StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Taking a break from playing CS Source. This thing is phenomenal. My system, which completely chugs on Doom 3, is playing this thing incredibly smoothly. It just looks great.

Mutant Headcrab wrote:Taking a break from playing CS Source. This thing is phenomenal. My system, which completely chugs on Doom 3, is playing this thing incredibly smoothly. It just looks great.

Is it out, or are you playing a beta?

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:

Mutant Headcrab wrote:Taking a break from playing CS Source. This thing is phenomenal. My system, which completely chugs on Doom 3, is playing this thing incredibly smoothly. It just looks great.

Is it out, or are you playing a beta?

It's out. If you order HL2 on Steam, you get immediate access to the full version of CS Source

It looks absolutely incredible. I've seen screenshots from cs_office showing that you can dismantle a computer fully (each card comes out!) and you can shoot off individual keys on a keyboard. This level of detail is simply mind-boggling, and it's going to be a sight to see the aftermath of a heated firefight with this much realism put into damage.

Well as nice as Doom III looks, its engine is simply nowhere NEAR as advanced as the Source Engine or anything like as scalable for various computers. Its truely the first 4th generation engine.

I'm waiting for the double tripple plat verisons with the origonal HL source(Which I would shell out eight bucks for)

Chris OFarrell wrote:Well as nice as Doom III looks, its engine is simply nowhere NEAR as advanced as the Source Engine or anything like as scalable for various computers. Its truely the first 4th generation engine.

Considering that D3's engine is basically a lite version of the upcoming Unreal Engine 3, which I'm sure you've seen shots of, I'll have to take your comment as BULLSHIT. Besides light blooms, character soft shadows, and the option for real time stencil shadows or light maps, Doom3 can do what you've seen UE3 do already.

D3 doesn't look better compared to HL2 because id wanted the game to actually run on today's hardware. That's why you see the low polygon models and low res textures.

I demand SCREEN SHOTS!

Hamel wrote:

Chris OFarrell wrote:Well as nice as Doom III looks, its engine is simply nowhere NEAR as advanced as the Source Engine or anything like as scalable for various computers. Its truely the first 4th generation engine.

Considering that D3's engine is basically a lite version of the upcoming Unreal Engine 3, which I'm sure you've seen shots of, I'll have to take your comment as BULLSHIT. Besides light blooms, character soft shadows, and the option for real time stencil shadows or light maps, Doom3 can do what you've seen UE3 do already.

D3 doesn't look better compared to HL2 because id wanted the game to actually run on today's hardware. That's why you see the low polygon models and low res textures.

What the fuck are you talking about? What I said was that as NICE as Doom 3 looks, its engine is NOT as advanced as Half Life II's. I'm very CLEARLY not commenting on the bloody graphics, I'm talking about the *underlying* things it can do like the advanced physics for objects behavour in motion, deformable terrain, complete scalability, texture defined materials which will effect it with events such as floating/sinking, its mass to move, what it oes when fire advances around it, when its shot by various weapons e.t.c., advanced character animations and ability to interact properly with game objects and so on. Graphicly speaking, I would put Source up against Doom 3 or Unreal 3 any day simply because its grossly more efficent code. IT can be scaled up from low end systems to super high end systems on the fly with advantages for each, rather then demanding a super high end sysem and no exceptions.

And Half Life II's graphical capibilites are nothing to snear at. I did NOT say they were equal to Doom 3, but they are more then good enough to play in the same ballpark.

So fucking read what I said next time before you jump in screaming and drolling in defence of Doom 3

Chris OFarrell wrote:What the fuck are you talking about? What I said was that as NICE as Doom 3 looks, its engine is NOT as advanced as Half Life II's. I'm very CLEARLY not commenting on the bloody graphics, I'm talking about the *underlying* things it can do like the advanced physics for objects behavour in motion, deformable terrain, complete scalability, texture defined materials which will effect it with events such as floating/sinking, its mass to move, what it oes when fire advances around it, when its shot by various weapons e.t.c., advanced character animations and ability to interact properly with game objects and so on

I'll start caring when the physics are applied universally.

