the actual game.
Doom 3 was set on Mars. Mars isn't in the open. Might I also restate again - AGAIN - that Doom 3 is Doom 1 revisited. Doom 1 didn't have huge outdoor environments, because its engine couldn't handle it. Doom 3's engine can - but it didn't do huge outdoor environments because Doom 1 didn't!
Doom 3's system requirements allow my one year old computer to run the game. I'd say that's pretty good for meeting system requirements, especially in computer terms.
Rant
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.
/Rant
BAH STUPID "EDITED BY"! Is there anything so vastly important to the thread that it would require everyone to know I edited a post because I noticed a spelling error? Would it derail the conversation if discreet edits were placed without having a notice at the bottom?!
<!--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-->(well, except for EEK, he seems intelligent)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I had a cookie every time I heard that I'd have starved to death long ago. From Medhead no less. Thank god for Tostitos and salsa.
Don't feel bad about the 'Edited by' <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I edit almost every post to clarify on a bit of it or fix typos <!--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-->
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Aug 24 2004, 01:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Aug 24 2004, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> BAH STUPID "EDITED BY"! Is there anything so vastly important to the thread that it would require everyone to know I edited a post because I noticed a spelling error? Would it derail the conversation if discreet edits were placed without having a notice at the bottom?! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> :X
As far as engines go, this is what I can tell and compare (CS:S Beta/D3):
They both have bump-mapping. They both have realistic physics. They both have realistic animations. They both have textures that still look pixelated up close :X They both can handle plenty of pollies (so it seems)
D3 has Normal Mapping, which Valve claims Source has, but I haven't seen it used in CS:S.
Here's the things that I think balance them both out and make each equally viable:
Doom 3 has no precompilied lighting, every light is dynamic. It looks really cool.
HL has a shader-based renderer or whatever they call it, but the floors look shiny and the bottles reflect. That, also, looks really cool.
The thing about HL that makes it more "scalable" than D3 is that it doesn't have to do all the shadow and lighting calculations at run-time, and thanks to DirectX and stuff, it automatically will only use what your card can dish out.
From what I can tell, though, if you actually bother to change your D3 settings, it'll run on plenty of machines, too.
To me, the most outstanding thing out of either of the engines: The computer consoles in D3. HL2 might be capable of doing it, but D3 already did it, and damned if it's not the coolest thing I've ever seen.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crono5788+Aug 24 2004, 01:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crono5788 @ Aug 24 2004, 01:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To me, the most outstanding thing out of either of the engines: The computer consoles in D3. HL2 might be capable of doing it, but D3 already did it, and damned if it's not the coolest thing I've ever seen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean the computer buttons you can use to open doors, or the PDA?
Oh, and just to clarify: I think Half-Life 2 will be good too. I tire of hearing the complaints against Doom 3, which is a good game as well, just because it doesn't bear the Lambda symbol.
To me they both look good and aslong as they run good, which i know Source does from the cs:s beta (30-45 fps at 1280x800 everything on high, on my laptop <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->), still need to get Doom 3, they both win.
To be honest they only thing that really sets them apart for most people is the art, does anyone really care about the specifics of the engine unless they are directly involved with it eg. mod/map making professional games development etc, which for me means that HL2 wipes the floor with D3, that and i personally think that good facial animation is something that has been lacking in games for a long time. So in conclusion based on what I've seen so far ie videos of both, (Except cs:s beta) I'm looking forward to HL2 and the source engine alot more due to the features i mentioned. (Love the gman video)
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Aug 24 2004, 06:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Aug 24 2004, 06:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Erhm, uhm, Doom 3 was on <b>GOD DAMN MARS</b>, of course it's not going to have wide open outdoor places. Did you even think this through before you typed it out? Obviously not. A wide outdoor place on Doom 3 would suck since you'd, oh, I dunno... DIE? **** DUH. This is like saying that Source engine is utterly incapable of rendering a BFG weapon since there isn't one in-game. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There are no wide-open areas on mars? Did <i>you</i> ever think they might have engineered the game so there are no wide open areas? Every time you go outside it's in a canyon of some sort with walls blocking off any potential landscape. If Doom 3 was capable of doing this, you can bet your behind that they'd show it off <i>at least once</i>. Maybe you're running along and look out a window to see a vast martian landscape. That would have been a nice addition to the game. The fact that it never happens tells us something about the engine's capabilities.
