Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Doom 3 vs. Source: Comparing Engines

Posted by Zonk on from the apples-and-apples dept.

Tom V. writes "DevMaster.net has an article that outlines some of the technical differences between Half-life 2's Source and Doom 3 engines from various game development aspects such as graphics, A.I., physics, networking, etc. According to the author, the winner is the Source engine based on its 'completeness' as a game development package. However, in terms of graphics, the clear winner is Doom 3."

4 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Really a review of the games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The reviewer's methodology seems to be:

    1) Play both games.
    2) Compare graphics/sound/AI etc between the 2 games.
    3) Assume that those comparisons are solely founded on what the underlying engine provides, rather than some of what the games add on top.

    It's disappointing that a site with 'dev' in it's name didn't actually review the functionality, performance, and extensibility of the engines outside of games that might use it. Doom 3 is not just map and sound data fed into Id's engine, and Half-Life 2 is not just map and sound data fed into Source.

    The title should be "Doom 3 vs. Half-Life 2: Comparing games". This has the potential to be a fascinating topic, but this article is sophomoric.

    1. Re:Really a review of the games by Riddlefox · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing that gets me is that Counter-Strike wasn't developed by Valve.

  2. Source by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ropes/cables, machines, constraint systems, ragdoll physics, vehicles, kinmetic-animated bones, and a materials system make the Source Engine the undisputed champion of physics gameplay.
    Ever wanted to see Havok physics used to an extreme? Got a copy of Half-Life 2? Well, there's the incredible Garry's Mod for you! It's utterly ridiculous, and the eponymous Garry has a sick sense of humour.

    Last night, I built the incredible mattress-car - basically, just a mattress with a (powered) car wheel at each corner. It writhed and wriggled in a gloriously disgusting manner, and somewhat disturbingly started following me around. I tried shooting it but that didn't help, so I tied a fridge to it, set it on fire and chucked it into a lake...

    Doom 3 might have a basic physics engine, but I'm really looking forward to what modders can do with Source's network-friendly version of Havok.
    The cool thing worth mentioning for Doom 3 is it uses the CPU instead of soundcard to create the sounds. This produces great sounds for people with cheap soundcards, but your new, $200 soundcard won't be able to improve on it much.
    Doom 3's sound engine is awful compared with the original Half-Life, let alone Source. I've got a below-minimum-specs PC with a cheap sound card from 1998, and in Half-Life 2 I get real-time, room-specific reverberation and sound occlusion. I once walked off while a character was talking, and his voice became muffled when I went round a corner. It sounded real. Plus, the gun and bullet sounds are physically modelled - notice how they vary with distance and surroundings? The only things I haven't noticed it simulate are the speed of sound and proper Doppler effects (which Halo does!), but still, Doom 3's sound playback just seems bland and flat in comparison.

    Doom 3's graphics might be the first of a new generation of engines, but Source, while primitive in some areas, is an old-school engine taken to the logical extreme. Which is why I like it so much... ;-)
    --
    Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  3. Re:Source Engine? by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Valve explained this once. The lake is the source, the filled glass is the game, and the faucet is the valve.