• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Lode

Doom II vs Doom 3 Graphics

13 posts in this topic

Hello,

 

I stumbled upon the following image by accident:

 

4g8fXwq.jpg

 

And it made me wonder something:

Which imp image do you like the most?

-The one from Doom 3, rendered with an engine 11 years newer than Doom 2's

-The one from Doom 2, in all its pixely glory

 

Personally I like the one from Doom 2 more, and here is why:

-blocky pixels to me have a more charming quality than triangular vertices, and the triangles in the Doom 3 model are pretty obvious

-the 256-color palette of Doom 2 is more attractive to me than the dark RGB colors of Doom 3

-the shape of the Doom 2 one actually looks better. Despite the blocky pixels, the head of the Doom 2 model looks rounder than that of the Doom 3 model

 

So, to me it seems that the 20 year old Doom/Doom 2 are more timeless and replayable than then 10 year old Doom 3. What do you think?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doom 3 looks better. I've always hated pixely graphics. I don't have a full hard-on for photorealism, and I do tend to prefer non-photoreal styles, but blocky pixels have always just sort of grated on me, even when I was a kid. The lack of subtle coloration and shading due to a limited palette also detracts from a piece of character art, in my opinion, so it was a great step forward when video modes started supporting more than 256 colors. Despite the triangulation on the Doom 3 model, it still says "demon" to me. The Doom 2 model just says "vaguely blurry gingerbread man."

As far as replayability, though, I think both Doom 2 and Doom 3 lack it. I can get as nostalgic as the next guy in theory, and I did enjoy both games for a brief time when they were new, but for me nostalgia should remain untouched. Nothing destroys my pleasant memories of a game or movie faster than going back and replaying it years later. I made the mistake of going back and replaying some of the Ultima and Wizardry games of my youth, and I wish I hadn't. In my opinion, there have been a lot of really good advances in modern games, enough that I keenly feel their lack when I go back to play my earlier favorites; even if those early favorites have a lot of good things that modern games won't touch with a 10 foot pole.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer the imp from Doom 3 to be honest. I think that the imp from the original Doom doesn't look menacing at all, same case with the pink demon and lost souls.

However, I think the originals are better games. I still play Doom 2, I'm trying to beat the Plutonia levels on ultra violence starting each level with just a pistol; the gameplay is so fast and the guns so satisfying, its crazy, and I'm not getting hit by nostalgia either, as I discovered this game just a few years back, around the time Doom 3 was released.

Doom 3 on the other hand was tedious to me.

So, uhm... yeah, I prefer the imp from Doom 3...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the imp from Doom 3 to be honest. I think that the imp from the original Doom doesn't look menacing at all, same case with the pink demon and lost souls.

 

Pink demons scared the hell out of me back in the 90´s.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the imp from Doom 3 to be honest. I think that the imp from the original Doom doesn't look menacing at all, same case with the pink demon and lost souls.

However, I think the originals are better games. I still play Doom 2, I'm trying to beat the Plutonia levels on ultra violence starting each level with just a pistol; the gameplay is so fast and the guns so satisfying, its crazy, and I'm not getting hit by nostalgia either, as I discovered this game just a few years back, around the time Doom 3 was released.

Doom 3 on the other hand was tedious to me.

So, uhm... yeah, I prefer the imp from Doom 3...

yep.


IMO, gameplay-wise, Doom 3 is lacking something, also if compared with Quake 1 or 2 or Half-Life IMO.

it is sometimes almost like a wave of not-very-goodness came and befell the FPS genre.

graphics have gotten better, gameplay, not so much...



it is almost like me first encountering Quake 3 Arena and being like "what?".
I generally preferred games with single-player gameplay. well, people who like deathmatch liked it, and it itself led to its own branch of the FPS genre (games primarily defined by multiplayer and DM + CTF gameplay).


