I'm not surprised they took it down, even with the correction it still had lots of holes.
The fact the Bljashinsky refuses to accept the difference between DX9 Level hardware and DX9 compatible ( the former requires DX9 level pixel or vertex shaders to run, the latter meaning it just needs to be able to run with a DX9 driver. ) doesn't help.
Someone elses view on the article: f1gm3nt3d
The review of Source Vs. Doom3 engine is just kinda funny. I mean if you read the enviornments part of the comparison.:
The Doom 3 engine is more suitable for inside environments though, because of its BSP (Binary Space Partitioning) system for optimizing the graphics engine.
..and what the hell does he think Source uses? Source also uses a BSP based engine...with portals...and I also believe that the doom3 engine is the same.
Granted the doom 3 models look like crap without normal&bump maps....but hey thats because they were made to look like crap without normal&bump maps. That being said, HL2's models were better in a geometric sense, but thats more of an HL2 thing then a Source engine thing. I'm sure I could make equally crappy models for each engine. Also if I took HL2's models and converted them to md5 somehow I think they'd probably look equally good in D3's engine. That sort of comparison in an article titled "Source Engine Vs Doom 3 Engine" is pretty retarded because it makes no valid point besides that each games models were created to the games needs, not the engines capabilities.
A.I. yet another game related issue that has nothing to directly with the engine. D3's A.I. was minimal. But what the hell? You want mindless hell infested hordes to sit down and use an abacus to solve calculus problems? I mean it's true that Hl2's ai was better(though not perfect, I ended up killing my squadmates just because they kept being annoying), but that doesn't mean that the Engine is better because it's not an engine specific feature. If you look at freeware 3d engines, the majority have no A.I. at all because thats a game feature. yeesh.
Now I can't argue against the facial animation in HL2 or even the cutscene point. I admittedly found it damn cool that you could wonder around and just look at crap when someone was talking to you. It just felt more real and interactive(Don't ever invite me to your hous I might just wonder around picking crap up and throwing it around when I get bored of your conversation Wink ). Then again the cutscenes in Doom3 were kind of welcome, they offered a few seconds of reprieve and relaxation in a very tense game. The animation involved in D3's characters I felt was well done,. As far as texture splitting and the such I noticed that at least for me it's intermittent sometimes I get it sometimes I don't. So that may be something in the render path, though I would assume it's bad seaming on the normal map.
So physics. Well. It helps to say that HL2 was designed around the physics. It was a main feature and an integral part of the game. It worked well but models clipped to often and that made it seem a bit shoddy. That being said they were good physics though I wouldn't say the end all be all to physics. D3's physics were more then acceptable and being that the gameplay itself wasn't based around the physics it was a nice feature to be able to shoot boxes around, also the models in D3 don't clip. They sometimes end up in funky positions but I read that it's really due to the fact that sometimes the bones fall in a position that can't be resolved(i.e. the jittery rag dolls that you see in some games*cough*hl2*cough*) and also timing issues with the ragdoll state.The physics in d3 are rather good, taking into account that it is also a custom coded physics engine and the game doesn't depend on it to be fun whereas HL2(Source) is just a highly modified one and the game does depend on it.. ( plus value didn't write the physics engine anyway, they just bought one ).
I will admit that Source's sound system is technologically better then D3's. Source uses a DSP system and audio filters to filter the sounds correctly for the enviornment. For example when you fire underwater most of the treble is cut out and it sounds like you think a gun would sound underwater. Most of the time while playing HL2 I kept being in awe of the sound.Not the graphics, the sound. wheeeeeee. D3's sound is good and the use of it in creating the theme is awesome, technologicaly however, it just isn't that impressive.
Doom3 eats up your system. nuff said. Source engine...welll.... that depends on the DX mode you run it in. IF I run it in 9.0 with my 59000FX (using 3d analyzer) I get worse framerates then I get in D3 and the difference between running full precision shaders and forceing low precision shaders is only about 3 fps. So clearly either the shader theory about why hl2 runs bad on nvidia is wrong or 3d anaylzer is just not doing what it says it is. Or maybe there just more overhead having to use hook dll's and emulating a radeon 9800 on geforce fx 5900 but as of right now it's the only way to run dx9 correctly on anything under the newest fxs.
And yeah. Portability is a big thing, for gamers and developers. Maybe not for the casual gamer who bought their computer from a manufacturer and pays to have parts installed in it because it will void the warranty. These people just run windows or maybe own macs and nothing else. The very fact that this guy said it's the least important makes me wonder if I should read anymore of the things on this site because it just seems ignorant to say that it's the least important. ( article doesn't mention Doom3 has a native Linux port or the soon to be released Mac port ).
And eh. IMO both engines are good. D3's seems to be more future proof, though I think Source will be around for a while also. the one good thing I have to say about the article is at least he didn't give the standard "Doom 3 can't do outdoor scenes" opinion any credit. Eh. Really other then that the article seems really uninformed and focused on things that weren't really engine specific but game specific. of course it's all my opinion but the article should have been titled "Half life 2 Vs. Doom 3" With no mention of the engines at all in the title. Bleh.
Yes, I'm a Doom3 fan, yes Doom3 has faults(mostly game related, not engine related), so does HL2.
HL2 biggest fault is steam, the so called 'technical' article failed to really mention this(beyond networking bit for MP).
What about patches?
Doom3 patches so far: 1 ( nothing major and no gfx engine fixes, mainly MP tweaks and fixes ).
HL2 patches so far: loads, and all compulsary since steam will download them automatically by default. On each of the few times I've tried to replay parts of HL2 since completing it, I've had to first wait for various patches and updates to be downloaded first. Some of these are obvously game related and not relevant to the engine, however some are engine fixes. ( not the steam bothers to tell you what it's updating or what it doing )
Stability of Engine(not mentioned in article but must be important when looking at game engines) - Crashes to desktop:
Doom3 - 0
HL2 - 3
And I play around with doom3 a lot more than HL2.
Ease of Map Editing/Scripting/Asset Creation (very important for choosing a game engine, Bljashinsky obviously didn't invest any time in this ).
I can't really comment because I've only created content for Doom3.
Doom3 has all it's editors(maps, particles to name 2) built into the binary (doom3.exe) the AI and weapons are mostly handled via scripts (plain text) and easy to edit. ( hence someone created a working gravity gun for Doom3 before the SDK was even released, not to mention the flash light mod etc ). All Doom3 maps are plain text files and can be opened in the map editor, this is great for finding out how things are done. Doom3 assets are all inside the .pk4 files ( can be easly opened with winzip or winrar vs HL2 assets that are stored in inside the Steam virtual filesystem which I've no idea how to access ).
If the article had less technical faults ( virtually all of the faults work against Doom3 and for HL2 ) more technical information(this is a technical site after all ) and Bljashinsky's conclusion should have been titled 'Bljashinsky Opinion' ( then he can say what he wants ) then I think the article would be fine and not as controversial.
I suggest spending more time researching before submitting next time.