would you rather play games made from doom3 engine or half life 2 or other?

[Insomniak]

I think it's more about how you use it. Id's engine is probably very capable, but Valve's art direction put Half-Life 2 way over the top....the game was more cohesive and solid...felt more real...I can't wait to see what outside developers do with Source.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: jim1976
DIII had the best real time shadows/lighting by far.

No it didn't, d3's lighting was terrible. The fact that a wall not 2 feet from me was completely black despite having a light source behind me proves that. I was disgusted by the lighting in d3.

Yes thank you for that. Sometimes I refer to shadows/lighting as a general effect. I mean most of the times when you have good shadows you have good lighting too. But definately not in DIII's case. Weird but true.

 

[DERN]

i was impressed by the PAINKILLER engine. great texures, environments while keeping SCREAMING performance.

as far as D3 and HL2?? d3 engine will be better in upcoming games, and more widely used, IMO.

BUT i saw a video of the Unreal3 Engine and it is looking like a better version of the D3 engine, including lighting and adding stunning hi-res texures.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Doom3 since there's actually a Linux port.

3 cheers.

 

[BFG10K]

Doom 3 IMO has superior animations(of the monsters) and HL2 in everything else.

Doom3's lighting & shadowing system can't be touched by any game and that includes HL2.

 

[Ka0t1x]

Seeing as the Unreal 3 Engine hasn't released yet, I can't vote for it, but It will be damn exciting.

 

[BespinReactorShaft]

nvm

 

[BenSkywalker]

To the general sentiment that HL2's engine is better because it is more forgiving- GLQuake's engine is far more forgiving then HL2's so why not support it instead? That engine will run nicely on a P233MMX with a single Voodoo2 8MB board, so it must be the better engine right? 😉

I really don't see this as much of a comparison in terms of having the four engines listed. HL2/Unreal2 are several years old technology wise(outside of a couple small elements in HL2) while FarCry and DooM3 clearly represent the next generation of game engines. So far there has been one game released on HL2's engine and the consensus has been 'they should have used D3's'.

 

[Boztech]

Gotta put my vote in for the Crytek engine.... IQ is unbelieveable. I still play Far Cry daily.

Dunno how so many of you are voting Source... considering they can't even fix the stuttering issue in HL2.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Boztech
Gotta put my vote in for the Crytek engine.... IQ is unbelieveable. I still play Far Cry daily.

Dunno how so many of you are voting Source... considering they can't even fix the stuttering issue in HL2.

yeh, i know. Valve's software has a good bit of bugs when compared to the other. its a good thing HL2 is fun as hell

 

[onelin]

The Source engine actually runs better on my somewhat-dated machine (GF4 Ti4400, P4 2.4GHz, 1GB RAM) ...but once I upgrade, the DOOM 3 engine 🙂 Most of what I liked in HL2 were textures, so that isn't all that engine-specific.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: Boztech
Gotta put my vote in for the Crytek engine.... IQ is unbelieveable. I still play Far Cry daily.

Dunno how so many of you are voting Source... considering they can't even fix the stuttering issue in HL2.

What stuttering issue?

 

[Czar]

Definetly Far Cry engine, its kinda like hl2 and doom3 mashed together, loosing some of the charm both have but one thing that far cry has and that is no stupid loading time every few minutes!!!

Also the far cry level editor is based on vertexes so propper 3d modelers know what the hell is going on unlike with the hl2 hammer which is still based on the old stupid doom level editors.

 

[user1234]

Source is just a refinement of older engines, most notably Q3E - it's not in the same league as doom 3 for indoor environments, or far cry for outdoors, on many levels - lighting, shadows, huge levels, vision distance, etc. Just look at the level of detail and realism in doom 3 zombies compared to HL2's zombies. But HL2 engine is faster then farcry in outdoors and faster then doom3 indoors, and that's important especially for older machines. Between Crytek and Doom3, I would probably choose Crytek, because even though it trails doom3 in lighting and shadowing realism, at this point it's not yet clear if doom3 can even handle the same size outdoor environments as Crytek, so that's a big advantage for Crytek. Also doom3 has very little physics processing, if any.

Regarding the engine used in Chronicles of Riddick, I thought it was rather slow, and things did not look relaistic at all - shadows are obviously drawn as independent objects, and not based on any lighting algorithms. Did I mention the sluggish performance ? It just looks like a console game, with somewhat cartoon like graphics, despite the high levels of detail. Also got to say I look ut2k4.

 

[Sunner]

One series of engines that I've always had a bit of trouble liking is the Unreal series.
Every game I've played that's been based of them(most notably the Unreal/UT games, obviously) has looked too cartoonish...kinda plastic.
Nice sometimes, but not at all realistic.

 

[jrphoenix]

Other!!! Rome Total War engine 😛 None of the above engine can generate 8,000 3d characters on screen 🙂

For a FPS I vote for HL2 as the Maximum PC review spoke about how the engine combined with Havok physics made it very easy for developers to give every object "life" in the game. I love the physics and the graphics were better than Far Cry

HL2>Far Cry>Doom 3

I liked Doom 3 buy the engines great graphics seemed like it couldn't handle outdoor environments and more than 3 enemies on the screen.

