I'm convinced ATI made the right choice...

[slash196]

After thinking for a long time, I have come to the conclusion that the Source engine is going to be used for a long time, and DOOM 3 will fall by the wayside. So in a way, despite the PS 3.0 support, buying nVidia is NOT future proofing your card, since a Radeon will run more games in the future way better than a GeForce. nVidia may choose to resolve this in their next release, but for right now, there is no one "future-proofed" card. Which makes pulling the trigger on one or the other nigh-impossible.

 

[Lonyo]

That's nice.
A random person on a forum said Source will be better than Doom 3 engine, so it must be true.

 

[slash196]

Uh, no need to get nasty. I was making an observation and putting the topic up for discussion. It's not like I shot your mom or anything.

 

[Todd33]

I don't expect to many Doom 3 engine games either, unless you count id spinoffs like Q4.

 

[Pnoy02]

Nvidia is his mom

 

[slash196]

Oh, that explains it

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: slash196
After thinking for a long time, I have come to the conclusion that the Source engine is going to be used for a long time, and DOOM 3 will fall by the wayside. So in a way, despite the PS 3.0 support, buying nVidia is NOT future proofing your card, since a Radeon will run more games in the future way better than a GeForce. nVidia may choose to resolve this in their next release, but for right now, there is no one "future-proofed" card. Which makes pulling the trigger on one or the other nigh-impossible.

Just because they use the source engine doesn't mean they won't have shader 3.0

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: slash196
After thinking for a long time, I have come to the conclusion that the Source engine is going to be used for a long time, and DOOM 3 will fall by the wayside. So in a way, despite the PS 3.0 support, buying nVidia is NOT future proofing your card, since a Radeon will run more games in the future way better than a GeForce. nVidia may choose to resolve this in their next release, but for right now, there is no one "future-proofed" card. Which makes pulling the trigger on one or the other nigh-impossible.

Exactly how long do you think game developers will keep 24 bit precision instead of moving to 32 bit?
I have "come to the conclusion" that they are all just about done with FP24. Why haven't you considered this? It is the main factor as to "why" ATI cards seem to run HL2 and source engines better. 6800's have to run them at full 32bit no matter what. If you recall, there is a hack for Nvidia FX cards (5xxx cards) that allow them to run HL2 in 16bit to make them perform better.

You said you thought about it for a long time and I respect your opinion. However, it looks like you should have thought about it a bit longer before posting this FUD. Nvidia currently is far ahead of ATI technologically speaking. SM3.0, full 32 bit precision and advanced shader technologies. I'd say nvidia is the ONLY way to go right now to get the most "futureproofing" if there is such a thing in the computer world. I think it would be more accurate to call it, "Future Resistant".

ATI makes great stuff, but not greater than Nvidia this generation. Last gen, ATI was easily better. Many will agree.

/order brought to potential chaos

 

[slash196]

Thank you, keys, for using this topic in the correct manner. You get an M+M

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: slash196
Thank you, keys, for using this topic in the correct manner. You get an M+M

Well, thanks. But I was actually hoping for some sort of reply about what I posted.
For you.

:beer:

 

[Malak]

I think it's a tie this gen actually. ATI's cards did better in some games, Nvidia's did better in others. Benchmarks bounce around this gen. Personally I chose ATI because it performs better in the games I play. My friend is an ati fanboy, but I was able to convince him to consider nvidia for his price range. I think both camps stumbled a bit with paper launches and ATI stumbled heavy for budget cards, but overall I think it's back to a good race between them. Last gen was a straight ass kicking that ATI gave nvidia.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Actually there are very few games slated to use the source engine. DIII will be used much more in the future. HL2 i think was a better game but the DIII engine will be much more successful.

I agree with Keys statement. I think Nvidia squeeked this round out.k Last round it was a no contest. ATI hands down, however this round tables have turned. Nvidia has more features, and is more future proof than ATI. Yes know card is future proof, but when you compare it to another card it can be more future proof than the other.

Radeon will run more games in the future way better than a GeForce

How did you come to this conclusion. Nvidia runs better in Source than ATI does in DIII (Barring last gen).

I think you are making too many assumptions and not basing enough information on actual facts.