Doom 3 seemed to be more like a whole lot of "I can't see crap" and monsters popping up behind the player, which I personally found kind of annoying (at least in the prior games).

also slightly annoying was the sound design, which basically seemingly equated "dramatic" or "exciting" with "noisy". ("what do we need here? oh yeah, a whole bunch of screaming and some baby noises...").

and, sadly, for newer FPS games, Doom 3 is still not doing that badly.

if I could see stuff, and it was less annoying, and if not for it being a good part of a decade before I had hardware powerful enough to get reasonable frame-rates with it, I may have been happier with it.


also thought Half-Life 2 was ok, but still kind of weak in some ways vs Half-Life (like, in HL, a person could wander around a bit more within each area, rather than everything being essentially a long unidirectional corridor).

in older games, you often had to find the exit, rather than essentially just going forwards until arriving at the exit (for pretty much the entire game).


elsewhere, much of the rest of the FPS genre has become dominated by Halo and COD clones...

dunno, could be nostalgia for all I know.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly the Doom 3 imp looks better no matter what, although the colors and lighting sure could be better (though to be fair that's one of the few places where Doom 3 has any lighting at all =P).

 

As far as replayability, though, I think both Doom 2 and Doom 3 lack it.

The replayability in the Doom games has always been in the modding, not the games as-is =P In fact I wonder how many people spent more time making levels than actually playing them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the imp from Doom 3 to be honest. I think that the imp from the original Doom doesn't look menacing at all, same case with the pink demon and lost souls.

 

Pink demons scared the hell out of me back in the 90´s.

 

But did they scared you due to their appearance or because they appeared out of nowhere? At least for me its the latter.

Edited by AFS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

I've just started to play again at Doom3, with highest configuration and resolution; and except some *missing* post-process effects, particles, ...,it's quite hallucinating even nowadays. I like observing shadows in Doom3 tongue.png

 

I think Doom3 is just a bit *old*, and Doom2 is now into retro-games category (but still a legend).

 

So the 2 are not really comparable nowadays, Doom3 can still be completely immersive (cf realism) . Playing Doom2  is for 'souvenir', 'nostalgy' ... as myself I play regularly at Mario2 on GameBoyph34r.png

Edited by Tournicoti
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blah

I agree almost completely, but I will say Doom 3 was more immersive for me, in the sense that it raised more emotions in me. I definitely had more fun with 1/2, but I never really felt anything other than, "fun stuff!" Doom 3 definitely had a couple of moments where I was scared poopless.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is almost like me first encountering Quake 3 Arena and being like "what?".

Quake 3 Arena was awesuuuum! I wouldn't mind at all a Quake 5 Arena :D

 

I liked Doom 3, it looked awesome back then, and it was pretty scary for me. It sure looks better than Doom 2. But they're displaying pretty different artistic styles I guess.

 

Often I like Id games in the sense that they never wen't too far from their shooting mechanics even after all these years. That's why I enjoyed playing Rage, it still had that old-school PC FPS feeling. Their gameplay is good enough if you like that stuff, in Rage they stepped up their art a LOT (just LOOK at Dead City), I mean, for Id Tech 4 they were all like "SHADUUURS!" and with Id Tech 5 they're all like "ARTIIIIISTS!"

 

If they could get a good story they would make awesome all-round games me thinks.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there's a couple of things. Firstly the higher resolution of Doom 3 shows up the imperfections too. If one excuses the lower resolution of the Doom 2, then yes, you can see it as being a good quality more realistic image that's been scaled down. But I wonder what Doom 3 would look like if you played it at the same very low resolution? Would that hide the imperfections such as the jagged polygons, and show something that looks more similar to Doom 2?

Secondly, 2D has the advantage that an artist can create something of good quality. But part of the advantage of 3D (and part of the reason for games switching to it, I believe) is that it's much easier to create a range of different animations, and orientations.

