![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
HL2 vs. Doom 3.
- Thread starter Clear
- Start date
C
CIWS
Guest
There's several people posting in this thread that need to relax and stop with the insults. If you cannot post without keeping your cool and your crude remarks to yourself, then do not post.
doom3 was a chilling cinematic experience which got pretty sppoky, but it just was nowhere near as varied as hl2 so towards the end it was pretty repetetive walking through all the halls. i think hl2 was more realistic graphically also, and seems to be a much more efficient engine - i get a much much higher frame rate in hl2 than I do with doom3.
also someone mentioned the characters on doom3 were more impressive, but while the ones on hl2 might not have been complex, i think they were much better animated - those walker things were awesome, and that screaming headcrab zombie that runs really fast was scary
also someone mentioned the characters on doom3 were more impressive, but while the ones on hl2 might not have been complex, i think they were much better animated - those walker things were awesome, and that screaming headcrab zombie that runs really fast was scary
Both games have their good points and bad points. From the moment I loaded Doom3 I was totally immersed. HL2 just hasn't pulled me in to the level that Doom3 did. I also like the lighting and shadows for Doom3 better (although I will admit that parts of the game were to dark and I like the flashlight implementation in HL2 better). One big problem I have with both games is AI. For Doom3 an imp would be scripted to climb walls, but when you actually fight them they come at you without a care in the world. In HL2 the Combine soldiers seem to do the same thing. Case in point: Grab a mounted tauss cannon and point at group of soldiers coming at you . . . fire. Do the soldiers try to take cover behind the boxes and LARGE dumpster . . . nope. They run at you head long and welcome death with open arms. I would say the ragdoll physics between the two are the same. Although the only way you get to see them in Doom3 is to run one of the user created mods. I like the bullet holes in bodies for Doom3 and the ones in the walls, windows, world in HL2. Water in HL2 is outstanding and the fire and heat shimmer in Doom3 was done better. For story and game play Doom3 started to become repetitive in the Delta Labs, but I thouroghly enjoyed the short romp through the old temple and thought the story was good. That should have been a much longer sequence in my opinion. I have only made it up to Klieners labe in HL2, but have to say the airboat sequence was one of the most FRUSTRATING sequences I have experienced in quite some time.
To sum: I prefer Doom3 for the immersion and sound, HL2 for the environment interaction and Far Cry for AI.
The perfect game would be the D3 engine (Brightened) with the interacation and physics of HL2 and AI from Far Cry.
To sum: I prefer Doom3 for the immersion and sound, HL2 for the environment interaction and Far Cry for AI.
The perfect game would be the D3 engine (Brightened) with the interacation and physics of HL2 and AI from Far Cry.
Obviously the lot of you that says that Doom3 textures are sub par haven't been able to play the game on Ultra levels or haven't tried.
It has been noted that D3 on Ultra REQUIRES 512MB of texture memory alone. That means that on anything less than Ultra settings you're getting at a minimum 50% texture compression which leads to VERY crappy looking textures. I tested this myself by bouncing back and forth between High and Ultra settings and Ultra spoiled me. It was crisp, very clean looking, and the environment in total was fantastic. Not that High setting the environment wasn't great but given how much compression High put onto the textures I was sorely dissapointed that I might have had to play that way. (For the record I can play it at Ultra settings all day long without effort.)
So for those of you that posted your screen caps of HL2 vs. D3 you have I am wondering what the differences are in overall texture sizes and compression rates as they're being tossed up onto the screen.
In a typical 12 year old child fashion most of you are just knee jerking about and not going through a scientific methodology in proving your point.
Personally I don't have HL2 yet and am still debating on whether or not to get it. From what I've seen in the previews and screen caps I'm not all that impressed with HL2s environmental aspects. D3 spoiled me that way but then again D3 wasn't all that it was cracked up to be as a game. D3 had enormous potential and went only half way...which was no small feat in and of itself however, to make a great game you have to go all the way...or at least more than half way.
