AutomaticErik
11-18-2004, 10:51 AM
...I still like Doom 3 better and still think it has the better engine. I know, flame on, but I thought I couldn't just bash HL2 without playing it. Now I can bash it all I want as I own it and still prefer Doom 3.
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Now, after playing Doom3 and Half-Life2...
ImaNihilist
11-18-2004, 10:53 AM
http://penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20041117l.jpg
TwIce
11-18-2004, 11:04 AM
Interesting. What do you like more about DOOM 3? I like it, too, but in my opinion the weapons lack impact and the gameplay becomes repetitive. I knew by the time I got to Delta Labs 1 that it was probably all over. Yes, the engine is fabulous but it will be great to see it used in a game that isn't all corridors.
XJ
11-18-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by AutomaticErik
...I still like Doom 3 better and still think it has the better engine. I know, flame on, but I thought I couldn't just bash HL2 without playing it. Now I can bash it all I want as I own it and still prefer Doom 3.
I thought your post was a little out there in the poll question before you even played the game...
Originally posted by AutomaticErik
D3 engine by far. The CryTek engine has to be the buggiest thing in existence.
I thought you had jumped the gun a little there. Maybe you were just looking at the technical specs of the engine, but came off a little fan boyish. I'm glad you can freely bash with experience now.'
...I still like Doom 3 better and still think it has the better engine. I know, flame on, but I thought I couldn't just bash HL2 without playing it. Now I can bash it all I want as I own it and still prefer Doom 3.
I thought your post was a little out there in the poll question before you even played the game...
Originally posted by AutomaticErik
D3 engine by far. The CryTek engine has to be the buggiest thing in existence.
I thought you had jumped the gun a little there. Maybe you were just looking at the technical specs of the engine, but came off a little fan boyish. I'm glad you can freely bash with experience now.'
Mancora
11-18-2004, 11:51 AM
You actually asked people to say if they liked HL2 or Doom 3 better? Last time i saw someone say they didnt like doom 3 you were there to say they obvously hadnt played doom 3..
This threads going to be any different than that in what way?
This threads going to be any different than that in what way?
Freddy_Kruger
11-18-2004, 11:53 AM
pffftt.. In Doom3, there is only 2 levels. One is hell, which lasts and hour or so, and the rest is in a hallway and little rooms off the hallway. And thats it. Nice grahics, boring a** game. Every 5 minutes you die, open a door, Die.
In half life 2, even on hard level you can play and play with no frustration and in a constantly changing enviroment. Not crazy about the loading times, especially when they are close togetther.
HL2 reminds me of max payne 2, the graphics and the sound and feeling of the gun.
In half life 2, even on hard level you can play and play with no frustration and in a constantly changing enviroment. Not crazy about the loading times, especially when they are close togetther.
HL2 reminds me of max payne 2, the graphics and the sound and feeling of the gun.
AutomaticErik
11-18-2004, 11:58 AM
Yeah, I figured I couldn't bash it til I tried it. Now I've tried it and I agree with what I've been saying all along.
As far as what I like better, pretty much everything. I think the character models have better movement. I think the lighting is much better. The general design just looks better to me. I'm playing both games at equal resolutions, no AA/AF, and settings on high quality.
And on the gameplay side, for some reason, probably having to do with the graphics, I feel more immersed in the environment with Doom 3 than with HL2.
As far as what I like better, pretty much everything. I think the character models have better movement. I think the lighting is much better. The general design just looks better to me. I'm playing both games at equal resolutions, no AA/AF, and settings on high quality.
And on the gameplay side, for some reason, probably having to do with the graphics, I feel more immersed in the environment with Doom 3 than with HL2.
AutomaticErik
11-18-2004, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Mancora
You actually asked people to say if they liked HL2 or Doom 3 better? Last time i saw someone say they didnt like doom 3 you were there to say they obvously hadnt played doom 3..
This threads going to be any different than that in what way?
Wasn't asking anything. Simply stating an opinion. After actually playing both games now, my opinion stays the same.
You actually asked people to say if they liked HL2 or Doom 3 better? Last time i saw someone say they didnt like doom 3 you were there to say they obvously hadnt played doom 3..
This threads going to be any different than that in what way?
Wasn't asking anything. Simply stating an opinion. After actually playing both games now, my opinion stays the same.
Dark Sonic
11-18-2004, 12:15 PM
I never really felt immeresed in Doom 3. The game was so linear that it bored me to death. I finally finished the game after two weeks of procastinating. It was just so boring. I never really got freaked out by the game, either. That's just me though...
AutomaticErik
11-18-2004, 12:27 PM
I started a new D3 campaign yesterday since I reinstalled my OS on my new raptor. My heart still gets pumping the minute the action starts and doesn't stop until I quit.
Bearded Kirklander
11-18-2004, 12:37 PM
Doom 3 was just kinda lame and repetitive to me. Half-Life 2 at least sounds immersive from a story point of view.
Abarine
11-18-2004, 01:00 PM
I've played Doom 3 but not HL2 yet (DAMN PAPER SLEEVES! HOLD MY CDS, DON'T SCRATCH THEM!); I got bored pretty quickly with Doom, because it was dark and linear. The gameplay was alright, but I found I wasn't really having fun; it was like a field trip through a nice engine.
That's just my opinion, though; I'm sure there are plenty who don't agree with me.
That's just my opinion, though; I'm sure there are plenty who don't agree with me.
7192004
11-18-2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Abarine
I've played Doom 3 but not HL2 yet (DAMN PAPER SLEEVES! HOLD MY CDS, DON'T SCRATCH THEM!); I got bored pretty quickly with Doom, because it was dark and linear. The gameplay was alright, but I found I wasn't really having fun; it was like a field trip through a nice engine.
That's just my opinion, though; I'm sure there are plenty who don't agree with me.
ypu, that sums up my opinion also.
I've played Doom 3 but not HL2 yet (DAMN PAPER SLEEVES! HOLD MY CDS, DON'T SCRATCH THEM!); I got bored pretty quickly with Doom, because it was dark and linear. The gameplay was alright, but I found I wasn't really having fun; it was like a field trip through a nice engine.
That's just my opinion, though; I'm sure there are plenty who don't agree with me.
ypu, that sums up my opinion also.
Bearded Kirklander
11-18-2004, 01:12 PM
Without the VariLight mod, I don't think I would have enjoyed, much less finished, Doom 3. It was critical, at least for me. I agree that it was just way too dark.
TimisoaraKill
11-18-2004, 01:28 PM
Sry m8 but i don't get this post , what the heck you liked more in Doom III ,...the same monsters who jump on you in the same repetitive way with some retarded AI and usualy from spots that you already know ? ,...
Doom III was a ok game with monsters but that's kinda all , this HL2 is one of best if not the best stuff ever made on PC concerning gameplay , at least imo .
Doom III was a ok game with monsters but that's kinda all , this HL2 is one of best if not the best stuff ever made on PC concerning gameplay , at least imo .
AutomaticErik
11-18-2004, 01:30 PM
HL2 is the same monsters that get on you in the same way so whats the difference? If Doom 3 is considered repetitive, then HL2 has to be as well.
Un4given
11-18-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by AutomaticErik
...I still like Doom 3 better and still think it has the better engine. I know, flame on, but I thought I couldn't just bash HL2 without playing it. Now I can bash it all I want as I own it and still prefer Doom 3.
No surprises here. You have defended D3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, regardless of the shortcomings that a great deal of people have indicated.
You are to D3 what OpStar is to nVidia. :D
...I still like Doom 3 better and still think it has the better engine. I know, flame on, but I thought I couldn't just bash HL2 without playing it. Now I can bash it all I want as I own it and still prefer Doom 3.
No surprises here. You have defended D3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, regardless of the shortcomings that a great deal of people have indicated.
You are to D3 what OpStar is to nVidia. :D
mikeysg
11-18-2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Un4given
No surprises here. You have defended D3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, regardless of the shortcomings that a great deal of people have indicated.
You are to D3 what OpStar is to nVidia. :D LOL! :D Total agreement from me. AE's all about OGL/nV.....anything else, namely D3D/Ati, sux cast iron ballz in his opinion.:p :D
No surprises here. You have defended D3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, regardless of the shortcomings that a great deal of people have indicated.
You are to D3 what OpStar is to nVidia. :D LOL! :D Total agreement from me. AE's all about OGL/nV.....anything else, namely D3D/Ati, sux cast iron ballz in his opinion.:p :D
Colossus
11-18-2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Un4given
No surprises here. You have defended D3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, regardless of the shortcomings that a great deal of people have indicated.
You are to D3 what OpStar is to nVidia. :D
HAHAHAHA LOL HAHAHAHAHA
I wont even go into how I finished Doom3 in just a handful of hours, where it was the same thing. Same dark corridor (wouldnt know it from another, so damn dark) and killing the same 5 mobs...
But atleast HL2 has alot more to offer, I agree that HL2 had alot of filler action.. Like I have said before, there was alot of driving to nowhere in HL2.
No surprises here. You have defended D3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, regardless of the shortcomings that a great deal of people have indicated.
You are to D3 what OpStar is to nVidia. :D
HAHAHAHA LOL HAHAHAHAHA
I wont even go into how I finished Doom3 in just a handful of hours, where it was the same thing. Same dark corridor (wouldnt know it from another, so damn dark) and killing the same 5 mobs...
But atleast HL2 has alot more to offer, I agree that HL2 had alot of filler action.. Like I have said before, there was alot of driving to nowhere in HL2.
TimisoaraKill
11-18-2004, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Un4given
No surprises here. You have defended D3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, regardless of the shortcomings that a great deal of people have indicated.
You are to D3 what OpStar is to nVidia. :D
humm ,...i don't think so , compearing HL2 with Doom 3 is like compearing a X800XT with a Nvidia 5700 , ...Opstar will never argue on stuff like this , here the difference is realy huge .
No surprises here. You have defended D3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, regardless of the shortcomings that a great deal of people have indicated.
You are to D3 what OpStar is to nVidia. :D
humm ,...i don't think so , compearing HL2 with Doom 3 is like compearing a X800XT with a Nvidia 5700 , ...Opstar will never argue on stuff like this , here the difference is realy huge .
Un4given
11-18-2004, 01:59 PM
Don't get me wrong, I think the D3 engine has some very good attributes.
1. Overall lighting effects are better.
2. Plays smoother at lower fps.
3. Still looks quite good even at lower resolutions.
However, to look beyond the engines of these games, I hands down find HL2 to have more believable character interaction, world interaction, and general game play premise.
1. Overall lighting effects are better.
2. Plays smoother at lower fps.
3. Still looks quite good even at lower resolutions.
However, to look beyond the engines of these games, I hands down find HL2 to have more believable character interaction, world interaction, and general game play premise.
Sol
11-18-2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Un4given
No surprises here. You have defended D3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, regardless of the shortcomings that a great deal of people have indicated.
You are to D3 what OpStar is to nVidia. :D
hahah going to have to agree with this too. Doom 3 was a great technical demo, but for a game, it lacked. HL2 isn't the greatest game ever, but it's sure steps ahead of Doom 3. HL2 at least tries to add some varying gameplay. I do think it's funny that the people that defended doom 3 like crazy when it was criticized are the same people that cut HL2 down for the same thing. :)
No surprises here. You have defended D3 as the greatest thing since sliced bread, regardless of the shortcomings that a great deal of people have indicated.
You are to D3 what OpStar is to nVidia. :D
hahah going to have to agree with this too. Doom 3 was a great technical demo, but for a game, it lacked. HL2 isn't the greatest game ever, but it's sure steps ahead of Doom 3. HL2 at least tries to add some varying gameplay. I do think it's funny that the people that defended doom 3 like crazy when it was criticized are the same people that cut HL2 down for the same thing. :)
Bearded Kirklander
11-18-2004, 02:29 PM
While I may criticize sometimes, and have an obvious UT2004 bias, I am glad that both Doom 3 and Half Life 2 have come out and some folks totally dig 'em. They may be short and repetitive or whatever, but they are both innovative and sorta cool and certainly a lot better than some of the stuff out there (errr - will rock comes to mind). :D
I guess the hype kinda puts a target on their back and people may tend to be harder on them than they otherwise would. Heck, some folks even liked Daikatana... :D :D :D
Hey - if you dug the games - more power to ya! Enjoy and don't let geeks like me keep ya down! Rise up against DA MAN and put us in our place. :)
I guess the hype kinda puts a target on their back and people may tend to be harder on them than they otherwise would. Heck, some folks even liked Daikatana... :D :D :D
Hey - if you dug the games - more power to ya! Enjoy and don't let geeks like me keep ya down! Rise up against DA MAN and put us in our place. :)
AutomaticErik
11-18-2004, 03:02 PM
Agreed. I've always been an OpenGL/nV fanboy, but for good reason.
I've used ATI and nVidia cards and have had less problems with nVidia as well as great performance.
I've played games based on D3D and OGL and have yet to see any D3D game that can run as nicely and look as beautiful as an OGL title.
I've used ATI and nVidia cards and have had less problems with nVidia as well as great performance.
I've played games based on D3D and OGL and have yet to see any D3D game that can run as nicely and look as beautiful as an OGL title.
herbtv2
11-18-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Un4given
Don't get me wrong, I think the D3 engine has some very good attributes.
1. Overall lighting effects are better.
2. Plays smoother at lower fps.
3. Still looks quite good even at lower resolutions.
However, to look beyond the engines of these games, I hands down find HL2 to have more believable character interaction, world interaction, and general game play premise.
I completely agree with this. The Doom 3 graphics were better (both are very nice) but HL2 has been a better overall experience. I am sure someone will make a great overall game with the D3 engine, but D3 wasn't it. I thought doom 3 had great atmosphere, even better that HL2. It wore off quickly though after the first couple of levels. There have been a lot of great games out this year.
Don't get me wrong, I think the D3 engine has some very good attributes.
1. Overall lighting effects are better.
2. Plays smoother at lower fps.
3. Still looks quite good even at lower resolutions.
However, to look beyond the engines of these games, I hands down find HL2 to have more believable character interaction, world interaction, and general game play premise.
I completely agree with this. The Doom 3 graphics were better (both are very nice) but HL2 has been a better overall experience. I am sure someone will make a great overall game with the D3 engine, but D3 wasn't it. I thought doom 3 had great atmosphere, even better that HL2. It wore off quickly though after the first couple of levels. There have been a lot of great games out this year.
rhettro
11-18-2004, 03:31 PM
I haven’t finished either game, but own and play both. I like Doom 3, the graphics were nice, but I’d agree that the game play amounted to walking down corridors and shooting one or two monsters that jump out at you. I think I would have a higher opinion of the game if I had a new Nvidia card instead of my 9800NP. I would describe Half-Life 2 as having a richer environment. I’m also of the opinion that I like the graphics better in HL2 than in Doom 3. This may be because of the familiar outdoor environments of HL2 rather than the game engine itself. Both games represent state of the art, and both games deliver on some level.
idiotekniQues
11-18-2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by AutomaticErik
HL2 is the same monsters that get on you in the same way so whats the difference? If Doom 3 is considered repetitive, then HL2 has to be as well.
that is a very narrowminded and incorrect view.
in half life 2. so far ive used 2 different vehicles, i have had to solve all sorts of mini puzzles how to pass parts, i have been on a coastline, in a town, on a subway line, in mines, underwater, the environment is so varied. u fight monsters and humans, etc etc ,etc
HL2 is the same monsters that get on you in the same way so whats the difference? If Doom 3 is considered repetitive, then HL2 has to be as well.
that is a very narrowminded and incorrect view.
in half life 2. so far ive used 2 different vehicles, i have had to solve all sorts of mini puzzles how to pass parts, i have been on a coastline, in a town, on a subway line, in mines, underwater, the environment is so varied. u fight monsters and humans, etc etc ,etc
AutomaticErik
11-18-2004, 03:46 PM
But the environment for Doom 3 is perfect. Its exactly how it needs to be. You're not fighting on Earth. You're on Mars. There is no atmosphere so you stay inside. Doom 3 is more of a game based on horror. HL2 is more of a game based on adventure.
I'm not saying HL2 is a bad game. Its a great game and I have enjoyed the time I have spent with it so far. I've experienced a better overall experience, however, with Doom 3. I feel more immersed and part of the action in D3 than I do in HL2.
I'm not saying HL2 is a bad game. Its a great game and I have enjoyed the time I have spent with it so far. I've experienced a better overall experience, however, with Doom 3. I feel more immersed and part of the action in D3 than I do in HL2.
Abarine
11-18-2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by AutomaticErik
But the environment for Doom 3 is perfect. Its exactly how it needs to be. You're not fighting on Earth. You're on Mars. There is no atmosphere so you stay inside. Doom 3 is more of a game based on horror. HL2 is more of a game based on adventure.
I'm not saying HL2 is a bad game. Its a great game and I have enjoyed the time I have spent with it so far. I've experienced a better overall experience, however, with Doom 3. I feel more immersed and part of the action in D3 than I do in HL2.
To each his own, man, but I'm more immersed in games on Earth than on Mars. Just a personal preference.
But the environment for Doom 3 is perfect. Its exactly how it needs to be. You're not fighting on Earth. You're on Mars. There is no atmosphere so you stay inside. Doom 3 is more of a game based on horror. HL2 is more of a game based on adventure.
I'm not saying HL2 is a bad game. Its a great game and I have enjoyed the time I have spent with it so far. I've experienced a better overall experience, however, with Doom 3. I feel more immersed and part of the action in D3 than I do in HL2.
To each his own, man, but I'm more immersed in games on Earth than on Mars. Just a personal preference.
st0nesp1ke
11-18-2004, 04:00 PM
I've had the fun experience of playing both games, and here is my piece of cake on this issue:
Doom3 - Although many people say that it was very linear, yada yada yada. I believe that D3 scared the crap out of me, and gave me an enjoyable ride. I cant disagree w/the fact that it was very dark, and things seemed to get repetitive. The flashlight thing wasnt even that big of a deal compared to the magnitude of moans and groans coming from the community. It took a second to switch from flashlight-weapon. The game was a stepping stone in the right direction because of its engine, which was very well done, personally. But people just get very overhyped and paint a very unrealistic picture of the games before they come out. Thats where I think most of the letdown comes into play. I just dont seem to get excited and eat, sleep, live a game when I hear about it. It just ends up dissapointing you and your mind in the end.
Half-life2 - I havent had the chance to complete the game totally, but I believe that I am close to completion. So far, this game has totally blown me away. Its just so beautiful; the atmosphere, objects, characters, lighting, etc. As of my opinion I lean towards the HL2 engine. It just seems more full, and more player interaction w/objects and the physics aspect of the game just seemed to be icing on the cake.
Comparing the story from both games, I lean HL2 again. I found that the Doom3 story was rather... cliche? It wasnt totally, but it had a strong sense of "Have i done this before? Saved humankind from zombies/hell? Naw, not on Mars, i guess i havent." It just sort of rang a bell.
Call me a HL2 fanboy, but my opinion and tastes seemed to have enjoyed HL2 more. BUT, both games are very good games to me.
Doom3 - Although many people say that it was very linear, yada yada yada. I believe that D3 scared the crap out of me, and gave me an enjoyable ride. I cant disagree w/the fact that it was very dark, and things seemed to get repetitive. The flashlight thing wasnt even that big of a deal compared to the magnitude of moans and groans coming from the community. It took a second to switch from flashlight-weapon. The game was a stepping stone in the right direction because of its engine, which was very well done, personally. But people just get very overhyped and paint a very unrealistic picture of the games before they come out. Thats where I think most of the letdown comes into play. I just dont seem to get excited and eat, sleep, live a game when I hear about it. It just ends up dissapointing you and your mind in the end.
Half-life2 - I havent had the chance to complete the game totally, but I believe that I am close to completion. So far, this game has totally blown me away. Its just so beautiful; the atmosphere, objects, characters, lighting, etc. As of my opinion I lean towards the HL2 engine. It just seems more full, and more player interaction w/objects and the physics aspect of the game just seemed to be icing on the cake.
Comparing the story from both games, I lean HL2 again. I found that the Doom3 story was rather... cliche? It wasnt totally, but it had a strong sense of "Have i done this before? Saved humankind from zombies/hell? Naw, not on Mars, i guess i havent." It just sort of rang a bell.
Call me a HL2 fanboy, but my opinion and tastes seemed to have enjoyed HL2 more. BUT, both games are very good games to me.
rimmerchant
11-18-2004, 04:10 PM
I was a fan boy of Doom I and Doom II when it came out (but I was 16 at the time?)
When Doom3 came out I was excited. Played it. got annoyed. no longer a fanboy
I was a fanboy of Half Life when it came out (I was 22 at the time?)
When HalfLife 2 came out, I was excited. played it. got xcited, still a big fan boy.
to tell ya the truth I was sorta annoyed and bored after I was in my 4 th hours of doom3. I"m in my 8 hour of halflife and I"m still amaze.
the texture and art direction of the game is beautiful as well as awessome storyline and gameplay
When Doom3 came out I was excited. Played it. got annoyed. no longer a fanboy
I was a fanboy of Half Life when it came out (I was 22 at the time?)
When HalfLife 2 came out, I was excited. played it. got xcited, still a big fan boy.
to tell ya the truth I was sorta annoyed and bored after I was in my 4 th hours of doom3. I"m in my 8 hour of halflife and I"m still amaze.
the texture and art direction of the game is beautiful as well as awessome storyline and gameplay
speedstream5621
11-18-2004, 04:31 PM
I just beat Doom 3 a few days and HL2 is going to have to be nothing short of amazing for me to like it more than D3.
I can't wait to play it again when I'm running 1600x1200 with max AA and AF.:eek:
I can't wait to play it again when I'm running 1600x1200 with max AA and AF.:eek:
Nabby
11-18-2004, 05:15 PM
Ok everybody has their own personal opinion.. But which game/engine is going to get more sales?? I would say HL2, it runs great even on older hardware. I can run it at 1600x1200 on high detail with my computer with little to no slowdowns, there's no way in hell I could get doom 3 to run that well. Valve did it again imo. They created a unique game that is slightly ahead of its time and people will be using/playing it for years to come. The mod community will make sure of that.
Granted the doom 3 engine is "shinier" but over all doom 3 wasn't all that impressive as a game.
Granted the doom 3 engine is "shinier" but over all doom 3 wasn't all that impressive as a game.
Un4given
11-18-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Nabby
Ok everybody has their own personal opinion.. But which game/engine is going to get more sales?? I would say HL2, it runs great even on older hardware. I can run it at 1600x1200 on high detail with my computer with little to no slowdowns, there's no way in hell I could get doom 3 to run that well. Valve did it again imo. They created a unique game that is slightly ahead of its time and people will be using/playing it for years to come. The mod community will make sure of that.
Granted the doom 3 engine is "shinier" but over all doom 3 wasn't all that impressive as a game.
Well, to counter that there is something to be said about the D3 engine. It looks good at lower resolutions than the Source engine. It still runs/plays smooth at fairly low frame rates.
What could be a killer to the D3 engine is whether it will be able to support large outdoor environments without needing a super computer cluster to drive it. What we saw in D3 was relatively small environments, and these are far easier to render than large outdoor levels; as anyone who has run games with a fps utility will atest, fps drop pretty hard coming from an indoor to outdoor environment.
Ok everybody has their own personal opinion.. But which game/engine is going to get more sales?? I would say HL2, it runs great even on older hardware. I can run it at 1600x1200 on high detail with my computer with little to no slowdowns, there's no way in hell I could get doom 3 to run that well. Valve did it again imo. They created a unique game that is slightly ahead of its time and people will be using/playing it for years to come. The mod community will make sure of that.
Granted the doom 3 engine is "shinier" but over all doom 3 wasn't all that impressive as a game.
Well, to counter that there is something to be said about the D3 engine. It looks good at lower resolutions than the Source engine. It still runs/plays smooth at fairly low frame rates.
What could be a killer to the D3 engine is whether it will be able to support large outdoor environments without needing a super computer cluster to drive it. What we saw in D3 was relatively small environments, and these are far easier to render than large outdoor levels; as anyone who has run games with a fps utility will atest, fps drop pretty hard coming from an indoor to outdoor environment.
Zvi
11-18-2004, 05:34 PM
My 0.02$.
I've played both Doom 3 and HL2. I haven't finished HL2 yet, seems like I'll have ot wait for the weekend, however what I have seen so far is more or less enough to make my opinion.
Engine - I think D3 engine is better. Yes, it's more demanding on the GUP /CPU but the results are better. That is minus faces/expressions. Lighting engine in Doom is definitely superior.
Indoor envs in Doom3 are much better then in HL2. At least what I've seen so far. Just not as plain as in HL2.
As for the outdoor envs, can't really compare. In Doom3 there's not much of outdoor envs, if we don't count hell (which IMHO was very well done) and small runs on the mars surface between airlocks. Both, hell and mars can't compete with earth (at least so far) in terms of colorful and nice looks, so in that area HL2 looks better because it's on earth.
Monsters - D3 monsters are IMHO better done. Dunno about others but headcrabs, slaves and such didn't looks much better than in HL.
Humans - HL2 wins no questions asked. Dunno what's up with D3 engine in that area. Although from the gaming perspective I donno, depends how important it is for you.
Story - HL2 wins, story in both HL and HL2 is more interesting. Although, frankly Xen part of HL sucked big time, and from what I hear here HL2 leaves bunch of open questions.
Gameplay - So far I can honestly say D3 was a lot more immersive and scarry than HL2. HL2 was plain boring till the time I got crowbar. Running around, not even running since Gordon apparently can't run w/o his suite, just walking and being kicked at every corner may excite some HL2 fanboys, but I was not impressed at all. It got a lot more intersting after jumping into env. suite and getting armed.
I've played both Doom 3 and HL2. I haven't finished HL2 yet, seems like I'll have ot wait for the weekend, however what I have seen so far is more or less enough to make my opinion.
Engine - I think D3 engine is better. Yes, it's more demanding on the GUP /CPU but the results are better. That is minus faces/expressions. Lighting engine in Doom is definitely superior.
Indoor envs in Doom3 are much better then in HL2. At least what I've seen so far. Just not as plain as in HL2.
As for the outdoor envs, can't really compare. In Doom3 there's not much of outdoor envs, if we don't count hell (which IMHO was very well done) and small runs on the mars surface between airlocks. Both, hell and mars can't compete with earth (at least so far) in terms of colorful and nice looks, so in that area HL2 looks better because it's on earth.
Monsters - D3 monsters are IMHO better done. Dunno about others but headcrabs, slaves and such didn't looks much better than in HL.
Humans - HL2 wins no questions asked. Dunno what's up with D3 engine in that area. Although from the gaming perspective I donno, depends how important it is for you.
Story - HL2 wins, story in both HL and HL2 is more interesting. Although, frankly Xen part of HL sucked big time, and from what I hear here HL2 leaves bunch of open questions.
Gameplay - So far I can honestly say D3 was a lot more immersive and scarry than HL2. HL2 was plain boring till the time I got crowbar. Running around, not even running since Gordon apparently can't run w/o his suite, just walking and being kicked at every corner may excite some HL2 fanboys, but I was not impressed at all. It got a lot more intersting after jumping into env. suite and getting armed.
Geforce255
11-18-2004, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
While I may criticize sometimes, and have an obvious UT2004 bias, I am glad that both Doom 3 and Half Life 2 have come out and some folks totally dig 'em.
Actually I only see one person here who actually "totally digs" Doom 3.
We all agree that Doom 3 has a fine game engine but the fact is that it isn't much of a game.
And for my money, Source is a better engine. Yes, I think part of that comes down to ATI vs. nVidia. I have an ATI card and HL2 runs smoother than D3. I understand that this reverses for those with nVidia cards.
But that aside, the facial modeling in Source is simply the most amazing thing I've ever seen, Doom 3 doesn't even approach it. Nice textures, no doubt, but nothing even close to the realistic movement of all those facial muscles lending an immersive quality.
And as I criticized before, Doom 3 didn't seem to realize that physics are now used in games. Where HL2 has created a rational world where everything reacts in a believable, if not realistic, manner.
Doom 3 isn't even in the same class as HL-2, it's a couple of generations behind.
I too await the wares of other developers with the D3 engine, I trust and hope some great games come out of it. But Doom 3 is far from great.
HL-2 is great, a phenominal game highlighting the best of the genre.
While I may criticize sometimes, and have an obvious UT2004 bias, I am glad that both Doom 3 and Half Life 2 have come out and some folks totally dig 'em.
Actually I only see one person here who actually "totally digs" Doom 3.
We all agree that Doom 3 has a fine game engine but the fact is that it isn't much of a game.
And for my money, Source is a better engine. Yes, I think part of that comes down to ATI vs. nVidia. I have an ATI card and HL2 runs smoother than D3. I understand that this reverses for those with nVidia cards.
But that aside, the facial modeling in Source is simply the most amazing thing I've ever seen, Doom 3 doesn't even approach it. Nice textures, no doubt, but nothing even close to the realistic movement of all those facial muscles lending an immersive quality.
And as I criticized before, Doom 3 didn't seem to realize that physics are now used in games. Where HL2 has created a rational world where everything reacts in a believable, if not realistic, manner.
Doom 3 isn't even in the same class as HL-2, it's a couple of generations behind.
I too await the wares of other developers with the D3 engine, I trust and hope some great games come out of it. But Doom 3 is far from great.
HL-2 is great, a phenominal game highlighting the best of the genre.
Dark Sonic
11-18-2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Zvi
Indoor envs in Doom3 are much better then in HL2. At least what I've seen so far. Just not as plain as in HL2.
As for the outdoor envs, can't really compare. In Doom3 there's not much of outdoor envs, if we don't count hell (which IMHO was very well done) and small runs on the mars surface between airlocks. Both, hell and mars can't compete with earth (at least so far) in terms of colorful and nice looks, so in that area HL2 looks better because it's on earth.
Monsters - D3 monsters are IMHO better done. Dunno about others but headcrabs, slaves and such didn't looks much better than in HL.
Humans - HL2 wins no questions asked. Dunno what's up with D3 engine in that area. Although from the gaming perspective I donno, depends how important it is for you.
Story - HL2 wins, story in both HL and HL2 is more interesting. Although, frankly Xen part of HL sucked big time, and from what I hear here HL2 leaves bunch of open questions.
Gameplay - So far I can honestly say D3 was a lot more immersive and scarry than HL2. HL2 was plain boring till the time I got crowbar. Running around, not even running since Gordon apparently can't run w/o his suite, just walking and being kicked at every corner may excite some HL2 fanboys, but I was not impressed at all. It got a lot more intersting after jumping into env. suite and getting armed.
So, lemme get this straight. You're comparing Doom 3's space-age looking interior to HL2's gritty and boxy rooms for indoor? That's not even fair. HL2's indoors are supposed to look the way they do. Also, the beginning of HL2 is for build up. I found it very interesting. It's also there to give a little bit of back story to what has happened, unlike D3 which just starts you at the beginning of a new game. Also, I am no where near HL2 fanboy-ism. Hell, I didn't even buy the first game.
After playing HL2 for 1 hour, I can already say that I'm enjoying this WAY more than D3...
Indoor envs in Doom3 are much better then in HL2. At least what I've seen so far. Just not as plain as in HL2.
As for the outdoor envs, can't really compare. In Doom3 there's not much of outdoor envs, if we don't count hell (which IMHO was very well done) and small runs on the mars surface between airlocks. Both, hell and mars can't compete with earth (at least so far) in terms of colorful and nice looks, so in that area HL2 looks better because it's on earth.
Monsters - D3 monsters are IMHO better done. Dunno about others but headcrabs, slaves and such didn't looks much better than in HL.
Humans - HL2 wins no questions asked. Dunno what's up with D3 engine in that area. Although from the gaming perspective I donno, depends how important it is for you.
Story - HL2 wins, story in both HL and HL2 is more interesting. Although, frankly Xen part of HL sucked big time, and from what I hear here HL2 leaves bunch of open questions.
Gameplay - So far I can honestly say D3 was a lot more immersive and scarry than HL2. HL2 was plain boring till the time I got crowbar. Running around, not even running since Gordon apparently can't run w/o his suite, just walking and being kicked at every corner may excite some HL2 fanboys, but I was not impressed at all. It got a lot more intersting after jumping into env. suite and getting armed.
So, lemme get this straight. You're comparing Doom 3's space-age looking interior to HL2's gritty and boxy rooms for indoor? That's not even fair. HL2's indoors are supposed to look the way they do. Also, the beginning of HL2 is for build up. I found it very interesting. It's also there to give a little bit of back story to what has happened, unlike D3 which just starts you at the beginning of a new game. Also, I am no where near HL2 fanboy-ism. Hell, I didn't even buy the first game.
After playing HL2 for 1 hour, I can already say that I'm enjoying this WAY more than D3...
Zvi
11-18-2004, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Dark Sonic
So, lemme get this straight. You're comparing Doom 3's space-age looking interior to HL2's gritty and boxy rooms for indoor? That's not even fair.
Well, I've compared outdoors as well. As for the fairness, HL2 isn't happening in 19th century either. Whatever each game has...
Considering complaints D3 is getting even for the same things HL2 has I doubt it's fair either.
Also, the beginning of HL2 is for build up. I found it very interesting.
Matter of taste. Besides, I see no reason why one shouldn't be able to run w/o env. suit. Let alone the fact that G-Man wakes up Gordon and sticks him into hostlie env. w/o that suit, any weapon and any background of what happened whatsoever. Strange thing, sending someone to do a job and don't give/tell him anything. That's about being realistic and D3 being unrealistic ;) It's a game, so it's ok to do those kind of things.
It's also there to give a little bit of back story to what has happened, unlike D3 which just starts you at the beginning of a new game.
Well, in D3 you you get back story while reading those pdas, during the game. And unlike HL2 D3 doesn't have prequel, it's the remake of Doom, so we all knew what was the story in that game. And I think the same is happening in HL2, you don't know much(what happened while U were asleep) except your memories from HL1, you're discovering things during the game, no?
Also, I am no where near HL2 fanboy-ism. Hell, I didn't even buy the first game.
I did buy both. I guess I like HL more than you do then.
P.S. As for the facial modeling, sure it's very well done and adds to gameplay, but not that much to make the game outstanding and the best ther eis and such. After all how much time you spend talking and examining those facial expressions. It's an FPS after all.
So, lemme get this straight. You're comparing Doom 3's space-age looking interior to HL2's gritty and boxy rooms for indoor? That's not even fair.
Well, I've compared outdoors as well. As for the fairness, HL2 isn't happening in 19th century either. Whatever each game has...
Considering complaints D3 is getting even for the same things HL2 has I doubt it's fair either.
Also, the beginning of HL2 is for build up. I found it very interesting.
Matter of taste. Besides, I see no reason why one shouldn't be able to run w/o env. suit. Let alone the fact that G-Man wakes up Gordon and sticks him into hostlie env. w/o that suit, any weapon and any background of what happened whatsoever. Strange thing, sending someone to do a job and don't give/tell him anything. That's about being realistic and D3 being unrealistic ;) It's a game, so it's ok to do those kind of things.
It's also there to give a little bit of back story to what has happened, unlike D3 which just starts you at the beginning of a new game.
Well, in D3 you you get back story while reading those pdas, during the game. And unlike HL2 D3 doesn't have prequel, it's the remake of Doom, so we all knew what was the story in that game. And I think the same is happening in HL2, you don't know much(what happened while U were asleep) except your memories from HL1, you're discovering things during the game, no?
Also, I am no where near HL2 fanboy-ism. Hell, I didn't even buy the first game.
I did buy both. I guess I like HL more than you do then.
P.S. As for the facial modeling, sure it's very well done and adds to gameplay, but not that much to make the game outstanding and the best ther eis and such. After all how much time you spend talking and examining those facial expressions. It's an FPS after all.
Dark Sonic
11-19-2004, 05:23 AM
Fine points. I'm far too tired to think of a legible response though. Maybe while I'm at school...
Johnmcl7
11-19-2004, 06:09 AM
Doom3 started off well, I thought it looked fantastic and I was really into it. However, there's just no depth to it, initially I admit I jumped when Imps suddenly leapt out and found it great blowing them away with the shotgun. But after that there was just nothing else, you would walk into an empty room and just wait for the enemies to all teleport in or burst out somewhere, I would kill them all or have to quickload because one spawned in behind me. And that was it, the guns were pretty much simply more powerful than the others, you didn't need to use certain ones to be more effective on enemies and the AI of the demons was non-existant, they would just run at you and kill you as quickly as possible which quickly became tedious.
It is a great looking game, no doubt about that but it's pretty much the original game with a fancy engine, in the time since Doom fps games have moved on. At least the original Doom could pit you against many monsters at once in large environments, in Doom3 you only fight against a handful at a time.
John
It is a great looking game, no doubt about that but it's pretty much the original game with a fancy engine, in the time since Doom fps games have moved on. At least the original Doom could pit you against many monsters at once in large environments, in Doom3 you only fight against a handful at a time.
John
KaoTiK
11-19-2004, 06:33 AM
Doom 3 is the same for almost everyone, ****ing awesome for like 2-4 hours, then the repetitiveness kicks in, and it kicks in with ferocity. The only part of Doom 3 that really changes is the fact that you go to hell. Doom 3 is exactly what was mentioned earlier in this thread, a field trip through a nice engine. I haven't finished Doom 3, and to be honest, I don't plan to. D3 amazed me at first, but like I said, after 2-4 hours that goes away, quickly.
I am now on Chapter 11 in HL2, and HL2 has amazed me constantly the whole way through. Physics can really make a game, the fact that Doom 3 doesn't focus on physics AT ALL really hurts it. Doom 3 might as well have had the same physics engine used in games from 2001, gravity works, and thats it. Physics adds absolutely nothing to Doom 3, whereas HL2 is completely built around its incredible physics engine. You are constantly using realistic interactions to your advantage.
There is no comparison when talking about Gameplay, HL2 has so much more diversity and the storyline simply rapes Doom 3's.
As for graphics, both have their strong points. HL2 is a 'better looking' game just because of how interactive everything is, instead of things looking static they all look dynamic, which makes a game look more 'real', no matter how nice the textures are. The facial expressions and animations are much better in HL2, the ones in Doom 3 simply look like soft plastic, in HL2 they have textures and you can see the pores in people's faces, or their stubble, eyebrows, etc. (In Doom 3 I don't think anyone had eyebrows, which is really ****ed up, lol) Lighting is most definitely better in Doom 3, the dynamic shadows used all over the place are absolutely fantastic, something that HL2 lacks, big time. The gun models and all models in general are much better in HL2. The way that people move, and their models seem to be fully dynamic, it looks ****ing great, people jumping off things, or climbing a ladder (Alyx in the lab), it all looks but better than anything offered in Doom 3.
Immersiveness... HL2 is a clear winner here, I shouldn't even have to elaborate.
Simply put, Doom 3 was revolutionary for graphics, however, only because it was out first. HL2 and Doom 3 both have their strong points, but the only clear win for Doom 3 is the dynamic lighting. HL2 is definitely revolutionary for gameplay, no other game in history has given such immense interactivity with your environment. HL2 would be revolutionary in Graphics as well, if it were out before Doom 3.
Overall, I'd give HL2 a 95/100, Doom 3, 78/100. Doom 3 got boring quick. HL2 doesn't get boring.
Edit to add: Forgot multiplayer, we all know who wins here, but I had to bring it up. Doom 3 and its none existant multiplayer, or the hundreds of mods that will come out for HL2 multiplayer. There are already 20+ mods (that I know of), singleplayer and multiplayer in production for HL2, and it's only been out for 2 god damn days. I am sure HL2 will do the same thing HL did, it will create a whole array of games based on it's engine, that will be continued to play for years to come. For example: Zombie Panic, XDM, Vampire Slayer, TS, The Battle Grounds, CS, TFC, Action HL, and I'm sure you all know of the other thousands of mods that were made for HL, and are still played, and fun, to this day, what, 7 years after its release?
I am now on Chapter 11 in HL2, and HL2 has amazed me constantly the whole way through. Physics can really make a game, the fact that Doom 3 doesn't focus on physics AT ALL really hurts it. Doom 3 might as well have had the same physics engine used in games from 2001, gravity works, and thats it. Physics adds absolutely nothing to Doom 3, whereas HL2 is completely built around its incredible physics engine. You are constantly using realistic interactions to your advantage.
There is no comparison when talking about Gameplay, HL2 has so much more diversity and the storyline simply rapes Doom 3's.
As for graphics, both have their strong points. HL2 is a 'better looking' game just because of how interactive everything is, instead of things looking static they all look dynamic, which makes a game look more 'real', no matter how nice the textures are. The facial expressions and animations are much better in HL2, the ones in Doom 3 simply look like soft plastic, in HL2 they have textures and you can see the pores in people's faces, or their stubble, eyebrows, etc. (In Doom 3 I don't think anyone had eyebrows, which is really ****ed up, lol) Lighting is most definitely better in Doom 3, the dynamic shadows used all over the place are absolutely fantastic, something that HL2 lacks, big time. The gun models and all models in general are much better in HL2. The way that people move, and their models seem to be fully dynamic, it looks ****ing great, people jumping off things, or climbing a ladder (Alyx in the lab), it all looks but better than anything offered in Doom 3.
Immersiveness... HL2 is a clear winner here, I shouldn't even have to elaborate.
Simply put, Doom 3 was revolutionary for graphics, however, only because it was out first. HL2 and Doom 3 both have their strong points, but the only clear win for Doom 3 is the dynamic lighting. HL2 is definitely revolutionary for gameplay, no other game in history has given such immense interactivity with your environment. HL2 would be revolutionary in Graphics as well, if it were out before Doom 3.
Overall, I'd give HL2 a 95/100, Doom 3, 78/100. Doom 3 got boring quick. HL2 doesn't get boring.
Edit to add: Forgot multiplayer, we all know who wins here, but I had to bring it up. Doom 3 and its none existant multiplayer, or the hundreds of mods that will come out for HL2 multiplayer. There are already 20+ mods (that I know of), singleplayer and multiplayer in production for HL2, and it's only been out for 2 god damn days. I am sure HL2 will do the same thing HL did, it will create a whole array of games based on it's engine, that will be continued to play for years to come. For example: Zombie Panic, XDM, Vampire Slayer, TS, The Battle Grounds, CS, TFC, Action HL, and I'm sure you all know of the other thousands of mods that were made for HL, and are still played, and fun, to this day, what, 7 years after its release?
Dark Sonic
11-19-2004, 07:34 AM
Very well spoken and thought out. Hits every point right on the mark...
Abarine
11-19-2004, 08:13 AM
If we're talking about plot, story characters, script, or any other story-based element, I think that HL2 is far beyond what Doom even tried to be. The entire game (both games, really) starts out like a movie; on the train, credits rolling, atmosphere set-up, nothing consequential happening. You're introduced to more and more adversity, and then you get into the meat-and-potatoes of the game. They're both linear, but HL2 doesn't make you feel like you're in a linear game. It's much more artistically satisfying; there are little things (the missing "X" from the playground tic-tac-toe game that you see up in the apartments, the way the swingset swings move exactly as if you really had just walked between them, etc.).
Doom 3 was a good game, but apart from scaring me, it never brought me into the world. Those little touches make HL2 a much more satisfying experience for me. YMMV.
Doom 3 was a good game, but apart from scaring me, it never brought me into the world. Those little touches make HL2 a much more satisfying experience for me. YMMV.
Bearded Kirklander
11-19-2004, 09:30 AM
Anyone else thought the gun sounds in Doom 3 were a little weak? I expected the shotgun to give me the same huge BOOOM that the old games used to. No such luck. :(
I'm not out for realism. I want big, over the top BOOOM STICKS! :p
I'm not out for realism. I want big, over the top BOOOM STICKS! :p
Adisharr
11-19-2004, 09:54 AM
D3 was a nice engine demo..
Moridin
11-19-2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Un4given
Well, to counter that there is something to be said about the D3 engine. It looks good at lower resolutions than the Source engine. It still runs/plays smooth at fairly low frame rates.
What could be a killer to the D3 engine is whether it will be able to support large outdoor environments without needing a super computer cluster to drive it. What we saw in D3 was relatively small environments, and these are far easier to render than large outdoor levels; as anyone who has run games with a fps utility will atest, fps drop pretty hard coming from an indoor to outdoor environment.
I’m not sure you can do much else with the DOOM 3 engine other then DOOM 3. It’s very heavy into shadows which is why it runs better on nVidia hardware which have much better support for them. It doesn’t really do anything visually that couldn’t be done on DirectX7 hardware, and just uses pixel shaders to improve performance not make objects/characters more realistic. This should mean that unless you are doing something dark and creepy, stuff developed with the HL2 engine is likely to look better.
Well, to counter that there is something to be said about the D3 engine. It looks good at lower resolutions than the Source engine. It still runs/plays smooth at fairly low frame rates.
What could be a killer to the D3 engine is whether it will be able to support large outdoor environments without needing a super computer cluster to drive it. What we saw in D3 was relatively small environments, and these are far easier to render than large outdoor levels; as anyone who has run games with a fps utility will atest, fps drop pretty hard coming from an indoor to outdoor environment.
I’m not sure you can do much else with the DOOM 3 engine other then DOOM 3. It’s very heavy into shadows which is why it runs better on nVidia hardware which have much better support for them. It doesn’t really do anything visually that couldn’t be done on DirectX7 hardware, and just uses pixel shaders to improve performance not make objects/characters more realistic. This should mean that unless you are doing something dark and creepy, stuff developed with the HL2 engine is likely to look better.
wakeboarder
11-19-2004, 10:39 AM
To me Doom 3 seemed like system shock through the Doom engine.
or System shock source. For me H/l-2 is just more fun to play.
But hoping and praying for NS source!!!
or System shock source. For me H/l-2 is just more fun to play.
But hoping and praying for NS source!!!
