D3?

[Darkmatter]

Anyone here play Doom 3, it's a scary game with a sedducing storyline that drags you deeper and deeper into the rhealms of evil, damn that sounded pretty good. Well yah, I'm about to start playing again, I'm near the begining, im only in alpha labs, anyway, yeh, post here.

[Yeef]

D3: Mighty Ducks

[Jitsama]

I played it when it first came out, it was fun I guess. It'll be better when I get my new hardware though.

[Zabur]

It sucked.

The graphics were sub-par except for the shadow dynamics.

The story was horrable, I was able to guess what would happen most of the time.
The scarefactor is also very bad. After about 30 minutes in, it was just boring.

[Snowfox]

It rocked.

The graphics blew away anything else out at the time.

The story was a redo of the original back in the early 1990s that was quite well done, for an FPS.

Imps popping out scared the shit out of me for the first couple of times.
But yeah, it got somewhat predictable.

[Zabur]

The graphics were subpar.

The only thing that was amazing with the shadows.

[KaenLogos]

Well the graphics where not quite to the level of expectations but still blew anything else away at the time, gotta remember that we havent even seen the full capability of the engine yet (not until the 512mb vid cards come)

As for doom3 it freaking rocks, its simple yes..but its old school fun with a great scare factor that I cherish tremendously. Alot of polish went into both the pc and xbox versions and I love em both ^_^

[Snowfox]

Zabur... compared to what game did Doom 3's graphics "suck"?

[Zabur]

Compared to the source engine, the D3 engine was horrable. The only thing it has going for it is shadows.

[Darkmatter]

lol if you put a character model of the D3 engine next to a source character you would see that D3 looks better, y u think source is easier for the comp.

[KaenLogos]

Doom3 has shall we say, more "business" goin for it. Source engine in my opinion is overall better cuz of physics and scope and such. But a room in doom3 compared to a room in half life2, well there isnt much contest. As for character models its about the same. Source is getting a sweet hdr update soon, but bump mapping is quite sexy, and doom has alot of sexy in it.

[Zabur]

Look at these two pics:
http://www.ixbt.com/soft/images/doom3/doom3_08.jpg
http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/552/552906/half-life-2-20041001075518411.jpg

The HL2 one have far superior character modeling. The DM3 characters look plasticy and false, while the HL2 characters seem to be alive.

As for room/enviroments, the DM3 have better dark indoor scenes, this is due to t it's shadowing ability.

here is an example of the different engine at work on in-door areas:
http://www.counterfrag.com/screenshots/doom%203/1.jpg
http://www.etoft.dk/pub/hl2-et2.jpg
As you can see, the indoor of D3 seems to be more detailed, but still has a plasticy lookt o it. While the HL2 looks more realistic, however, it's shadows do not look nearly as good as D3

How about some outside pictures:
http://www.doom3.co.uk/files/data/502/385outside-med.jpg (only good one found, due to lack of outside areas in the game....)
http://home.comcast.net/~dmitriy17/hl2ss1.jpg

It's kinda obvious which one has more diversification in the outdoor department (HL2)

The HDR will only make the outdoor scenes look even more sexy.

Here is a screenshot with the new HDR enabled:
http://www.shacknews.com/screens.x/half_life_2/Half-Life+2:+Lost+Coast/1/hl2_coast/d2_LostCoast.jpg

Here is a movie featuring the new HDR:
http://www.gamershell.com/download_9719.shtml

Long post....bleh...

lol if you put a character model of the D3 engine next to a source character you would see that D3 looks better, y u think source is easier for the comp.
The reason is because Source is a better engine.

[flare60]

The scariest part of the game was that youd waste zombies, prepeare to walk away, wich would mean turning around ! HEYO !!! `ZOMBIE RIGTH IN YOUR FACE !!!


The enemy that really made me shiver, was the ****ing cherub thou !!

FLYING BABIES WITH FLY WINGS OH MY !!!

Seriously it didnt matter if there was ligth, just the sound of those monsters messed me up severly.

