HL2 vs Doom 3

Well I just got round to playing HL2 alpha (if your gabe newell and reading then no I didn't play it or download it) and also Doom 3 beta 2 (better working alpha, if your John Carmack then same as with Gabe)...

Well anyways after playing both I have to say there is a clear winner in atmosphere, graphics and effects... Doom 3 kicks HL2's butt! HL2 is dissapointing, the videos look good but when you play you realise that its just HL1 with a higher poly count which they use up on larger maps, and some cool ragdoll physics. Doom 3 however... the lighting is amazing, the atmosphere scares me (especially with zombies getting back up and stuff) and its quite interactive.

Now you'll probably say Doom 3 runs like a man with no legs, but on my PC it runs pretty fine, only goes slow when I meet several enemies and have my torch on (real time lighting chews up your resources). HL2 runs perfectly smooth apart from at really complex areas (which I have to say arn't frequent).

All in all my vote goes to Doom 3 being better for Single Player, but for Multiplayer I think HL2 will be better purely on the ease to edit HL2.

Anyone here played Doom 3 Beta 2 and HL2 Alpha?

My Doom 3 never worked :sad: . Hl2 alpha is great, I had the 1000 uncompiled maps for awhile, but now my Alpha and such are all uninstalled. You can also play online with good `ol /connect :biggrin: .

Hmm, judging games based on one leaked beta and another random collection of files isn't that wise. I think I know why Doom 3 seems better for you...

1. HL2 alpha is simply a collection of files and a compiled source engine. Some files are missing and outdated, especially textures, sounds, and a lot of the maps and models simply don't work because they're the wrong version. Some are also greatly unfinished. This is hardly a basis for saying HL2 is dissapointing.

2. Doom 3 Beta was designed to be shown off at E3, and thus, the enitre thing was supposed to reek of class. The HL2 alpha was just a leaked collection of files, and probably shouldn't even be called an alpha, seeing at least half of the files have outdated version numbers and thus don't work with the (obviously) seperately compiled source engine.

Both were cool insights into the games IMO, it's just one was a finished, complete package, and the other was just a few folders worth of material that was never meant to be seen and seems also to predate E3 (take a look at the E3 maps....bugs, bugs, bugs). Wait for the actual games to be released before passing judgement. What I saw of HL2 showed amazing potential, and Doom 3, while IMO doesn't quite stand up to the same potential I see in HL2, is certainly doing it's job right: scary as s**t.

I havent played yet, but I dont think that we should declare D3 or HL2 the best yet, i mean Im not saying that HL2 will be better, but your playing a code that is nearly a year old (was stolen a bit of time ago), for all we know HL2 isnt done yet, I also got this kinda response from someone who also played HL2, and he said that it didn't look done yet. And for all I know doom 3 is better, I wouldnt know I havent played either of them.

And myrk did you check out the physics??? Im sure this is where HL2 will rock Doom 3, not graphics/lighing wise, because just by the screen shots doom 3 looks amazing. So I guess what im trying to say here is lets not pass judgement yet, especially when the games havent even come out yet.

edit//: sorry I didnt see ur post before, and this was what I was saying also, HL2 isnt done yet.

Well I didn't judge it in that way tbh. I looked alot at the graphical quality, textures, effects, models and stuff. Gameplay of Doom 3 is just a side effect that made me realise how amazing ID are at creeping me out in SP games lol!

Also physics are a bit better in Doom 3 in some places tbh. Crates falling look more authentic in Doom 3, although model physics in the HL2 alpha did come across as being better... still love taking out the zombies knee caps as they walk down stairs in Doom 3 though... oh yer :biggrin:

Congrats, you've judged two games on versions that were never meant to be seen publicly. And I got yelled at for judging UT2k3 and U2 based on their demos, sheesh. :razz:

Well I didn't judge it in that way tbh. I looked alot at the graphical quality, textures, effects, models and stuff. Gameplay of Doom 3 is just a side effect that made me realise how amazing ID are at creeping me out in SP games lol!

Why would you do that when at least 2/3rds of the files that should have been in the alpha were seemingly missing? :razz:

If you've played the HL2 alpha, you'll know that anything thats missing shows up with a big ERROR sign in the map, or no texture on the walls...

If you've played the HL2 alpha, you'll know that anything thats missing shows up with a big ERROR sign in the map, or no texture on the walls...

There are also sounds missing, as well as a lot of shaders not working. Lots of things that would have created an atmosphere were missing. :razz:

[EDIT]: Also, I'd like to add that some maps had zero textures, and a lot more had very little.

True, but cumon, what makes a better atmosphere? A crummy European city with some men with guns on it or a space station taken over by hell?