Bearded Kirklander
11-19-2004, 11:01 AM
I guess for me, I kinda like the old Doom run and gun. The fact that I had to enter codes to get into lockers, do special things to get into doors instead of just being able to blow 'em open - that got annoying after a while. I was spending more time tweaking with crap and reading PDA's than having fun killing bad guys. :(
proxemo666
11-19-2004, 11:02 AM
I'm just waiting for a aliens vs predator mod for either engine. Perferrably the Doom3 engine.
TwIce
11-19-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
Anyone else thought the gun sounds in Doom 3 were a little weak? I expected the shotgun to give me the same huge BOOOM that the old games used to. No such luck. :(
I'm not out for realism. I want big, over the top BOOOM STICKS! :p
Agreed. I was going to d/l a mod but by then I was losing interest. The SMG in D3 felt like a peashooter where the MP7 in HL2 is a satisfying instrument of destruction!
Anyone else thought the gun sounds in Doom 3 were a little weak? I expected the shotgun to give me the same huge BOOOM that the old games used to. No such luck. :(
I'm not out for realism. I want big, over the top BOOOM STICKS! :p
Agreed. I was going to d/l a mod but by then I was losing interest. The SMG in D3 felt like a peashooter where the MP7 in HL2 is a satisfying instrument of destruction!
mezah
11-19-2004, 11:41 AM
come on ppl!!!... d3 is like the CHEAPEST game ive ever played!
it's the only game that i'm sorry for spending money on.
i was waiting for this game like hell, and after playing it for few hours, it was the stupidest game ive ever played!!!:mad:
cheap stupid zombies and dumb monsters!!
only a complete moron will consider this game great.
u should ban his a*s for posting this thread...
:mad: :mad: :mad:
it's the only game that i'm sorry for spending money on.
i was waiting for this game like hell, and after playing it for few hours, it was the stupidest game ive ever played!!!:mad:
cheap stupid zombies and dumb monsters!!
only a complete moron will consider this game great.
u should ban his a*s for posting this thread...
:mad: :mad: :mad:
TwIce
11-19-2004, 11:48 AM
This was a civil debate before you arrived. Mind your manners or go away.
mezah
11-19-2004, 11:54 AM
sorry if it offends some of you, he just made me mad!!
:mad:
:mad:
PointlesS
11-19-2004, 11:55 AM
it's been proven that doom 3 can render outdoor environments fairly well and also look great at doing it...since there is no terrain editor like ut2k3/4 it's just one giant mesh that's been modeled in maya or lightwave...it'll render the same as a chair mesh or table...
mikeysg
11-19-2004, 12:13 PM
KaoTik, nice post bro....good points one and all.;) I've noticed that whenever there's talk of D3 vs HL2....it always seems to split into nV vs ATi respectively. Sad really, that games are judged by associations to card makers.:( Having completed D3, I still have it in my rig coz I'm waiting for the expansion, and having gone thru a coupla levels of HL2.....my vote goes to HL2 coz it looks stunning, and the physics engine's astounding.......though some of the problem solving situations are frustrating, yet fun.:D
Adisharr
11-19-2004, 12:22 PM
Fanboys and their videocards.. Believe it or not, there is an actual VIDEOCARD forum here. No, it's not a lie. I've been there. It's an excellent place to view the legendary Thunderbird.
Zvi
11-19-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by KaoTiK
...Physics adds absolutely nothing to Doom 3, whereas HL2 is completely built around its incredible physics engine. You are constantly using realistic interactions to your advantage...
Can you elaborate a little bit more on that one?
For starters, As far as I am concerned HL2 is using Havok 2.0 physics engine, not their own. And there's more than one game in development or already out with the same physics engine. Thus, I don't think it's something unique to HL2.
So, what aspect(s) or feature(s) (physics-wise) in HL2 that makes it outstanding? I might be misunderstanding what you call "physics" here, but mainly what I saw was the ability to pickup objects and drop them. That and the ability to break boxes(which is there since HL1), either with crowbar or jumping on them from sufficient height. Same thing was if I remember correctly in DeusEx IW. And although I like Deus Ex games it wasn't the "best there is".
Yes, that does add to gameplay, but as we've seen in many other games not enough to make the game much better. Yeah, I picked up a bottle and threw it at a guard. Was fun, but how many times I should do that?
And breaking boxes constantly to get stuff inside, that doesn't get repetitive and annoying for anyone? Or breaking a box that turns out you need to get to climb somewhere?
Neither Halo nor Halo 2 have "astonishing physics" but IMHO both are excellent FPS games.
Anyway, in the end all this isn't to bash HL2, I bought both HLs and I do enjoy playing them. I like Doom 3 and Halos as well, which some ppl call crap for whatever reason.
...Physics adds absolutely nothing to Doom 3, whereas HL2 is completely built around its incredible physics engine. You are constantly using realistic interactions to your advantage...
Can you elaborate a little bit more on that one?
For starters, As far as I am concerned HL2 is using Havok 2.0 physics engine, not their own. And there's more than one game in development or already out with the same physics engine. Thus, I don't think it's something unique to HL2.
So, what aspect(s) or feature(s) (physics-wise) in HL2 that makes it outstanding? I might be misunderstanding what you call "physics" here, but mainly what I saw was the ability to pickup objects and drop them. That and the ability to break boxes(which is there since HL1), either with crowbar or jumping on them from sufficient height. Same thing was if I remember correctly in DeusEx IW. And although I like Deus Ex games it wasn't the "best there is".
Yes, that does add to gameplay, but as we've seen in many other games not enough to make the game much better. Yeah, I picked up a bottle and threw it at a guard. Was fun, but how many times I should do that?
And breaking boxes constantly to get stuff inside, that doesn't get repetitive and annoying for anyone? Or breaking a box that turns out you need to get to climb somewhere?
Neither Halo nor Halo 2 have "astonishing physics" but IMHO both are excellent FPS games.
Anyway, in the end all this isn't to bash HL2, I bought both HLs and I do enjoy playing them. I like Doom 3 and Halos as well, which some ppl call crap for whatever reason.
PointlesS
11-19-2004, 01:53 PM
the problem was in doom 3 you never got to see any physics that really affected the game...I mean I bet the doom 3 physics engine has the same capabilities as havok...but still you didn't see much of it in doom 3...
for example...gravity gun...you solve puzzles...kill people...pick up items...throw stuff around with it...it's a multi purpose tool thanks to the physics engine...there's also a ton of scripted sequences taht work with the physics engine...for example a missile hits a smoke stack and the stack falls into peices and tumbles down...or just regular rocks...barrels...thrown around by a grenade or explosion...
for example...gravity gun...you solve puzzles...kill people...pick up items...throw stuff around with it...it's a multi purpose tool thanks to the physics engine...there's also a ton of scripted sequences taht work with the physics engine...for example a missile hits a smoke stack and the stack falls into peices and tumbles down...or just regular rocks...barrels...thrown around by a grenade or explosion...
TwIce
11-19-2004, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Zvi
Can you elaborate a little bit more on that one?
Zvi, what the superb physics in HL2 offer you is choices. Choice is integral to tactical gameplay. There is no tactical gameplay in D3. In HL2, to be able to get past a zombie by either (a) shooting him (b) decapitating him with a sawblade picked up and then hurled by the grav manipulator (c) switching on a rotor trap or (d) shooting the gas tank of a nearby car which then blows up and reduces the zombie to a flaming, screeching human torch...well, that is totally unprecedented in any FPS to date, including D3.
Can you elaborate a little bit more on that one?
Zvi, what the superb physics in HL2 offer you is choices. Choice is integral to tactical gameplay. There is no tactical gameplay in D3. In HL2, to be able to get past a zombie by either (a) shooting him (b) decapitating him with a sawblade picked up and then hurled by the grav manipulator (c) switching on a rotor trap or (d) shooting the gas tank of a nearby car which then blows up and reduces the zombie to a flaming, screeching human torch...well, that is totally unprecedented in any FPS to date, including D3.
Un4given
11-19-2004, 03:09 PM
HL2 does not use Havok for physics. The physics engine was written by Valve from the ground up.
PointlesS
11-19-2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Un4given
HL2 does not use Havok for physics. The physics engine was written by Valve from the ground up.
that's doom 3 :)
http://www.havok.com/clients/valve.php
HL2 does not use Havok for physics. The physics engine was written by Valve from the ground up.
that's doom 3 :)
http://www.havok.com/clients/valve.php
Zvi
11-19-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Un4given
HL2 does not use Havok for physics. The physics engine was written by Valve from the ground up.
According to Havok site Valve and Half Life 2 in particular does use Havok engine - HL2 Havok (http://www.havok.com/clients/valve.php).
D3 on the other hand does have its own engine.
P.S. Pardon for duplicate post, I saw this reply after answering post on prev. page.
HL2 does not use Havok for physics. The physics engine was written by Valve from the ground up.
According to Havok site Valve and Half Life 2 in particular does use Havok engine - HL2 Havok (http://www.havok.com/clients/valve.php).
D3 on the other hand does have its own engine.
P.S. Pardon for duplicate post, I saw this reply after answering post on prev. page.
Un4given
11-19-2004, 05:23 PM
Cool. I guess the author of the article are read didn't bother to fact check.
Zvi
11-19-2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by TwIce
Zvi, what the superb physics in HL2 offer you is choices
Choice is integral to tactical gameplay. There is no tactical gameplay in D3.
Agree. Opponent's AI is mostly non existent. So, it's pretty much straight forward gun and run. Although, I am not sure if I wanted demons working in teams and having command chain and such.
In HL2, to be able to get past a zombie by either (a) shooting him
Doable in D3 as well.
(b) decapitating him with a sawblade picked up and then hurled by the grav manipulator
Decapitation and cutting to pieces also doable in D3 with classic chainsaw ;) Gravity gun is a new weapon, but based on the same concept of picking up objects and moving/dropping them.
This particular thing(Gravity Gun) I could buy as an argument of physics engine significantly improving gaming experience.
(c) switching on a rotor trap
Hmm, I can't exactly remember but I thinkthere are places in D3 where external decive would do job for you, i.e. killing an opponent.
(d) shooting the gas tank of a nearby car which then blows up and reduces the zombie to a flaming, screeching human torch...
Bunch of places in D3 have exploding barrels which tear demons and zombies apart. But the idea is the same and the outcome too.
well, that is totally unprecedented in any FPS to date, including D3.
So, the only unique concept left is gravity gun, which is an interesting use of that "pickup feature".
Zvi, what the superb physics in HL2 offer you is choices
Choice is integral to tactical gameplay. There is no tactical gameplay in D3.
Agree. Opponent's AI is mostly non existent. So, it's pretty much straight forward gun and run. Although, I am not sure if I wanted demons working in teams and having command chain and such.
In HL2, to be able to get past a zombie by either (a) shooting him
Doable in D3 as well.
(b) decapitating him with a sawblade picked up and then hurled by the grav manipulator
Decapitation and cutting to pieces also doable in D3 with classic chainsaw ;) Gravity gun is a new weapon, but based on the same concept of picking up objects and moving/dropping them.
This particular thing(Gravity Gun) I could buy as an argument of physics engine significantly improving gaming experience.
(c) switching on a rotor trap
Hmm, I can't exactly remember but I thinkthere are places in D3 where external decive would do job for you, i.e. killing an opponent.
(d) shooting the gas tank of a nearby car which then blows up and reduces the zombie to a flaming, screeching human torch...
Bunch of places in D3 have exploding barrels which tear demons and zombies apart. But the idea is the same and the outcome too.
well, that is totally unprecedented in any FPS to date, including D3.
So, the only unique concept left is gravity gun, which is an interesting use of that "pickup feature".
