For all of you that said Doom 3 was too dark...

VooDoo Forever!

No lighting makes Doom 3 look fugly.

Actually I think it's the lack of any textures.

More like Voodoo 2 makes Doom 3 look ugly.

We can safelly say that Doom 3 is a really poorly designed game now, can't we? With fullbright on, we see just how little the game developers did in the line of archi, and modeling. Very little is modled, and almost everything relies on spectral lighting, and bumpmapping. Pretty pathetic, really.

JediKirby

OMG thats so retro.... kinda have a soft spot for those types of graphics (I blame JK).

No.

insert [your opinion is wrong] picture here.

Only no, because it's not.

The human characters are creepy looking.

They have no face. It's like...attack...of the people with eye slots...

JediKirby... actually... it's still amazingly done. With or Without a 12 mb video card.


The oldishness really looks quite good. Could still use SOME lighting though.

I'm sure HL2 would look like this on a voodoo2 as well.

It would. I mean it's bad enough on DX7. Imagine on, what, DX...0? 6?

Sorry for the mix-up

I disagree, quite a bit. HL2 has quite a few more angles and a lot more modeling done that Doom 3. By the way, I'm one of the few who doesn't prefer either over the other (In fact, I'm rather disapointed in both), but I can quite certainly say, while it may not be true for the actual graphics or experience when playing the game, in the end, there's not much work done as far as archi goes. That doesn't mean a game requires elaborate and perfect archi to be good, it just shows how lazy, and dependant on newer features doom 3 is. HL2 is far less dependant on new lighting techniques, and effects to make the entire game. While it is what makes it good, as with D3, it's not what makes the entire game's archi. It only adds to it.

This is NOT asking for fanboyism remarks (Which is inevitable) but is only stating a visually obvious fact. You can disbeleive this since it's rather based on your opinion of 'good archi' but it's a fact that there's more polygons in any given room in HL2 than a lot of the areas in doom3.

JediKirby

Actually, Doom 3 has far superior modelling. Lighting and bumpmapping helps cut down on polygon, that's it. Most would agree--Doom 3's models of creatures and people especially are much...better. I mean, when you look at a marine, it looks as if you're actually looking at a marine.

So your basis for poorly designed is level arch that represents a cramped mars base? Lets not forget the texture artist, model makers, and sound. I mean Halo2 does pretty much the same thing (the main character model in Halo2 contains less pollies then the one in Halo1). THe models were all modeled with exact detail then later turned into bump-maps thereby giving the illusion of high poly models without actually making them insanely high poly. They dont really need to add lighting or too much detail to the textures (when it comes to lights and shadows) cause the engine itself adds those details, as we can see however alot of the bells and whistles are turned off. As for the room architexture, well its no different then other horror games out there (cramp and dark) and it still beats most console game maps.

I don't disagree that Id relied alot on doom3s new features, but isn't that the point of new features? the ability to make such an ugly room look great without adding a ton of extra polys is a good thing, I would think. Besides that, until I see shots of HL2 with a voodoo2 and it's looking better than these, I'm going to continue doubting it would look much better.

Although, I haven't played HL2 so I could be very very wrong. I just want some proof, is all.

Oh, and I thought the environments in doom3 where about all that was good in it. It pulled off the LabTakenOverByDemon look very well, so I don't consider that bad design. The plot, on the other hand, and lack of gameplay besides run/shoot needed a rethink. But that's a different aspect of design.

I guess bugged me about your comment is the lack of clarity. Sure, some parts of doom3 had bad design, but some parts had great design. I think that using the new engine features to make such ugly rooms look good is great design. And no, I'm not a fanboy, as I haven't even finished doom3 cuz it's boring. And I can't play HL2 because my computer is too far away (this is a ****ty laptop).

I even mentioned that this doesn't make it a bad game, it only makes it pretty lazy in design, and dependent on new features. And you're all mentioning player models, which I'm not at all talking about. HL2's player models aren't all that better than Doom3s, and they both suffer from every single game's lack of realism. I'm just talking about archi in it's basic form. It seems D3 has very little of it.

JediKirby

You said lack of models or good models.