So I'd argue it's unfair to judge just by static images. When you play the games, Doom 2 feels like you're playing against flat cardboard-cutouts that always turn to face you. Doom 3 feels like playing against real physical enemies that move about more realistically, even if they look a bit blocky.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a couple of things. Firstly the higher resolution of Doom 3 shows up the imperfections too. If one excuses the lower resolution of the Doom 2, then yes, you can see it as being a good quality more realistic image that's been scaled down. But I wonder what Doom 3 would look like if you played it at the same very low resolution? Would that hide the imperfections such as the jagged polygons, and show something that looks more similar to Doom 2?

Secondly, 2D has the advantage that an artist can create something of good quality. But part of the advantage of 3D (and part of the reason for games switching to it, I believe) is that it's much easier to create a range of different animations, and orientations.

So I'd argue it's unfair to judge just by static images. When you play the games, Doom 2 feels like you're playing against flat cardboard-cutouts that always turn to face you. Doom 3 feels like playing against real physical enemies that move about more realistically, even if they look a bit blocky.

I tried resampling some Doom 3 screenshots to similar resolutions and settings to those in Doom 2 (320x200 at 256 colors).


as for sprites vs models:
yes, for a single sprite it isn't too hard to deliver higher quality with less effort than a 3D model.

when multiple angles and animations come into play, 3D models have an advantage (generally easier to create and animate). however, with regards to fine details, and many kinds of animations, 2D graphics art still has an advantage (so, it makes sense to instead work on putting a lot of detail into the textures, or use an animated texture or looping video-source for the animation, in place of using large numbers of triangles).

granted... most of my own 3D models are pretty lazy.


IIRC, the original Doom 1/2 characters weren't drawn directly as sprites though, but were in-fact first made out of modeling clay, and then pictures were taken of them from various angles. they were then deformed for the various animation frames.

some other games from a similar timeframe (such as ROTT) had instead used actors in costumes.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's kinda old now, but my opinion:

 

Doom 1/2

 

Good:

- Challenging gameplay

- Lots of secrets

- Lengthy game

Bad:

- Perspective gave me a headache

- Wasn't very in-depth story wise

 

Doom 3

 

Good:

- Spooky (especially at night with all the lights off).

- Random challenges

- The chainsaw didn't suck!!!

Bad:

- Too short, too easy

- Replay value wasn't as high as before

 

I can't really decide which I like better though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to graphics, yes, Doom 3 is miles away. No discussions there.

But I wouldn't be so fast to go hard on the art design of Doom 1&2, particularly the first one.

 

One detail I noticed was the clever use of circular shapes. Like it was said before, one of the problems with that game was the sprites awkwardly "turning" with you. But that isn't so noticeable with circles, since they don't have clear sides. So, what are the objects most frequently found? Barrels, barrels on fire, torches, lightposts, stakes... the dead trees and impaled guys look awkward, but even then (If i recall correctly) they tried to locate them in places either unreachable, or hard to circle.

 

The fixed camera helped to avoid many of those awkward angles too, unlike in, say, Duke Nukem 3D. But I think that was hardly their intention. A good but unintended side-effect, if you will tongue.png

 

Then there's the color palette. Most walls in Episode 2 are green, with dead guys/blood to add some red. Same deal with some enemies for that matter, like the regular zombie (green/red) and cacodemon (red/blue), wich also had distinctive shapes to make them easier to tell apart. Maybe because of this is why I found all the more baffling the look of Quake, wich as far as I remember is a big brown mess (Though that was probablly because of technical limitations).

 

Now, I haven't played Doom 3, so I can't really voice an opinion on that one, other than acknowledge the previously mentioned advanteges/disadvanteges of 3D models. From what I heard and seen is dark as all hell, and as long as they used it to creat atmosphere, I'm okay with that. It sounds to me like a good way to hide the edges, too tongue.png

 

While I agree the visuals in  Doom 1&2 seriously show their age now, they're not a deal breaker to me, mostly because of those decisions. Still, I just felt like playing the Devil's advocate with the original Doom visuals for once, since most of the time all I hear around the web is it being a pixelated mess with cardoard pictures.

 

Just my 2 cents...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0