TwIce
11-19-2004, 06:09 PM
Heh, you are a tenacious debater, Zvi.
I respect your point-of-view. I just find D3 too claustrophobic, its lack of tactical gameplay too monotonous and its weapons sensations too underwhelming for it to be able to stand up to HL2.
I respect your point-of-view. I just find D3 too claustrophobic, its lack of tactical gameplay too monotonous and its weapons sensations too underwhelming for it to be able to stand up to HL2.
Un4given
11-19-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Zvi
Zvi, what the superb physics in HL2 offer you is choices
Choice is integral to tactical gameplay. There is no tactical gameplay in D3.
Agree. Opponent's AI is mostly non existent. So, it's pretty much straight forward gun and run. Although, I am not sure if I wanted demons working in teams and having command chain and such.
In HL2, to be able to get past a zombie by either (a) shooting him
Doable in D3 as well.
(b) decapitating him with a sawblade picked up and then hurled by the grav manipulator
Decapitation and cutting to pieces also doable in D3 with classic chainsaw ;) Gravity gun is a new weapon, but based on the same concept of picking up objects and moving/dropping them.
This particular thing(Gravity Gun) I could buy as an argument of physics engine significantly improving gaming experience.
Not the same. The body parts that come off when you go at something with the chainsaw is scripted. You also can't throw the chainsaw at your enemy. In this game you can throw objects, call them back, and body parts come off exactly where you hit them, not in a scripted sequence. Things you throw, like the saw blade will stick in objects, like a wooden wall, or it hitting a much harder surface, will ricochet around. As far as picking up objects, sure other games may have given you the ability to do that, but again, very scripted. What you picked up and moved was generally required as part of continuing through the game. In this game you can interact with almost everything, even if it isn't necessary for the story or game to continue.
(c) switching on a rotor trap
Hmm, I can't exactly remember but I thinkthere are places in D3 where external decive would do job for you, i.e. killing an opponent.
Not overly unique until you watch the blade come off and the real physics at work as the saw blade properly reacts to object it contacts.
(d) shooting the gas tank of a nearby car which then blows up and reduces the zombie to a flaming, screeching human torch...
Bunch of places in D3 have exploding barrels which tear demons and zombies apart. But the idea is the same and the outcome too.
All scripted. In HL2 you can move objects, such as exploding barrels, into a specific location and then shoot them, throw a canister (not sure what's in them) and make them explode, throw one of the exploding barrels at it, or even just pick and throw the barrels at your target. None of this. ZERO, ZIP, NADA, is possible with Doom 3.
well, that is totally unprecedented in any FPS to date, including D3.
So, the only unique concept left is gravity gun, which is an interesting use of tha tpickup feature.
See above. You have confused real physics interaction to the world with scripted capabilities in other games.
Zvi, what the superb physics in HL2 offer you is choices
Choice is integral to tactical gameplay. There is no tactical gameplay in D3.
Agree. Opponent's AI is mostly non existent. So, it's pretty much straight forward gun and run. Although, I am not sure if I wanted demons working in teams and having command chain and such.
In HL2, to be able to get past a zombie by either (a) shooting him
Doable in D3 as well.
(b) decapitating him with a sawblade picked up and then hurled by the grav manipulator
Decapitation and cutting to pieces also doable in D3 with classic chainsaw ;) Gravity gun is a new weapon, but based on the same concept of picking up objects and moving/dropping them.
This particular thing(Gravity Gun) I could buy as an argument of physics engine significantly improving gaming experience.
Not the same. The body parts that come off when you go at something with the chainsaw is scripted. You also can't throw the chainsaw at your enemy. In this game you can throw objects, call them back, and body parts come off exactly where you hit them, not in a scripted sequence. Things you throw, like the saw blade will stick in objects, like a wooden wall, or it hitting a much harder surface, will ricochet around. As far as picking up objects, sure other games may have given you the ability to do that, but again, very scripted. What you picked up and moved was generally required as part of continuing through the game. In this game you can interact with almost everything, even if it isn't necessary for the story or game to continue.
(c) switching on a rotor trap
Hmm, I can't exactly remember but I thinkthere are places in D3 where external decive would do job for you, i.e. killing an opponent.
Not overly unique until you watch the blade come off and the real physics at work as the saw blade properly reacts to object it contacts.
(d) shooting the gas tank of a nearby car which then blows up and reduces the zombie to a flaming, screeching human torch...
Bunch of places in D3 have exploding barrels which tear demons and zombies apart. But the idea is the same and the outcome too.
All scripted. In HL2 you can move objects, such as exploding barrels, into a specific location and then shoot them, throw a canister (not sure what's in them) and make them explode, throw one of the exploding barrels at it, or even just pick and throw the barrels at your target. None of this. ZERO, ZIP, NADA, is possible with Doom 3.
well, that is totally unprecedented in any FPS to date, including D3.
So, the only unique concept left is gravity gun, which is an interesting use of tha tpickup feature.
See above. You have confused real physics interaction to the world with scripted capabilities in other games.
Zvi
11-19-2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by TwIce
Heh, you are a tenacious debater, Zvi.
Sorry. Probably I like D3 too much ;)
I just find D3 too claustrophobic,
Agree, it is both claustrophobic and dark, but IMHO that is what makes it immersive, at least for me. I mean given the story and environment this is more "playale".
weapons sensations too underwhelming for it to be able to stand up to HL2.
Dunno. I agree playing HL2 (minus fisrt weaponless, runningless part) is more interesting, but D3 does have its strong points, IMHO.
Heh, you are a tenacious debater, Zvi.
Sorry. Probably I like D3 too much ;)
I just find D3 too claustrophobic,
Agree, it is both claustrophobic and dark, but IMHO that is what makes it immersive, at least for me. I mean given the story and environment this is more "playale".
weapons sensations too underwhelming for it to be able to stand up to HL2.
Dunno. I agree playing HL2 (minus fisrt weaponless, runningless part) is more interesting, but D3 does have its strong points, IMHO.
tituswolf
11-19-2004, 07:07 PM
Haven't played HL2 yet, but thats not really what I wanted to comment on anyway.
I have to disagree with anyone who says D3 does not have a compelling story, I found the idea of being basically the only person alive on a distant outpost overrun with monsters to be a very compelling environment. I also felt that the pdas you find also helped to immerse me further into the story. The emails and especially the vocal recordings were very well done, and helped to create a sense that before the disaster happened actual people were living there, and had their own lives and hopes. I for one found that very compelling.
I also came to enjoy the use of the flashlight, and it probably helped me by forcing me to take my time and not rush into a room. I do have a mouse with multiple assignable buttons so a quick adjustment allowed to virtually seamlessly switch from the flashlight to a gun when I was brave enough to run into a room. I also have to thank god that the demons were basically stupid as who the hell would want to be a small room with two or three smart demons?
Like allot of people have said here, it all depends on what you like. For me the story completely appealed to me, and if it didn't appeal to you then you are either not me or completely stupid ;) (please note the sarcasm)
I have to disagree with anyone who says D3 does not have a compelling story, I found the idea of being basically the only person alive on a distant outpost overrun with monsters to be a very compelling environment. I also felt that the pdas you find also helped to immerse me further into the story. The emails and especially the vocal recordings were very well done, and helped to create a sense that before the disaster happened actual people were living there, and had their own lives and hopes. I for one found that very compelling.
I also came to enjoy the use of the flashlight, and it probably helped me by forcing me to take my time and not rush into a room. I do have a mouse with multiple assignable buttons so a quick adjustment allowed to virtually seamlessly switch from the flashlight to a gun when I was brave enough to run into a room. I also have to thank god that the demons were basically stupid as who the hell would want to be a small room with two or three smart demons?
Like allot of people have said here, it all depends on what you like. For me the story completely appealed to me, and if it didn't appeal to you then you are either not me or completely stupid ;) (please note the sarcasm)
gurutoo
11-19-2004, 07:16 PM
This thread has saved me $40 bucks + tax! :D
I HATE dark games. I'll be skipping DOOM3 altogether.
I'm still diggin' FarCry even though I've finished it.
It's sooo pretty.
I'm wondering about Quake 4 which engine it will use etc...
I HATE dark games. I'll be skipping DOOM3 altogether.
I'm still diggin' FarCry even though I've finished it.
It's sooo pretty.
I'm wondering about Quake 4 which engine it will use etc...
Bearded Kirklander
11-19-2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by gurutoo
This thread has saved me $40 bucks + tax! :D
I HATE dark games. I'll be skipping DOOM3 altogether.
The VariLight mod really helped make the game playable for me. Perhaps it may help you to enjoy it as well. It's a great little mod, in my opinion. I'm really glad someone made it.
The game had many flaws, but at least someone in the marketplace was able to help address some of them, including the lighting.
This thread has saved me $40 bucks + tax! :D
I HATE dark games. I'll be skipping DOOM3 altogether.
The VariLight mod really helped make the game playable for me. Perhaps it may help you to enjoy it as well. It's a great little mod, in my opinion. I'm really glad someone made it.
The game had many flaws, but at least someone in the marketplace was able to help address some of them, including the lighting.
Mancora
11-19-2004, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by PointlesS
it's been proven that doom 3 can render outdoor environments fairly well and also look great at doing it...since there is no terrain editor like ut2k3/4 it's just one giant mesh that's been modeled in maya or lightwave...it'll render the same as a chair mesh or table... Do you mean the thread a while back that linked to the 3drealms thread on outdoor enviroments?
it's been proven that doom 3 can render outdoor environments fairly well and also look great at doing it...since there is no terrain editor like ut2k3/4 it's just one giant mesh that's been modeled in maya or lightwave...it'll render the same as a chair mesh or table... Do you mean the thread a while back that linked to the 3drealms thread on outdoor enviroments?
PointlesS
11-19-2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Mancora
Do you mean the thread a while back that linked to the 3drealms thread on outdoor enviroments?
yes...the first screenshots didn't show much...but later down the thread and a few other screenshots on the doom 3 world forums showed some great environments and very good fps...
Do you mean the thread a while back that linked to the 3drealms thread on outdoor enviroments?
yes...the first screenshots didn't show much...but later down the thread and a few other screenshots on the doom 3 world forums showed some great environments and very good fps...
The Next Vaughn
11-20-2004, 02:32 AM
I think HL2 is infinatly better than doom 3, idk why but it is. For some reason the only thing I found fun in doom 3 was running around with unlimited ammo on the bfg (this was only done after about 4 hours of cheat-free play) Half-Life 2 I'm about 4 hours into it and I can't stop playing it. It actually feels like a real world, something out of George Orewell's "1984" is probably the best way to describe it. The physics are amazing, the AI is amazing, the graphics are amazing. Can't forget the gravity gun :P I love that thing. And who would want to be on an abandonded outpost on mars when you could be following around that super hot alex chick (who does in fact exist) with the crosshairs zoomed in on her *** :D Half-Life 2 will completely overshadow Doom 3 in the long run. Probably because god is pissed at ID for the insane amount pentagrams drawn on every square inch of that boring outpost. And I saw in another post where someone was comparing halo 2 graphics to hl2 graphics. HAHAHA
thrawn86
11-20-2004, 03:28 AM
" It actually feels like a real world, something out of George Orewell's "1984" is probably the best way to describe it."
exactly. I get tired of blindly flailing around a room trying to frantically switch between shotty and flashlight. repeat 100x
halflife 2 there are infinite possiblilities for amusements. ever tried hurling paint cans at your enemies with the grav gun. wow. or shooting a propanetank at a headcrab, only to be attacked by a flaming headcrab?
even if these things were possible in D3, you wouldn't be able to see them.
exactly. I get tired of blindly flailing around a room trying to frantically switch between shotty and flashlight. repeat 100x
halflife 2 there are infinite possiblilities for amusements. ever tried hurling paint cans at your enemies with the grav gun. wow. or shooting a propanetank at a headcrab, only to be attacked by a flaming headcrab?
even if these things were possible in D3, you wouldn't be able to see them.
idiotekniQues
11-21-2004, 12:17 PM
i think the only other game (fps wise) that is on the level of quality as hl2, though in different ways, is far cry from this year.
The Next Vaughn
11-21-2004, 02:59 PM
Yea thats what I'm saying, anything and everything in the hl2 levels are pretty much changeable *spoilers* Jump on a merry-go-round and tap "E" when ur supposed to be running from the police and the merry go round spins, pick up a tv and run backwards and the power chord comes unplugged and the tv turns off, drascitcally searching for ammo for grav-gun while being chased by an enemy? Pick up a paint can and launch it at him, he gets painted! Shoot a flaming barrel next to an enemy, he starts on fire, runs into one of his buddies, starts him on fire and he trips over another explosive barrel (this may sound scripted but it's just the AI, if it is scripted it sure doesn't seem like it, I was only able to do this once) It's just a plain awesome game. By the way, I could play with the gravity gun for hours.
rimmerchant
11-21-2004, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by thrawn86
" It actually feels like a real world, something out of George Orewell's "1984" is probably the best way to describe it."
exactly. I get tired of blindly flailing around a room trying to frantically switch between shotty and flashlight. repeat 100x
halflife 2 there are infinite possiblilities for amusements. ever tried hurling paint cans at your enemies with the grav gun. wow. or shooting a propanetank at a headcrab, only to be attacked by a flaming headcrab?
even if these things were possible in D3, you wouldn't be able to see them.
HAHHA totally agree
" It actually feels like a real world, something out of George Orewell's "1984" is probably the best way to describe it."
exactly. I get tired of blindly flailing around a room trying to frantically switch between shotty and flashlight. repeat 100x
halflife 2 there are infinite possiblilities for amusements. ever tried hurling paint cans at your enemies with the grav gun. wow. or shooting a propanetank at a headcrab, only to be attacked by a flaming headcrab?
even if these things were possible in D3, you wouldn't be able to see them.
HAHHA totally agree
Mancora
11-21-2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by PointlesS
yes...the first screenshots didn't show much...but later down the thread and a few other screenshots on the doom 3 world forums showed some great environments and very good fps... I checked over the thread again and the times they showed FPS w/ out door enviroments were pretty limited. Everyone was having fun bashing the other side with words instead of examples :p
I definatly disagree that showed that it could do large enviroments w/ good FPS, it showed something suggestive towards that, but w/ the limited number of examples and the limited nature of the map used i dont think it showed anything conclusive.
Not trying to start a debate or anything, just showing that there are differing opinions on this.
yes...the first screenshots didn't show much...but later down the thread and a few other screenshots on the doom 3 world forums showed some great environments and very good fps... I checked over the thread again and the times they showed FPS w/ out door enviroments were pretty limited. Everyone was having fun bashing the other side with words instead of examples :p
I definatly disagree that showed that it could do large enviroments w/ good FPS, it showed something suggestive towards that, but w/ the limited number of examples and the limited nature of the map used i dont think it showed anything conclusive.
Not trying to start a debate or anything, just showing that there are differing opinions on this.
a singularity
11-21-2004, 10:04 PM
Just finished and would gladly accept a fanboy compliment if I recieved one. I didn't think too highly of Half-Life, but I didn't play it in 1998. It does have a familiar look and feel to Max Payne 2, but the outdoor scenes were very cool. A lot of comparisons were made Crytek and Source, but having played HL2, I have to give the nod to Source. It feel more visceral and gratifying. Farcry looked too pristine, but than again, it is paradise. Still, the open enviroment was more fullfilling in HL2 than it was in Farcry. Doom 3 was too dark and linear, story wise. Had they included half/half indoor/outdoor, i.e fight some bad aliens in the martian atmosphere, that owuld have rocked!
They used a lot of the same textures for the indoors -- could have had potential.
One aspect about HL2 that I absolutely loved is the realistic damage. It usually took a whole clip to kill a Combine soldier who looked very well fortified in kevlar or whatever the case maybe. That is realistic to me.
They used a lot of the same textures for the indoors -- could have had potential.
One aspect about HL2 that I absolutely loved is the realistic damage. It usually took a whole clip to kill a Combine soldier who looked very well fortified in kevlar or whatever the case maybe. That is realistic to me.
Zvi
11-22-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Un4given
Not the same. The body parts that come off when you go at something with the chainsaw is scripted. You also can't throw the chainsaw at your enemy. In this game you can throw objects, call them back, and body parts come off exactly where you hit them, not in a scripted sequence.
Hmm, having played last 2 days in the row... I was unable to cut zombie parts "exactly where you hit them". It is pretty much sctipted. Cuts them in half.
Things you throw, like the saw blade will stick in objects, like a wooden wall, or it hitting a much harder surface, will ricochet around.
Are you sure about that? Because sawblades in my experience never ricocheted from concrete or brick walls, just stuck in them. Can't recall shooting them in the room with steel walls, however can't recall single ricochet either. I'll trh this weekend again just to see.
As far as picking up objects, sure other games may have given you the ability to do that, but again, very scripted. What you picked up and moved was generally required as part of continuing through the game. In this game you can interact with almost everything, even if it isn't necessary for the story or game to continue.
Well, yes and no. Things are random. For instance gravity gun doesn't work on lots of things. And for no apparent reason. I'd rather have better driveable vehichle or shorter loading times and better sound(I mean stuttering) vs. the ability to interact with empty bottles. Yeah, can be fun for 5 minutes, but you ain't spending a day dong that.
Not overly unique until you watch the blade come off and the real physics at work as the saw blade properly reacts to object it contacts.
See above. It's not that realistic.
And more about realism.
Originally posted by a singularity
One aspect about HL2 that I absolutely loved is the realistic damage. It usually took a whole clip to kill a Combine soldier who looked very well fortified in kevlar or whatever the case maybe. That is realistic to me.
In a real world when an average human fortified by kevlar (with Ti plates behind it, otherwise that kevlar will end up in his intestines with those bullets) gets hit even by relatively low powered handgun bullet shock and damage are enough to put him out of action for some time. Let alone receiving a few rounds(more powerful) from SMG.
In short it's not realistic at all to need a clip, though it wasn't that much , few headshots were suffice in general.
And no, 9mm pistol can't possibly be more powerful than SMG firing the same 9mm pistol rounds or more powerful stuff.
If you want real world realism(at least in terms of you dying) then play Far Cry on realistic difficulty. That's how it is in real world, almost. One bullet and UR done. I didn't enjoy that kind of realism at all. Sometimes too much of realism can be a problem.
Not the same. The body parts that come off when you go at something with the chainsaw is scripted. You also can't throw the chainsaw at your enemy. In this game you can throw objects, call them back, and body parts come off exactly where you hit them, not in a scripted sequence.
Hmm, having played last 2 days in the row... I was unable to cut zombie parts "exactly where you hit them". It is pretty much sctipted. Cuts them in half.
Things you throw, like the saw blade will stick in objects, like a wooden wall, or it hitting a much harder surface, will ricochet around.
Are you sure about that? Because sawblades in my experience never ricocheted from concrete or brick walls, just stuck in them. Can't recall shooting them in the room with steel walls, however can't recall single ricochet either. I'll trh this weekend again just to see.
As far as picking up objects, sure other games may have given you the ability to do that, but again, very scripted. What you picked up and moved was generally required as part of continuing through the game. In this game you can interact with almost everything, even if it isn't necessary for the story or game to continue.
Well, yes and no. Things are random. For instance gravity gun doesn't work on lots of things. And for no apparent reason. I'd rather have better driveable vehichle or shorter loading times and better sound(I mean stuttering) vs. the ability to interact with empty bottles. Yeah, can be fun for 5 minutes, but you ain't spending a day dong that.
Not overly unique until you watch the blade come off and the real physics at work as the saw blade properly reacts to object it contacts.
See above. It's not that realistic.
And more about realism.
Originally posted by a singularity
One aspect about HL2 that I absolutely loved is the realistic damage. It usually took a whole clip to kill a Combine soldier who looked very well fortified in kevlar or whatever the case maybe. That is realistic to me.
In a real world when an average human fortified by kevlar (with Ti plates behind it, otherwise that kevlar will end up in his intestines with those bullets) gets hit even by relatively low powered handgun bullet shock and damage are enough to put him out of action for some time. Let alone receiving a few rounds(more powerful) from SMG.
In short it's not realistic at all to need a clip, though it wasn't that much , few headshots were suffice in general.
And no, 9mm pistol can't possibly be more powerful than SMG firing the same 9mm pistol rounds or more powerful stuff.
If you want real world realism(at least in terms of you dying) then play Far Cry on realistic difficulty. That's how it is in real world, almost. One bullet and UR done. I didn't enjoy that kind of realism at all. Sometimes too much of realism can be a problem.
PointlesS
11-22-2004, 02:46 PM
guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...
Freddy_Kruger
11-22-2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Zvi
I'd rather have better driveable vehichle or shorter loading times and better sound(I mean stuttering) vs. the ability to interact with empty bottles. Yeah, can be fun for 5 minutes, but you ain't spending a day dong that.
It was fun. In the begining, throwing bottles at the gaurds who then chase you, trying to stun you, lol.
I'm still in water hazard level (I'm addicted to Rome: Total War) but I still think Far Cry, even with its problems, is a better game.
I'd rather have better driveable vehichle or shorter loading times and better sound(I mean stuttering) vs. the ability to interact with empty bottles. Yeah, can be fun for 5 minutes, but you ain't spending a day dong that.
It was fun. In the begining, throwing bottles at the gaurds who then chase you, trying to stun you, lol.
I'm still in water hazard level (I'm addicted to Rome: Total War) but I still think Far Cry, even with its problems, is a better game.
Harbinger
11-22-2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by PointlesS
guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...
Amen brother, amen. If ppl want realism turn off you computer and GO OUTSIDE
guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...
Amen brother, amen. If ppl want realism turn off you computer and GO OUTSIDE
kpxgq
11-22-2004, 03:48 PM
IMHO Doom3 and Halo2 are the two biggest and overhyped letdowns of this year.
FarCry was fun and HL2 is just fabulous
but right now MGS3 has my complete attention... the most immersive game ive played this year
FarCry was fun and HL2 is just fabulous
but right now MGS3 has my complete attention... the most immersive game ive played this year
Matt_E
11-22-2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Harbinger
Amen brother, amen. If ppl want realism turn off you computer and GO OUTSIDE
Naw...the graphics suck.:D
Amen brother, amen. If ppl want realism turn off you computer and GO OUTSIDE
Naw...the graphics suck.:D
rimmerchant
11-22-2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by kpxgq
IMHO Doom3 and Halo2 are the two biggest and overhyped letdowns of this year.
FarCry was fun and HL2 is just fabulous
but right now MGS3 has my complete attention... the most immersive game ive played this year
so now it's settled, Far cry and HL2 is better than doom3.
after 4 hours of Far Cry and HL2 I was still very excited and wanted to play more.
but after 4 hours of doom3 I didn't really like but force myself to play further just because I paid for the game. need less to say after 6 hours I just got annoyed and cheated to finish the game and ebay the thing before the value dropped too much.
to tell ya the truth all 3 games was hyped up for me and only doom 3 was a disappointment. (FarCry was never officially hyped but I went on their website adn downloaded all their screenshots, trailers and demo and hyped myself up)
IMHO Doom3 and Halo2 are the two biggest and overhyped letdowns of this year.
FarCry was fun and HL2 is just fabulous
but right now MGS3 has my complete attention... the most immersive game ive played this year
so now it's settled, Far cry and HL2 is better than doom3.
after 4 hours of Far Cry and HL2 I was still very excited and wanted to play more.
but after 4 hours of doom3 I didn't really like but force myself to play further just because I paid for the game. need less to say after 6 hours I just got annoyed and cheated to finish the game and ebay the thing before the value dropped too much.
to tell ya the truth all 3 games was hyped up for me and only doom 3 was a disappointment. (FarCry was never officially hyped but I went on their website adn downloaded all their screenshots, trailers and demo and hyped myself up)
Zvi
11-22-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by PointlesS
guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...
Agree. Which is why I disagre on D3 criticism about D3 being not realistic. Like those critics have worked on demon invaded bases on mars for years...
As for D3 and Halo 2 being "Overhyped". Especially about D3. I am not sure I understand what exactly was "Overhyped" about D3. We all knew what Doom game was about, we all knew it was gonna be a remake with a new engine and as most of the ppl agree the graphics were superb. On top of that compared to previous dooms U get cutscenes, more interaction with env. and quite detailed plot given the limitations, i.e. basic plot was already set.
What exactly ID promised and didn't deliver to accuse them of overhyping anyway? A princess to save on the last level? Or U wanted hot looking chick following U around?
OBTW, I am surprised that all those who were complaining so much about not being able to shoot lights in D3(that's along with the complaints of D3 being too dark) never felt like shooting the lights in HL2. Apparently HL2 has too much light to start shooting the lights...
guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...
Agree. Which is why I disagre on D3 criticism about D3 being not realistic. Like those critics have worked on demon invaded bases on mars for years...
As for D3 and Halo 2 being "Overhyped". Especially about D3. I am not sure I understand what exactly was "Overhyped" about D3. We all knew what Doom game was about, we all knew it was gonna be a remake with a new engine and as most of the ppl agree the graphics were superb. On top of that compared to previous dooms U get cutscenes, more interaction with env. and quite detailed plot given the limitations, i.e. basic plot was already set.
What exactly ID promised and didn't deliver to accuse them of overhyping anyway? A princess to save on the last level? Or U wanted hot looking chick following U around?
OBTW, I am surprised that all those who were complaining so much about not being able to shoot lights in D3(that's along with the complaints of D3 being too dark) never felt like shooting the lights in HL2. Apparently HL2 has too much light to start shooting the lights...
a singularity
11-22-2004, 05:18 PM
Comparatively speaking, HL2 is done much better than its counterparts. For complete realism, there is no substitute for America's Army, but HL2 infuses a nice blend of realism and mayhem fun. A game like HL2 would lose a lot of fun factor with an over emphasis on realism.
Everything from the gravity gun to hostile take overs are possible in theorectical science. I applaud the writers at Valve for mentioning elements like dark matter and black holes, which made it all that much more enjoyable.
Originally posted by Zvi
And more about realism.
One aspect about HL2 that I absolutely loved is the realistic damage. It usually took a whole clip to kill a Combine soldier who looked very well fortified in kevlar or whatever the case maybe. That is realistic to me.
In a real world when an average human fortified by kevlar (with Ti plates behind it, otherwise that kevlar will end up in his intestines with those bullets) gets hit even by relatively low powered handgun bullet shock and damage are enough to put him out of action for some time. Let alone receiving a few rounds(more powerful) from SMG.
In short it's not realistic at all to need a clip, though it wasn't that much , few headshots were suffice in general.
And no, 9mm pistol can't possibly be more powerful than SMG firing the same 9mm pistol rounds or more powerful stuff.
If you want real world realism(at least in terms of you dying) then play Far Cry on realistic difficulty. That's how it is in real world, almost. One bullet and UR done. I didn't enjoy that kind of realism at all. Sometimes too much of realism can be a problem. [/B]
Everything from the gravity gun to hostile take overs are possible in theorectical science. I applaud the writers at Valve for mentioning elements like dark matter and black holes, which made it all that much more enjoyable.
Originally posted by Zvi
And more about realism.
One aspect about HL2 that I absolutely loved is the realistic damage. It usually took a whole clip to kill a Combine soldier who looked very well fortified in kevlar or whatever the case maybe. That is realistic to me.
In a real world when an average human fortified by kevlar (with Ti plates behind it, otherwise that kevlar will end up in his intestines with those bullets) gets hit even by relatively low powered handgun bullet shock and damage are enough to put him out of action for some time. Let alone receiving a few rounds(more powerful) from SMG.
In short it's not realistic at all to need a clip, though it wasn't that much , few headshots were suffice in general.
And no, 9mm pistol can't possibly be more powerful than SMG firing the same 9mm pistol rounds or more powerful stuff.
If you want real world realism(at least in terms of you dying) then play Far Cry on realistic difficulty. That's how it is in real world, almost. One bullet and UR done. I didn't enjoy that kind of realism at all. Sometimes too much of realism can be a problem. [/B]
a singularity
11-22-2004, 05:26 PM
Funny you should mention Doom III. The graphics were done in a way that made you felt like you were playing a long continuous FMV, rather than a game -- so in that sense, it set the bar higher for graphics expections. HL2 in stark contrast was more pragmatic in their approach with breaking new grounds. They offered a more immersive world and true to their previous formula, you could take time to explore the map and not feel rushed to complete a mission.
D3 is defintely a cult favorite. The overwhelming majority will praise HL2 and a small pcoket witll praise Farcry. They've all set technical benchmarks, so hopefully the end result is more refined games in the near future.
Originally posted by Zvi
Agree. Which is why I disagre on D3 criticism about D3 being not realistic. Like those critics have worked on demon invaded bases on mars for years...
As for D3 and Halo 2 being "Overhyped". Especially about D3. I am not sure I understand what exactly was "Overhyped" about D3. We all knew what Doom game was about, we all knew it was gonna be a remake with a new engine and as most of the ppl agree the graphics were superb. On top of that compared to previous dooms U get cutscenes, more interaction with env. and quite detailed plot given the limitations, i.e. basic plot was already set.
What exactly ID promised and didn't deliver to accuse them of overhyping anyway? A princess to save on the last level? Or U wanted hot looking chick following U around?
OBTW, I am surprised that all those who were complaining so much about not being able to shut lights in D3(that's along with the complaints of D3 being too dark) never felt like shuting the lights in HL2. Apparently HL2 has too much light to start shooting the lights...
D3 is defintely a cult favorite. The overwhelming majority will praise HL2 and a small pcoket witll praise Farcry. They've all set technical benchmarks, so hopefully the end result is more refined games in the near future.
Originally posted by Zvi
Agree. Which is why I disagre on D3 criticism about D3 being not realistic. Like those critics have worked on demon invaded bases on mars for years...
As for D3 and Halo 2 being "Overhyped". Especially about D3. I am not sure I understand what exactly was "Overhyped" about D3. We all knew what Doom game was about, we all knew it was gonna be a remake with a new engine and as most of the ppl agree the graphics were superb. On top of that compared to previous dooms U get cutscenes, more interaction with env. and quite detailed plot given the limitations, i.e. basic plot was already set.
What exactly ID promised and didn't deliver to accuse them of overhyping anyway? A princess to save on the last level? Or U wanted hot looking chick following U around?
OBTW, I am surprised that all those who were complaining so much about not being able to shut lights in D3(that's along with the complaints of D3 being too dark) never felt like shuting the lights in HL2. Apparently HL2 has too much light to start shooting the lights...
idiotekniQues
11-22-2004, 05:51 PM
if the far cry outdoor graphics, super long draw distance and being able to walk anwhere on the map, doom 3's indoor graphics, the pc requirements and bug freeness of the source engine with its physics and its better storyline and how u have to figure out on your own how to get thru parts, had a baby. holy shite.
idiotekniQues
11-22-2004, 06:05 PM
man i cant wait till s.t.a.l.k.e.r.
just got to "our benefactors" in hl2. its been gettin better and better each chapter especially since sandtraps :)
just got to "our benefactors" in hl2. its been gettin better and better each chapter especially since sandtraps :)
Mancora
11-22-2004, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Zvi
OBTW, I am surprised that all those who were complaining so much about not being able to shut lights in D3(that's along with the complaints of D3 being too dark) never felt like shuting the lights in HL2. Apparently HL2 has too much light to start shooting the lights... What do you mean "Shutting the lights in HL2"? And by mentioning that these people also complained about D3 being too dark do you mean to say that HL2 was just as dark as D3 and they are being hypocrtical?
OBTW, I am surprised that all those who were complaining so much about not being able to shut lights in D3(that's along with the complaints of D3 being too dark) never felt like shuting the lights in HL2. Apparently HL2 has too much light to start shooting the lights... What do you mean "Shutting the lights in HL2"? And by mentioning that these people also complained about D3 being too dark do you mean to say that HL2 was just as dark as D3 and they are being hypocrtical?
Zvi
11-22-2004, 07:17 PM
I mean that some ppl criticised Doom 3 because the player couldn't shoot the all lights(some could've been shot btw), although nobody made that a big issue in HL2.
I didn't say HL2 is as dark as Doom 3. The same feature was missing in both games. Now, if one was so upset for not being able to kill the lights in already dark game I'd expect the same "one" to ask for the same thing in HL2. It was about fairness of some D3 critics.
E.g. D3 got criticised because of not having checkpoints and having quicksave. HL2 uses the same model. Yet "critics" chose to poitn that "problem" only in D3 and so on. I personally like quicksave a lot better tho.
I didn't say HL2 is as dark as Doom 3. The same feature was missing in both games. Now, if one was so upset for not being able to kill the lights in already dark game I'd expect the same "one" to ask for the same thing in HL2. It was about fairness of some D3 critics.
E.g. D3 got criticised because of not having checkpoints and having quicksave. HL2 uses the same model. Yet "critics" chose to poitn that "problem" only in D3 and so on. I personally like quicksave a lot better tho.
Mancora
11-22-2004, 07:26 PM
However one of Doom 3's main attractions was its lighting, not so for HL2.(though i dont remember seeing many complaints about not being able to shoot the lights in D3 so im not sure its all that much of an issue)
Zvi
11-22-2004, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Mancora
However one of Doom 3's main attractions was its lighting, not so for HL2.(though i dont remember seeing many complaints about not being able to shoot the lights in D3 so im not sure its all that much of an issue)
Not to argue, just IMHO shooting the light can hardly be described as "lighting" works ;) I think it's more into real world interaction/realism features which definitely is HL2 stronger point. Dunno how often ppl break lights in badly lit rooms but still, if U kill the light source light rendered engine won't have much to do...
However one of Doom 3's main attractions was its lighting, not so for HL2.(though i dont remember seeing many complaints about not being able to shoot the lights in D3 so im not sure its all that much of an issue)
Not to argue, just IMHO shooting the light can hardly be described as "lighting" works ;) I think it's more into real world interaction/realism features which definitely is HL2 stronger point. Dunno how often ppl break lights in badly lit rooms but still, if U kill the light source light rendered engine won't have much to do...
st0nesp1ke
11-23-2004, 01:19 AM
Lets go back a couple pages, and this is what i seem to agree w/best.
Originally posted by PointlesS
guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...
:)
Originally posted by PointlesS
guys we're talking about a game where ZOMBIES ROAM THE EARTH...where humans WORK WITH ALIENS...and also we have a GRAVITY GUN that has the power to MOVE CARS BY PUSHING A TRIGGER...and here we're talking about REALISM? who gives a ****...
:)
SharkyExtreme.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.