[Ransom]

Originally posted by Singh
Wussys...play without the duct tape flashlight and scare yourself ****less while shooting at shadows and into the pitch black darkness!

Ransom concurs.

And having just replayed Doom 3 I have to say I like it better than HL2. I didn't have any problem with the darkness, to me the well-lit areas are just as well lit as any other game - don't have a problem with the torch-switching either, and the environment felt far richer and more dynamic to me (with all the machinery and such) than HL2's. Gameplay wise HL2 is more varied, certainly, but I enjoyed D3's atmosphere and story (even if incredibly simple) more.

As far as the movie is concerned, I'm not really paying any attention to it until I actually see it.

[MicroPsycho]

The thing with Doom 3's engine is that it doesn't look like it was pushed to its limits and it can be made much better with little modification to the engine, HL2 on the other hand (which I still havn't played) looks as if that's about as good as the engine can be.

Doom 3 ran fine on my system on high, 1024x768 and I thought it looked good

Specs:
Athlon XP 2200
512 Ram
Radeon 9800 Pro

I like Doom 3 and I thought it had a good story, for Doom but it lost its oomph at Hell. I want the expansion too(lights on the guns!/headlamp/combat shotgun!)

[.::Tin Can::.]

Just to start me off...

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Who else thinks Doom 3's graphics are better than Half Life 2's?

No.

EDIT: And also, I never experienced slowdowns on my machine at all when playing Half-Life 2. On Doom 3, the highest FPS I got was 55.

768 MB RAM
Athlon 2100XP 1.73 GH Processor
Radeon 9600 XT

And secondly:

This movie is going to suck **** in the first five minutes if the main character speaks. That just ruins the whole Doom-related marine badassery that was portrayed throughout Doom. You know he's going to want to say stuff during the movie, the directors might let him.

So it seems they changed it BACK to a research facility on Mars eh? When all hell has broken loose eh? We'll see how it goes.

[MicroPsycho]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
And also, I never experienced slowdowns on my machine at all when playing Half-Life 2. On Doom 3, the highest FPS I got was 55.

the fps is capped at 60 anyway

[pyro-manic]

I hated Doom 3 with a passion. The lighting and shadows were dreadful - everything was either far too shiny, or basically black, and the textures were pretty nasty as well. The enemies were uninteresting, and the weapons were crap (with the exception of the shotgun, which was pretty useful). The level design was useless, and the sound was pretty bad as well.And it wasn't scary at all - I could predict when things were going to jump out or appear, it was that obvious. Go and play System Shock 2 if you want a scary game.  I couldn't be bothered to finish it in the end - I gave up a few hours in. Just as well I borrowed it, rather than shelling out £30...

Half Life 2 and Far Cry were soooo much better (to look at and to play), and I'd play them again any time. Doom 3 doesn't get a look in...

[Fineus]

I don't think any game has truly got it "right" yet, both Doom3, Far Cry and HL2 have come leaps and bounds from days of old.. but all of them have flaws in them that can be fixed and improved upon. For instance Half Life 2s water looks incredible but its walls/textures (to me at least) look incredibly flat and basic and close range. Doom 3s walls however seem to be very detailed up close however skin and so forth doesn't look so realistic. Both HL2, D3 and Far Cry have good special effects but that's to be expected since they can make that up as they go along.

Textures and filters on the whole still seem unrefined as some things are either "wet" or "dry". Damp just plain doesn't happen (things either shine or they don't - there seems to be no mid-point).

I guess I'm being over critical... but as things progress that may be a good thing.

[Ransom]

Originally posted by pyro-manic
The enemies were uninteresting

I found HL2 and Far Cry's enemies to be distressingly plain. Most of them were just guys with guns, and in Far Cry's case not even the mutants were interesting (or the rest of the game for that matter). I didn't really like any of HL2's non-human enemies either though.

Graphics wise, I think it's merely a matter of graphic style now. HL2 attempts to be as realistic as possible, while Doom 3 has a more computer generated look, made all gothic by the shadows. I personally prefer the exaggerated atmosphere of Doom 3, but I can see why people would like Far Cry's cartoonishly bright colours or HL2's realism. Like it or not, all of them (well, maybe not Far Cry) are making important developments technology-wise.

[Triple Ace]

So, does this mean the rumors about it not being about mars and hell are false?

[Fineus]

Originally posted by Ransom Arceihn

I found HL2 and Far Cry's enemies to be distressingly plain. Most of them were just guys with guns, and in Far Cry's case not even the mutants were interesting (or the rest of the game for that matter). I didn't really like any of HL2's non-human enemies either though.

An excellent point I didn't really cover! Although I've got to disagree and say that I found HL2s enemies to be the most dull of them all.

While fighting the combine they're all the same.. there's some variety between Ant Lions, Zombies and so forth but compared to the original HL they're fairly dull.

I realise the point of the combine was to create this image of a united unknown threat and that them all looking the same kind of helped with that.. but honestly, it wouldn't hurt to change a few details would it?

[Unknown Target]

Doom 3 had interesting enemies - wall running demons, chainsaw-toting zombies, disembodied flaming flying heads, etc.

Half Life 2 had two types of guys with machine guns, a couple vehicles, and slow-moving zombies that could be taken out with one or two pistol shots.

Whoo-dee-freaking-hoo.


Anyway, Half Life 2 is simply unplayable because of it's absurd level design. I simply can NOT get over this fact, and I can't believe everyone else can look over it like they do. For instance, after (spoiler below)

Spoiler:

you come out of the portal out of the timewarp, and the resistance is just beginning, one part of the level is about 100 feet of the doctors lab. Then, you get another 100 feet of open space, where you just watch Dog kick ass (while you stand around and do nothing). Then you walk into a building, and get another 100 feet of the building. That is just plane ridiculous!

[Ace]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
I don't think any game has truly got it "right" yet, both Doom3, Far Cry and HL2 have come leaps and bounds from days of old.. but all of them have flaws in them that can be fixed and improved upon. For instance Half Life 2s water looks incredible but its walls/textures (to me at least) look incredibly flat and basic and close range. Doom 3s walls however seem to be very detailed up close however skin and so forth doesn't look so realistic. Both HL2, D3 and Far Cry have good special effects but that's to be expected since they can make that up as they go along.

Textures and filters on the whole still seem unrefined as some things are either "wet" or "dry". Damp just plain doesn't happen (things either shine or they don't - there seems to be no mid-point).

I guess I'm being over critical... but as things progress that may be a good thing.

I agree with you.

Far Cry had great foliage, but everything else was uninspired. Even the much-touted non linear levels are pretty straightforward and limited due to the level design.

Doom 3 has spectacular level design in that it gets that cramped, industrial look, and the mechanical objects look good in the engine. However, it fails miserably at organics.

Half Life 2 is the exact opposite. The soft shadowing, facial animations, and skin shaders lead to good looking main characters but the levels themselves are bland and basic and look like 256x256 tiling photos slapped onto low-polygon facsimilies of a building.

Really, what's needed is blending the three engines together.

Half Life 2 we're going to see lots of entry-level mods for. Far Cry's modding scene is dead, despite how much Crytek prides themselves as being player friendly. (I have my own gripes about them thanks to a space sim they cancelled, but I disgress...) Doom 3 in the end I think will wind up being the most flexible of the engines for developers. We won't see a lot of total conversions like Half Life will by fans, but there will be high quality products.

[Sandwich]

Don't diss FarCry - it came out exactly one year ago this Wednesday; it's realism level* far outstrips HL2 (I haven't played Doom 3, so I can't speak for it), and it virtually came out of the blue.

* Note that I don't mean the physics, although those are good in FarCry as well. I mean the realism of how it plays; in FarCry, I was able to put to use tactics I learned in the army! In HL2, the most accurate weapon is.... the pistol??!? Can anyone else say ?

[Fineus]

I definitely agree Ace, Half Life 2 seems very mod-friendly in that if you've modded for HL it's probably not much of a leap for HL2. Doom 3 however requires a lot more work to get the best out of. People complained that it was far too dark but then I think they're forgetting that that's the point. You're in a stricken faciliity on an alien world and half the time the power has failed - you just won't have light...

...unlike the original Half Life which is set in the desert in the day time - hence it's nice and bright the majority of the time. The same goes for Half Life 2 (although at least Ravenholm is dark in places - especially if you limit yourself with the gamma).

All in all, I think Far Crys outdoor areas, Half Lifes object and charachter details and Doom 3s texture and indoor stages could be amalgamated to create a much more pleasing game. However as someone above pointed out there's a different sort of style for each. Far Cry is incredibly bright and bold... Doom 3 is dark and gothic and HL2 tries to go for realism but fails on account of its ****ty textures.

(As an aside explanation - I think HL2s textures are ****ty now. Two years ago they'd have looked fantastic but since the game was delayed they do look dated).

UT is on the money with HL2s enemies. There was some variation in the zombies but then zombies are only around for a short while within the game - it would've been nice if they put the same effort into all the enemy types as they did the zombies. Indeed - even NPCs all look very bland and similar (although again I think this is partly the point).

I'm still strongly of the opinion that sandbox games are the way forward - and they shouldn't be limited to Battlefield like areas of open ground. Cities should also be explored in great detail... however I'm not sure if this is possible with current technology.

[Sandwich]

Speaking of dark and moody, has no one played Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay?

[Fineus]

Kind of assumed it was a cheesy film rip-off..

..is it not?

[Sandwich]

Uhh.... dude. Butcher Bay (PC edition) got better ratings than HL2. Just look at this chart.

It's a pretty cool game, really - and I don't like FPSes all that much. Plus, you get to hear more of Vin Diesel and Xibit's voice acting.

[MicroPsycho]

And then a game using UE 3.0 in all its glory will come along and wipe its ass with Doom 3, HL2 and Far Cry on the same piece of proverbial toilet paper!

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Speaking of dark and moody, has no one played Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay?

yes, have it on xbox.. that game is dark and moody.. but this time your're the one jumping out of the dark to kill somebody

[Triple Ace]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Speaking of dark and moody, has no one played Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay?

I have it and it kicks ass. I hate the bug that makes the voices go really fast at some points. I also wish it was modable.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Triple Ace
I have it and it kicks ass. I hate the bug that makes the voices go really fast at some points.

Ihaven'tencounteredthatbugyet.Huh.