HL 2 vs Doom 3 vs Far Cry
 

I could do a poll but really don't care about numbers but instead would like discussion. I have played all though still am working my way through Far Cry. Overall I think HL 2 wins hands down but wanted to know what other people think.

Doom 3 visually was great and played like a horror movie, but really just wasn't that fun. Seemed like it was a monster pops up, side-step, shoot, and move on. Many good things about this game but game play was hurt by basically all indoor environments with little room to move. I actually liked the fact that you couldn't use weapon and flashlight at the same time which added to the scare factor in this game. Overall, just not much to this game other than atmosphere and graphics.

Far Cry is beautiful and open play is good to a point. Major downfall of this game is the lack of ability to save the game where you want to do so. I hate it when I spend 5 minutes+ sneaking around only to get killed and have to do it all over again. Sure, it adds to realism but I would really like to be able to save when I want instead of wasting my time crawling around only to have to do it again 3-5 times per level. Other than that major problem, it is a fun game though I prefer the fights and variety of bad guys in HL2 (though I wish there were a few more, especially main boss characters).

HL2 is beautiful visually, in-game scripted sequences are awesome, and multiplayer and valve support(new weapons, maps, levels, etc) are great. It is very linear so replay value may not be as good as games like Far Cry which allows you to attack each level in so many different ways. At the same time, I like it being linear since you know what you are supposed to be doing and it progresses like you are playing a movie which is a plus. It is hard for me to put my finger on it but the "fun factor" is just much higher in HL2 compared to the other 2 games IMHO.

Please discuss why you agree or disagree with me on my assessment of these games.

Overall HL2 wins. Their physics engine just blows away Doom 3 and Far Cry. I personally think Far Cry shouldn't even be put in this discussion, it doesn't compare to either of these games. Doom 3 was great for the scare factor and the graphics were stunning, but my vote goes to HL2.

Out of all 3, Doom 3 was the only one i finished. Far Cry was decent, but i just couldn't get into it at all. Some flashy graphics, but nothing else that impressed me. I couldn't get in to Half Life 2 either. Played it for a few hours, and while the physics engine is amazing, i was bored playing it. Nothing about it engrossed me with the story at all. There's plenty for me to complain about with Doom 3 as well, but of the 3 it held my interest a lot better.

Give HL2 a little more time and see what you think. Did you play the original Half-life?

There is actually a long thread over at steampowered.com about Far Cry vs HL2 which is really what got me wanting to start a thread here. Thought people would be a little less biased here rather than elsewhere. Why doesn't Far Cry belong is the discussion? It beats Doom 3 in my view though I need to finish it to see where it ends up on my list,

HL was one chapter too long and HL2 was one chapter too short. Doom 3 is too scary for me to play, so I haven't really played much of it. Graphically, it's really splendid though. Far Cry was awesome and rather difficult. Near the end it felt like Duke Nukem.

I liked HL2 out of the group. I loved the physics engine and even though, like trigger, I felt it was to short, I wanted to play it over and over again.

i think hl2 was probably the most polished of the three, but i had more fun with doom and hl2 than i did with farcry. and the best thing is with hl2 counterstrike source and the hl deathmatch. cool stuff. all 3 fun, but my vote goes to hl2.

I don't think I can disagree any more. Far Cry does deserve to be mentioned with HL2 and Doom 3. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Doom 3 should be the game that isn't mentioned. It looked great, but wow, way too repetitive.

HL2 has a great physics engine and great graphics, but I didn't like how it was all scripted.

So I'd say, overall, I like Far Cry the most.

Wow, really?
These are the kind of games (and movies) that I enjoy. Scary to a point without being ridiculous.
I'll give it a try on the Xbox since my PC doesn't have the muscle to pull this thing together. Maybe the 5.1 sound will help enhance the atmosphere of the game.

In a nutshell...

Half Life 2:

Pros: Incredible physics engine, great story

Cons: a little on the short side, overall the game is pretty easy even on the hardest setting.

Doom 3:

Pros: Great graphics, dark and scary atmosphere

Cons: the darkness shtick gets old after a while, gameplay and level design is very repetetive.

Far Cry:

Pros: Huge, wide-open outdoor level design often with multiple pathways. Best enemy AI of the three.