HL2 to me comes across as a lazy plot, the undertaking Doom 3 is taking is far greater than HL2. HL2 bought thier physics, Doom 3 made thier own. HL2 can just look at Rome or some European city and see the architecture and copy textures... I'm pretty sure there arnt many hell stricken space stations that ID could have taken textures from...

True, but cumon, what makes a better atmosphere? A crummy European city with some men with guns on it or a space station taken over by hell?

HL2 to me comes across as a lazy plot, the undertaking Doom 3 is taking is far greater than HL2. HL2 bought thier physics, Doom 3 made thier own. HL2 can just look at Rome or some European city and see the architecture and copy textures... I'm pretty sure there arnt many hell stricken space stations that ID could have taken textures from...

OK, now you're ignoring my initial point, which was:

Hmm, judging games based on one leaked beta and another random collection of files isn't that wise. I think I know why Doom 3 seems better for you...

You're saying "space stations tend to be cooler than some Euorpean city, therefore Doom 3 is going to be a better game". Also, one of your arguments seem to be "well, iD made their own physics! Valve are LAZY!!" Does this make Doom 3 a better game? Calling Valve lazy when they spent 5 years on the game (over 3 years on the engine alone) isn't a good argument for whther a game is good or not. 'Id spent more time on textures because space stations don't exist", does not make it justified to judge a game based on something you weren't even meant to see in the first place.

Though most of you have probably already seen this, thought it fit the topic. :smile:

Myrk- said:
HL2 bought thier physics, Doom 3 made thier own.

ummmmmm wrong, valve made the source engine, entirely them, the only thing valve bought from Id was the quake engine for HL1, if anything HL1 was really just to keep the gamming comunity satisfied while valve worked toward their real goal: making the source engine.

edit: thanks ralph this was going through my mind at the time.

ummmmmm wrong, valve made the source engine, entirely them, the only thing valve bought from Id was the quake engine for HL1, if anything HL1 was really just to keep the gamming comunity satisfied while valve worked toward their real goal: making the source engine.

Valve are using the Havok physics engine, so they didn't make that part themselves. But they did make the rest of the engine themselves.

True, but they didn't buy it form Id, they did with HL1, HL2 is really what valve was created for, valve just needed a temporary game before they released their real game.

Ohohoho, but they didn't!

HL2 is a glorified HL1 engine. Coded from scratch but borrowing a hell of a lot of code from HL1. Most of it is pretty identical.

As for the argument of which is better, I think now its become more of a personal preference, but from what I've seen and played (not being biased as to gameplay)- Doom 3 does seem a lot better.

I don't think he said they bought the physics from Id. :razz:

omega I think you've lost the plot... let me teach you it-

HL1 is Quake 1 with a couple of things changed.

HL2 is HL1 recoded.

HL2 bought Havoc Physics engine off Havoc. Same company sold the engine to Max Payne 2 and some other games.

Doom 3 is coded from scratch in every way.

Myrk- said:
HL2 is a glorified HL1 engine. Coded from scratch but borrowing a hell of a lot of code from HL1. Most of it is pretty identical.

Well if you think it is identicle to the HL1 engine, you are very wrong. It is very different, the physics is a big change for one, the lighting is doom 3's equal if not better, and there are many other things that the HL2 engine has that HL1 does not, so comparing the two is very wrong.

Please... I have played the 2, you haven't. I've talked to someone who works with HL2 code, you haven't...

And stop with the physics lol, they bought it! They didn't make it!

Nobody cares.

Last time I checked it takes much more than a pretty engine with flashy models and bright blinding colored lighting to make a good game.

Meh, doesn't matter if they bought it or made it. Obviously id are the more experienced/talented developers at the end of the day, but the only thing you should take from betas like this are the positive aspects- dodgy bits will obviously (hopefully?) be fixed.

Leperous said:
Meh, doesn't matter if they bought it or made it. Obviously id are the more experienced/talented developers at the end of the day, but the only thing you should take from betas like this are the positive aspects- dodgy bits will obviously (hopefully?) be fixed.

Well of coarse they've been in the gaming business longer.

-Myrk I never said valve made the physics, and I was merely stating that HL2 engine is much more than what your making it out to be.

As for the argument of which is better, I think now its become more of a personal preference

Of course it's personal preference -- would else would it be? :razz: I just find your arguments a bit weak, and you seem to be trying to avoid justifying your arguments.

Alien_Sniper said:

um...ok and i thought i said some random things...

Obviously, Yak already said this, but the Doom III beta 2 is a beta test for some of the single player aspects, where the HL2 anon leak is by no means a Beta. It's not even an alpha stage. It's an illegal leak where most of the information is missing.

I think they'll both be great games. And I'm still looking forward to HL2, but I don't really think you should compare them to each other, it's not like they're directly related, besides both being illegal copies of the games or tests of the games.

They are not adequate representations of what the actual games will be like. If anything they only represent the control and physics of the game engine.

As for HL2 being exactly like HL1 but with more poly's. Would you have it any other way? Part of what made half-life so good was its controls. Why change a good thing? To 'improve' the game? Last time I checked that most games don't get better when the series changes its base *cough*Deus Ex 2.

You can even look at Max Payne; technically all they did was put in higher resolution textures, higher polygon counts, and better lighting, along with a new set of models, would you have that game change its controllability and base? I wouldn't think so (Because in my opinion, MP2 blows away MP1)

Anyway, I'm ranting, so I'll stop, but these aren't adequate versions to judge the game on. Because also if I judged the games by the leaks I could say the story for Doom III is crap ... which is not fair at all.

Anyway ... rant is complete. Commencing submission ... BEEP.

Duke will make them both his bitch!!!!

I suppose HL2 and Doom3 are the ones who're "going to pay for making me find these freakin' key cards" :biggrin:

How about this: Doom III is a cramped, underlit, restricted and engine-whored experience from the first second; that's the experience I got from playing my brother's alpha.

I consider the level design sloppy because they must have poured hours of work into something a player might give a passing glance to for five seconds. In the end, maybe the ten thousand polygon pipes in the corners make the game slightly more atmospheric, but it's just for show.

HL2 I have never played, under kind of an oath, but I believe its designers and production are worthy of just a little more respect than the community has been giving it.

I didn't like Far Cry at first because it seemed to be so engine-whored; that is, that the guys who coded the graphical effects were more to thank for the game's looks than any artist. Far Cry showed itself to have excellent craftsmanship value eventually, however.

I like Half-Life and Half-Life two because when you make something with them, that's a direct measure of your skill. No static meshes, fancy lighting effects, random map generators or oversized textures are in HL; it takes real talent to make something good looking. Maps in UT2k3 can slap a static mesh or two and use some lighting effects and look great; with HL, a nub could never pull that off.

If Half-Life 2 is just HL with more polies, I'll be getting exactly what I wished for about two years back before the game was announced. f**k all the shaders, real-time reflections, soft lighting, dynamic lighting, all of it - real talent has no part in that.

EDIT: Goddammit. Ban me from this post.

then why don't you go map for DOOM or Pong to show off you 'skillz' Cassius. :razz:

I agree -somewhat-, though. I get a thrill out of coming up with new visual fx and stuff in Half-Life, it's quite a challenge.

however, what you said about being able to make some amazingly beautiful map in UnrealEd right off is bulls**t. that's what's been so hard for me- the fact that I know my first UT maps are going to be crap compared to my Half-Life ones because I'm a newbie at it. sure, the engine has lots of bells and whistles that Half-Life doesn't but they don't just magically work, you have to learn the editor just like with Half-Life. and the more perks and s**t, the more you have to learn, and the harder it is to get it all working smoothly and looking right.

You're also being unfair to those mappers who make their own static meshes, props, etc. Don't tell me someone who has mastered Maya & a map editor has no 'real talent'.

bleh. I hope HL2 and DOOM3 get out sometime this year, I am itching for some fun 1 player action.

Jinx said:
then why don't you go map for DOOM or Pong to show off you 'skillz' Cassius. :razz:

I agree -somewhat-, though. I get a thrill out of coming up with new visual fx and stuff in Half-Life, it's quite a challenge.

however, what you said about being able to make some amazingly beautiful map in UnrealEd right off is bulls**t. that's what's been so hard for me- the fact that I know my first UT maps are going to be crap compared to my Half-Life ones because I'm a newbie at it. sure, the engine has lots of bells and whistles that Half-Life doesn't but they don't just magically work, you have to learn the editor just like with Half-Life. and the more perks and s**t, the more you have to learn, and the harder it is to get it all working smoothly and looking right.

You're also being unfair to those mappers who make their own static meshes, props, etc. Don't tell me someone who has mastered Maya & a map editor has no 'real talent'.

bleh. I hope HL2 and DOOM3 get out sometime this year, I am itching for some fun 1 player action.

Yes, there is a great deal of talent involved in making a good map for any engine, but my gripes are on aesthetics. I've worked on two teams for UT2k3 mods, Wasteland and Sky and Red Orchestra - I know how it goes. Yes, I have tried UED, and have respect for most anyone who can actually crank something out with that contraption. And, most importantly, yes, I have seen people achieve amazing visuals, to the eyes of a Half-Life mapper, with little more effort than placing static meshes. Of course, that's only half of mapping, but it is indeed true.

Duke Nukem Fornever

Oh, I wanted to see what KFS was posting. Probably illegal trade secrets that I could fall asleep with a smile on my face knowing.