People are claiming it can handle outdoor areas just fine, but I'm going to have to see it to believe it.
<!--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-->Doom 3 was set on Mars. Mars isn't in the open. Might I also restate again - AGAIN - that Doom 3 is Doom 1 revisited. Doom 1 didn't have huge outdoor environments, because its engine couldn't handle it. Doom 3's engine can - but it didn't do huge outdoor environments because Doom 1 didn't!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would say that doom 3 and doom 1 are entirely different games. Gameplay wise they hardly have anything in common, story would be pretty much the only thing. In doom 1 you had very fast paced action with tons of enemies(and even more in doom 2), running around blasting everything. Maps where small, straight forward and with varying small puzzles and secrets. The biggest and only fear element in doom 1 is panick, being surrounded by hordes of evil demons and zombies and too little ammo to carelessly shoot them all. Playing doom on nightmare with loud music feels allmost like meditating.
In doom 3 you hardly have any puzzles at all, it's just find PDA, use PDA, find next PDA, use PDA. In doom 3 you meet a few monsters at a time, you don't have any panick element at all, instead they rely on darkness and sudden noises and monsters in closets to be scary, but they aren't in the least. Action in doom 3 is pretty slow, just a few monsters at a time and when they die the won't respawn. Few monsters are anything to be afraid of, most die to a shotgun blast while spawning in. You can take your time and carefully blast every last one of them. The game feels more like HL than doom 1 if anything except they left out the good bits and the variety.
I hate the HL level design. I said it before, I'll say it again, it looks like HL1 maps ported into HL2 and covered with higher res textures. The geometry is pathetic, there's no detail, nothing.
<!--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-->People are claiming it can handle outdoor areas just fine, but I'm going to have to see it to believe it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And yet you're in a **** contest over a game that's not even RELEASED yet? Besides, have you seen HL2 outdoor environments? They're nothing impressive. One of the 'new' shots shows Gordon on a grassy field being attacked by critters. The ground is lumpy and spikey. It has a very ugly grass texture on it, and it has 'environment' in the form of about three ugly little 'plant' sprites. If you want outdoor environments, go play FarCry.
People are claiming it can handle outdoor areas just fine, but I'm going to have to see it to believe it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In addition, the 'outdoor' scenes that occured were hardly expansive.
Anyone want to make an outdoor level for Doom3 and see how it behaves?
Comments
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--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a 'major' problem with any engine. Quake 3 and HL are currently the only tech I know of that support radiosity, and neither (HL didn't, at least) shipped with it included - both had it added to compile tools later on.
You can find evidence of this in the old HL maps themselves, as included in the SDK. Even textured lights have a number of smaller point lights around them. The best example is in the intro area just past barney's desk. Down the hall, each ceiling texture light has a pair of lights under it. One is a fairly bright off-white, the second a darker greyish tone. Also, ZHLT compiles 'dynamic' lightdata on bounces as well, which is why you see lightdata usage skyrocket with even one or two flickering lights in a map.
Basically, lights in any engine have always functioned this way unless new functionality was added via compile tool modification. The difference is, in the past you could fill an area with as many lights as you needed to fake radiosity. Now, dynamic lights make this nearly impossible for 2 reasons:
1) The lights are simply too expensive for much overdraw. Large fill lights are often simply not an option.
2) shadows. You can't place lights anywhere and then have random shadows criss-crossing into the room (especially where shadow volumes are actually polygonal and increase tricounts dramatically within a scene if left unchecked). You can turn off shadows on some lights, but the calculations are still expensive, and this can lead to some very odd behavior.
Something's wrong with bored people talking about stuff they want to talk about?
Isn't this forum a place for bored people to talk about pointless things?
You're right! This is just what the developers have made with these games, models and all. It has nothing to do with the engines.. thats pretty pathetic that he'd even mention that.