I've heard from tons of places that HL2 is a superior gaming experience although, in D3 fashion, the ending and story line is a bit lacking. Ah well. If/When I do finally manage to get HL2 I'll see for myself and formulate a real opinion on it. As far as I'm concerned now, based on what I've seen, the D3 engine is a superior one. ID spent a lot of time tweaking it where Valve has made a superb engine in and of itself but spent more time on actual gameplay and total user experience in-game.
If my assertions are correct, Valve wins this round. Over the last few years we've all been bitching about how much more we want gameplay than gorgeous environments and that seems to stand true here. I hope the game developer community is listening.
It has been noted that D3 on Ultra REQUIRES 512MB of texture memory alone. That means that on anything less than Ultra settings you're getting at a minimum 50% texture compression which leads to VERY crappy looking textures. I tested this myself by bouncing back and forth between High and Ultra settings and Ultra spoiled me. It was crisp, very clean looking, and the environment in total was fantastic. Not that High setting the environment wasn't great but given how much compression High put onto the textures I was sorely dissapointed that I might have had to play that way. (For the record I can play it at Ultra settings all day long without effort.)
So for those of you that posted your screen caps of HL2 vs. D3 you have I am wondering what the differences are in overall texture sizes and compression rates as they're being tossed up onto the screen.
In a typical 12 year old child fashion most of you are just knee jerking about and not going through a scientific methodology in proving your point.
Personally I don't have HL2 yet and am still debating on whether or not to get it. From what I've seen in the previews and screen caps I'm not all that impressed with HL2s environmental aspects. D3 spoiled me that way but then again D3 wasn't all that it was cracked up to be as a game. D3 had enormous potential and went only half way...which was no small feat in and of itself however, to make a great game you have to go all the way...or at least more than half way.
I've heard from tons of places that HL2 is a superior gaming experience although, in D3 fashion, the ending and story line is a bit lacking. Ah well. If/When I do finally manage to get HL2 I'll see for myself and formulate a real opinion on it. As far as I'm concerned now, based on what I've seen, the D3 engine is a superior one. ID spent a lot of time tweaking it where Valve has made a superb engine in and of itself but spent more time on actual gameplay and total user experience in-game.
If my assertions are correct, Valve wins this round. Over the last few years we've all been bitching about how much more we want gameplay than gorgeous environments and that seems to stand true here. I hope the game developer community is listening.
kre62 said:If you walked up to anyone with no prior knowledge of these games, showed them these screenshots and asked which has better graphics, what do you think they would choose? Both were taken at 16x12, 8X AF, 4xAA.
Also, to the guy about the water, I dont know what kind of machine your running, but my water looks unbelievable! Far Cry's water is good, I'll give you that, but the look and especially the physics of the water in HL2 is unsurpassed.
And yes I know this doom shot is not the greatest, but I think if graphics are supposed to be "good" they should look good close up. Like I said I do think the charachter models in D3 look great, everything else marginal.
uh huh why dont you take a screen shot of a panned view of one of the indoor lab rooms and not a upclose crap shot of a wall and then talk u chose what is probaly the one type of view in HL 2 that looks good and compared it to the worst u could find in Doom 3.
not that it matters farcry owned both games hard.
sure HL 2 has a better gameplay but lets not give it more crdit then it deserves the graphics were a let down imo.
While I love both games, I think I'd have to give the nod to HL2 at this point. That could very well change as I only just finished the airboat level in HL2 so who knows what I'll think of it in a week.
I prefer the graphics in HL2, but I don't know that it has a better engine. Forget all the bells and whistles in each game's engine. I just prefer the atmosphere and artwork of HL2, though that's not anti-Doom 3.
It seems like when someone says they prefer one game people assume that they hate the other. As others have said, it is possible to like more than one game at a time.
If I had to pick, though, I'd probably go with HL2.