 

[shortylickens]

Based on the few outdoor and handful of well-lit scenes in Doom 3, I'll go with that. Just a shame they made a crappy game to show it off.

 

[BFG10K]

It doesn't matter what engine is used, as long as it does a good job.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Sunner
One series of engines that I've always had a bit of trouble liking is the Unreal series.
Every game I've played that's been based of them(most notably the Unreal/UT games, obviously) has looked too cartoonish...kinda plastic.
Nice sometimes, but not at all realistic.

Try looking at the Red Orchestra mod for UT2004.
It looks like a totally different game, hell, a different engine. Even though it's not.

Don't blame the engine for bad developers 😛

I voted Unreal Engine 2/2.5/2X because I love it 😛
Plus it's the only game I managed to get my head around the map editor of.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Doom 3 IMO has superior animations(of the monsters) and HL2 in everything else.

Doom3's lighting & shadowing system can't be touched by any game and that includes HL2.

Is there some none D3 game using the D3 engine that shows this? I've played just about every FPS that's been made. And I can't for the life of me figure out why people get so jazzed on Lighting & Shadowing, it looks crappy to me. And the flashlight is laughable.
People talk about the potential of the D3 Engine, but until I see proof, not just ID feeding us their info on what it can do. Source all the way for me.


Maybe it's because I haven't played it in years, but in my mind I remember Nocturnal even having better lighting then Doom 3.

 

[EpsiIon]

Source.

To me, it just feels smoother than any of the other engines in the poll.

As a side note, the main reason I don't care to play UT2004 is that it just feels clunky to me. Can't really say why, either. I want to like it. I really do. Playing it just annoys me to no end.

EDIT:
Part of that could be the incredibly retarded "attitude" that's forced onto my screen whenever it's running.

"In the future, everybody wears boxes and acts like a badass."

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: user1234
Source is just a refinement of older engines, most notably Q3E - it's not in the same league as doom 3 for indoor environments, or far cry for outdoors, on many levels - lighting, shadows, huge levels, vision distance, etc. Just look at the level of detail and realism in doom 3 zombies compared to HL2's zombies. But HL2 engine is faster then farcry in outdoors and faster then doom3 indoors, and that's important especially for older machines. Between Crytek and Doom3, I would probably choose Crytek, because even though it trails doom3 in lighting and shadowing realism, at this point it's not yet clear if doom3 can even handle the same size outdoor environments as Crytek, so that's a big advantage for Crytek. Also doom3 has very little physics processing, if any.

Regarding the engine used in Chronicles of Riddick, I thought it was rather slow, and things did not look relaistic at all - shadows are obviously drawn as independent objects, and not based on any lighting algorithms. Did I mention the sluggish performance ? It just looks like a console game, with somewhat cartoon like graphics, despite the high levels of detail. Also got to say I look ut2k4.

Jesus Christ that was a well thought out response. Are you sure you belong here?

 

[The Green Bean]

so how long before these games come out in the first place?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
So you guys read about the engines behind the games in detail and make your judgement on that?

Hell no . . . they are all pretty capable . . . .

. . . . i look for practical results in the games i like to play . . . look at what a wonderful engine that Doom iii uses . . .. unfortunately the game is garbage. :shocked:
:roll:

To be fair, this question is what engine you like better...not game. Half Life 2 did an immensely better job of showcasing the source engines capabilities than the Doom3 engine did. That doesn't mean those abilities aren't there however.

 

[PingSpike]

I dunno. In their current states, I've gotta go with Doom3 engine myself. Please note I haven't played farcry so I am snubbing that one a bit. HL2 looks a bit prettier on my PC since I can run it on high settings and a high resolution, but that doesn't mean its the better engine. HL2 has cool physics that are fun to play with...but after kicking the boxes around in Doom3 a bit and reading that a gravity gun ripoff is coming out for the expansion pack...I'm thinking that Doom3 just didn't showcase its abilities in this area like HL2 did. Plus, WTF was up with HL2 having to load new areas mid map all the time, that was crap and really jarred me out of the experience. The shadows in Doom3 I found pretty impressive.

But in the end, the real deciding factor is this: Doom3 is rock solid and well supported across a variety of platforms right now. Source has stuttering and other issues on many people's machines that the developers, as of right now, have been unable to correct. (I personally do not appear to have this problem, but a quick inspection of the steampowered forums will reveal that many people do) This is troubling...it points to a deep seated issue, which I'm hoping they resolve. Not to mention all that steam garbage gumming up the works in other fun ways.

iD software hasn't really made games since the original doom series. They have made engines though. Powerful solid engines that last a long time. (Quake3 engine? Quake3 was a boring ass game...but how many great titles used its engine?) The same cannot be said about valve.

I think most of the touted advantages of the source engine are well within the realm of possibilities for the Doom3 engine, or maybe just need to be switched on...HL2 was just an amazingly designed game with great art and interesting levels and envirnoments. Its a shame that after 5 years the game still isn't done after release...but its certainly no surprise.