Cons: Really generic storyline and bad BAD voice acting.


Overall, I'd say Half-Life 2 is the best. It may be short but it's a helluva lot of fun. Far Cry definitely gets an honorable mention, though. The large open outdoor levels were like a breath of fresh air and the AI is good enough to make you regret it if you don't stop and plan out your attack. I had a great time playing through Far Cry and it's certainly deserves to be ranked up there with Half-Life 2 and Doom 3.

Having played all three.....i think Far Cry is the best. Why? Simply because the AI is simply fantastic. Far Cry's AI beats Doom 3 and Half Life 2 anytime. Love it when there is a few guys looking out for you and you play hide and seek with them....
Would love it if someone would create a game with
1) Half Life's level variety...
2) Doom's Satanic theme and creatures
3) Far Cry's AI

Graphics wise......all three games is unique in their own respect
I prefer Doom's atmosphere though coz it did scare the bejesus out of me and i am a sucker for cheap scares!!!! :D

I played through a lot of Half-Life, but never finished it. For some reason the game made me dizzy, although i did end up playing... maybe 15 hours worth of the game. I'm not sure i will give HL2 more time... there's just been nothing appealing about the story and gameplay for me to keep playing. The story doesn't interest me at all, and the puzzles were more annoying then interesting. Just driving around that boat annoyed the bejesus out of me.

Interesting topic, guys.

I've played Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 through to completion, and some of Far Cry.

First: What's most interesting about all three of these is that I have <i>absolutely</i> no incentive to play through them again, ever. That's a really tragic result for "flagship" games of such high production quality (and cost.) I find myself playing Counter-Strike a lot, but that's about it. OTOH, I played Unreal Tournament 2004 for like <i>six straight months.</i>

So it seems that these games are making incredible strides in graphics and cinematic quality, but oddly, they're not much more <i>fun</i> than previous games. It's the same old (tired) gameplay in new clothing.

Anyway, compare and contrast:

Graphics: Half-Life 2 certainly wins. My god, the natural environments often border on photorealistic. Doom 3 comes in a near second, because its effects were too gimmicky - the light effects stood out as neato graphics demos. Far Cry <i>tanked</i> because it ran at like 3fps on my machine, for some completely inexplicable reason.

Atmosphere: I think I've gotta go with Doom 3 here. The feeling of being trapped in a dark base on Mars with a bunch of hell demons was very well-executed. Yeah, it ran way too long (I can't believe they had a good chunk of game left <i>after</i> the trip to hell and back.) Half-Life 2 and Far Cry tie for some novel environments, but neither was really a cohesive game experience. In fact, HL2's frequent environment shifts work against it here - the "let's break up the monotony of Black Mesa-style adventuring with a long countryside drive" thing was great for graphics, but disruptive for mood.

Story: Half-Life 2 has a really interesting backstory. Doom 3 and Far Cry both blur into the typical videogame genres (after all, D3 is a complete rehash of Doom.)

Overall: I'd rather play Halo than any of these.

- David Stein

Still haven't played these but am looking forward to trying all three, great to hear comparisons.

:lol:

My thoughts exactly! However, with D3 on the xbox, I've been reading as much as I can about the entire gameplay and experience. I'm still not sure if it's worth picking up at $50 or maybe just waiting until it hits $30 or below....

Well, I'd probably burn through Doom 3 on the xbox without feeling too scared - even with my 5.1 and a 65" tv. I find PC games have more effect on me that way - it's quite intimate since I'm sitting close and I usually turn the lights off and such. It draws me in and gets my heart racing.

It's <i>extremely</i> repetitive. You basically fight the same five types of monsters throughout. They even reuse the same tricks over, and over, and over again. You come up to a door, you open it, and an imp jumps forward at you... expect that to happen like 19 times. -rolleyes-

The environment is cool. It's worth it for that. But seriously, it's one loooooooong dark corridor after another. Wait until it drops below $30 - that's my advice.

- David Stein

I have to agree. I wish someone gave me the same advice for the PC edition.

I will definitely wait on getting Doom 3 on the Xbox once prices have dropped. For now, I've got my eye on a different title (Forza).

As for the Halo comment...

