true or false???

P

PingaDPalo

Guest
in mi opinion, I think that hl2 will demand less "power" to properly run in a pc than doom 3 and far cry...

thanks...
 

Neutrino

Tank
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Messages
4,409
Reaction score
0
Just go read the minimum and recommended specs for both games. That should give you a very good indication.
 

Hectic Glenn

Site Director
Staff member
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
12,233
Reaction score
238
In your opinion which i regard so highly :)
I assume you work for valve and know this for a fact, otherwise it must be a guess!!!? kthx
 

westie

Newbie
Joined
Aug 28, 2004
Messages
672
Reaction score
0
yeah im hoping to run the game with 256mb ram he he
 
P

PingaDPalo

Guest
just need to know if the game was "almost ready" last year, then its requirements are lower than games released this year (e.g.. doom 3 and far cry)...

thanks...
 

iamaelephant

Newbie
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
0
Well it doesn't look as good as Far Cry or Doom 3, so yeah the requirements are probably lower.
 

Absinthe

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
14,040
Reaction score
26
iamaelephant said:
Well it doesn't look as good as Far Cry or Doom 3, so yeah the requirements are probably lower.
I happen to like the look of HL2 far more than Far Cry or Doom 3.
 

Frank

Newbie
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Messages
2,383
Reaction score
0
So what was the minimum requirements for Doom III? I run it perfectly in 1280x1024 High Details...
 

Glo

Newbie
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
427
Reaction score
0
Absinthe said:
I happen to like the look of HL2 far more than Far Cry or Doom 3.
me too
but personal taste does not have to do with polygon count and textures size
 

Alientank

Newbie
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
440
Reaction score
0
iamaelephant said:
Well it doesn't look as good as Far Cry or Doom 3, so yeah the requirements are probably lower.
Doom 3 is brutal on the GPU, that's the main reason it bogs down systems, all the real time lighting and shadowing.
 

iamaelephant

Newbie
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
0
Absinthe said:
I happen to like the look of HL2 far more than Far Cry or Doom 3.
Like it all you want, Doom 3 and Far Cry are much more graphically intensive.

For the record, I like the look of HL2 better than Doom 3, but it doesn't take a genius to tell that Doom 3 is technologically more advanced than HL2. Far Cry looks better than both of them :afro:
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2003
Messages
301
Reaction score
0
iamaelephant said:
Like it all you want, Doom 3 and Far Cry are much more graphically intensive.

For the record, I like the look of HL2 better than Doom 3, but it doesn't take a genius to tell that Doom 3 is technologically more advanced than HL2. Far Cry looks better than both of them :afro:
I have a small project for you:

As soon as the SDK comes out, try building a level the size of HL2's coastline in Doom 3. Then put a couple hundred antlions, combine, and whatever else you want in there. See how it runs. Then tell me Doom 3 is more advanced.

While you're at it, find a good explanation for Far Cry's ugly, pixelated textures and its obvious model clipping errors. And, for good measure, wait one year and compare the number of Source mods to the number of Far Cry mods.

You really should try talking out of your mouth sometime. You'll find that you say a lot less stupid things.
 

rkef

Newbie
Joined
Aug 18, 2004
Messages
231
Reaction score
0
It reminds me of audiophiles, who spend $100K on equipment, to get that extra 5-10% in clarity/range, but have terrible taste in music anyway :LOL:.
 

iamaelephant

Newbie
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
0
First of all, mods have nothing to do with anything. I'm talking about the engine, not the comunity. Doom 3 is quite capable of wide open areas, as shall be seen in Quake 4. Far Cry's textures are not "ugly" and "pixelated," but quite simply on today's hardware it is not possible to have the huge, dense, stunning outdoor environments that Far Cry has, and still keep the textures razor sharp. In fact, one of the Cons in the PCG review on HL2 was that the outdoor textures are low res. That's just the way things are at the moment. It you look at Far Cry's indoor levels, it's fairly obvious that the textures are in fact extremely sharp and it has some absolutely exellent texture effects, such as bump mapping (okay, I'm no graphics whizz, that's all I really know).
 

