Half-Life 2 vs Doom 3

[wolf8218]

doom3 is better looking than hl2 anyways.

[Nephew]

Seriously, these people run a website dedicated to an old game.

Still one of the most popular fps games in the world, so maybe you should shut the fuck up, and actually take time to think about what you are saying, so you don't look like a dumbass.

[Cool Mo D]

ya , i think doom 3 is/will be a better single player game

[vapor (v4p0r)]

you know what would be interesting.. if valve used the player models in source as a parallel to cs beta (movements seem similiar) and will change the model movements similiarly to how 1.6 is.. that would be cool

[Josh29]

soberen wrote..

"then grab your trusty pen protector, broken glasses, and of course, your cherished picture of Gabe Newell or John Carmack"



Just because we like reading about certain aspects doesn't mean were all typical nerds. Maybe I should be stereotypical too and assume your a big dumb jock.

Theres many levels of being a nerd, regirstering to an internet forum or taking part in huge long discussion of the technical aspects of a videogame is being a nerd, to an extent. I hate people that deny this fact.

[Def1ance]

I heard this somewhere so I dunno if its' tru, but Source doesn't use Havok2, it uses (heavily) modified Havok code.

Josh29 wrote..

Theres many levels of being a nerd, regirstering to an internet forum or taking part in huge long discussion of the technical aspects of a videogame is being a nerd, to an extent. I hate people that deny this fact.

Way2describe yourself nerd!!1 :P

[teko_teko]

Edited by [user="275048"] @ [time="1093824080"]

For another technical discussion and from different perspectives, check this forum thread at beyond3d.

[GameHopper]

this article is HORRIBLE.



GG.

appended @ [time="1093820775"]

|Iron Chef| Boyardee wrote..

Technical point of view? Ahahaha. That went out the window after I read the first paragraph.



"Doom 3 beats out Half-Life 2 with it's extensive use of real mapping and dynamic lighting."



What is "real" mapping? Is he referring to normal mapping?



"more polygons and detail textures" than doom 3? Not only is that totally unsubstantiated but it's rediculous. This guy doesn't even know what a detail texture is. And even if HL2 *does* push more polygons, the entire point of Doom3's normal mapping is that polycount becomes irrelevant. This article is NOT technical and reads likes a fanboy regurgitating buzzwords he read somewhere but didn't comprehend.



I just reread this article again. This thing isn't newsworthy and is embarrassing. I'd recommend taking it off your website as it looks amateurish.

DITTO

[Pharlap]

GameHopper wrote..

this article is HORRIBLE.



GG.

"good game" to you too.



yeah not very "technical" article. he couldve mentioned carmack's reverse system for rendering shadow volumes :) at the very least.

[xlokix]

efficient wrote..

Very well written article. Kinda reminds me of Fauhrenheit 911.

short, simple, and full of trash? no i'm pretty sure this article is a notch better than anything michael moore has done.

[dbman190]

Pharlap wrote..

"good game" to you too.



yeah not very "technical" article. he couldve mentioned carmack's reverse system for rendering shadow volumes :) at the very least.

Its not Carmack's method, its Creative's! :P



(btw I hate Creative as much as you all do)

[lopinboy]

Haha, what idiot compares AI... That's like comparing a monkey to a scientist. When were monsters suppose to be made smart? I'm pretty sure living dead has never had a brain, but were merely single-tasked monsters.



Not only that, but they try to compare MP... Doom3 wasn't made with MP in mind and it can hold more than 32players if you configure the server properly. They should of learned about that before writing that paragraph.



One more complaint about this idiotic article would be physics comparison. Just b/c you're allowed to throw more junk around in a game, it doesn't mean the physics are correct. From a realistic standpoint, Doom3's physics is more to true life physics than the Havok2.0 engine is capable of.

[EdisLeado]

lopinboy wrote..

One more complaint about this idiotic article would be physics comparison. Just b/c you're allowed to throw more junk around in a game, it doesn't mean the physics are correct. From a realistic standpoint, Doom3's physics is more to true life physics than the Havok2.0 engine is capable of.

So your saying that people exploding into gibs from a bonk on the head from a flashlight is correct? How about a GLASS cup off a table and it doesn't shatter? And how the hell can you compare physics with HL2 and D3 if in D3 the monsters just explode and they don't go flying anywhere...?

[Shadow]

Doom 3 is just graphics and shadows. Personally I don't think switching from flashlight to gun and back is very fun, especially if 1/2 the screen is black. Cheap thrills and scares. Like a roller coaster.

[[pr]]

For one, it's called a 'pocket protector'... why would you protect a pen?



Lame article anyways. Doom3 and Half Life 2 are two seperate games, obviously. And to try and compare D3 (released) to HL2 (unreleased, not fully 'reviewable') is just silly.