|
|
| Page 3 of 5 |
Phluxed
VIP Member
Posts: 4911
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
|
 Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 03:13 Post subject: |
|
 |
I'll just play the devil's advocate here, and say, how are you certain the quality of one isnt better than the other? Have you gone in and tested the khz of each level? Isnt that the only way to check sound quality if we arent discussing what is being used in the rendering engie *
I don't know what you mean about the outdoor levels not being rendered nicely, could you give me a reference map so I can go look for myself please.
*Textures to Graphics, Audio Files to Sound
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 03:22 Post subject: |
|
|
Did I say anything about the quality of Doom 3's graphics. No, they are very well done. But the engine cannot render large outdoor environemts of the scale or quality present in farcry.
Also, the quality of sound I'm referring to are the different effects the engine supports, such as the doppler effect etc. Any game can have high khz sound, thats got nothing to do with the engine.
I know you want to defend Doom 3 here phluxed but you know what i'm talking about.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 03:46 Post subject: |
|
|
i reckon it could handle the quality of far cry quite easily. and we'll see about source, maps can be 8 times the size (64times the volume) so if u wanna spend a few hundred hours making a massive map u can go test.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 04:05 Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose, like most other threads here, this should have been started in the bitching forum. Once again it has broken down into FvF (fanboy vs fanboy). Allow me to correct some common misconceptions.
1. Doom 3 can't render large outdoor levels properly.
Wrong. Very fucking wrong. The only reason Doom 3 does not have large outdoor levels is because they were not placed there by the developers. period.
Here's a screenshot from Quake 4, which is based on the same tech as D3 (kinda like HL2 and Vampire)
[img]http://www.gengamers.com/html/quake4-7.html[/img]
2. software-based sound rendering vs hardware-based sound rendering: Like stated before, these are very different. If you have an Audigy 2 platinum and a Z600 5.1 system, you're obviously better with hardware-reliant rendering, as your hardware can provide a significantly improved sound experience, while at the same time alleviating the stress from your CPU. OTOH if there's an Adlib on your PC, you'd be better off with software.
3. The engine is the quality of the game that runs it.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
An engine is the platform for the designers: they can make full use of the engine and cover up it's flaws with intelligent design (see HL2 outdoors) or they can expose the engine's flaws and fuck up the whole experience (Thief 3). Please, do not confuse the game with the engine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 04:11 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 06:05 Post subject: |
|
|
I vote for Source engine, I dont belive its the best looking but its almost as good yet run good on my machine. In short, Source gives the most for the buck. Farcry is the opposite, when it came you realy shouldnt buy it if your comp was older then 1 year.. and thats plain horrible imo.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 06:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Source with a proper heapsize does injustice to the other two performance-wise, while maintaining a more-than-decent quality.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 08:46 Post subject: |
|
|
So based on that one screenshot of a game thats not out for a while, you're presuming that the Doom3 engine can render large outdoor environments?
Maybe you should take your head out your ass and start looking at the implementation that we currently have. The multiplayer levels in Doom3 are pathetic, they're tiny, with few numbers of players. Whether thats due to performance, or engine limitations or both, who cares. If the engine can't render large outdoor scenes because they would have terrible performance, thats a limitation of the engine right there.
Farcry is better then Doom3 at outdoors. Fact.
With regards to HL2, lets see how large the maps are for the mods that come out. I heard that one teams are doing a battlefield 1942 mod, I find that hard to believe, but we'll see.
Last edited by AnimalMother on Fri, 26th Nov 2004 09:31; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 09:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by Yondaime on Mon, 2nd Dec 2024 16:10; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MAD_MAX333
Moderator
Posts: 7020
Location: Toronto, Canada...eh
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 09:44 Post subject: |
|
|
half life 2... excels at indoor and outdoor and is TOOOO smooth for comfort
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vurt
Posts: 13821
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 10:54 Post subject: |
|
|
HL2 looks very nice, but it cant handle very big areas at all which imho is a big let down.
I think the Stalker-engine will be better and hopefully it can handle big areas so that the immersion will be much better than HL2. I prefer 3D-engines that makes you feel like you're in a *world* where you can roam freely, HL2 doesnt have this feeling due to all the loading.. Games that has "levels" feels very old school, in a bad way..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 11:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| vurt wrote: | HL2 looks very nice, but it cant handle very big areas at all which imho is a big let down.
I think the Stalker-engine will be better and hopefully it can handle big areas so that the immersion will be much better than HL2. I prefer 3D-engines that makes you feel like you're in a *world* where you can roam freely, HL2 doesnt have this feeling due to all the loading.. Games that has "levels" feels very old school, in a bad way.. |
I agree, this was one of my main gripes with the source engine.This is one of the reasons why I like the Cryengine so much.
I remember gothic had hardly any loading, thats partially why I like it so much more then morrowind.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saner
Posts: 6877
Location: Uk
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 11:45 Post subject: |
|
|
Source is the only Engline that we can gudge fairly really (IMO) as we have seen it in use in 2 games (HL2 and Vampire)
I am really intrested in what both the Doom3 and Fc engine can do in other games, when other develeopers get a hold of them and make good use of it.
We also (well most of us) possibly havent seen D3 to its full effect as it needs a monster to run at full detail, but again we will see that in the future.
| ragnarus wrote: |
I saw things like that in here and in other "woman problems" topics so...... Am I the only one that thinks some authorities needs to be alerted about Saner and him possibly being a rapist and/or kidnapper ? |
Saner is not being serious. Unless its the subject of Santa!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 12:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | | Pizda2 wrote: | | kakek wrote: | ...your range of view is always conveniently limited by the layout ...
..and not the physic engine, since it's havoc, and not source....
I vote for him. |
Farcry uses the same limited view trick, and the physics of HL2 (as stated above) are more advanced and superior to that of FC.
|
Please tell me what the fuck you're talking about, limited view!? You can see whole islands ffs, and they looks great. There are no limitations at all.
You all are forgetting what this thread is about. THE ENGINE not the game. neither HL2 or Doom3 come close to the cryengines capabilities at outdoor, and the indoor are good too. Then there is the constant loading on HL2 and Doom3 and there is only one load for farcry.
Personally I enjoyed HL2 more, but engine wise it's nothing special, except the physics. |
Well, when you play FC and you look at the far end of the island, you wont see bushes, and other detail. When you zoom with the scope these things they load real fast, that´s why some people lag and swap a bit when zooming from far distences, also, textures from far distences look blurry, and low res, when you get closer it loads to a high res texture, every game uses this limited view trick gayness, if it didn´t no comp could handle it well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 12:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pizda2 wrote: |
Well, when you play FC and you look at the far end of the island, you wont see bushes, and other detail. When you zoom with the scope these things they load real fast, that´s why some people lag and swap a bit when zooming from far distences, also, textures from far distences look blurry, and low res, when you get closer it loads to a high res texture, every game uses this limited view trick gayness, if it didn´t no comp could handle it well.
|
yeah true. But it doesn't disturb... Far cry has an excellent LOD system, which allows the engine to have gigantic islands with very detailed objects even from very near. It's an engine feature, a plus for far cry. Neither doom3 nor hl2 have a working lod system. This can be major letdown, the engine automatically has disadvantages in big levels.
| Quote: |
We also (well most of us) possibly havent seen D3 to its full effect as it needs a monster to run at full detail, but again we will see that in the future.
|
Afaik, doom3 in full effect just has less texture compression (textures look a litle bit sharper), better & exacter shadow rendering and some minor better looking effects (which can't be added with console, id removed em for performance). The overall look of the game won't improve but in tiny details judging from what we know.
| Quote: | | And that bit about level largeness in that review. Who says level largeness is a good thing? I quite enjoyed the small area of combat, not to say it didnt get repeditive, but again, that was all gameplay. Theres no real saying whether or not Doom 3 could have done a fantastic outdoor large environment job, but I remember the last level had a lot of detail around the room, and the room was rather huge. |
It's the engine that counts, not game preferences. Being able to render both big and small levels is a key feature for game developing. It can increase immersiveness of a game extremely. Imagine Vampire bloodlines without any loading times between zone transitions, no loading when entering new buildings etc. And now imagine GTA3,vice city and san andreas with loading times after each street.
get the point? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 13:28 Post subject: |
|
|
From a technological point of view, the most advanced of the 3.
Doom 3 actually asnt that good of a game to showcase the engine, since it had its gameplay set onto immersive atmoscphere and dark hallways.
Quake 4, which will be using Doom 3 Technology should shed some better light as to what the engine can do.
But for comparison, when Quake 3 engine came out, many thought it couldnt render out door areas very well, nor could it cope with a big amount of charecters on screen. Recent releases like Call Of Duty and Medal Of Honor proove that wrong.
My vote will be like this:
Doom 3 Technology
Crytek - very impressive engine.
Source - it looks ok on screenshots, but as someone mentioned, its mainly due to the artists at valve which make it stand out.
As for Physics, Source uses a pre built modified Havok Physics Engine for its game. Doom 3 physics were seldomly used becuase developers used them seldomly, and it is quiet obvious it isnt the engine incapability to do so.
I await the Stalker Engine as well as the Serious 2 engine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 13:35 Post subject: |
|
|
I actually don't think source is particularly good from a technological standpoint.
If a less talented developer had made a game from it (troika), I don't think it would seem half as impressive. It's just they guys at valve really know how to make a game.