skipper

Newbie
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
190
Reaction score
0
HL2 going to be loads better then FarCry and DoomIII. Just my opinion

"welcome to the Forums Mr PingaDPalo"
 

f|uke

Newbie
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1
HL2 has the best water. Doom 3 doesnt even have water! HL2 has higher res textures, and the best models and animation. Doom 3 has the lighting, FarCry has the lush environs. So graphically, they all have their strong points and weaknesses. But HL2 still looks best, and clearly has the most advanced engine.
 
P

PingaDPalo

Guest
why do we have to star flaming each other???

doom 3 and far cry have positive and negative aspects...I am pretty sure that hl2 will beat both of them in game play and it will revolutionize the gaming industry, but I think that it is fact that it could lack in the graphics department...

for me, painkiller was an splendid game (just shoot and run) with beautiful graphics...

thanks...
 

Alientank

Newbie
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
440
Reaction score
0
It's all opinion, Doom 3 engine is all about lighting and shadowing, HL2 is all about large outdoor areas, which I think farcry did a good job of as well. If id wanted they could have made an engine for games like HL2, however they weren't trying to do that with Doom 3 so the engine isn't tailored that way. Don't even think for a second that id doesn't have the talent of Valve at all. id can do all the things Valve has the ability to do, and then some. They are games trying to do completely different things, and before anyone says that Doom 3 can't do water or vehicles...WRONG. It's already been mentioned they can do it, also Doom 3 engine has heat haze which we don't know if HL2 will have. If you think for a second that the Source engine can do those outdoor levels with the lighting detail of the Doom 3 engine, you're kidding yourself. They're doing completely different things, apples to oranges.
 

$niffy

Newbie
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
265
Reaction score
0
iamaelephant said:
Like it all you want, Doom 3 and Far Cry are much more graphically intensive.

For the record, I like the look of HL2 better than Doom 3, but it doesn't take a genius to tell that Doom 3 is technologically more advanced than HL2. Far Cry looks better than both of them :afro:
Its like comparing an apple to an orange. One is designed for small, inclosed areas and one is designed for open areas. SOO different

Seriously think before ya post mate
 

Viperx14

Newbie
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
I don't see how they will do Q4 (large outdoor war scenes) without toning down the graphics at least some, or some aspects of it. Unless they just count on pcs being a hundred times more powerful by the time of release.
 

Absinthe

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
14,040
Reaction score
26
iamaelephant said:
Like it all you want, Doom 3 and Far Cry are much more graphically intensive.

For the record, I like the look of HL2 better than Doom 3, but it doesn't take a genius to tell that Doom 3 is technologically more advanced than HL2. Far Cry looks better than both of them :afro:
Well, you said it doesn't look as good as Doom 3 or Far Cry. That's what I disagreed with. There's no doubt in my mind that the other games have technologically superior engines. But you can have a great engine and still have crap graphics.

I'm really just bitching around with semantics though.
 

Steelwind

Newbie
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
301
Reaction score
0
True. If for no other reason because HL2 supports the use of older versions of directx. You don't need much power to run a game in directx 7.0. Although the game won't look like a modern day engine, just slightly better than the original HL engine.
 

lans

Newbie
Joined
May 13, 2004
Messages
2,969
Reaction score
0
iamaelephant said:
Like it all you want, Doom 3 and Far Cry are much more graphically intensive.

For the record, I like the look of HL2 better than Doom 3, but it doesn't take a genius to tell that Doom 3 is technologically more advanced than HL2. Far Cry looks better than both of them :afro:
I agree with you.

The gritty style of HL2 is good, but saying source is technically better than doom 3's engine is wrong.
 

Ryjalon5k

Newbie
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
521
Reaction score
0
PingaDPalo said:
in mi opinion, I think that hl2 will demand less "power" to properly run in a pc than doom 3 and far cry...

thanks...