-Kevin

 

[slash196]

I do agree with most of what you said. Right now, nVidia offers the best price/performance ratio. ATi's comparatively priced cards just can't compete. And the move to PS 3.0 IS coming. I just read about Age of Empires 3, and it will support PS 3.0, which seals the deal for me (I love AoE). Basically what I was saying was that if ATi hadn't gotten to the Source team, they would be completely screwed, because they would really have no advantage over nVidia. It wasn't so much a comment on my personal beliefs as it was a comment on ATi's buisness practices.

 

[cubby1223]

Here's how I look at the two companies - nVidia provides the most feature support but ATi provides the most brute force power. For me, I don't play first person shooters much, yet I do play a lot of older games, like sometimes I'll pull out FF7 or Hitman Codename 47, and there's no doubt that nVidia enables so many more features in those older games that I'm personally sticking with nVidia.

 

[dguy6789]

Doom3 as a game may not have been as good as halflife2, but in talks of the engines, the doom3 engine is leaps and bounds above the hl2 engine. NOTHING in HL2 looked amazing except for the water and the player models. All of the buildings, and objects, and effects looked nothing better than something that has not been pre farcry games. The Doom3 engine is far more capable, it supports many more features, has a MUCH better physics engine, is easily scripted for, much better bump mapping support, and too much to list.

Half Life 2 is a good game, but enginewise, it is below farcry and doom3.

 

[OnEMoReTrY]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Doom3 as a game may not have been as good as halflife2, but in talks of the engines, the doom3 engine is leaps and bounds above the hl2 engine. NOTHING in HL2 looked amazing except for the water and the player models. All of the buildings, and objects, and effects looked nothing better than something that has not been pre farcry games. The Doom3 engine is far more capable, it supports many more features, has a MUCH better physics engine, is easily scripted for, much better bump mapping support, and too much to list.

Half Life 2 is a good game, but enginewise, it is below farcry and doom3.

Doom 3 has a much better physics engine eh? lol...

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Doom3 as a game may not have been as good as halflife2, but in talks of the engines, the doom3 engine is leaps and bounds above the hl2 engine. NOTHING in HL2 looked amazing except for the water and the player models. All of the buildings, and objects, and effects looked nothing better than something that has not been pre farcry games. The Doom3 engine is far more capable, it supports many more features, has a MUCH better physics engine, is easily scripted for, much better bump mapping support, and too much to list.

Half Life 2 is a good game, but enginewise, it is below farcry and doom3.

On the other hand, HL2 scaled a *lot* better than Doom3 onto lower-end systems (though possibly that is more the result of the game rather than the engine per se; Doom3 used stencil shadowing and dynamic lights EVERYWHERE, while HL2's lighting effects are more muted). I'm also not sure how you would say that Doom3 had "MUCH" better physics; I only played some of Doom3, but there wasn't much in the way of physics at all, whereas it's used quite a bit in HL2. I'd have to do more research to find out about bump mapping in both engines, but I'm pretty sure that Source is also "easily scripted for". Vague statements that the D3 engine is "far more capable" and "supports many more features" are not really very meaningful -- did you have some specific capabilities you were referring to?

Certainly, both the Source and Doom3 engines are very impressive, although I might have to give the graphical nod to Doom3 for its more atmospheric lighting (although it's not like Source looks bad by any means). CryEngine is very interesting (especially with its PS3.0 and HDR capabilities, though they're taking their sweet time making any of them 'official'), but still seems to be a cut below the other two in terms of the overall package (graphics, interactivity, AI, scripting, etc.). Of course, it's hard to tell with only one big game available on each of them!

 

[impemonk]

I think of it like this: Doom3 uses an engine that is revolutionary, somewhat like when Disney started using computers to animate their films (ie Monsters Inc, Toy Story, etc). People loved the animation so much that nowadays they disregard the older, more paint-palette directed movies like Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King. The point I am trying to make is that the Doom3 engine will revolutionize the entire computer industry, just as the Quake engine revolutionized FPS games. Half Life 2 I admit has its points of true eye candy like water and particle effects, but lets face it, more and more people are growing accustomed to games looking as real as possible, with gameplay still intact of course. I had the chance to meet John Carmack at an LA "Race to Space" convention (he does have another hobby besides developing software for ID) and had the chance to ask him about the Doom3 engine. He simply told me EXACTLY what I am relaying to you guys. Of course, that was in my senior year in high school but still, Doom3, PS 3.0, etc etc will be the next generation.

