"Doom3 can do it too"

[Symbiotic Hat]

Well I happen to think that Doom3 graphics are much better but that video is total garbage. It obviously runs like complete crap, and it looks like Quake 3 graphics. Who ever made this video only made the debate worse.

[mattmatik]

Remember in the beginning of the Doom 3 game, where you went in the elevator and briefly outdoors on Mars? You could see plainly it looked very bad... Doom 3 is a game where there are crappy textures plastered with shiny bump mapping and lighting, and then called a game. How COULD you make good outdoor environments with that philosophy?

585202656[/snapback]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am considering I don't spend too much time debating game engines, but wasn't most, if not all, of Doom 3 indoors? Personally, I think it would have been a waste of time and resources to design some spectacular outdoor environment when it only lasts for maybe 5 seconds.

I don't know, I don't think we've seen the best of the Doom3 engine or Source. To base their futures off of the initial release is kind of narrow-minded.

[jerry]

Looks very dated and extremely sluggish. I'll stick with the Source engine thanks. :)

[fkid]

Sluggish and crappy video? It is an early beta idiots!

[Post-It Note]

Yes the video framerate is horrible. Is there a better one?

EDIT: The video is sluggish because it is at 1024x768, and it's an XviD. Sigh...

[jerry]

Sluggish and crappy video? It is an early beta idiots!

585202739[/snapback]

I can take crappy but there's no excuse for sluggish video. They could have atleast used a faster machine or is it that outdoor environments make fast machines chug too ?

without the insults thankyou - Keldyn

[Circaflex]

really what they should have done was get some super computer with sli to demonstrate their progress, it kind of turns me away seeing such ugly textures and nothing really going on, and its lagging that bad.

[NTCTZEN]

I am a certified Half-Life 2 Fanboy! :p

But I think since there lies a significant difference in technologies -

Doom 3 using mostly OpenGL (& only John Carmack knows what else) for rendering,

and Half-Life 2 using Direct X. Such comparisons as to whether one game can replicate visual attributes of the other aren't realistic.

There are obvious differences among the 2 games/technologies, refraction property is just one such example!

Sure Doom 3 was set in dark settings and people didn't get to see it in open environments. And I agree that Doom 3 obviously had better lighting (compared to dark alleys in HL2), since lighting plays the most important role in dark scenarios.

But seeing this video makes me feel SOURCE is far superior afterall. The 2 Rs of HL2's graphical galore; reflection and refraction are missing in this video. Even the sun doesn't look that natural especially around the end of the video when its shown behind the clouds, remember how the sun looked from the red barn at beginning of "Water Hazard"? I think that's enuff said ... I was expecting this video to be better than this! :huh:

[Nexus-]

I still want to see some proof that not all the characters in doom 3 engines are plastic :x

[Otacon]

The D3 engine is not build for this

[islanq]

That looked like pure crap to me,. i'm sorry, it just didn't do it for me.

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

Models were good, but I just feel that HL2's Source is a stronger engine.

I think especially given how well source runs on a machine when compared to the D3 engine - source can thunder HL2 along on my machine at 1280x1024 32bit with 4x AA on. Doom 3 I can barely play at 800x600 with no AA. And I just like the way source looks, the way the physics behave, etc etc..

Thats my 2 cents anyway! :)

[parhamreza]

I think the Doom 3 engine is more capable, it was just released way ahead of its time, I do agree however that it is ignorant and stupid to just base our assumptions on the games in which the engines came wrapped around in because obviously the engines didn't get to show all that they could, although the source engine got plenty more opportunities to show off. remember, this is john carmack we're talking about here.

[mariusu]

i don't know, but i'm not so impressed about it.

nevertheless, the doom3 engine is better than the source engine - just my opinion

[Ivand]

If they did that, then it probably wouldn't run at all.

585202523[/snapback]

:laugh:

[lnmnky]

So they've just rigged a huge light bulb up to a track in the sky?

If that's a day and night cycle, then why haven't we got it earlier?

[killme]

hl2 engine simply kicks ass

[Shyatic]

I think there's a confusion as to what Doom3 LOOKS like versus what HL2 LOOKS LIKE. It's not about appearance, an engine controls how graphics load, how physics are handled, how lighting appears (dynamic or otherwise) etc. Okay, maybe the Doom3 character models aren't the best, maybe the terrain isn't either. Maybe the game needed more work and to be frank, myself personally, I wasn't *terribly* impressed with Doom3. Half Life 2 was presented in a much better format, ran better on my machine, and its eyecandy and whole presentation was astounding. The game was simply amazing.

But it's engine well... it's not very scalable. For many, many years, id Software has taken the lead in developing an engine that will set the pace for years to come. This has happened since Quake 1 to Quake 3, and they recently (if I remember correctly) released the Q3 engine for open source usage for developers to take for free. So while Doom3 may not have run very well now, it has in my eyes, set the pace for future gaming, especially since Carmack and Co are back at work optimizing it and fixing the complaints people have had about it (many of which have been voiced in this thread).

