|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
 Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 12:15 Post subject: Doom 3 engine vs Source engine |
|
 |
No, this is not another topic about who's best. i just want to give you an article which did a pro developer.
http://www.devmaster.net/articles/source-vs-doom3/
What do you think about his opinion?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Splinter
Posts: 476
Location: Far Far Away
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 12:21 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weedo
Posts: 1506
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 12:45 Post subject: |
|
|
"Even more ironic is that Half-Life used the Quake 2 licensed engine from id."
That's not true. HL1 was a modified Quake 1 engine. Amazing that people still make this mistake. Everyone should know by now that it was Q1.
In my opinion the best engine for in-door games is the Starbreeze engine. Chronicles of Riddick looks fantastic and it runs better than all other engines. For out-door levels I prefer the Cry Engine. Neither the Source engine nor the D3 engine is that good in my opinion but if I would have to pick one it would be the D3 engine because D3 runs way better on high settings than HL2.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 13:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| Weedo wrote: | "Even more ironic is that Half-Life used the Quake 2 licensed engine from id."
That's not true. HL1 was a modified Quake 1 engine. Amazing that people still make this mistake. Everyone should know by now that it was Q1.
In my opinion the best engine for in-door games is the Starbreeze engine. Chronicles of Riddick looks fantastic and it runs better than all other engines. For out-door levels I prefer the Cry Engine. Neither the Source engine nor the D3 engine is that good in my opinion but if I would have to pick one it would be the D3 engine because D3 runs way better on high settings than HL2. |
Weedo's right:
| Quote: | The Half-Life Technology
Half-Life is based on the Quake(tm) engine by ID Software, with Valve's own enhancements to the engine, such as 16-bit and 24-bit color and MMX support, as well as being developed to take full advantage of 3dfx's Voodoo2. Half-Life is based on a whole new level of proprietary technology creating a extremely rich and original gaming experience.
source: http://www.planethalflife.com/half-life/guide/overview.shtm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaveRunner
Posts: 200
Location: Israel - Dont like it? Get LOST!
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 15:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Splinter wrote: | | doom3 has the best gfx |
agree!!!! best outdoor gfx is farcry..
My Rig:
AMD Barton 2500+
768DDR PC2100 [266Mhz]
Gigabyte GA-7VT600P-RZ
Radeon 9800pro 128MB [R350].
AC97 5.1 onboard Sound Controller.
CD+RW and CD-ROM Drives.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 15:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| WaveRunner wrote: | | Splinter wrote: | | doom3 has the best gfx |
agree!!!! best outdoor gfx is farcry.. |
agree 2 !!!!
i also like doom 3 and far cry more than hl2 !!!
and riddick ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vurt
Posts: 13825
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 15:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Doom3 looks like crap imho but i think it's mainly because ID are bad graphic artists. Im sure it can look much better in the hands of more talanted artists / level designers. Valve and Ion Storm (Thief3) are superb artists and level designers thus their games surpases doom3 but with (perhaps) less advanced graphic engines.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 16:16 Post subject: |
|
|
The Hl2 engine looks very amaturish to me... boxy with a small FOV and very stuttery even with huge amounts of memory... all the shiny in the world won't help it
I looked up "gormless" in the dictionary, it said "without gorm" .... so i looked up "gorm" but it wasn't there ????
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 18:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| AnimalMother wrote: | Yeah doom3 looks like crap. 
That single sentence pretty makes your opinion worthless.
Ha, thief 3 looks better then doom 3? What fucking planet are you on. |
Hahahahahah, I concur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 19:22 Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, so this link basically sums up everything I was trying to explain to people, yet you take this guys word, over mine.
Cassius And Brutus were two honorable men.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 19:26 Post subject: |
|
|
Erm... well he is a professional developer.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 20:13 Post subject: |
|
|
Yet, I said the same exact thing. He was off on one thing though, and that was the physics engine, other then that he was fine though.
Cheers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vurt
Posts: 13825
Location: Sweden
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 28th Jan 2005 23:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| vurt wrote: | | AnimalMother wrote: | Yeah doom3 looks like crap.
That single sentence pretty makes your opinion worthless.
Ha, thief 3 looks better then doom 3? What fucking planet are you on. |
Graphics is not all about effects.. It's like saying Terminator 3 is much better looking than Citizen Kane because Citizen Kane is in black and white and doesnt have any cool effects.. Any person that can separate art / talent from effects will clearly see the difference in both movies and in games, you obviously, can not. |
Dude, we're talking about the engines, not the games...
What you're trying to say is "just because one camera is black and white, does not make it worse than the color camera." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vurt
Posts: 13825
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 01:13 Post subject: |
|
|
No. Read my first post again.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 01:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| vurt wrote: | | AnimalMother wrote: | Yeah doom3 looks like crap.
That single sentence pretty makes your opinion worthless.