[Agent Cryrid]

here is an example of the different engine at work on in-door areas:
Isn't that one of the oldest Doom 3 images in existance (pre-release at that)? At least try to take real images (http://www.cryridstudios.com/images/temp/doom3.jpg) instead of ones that are biased towards HL2.

The facts are simple, months ago DIII was one of the best looking games out there, if not thee best. However as more and more games come out, of course it isn't going to be the king any more, but it's graphics still do not suck when compared to other games.

Simply put, DIII focuses on delivering dark gritty spaceship-like rooms. Of course it is going to display them better instead of Mars, and in my opinion does a better job than HL2 for these enviroments (and shadows are awesome).
HL2 on the other hand focuses on mordernish Europe-like city streets, and more open enviroments, so of course it will display them better than DIII. The two games are literally world's apart in their setting, so you can't really compare them unless DIII attempts Europe or HL2 attempts a dark, scary and isolated Mars. Something tells me Farcry would kick the shit out of either game when it comes to displaying tropical islands, and battlefield 2 would churn out a much better Iraq than the other three. They just focus on different things. Now, if you want to talk about an engine producing bad graphics, so far the score is 1 to 0 for the Source Engine. The engine used with DIII (same with Q4?) has yet to visually make a game that looks bad. Source however....*coughvampire:themasqquerade-bloodlinescough*.

But to focus back on Doom. The graphics rocked, and today are still pretty nice. What is really lacking, is gameplay and a story. Combined with an unvaried level design, the game died for me fast. It was fun when it first came out, playing in the dark on late fall nights with the sound cranked up and the mod which turned off gibs and made the zombies sit up and continue slowly chasing you, even after you "killed" it. But it just loses the fun factor too fast, and holds no replay value to me.
It was nice that they took cutting edge graphics and applied it to an old game, but games have evolved so much since Doom 2 that it really did nothing more than hurt the game. Hopefully Q4 will offer some better gameplay elements.

[Lexar]

Doom 3 and HL2 use pixel shaders on the textures of the models, but the models themselves, and the resolution of the textures are actually slightly less good then UT2004. But Ut2004 really only has the raw polygon and texture thing going for it, not the finesse of HL2 or Doom 3.

No, the thing that makes graphics good is the artists working on them. The amount of time they have and the art directory. Good level designers can make games look good even on slightly older engines.

There's a lot of new games out now for example using the unrealed 2.5 engine, which was pretty much released simultaniously as UT2003. And that, after doom 3 and halflife 2, or indeed farcry. Just goes to show that good comprehensive tools that cut down on cumbersome procedures, will make it easier on the level designers, and they'll have more time to work out something beautifull. The way you experience games and levels is more due to the artistic side and the gameplay aspects of a level then the technical engine running it. Which engine is better, can't be measured by 2 totally different games, graphically. My money still is on the unreal engine, because their developer tools are very user friendly and very powerfull, and that counts more in the overall end result then the technical capabilities of an engine. It goes without saying of course, that it doesn't work if you compare a new engine with a horribly out of date one.

[flare60]

The Unreal engine is exelent thats true enough, ive seen the videos and the things this baby is capable of are AMAZING !

On the negative side, there wont be a way for us to enjoy the ghrapics at all unless they come out with better cards, basically unreal engine is awsome, but we wont be able to use it without quite alot of cash and very expensive hardrives currently.

In a few years it will proboly be a diffrent story ofcourse.

[Lexar]

I'm talking about the old engine. The one used with splinter cell games, thiefs, swat 4, UT2004, americas army, pariah, lineage 2, postal 2, star wars republic commando, brothers in arms, men of valor, XIII, you name it. The graphics are only as good as the people making them, the engine is more a way to stretch the limits of what they can make.

Unreal engine 3 is made for 2006 to 2007 hardware, so obviously it looks amazing.

[Zabur]

You cannot blame the makers of source of Vampire The Masquerades, that's the devlopers of that game's fault.

I still say that D3 looks pretty plasticy to me, while HL2 is more realistic looking, however, both hav etheir faults.