I prefer the graphics in HL2, but I don't know that it has a better engine. Forget all the bells and whistles in each game's engine. I just prefer the atmosphere and artwork of HL2, though that's not anti-Doom 3.
It seems like when someone says they prefer one game people assume that they hate the other. As others have said, it is possible to like more than one game at a time.
If I had to pick, though, I'd probably go with HL2.
I didn't even finish doom 3, I tried to play it when I didn't even feel like playing it. I left off at the 2nd or 3rd last level I think.
With HL2 I am always waiting till I get home from work so I can play it asap. Since its friday, I'll have all night with this game
HL2 > D3
With HL2 I am always waiting till I get home from work so I can play it asap. Since its friday, I'll have all night with this game
HL2 > D3
i dont think either are greater than the other. they have their own fortes and i consider worthy "games" (most released games do not equal my label as such). what i think of them is this: halflife is physically immersive. doom3 is visually immersive. i am not talking about graphics i am talking about stimualtion of the enviroment and how it will affect the players outcome. however, one attribute that i wish halflife had is doom's shading and dynamic lighting. halflife has none and it is annoying. people complained about doom being dark, i find halflife worse in some areas and the light only will illuminate a section-not the area which light is being cast.
Harkamus said:I think that guy officially left the thread. We shoved back to him the own shit he tried to force feed us.
And I think we have all proven you wrong, kre.
It was pretty damn late here when I posted that last shot, so I went to sleep. But you got me bud, you got me.
Actually I still think Doom3 looks like shit, and the person who posted close ups of HL2, well those shots might look a little blurry, but nowhere near the low quality doom3 textures. I'm sorry, but Doom3's graphics are just crap. You are all sheep who fell for the hype that these are good graphics. Just because the game magazines say they are, kids, dosen't mean its true.
texuspete00
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 5,626
Harkamus said:Can you act any more less civilized?
And in my opinion that shot doesn't look all that hot either. I do stand corrected that the close up of DOOM 3 may be worse, but that shot of HL2 is nothing to brag about either.
EDIT: And from the way you replied, you sound like just another biased HL2 f a n b o y(for some reason they censored that word).
OH and btw, look at the HL2 ground/floor in that shot you gave. Looks like ASS to me. Then again so does the wood.
LOL.... whatyour sarcasm meter broken? I believe thats a shot of a wall in HL2 to make fun of the wall shot doom3 comparo with HL2.
Wolf-R1 said:Obviously the lot of you that says that Doom3 textures are sub par haven't been able to play the game on Ultra levels or haven't tried.
It has been noted that D3 on Ultra REQUIRES 512MB of texture memory alone. That means that on anything less than Ultra settings you're getting at a minimum 50% texture compression which leads to VERY crappy looking textures. I tested this myself by bouncing back and forth between High and Ultra settings and Ultra spoiled me. It was crisp, very clean looking, and the environment in total was fantastic. Not that High setting the environment wasn't great but given how much compression High put onto the textures I was sorely dissapointed that I might have had to play that way. (For the record I can play it at Ultra settings all day long without effort.)
So for those of you that posted your screen caps of HL2 vs. D3 you have I am wondering what the differences are in overall texture sizes and compression rates as they're being tossed up onto the screen.
In a typical 12 year old child fashion most of you are just knee jerking about and not going through a scientific methodology in proving your point.
Personally I don't have HL2 yet and am still debating on whether or not to get it. From what I've seen in the previews and screen caps I'm not all that impressed with HL2s environmental aspects. D3 spoiled me that way but then again D3 wasn't all that it was cracked up to be as a game. D3 had enormous potential and went only half way...which was no small feat in and of itself however, to make a great game you have to go all the way...or at least more than half way.
