| Page 2 of 4 |
|
|
 Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 02:18 Post subject: |
|
 |
| shroom wrote: | Well I'm not impressed by this video. Don't tell me the Source Engine can't make the clock and sky change accordingly...
Anyway, even if Doom has a better place (really better) than Half-Life in my heart, I must admit that HL2 is really well optimised and runs really better than Doom3 on an equivalent configuration.
So don't care what this or that engine can do (moreover if I can't see those hidden things that it is doing). I'm an end-user, all I need is a game which runs smoothly.
In my case, Source Engine wins.
Shroom |
Sure, It can change the clock and the sky accordingly, but never will it be able to do such realistic shadowing. Not to mention the moon and the sun in that video are actual entities in the game, being rendered way above the normal map.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 02:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | shroom wrote: | Well I'm not impressed by this video. Don't tell me the Source Engine can't make the clock and sky change accordingly...
Anyway, even if Doom has a better place (really better) than Half-Life in my heart, I must admit that HL2 is really well optimised and runs really better than Doom3 on an equivalent configuration.
So don't care what this or that engine can do (moreover if I can't see those hidden things that it is doing). I'm an end-user, all I need is a game which runs smoothly.
In my case, Source Engine wins.
Shroom |
Sure, It can change the clock and the sky accordingly, but never will it be able to do such realistic shadowing. Not to mention the moon and the sun in that video are actual entities in the game, being rendered way above the normal map. |
Well I'm not a guy who thinks that the better graphics the game has, the better the game is... And I don't have the best graphic card nor the best computer so I'm sure these nice shadows combined with quality textures would totaly mess the gameplay using Doom3 engine...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 02:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| shroom wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | shroom wrote: | Well I'm not impressed by this video. Don't tell me the Source Engine can't make the clock and sky change accordingly...
Anyway, even if Doom has a better place (really better) than Half-Life in my heart, I must admit that HL2 is really well optimised and runs really better than Doom3 on an equivalent configuration.
So don't care what this or that engine can do (moreover if I can't see those hidden things that it is doing). I'm an end-user, all I need is a game which runs smoothly.
In my case, Source Engine wins.
Shroom |
Sure, It can change the clock and the sky accordingly, but never will it be able to do such realistic shadowing. Not to mention the moon and the sun in that video are actual entities in the game, being rendered way above the normal map. |
Well I'm not a guy who thinks that the better graphics the game has, the better the game is... And I don't have the best graphic card nor the best computer so I'm sure these nice shadows combined with quality textures would totaly mess the gameplay using Doom3 engine... |
Once again,
ENGINE != GAMEPLAY
We are talking about the engine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 02:42 Post subject: |
|
|
For me, HL2 runs A LOT better than Doom 3. It also just feels better. There was something about Doom 3 that didn't feel right. HL2 looked a lot more realistic than Doom 3 too.
From what I've seen so far, Source seems a lot better to mod as well and things such as the physics system contribute a lot to gameplay although I'm not sure if stuff such as the physics system is included in the engine.
I've been playing Vampire recently and that also has a great atmosphere and feel to it. When it boils down to it the raw technical capabilities are pretty academic. Yes it can do some fancy lighting but there's something lacking about it when it comes down to making an entertaining game to play which is what matters. I could be wrong and someone might create a great game with the Doom 3 engine but I doubt it.
Im a cockfag
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 02:43 Post subject: |
|
|
| dryan wrote: | For me, HL2 runs A LOT better than Doom 3. It also just feels better. There was something about Doom 3 that didn't feel right. HL2 looked a lot more realistic than Doom 3 too.
From what I've seen so far, Source seems a lot better to mod as well and things such as the physics system contribute a lot to gameplay although I'm not sure if stuff such as the physics system is included in the engine.
I've been playing Vampire recently and that also has a great atmosphere and feel to it. When it boils down to it the raw technical capabilities are pretty academic. Yes it can do some fancy lighting but there's something lacking about it when it comes down to making an entertaining game to play which is what matters. I could be wrong and someone might create a great game with the Doom 3 engine but I doubt it. |
Quake 4.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 02:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | shroom wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | shroom wrote: | Well I'm not impressed by this video. Don't tell me the Source Engine can't make the clock and sky change accordingly...
Anyway, even if Doom has a better place (really better) than Half-Life in my heart, I must admit that HL2 is really well optimised and runs really better than Doom3 on an equivalent configuration.
So don't care what this or that engine can do (moreover if I can't see those hidden things that it is doing). I'm an end-user, all I need is a game which runs smoothly.
In my case, Source Engine wins.
Shroom |
Sure, It can change the clock and the sky accordingly, but never will it be able to do such realistic shadowing. Not to mention the moon and the sun in that video are actual entities in the game, being rendered way above the normal map. |
Well I'm not a guy who thinks that the better graphics the game has, the better the game is... And I don't have the best graphic card nor the best computer so I'm sure these nice shadows combined with quality textures would totaly mess the gameplay using Doom3 engine... |
Once again,
ENGINE != GAMEPLAY
We are talking about the engine. |
I'm not stupid... But you can't run a game only with an engine. Once again, I'm an end-user and I only care about the results. So, cool if this engine can do a lot of nice stuff. Now let's see how that runs used in the last game with textures and gameplay. Got my point ?
You started your thread talking about your point on why Doom3 Engine is better. I never rejected what you said. But I have another point of view on the subject. So for me, Source handles better the low-end computers and it is my choice as best engine.
Last edited by shroom on Wed, 12th Jan 2005 02:46; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 02:46 Post subject: |
|
|
I can't see it being anywhere near as good as HL2 but I guess it's down to personal preference.
Im a cockfag
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 03:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| shroom wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | shroom wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | shroom wrote: | Well I'm not impressed by this video. Don't tell me the Source Engine can't make the clock and sky change accordingly...
Anyway, even if Doom has a better place (really better) than Half-Life in my heart, I must admit that HL2 is really well optimised and runs really better than Doom3 on an equivalent configuration.
So don't care what this or that engine can do (moreover if I can't see those hidden things that it is doing). I'm an end-user, all I need is a game which runs smoothly.
In my case, Source Engine wins.
Shroom |
Sure, It can change the clock and the sky accordingly, but never will it be able to do such realistic shadowing. Not to mention the moon and the sun in that video are actual entities in the game, being rendered way above the normal map. |
Well I'm not a guy who thinks that the better graphics the game has, the better the game is... And I don't have the best graphic card nor the best computer so I'm sure these nice shadows combined with quality textures would totaly mess the gameplay using Doom3 engine... |
Once again,
ENGINE != GAMEPLAY
We are talking about the engine. |
I'm not stupid... But you can't run a game only with an engine. Once again, I'm an end-user and I only care about the results. So, cool if this engine can do a lot of nice stuff. Now let's see how that runs used in the last game with textures and gameplay. Got my point ?
You started your thread talking about your point on why Doom3 Engine is better. I never rejected what you said. But I have another point of view on the subject. So for me, Source handles better the low-end computers and it is my choice as best engine. |
I honestly dont give a hoot n' nickle about how it runs on your lower end system, this thread was created to discuss why the engine was better because of its abilities, not gameplay, or how good it ran.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 03:15 Post subject: |
|
|
So you're trying to argue that an engine is better by ignoring half of the attributes that make an engine good?!
Im a cockfag
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 03:16 Post subject: |
|
|
| dryan wrote: | | So you're trying to argue that an engine is better by ignoring half of the attributes that make an engine good?! |
I never came here to discuss performance of the engine, because it doesnt matter. Why? Because it performs well loaded up with high quality textures. If you dont beleive me, you can simply do the work by converting the HL2 textures to the textures doom3 uses, then plug them in. I used to have a link that showed the game using the HL2 textures, and it ran just fine.
But once again, this thread was not created about that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 03:31 Post subject: |
|
|
So what exactly is this thread about?
Very few of us here have the technical knowledge to make a detailed and informed comparison of the technical capabilities of the different engines so what are you trying to discuss? The only way we can judge is by playing the games.
Half Life 2 was better than Doom 3 graphically imo. It was more realistic and I preferred the "feel" of it. Some lighting effect is irrelevant tbh.
Im a cockfag
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nerrd
Posts: 3607
Location: Poland / USA
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 04:55 Post subject: |
|
|
Its about Mchart desperatly trying to convince everyone that doom engine is better. I get his point about the realtime shadows. When I first realised that the is no player shadow in HL2 I was disapointed.
My vote stays with Cryengine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:00 Post subject: |
|
|
no player shadows?????????? Players have shadows in the game.
There is just no real radiosity in the game because half life 2 was made for a wide range of pc's Although Gabe Newell said the engine is cable of real time lighting and everything and will be used in later games.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Gabe says a lot of things. Yes, there are shadows in HL2, but they are pre-rendered. The problem with the source engine is that even though it was designed as a future gen game, by the time the future got here, it was no longer a future gen engine.
Last edited by Mchart on Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:09; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:08 Post subject: |
|
|
Does it matter?!
Im a cockfag
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:09 Post subject: |
|
|
if that was true then why on lower video cards do you loose the blur effects that softon the edges to make them appear more real? Also I would believe that Valve was smart enough to code the source engine to live past half life 2 and we all know the future is real dynamic lighting
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, because source introduces nothing new.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| psychoace wrote: | | if that was true then why on lower video cards do you loose the blur effects that softon the edges to make them appear more real? Also I would believe that Valve was smart enough to code the source engine to live past half life 2 and we all know the future is real dynamic lighting |
Well I hate to break the news, but source is in no way capable of it, ever. It just came out a few years to late. I see your arguement, but its just never going to happen..
I'm not denying that HL2 is a good game, hell its a GREAT game. But im just very disapointed in valve for selling something it isnt. It does not have ground breaking, future graphics just like is said on the box. Stick some textures from doom3 into HL2, and people would be vomiting, and the game would have sucked. Valve should feel lucky they have such good artists.
Last edited by Mchart on Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:14 Post subject: |
|
|
I guess we will see. Anyhow by the time doom 3 engine is fully optimized and stable unreal 3 engine will be out and will rule the world.
Also stop saying shit like "and who cares" or "so what" if you don't care about the conversation don't fucking post. That is not directed to mchart just the one's who fall under that catagory.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| psychoace wrote: | I guess we will see. Anyhow by the time doom 3 engine is fully optimized and stable unreal 3 engine will be out and will rule the world.
Also stop saying shit like "and who cares" or "so what" if you don't care about the conversation don't fucking post. That is not directed to mchart just the one's who fall under that catagory. |
Yes, that will be a great engine no doubt. But doom3 engine will still be around for a LONG time. Look how far the quake 3 engine went. Quake 3 -> MOHPA. If you ask me, thats pretty f-ing good for an engine. Doom3 engine will be the same way, lots of potential.
It will be great when quake4 comes out just because the engine will be fairly more optimised by then, people will have better systems, and the coding for vehicles and the awesome john carmack physics system that was put into doom3 will be easier to work with. Modding then will be easier for the engine, and we will see some very cool stuff.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 05:38 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah I hope it all turns good. The unreal3 engine makes me wet my pants though. Doom3 looks awsome no doubt but the amount of detail they are acheiving compared to what doom3 is just blows my mind. I hope doom3 can modify there engine enough to keep up with the jones's in 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 14:17 Post subject: |
|
|
Gotta admit that the Unreal3 engine demo video thats about or was about months ago was amazing.
Good work on the Doom3 video its nice to see that it is much more capable of more than just the darkness we saw in Doom 3. It gives me hope for the future of it and we should see some very nice games using the Doom3 engine in the future (I Hope).
As for Half Life 2 I must admit the game is awesome and I found it much more enjoyable than Doom3 for some reason. As for which engine is the best I dont really care. It doesn't make any difference to me at the end of the day, its what people do with it and what ends up the finished product that I care about.
All the best with the Doom3 stuff your doing and thx for posting the vid.
Allan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 18:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| acrh2 wrote: | | acrh2 wrote: | | What detail settings were you using to record this demo? And what computer (cpu/gpu) ? |
BUMP |
What the hell? When are you going to tell us what settings were used to record the demo and what hardware was running it?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 18:43 Post subject: |
|
|
| acrh2 wrote: | | acrh2 wrote: | | acrh2 wrote: | | What detail settings were you using to record this demo? And what computer (cpu/gpu) ? |
BUMP |
What the hell? When are you going to tell us what settings were used to record the demo and what hardware was running it? |
Im not the one that made the video, from looking at it I would assume all in game settings are set to high, not sure about AA/AF though. You can download that test map your self and run it your self if your that interested.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 19:10 Post subject: |
|
|
who cares about the engine?
its the end product that matters
and besides if we are going to compare engines the cry engine totally rapes both source and doom3, i mean look it can render out a whole goddamn island with a shitload of trees and infinite view distance
try that with with doom 3 and source engine hah
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 19:16 Post subject: |
|
|
| gunhero wrote: | who cares about the engine?
its the end product that matters
and besides if we are going to compare engines the cry engine totally rapes both source and doom3, i mean look it can render out a whole goddamn island with a shitload of trees and infinite view distance
try that with with doom 3 and source engine hah |
I do care because thats what most of the FPS games are going to be based on... And I do think u can make a jungle with Source Engine heck u could do it with the quake 1 engine(hl1)...
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
morxxx
Posts: 264
Location: Germany
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 20:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mutantius wrote: |
I do think u can make a jungle with Source Engine |
It has to load a new section every ten minutes. I don't think so.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 20:05 Post subject: |
|
|
Dude a jungle themed map sure can be created in Source though not in the same scale as Cryengine... the Islands are huge with that engine...
"Why don't you zip it, Zipfero?" - fraich3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005 20:52 Post subject: |
|
|
| morxxx wrote: | best grafic - farcry
best physik - hl2
soon bf2 + stalker 
and shit that nobody needs - d3
but thx for the vid looks interessant |
You're right, Carmack has had his share of failure with 3D engines. Seriously.
HL2 = Valve's first commercial engine (from what I remember from the code leak, its still a revamped Q1 engine). Was delivered AT LEAST a year too late, so it's already old. Lots of promises, but they didnt deliver.
Doom3 = 4th generation engine from the people who basically invented 3D shooters. Carmack is known as a 3D engine guru, in a 'nobody-is-better' way. He started working on the D3 engine by himself.
Also the differences: Carmack enjoys coding. He enjoys the games he makes. He just loves making them. Valve, the only person we really about the team is Gabe, and he's a complete moron. "Someone stole my password".. come on now.
Doom3 was a tech demo, we can all agree to that. The game still sold a shitload and I enjoyed it. But it was just a 'show off' of technologies used in the engine.
I'm not a fanboy and even if I were, try to prove your points with more information than 'it's teh no good shitt!!11". It's just a fact that the D3 engine is more capable. It's not about agreeing or not.
2 + 2 = 4 even if your calculator is slower.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