This would be an interesting comparison for me since it is the only game I've played among the games mentioned. For those that have played Halo 2, where does it fit into the mix when thinking about the topics that have already been discussed? Namely, the atmosphere, story, graphics, and AI.

Funny, HL2 gives me serious motion sickness. I had a very hard time getting through the airboat and sandrail maps because I would break out in a sweat and get nauseous after only a few minutes.

I had the same problem with the airboat in HL2 although I was hung over at the time. Basically I need to be in good health to play HL2 :).

I have not played Halo 2 as I have to wait for it to come to the PC. On G4 TV, Judgement Day did a show on these two games and they thought while both games were great, Half-life 2 was better. That was before HL2 had multiplayer other than CS and I think that was basically their only complaint about HL2.

as far as single player, halo (or halo 2) cant even hold a candle to the hl2 or far cry

Thanks for the words of wisdom...and warning! This is the first solid recommendation (or recommended wait, actually) I've heard as of yet for D3 on Xbox! Thanks again! :up:

I completely disagree with that.

Halo 1 plot:

Now let's look at Half-Life 1 and 2:

It's reasonable to say that these plots are equally detailed and interesting. It's probably more reasonable to say that Halo's story is more interesting, more original, and less cliched than Half-Life's. In fact, Halo 1 has more story than both Half-Life games put together.

- David Stein

^^^I am not sure that spacemanspiff was just referring to plot.

I could make an even stronger case for Halo's gameplay over Half-Life's. HL1 and HL2 both boil down to conserving ammo and health while plodding through the story. Halo dispenses with this via the regargeable-shield tactic, and by allowing you to pick up anyone else's weapon. It's much more fun as a result. The weapon balance in Halo is also much better - Half-Life has too many specialized weapons, and the rest kinda blur together.

- David Stein

Again, I haven't played Halo 2, but while I liked Halo, I thought the game play wasn't much more than average in my book. I thought the lack of variety of bad guys as well as too few weapons really hurt this game. Story was good, but did get a little repetitive at the end.

Not sure why a rechargeable shield is a big plus. All it does is have you sitting around more waiting to charge back up before you advance. In HL2, Gordon does have a suit with a shield though you have to recharge at stations/power-ups instead of it rechaging itself, so doesn't seem like a big difference to me. HL2 allows you to pick up weapons off of those that you have killed and I never really had a problem with conservation of ammo except for some of the more specialized weapons that they don't want you using the whole time anyway. With the gravity gun, ammo is even less of an issue. Only being able to carry X amount of weapons in Halo and Far Cry did involve a little more strategy but I would rather carry all weapons at all times. In Doom 3, ammo was a problem in that I basically just used whatever weapon had ammo. Since it was all indoors in small areas, it didn't really matter what weapon you used anyway.

Four games: Halo; Half-Life 2; Far Cry; Doom 3

Impressions:

Doom 3: (I'm not finished with the game yet-- just passed the Hell level). VERY repetitive and often boring. Even the creatures jumping out are not shocking any more. It becomes routine and predictable. The boss level in "Hell" is so repetitive and boring. It is also too dark. I half to play only at night so there is no ambient light. Can't really notice the graphics because it's so dark. At this point in the game, I would rank it last out of the four games mentioned.

Halo (Single player): Short and repetitive. Story was okay, but I really didn't get into it. Multiplayer is where it gets good. But for a single player game, it was only average. I would rank it in third place out of four games.

Far Cry: Excellent graphics. Multiple approaches to solving objectives. Story was okay. Length was good. AI was very good. Challenging. I rank this game in second place out of four.

Half-Life 2: Excellent graphics. Engaging story. Length was okay, but it could have used a little more. AI was good. Fairly easy to complete. There was variety and some surprises. It was fun. I would rank Half-Life 2 first out of the four games.

Of course, my favorite game of all time is Deus Ex. Nothing has surpassed that game for me.

I would suggest playing these games on a high end computer. It makes a hella difference with the highest settings, especially with hl2 and farcry.

But if you want a new game with the best of all three look for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Looks like this one should be pretty cool. Open game play with character development, and good AI. The latest release date that i've seen is 10/31/05. They have a few trailers out but i don't think they do it justice.

Thanks for the tip on STALKER. I'll read-up some on this.

I'm just playing through Half Life 2 now so I'll have my impressions up soon on it's single player.

STALKER looks pretty good... i'm looking forward to FEAR too :)

HL2 by a mile.

Far Cry is the best of the three.

Why? Because it's the only one of the three that's different. Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 look great but the game play in these games is the same as their predecessors Doom 2 and Half-life. Yawn. Great graphics are great but after a few hours of playing these games you realized you're just playing a dressed up version of the same thing.

Also Doom 3 and Half-life 2 are linear and have no replay value. I had to force myself to finish Half-life 2. But don't think I didn't like Half-life 2. I thought it was a great game. It was fun playing with the physics but they just don't make enough use of the physics to alter the same-old-same-old gameplay.

Now Far Cry was a breath of fresh air. Yes, FREEDOM! It really feels like an adventure. It makes you feel like you're Arnold Schwarzennager or some bad ass taking down mercenaries in the jungle. The freedom adds to the realism and the AI is great--not perfect--but much better than HL2. Of the three games Far Cry has the best COMBAT.

Also the vehicles in Far Cry are far better than HL2. Far Cry is the first FPS game I played where the vehicles are such an integral part of the gameplay. And the vehicles (at least the combat boat and jeep) are easy to control, have great guns and are a blast.

I think it depends on your tastes.

If you like combat, real weapons, vehicles, and freedom --> Far Cry.
If you like scripted, polished, story like games --> Half-life 2
If you like horror and satanic themes and old school gameplay --> Doom 3.

I concur; Far Cry is the better game. When Doom3 came out I compared the two on several web sites and was torn apart by the fan boys. To summarize ...

Doom3: The first three hours are some of the most intense you will ever play. Then you quickly learn that the levels are very linear, the AI's not that good, it repetitive, relies on cheap shots, and punishes you for doing a good job. In the end it can't decide if it's a run & gun or a tactical. Replay value is low. If there's a game that not in the same league as the others, it's Doom3.

HL2: Immersive with a decent story and some mystery. Uses a combination of humor and self-refernce in a good way ("Dr. Freeman? I'm coming with you!") Stlll, very linear. Shades of greatness in the gravity gun, but not enough is done with it until it's too late to have fun with it. Replay value is low.

Far Cry: The best tactical FPS to date. Non-linear in a way games have not been before. Very good enemy AI. Great use of humor. Replay value is very high.

Non-linear game play and a good enemy AI mean that you're getting money's worth. Placing your objective out there and giving you the freedom to pursue it is what these games should be about. Otherwise you might as well just be making a rail shooter. Note that I've completely avoided graphics, and for the most part, story/plot. I don't think either makes much of a diference. It's 2005; you should all be demanding enemy AI and level design as good as Far Cry in your games.

Computer Games magazine was ripped for not listing HL2 in it's top 5 editors picks. They were right. Top 5 FPS's? Ok, sure. But top 5 overall? Nope, not even close.

hmmmmm....I was going to get Doom 3 on Xbox on release day...but I may wait for a price drop on it after reading some of these posts.


wlj

I played all three of these when they came out, and would have put HL2 in first followed by Far Cry then Doom. I'm giving them another go around since I got a new videocard, and I must say Far Cry is king. It's the wide open gameplay that does it for me, not to mention the breathtaking graphics (HL2 might be technically better, but I think FC's jungles are more impressive than HL2's ruined city). Far Cry makes me feel more than any other game I've played, that I am there creeping through the brush, killing mercs. I feel like I'm Jack Bauer in the jungle.
HL2 is amazing though, it's the first time I can recall that physics have had a positive influence on the game experience. Sure other games have tried realistic physics before, but it either was gimmicky and made no real difference (Max Payne 2) or a nuisance and made the game unbearable (Tresspasser).
Doom 3 is my least favorite of the three. If you had of asked me 2 weeks ago what I thought of it I would have echoed some of the complaints already made in this thread and given it 5/10. I reinstalled it as a benchmark and got to playing it, and am having fun. If you take it for what it's worth (just a mindless shooter) it ain't that bad. I think the let down factor played a lot into my previous opinion (I was expecting the second coming, damn hype).

The scene in Far Cry in the beginning when you come out of the caves and see the island/lagoon is absolutly breathtakingly jaw dropping. I don't think D3 or HL2 has a moment like that.