Personally... I think that physics-wise, it's a wash between HL2 engine and Doom3's engine. In fact, HL2 is really using the Havok physics engine (it's also used in FarCry), so it's not a creation of Valve anyway. System demand is currently higher from Doom3 but it's also because the engine is based on OpenGL, which is very portable for multiple developers to use. Do you think that id Software cares if HL2 runs more smoothly on your Windows PC? Not at all. Their revenue does not come in the form of the games they sell (not the better part of it, anyway), but rather in licensing their technology out to other developers. How many games can you think of in the past years, that've used id Software's engine in it? There are a *lot*. Epic Games (Unreal Tournament) follow the same type of business plan, by licensing out the Unreal Engine. Valve does not, and it's a fundamental difference.

By using a platform that is portable to both a Linux, Mac, AND Windows audience, they have simply increased their market share and profitability in the long term. If a developer has the idea to release a game for Mac and the PC, then they can't turn to Valve... they will turn to id Software'e engine. Additionally... I am of the opinion that the lighting effects (which are the bulk of what processing is required by the engine and why it runs so slowly now) are far more important that physics and things of that nature. CPUs will always get faster because many applications demand it, but graphics cards? -- I mean comon... There's no innovation in graphics cards unless there's an engine built to challenge the current limitations. id Software has bought about numerous technological breakthrus for graphics card vendors, including dynamic T&L, antialiasing effects, and a LOT more. And with the new engine, they are telling graphics card manufacturers to ramp up their efforts in order to get people to run their engine better. Because let's face it... if the next KICKASS SUPER DOOPER OMGWTFBBQ game comes out using the D3 engine... you will want the graphics card that runs that game best. It's why ATI experienced a surge of growth over the last year or so, when all benchmarks and questions pointed that HL2 would run better on the ATI cards than the nVidia ones (at the time, anyway).

I think most of the people who are fanboys of one side or another are pretty narrow minded, at least in this thread. Building an engine for a game is different than what you may necessarily be presented with. You may not like a game, it may run choppy, but the underlying technology, limits of the engine, the dedication of the developers TO that engine, is far more important than what you have "in the now". HL2 has it all right now, and I tip my hat to that. But being that they are not independant like id Software, I will give a huge nod to id's favor, since they have proven time and time again, that the lone remaining INDEPENDANT game development firm has delivered to their customer base over and over, and made great products with great vision. So while the HL2 fanboys and D3 fanboys argue over what looks better.. I know, based on history, based on dedication, and based on the limits of what each engine has... that the D3 engine will be a smash hit and a lot of you will be changing your tune as the engine is tweaked, and video cards better support it, because the best games WILL be running the D3 engine. Not the HL2 one. And in the long term.... that's all that matters.

[sp0rk]

Comparing past id game engines to Valve's past engine is ludicrous. HL1 didn't have a unique engine, so there was no need to license it. They are, however, licensing Source. Also, you say that they don't care about how well a game runs on a user's machine, they make their money from licensing...that's ridiculous. Other companies aren't going to pay for a license that they know won't run well on their customers' machines.

You also talk about scalability of an engine. How can you even make that argument in this thread that is focused on a horrible video of the Doom 3 engine running on an outside map? The Doom 3 engine, in my opinion, is not scalable at all. It's designed for indoor maps. Tell me how many other settings make use of an underground series of tunnels.

Edited December 31, 2004 by sp0rk

[Shyatic]

Comparing past id game engines to Valve's past engine is ludicrous.  HL1 didn't have a unique engine, so there was no need to license it.  They are, however, licensing Source.  Also, you say that they don't care about how well a game runs on a user's machine, they make their money from licensing...that's ridiculous.  Other companies aren't going to pay for a license that they know won't run well on their customers' machines.

You also talk about scalability of an engine.  How can you even make that argument in this thread that is focused on a horrible video of the Doom 3 engine running on an outside map?  The Doom 3 engine, in my opinion, is not scalable at all.  It's designed for indoor maps.  Tell me how many other settings make use of an underground series of tunnels.

585204063[/snapback]

If you believe that Doom3's engine won't run exceptionally within a year, we already have a fundamental difference of opinion. id Software's licensing includes any work done on the engine to be included in the final product of said customer. So if id Software makes enhancements over the year to optimize better than they have, the customer will get that for free. Makes licensing VERY enticing to software developers. Additionally, id Software has a reputation for doing just that -- they don't sit on their laurels with regards to the engine. The Q3 engine (and it's why I bought it up) went thru many changes AFTER Q3 Arena was released, and it's shown up in other games.