Ha, thief 3 looks better then doom 3? What fucking planet are you on. |
Graphics is not all about effects.. It's like saying Terminator 3 is much better looking than Citizen Kane because Citizen Kane is in black and white and doesnt have any cool effects.. Any person that can separate art / talent from effects will clearly see the difference in both movies and in games, you obviously, can not. |
Who said anything about effects? Doesn't have any special DX effects, well.... the grenade effect has some in it, and the hot bridge at some point in the game, but that's about it. It uses cheap glows and such which all cards can produce. It's about the sharp and detailed textures, and the plastic look..... yeah..... i said plastic look, that's what makes it look nice, lightning is also dajm nice, so are the shadows. Faces look gay btw, you can see a line between them and they are edgy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 01:23 Post subject: |
|
|
In terms of reality I'd go for HL2, in terms of ominous "cartoon"-feel, I go for DOOM3.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 02:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| fisk wrote: | | In terms of reality I'd go for HL2, in terms of ominous "cartoon"-feel, I go for DOOM3. |
To bad your completely off-topic, because we are discussing the engine.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 02:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | fisk wrote: | | In terms of reality I'd go for HL2, in terms of ominous "cartoon"-feel, I go for DOOM3. |
To bad your completely off-topic, because we are discussing the engine. |
Actually, you were the one who went off-topic, as I was also discussing the engine. HL2 is an engine more based on reality (by design) and Doom3 has an engine that is based purely on fiction, where reality is only a secondary component.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 02:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| fisk wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | fisk wrote: | | In terms of reality I'd go for HL2, in terms of ominous "cartoon"-feel, I go for DOOM3. |
To bad your completely off-topic, because we are discussing the engine. |
Actually, you were the one who went off-topic, as I was also discussing the engine. HL2 is an engine more based on reality (by design) and Doom3 has an engine that is based purely on fiction, where reality is only a secondary component. |
Yes, but realistic-looking games can be designed on both engines. Therefore being based on reality is irrelevant.
The relevant part here is setting... obviously if you're going to have a well-lit game based in a modern city landscape, mostly in daytime, you're better off with the HL2 engine. If your game is nocturnal or "dark", the lighting effects of the Doom 3 engine show through best.
Then again, "dark" games can be handled equally well, if not better, by the current generation of the Starbreeze engine.
As far as facial animations - yes. Source has it's emote technology, and it is impressive. But, once again, if the shading in the game looks like it's from 2001, but facial animations are all right... what's the use?
Therefore, as far as the overall impression possible with the engine,
well-lit: HL2
Dark/little lighting: Doom 3.
And for those of you who want to see just how bad the lighting in Source can get, play VTMB.
EDIT: fixed "poorly lit".. sounded too much like "bad lighting capabilities".
Last edited by Accelleron on Sat, 29th Jan 2005 04:14; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 03:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| Accelleron wrote: | | fisk wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | fisk wrote: | | In terms of reality I'd go for HL2, in terms of ominous "cartoon"-feel, I go for DOOM3. |
To bad your completely off-topic, because we are discussing the engine. |
Actually, you were the one who went off-topic, as I was also discussing the engine. HL2 is an engine more based on reality (by design) and Doom3 has an engine that is based purely on fiction, where reality is only a secondary component. |
Yes, but realistic-looking games can be designed on both engines. Therefore being based on reality is irrelevant.
The relevant part here is setting... obviously if you're going to have a well-lit game based in a modern city landscape, mostly in daytime, you're better off with the HL2 engine. If your game is nocturnal or "dark", the lighting effects of the Doom 3 engine show through best.
Then again, "dark" games can be handled equally well, if not better, by the current generation of the Starbreeze engine.
As far as facial animations - yes. Source has it's emote technology, and it is impressive. But, once again, if the shading in the game looks like it's from 2001, but facial animations are all right... what's the use?
Therefore, as far as the overall impression possible with the engine,
well-lit: HL2
Poorly-lit: Doom 3.
And for those of you who want to see just how bad the lighting in Source can get, play VTMB. |
Not to mention one of the reasons that games runs so horribly is because of the fact that the source engine cant handle what that engine is trying to do. Yes, it is troika crappy programming, but the major reason it runs like shit is because its the source engine. Not to mention source is not good for enviroments which ARENT normal rooms. Try creating a map for source which has nice curved rooms, and models sitting everywhere to make something lush and more real feeling, and the engine will come to a halt.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 04:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | Accelleron wrote: | | fisk wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | fisk wrote: | | In terms of reality I'd go for HL2, in terms of ominous "cartoon"-feel, I go for DOOM3. |
To bad your completely off-topic, because we are discussing the engine. |
Actually, you were the one who went off-topic, as I was also discussing the engine. HL2 is an engine more based on reality (by design) and Doom3 has an engine that is based purely on fiction, where reality is only a secondary component. |
Yes, but realistic-looking games can be designed on both engines. Therefore being based on reality is irrelevant.
The relevant part here is setting... obviously if you're going to have a well-lit game based in a modern city landscape, mostly in daytime, you're better off with the HL2 engine. If your game is nocturnal or "dark", the lighting effects of the Doom 3 engine show through best.
Then again, "dark" games can be handled equally well, if not better, by the current generation of the Starbreeze engine.
As far as facial animations - yes. Source has it's emote technology, and it is impressive. But, once again, if the shading in the game looks like it's from 2001, but facial animations are all right... what's the use?
Therefore, as far as the overall impression possible with the engine,
well-lit: HL2
Poorly-lit: Doom 3.
And for those of you who want to see just how bad the lighting in Source can get, play VTMB. |
Not to mention one of the reasons that games runs so horribly is because of the fact that the source engine cant handle what that engine is trying to do. Yes, it is troika crappy programming, but the major reason it runs like shit is because its the source engine. Not to mention source is not good for enviroments which ARENT normal rooms. Try creating a map for source which has nice curved rooms, and models sitting everywhere to make something lush and more real feeling, and the engine will come to a halt. |
thought you'd put me on ignore...
Anyway, please clarify. In HL2 there were plenty of scenes with many models on screen, probably twice the amount of poly's as any scene in D3 (One such moment was when you first go outside: You're placed into the middle of a busy square with tons of people/scenery/guards/cameras/buildings. While I haven't done the polycounts, I'm sure that that scene alone has twice the poly's of any Doom scene... including the "train ride" scenes. Yet, nevertheless... not a hiccup. All the while, my PC was leeching from BitTorrent. And I don't really have a powerful computer... barely average, really. On 1024x768, with all details maxed, I was still seeing this much detail, at a more than decent FPS.
Therefore it's not the amount of polygons... and curves are really simply collections of poly's. Speaking of curves, later into HL2 (last level, notably, when you're inside the alien base), almost every surface was curved. Still not 1 hiccup.
But I probably misunderstood you. Please explain what you meant by "a map for source which has nice curved rooms, and models sitting everywhere".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 04:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| Accelleron wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | Accelleron wrote: | | fisk wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | fisk wrote: | | In terms of reality I'd go for HL2, in terms of ominous "cartoon"-feel, I go for DOOM3. |
To bad your completely off-topic, because we are discussing the engine. |
Actually, you were the one who went off-topic, as I was also discussing the engine. HL2 is an engine more based on reality (by design) and Doom3 has an engine that is based purely on fiction, where reality is only a secondary component. |
Yes, but realistic-looking games can be designed on both engines. Therefore being based on reality is irrelevant.
The relevant part here is setting... obviously if you're going to have a well-lit game based in a modern city landscape, mostly in daytime, you're better off with the HL2 engine. If your game is nocturnal or "dark", the lighting effects of the Doom 3 engine show through best.
Then again, "dark" games can be handled equally well, if not better, by the current generation of the Starbreeze engine.
As far as facial animations - yes. Source has it's emote technology, and it is impressive. But, once again, if the shading in the game looks like it's from 2001, but facial animations are all right... what's the use?
Therefore, as far as the overall impression possible with the engine,
well-lit: HL2
Poorly-lit: Doom 3.
And for those of you who want to see just how bad the lighting in Source can get, play VTMB. |
Not to mention one of the reasons that games runs so horribly is because of the fact that the source engine cant handle what that engine is trying to do. Yes, it is troika crappy programming, but the major reason it runs like shit is because its the source engine. Not to mention source is not good for enviroments which ARENT normal rooms. Try creating a map for source which has nice curved rooms, and models sitting everywhere to make something lush and more real feeling, and the engine will come to a halt. |
thought you'd put me on ignore...
Anyway, please clarify. In HL2 there were plenty of scenes with many models on screen, probably twice the amount of poly's as any scene in D3 (One such moment was when you first go outside: You're placed into the middle of a busy square with tons of people/scenery/guards/cameras/buildings. While I haven't done the polycounts, I'm sure that that scene alone has twice the poly's of any Doom scene... including the "train ride" scenes. Yet, nevertheless... not a hiccup. All the while, my PC was leeching from BitTorrent. And I don't really have a powerful computer... barely average, really. On 1024x768, with all details maxed, I was still seeing this much detail, at a more than decent FPS.
Therefore it's not the amount of polygons... and curves are really simply collections of poly's. Speaking of curves, later into HL2 (last level, notably, when you're inside the alien base), almost every surface was curved. Still not 1 hiccup.
But I probably misunderstood you. Please explain what you meant by "a map for source which has nice curved rooms, and models sitting everywhere". |
Its hard to explain what it is, other then curved maps. I saw a page that had a nice description of what Im talking about. But all I can say is that source does not handle more complex maps very well. Im not talking about polly amount, but something else. Also I might add that it is false that source is better for outdoor enviroments. The doom3 engine, as of now, can handle out door enviroments that look better, or of the same quality, and deliver it at the same FPS. This is proved by view the doom3 can do it too project.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 05:24 Post subject: |
|
|
Nope... still have no clue what you mean...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 05:29 Post subject: |
|
|
Lets just leave it at the fact that the doom3 engine is better at rendering more, "organic" enviroments then.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hahe
Posts: 1685
Location: US
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 05:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh and Mchart your sig sucks. Game does not equal engine. Game equals gameplay. I don't two shits about the engine. It's all about gameplay. That's it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 29th Jan 2005 05:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| hahe wrote: | | Oh and Mchart your sig sucks. Game does not equal engine. Game equals gameplay. I don't two shits about the engine. It's all about gameplay. That's it. |
You sir, are a fucking moron.
Go Away.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
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
|
|
 |
|
