"Doom3 can do it too"

[[SST]SLAYER]

ok...the bottom line is this...

Took Doom 3...Ran it on a ATI 7000...Looks like a game out of the 1990s....

Took Half Life 2...Ran it on a ATI 700...Looks as impressive as ever.

Yes...I admit that Doom 3 engine can do it, but however, the source engine is much more capable than the Doom 3 engine....

585206479[/snapback]

NO - SH1T!!!

Let's see SCAILABILITY maybe?

[InternalStorm]

Think of it this way:

In DOOM 3 you have the shiny, crappy textures and you walk around in the dark "HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU KNOW THE GRAPHICS ARE THAT GOOD??" because of the shiny black stuff all around you? You can't get good outdoor in DOOM 3, or they would have done it.

As for the SOURCE engine... we have RAVENHOLM! I mean, that is practically DOOM 3 material... just its more wooden, and has actual buildings that are found on earth not Mars. I'm sure that some SOURCE Fanboys could make a "Source can do it!" video with some highly bumpmapped crappy dark textures and create a DOOM 3 environment ten times better than DOOM 3 into a SOURCE environment like we have seen...

Think it over. SOURCE wins out as it can scale back and forth ;)

[[SST]SLAYER]

Think it over. SOURCE wins out as it can scale back and forth ;)

585206638[/snapback]

Thought about it DOOM III is supposed to be dark and scary Ravenholm is nowhere like DOOM III I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt but you lost my support and it became a mindless rant :wacko:

[THE_ROCK]

The Rock thinks Halflife 2 was a much better gaeme than DOOM 3

[Laughing-Man]

The Rock thinks Halflife 2 was a much better gaeme than DOOM 3

585206669[/snapback]

The man himself has spoken, we have a winner!

[[SST]SLAYER]

The Rock thinks Halflife 2 was a much better gaeme than DOOM 3

585206669[/snapback]

Yeah I think gaemes suck too,

I prefer games like HL2 and DOOM III

[Tungsten T]

zoo k I think it was great and the engin is great but 1 there was no textures so the v ram was not consumed and that is why it ran without ultralag and i think this engin will be amazing once the 512 meg cards go mainstream

[InternalStorm]

Thought about it DOOM III is supposed to be dark and scary Ravenholm is nowhere like DOOM III I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt but you lost my support and it became a mindless rant  :wacko:

585206667[/snapback]

Nah... Ravenholm does have the potential to be just like DOOM 3. Zombies popping out of the shadows? Remind you of an occurance that occurred.. oh lets see... 5 million times throughout DOOM 3? Okay...

Now all you need is to take away all the "realistic" buildings and environments, and go into MS Paint, paint a big black blob, and call it a texture. Then you need to design a room, from a compound in Mars, and then plaster it with loads of Bump Mapping to make it look better.

I'm 100% sure that Source can do that. It's not really that hard. Then, you add in the zombies, put them in a corner where you can't see with anything but your flashlight, and make them walk out making sounds as if they escaped from an insane asylum. Theres no fancy realistic photographic quality textures in DOOM, nor is there any place you see a blue sky for more than 5 seconds.

Voila! You've just made:

DOOM 3 Presented by SOURCE. © Copyright 2004 Valve Corporation. All rights reserved.

[[SST]SLAYER]

DOOM 3 Presented by SOURCE. ? Copyright 2004 Valve Corporation. All rights reserved.>

585206715[/snapback]

:no:: Nope I'm sorry I play each on maximum and there are very real differances

EDIT : I'm a huge HL2 FANBOY and think it's a better game all around I just think I should not go around keeping my mind closed to the fact that DOOM III rocks!

Edited December 31, 2004 by [SST]SLAYER

[InternalStorm]

lol... I know it rocks. Its a very good game... true to the old DOOMs but... I'm just saying that overall SOURCE is superior in the things it can do. The video proves that already... but for a DOOM game, what can you expect? It's just old skool shoot and kill. It's great for what it is. But SOURCE is more flexible, just because of what kind of a game HL2 is. It needs that versatility to accomadate all of the levels. Theres some really dark levels, some very bright levels... some enclosed, some beautiful outdoor environments.

DOOM could never deliver that. Because its meant to be the way it is, and its good at it. So, it is stupid to claim that the DOOM engine could possibly create a SOURCE like environment. It doesn't mean the games are superior or inferior, rather, just which "engine" is more versatile. SOURCE wins... but of course DOOM's engine does what DOOM does best. Same goes for SOURCE. So, no need for these guys to make more crappy videos lol

btw... i'm making really... crazy long posts on NeoWin for some reason. I just can't stop typing :p i'm guessing most people just ignore my posts cause they would take way too long to read compared to most 1 line posts... oh crap i'm doing it again :unsure:

[GameOverRob]

interesting

[[SST]SLAYER]

DOOM could never deliver that:unsure:

585206807[/snapback]

Time will tell I'm cutting and pasting this to a word doc so when and IF that changes we will see then ;)

[InternalStorm]

Haha... okay :p but how COULD it? Doom has always been an indoor, atmospheric game. Maybe not nearly as dark before, but now it certainly has with the 3rd installment. There never has been outdoors, and you think they will implement outdoor levels in the next Doom? that would be a huge change and require a totally different engine. Maybe they could liscence SOURCE :) haha

[jkinzer]

That wasn't really that impressive.

[notuptome2004]

Doom 3 fanboys and or peaple just think d3 can do better take a better look here at sources features agian all post it

http://www.valvesoftware.com/sourcelicense...inefeatures.htm

[[SST]SLAYER]

Haha... okay :p but how COULD it? Doom has always been an indoor, atmospheric game. Maybe not nearly as dark before, but now it certainly has with the 3rd installment. There never has been outdoors, and you think they will implement outdoor levels in the next Doom? that would be a huge change and require a totally different engine. Maybe they could liscence SOURCE :) haha

585206956[/snapback]

NOT DOOM!

The Engine should be able to handle it all I'm saying is dont stick your foot in your mouth just yet :o

[notuptome2004]

Remeber Doom 3 is Opengl and Halife 2spurce is Directx now it always have been that DX has been able to do more in features.

[neowin_hipster]

Ok first to shut a few of you n00bs up.

Opengl vs. Directx. Opengl is faster than direct3d and both are quite capable of exploiting features of modern gpu's, but api has nothing really to do with this so no zealotry please.

Doom III, well i have a radeon 8500, athlonxp 1800 and all top of the line components when i got this rig. Doom III was basically unplayable. Let's face it, doom III relies heavily on complex geometry and the dynamic lighting etc. on that geometry to make things look real. Source takes a cube, slaps 6 pictures on it and does a pixel shading. That way, people with integrated cards, or older equipment can run source based games but while removing many of the effects. I was able to run it with full dx8.1 at 1024x768 with 4x aniso filtering. CS:Source i can run at 1280. A few times it slowed but generally quite playable. I also tried turning down the shader effects. It ran a lot faster but it still looked great. There was still the shimmer from sunlight across tiles. Everything seemed more subtle, i almost preferred it sometimes. Due to the nature of things, Source is really screaming for AA and Aniso. AA on my 8500 is done through supersampling (ie: scaling down from a higher res) which is dog slow.

In playing HL2, there were a few problems i noticed with the engine. Namely the lack of attention by the artist, sometimes with extra calculations being performed when they should not because the light source is cut off. No culling done on the light. Also, sometimes you can see shading sometimes doing weird things... Shading in games is handled much differently than lighting and at different stages in a pipe believe it or not.

Throughout the game you got to play near lots of water, large open flat areas, hilly steep areas, underground, near rubble, on the coast, in the dark with zombies, etc... Ravenholm didn't seem to fit in with the plot, but they slapped it in there anyways.

As for the future, i'm pretty sure that as computers get faster, increasing and compressing geometry will help make source better, but shadows for stuff like buildings are lacking. Basically there's light and no light. Also, looking up close at almost anything is really crappy. Doom will probably need to be modified quite a bit to work outdoors. Mostly, texturing needs to get added, however I cannot figure out how they will do that and continue to run the already expensive dynamic lighting and high geometry. To me, dark shiny metal in Doom looked awesome (citadel looked kinda ugly inside, textures seriously lacked, however the white railings looked amazing) but anything organic looks hideous. HL2 definently excelled in the characters area.

HL2's bottlenecks included memory+bandwidth, gfx card, and cpu. Anyone of those could be the limitting device. It may be different for everyone. For me, it was all three but in different maps one mattered more than the other. Once again, i suspect doom to be mostly card limited except at 640x480 if you got a modern card.

I'm curious how many ATI supporters like HL2 and how many nvidia p33ps prefer doom.

[islanq]

I still like the source engine a lot better IMO it looks way nicer.

[InternalStorm]

NOT DOOM!

The Engine should be able to handle it all I'm saying is dont stick your foot in your mouth just yet  :o

585207285[/snapback]

:happy:

You're quite amusing... what you're saying is that the DOOM 3 engine should be able to handle detailed outdoor environments. Well, that is just what these "Doom can do it" people are trying to prove, and it isn't turning out beit because of performance or graphics detail.

[Osiris]

I personally dont care what these guys do or do not prove.

At the end of the day all I gave a damn about was that even on a 9600XT doom3 still ran like crap, whereas half life2 runs smooth in a high resolution and detailed graphics. Thats all I care about and I think thats the way it is for most people.

[notuptome2004]

Hallflife 2 is still better it sports technolagys that are used in Movies and have been for many many years.

[Long]

I think we shouldn't be comparing "quality" from one engine to another. Because quality depends on settings and to my knowledge, it all comes down to how much you want to pay for your equipment. Thus the quality for both games can be "perfect 10/10" is someone had the money to build a dooper machine.

Features on the otherhand cannot be added by plugging in some Geforce 6s.

[Andre]

I'm curious how many ATI supporters like HL2 and how many nvidia p33ps prefer doom.

585208159[/snapback]

R9800Pro here and I am all for D3 simply because it's 'id Software' as everything they have done previously is ahead of its time, as someone already mentioned. Give it a year or two and you will see softshadows (more or less implemented in D3 already), HDR and other things that again are already more or less inside the engine, just need to be polished for the upcoming hardware... it's all just matter of hardware. The same was with Quake3 and all other id engines.

To me it seems that those who bash D3, simply don't have the system to run it on. And again, D3 wasn't designed to run on all todays hardware.

Source engine has good things as well. However, after having seen Bloodlines, I somehow dislike the engine. Maybe it needs time as well, but I have a feeling that Source isn't that "easy" as D3 or any other id engine. VALVe concetrates on the gameplay, id Software on the engine. And they are both good at what they do... that's all.

Edited January 1, 2005 by Andre

[nX07]

SOURCE4Life.