D3 is very plasticy looking, and HL2 sucks with shadows. Source is getting and upgrade with their HDR upgrade that will make scenes looks just orgasmicaly brilliant, but it will still lack the shadowing ability that D3 has.

[Agent Cryrid]

You cannot blame the makers of source of Vampire The Masquerades, that's the devlopers of that game's fault.
Never did, I just pointed out that the engine is only as good as the people behind it, and that the people behind Doom3 pushed it a lot further than even games released after it with amazing engines at their disposal. You started throwing around the "Compared to the source engine..." jumbo, I was just saying that the source engine isn't the god you were making it out to be.

Doom3 is not sub par as you said, by all means it basically set the par for games of today. Some games now can indeed do better, some go for hole-in-ones. Many others get stuck in sand traps. But if you still think the graphics of D3 suck, you really should look at the market a bit more.

[Zabur]

Ok, I went over board saying it was subpar, however, I still believe that it is not as versitile as Source.

I also still believe that the graphics are overhyped.

[Alucard1515]

Huh? The Source engine has NOTHING on Doom 3's engine.

I agree that overall the artistic quality to Half Life 2 was better than Doom 3's, but the engine for Doom 3 is so far beyond Source, it's not even funny.

[Zabur]

Care to explain how so?

**EDIT**
Huh? The Source engine has NOTHING on Doom 3's engine.

Really, huh?

How about this: (all of these are far bayond D3 engine "it's not even funny")
HDR
Facial Animations
Physics
Water with refection and fresnel effects
Real-time radiosity lighting
Completely scalability: Dx6-Dx9 hardware supported (I know D3 can't do this)

Materials System:
Instad of tradition textures, Source defines sets of materials that specify what the object is made from and the texture used for that object. A material specifies how an object will fracture, sound when dragged across another surface or broken, as well as the object mass and buoyancy.

Did I mention facial animation and details?

How about the infor on physics?
-Sound and graphics follow from physics.
-AI characters can inteact with physically simulated objects.
-World-class machines, contraint systems and ragdoll physics.
-Kindematic animated bone followers.

This only scratches the surface that makes up the possabilities of this engine.

[KaenLogos]

No I dont beleive doom3 is as versatile as source but doom3 renders the "busier" looking graphics, real time lighting, bump mapping out the wazoo and such. Just watch the trailer for quake 4 enemy territory, they are gonna take this engine far. Source is gonna do just the same but I imagine source more a scale for larger based games. Would love to see a tribes running on source mmmmmm sexy that would be.

[Snowfox]

They seriously need to just remake Tribes one, and ONLY change the graphics/models.
Nothing else.

[Agent Cryrid]

This only scratches the surface that makes up the possabilities of this engine.
We're talking about graphics, you're throwing in things that ID just didn't bother to put into D3 (ie: sounds, animations, water effects, etc), and really I don't blame them. You're not fighting along beaches or even people - you're shooting beings from hell after about 3 minutes of dialogue - facial animations just are not a top priority for such a game.
HDR
Carmack says otherwise (and something tells me he knows a bit more than us)
Facial Animations
Animations are animations, and could have been done by the Art team if they really wanted to. Though I will give Valve a clap since they still did an amazing job, and they made it easy to synch
Physics
I thought we were talking about Source, not Havok. Physics = gameplay issue, not graphical
Water with refection and fresnel effects
Did I even see them attempt water in Doom?
Real-time radiosity lighting
I'm a bit too busy to see what makes that different than normal real time lighting, but when it comes to lights shadows are as important as the lights themselves...
Completely scalability
Woot, Dx 6! .....
Materials System
That doesn't affect the graphics, that just makes mods easier for people to make. Any one of those things can be created the traditional way (assuming mass and buoyancy were even needed). Simply put, this doesn't make HL2's graphics superior to D3
How about the infor on physics?
Once again, NOTHING to do with HL2 having better graphics.

[misterkyo]

Eh, i had my fun with doom3. I haven't played half life2 yet, so i with hold judgement.

I'm a bit too busy to see what makes that different than normal real time lighting, but when it comes to lights shadows are as important as the lights themselves...