I've heard from tons of places that HL2 is a superior gaming experience although, in D3 fashion, the ending and story line is a bit lacking. Ah well. If/When I do finally manage to get HL2 I'll see for myself and formulate a real opinion on it. As far as I'm concerned now, based on what I've seen, the D3 engine is a superior one. ID spent a lot of time tweaking it where Valve has made a superb engine in and of itself but spent more time on actual gameplay and total user experience in-game.
If my assertions are correct, Valve wins this round. Over the last few years we've all been bitching about how much more we want gameplay than gorgeous environments and that seems to stand true here. I hope the game developer community is listening.
I have played doom3 on ultra and it doesn't look much different than high.
I have both of these sequel games. I am amazed at the quality in both. This is a credit to both design companies. How much of this can be credited to the advance in gaming computers needs to be factored in as well. Doom3 and HL2 both have an atmosphere created superbly by the designers. Overall Doom is more visceral, a straight forward shooter. object: blast the bad guy. Scared me straight up alot and still does the third time through. HL2 is more cerebral,interactive. Allows more than one way through. More interaction with the characters, also with the environment. Far Cry is the best in giving one more than one way to do the same thing, in my humble opinion. I think all three are excellent representatives of the type of game the designer had in mind. 2 cent. have a nice day.
AgentxofxChaos
Agent of [H] Chaos
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2002
- Messages
- 4,212
ReubenRosa said:You are so fucking right. Doom3 is aimed at being a scary homage to the original with uber friggin graphics. And it does the job perfectly.
I mean seriously I have both games and love both games. I haven't seen any bosses in Half-life2 that come close to looking as good as any of the boss creatures in Doom3. I mean seriously I have a 6800 and it looks so good its just jaw dropping. The only area that Half-life2 graphically does a better job is the facial animations thats it.
Now as to the gameplay ... Half-life2 doesn't scare me. And it wasn't intended to. Doom3 was and it did. Half-life2 is a sci-fi action/adventure.
And it does the job very well. One thing though.. Yes its alot easier then Doom3. Now some are trying to suggest that they took forever to beat Doom3 because it was boring? Bullshit Most folks who did take time to beat doom3 did it because we wanted to enjoy the experience of getting the shit scared out of us. And because my heart couldn't take it after playing for an hour.
Half-life2 after playing doom3 is so easy its ridicolous I am not complaining but so far wow I mean I went through 70% of the game in only 6 hours of playing. And I was playing with difficulty set to standard not easy. I wish the game was longer. But as doom3 .. Thats what mods are for I guess.
Next thing you know someones is going to come in and compare Diablo2 to Baldur's gate2 its a stupid comparison and not at all valid.
Enjoy both games.
I pretty much agree with this statement. So far I have enjoyed both games. In my opinion they are equally as good, but they are just different. One does something one way, while the other does it another. I do agree after playing Doom 3 though that Half-Life 2 just doesn't seem scary and seems fairly easy. I do like the outside environments in HL2 though, they are done pretty well. There is a little more interaction in HL2 but it isn't that revolutionary compared any other games, however it is still fun. I still find myself doing pretty much the same things in each game, yet I still enjoy it. As ReubenRosa said, just enjoy both games, i know I don't mind accepting the fact that both games are good and I don't need to take sides. That would just be wasting my time.
AgentxofxChaos
Agent of [H] Chaos
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2002
- Messages
- 4,212
Dijonase said:
Haha, the world has become such a crazy place! What have we come to?
Wolf-R1 said:Obviously the lot of you that says that Doom3 textures are sub par haven't been able to play the game on Ultra levels or haven't tried.
It has been noted that D3 on Ultra REQUIRES 512MB of texture memory alone. That means that on anything less than Ultra settings you're getting at a minimum 50% texture compression which leads to VERY crappy looking textures. I tested this myself by bouncing back and forth between High and Ultra settings and Ultra spoiled me. It was crisp, very clean looking, and the environment in total was fantastic. Not that High setting the environment wasn't great but given how much compression High put onto the textures I was sorely dissapointed that I might have had to play that way. (For the record I can play it at Ultra settings all day long without effort.)