And another thing folks. Just because we're on a Half-Life modification forum does not mean we have to feed off the teat of Valve like a newborn calf! Make your own opinions, stop feeding into the rediculous hype generated by Gabe Newell and the rest of his lackeys, and realize that not only can you enjoy both games, but both games can be good (even if it is in different ways), can still be enjoyable, and can exist in the same universe at the same time! It's like people can't have a neutral opinion about these things! Who cares if Doom3 doesn't have the WOWOWO graphics that Half-Life 2 CLAIMS to have? We're on a forum for an engine that is OVER FOUR YEARS OLD. For crying out loud, there is no need to be so uptight about the graphics or the storyline. If it hasn't gotten through everyone's head yet, Doom 3 is Doom 1 revisited! It IS supposed to be the way it is! So please folks, just get over the peer pressure and enjoy the game without complaining or comparing it to the next great source of hype manufactured by a company that has trouble keeping it's own engine in one piece!
He's right. I dont see how you can compare two like games when really it al lcomes down to personal preference. And imho, HL is going to be a great game, and Doom 3 is a good game.
And another thing folks. Just because we're on a Half-Life modification forum does not mean we have to feed off the teat of Valve like a newborn calf! Make your own opinions, stop feeding into the rediculous hype generated by Gabe Newell and the rest of his lackeys, and realize that not only can you enjoy both games, but both games can be good (even if it is in different ways), can still be enjoyable, and can exist in the same universe at the same time! It's like people can't have a neutral opinion about these things! Who cares if Doom3 doesn't have the WOWOWO graphics that Half-Life 2 CLAIMS to have? We're on a forum for an engine that is OVER FOUR YEARS OLD. For crying out loud, there is no need to be so uptight about the graphics or the storyline. If it hasn't gotten through everyone's head yet, Doom 3 is Doom 1 revisited! It IS supposed to be the way it is! So please folks, just get over the peer pressure and enjoy the game without complaining or comparing it to the next great source of hype manufactured by a company that has trouble keeping it's own engine in one piece! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The whole point of the article was to compare the technology in Doom 3 to the technology of HL2. It never said "Doom 3 is a bad game." It said "overall HL2's engine is more promising."
And it isn't just "fanboyism." The article makes some solid points: the characters/faces in HL2 are leagues better. HL2 can easily handle large outdoor areas, while Doom 3 has to stick to corridors. HL2's system requirements are far easier to meet.
And you say that HL2 only claims to have those graphics. Well you might have a point if:<ul><li>There weren't already extensive gameplay and techdemo trailers that show off the graphics</li><li>They didn't release the Bink videos that let your own video card render the scenes</li><li>They didn't release Counter-Strike: Source that lets people play on engine and witness the graphics firsthand.</li></ul>
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ATI pointed out that their NEXT-GEN cards are still in development. The X800 series is basicly just a boost of the 9800 series.
I'm buying that game as soon as I can... it looks so badass.
I'll just keep it short and sweet as for the on-topicness
COMPARE THE TWO GAMES WHEN HL2 IS ACTUALLY RELEASED, FULLY FUNCTIONAL, AND FULLY PLAYABLE.
/end
How did you ever come to that conclusion? Binks do no such thing. It's just a regular codec, allbeit a kick-*** one.
"Bink is a hybrid block-transform and wavelet codec that can encode your video using 16 different compression techniques (wavelet, DCT, motion compensation, a variety of vector quantizers, Smacker-style, etc). With all of these techniques in one codec, Bink can handle any type of video."
<!--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 have a theory that will blow away every fanboy-based "Who has the better game" menality right out of the water. Both. Games. Can. Be. Good.. Is that shocking or what?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some people like doom 3, some hate it. It's going to be like that for every game ever released. When a game is good, objectively, all that could possibly mean is that a majority of people like it. It's not a priori that people who disslike doom 3 are brainwashed fan boys.
People do not like to compare games because they are rabid fan boys, they do it
because it's fun to get a different point off view on things(which is the opposite of being a fan boy) and to kill time. I see annoying people using "OMG fanboyz" as a way to try and end a discussion they don't care for all the time.
How did you ever come to that conclusion? Binks do no such thing. It's just a regular codec, allbeit a kick-*** one.