 

[Genx87]

I thought Crytek used the same physics engine as Valve did for HL2?

btw from a capability standpoint I would think the HL2 engine would have more bells and whistles since it uses DX8 and DX9 while Doom3 is using the equivalent of DX7 technology?

When i play both games Doom3's darkness stands out. I have never seen something so dark in my life. I also felt the texturing was a little more refined than HL2.

But I felt the lighting, physics, and overall feel of HL2 was better than Doom3.

I however looking at a game like Stalker think both will be blown out of the water from a graphical perspective when that title shows up.

 

[Drayvn]

But the HL2 engine has TONS of bump mapping and normal mapping, but for us we didnt notice them.

For me, i liked HL2s engine because the quality of the textures, the enormous amounts of different textures, ok Lighting wasnt a big point, but thats the only part that Doom 3 has over the Source engine.

And if i remember, Doom 3 uses its own in game physics engine, while Source uses a 3rd part physics engine, only with the Valve team that did some tweaks to get the results they want.

And Gen, i think Far Cry uses an earlier version of the Physics engine, theres Havok for Far Cry, then Havok 2 for HL2.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I thought Crytek used the same physics engine as Valve did for HL2?

btw from a capability standpoint I would think the HL2 engine would have more bells and whistles since it uses DX8 and DX9 while Doom3 is using the equivalent of DX7 technology?

When i play both games Doom3's darkness stands out. I have never seen something so dark in my life. I also felt the texturing was a little more refined than HL2.

But I felt the lighting, physics, and overall feel of HL2 was better than Doom3.

I however looking at a game like Stalker think both will be blown out of the water from a graphical perspective when that title shows up.

Lol you just sealed the deal there mate, Stalker has practically all the lighting than Doom 3 has, and all the finely crafted textures too, as well as massive indoor and outdoor environments, its practically got everything any game would have wanted!

 

[Matthias99]

And if i remember, Doom 3 uses its own in game physics engine, while Source uses a 3rd part physics engine, only with the Valve team that did some tweaks to get the results they want.

And Gen, i think Far Cry uses an earlier version of the Physics engine, theres Havok for Far Cry, then Havok 2 for HL2.

This is more or less my understanding of it. Source uses the latest version of the Havok physics engine, with some modifications/extensions. This same engine is used by a number of games (FarCry, for one, and I think Max Payne 1/2 also uses it, and a *lot* of console games use it).

Lol you just sealed the deal there mate, Stalker has practically all the lighting than Doom 3 has, and all the finely crafted textures too, as well as massive indoor and outdoor environments, its practically got everything any game would have wanted!

Sounds great, but it's still not out... it's been in development frickin' forever. Let's hope it doesn't turn into the next Duke Nukem Forever.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Doom3 is using the equivalent of DX7 technology

That's some good blunt you're smoking. Pass it over here.

- M4H

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: OnEMoReTrY

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Doom3 as a game may not have been as good as halflife2, but in talks of the engines, the doom3 engine is leaps and bounds above the hl2 engine. NOTHING in HL2 looked amazing except for the water and the player models. All of the buildings, and objects, and effects looked nothing better than something that has not been pre farcry games. The Doom3 engine is far more capable, it supports many more features, has a MUCH better physics engine, is easily scripted for, much better bump mapping support, and too much to list.

Half Life 2 is a good game, but enginewise, it is below farcry and doom3.

Doom 3 has a much better physics engine eh? lol...

Please read up before posting about things your are illinformed of. Yes halflife 2 showed off it's impressive physics while doom 3 did not do anywhere near that much, but we are talking of the engine's capabilites not what was shown off in the games; the doom3 engine can do better than what you saw in hl2.

HL2 plays better than doom3, but doom3 looks much better. The D3 engine must be scalable if they are making the sequel to the fastest paced shooter out there on it.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Genx87
Doom3 is using the equivalent of DX7 technology

That's some good blunt you're smoking. Pass it over here.

- M4H

I'd have to dig around for the quote, but Carmack said something along these lines (he was responding to some question in an interview about how the engine would look if written in DirectX, I think). Other than the lighting/shaders, Doom3 uses a very basic engine; the sort of stuff you could do in DX7. The texturing and models are nothing special.