I HOPE SO... OR IM GONNA CRY!!!
 

Yombi

Newbie
Joined
Aug 28, 2004
Messages
758
Reaction score
0
lans said:
I agree with you.

The gritty style of HL2 is good, but saying source is technically better than doom 3's engine is wrong.
he has said doom 3 is more advanced than hl2. not the other way.
 

blahblahblah

Newbie
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
5,036
Reaction score
0
GorgeousOrifice said:
I have a small project for you:

As soon as the SDK comes out, try building a level the size of HL2's coastline in Doom 3. Then put a couple hundred antlions, combine, and whatever else you want in there. See how it runs. Then tell me Doom 3 is more advanced.

While you're at it, find a good explanation for Far Cry's ugly, pixelated textures and its obvious model clipping errors. And, for good measure, wait one year and compare the number of Source mods to the number of Far Cry mods.

You really should try talking out of your mouth sometime. You'll find that you say a lot less stupid things.
Likewise, make a level in HL2 that has full dynamic shadows and loads of dynamic lighting. Remember, the shadows must be allowed to have multiple shadows as well. None of this one dynamic shadow per level crap or lightmap garbage.

Don't forget to bump and normal map everything as well. And then do your experiment as you listed above.
 

Absinthe

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
14,040
Reaction score
26
Oh yay, now we have another Doom 3 vs. Half-Life 2 topic forming. Please, let's persist in this stupid bullshit for a few more hours, shall we?
 

PvtRyan

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
10,027
Reaction score
0
Glo said:
me too
but personal taste does not have to do with polygon count and textures size
Funnily enough, HL2 takes the lead in both of those areas.

I'd be surprised if character models in Doom 3 and Far Cry reach 3000 tri's, HL2 goes up to 7000.

The largest texture in Doom 3 is 512x512, while all main characters in HL2 use a 1024x1024 map for just the head.
 

lans

Newbie
Joined
May 13, 2004
Messages
2,969
Reaction score
0

lans

Newbie
Joined
May 13, 2004
Messages
2,969
Reaction score
0
PvtRyan said:
Funnily enough, HL2 takes the lead in both of those areas.

I'd be surprised if character models in Doom 3 and Far Cry reach 3000 tri's, HL2 goes up to 7000.

The largest texture in Doom 3 is 512x512, while all main characters in HL2 use a 1024x1024 map for just the head.
Unfortunately - that's about where all HL2's charcaters detail is: the head.

Their body geometry doesn't compete with the highly detailed bodies in Far cry and doom 3.
 

JFry

Tank
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Anyways.. I think hl2 will be more demanding on your processor (all the physics and AI add up), but it prolly won't be more demanding on your graphics card than doom3. Maybe a little more than Farcry, haven't played enough to know.
 

iamaelephant

Newbie
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
0
I think HL2 will run better than Far Cry. Far Cry also had the advanced AI and physics calculations to do, as well as an intelligent and agressive LOD system and some pretty fancy lighting (similar to that of HL2). Far Cry has a much more demanding graphics engine.
 

Rebel X

Newbie
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
HL2, Doom3 and Farcry all have amazing engines with their own pro's and con's, but if you think about it, Stalker prolly has the best engine overall. Thats not to say that all of the other engines aren't as good and can't rise to each others level of graphical detail and the like, and they all excell in the areas that the developer of the game thought was essential to the game/gameplay. Furthermore I think it's retarded to say this engine is better than the other engine, simply because they are all different games based around different events, with different locations, enemies, feel, etc. thus the need for different engines to power them.

And on a sidenote, as different as all 4 games are from each other, they all bare similarities to one another in terms of monsters, weapons and other such things (see the halo ''copying'' hl2 thread).
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
458
Reaction score
0
Rebel X said:
HL2, Doom3 and Farcry all have amazing engines with their own pro's and con's, but if you think about it, Stalker prolly has the best engine overall.
Now we're back to comparing vaporware to vaporware... two games that haven't been released. Wait a few months, THEN start up these threads again.
 
Top