Now, after playing Doom3 and Half-Life2...

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

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:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Fine points. I'm far too tired to think of a legible response though. Maybe while I'm at school...

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

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?

Very well spoken and thought out. Hits every point right on the mark...

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.

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

D3 was a nice engine demo..