Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dj Yoshi:
Cow--it may not, but it depends on what you're doing for modding.![http://forums.massassi.net/html/wink.gif [http://forums.massassi.net/html/wink.gif]](http://forums.massassi.net/html/wink.gif)
</font>
Cow--it may not, but it depends on what you're doing for modding.
![http://forums.massassi.net/html/wink.gif [http://forums.massassi.net/html/wink.gif]](http://forums.massassi.net/html/wink.gif)
</font>
That's my point. Unless I'm missing something, the Doom3 engine is just shiny graphics and lighting, while HL2's engine supports loads more of things that can actually change gameplay. HL2 would have more potential. Doom has potential, sure, but you couldn't be as creative with it as you could with Source, simply because it doesn't have as many options.
I mean, I'm sure you could make plenty of awesome maps/mods/what have you, using Doom3's excellent graphics and lighting and whatever else it has. But, with HL2 there's all sorts of things you can do to make your mod truly innovative. Both engines have their advantages, but I honestly believe HL2 will be superior for editting due to it's versatility.
'course, this is all assuming that Doom 3 doesn't have all the cool features that HL2 does. As I've said, I havn't really followed Doom 3 much because it doesn't really interest me, so I honestly don't know.
------------------
Moo.
Moo.