I think Doom 3's archi is fine--their attention to detail via models isn't. But think about it--they're trying to keep polygon count down. So what's the first thing that can be cut? Details. Why? They can be done with 'special features'. OH

Man, you really are a D3 fanboy...

HL2 does not look like that when using its DX6 codepath... Oh, and when does HL2 look bad? Your just being ignorant.

No way, this hallway looks nothing like a real one:
http://img22.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img22&image=d1_trainstation_030015.jpg

God, these monsters are ugly:
http://img98.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img98&image=d1_canals_050002.jpg

WTF? They look like crap not people:
http://img98.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img98&image=d3_c17_050039.jpg

Wow, way to misinterpret my post.

1) Nobody knows what it looks like using DX6--it doesn't technically support it.

2) I never said HL2 looks bad, but I have seen a few screens that look unfavorable. I haven't played the game. But almost any game, when all bells and whistles are taken away, would look a LOT worse.

3) I just said the models were better than HL2's, not that HL2's were bad. Really, the best thing about HL2's models is the textures. And the faces. You don't really have much human interaction in Doom 3, but the faces in that also look pretty good (though not as realistic, I'll admit). Not to say that HL2 has bad models, I just think that Doom 3's look...better. Meh.

This saddens me. People are still arguing about Doom3??

Of course. People attack, people defend. It's the way of life. Or something deep like that.

?

You just seem to express your opinions as facts, when they aren't facts but your opinion. If you said: In my opinion, Doom 3 models look better. Instead of: Doom 3's models are far superior in everyway.

Oh crap, just noticed that. I meant DX7. :x

Sorry for all subsequent stuff, then.

Let's come to a compromise...how about this
doom3 looks good in it's own right when you play it how it was designed to be played
HL2 looks good as well, same as above
Doom3 looks like crap with features off
HL2 would probably look like crap as well, but noone knows yet so let's not make assumptions. Let's leave this one alone till we see some screens. So disregard the bolded part until then.

Maybe? maybe not...

Voodoo2 SLI > *

Seriously, he's getting suprising good framerates on that old piece of crap.

30-60. Hell I didn't get that on my GF4 Ti4400

But it looks a bit better on your GF I'm sure.

True :p

they may be better, but far from realistic.

I guess its the uncanny valley kicking in here, but I think HL2 looks a ton more realistic.

but none the less, they're really cool. especially the hell's knight.

Yeah, I agree that HL2 looks a lot more realistic, however the Doom 3 engine adds a lot more atmosphere to the darker areas and stuff. They both have their advantages.

In my honest opinion, between Doom 3 and HL 2, HL 2 both looked superior and ran better. Doom 3 was a pretty game, don't get me wrong, but it ran like crap for me, and it wasn't really that great looking. HL 2 ran a whole hell of a lot better, and looked tons better.

Just so you know, the bumpamaps in DooM 3 are taken from 3D models made by the designers. So there's actually a LOT of modeling been done for D3. They used bumpmaps instead of models though, to cut down on the tri-count while keeping realistic lighting.

i liked doom3 because it didnt need too much detail, and the way it relied on more 2d stuff(with bump mapping, but yeah) made it seem more like an old doom game, and i liked that. and it didnt take a bagilion polygons to be a lot of fun. nothing needs a lot of detail if the gameplay is well thought out, and it was.

i do like HL2 more, though, because it is much more detailed with actual geometry, and has bump mapping in areas where it would be silly to add detail, and places that actually shine in real life. the characters looks much more realistic in their appearance and the way they move and talk. and amazingly the majority of computers run HL2 better than doom3.

both games have great gameplay in their own respects. doom3 is a satanic horror omfg shoot that zombie/robot-monster/flaming head its gonna kill you feel, and HL2 has the whole future earth fighting for the human race sci fi wartime mystery feel.

plus, you kick *** and the hot as hell woman in the game totally wants in your HEV suit... and you're a nerd from MIT. that's awesome.

*rather large .gif files, wait for them to load*

SAJN wins.

Assuming "well-modeled" means "high-poly" anyways...Doom 3 relies too heavily on normal mapping to give its models their looks.

It looks a lot better in motion...

It does, it does. SAJN's just a biased mofo. But it's okay, because after seeing HL2 in motion, it doesn't look that great :]