Printable View
Man the first game I played on the PC was Doom, ya can't disrespect the Doomage baby! Anyways, I still think Doom 3 looks better, but thats because I prefer it's darker style.Quote:
Originally posted by toastbim
man i have been lookin around for more screenies, i am def upgrading now as doom3 does not mean rats a$$ to me :D this is my type!!!!
WHO THE FCUK CARES, IF HALF-LIFE 2 and DOOM 3 come out in the same year.
God is most definately answering my prayers!:D
minimum - PIII 700 with TNT 2 (you probably don't want to be playing like this though ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
Does anyone have any idea what the requirements/recommended system specs will be to run HL2??
reccomended - 2ghz with a 64mb directX9 graphics card.
DX8 graphics card. They recommend a GF4.Quote:
Originally posted by ensign
minimum - PIII 700 with TNT 2 (you probably don't want to be playing like this though ;)
reccomended - 2ghz with a 64mb directX9 graphics card.
Something tells me that this game and my PIII 700 won't be a happy couple...Quote:
Originally posted by ensign
minimum - PIII 700 with TNT 2 (you probably don't want to be playing like this though ;)
reccomended - 2ghz with a 64mb directX9 graphics card.
If you read PCGAMER you know that HL2 has all that Doom3 has to offer :)Quote:
Originally posted by BuggyLoop
Well even buffer screengrabs wont put half life 2 above doom3 technically, what half life 2 has going for it are the high res textures (much more than doom3), the kickass valve modellers and artists, but when it comes to dynamic lighting and shadows, polybump, per-pixel lighting, bump mapped surfaces, it doesnt approach doom3 (heck, it doesnt do any of the above so..)
I prefer half life 2 visuals over doom3 though, but thats for an art reason.
I dont think you guys with 2000+ mhz cpus, 512MB onboard memory and 9700 or better video cards even have to worry one bit about half life 2.
Cant wait to see it in motion at E3 :D
Also, what sets HL2 aside from Doom3 is that the engine is scalable and the game can be played with a TNT.
Are you sure it has everything Doom 3 has? I don't think it does, it doesn't have all the technology advances doom 3 has though it is impressive.
Yes, on a purely visual opinion, not on a technical oneQuote:
If you read PCGAMER you know that HL2 has all that Doom3 has to offer
Art style of game A might be more pleasing to someone than game B, even if game A doesnt achieve half of what game B achieve in sheer graphic complexity.
Dont confuse the two.
I mean they even said that half life 2 could be mistaken for a DVD movie.. *cough* They were obviously shitting their pants by half life nostalgia and it blinded their judgement a tiny bit.
Agreed. While the game looks good, some things like lighting and textures need to be changedQuote:
Originally posted by BuggyLoop
Yes, on a purely visual opinion, not on a technical one
Art style of game A might be more pleasing to someone than game B, even if game A doesnt achieve half of what game B achieve in sheer graphic complexity.
Dont confuse the two.
I mean they even said that half life 2 could be mistaken for a DVD movie.. *cough* They were obviously shitting their pants by half life nostalgia and it blinded their judgement a tiny bit.
Half life 2 actually *****slap doom 3 in textures (heck, some doom3 textures seem right out of quake3..) Half life 2 also seems more heavy on geometry than doom3. Doom 3 makes up for these 2 flaws by polybumps (lower polygon character looking very detailed), bump mapping nearly everywhere (adds "fake" geometry to the scenery) and of course, the dynamic per pixel lighting and stencil shadows.
Its a different approach to graphics, one is pushing standard and very known features to their limits (half life2) while the other is pretty average when it comes to the basic visual features (texture/geometry) but push new graphic methods available from modern cards, making the visuals more dynamic, characters casting their own shadow depending on the light sources, same for the environment itself, etc.
STALKER seems to be touching both though, insanely high geometry, nearly photorealistic textures, dynamic lighting, soft shadows, stencil shadows, etc. That one is gonna be PC hungry.. good thing its for a 2004 release.
Hope the 9800 pro can handle them both
I thought the only really impressive thing Doom3 has is the realtime lighting?
And HL2 developers spent 4 years on developing that also, so I would say it's on par with Doom 3.
Also, HL2 uses tons of bump mapping.
I don't knoow... after reading PC GAMER, I found lots of similarities. :confused:
*sigh* Think about that for a minute. Four years ago, what kinda of video card technology was avaliable?:oQuote:
Originally posted by Terry
And HL2 developers spent 4 years on developing that also, so I would say it's on par with Doom 3.
Heh, how long ago did you think Carmack started writing Doom 3? :)
They don't write the engine expecting it to be used during that time.
IMO, HL2's graphics are much more realistic and can scare the crap out of me.
let's just wait and see when both are released instead of just looking at screenshots that are probably antialiased and maybe have some retouching...
Doom 3's sole purpose other than to be a benchmark for the new engine is to scare the crap out fo ya. You havent played the leak have you...Quote:
Originally posted by Terry
Heh, how long ago did you think Carmack started writing Doom 3? :)
They don't write the engine expecting it to be used during that time.
IMO, HL2's graphics are much more realistic and can scare the crap out of me.