I love Vampire:Bloodlines, but the engine implementation isn't impressive at all. You wouldn't even know HL2 shared the same engine if you were not told.
But all the characters in it look far more realistic then either Doom 3's or farcrys. But thats more due to valve then the engine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 14:00 Post subject: |
|
|
It seems that most people that care to explain their point of view like the Cry engine better.
Yet, source lead by far when it comes down to votes.
Conlusion : Most people vote without having a clue. They go for the latest thing they've seen. and judge on the game more than on the engine.
Pizda2 : Far cry allows you to see the whole island in some scenes. HL2 never does something like that.
As for the physic engine, my point was not that FC is better than HL2. Just that I don't count them.
Same thing for AI. They're not part of the engine for me.
An hole is an hole. Dick have no eyes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 14:22 Post subject: |
|
|
but being able to handle all that AI, blasts, crumbling sequences,without a rise or drop in FPS is what counts. source does this amazingly well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phluxed
VIP Member
Posts: 4911
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri, 26th Nov 2004 18:54 Post subject: |
|
|
Im actually not here to defend doom 3, as Im over the hype now, and I can look at all 3 objectively. I gave my vote to the crytek engine.
I don't need to defend the sound arguement, as its been done to death.
I currently am now waiting for our beloved Unreal 3 engine. That looks frighteningly good, and afaik its the only big engine on the horizon now. Im expecting huge things from that engine, anyway. My listing of engines is as follows
crytek
doom3
source
If you want to look at a problem in the source engine, play second to last chapter of HL2 and during the part when you are going up that tunnel in that weird transport thing, look directly up.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004 07:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| kakek wrote: |
Conlusion : Most people vote without having a clue. They go for the latest thing they've seen. and judge on the game more than on the engine.
|
Here's another conclusion: Not everyone has a high tech nasa comp to run FC brilliantly, so they go with Source which they can play tolerable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004 14:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| Pizda2 wrote: | | kakek wrote: |
Conlusion : Most people vote without having a clue. They go for the latest thing they've seen. and judge on the game more than on the engine.
|
Here's another conclusion: Not everyone has a high tech nasa comp to run FC brilliantly, so they go with Source which they can play tolerable. |
yes, the source engine is very good optimized !!!!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004 18:44 Post subject: |
|
|
Doom 3 engine wins by a long shot. It is capable of better graphics, has a better physics engine, and is still capable of so much more.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004 18:53 Post subject: |
|
|
i think the best gfx are definitly doom 3 and far cry !!!
but source looks phot realism !
but crappy textures from near !!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004 19:02 Post subject: |
|
|
PONG ENGINE! My system can run pong, owned.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004 19:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| pallebrun wrote: | | Pizda2 wrote: | | Here's another conclusion: Not everyone has a high tech nasa comp to run FC brilliantly, so they go with Source which they can play tolerable. |
That is not a reason not to vote for the cryengine.
Obviously source and hl2 run good because it is not very advanced graphically so no wonder it runs good.
The whole poll is about the engine and what it can do and not how it runs.
It's quite obvious that the more advanced engines get, the more power you need in your computer.
What will these people say when the unreal3 engine gets released? "This engine sucks, it doesn't run on my antique system"? 
But hey maybe the wolf3d engine shuld be available to vote for also so the people on mad old systems (problary isn't that many but still) can vote for that because it runs on their system. |
You have a point, but many many people have fucked up comps lol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004 20:34 Post subject: |
|
|
hmm the far cry engine is the purdiest imo, nice outdoor and decent indoor also... also its pretty demanding but still...
bow for Far Cry the daddy....
| Quote: | | PC awesome button = Uninstall! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004 23:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Just a little thing to note from a page ago (sorry was away )
If I dont particulary remember Far Cry's sound capabilities, it mostly means ot wasnt amazing nor terrible.
I remember flaws and good points. the 'Ok' things I tend to forget.. I remember Doom 3 did some nice effects, without being too CPU intensive, and Source has a good enough sound system, with a couple of nice options, but nothing revolutionary, so I'll have forgotten it in 6 months.
On a related note:
Painkiller's sound system was THE best. No questioning, there was a different setup for every 5.1 and up configuration possible. It was amazing how precise the sound was! Much better than anything else I had ever seen.
On another note:
After testing a bit with Vampires: Bloodlines, I can tell you that the source engine is quite limited when it comes to loading. Every 2 minutes (at most.) there is a Loading in HL2, and for every building in Vampires there is one. I am aware that a loading-less game is impossible, but Source needs more than other games, and that really bothers me (on a personal level.)
So, if asked which engine is the best, I'd say Crytek's.
If asked which engine will be the most re-used, I'd say ID's Doom3 Engine.
Reason for the second answer: It always was this way. Quake3 in itself wasn't a great game, but hell was it's engine used after!
Source should be very close though..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