Real-time radiosity lighting? I'm interested where that came from. That's another one of those extremely resource intensive things (not unlike the rumor that ps3 will be able to handle sub surface lighting).

Basically, radiosity takes in account that light bounces like the real world. Not like lights in games now. I have doubts, but it would be very very cool if they've just introduced it.

Carmack says otherwise (and something tells me he knows a bit more than us)

That's right. HDR isn't too hard to implement. Even if it's just a faked hdr. I think i read that farcry or some other game that came out about that time is also getting a hdr update. It's important to keep in mind that just having hdr doesn't mean great graphics. There is such a thing as bad use of hdr, but obviously if you use it on a well made scene it will take things up a notch.

[Zabur]

I thought we got past graphics of the games and were discussing the differences in the engines.

It all seems you are talking out of your ass.

Facial animations and not just that, the amount that can be achieved has to do with the engine, not with the game. Sorry, but your wrong on that one.

Source does not use "fake" hdr, they use it how it should be used.

Woot, Dx 6! .....

So you mean that scalability does not matter? I think, from a commercial point of view, that it is one of the most important things. The higher amount of people who can play allows more games to be sold, simple as that.

My last post was in response to Alucard.

[Agent Cryrid]

I thought we got past graphics of the games and were discussing the differences in the engines.
Yeah... the GRAPHICS engine

Facial animations and not just that, the amount that can be achieved has to do with the engine, not with the game. Sorry, but your wrong on that one.
Like I said, animations are animations. Facial animations are animations. Doom 3 can handle animations judging by the monsters I saw walking around, so therefor Doom 3 can do facial animations. It's isn't that the engine can't do it, it is that ID didn't want to do it for Doom3.

So you mean that scalability does not matter? I think, from a commercial point of view, that it is one of the most important things. The higher amount of people who can play allows more games to be sold, simple as that.
It matters to those who make money. But to a gamer with a high end rig it is nothing more than a waste of code and bears absolutely no factor in making HL2 or it's graphics better than any other game. The only thing I want scaled are graphics - up. Being able to lower the quality of something is the last thing I would ever, ever want to do to a game.

[Zabur]

Agent Cyrad...I'm sorry to be rude but you are talking out of your ass.

Please get some facts before you try to dicuss something you have no knowledge about.

Thanks.

[misterkyo]

It all seems you are talking out of your ass.

Are you referring to me or to someone else? All i wanted to know was where you this radiosity information from.

I think you missed the point of my hdr comment. I use fake hdr all the time when working in 3D, mainly because i don't own any high res hdrs. The point was that it's easy to implement, not that the source engine doesn't do it.

It matters to those who make money. But to a gamer with a high end rig it is nothing more than a waste of code and bears absolutely no factor in making HL2 or it's graphics better than any other game. The only thing I want scaled are graphics - up. Being able to lower the quality of something is the last thing I would ever, ever want to do to a game.

You both have a point on this one. There are two ends to the market, one being yourself (higher end) and then what i'd call the majority (may not actually be the majority, but i think it's fairly reasonable to assume not everyone has a high end rig). Game makers have to be able to sell the product to both.

[Zabur]

Not you, I respect you opinion, you seem to have knowledge on the suybject. That comment was directed towards Agent Cyrad, sorry for the confusion.

[Agent Cryrid]

How the hell am I talking out of my ass? If you don't think the engine used in Doom 3 can make use of HDR or animate a model of a face as well as any other model it animates, or if playing a game on DX 6 magically makes an engine superior, you're the one ignoring facts.

[Zabur]

I thought we got past graphics of the games and were discussing the differences in the engines.

Yeah... the GRAPHICS engine

This show you are talking out of your ass. kthxbai.

or if playing a game on DX 6 magically makes an engine superior, you're the one ignoring facts

I never said that's what makes it superior, I stated how that part of the engine is better than D3s. If you think scalability is usless, then you are not thinking straight. And if you are not thinking straight, then you are not worth agruing with.

I have presented FACTS about source, while you just blow them away saying they have nothing to do with the engine. The fact that they ONLY have to do with the engine proves you are talking out of your ass.

GG.

[KaenLogos]

Overall zabur ill agree that source is the better engine all round. Though you gotta remember its carmack backing the doom3 engine, anyone remember a lil game called quake3? Yeah how long was that engine around, and look how far they pushed that. Doom 3 has yet to be quite maxed out with its capabilities. For the most part the real time lighting just crushes performance when applied to larger areas that half life 2 focuses on.

I try to look at it this way, source has its own "style" as does doom3, source uses pretty advanced dx9 effects but doom3 still rocks it hard with excellent bump/normal maps and real time lighting.

Source is more applicable to a wider range of games
BUT if they ever announce an alien versus predator 3 game and it uses the source engine over doom3's engine I will seriously cry...because source's "style" doesnt fit with what doom3 and avp share in common ATMOSPHERE, not that half life2 and source games dont have their own wonderfully created atmosphere.

I still say both engine's rock hard and it'll be interesting to see how both are pushed to their limits although I question how far these engines will go outside of their respected companies now that Unreal Engine 3.0 is comin down the pipe....mmmm gears of war...soooo sexy.

[KaenLogos]

Crap sorry for the double post, I forgot to add that just for the record (if I can find pix ill post em) They actually managed to get doom3 running on a tnt2 vid card! It looked like utter crap and ran at about 24 fps steady I think but it did work! LoL

[moof]

It all seems you are talking out of your ass.

HDR
Facial Animations
Physics
Water with refection and fresnel effects
Real-time radiosity lighting
Completely scalability: Dx6-Dx9 hardware supported (I know D3 can't do this)

All of those weren't implemented into the D3 engine, but it can do them, and probably better.

I think the point is that the D3 engine is a powerhouse engine, where Source is loosely nit but solid.
Simply put, there are things the doom 3 engine can and probably will do, where Source can only scratch at.
Also, real time lighting is something only D3 has achieved at this moment, and is considered a next gen feature before the next generation of games are even out.
The fact that real time lighting even works and runs fairly well on todays computers- not even needing next gen technology- says a lot about how powerful that engine is.

:|

[Lexar]

The thing that's going to give Unreal 3.0 the edge is not even the graphics but the user friendly interface and tools, cutting down on a lot of cumbersome scripting, and thus cutting down on development time. I've worked with unreal engine 2.5 a little myself making some (pretty basic) levels for UT2004 and I have to say it's a very powerfull tool, and the versitality and ease in building of it is more important than the graphical part alone. That only goes so far, and games will be looking great anyway. I haven't worked with either source or whatever the hell doom 3 uses, but I can assure you game developers don't pay that much attention to what minute differences there are in the graphical properties and more in how fast you can make a game, how much the licence for the engine costs, and how versatile, to fit their demands, it is. That's really what makes the difference. That's why the doom 3 engine and even source are already selling less licences then unrealengine 3 is for future games, and even unreal engine 2.5 has outsold them as far as engine licences goes, after the games have been out for a good couple of months.

[Zabur]

I guess I agree with some of your two points.

However, I don't really want to continue this debate, so, bye bye ^.^

[Shou]

how can doom3 do hdr? isnt that a dx9 thing only? carmack is an opengl fanboy and will probably never touch dx9 stuff.

I think the d3 engine is exceptionally coded but horribly narrow in what it can do. Quake4 looks like nothing more than a doom3 expansion with the exact same graphics and environments, I dont think its just because its the same artists. It cant seem to do anything else besides what we saw in doom3. The graphics might be more intense in d3 than source but I dont think they look better, the lighting is too harsh and over the top which makes everything too dark. Again, I think its main weakness is how it can only do one certain style, where as source has huge potential for a number of different kinds of projects

[Agent Cryrid]

This show you are talking out of your ass. kthxbai
Seeing how the bulk of converstation is built around "The graphics were sub-par" and consisted of people talking about the graphical differences between the two engines, I think it does without saying I'm talking well out of my mouth but you're too focused on my ass it seems to notice.