So for those of you that posted your screen caps of HL2 vs. D3 you have I am wondering what the differences are in overall texture sizes and compression rates as they're being tossed up onto the screen.
In a typical 12 year old child fashion most of you are just knee jerking about and not going through a scientific methodology in proving your point.
Personally I don't have HL2 yet and am still debating on whether or not to get it. From what I've seen in the previews and screen caps I'm not all that impressed with HL2s environmental aspects. D3 spoiled me that way but then again D3 wasn't all that it was cracked up to be as a game. D3 had enormous potential and went only half way...which was no small feat in and of itself however, to make a great game you have to go all the way...or at least more than half way.
I've heard from tons of places that HL2 is a superior gaming experience although, in D3 fashion, the ending and story line is a bit lacking. Ah well. If/When I do finally manage to get HL2 I'll see for myself and formulate a real opinion on it. As far as I'm concerned now, based on what I've seen, the D3 engine is a superior one. ID spent a lot of time tweaking it where Valve has made a superb engine in and of itself but spent more time on actual gameplay and total user experience in-game.
If my assertions are correct, Valve wins this round. Over the last few years we've all been bitching about how much more we want gameplay than gorgeous environments and that seems to stand true here. I hope the game developer community is listening.
and you sir bring a very true point, and point out yet another... HL2 is designed to run on practically anything.
D3 System requirements:
3D Hardware Accelerator Card Required - 100% DirectX® 9.0b compatible 64MB Hardware Accelerated video card and the latest drivers*.
English version of Microsoft® Windows® 2000/XP
Pentium® IV 1.5 GHz or Athlon® XP 1500+ processor or higher
384MB RAM
100% DirectX® 9.0b compatible 16-bit sound card and latest drivers
100% Windows® 2000/XP compatible mouse, keyboard and latest drivers
HL2 System requirements:
1.2 GHz Processor
256MB RAM
DirectX 7 capable graphics card
Windows 2000/XP/ME/98
you have to have a dx9 SOUND CARD TO PLAY DOOM... wtf...
you have to have all upto date hardware which cuts the amount of people playing d3 in about 1/2... sux id
clearly VALVE has beaten ID in the engine catagory, yeah, D3 engine is a VERY VERY PRETTY engine, but who cares if no one can see it, while the HL2 engine is a VERY PRETTY engine that EVERY one can see, all you need is a 6 year old machine and you can play it...
Valves engine looks realistic, ids engine looks like everything is coated in 18 coats of clearcoat, and the people have been swimming in oil for an hour...
the game play is a completely different story...
haha j/k valve wins again, as stated earlier, doom is just a walk down the hall let the moster pop out, shoot, run, repeat....
HL2 actually has doing things, ie, running the streets while snipers shoot at you, drive vehicles, use traps, etc etc...
FrizzleFried
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2004
- Messages
- 204
Doom 3 runs fine at an acceptable detail level with my XP1800+ and GeForce 3 Ti200. It is completely false to say that you need a DX9 card or a "monster rig" to play Doom 3. Actually, I was a little disappointed in how LOW the requirements to play Doom 3 were. I went out and spent a good bit of fundage to be "DOOM 3 / HL 2" ready....and a good bit of it was spend unnecesarily (though I don't regret my purchases)....
Bottom line is that next gen games shouldn't cater to those who don't have the rigs to play them at the expense of those who do (in terms of graphic quality / etc).
Bottom line is that next gen games shouldn't cater to those who don't have the rigs to play them at the expense of those who do (in terms of graphic quality / etc).