Valve on the other hand, is not independantly owned, and everything will be done in the name of profit rather than progress. It's not that this is a bad thing.. but I don't trust it as much as I trust people that work for the 'love' of it, rather than for what they get out of it. Licensing the Source engine won't be tough, I'm sure many people will take it as it runs well out of the box, it's got great features and physics included, and seems pretty darn stable. But they will CHARGE for additions to the engine (future optimizations and the like), they are going to CHARGE for the licensing options, the estimated products, etc. id Software's licensing has been relatively lax, as they sell the engine for usage in a game for some big fee. There's no followup, and additions to the engine are included in that price. It's why they have been so successful as an independant firm.

You mentioned that Doom3's engine is meant for indoor maps. How did you come to this conclusion, exactly? While I would agree that the lighting effects are definately more useful in a dark, indoor environment, that doesn't mean they can't be use outdoors as well, in water reflections for example, or metal or whatever. Then there is what I feel, superior sound engine in Doom3 over HL2. Since both Valve and id were not impressed with EAX both wrote their own sound engines to complement the game. That's just another selling point.

To address they 'they don't care about how well it runs' well, I think you misunderstood. id's engine is going to be a benchmark. It's just that simple. Read the gaming magazines of people 'in the know' and they will also agree. Valve's engine is definately impressive but it doesn't make strides in ANY area, but rather is a great overall engine with small steps forward. The STRIDES I'm talking about relate directly to lighting effects in Doom3's engine. There is nothing like them, and to be blunt, Doom3 is a real sh*tty game to showcase those strides. Additionally, both developers work with end graphics card manufacturers in order to release newer drivers to support the effects they have more efficiently, which is why I am confident that with upcoming drivers as well as engine revisions for Doom3, it will run far better than it did. OpenGL support is not on the top of anybody's list when there are no games available for it -- DirectX on the other hand, runs great because graphics card manufacturers are going to write drivers and chipset instructions based for what's popular. Since the Q3 engine was out of the picture, the PAIN engine (Painkiller) and a bunch of other popular DirectX engines released are the ones that are going to be written for. Now looking at games like UT2004 and Doom3 which utilize OpenGL.... believe that drivers will be written to optimize properly for those rendering engines.

You are right, Valve's engine will definately be licensed. But as easily as id's? Maybe... it depends on the way they choose to license. From past history with Vivendi, I have a good feeling how that will go, to maximize profit. id Software's licensing has been relatively lax, and in the long run, I think that pays off for them. They are also dedicated to the gaming scene as a whole, having open sourced (why again, I bought up Q3), past engines so people can learn, improve, and borrow from some ideas and concepts already built by id. I'm not a Valve or id fanboy... I'm just a student of history and logic. And if you follow the history of Vivendi's marketing and price structuring, their logic is dictated by stockholders and computer illiterate CEOs, where id Software is run by those who actually create and maintain the game from scratch.

In the end, they are both great engines. Doom3's is rough around the edges with less driver support, but they have made great techological advancements with regard to lighting... I think that's pretty important, because of how it can be used, and how it can STRESS hardware (purposely so... it encourages growth in the hardware field as I've said). Valve's software is a polished product that runs on Windows-only machines. And while that's a pretty big field to be in, with the upcoming $500 Mac machines and Linux going more mainstream... better to have your pockets open to recieve additional sources of income from those places :)

That's just my opinion though... it will all boil down to HOW Vivendi licenses the engine.

[Phemo]

That's just my opinion though... it will all boil down to HOW Vivendi licenses the engine.

585204248[/snapback]

Indeed, and while I have no idea about the details behind it, there is already a game using the Source engine available. In fact, it's been out for almost a month - Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines.

I agree with all your points by the way, it just seems that you're not aware that Valve have already licensed the engine or that a game using it is already available :)

[Shyatic]

Indeed, and while I have no idea about the details behind it, there is already a game using the Source engine available.  In fact, it's been out for almost a month - Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines.

I agree with all your points by the way, it just seems that you're not aware that Valve have already licensed the engine or that a game using it is already available  :)

585204262[/snapback]

Oh, I was aware... but as far as I know, any engine enhancements/optimizations wouldn't make it to the game as it released shortly after HL2 did... so there wasn't time to do it in pre-production of the game.

Time will tell though... RavenSoft already licensed the engine for Quake4, so that may prove to be interesting. Quake is generally a pretty fast paced game (unlike what Doom3 was), so it may give us a better idea of how it's going to pan out for both engines and show off some more of their capabilities.

[sp0rk]

I know you meant run natively, but HL2 will run in Linux using Cedega.

[Shyatic]

I know you meant run natively, but HL2 will run in Linux using Cedega.

585204319[/snapback]

That could be interesting to see... I am not sure if there's a performance hit (or not). I'm not familiar with it enough to say one way or another but I'd be interested to see.

[Hoopla]

Well, after finishing HL2 I went back to play a few levels of Doom3 again and was astonished by how the Doom3 graphics were so much superior. I'm sorry Valve fanboys, but although HL2 is a better game, it looks like a Saturday morning cartoon compared to Doom3.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am more excited about future games that will use the Doom3 engine than games that will use Source.