Graphicly speaking, I would put Source up against Doom 3 or Unreal 3 any day simply because its grossly more efficent code. IT can be scaled up from low end systems to super high end systems on the fly with advantages for each, rather then demanding a super high end sysem and no exceptions.

D3 and Source will both run like shit on low end hardware. CS:S sure doesn't run well on my cousin's athlon XP/fx5200/1.5g ram system. D3 more so because of stencil shadows, which is one of the most important aspects of the engine and just fucks things up too much when turned off.

So fucking read what I said next time before you jump in screaming and drolling in defence of Doom 3

Tip: don't be a little turd making claims like the D3 engine not being anywhere near as advanced as Source. You came off as big-time hyperbolic.

Alyeska wrote:I demand SCREEN SHOTS!

A little dark, but still good:


















This is with a Ti 4800 SE, a dx8 card so those with newer ones will get better results than the above. 1024 x 768 res.



EDIT: More shots:

Does it play about the same as old fashioned CS?

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Does it play about the same as old fashioned CS?

Dunno. The basics and everything is the same of course, but I dunno if there's a different "feel" to it all or not. Been a very long time since I played old CS, and with the new one I don't see any reason to play the old one again.

Can you still get struck by lightning in Aztec?

Can you get some close ups on the characters?

Based on those shots alone, I'd say that Doom 3 is clearly the better of the two.

Durandal wrote:Based on those shots alone, I'd say that Doom 3 is clearly the better of the two.

Doom 3 IS the better of the two..... graphical technical capabilities wise.

Shinova wrote:Doom 3 IS the better of the two..... graphical technical capabilities wise.

Yes, but what they've been trying to sell Half-Life 2 with is the physics model and the level of detail (non-graphical, I mean).

Who the fuck cares if Doom 3 has more particles or whatever? Half-Life 2, overall, gives a more realistic look at a very less hardware-demanding rate.

Besides, Doom 3 won't even fucking run on my brand-new card for an unknown reason... SO FUCK DOOM 3!

I agree about the little details that hl2 gets better over d3, like the faces, and the better implemented physics. D3 just has more raw capabilities (if they wanted, they could've implemented faces like HL2's and allowed for more interaction with physics)



Oh yeah, cs_office looks tight.

Well, Doom 3 uses OpenGL and is coming to Mac OS X. So guess which one I like better?

Played this game earlier today. Some things were impressive, but it seems that it still uses the original models and textures, just with new animations, ragdoll physics, etc, so it's not exactly a graphical revolution, even if it does look much nicer than the original.

Who the fuck cares HOW this game compares to Doom 3? If it's fun, it's fun. I thought Doom 3 was a lot of fun... does that mean the Game Police will arrest me if I think HL2 is fun, too? Will I be Fun Overdosing and spend the night in the emergency room getting my stomach pumped?

Jiminy. I don't know if you guys are just uber-insecure or what. Let the game stand on its own merits.

EDIT:

Some things were impressive, but it seems that it still uses the original models and textures, just with new animations, ragdoll physics, etc, so it's not exactly a graphical revolution, even if it does look much nicer than the original.

I would imagine they wouldn't push the graphics so far in multiplayer, to help keep it running as fast as possible. In single player, it's fine to chug down to 25 fps once in a while... in multiplayer, it's killer.

Could we get screenshots of, you know, stuff happening? Like firefights, smoke grenades, etc.

The grenades are a lot smaller, and fly faster through the air (no more slow-ass graceful arcs). I think the character models still need to be tweaked... they look like they're leaning too far forward when they're standing still. The explosions themselves look cooler... much faster animation, more sudden in detonation, like the frag grenades in Halo.

Character movements are very smooth, maybe a little too smooth, but overall an improvement on CS.