Actually the source engine is pretty much behind the times, in 2003 or so it would have been a really upto date engine but compared to doom 3 engine it looks pretty basic. Source can't even do shadows properly without them being projected through solid objects.

A good example of this is in the terrorist spawn on office, look a the tables with the pc's on top of them then look below the table, youll see the shadow being projected through wood and onto the floor\wall.

but in doom 3 all the charatcers and entities looked like fuckin plastic, and it took a top of the line PC to run smoothly

Meh shadows, I'm talking about physics and how much you can do with the engine. See Garrys mod.

Actually the doom 3 engine was proved to be one of the most scalable when the game was released last year. http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQ0

The "plastic" rhetoric you bring up constantly is probably to do with specular highlightin which makes some objects have a bit of a sheen to them.

This is also true. Theres not a whole lot of customizable physics in Doom3... physics seem to be dictated on a situation to situation basis according to iD's requirements for each situation

Physics is havok engine not source. Pretty much any game that had that kind of mod plus havok could do the same things.

Theres a lot more in quake 4 compared to doom 3, probably because the engine seems to have been optomised more so theres more cpu cycles to spare for physics.

oh, Ill just let that article dictate how I should think and percieve, then? To me, the source engine looks more realistic,
/Opinion

You made the quote it takes top of the line pc to run doom 3 smoothly, that article proves otherwise. Fuck all to do with what looks realistic. oOo:

Ahh I see... See, the comment below the link made me think it was supporting points in the article, which lead me to think it was about how realistic doom3 looked..

[quote=CoMaToSe][quote=geRV]Ahh I see... See, the comment below the link made me think it was supporting points in the article, which lead me to think it was about how realistic doom3 looked..[/quote:4139f]

eek:


Punch yourself in the nuts for me plz.

[quote=geRV][quote=CoMaToSe]Ahh I see... See, the comment below the link made me think it was supporting points in the article, which lead me to think it was about how realistic doom3 looked..[/quote:8f823]

eek:


Punch yourself in the nuts for me plz.[/quote:8f823]
Done wallbash: