I didn't say anything about being all-positive. Just from what I have seen in the trailers, if DOOM3 got a 10 for it's graphics then HL2 would get a 7.5.
I beg to differ. Doom 3 has sacrificed detail in order to accomodate the lighting engine. Just look at the textures and the blarinly obvious low-poly parts of the models.
Can you explain to me how you can someone "have a bias, albeit a scattered one."??
I'm talking about your bias on certain parts of the games. You don't seem to have any "we'll wait and see" opinion on any part of the games. You have a bais towards Doom 3's graphics for instance, while not its story.
We should all pray that they were only trying to show the game in it's best possible light and that I will be able to play it reasonably on my Athlon 1600+XP with GF3 Ti200: I don't think so!! If I get a better fps with D3 than HL2 at the same res and qual then I will be royally pissed off.
Doom 3 doesn't need the system as much for its advanced graphics so much as its advanced rendering. It still uses the same tecniques today's games use in most places (Normal Mapping on low-poly models, hand-animated models, low-res textures at distance, etc.)
For HL2, you need a top of the line system because it seems to use features just added in DX9, the advanced AI, and especially for the physics. Not to mention they have deformable environments. Newell says that the deformable environments' LOD-based system won't require a beefy computer, but as someone who used to play Red Faction multiplayer, I'll believe that one when I see it.
Xombie x0mbie x0mb|e Xombie