You're facts are nothing more than things Doom 3 can handle well on it's own. Do seriously think that Doom 3 would crash anytime someone attempted facial animations or decided that they wanted a can to bounce around realistically? No.

I never said that's what makes it superior, I stated how that part of the engine is better than D3s.
Please Click Here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=superior)

If you think scalability is usless, then you are not thinking straight. And if you are not thinking straight, then you are not worth agruing with.
Sounds like you just don't know how to defend your arguments. But then again they are of the nature that you really can't defend them. I don't give a flying shit about playing my games on the lowest quality settings or on DX 6. Hell, I edit files on games like BF2 to up the graphics beyond what the options allow. Scaling back a game to me is absolutely 100% completely useless. It's not "not thinking straight", it's thinking that "why would I go for this rotten apple when I could pick this bigger, juicer red apple"?

how can doom3 do hdr? isnt that a dx9 thing only? carmack is an opengl fanboy and will probably never touch dx9 stuff.
I'm guessing either he's doing work with DX9, or OpenGL can do it do. Either way he was testing it with NV40 floating point blends, and there are cvars in the game relating to HDR. He's saying his engine can do it now though, so I trust his wizzardry.

Quake4 looks like nothing more than a doom3 expansion with the exact same graphics and environments
http://www.cryridstudios.com/images/temp/q4.jpg
I think it is capable of breaking away from the Dark Spaceship thing if it had to.

[Snowfox]

Seeing how the bulk of converstation is built around "The graphics were sub-par" and consisted of people talking about the graphical differences between the two engines, I think it does without saying I'm talking well out of my mouth but you're too focused on my ass it seems to notice.

Sorry, but that was awesome.

[Shou]

where is that from? it says q4.jpg but it looks nothing at all like the quake4 screens on game sites

[Zabur]

Ok, you have no idea what the **** you are talking about. The game is ran off of a single engine. If the ENGINE cannot handle the facial animations, then it cannot be done without overloading the engine itself. Source is built to handle about 46 (I believe it's this much, but go look for yourself, I'm not sure if it's this amount) muscles while animating the human face.. The D3 engine CANNOT DO THIS! The development team of a game has no choice but to follow the rules of the engine, and since the D3 engine cannot do this, it cannot happen with games that use this engine.

Same goes for physics. The development team of a game cannot just wake up and decide that they want realistic bouncing cans. The reason is because their engine cannot support this feature. The engine is not designed around such realistic qualities.

Like, I said, you are talking out of your ass because you don't know what the **** pertains to the engine and what doesn't.

Sounds like you just don't know how to defend your arguments. But then again they are of the nature that you really can't defend them. I don't give a flying shit about playing my games on the lowest quality settings or on DX 6. Hell, I edit files on games like BF2 to up the graphics beyond what the options allow. Scaling back a game to me is absolutely 100% completely useless. It's not "not thinking straight", it's thinking that "why would I go for this rotten apple when I could pick this bigger, juicer red apple"?

...I am not talking about what pertains to you. If I did, then I would not think about arguing at all. I am talking about what engine is more versatile. The scalability of the Source engine makes the engine more verstaile than that of the D3 engine, it's quite simple. Even if it's an addition to the engine that you do not use, it does not matter.

You know why? Because I can say something like this:
My computer blows, therefore I do not give a shit about the graphics. Now, with the graphics stripped to the lowest, I can either play D3 (or not since my videocard only support Direct X 6), or I can play Half-Life 2 with everything on low. Even if I could somehow play D3, with the graphics stripped, the game is pure bullshit. Since the ONLY THING this game had going for it was the graphics, it's now usless for me. Therefore Half-Life 2 wins to me.

Now, do you understand why you cannot say that my VALID ARGUMENT is usless if it does not pertain to you, since we are not arguing about which engine is better to you, but which engine is better overall.

Using personal opinions without backing them up at all does not work when debating. It shows how you cannot reinforce your ideas due to lack of followthrough.

Also, that picture of yours has no backing and is not capable of being done with the engine that it uses. Sorry, but doing that is worse than be using an outdated image for D3 (which I didn't do on purpose, it was the best looking in-door screenshot I could find) that I used.

*edit*
Sorry, had to add this on:

Sounds like you just don't know how to defend your arguments. But then again they are of the nature that you really can't defend them.

I am giving PROOF of why my argument is truthfull, whereas you just blow off my FACTS with you OPINIONS and never yourself give any real FACTS.

Good job arguing with FACTS you meanie.

[Krasnoznamonec]

doom3 running on a tnt2 vid card!Amazing. I owned TNT2 just to weeks ago.

Mohaa lagged with TNT2 on lowest settings.

jackass.Was this really nesecery?

[Zabur]

I guess your right..I thought jackass would add to the effect of my annoyance, heh.

Changed, lol.

[Krasnoznamonec]

It's easy to see that your ennoyed without the little insult.

I consider most arguments over, when someone insults me. Even if i am being wrong that doesn't meen that i deserve to be insulted by someone.

Oh, Of course im right.

[KaenLogos]

Zabur I understand the points your trying to make, just try and take it easy man. When it comes to video games people just have their minds set. Its a wonderful world of opinions my friend :)

[Zabur]

If presented facts in his argument, then I would not be pissed at all. However, all he is doing is disregarding the facts that I am presenting, while throwing nothing but opinions in my face. It's quite annoying...

[moof]

anyone play the addon?

[Agent Cryrid]

where is that from? it says q4.jpg but it looks nothing at all like the quake4 screens on game sites
Quake4.something. I forget as my history gets deleted everynight, but it was on the first page of my search. From what I've seen of the trailer (like the turret firing), it looks like it is from Quake.

Ok, you have no idea what the **** you are talking about. The game is ran off of a single engine. If the ENGINE cannot handle the facial animations, then it cannot be done without overloading the engine itself. Source is built to handle about 46 (I believe it's this much, but go look for yourself, I'm not sure if it's this amount) muscles while animating the human face.. The D3 engine CANNOT DO THIS! The development team of a game has no choice but to follow the rules of the engine, and since the D3 engine cannot do this, it cannot happen with games that use this engine.The engine in a game is actually several engines, ie: the HAVOK engine. Source uses Havok. Max Payne 2 uses Havok. Max Payne 2 doesn't use Source.
Secondly, D3 can handle facial animations. It already has facial animations. If you care you, you can make the animations better. No, it isn't set up to animate it how Source does. Come to think about it, neither do 99.998% of computer games with animations. Does that mean these cames can't do a facial animation as good as HL2? No.

Same goes for physics. The development team of a game cannot just wake up and decide that they want realistic bouncing cans. The reason is because their engine cannot support this feature. The engine is not designed around such realistic qualities.
Dude, they program the physics in when they are working on the movement scripts of the object. They put in numbers - the engine can handle that.
The scalability of the Source engine makes the engine more verstaile than that of the D3 engine, it's quite simple. Even if it's an addition to the engine that you do not use, it does not matter.
Except you're using that as a reason for how Source is better than Doom3's engine. It's like saying Doom3's engine is better because, if needed, it can work on a computer in zero gravity enviroments.

You know why? Because I can say something like this:
My computer blows, therefore I do not give a shit about the graphics. Now, with the graphics stripped to the lowest, I can either play D3 (or not since my videocard only support Direct X 6), or I can play Half-Life 2 with everything on low. Even if I could somehow play D3, with the graphics stripped, the game is pure bullshit. Since the ONLY THING this game had going for it was the graphics, it's now usless for me. Therefore Half-Life 2 wins to me.
Well good for your situation, but if you can't play a game how it is meant to be played then you have no right to bitch about a game at all. If you think catering to retarded computers is peachy keen, perhaps you should take a peak at total immersion high schools. Now, before you turn to the caps key and type something stupid like "do you understand why you cannot say that my VALID ARGUMENT is usless if it does not pertain to you", I should point out that, upon actual reading of my posts, one could detain that "I don't give a flying shit about playing my games on the lowest quality settings or on DX 6". That is what we students refer to as an opinion. A lie would be to say that, by stating I have no use for DX6, it somehow makes that point invalid. Eyes up here Frodo.
Using personal opinions without backing them up at all does not work when debating. It shows how you cannot reinforce your ideas due to lack of followthrough.
How the hell do I have to back up "I don't care about usiong DX6 on my computer"? If you seriously think that I can not back up the fact that I do not care about playing a game on DX6, just tell me. I'll feel guilty about my choice of words I've used in front of you, and I'll end up editing this post to reword the previous reference of "retarded" to "mentally challenged".

Also, that picture of yours has no backing and is not capable of being done with the engine that it uses. Sorry, but doing that is worse than be using an outdated image for D3 (which I didn't do on purpose, it was the best looking in-door screenshot I could find) that I used
Cancel that last thing I wrote, you're retarded and there is no bit of politically correct phrasing one can do to change that. If you actually read what I posted, the screen shot is from Q4, which uses d3 as a BASE. I shows that the enviroments in Q4 do not consist solely of dark spaceships. Obviously it can be done with the engine. Hell, it looks like a screenshot from D3 with lodbias set to -2, nothing fancy. Nothing that can't be done when Carmack sits behind a desk.
Edit: I found the site, and it appears that it isn't a screen of Q4, but rather Enemy Territories: Quake Wars. It too is using a modified DOOM 3 engine, with the help of id Software's MegaTexture technology, which the company says allows for crunching "millions of polygons and a gigabyte-scale texture into a single, seamless and un-tiled landscape.
As for the original intent of the picture, I'm sure IGN has some picture of the outside areas in Q4 as well. I'm sure I've seen one.

[moof]

that screen is actually from a game call strogos wars or something, and it does run on the doom 3 engine. It's a Battle Field clone for quake.

[Drevay]

According to an insider at Raven, the Doom 3 engine has a lot of "hacks" riddled through it. In the creation of Quake 4 they rehauled the rendering pipeline, amongst many things, and it should run on lower spec hardware than Doom 3 without much issue.

Although, any computer with below a gig of RAM can't be considered a gaming computer anyway. :P

[Shou]

I downloaded the trailer to quake wars and it looks damn good, but it comes out in 2006 :/ The quake 4 shots dont look much like it at all, even the outside shots have weird hard lighting like in doom3, I dont think anyone could tell the difference between doom3 screens and quake4 screens if they didnt know what they were looking at.

I would be interested to see what Source would look like with all the poly's quake wars is doing though

But either way, by the time 2006 comes both engines will be over shadowed by the new unreal engine.

[Agent Cryrid]

I'm just going my the outdoor screenshots I'm seeing in EGM, and the "Ah...outdoor enviroments. Huge levels set on the strogg's alien homeworld set Quake IV apart from its cousin Doom 3" text beside it. To me I can instantly tell them apart. The indoor scenes can be a bit tricky, but the fact that they still look amazing just goes to show how nice the engine is.

[Snowfox]

And then Duke Nukem : Forever will have to be redone from scratch again when the new Unreal engine comes out, haha.

[Snowfox]

Even if they don't make as good multiplayer games as Unreal, I've always thought Id kicked the shit out of everyone else when it comes to graphic engines.
I remember the first time I used Open GL at all was on my Diamond 550 on Quake 2.
Man that was insanely beyond awesome.

[Faliat]

My sister got me Doom 3 for my birthday.

I got fed up with it in the first few minutes since I continuously got lost and ended up shooting PEOPLE to get a buzz.

[KaenLogos]

Well I just beat the collecters edition doom3 for xbox, might I add it totally ROCKED!! Even more so considering I beat it 3 times before on pc, that ran the game well on high settings I might add. The xbox version looked phenomenal considering all things. Most importantly (I may get flamed for this) Doom 3 honestly "played" better on a console to me. I felt more immersed in it anyhow.

God I love Id software, I just love em...will support em till the end of time.

Also anyone else notice how funny it is that Id uses similar if not the same sound effects for quite a few things between most games. I love that personally, makes em feel that much more like an Id game.