"Bink is a hybrid block-transform and wavelet codec that can encode your video using 16 different compression techniques (wavelet, DCT, motion compensation, a variety of vector quantizers, Smacker-style, etc). With all of these techniques in one codec, Bink can handle any type of video." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it's just a regular codec why does it have to be in .exe format?
Portabillity. Some games use .bik files(they are binks), but I don't think any of the major media players have .bik support so it's easiest to include the player with the actual file, hence the .exe, you don't have to download and install any separate codec. Also they have games as the target market.
<!--QuoteBegin-RandomEngy+Aug 24 2004, 07:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (RandomEngy @ Aug 24 2004, 07:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The article makes some solid points: the characters/faces in HL2 are leagues better. HL2 can easily handle large outdoor areas, while Doom 3 has to stick to corridors. HL2's system requirements are far easier to meet.
And you say that HL2 only claims to have those graphics. Well you might have a point if:<ul>
</li><li>There weren't already extensive gameplay and techdemo trailers that show off the graphics
</li><li>They didn't release the Bink videos that let your own video card render the scenes
</li><li>They didn't release Counter-Strike: Source that lets people play on engine and witness the graphics firsthand.
</li></ul><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would love someone to post me a screenshot of a HL2 character ingame, witnessed firsthand (No biased E3 shaky camm footage) to justify this claim. It's been mentioned several times the Doom3 engine does large enviroments better than you think it would (Quake3 for example, wich was thought to be a corridor shooter as well, and we ended up with Jedi fckin Knight being built on it).
System requirements yes... hmm... I think both games will have about the same requirement ranges, DX8 videocard was it not? And a 1.3GHz(ish) CPU.
HL2 techdemo? I missed something... you mean the E3 footage? Hardly reliable as shown by the HL2 leak...
Bink is a videocodec, you probably mean the HL2 stresstest.
And CS:Source sucks balls, nuff said <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Portabillity. Some games use .bik files(they are binks), but I don't think any of the major media players have .bik support so it's easiest to include the player with the actual file, hence the .exe, you don't have to download and install any separate codec. Also they have games as the target market. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahh. I stand corrected then; I guess I was fooled by the screen's resolution changing and stuff. Man the quality of those videos is really darn good.
But my original point still stands. You can still see the quality of the graphics and actually play and look at the graphics in CS:S.
And it isn't just "fanboyism." The article makes some solid points: the characters/faces in HL2 are leagues better. HL2 can easily handle large outdoor areas, while Doom 3 has to stick to corridors. HL2's system requirements are far easier to meet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, nobody knows (except Valve and its beta testers) how promising the engine really is. What people are doing is buying into the hype from Valve, and accepting it as truth. If we have learned anything, it should be that Valve talks big. Really big. Team Fortress 2, anyone? Half-Life 2 in September 2003, anyone? The point is, Gabe Newell authorizes too much hype, and the fanboys here are gobbling it up. Yes, it's fanboyism, because if anyone here (well, except for EEK, he seems intelligent) had a brain on their shoulders, they'd see through this hype.
We don't know how good the faces are in Half-Life 2. We have videos of close up shots (like the screencaps shown on this thread), but we have no knowledge of these being in-game or not. What we do know was these were rendered on the engine. Great. But that doesn't prove that we'll see this quality in the actual game.
Doom 3 was set on Mars. Mars isn't in the open. Might I also restate again - AGAIN - that Doom 3 is Doom 1 revisited. Doom 1 didn't have huge outdoor environments, because its engine couldn't handle it. Doom 3's engine can - but it didn't do huge outdoor environments because Doom 1 didn't!
Doom 3's system requirements allow my one year old computer to run the game. I'd say that's pretty good for meeting system requirements, especially in computer terms.
Rant
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.
/Rant
BAH STUPID "EDITED BY"! Is there anything so vastly important to the thread that it would require everyone to know I edited a post because I noticed a spelling error? Would it derail the conversation if discreet edits were placed without having a notice at the bottom?!
If I had a cookie every time I heard that I'd have starved to death long ago. From Medhead no less. Thank god for Tostitos and salsa.
Don't feel bad about the 'Edited by' <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I edit almost every post to clarify on a bit of it or fix typos <!--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-->
:X
As far as engines go, this is what I can tell and compare (CS:S Beta/D3):
They both have bump-mapping.
They both have realistic physics.
They both have realistic animations.
They both have textures that still look pixelated up close :X
They both can handle plenty of pollies (so it seems)
D3 has Normal Mapping, which Valve claims Source has, but I haven't seen it used in CS:S.
Here's the things that I think balance them both out and make each equally viable:
Doom 3 has no precompilied lighting, every light is dynamic. It looks really cool.
HL has a shader-based renderer or whatever they call it, but the floors look shiny and the bottles reflect. That, also, looks really cool.
The thing about HL that makes it more "scalable" than D3 is that it doesn't have to do all the shadow and lighting calculations at run-time, and thanks to DirectX and stuff, it automatically will only use what your card can dish out.
From what I can tell, though, if you actually bother to change your D3 settings, it'll run on plenty of machines, too.
To me, the most outstanding thing out of either of the engines: The computer consoles in D3. HL2 might be capable of doing it, but D3 already did it, and damned if it's not the coolest thing I've ever seen.
You mean the computer buttons you can use to open doors, or the PDA?
Oh, and just to clarify: I think Half-Life 2 will be good too. I tire of hearing the complaints against Doom 3, which is a good game as well, just because it doesn't bear the Lambda symbol.
To be honest they only thing that really sets them apart for most people is the art, does anyone really care about the specifics of the engine unless they are directly involved with it eg. mod/map making professional games development etc, which for me means that HL2 wipes the floor with D3, that and i personally think that good facial animation is something that has been lacking in games for a long time.
So in conclusion based on what I've seen so far ie videos of both, (Except cs:s beta) I'm looking forward to HL2 and the source engine alot more due to the features i mentioned.
(Love the gman video)
There are no wide-open areas on mars? Did <i>you</i> ever think they might have engineered the game so there are no wide open areas? Every time you go outside it's in a canyon of some sort with walls blocking off any potential landscape. If Doom 3 was capable of doing this, you can bet your behind that they'd show it off <i>at least once</i>. Maybe you're running along and look out a window to see a vast martian landscape. That would have been a nice addition to the game. The fact that it never happens tells us something about the engine's capabilities.
People are claiming it can handle outdoor areas just fine, but I'm going to have to see it to believe it.
I would say that doom 3 and doom 1 are entirely different games. Gameplay wise they hardly have anything in common, story would be pretty much the only thing. In doom 1 you had very fast paced action with tons of enemies(and even more in doom 2), running around blasting everything. Maps where small, straight forward and with varying small puzzles and secrets. The biggest and only fear element in doom 1 is panick, being surrounded by hordes of evil demons and zombies and too little ammo to carelessly shoot them all. Playing doom on nightmare with loud music feels allmost like meditating.
In doom 3 you hardly have any puzzles at all, it's just find PDA, use PDA, find next PDA, use PDA. In doom 3 you meet a few monsters at a time, you don't have any panick element at all, instead they rely on darkness and sudden noises and monsters in closets to be scary, but they aren't in the least. Action in doom 3 is pretty slow, just a few monsters at a time and when they die the won't respawn. Few monsters are anything to be afraid of, most die to a shotgun blast while spawning in. You can take your time and carefully blast every last one of them. The game feels more like HL than doom 1 if anything except they left out the good bits and the variety.
<!--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-->People are claiming it can handle outdoor areas just fine, but I'm going to have to see it to believe it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And yet you're in a **** contest over a game that's not even RELEASED yet? Besides, have you seen HL2 outdoor environments? They're nothing impressive. One of the 'new' shots shows Gordon on a grassy field being attacked by critters. The ground is lumpy and spikey. It has a very ugly grass texture on it, and it has 'environment' in the form of about three ugly little 'plant' sprites. If you want outdoor environments, go play FarCry.
People are claiming it can handle outdoor areas just fine, but I'm going to have to see it to believe it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In addition, the 'outdoor' scenes that occured were hardly expansive.
Anyone want to make an outdoor level for Doom3 and see how it behaves?