Can you run the HL2 engine on a Voodoo2? The Doom3 engine is demanding because it actually has dynamic lighting. Doom3 also looks better at lower resolutions than HL2 does. The point is, Doom3 scales just as well as HL2 on lower end hardware.3N1GM4 said:
]|[ Mar']['in ]|[
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Messages
- 4,663
obs said:
I was just going to post that thread
I'm playin and enjoying them both. I'm not sure why everyone bitches about Doom 3, but to each his own. I enjoyed it quite a bit (played through on veteran). And now (as someone said earlier), Half Life 2 seems so easy. I may restart on a harder difficulty....
As far as people complaining about the textures. If you can figure out a way to use high quality textures along side all the bumpmapping, AA, dinamic lighting, and whatever else they might use, please be our guests. Shit do it for yourself, you'd be a millionaire.
However you can't because basically with the hardware we're running now, it's not possible.
I think that Doom 3 had slightly better graphics but HL2 is by far a much better game. I still haven't beaten Doom 3 and I kinda like the game. Ever since HL2 unlocked, though, I have been chomping at the bit to get back and play it. Damn work! Damn school!
Wolf-R1 said:
YOU BRING UP AN EXCELLENT POINT SIR.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED that the doom3 engine outputted a 5.5 meg .tga file for its screenshot, which I then converted to a PNG-24 format shot using photoshop with no dicernable loss in quality.
HOWEVER, the half-life 2 engine out puts a LOW quality HIGH compression JPG file by default. I know it is low quality because a 16x12 screen was 300K.
THEREFORE, all screenshots of HL2 are super compressed. I noticed immediately after I took the shots that they looked far worse then the in game graphics.
SO even with ultra high compression, half life 2 still looks better. Imagine what it would be like if they were playing on the same field.
This is why everyone has been so amazed at HL2's graphics who have actually PLAYED THE GAME.
Syphon Filter
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,597
s_s256 said:
He speaks the truth
I'll make this real simple.
Doom 3 > HL2 ... know why ?
Because iD > Valve... plain and simple. Fuck Valve.
Agreed that d3 was overhyped and not the best game.. however, I want everyone to mark my words ... Quake 4 will shit all over HL2.. all over it.
Doom 3 > HL2 ... know why ?
Because iD > Valve... plain and simple. Fuck Valve.
Agreed that d3 was overhyped and not the best game.. however, I want everyone to mark my words ... Quake 4 will shit all over HL2.. all over it.
I'm the Dude man
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2002
- Messages
- 1,444
I like both games, however I believe Doom 3 has more impressive graphics easily.
theNoid said:
wow... thanks for showing all of us the way. I mean someone as wise as you surely knows the right way for all of us to think.
oh... just as a side note... if its not too much trouble... this thread is about HL2/D3 ...
Have a nice day.
theNoid said:
That doesn't even make sense. Everyone here will agree Microsoft's business practices aren't the best. But that doesn't make Windows worse than OS/2.
You're only hurting yourself by refusing to play a game because you don't like the publishers. Just look at you, all gloom and doom and piss and moan while the rest of us enjoy a great game. From the sound of your posts, you're miserable. You won't suceed in spreading that to those of us who are enjoying the game, so why do you try?
And who cares if quake 4 is better than HL2? I'll play it too, and because I enjoyed them both, I'll have more fun than you, because you couldn't even bring yourself to try HL2.
I'm still up in the air, it took me about a day to beat doom 3, but i flew through it. about a week on nightmare, but 3 days from the release of HL2 i still havent beaten it, mainly because i can't get into it.
I liked many aspects about both games, but the fear aspect in doom 3 is shot to shit once you goto hell, it just seems too fake by then (i know thats how the original game went)
As far as graphics? 2 different environments, no real way to compare them equally. I'd say they're on par with eachother.
I'd still have to vote HL2 even though i haven't beaten it yet.
I liked many aspects about both games, but the fear aspect in doom 3 is shot to shit once you goto hell, it just seems too fake by then (i know thats how the original game went)
As far as graphics? 2 different environments, no real way to compare them equally. I'd say they're on par with eachother.
I'd still have to vote HL2 even though i haven't beaten it yet.