Hmmm, thing with Doom 3 is that it is meant to be played slowly (if you haven't noticed you walk through most of it). Alot of the should be played anticipating a creature coming out of every crevace... Take for example the part where your walking along and suddenly a pinkey bursts through some pipes, ripping them open. Such aspects simply arn't available for HL2. They use the old func_breakables and stuff.

As for HL2 not impressing me much, I suppose it could be because I'm so used to HL1... but mapping with shaders etc. as cassius was saying makes the whole expecience harder. Obviously you do not have the ability to see through peoples effects they put in thier maps, or just forgot that you do.

Then again skill in mapping comes with architecture and entity skill.

Plus I don't see ID software hashing up thier community with Steam

If Half-Life 2 is just HL with more polies, I'll be getting exactly what I wished for about two years back before the game was announced. f**k all the shaders, real-time reflections, soft lighting, dynamic lighting, all of it - real talent has no part in that.

And while we're at it, let's go back to mixing our own paints with egg-white. Because those painters who use pre-mixed pigments clearly don't have real talent :razz:

Cassius said:
I consider the level design sloppy because they must have poured hours of work into something a player might give a passing glance to for five seconds. In the end, maybe the ten thousand polygon pipes in the corners make the game slightly more atmospheric, but it's just for show.

Hrm, name an id game with crap level design :smile: If that is true, then we get our hands on it I'm sure it'll look even better...

I'm not here

I wouldn't call it a community, a community assumes there's harmony between the members :biggrin: .

As for an id game with bad level design...I'm sorry but Q2 definitely falls under that category. I absolutely hated the levels in that game, they were an eyesore to look at and rather dull to play.

Now for the whole D3 vs. HL2 thing...f**k it!

As for the whole which game it takes talent to make a map for...f**k that too!!

Let's see, what other arguments going on in this thread have I not told to "f**k off" yet? Oh yeah, Pie vs. Cake, f**k that one as well!!!!!!

can i get a link to both demos? or alpas or whatever

I'm only going by screenshots and videos as I refuse to download the leaked versions, but I prefer HL2. Doom 3 looks too... plasticy. It looks like someone built the lot out of plastercine, or gave up with textures and said "Hey, lets build the whole thing out of individual single colour brushes!" Sorry, but HL2 just looks more realistic. Thats my thoughts anyway...

tbh I wish less games out there were focused on "realism" in terms of gameplay and graphics. I miss the Atari days when it was more overt that it was a GAME, when the 'real' premises were silly or nonexistant. I don't care about realism, I care about fun, video games need more silliness in them :rolleyes:

Myrk- said:
Plus I don't see ID software hashing up thier community with Steam

you got a point. :smile:

Jinx said:
tbh I wish less games out there were focused on "realism" in terms of gameplay and graphics. I miss the Atari days when it was more overt that it was a GAME, when the 'real' premises were silly or nonexistant. I don't care about realism, I care about fun, video games need more silliness in them :rolleyes:

See and Half-Life (series) wins on sillyness on every point, tons of humor, whacky scientists and situations.
You know who's going to be in Half-Life 2? Yes that's right, Barney! And he's even better looking for all the ladies out there!

Did you hear all the people laughing at the E3 (there were numerous occasions btw), when Gordon bumped over a monitor, and the scientist (kleiner) reacted on it. They laughed, you probaly didn't hear anybody laugh when D3 was showed, and that's probaly because everybody was intimidated beforehand.

Can you imagine the silly mods for Half-Life 2, yes you can, I know you can, I also know you can't imagine anything silly for D3 (except that it wont even look good on most of our systems, now that's silly).

D3 will never win on the point of sillyness, because Half-Life is the master of silly.

tbh I wish less games out there were focused on "realism" in terms of gameplay and graphics. I miss the Atari days when it was more overt that it was a GAME, when the 'real' premises were silly or nonexistant. I don't care about realism, I care about fun, video games need more silliness in them :rolleyes:

True I suppose. What I really meant is that in a game aiming to scare the player or create a certain atmosphere, the more beievable it is the better. For example, I find it unlikely that a load of flaming skulls floating around and monsters which look as if they are related to Wallace and Gromit are going to have the same effect as say, AVP2. I guess a game must LACK realism to an extent - something like Splinter Cell I find dull. However, completely daft things like the Toon Run map on Sven Coop are not a step in the right direction for either HL2 or Doom 3. </end of pointless conclusion>

Oh and I forgot

Who's the man!

True I suppose. What I really meant is that in a game aiming to scare the player or create a certain atmosphere, the more beievable it is the better. For example, I find it unlikely that a load of flaming skulls floating around and monsters which look as if they are related to Wallace and Gromit are going to have the same effect as say, AVP2.

You haven't played the beta, have you? :razz: