Isnt DOOM3 a failure???

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: VIAN
The gameplay is the same and the gameplay rocks. Only the environments have changed.

??? the gameplay was nothing like what's in D3. while the orignal Dooms were all action and non-stop ememies, D3 is slow, with the emphasis on making you jump rather than mowing down hoardes of enemies.

For one, it's a Doom game. Nough said!

that's kind of a sad reason...

2. The graphics are incredible.

? how so? the gfx are run of the mill for the day, or perhaps a bit better. had it come out a year or 2 ago i would agree. imo, it's not the gfx, but rather how it's used - combined with the sound it does an excellent job of creating "atmosphere". the same old char models keep being used over and over, making it far too repetitive. some variety would have been nice (how many fat zombie twins can there be?) sarge as the tank was pretty cool, but i didn't get to spend much time looking at him as i was too damn busy killing him (which, unfortunately turned out to be incredibly easy. crappy boss fight to say the least).

3. Real time lighting and shadows better than other engines.

agree

4. Brings the old Doom to a new environment, but keeps the same Doom feeling. Id was successful.

again, it's nothing like the old doom, other than it contains similar characters (in the way of monsters). the gameplay is entirely different, being slow and methodical, rather than the fast paced action oriented original titles.

5. It's scarier than any other game.

it doesn't have the near impact the original resident evil did for me....

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Cat

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I just don't know what to say here. I must admit that Doom3 is lacking in the "physics" department when it comes to creatures reacting when you shoot them. Most of them burn to dust and that's it. But the way that the creatures stalk and approach is quite realistic and scary.

I think this will convince most of you that Doom 3's physics and flashlight are fine.

The engine is AWESOME . . . it's the gameplay that's banal . . .

NOT scary!

:roll:

or else you are VERY EASILY scared.

Is there any need for a "walkthrough" . . . this game is SO linear . . . i'm gonna puke . . .

well, i'm up for more . . . time to put the fires of hell OUT.



c-ya!

edit: last words . . . gotta give Carmack somethin'; his game is sure better than these forum discussions of late.
:roll:

 

[Johnbear007]

I think its sweet. It's just like any other form of entertainment, some people love it, some hate it. If you dont like it who cares?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007
I think its sweet. It's just like any other form of entertainment, some people love it, some hate it. If you dont like it who cares?

activision & id, to name two. they want EVERYONE'S money

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007
I think its sweet. It's just like any other form of entertainment, some people love it, some hate it. If you dont like it who cares?

yeah and if you like it, who cares (besides id and activision)?



:roll:

at least the engine has a "future" even if the game has zero replay value.

:roll:

as i said before, it is an OK game and a very pretty benchmark for $45 . . . i expected nothin and i got just that . . .

:roll:

logging out . .. . aloha

 

[VIAN]

??? the gameplay was nothing like what's in D3. while the orignal Dooms were all action and non-stop ememies, D3 is slow, with the emphasis on making you jump rather than mowing down hoardes of enemies.

I played Doom3 before I even played the original Doom and it is exactly the same, except for the hordes of enemies. But It felt the same. The atmospher was dark and there were computer stuff everywhere and soldiers and demons and occasionally a new demon would be introduced, but I would find myself fighting it the same way as in Doom3. So although Doom3 is more slow paced, it still holds a lot of feel to the original, just much scarier.

that's kind of a sad reason...

Doom isn't just a frachise, it's a gameplay.

? how so? the gfx are run of the mill for the day, or perhaps a bit better. had it come out a year or 2 ago i would agree. imo, it's not the gfx, but rather how it's used - combined with the sound it does an excellent job of creating "atmosphere". the same old char models keep being used over and over, making it far too repetitive. some variety would have been nice (how many fat zombie twins can there be?) sarge as the tank was pretty cool, but i didn't get to spend much time looking at him as i was too damn busy killing him (which, unfortunately turned out to be incredibly easy. crappy boss fight to say the least).

I love the first Resident Evil game. It only had on 2 models for zombies and they weren't used at the same time. So what? You want more variety. Maybe that's what happens to all the fat guys, their hair falls out and their tummy bursts their shirt. Not all the fat guys have wrenches. And they probably wore standard uniforms.

The graphics rock. They look better than anything else out there. Just when you go outside made it look more realistic than any other game out there by far.

it doesn't have the near impact the original resident evil did for me....

Unfortunately, I watched someone else play the game before I actually played, as I was too scared to play it by myself. I was afraid to die. But this is the scariest game I've played by far.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

? how so? the gfx are run of the mill for the day, or perhaps a bit better. had it come out a year or 2 ago i would agree. imo, it's not the gfx, but rather how it's used - combined with the sound it does an excellent job of creating "atmosphere". the same old char models keep being used over and over, making it far too repetitive. some variety would have been nice (how many fat zombie twins can there be?) sarge as the tank was pretty cool, but i didn't get to spend much time looking at him as i was too damn busy killing him (which, unfortunately turned out to be incredibly easy. crappy boss fight to say the least).

Do you really think that cainam? Even though I don't think the game is great, the graphics technology is certainly revolutionary and ahead of its time. Between this, Farcry, and HL2 (someday), companies are really pushing games forward to match our current hardware.

The 9700 Pro pretty much breezed through every game out there for 18 months until Farcry came out.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

? how so? the gfx are run of the mill for the day, or perhaps a bit better. had it come out a year or 2 ago i would agree. imo, it's not the gfx, but rather how it's used - combined with the sound it does an excellent job of creating "atmosphere". the same old char models keep being used over and over, making it far too repetitive. some variety would have been nice (how many fat zombie twins can there be?) sarge as the tank was pretty cool, but i didn't get to spend much time looking at him as i was too damn busy killing him (which, unfortunately turned out to be incredibly easy. crappy boss fight to say the least).

Do you really think that cainam? Even though I don't think the game is great, the graphics technology is certainly revolutionary and ahead of its time. Between this, Farcry, and HL2 (someday), companies are really pushing games forward to match our current hardware.

The 9700 Pro pretty much breezed through every game out there for 18 months until Farcry came out.

I dont think its right to call the Doom 3 graphics revolutionary, what is has is what other games have, Splinter Cell had the shadows, Doom 3 improves on it, bump mapping or normal mapping, Far Cry, Halo, Doom 3 improves on it, and so on, i would call it a damn good evolution in graphics but no where like a revolution, a revolution would be going from the 2D games to 3D, thats a revolution. Tho i do understand what ur trying to say, tho Far Cry in my opinion did steal a bit of Doom 3s thunder, but its still good, but as u can see, every developer is trying to find a niche in gaming to set their games apart.

Doom 3, Atmosphere, graphics, scary stuff
Far Cry, big outdoor maps, free roaming, graphics (at the time)
HL2, Story, physics, interaction, AI, sound
STALKER, Massive outdoors, graphics, AI, free roaming, RPG, scary stuff
FEAR, graphics, AI, scary stuff and more tho i dont know what as not much has been released
Then there is Unreal 3, umm.... i wish it would have everything!

 

[Aleksandar]

yea the game is too dark and it is boring
maby it looks good but is sux
to make it fun and realy scary get high than play it

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

? how so? the gfx are run of the mill for the day, or perhaps a bit better. had it come out a year or 2 ago i would agree. imo, it's not the gfx, but rather how it's used - combined with the sound it does an excellent job of creating "atmosphere". the same old char models keep being used over and over, making it far too repetitive. some variety would have been nice (how many fat zombie twins can there be?) sarge as the tank was pretty cool, but i didn't get to spend much time looking at him as i was too damn busy killing him (which, unfortunately turned out to be incredibly easy. crappy boss fight to say the least).

Do you really think that cainam? Even though I don't think the game is great, the graphics technology is certainly revolutionary and ahead of its time. Between this, Farcry, and HL2 (someday), companies are really pushing games forward to match our current hardware.

The 9700 Pro pretty much breezed through every game out there for 18 months until Farcry came out.

well, let me ask you this: remove the lighting, and now how is the iq? being in closed quarters, where most of the scene is simply dark hides the medicrity of everything (and i don't mean mediocre as a bad thing, rather that it's on par with everything else, not worse). the geometry, the textrue quality - all are in line with recent games.

as i said earlier, the lighting is better (in that i mean multiple shadows from multiple light sources) than say, far cry... but that only takes things so far.

the npc designs are nice, but certainly repetitive. the majority of models, while definately "creative", also lack detail. the physics are non-existant. what there is is certainly more realistic than say, the cartoonish, "over the top" way farcry or painkiller handles, but it is certainly lacking (too many things simply don't move or break, or don't do so realistically).

to me, what makes the gfx work is more the way it's presented rather than the sheer technology behind it. doom3 is a "one-trick pony" which uses the same gimmick over and over, and imo that applies to the technology as well as the gameplay.

 

[nitromullet]

1. Can we make posting the words "Doom3", "flashlight", and "too dark" in the same post in instant ban on this forum? I for one am sick of hearing the whiners. They have right to their own opinion, yes, but once something has already been said this many times, it doesn't need to be repeated. If it's too dark, don't play...

2. I like FarCry and Doom3, both have their own thing going for them. They also both look absolutely fantastic on higher end hardware. Does everything have to be a contest?

3. Games usually are fairlty redundant, either you like doing something over and over again with minor variation or you don't. I liked FarCry because I enjoyed sneaking up on the guys or popping them off with the sniper rifle. I like Doom3 because I like the tense feeling I get whenever I walk into an unexplored room and have to quickly switch back and forth between the flashlight and the weapon - plus the chainsaw is the sh!t (and I think an id original). Plus, I spent many hours playing the various different Quakes and other id games, I just like id's style. I didn't like the repetition in Painkiller, too arcadelike IMO, and I got bored very quickly - wasn't a big fan of Serious Sam either for the same reason.... That being said, I could see how others might enjoy it. So, it really comes down to what you enjoy.

4. If you have to ask why id or why John Carmack, you probably are too young to ever really understand. There will be new people out there who innovate all the time, and liking Doom3 doesn't take away from that. That being said, you have to give JC and id the props they deserve.

5. It's already been said before, but the engine is a big deal because many games will be based on it. I for one am really looking forward to Quake4 - I hope Raven does it right. Not to mention Return to Castle Wolfenstein 2, which will most likely show off what this engine can do with outdoor scenes.

6. NO, Doom3 is not a failure... Just because you don't like it doesn't mean anything. Your like or dislike of anything is most certainly not a benchmark of its success.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: VIAN
I played Doom3 before I even played the original Doom and it is exactly the same, except for the hordes of enemies. But It felt the same. The atmospher was dark and there were computer stuff everywhere and soldiers and demons and occasionally a new demon would be introduced, but I would find myself fighting it the same way as in Doom3. So although Doom3 is more slow paced, it still holds a lot of feel to the original, just much scarier.

lol.. it's exactly the same, except where it's different?

the entire feel of the game mechanics is entirely different.

doom 1 & 2 were fast paced action games; doom 3 is a slow, plodding, methodical hike beginning to end.

doom 1 & 2 relied on.. hmm.. fast paced action. doom 3 relies on atmosphere, darkness, and unending attempts "scare" you..

again, completely different in feel and pace; the only similarity is the thin story it's wrapped around.

Doom isn't just a frachise, it's a gameplay.

the further you explain, the less sense you make.

I love the first Resident Evil game. It only had on 2 models for zombies and they weren't used at the same time. So what? You want more variety. Maybe that's what happens to all the fat guys, their hair falls out and their tummy bursts their shirt. Not all the fat guys have wrenches. And they probably wore standard uniforms.

you miss the point entirely.. re came out how many years ago? 5? 6? there were excuses for repetitive models back then. these days, we should expect more.

The graphics rock. They look better than anything else out there. Just when you go outside made it look more realistic than any other game out there by far.

? how? where?

Unfortunately, I watched someone else play the game before I actually played, as I was too scared to play it by myself. I was afraid to die. But this is the scariest game I've played by far.

heh.. then you're easily scared. yes, there are a couple of good surprises in there, but unfortunately doing the same thing over and over throughout the entire game makes those surprises annoying, not scary.

it's like they took the same sequence (monster spawns in front/near you, while another spawns behind) and simply cut and pasted them randomly throughout the game. ho-hum.... ever heard the saying, "beating a dead horse.."? well, id beat that horse to death... yea, there are a couple geniune scares in the game, and the atmosphere (due to the lighting and perhaps even moreso, the excellent use of ambient sounds/music) remains creepy throughout, but scary? no. annoying? yes. it's almost as tho, after a few hours into the game, the scare "tactics" almost interfere with the progession of the game, and further, the enjoyment of it.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

well, let me ask you this: remove the lighting, and now how is the iq? being in closed quarters, where most of the scene is simply dark hides the medicrity of everything (and i don't mean mediocre as a bad thing, rather that it's on par with everything else, not worse). the geometry, the textrue quality - all are in line with recent games.

The NPC's as you mentioned have incredibly realistic looking faces, though I do think their heads were a bit odd in the skull region.

I actually thought some of the models were quite impressive in detail (most of them anyway, perhaps not the zombies or the spiders). There certainly were too few of them, but that doesn't take away anything from the ones that were there.

doom3 is a "one-trick pony" which uses the same gimmick over and over, and imo that applies to the technology as well as the gameplay.

Indeed, but it does that one trick rather well.

I think you have been watching too much of that Unreal 3 video.

heh.. then you're easily scared. yes, there are a couple of good surprises in there, but unfortunately doing the same thing over and over throughout the entire game makes those surprises annoying, not scary.

it's like they took the same sequence (monster spawns in front/near you, while another spawns behind) and simply cut and pasted them randomly throughout the game. ho-hum.... ever heard the saying, "beating a dead horse.."? well, id beat that horse to death... yea, there are a couple geniune scares in the game, and the atmosphere (due to the lighting and perhaps even moreso, the excellent use of ambient sounds/music) remains creepy throughout, but scary? no. annoying? yes. it's almost as tho, after a few hours into the game, the scare "tactics" almost interfere with the progession of the game, and further, the enjoyment of it.

This is almost exactly the way I would describe the game. There were a couple nice areas with a mass onslaught of enemies that I can remember. Having a mass of them might not work with current hardware.

 

[BFG10K]

Isnt DOOM3 a failure???

No; it's certainly not mind-blowing or outstanding but it's still an extremely solid game.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

The NPC's as you mentioned have incredibly realistic looking faces, though I do think their heads were a bit odd in the skull region.

yea, the faces are indeed above avg quality, but yea, wtf is with the points on the head? truform was invented YRS ago

I actually thought some of the models were quite impressive in detail (most of them anyway, perhaps not the zombies or the spiders). There certainly were too few of them, but that doesn't take away anything from the ones that were there.

well, their bodies and such are quite low in detail, tho a couple of the bosses are done much better.

Indeed, but it does that one trick rather well.

I think you have been watching too much of that Unreal 3 video.

true, but too much of any thing, even a good thing, is... well, you know how the saying goes. as for the unreal3 video, yea, that's heads and tails above anything currently available.

doom3 is a good looking game, but other games have come prior to it which has raised our expectations. as i said, had d3 been released a year ago, it would have been heads and tails above everything else, but today we expect more. per pixel lighting is indeed nice, but unlike in other years, id's engine, while solid, is not in a "league of its own" so to speak in terms of technology offered, and certainly is not a "generational" leap over anything else. i think the timing of far cry made it a "generational leap", as unreal 3 looks to be - unless someone beats em to it

heh.. then you're easily scared. yes, there are a couple of good surprises in there, but unfortunately doing the same thing over and over throughout the entire game makes those surprises annoying, not scary.

{Q]This is almost exactly the way I would describe the game. There were a couple nice areas with a mass onslaught of enemies that I can remember. Having a mass of them might not work with current hardware.

yea, i think if they would have offered a little more variety.. more "change of pace", it would have been alot more entertaining, at least for me. heck, they should doubled the number of bosses. they were a welcome break from getting jumped after the first couple hours.

lack of any real multiplayer hurts it, as does the lack of any co-op mode. imagine how great it would've been if the action were increased, you could play with a buddy, and the pace had some variety

guess it gives modders something to do

 

[konakona]

i am going thru the archives level in farcry right now, and so far i find the gameplay very boring. go there, find something and make something work sums it up; very generic, nothing new. the way they dont let you save before checkpoints is beyond retarted. i dont understand the angle those jumping creatures can reach, maybe it would be more convincing after seeing it from a different perspective (like 3rd persion view). weapons were the cool part of the game i guess, i kinda liked them. huge maps really isnt a plus, we seen it in HL1 so it aint new either. maybe i am just stupid, i wasted so much time driving around on 'rebellion' just trying to get to the archival building. frustrating if not boring. to top it all, i think it really lacks immersion. dont ask me why, thats just how i felt

shoot me if you will, but i think unreal 1 was a better game, for me anyway :\ i cant say much about graphics tho, it runs like ass with mid details at the lowest possible res on my roomate's overclocked ti4200. havnt played doom3 yet, but i would be very surprised if it was worse than farcry in any aspect. oh yeah, water looked pretty nice tho.

btw, why doesnt jack take off his freakin red bright shirt? looked like he was just asking for it to be spotted and get shot.

 

[Munkies123]

Doom 3 is great. I also think the opposite. i think if doom 3 was made by anyone else it wouldnt be so hyped up and people wouldnt complain about it not being what they had expected and say it was one of the greatest games out. And another thing idk what kind of setup you have but man when you put it on surround sound or have some other sweet form of audio like nice headphones and a good system that is capable of running doom 3 smoothly w/ good graphics. Everything runs so smooth and cinematically, it can scare the sh!t out of you and be pretty entertaining. Ive played this on too systems an awesome one running doom 3 with ultra settings and a lil AA and surround sound and the other on a totally crappy computer with terrible speakers, it was like two WHOLE diff games on the sweet computer it was like one of the best games ive ever played and on the bad computer it was just another game.

 

[DragonFire]

I suppose I'll add my thoughts.... tho after taking so long to read all the posts Im sure I forgot some of the things said.

When first starting out at the beginning, I thought I was playing HL, seems like another day intill hell breaks out......
I'm kind of annoyed with them redoing the first doom. Im sure there are many players now days that have never played Doom/D2/Final doom and to have made a remake of it and yet call it doom3. The 3 might make some think its the 3rd in a series when it really isn't. Perhaps Doom revisited or something would have been better.

I won't say that the gfx suck but they aren't as good as I thought they would be. To be honest a lot of the walls and floors remind me of Unreal II gfx wise.

The detail that went into the faces is impressive and yet wasted on the fact that its the same 3-4 faces through out the whole game. Im sure they could have mapped the face of every programmer and make the game not have two of alike.

It being dark does add to the game play but at the same time it would have been nice to see more areas with better lighting.

Not being able to interact with objects other then punch/kick them around is really sad and this is one point that HL2 will be much better. Heck at least in HL, you could interact with a soda machine, microwave,sink,hand drier, and so on to a degree.

The PDA was a good idea but gets old/annoying after while just to get a locker key code. and unless Iv missed something, not being able to delete them is also annoying.

The lighting is a 50/50 thing I THINK, while its great in say the restrooms its not great when it comes to other things like the.....hmmm.....forgot the name of it, of that laser type gun in the alpha labs shooting down the chamber. There should be more of a glow from it, in fact I think having the room glow a blue color when it was firing would have made things look better.

DOOM3 is a very good game tho I think it was over hyped and more then likely the next game to come out using its engine will be far better in every way.

One last thing, Why does everyone keep making fun about HL2 and its delays as if its vaporware? Has everyone forgotten about Duke Nukem Forever? Which I suppose will be delayed again because they will switch to the D3 engine.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: DragonFire
One last thing, Why does everyone keep making fun about HL2 and its delays as if its vaporware? Has everyone forgotten about Duke Nukem Forever? Which I suppose will be delayed again because they will switch to the D3 engine.

It's their (Valve) own fault. They put a bunch of screen shots and videos out to hype the game then miss the original release date as well as the estimated release date. We're talking about a year and graphics card generation late.

In my opinion we'll never see Duke Nukem Forever. It's the all time king of vaporware.

 

[nitromullet]

the way they dont let you save before checkpoints is beyond retarted.

try hitting F5. RTFM...

 

[Evdawg]

Originally posted by: ryedizzel
LMAO, Doom 3 a failure huh? your the kinda of guy that would drive a Ferrari and say it sucks because there are no cup holders.

i like that quote... im gonna keep it

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

the way they dont let you save before checkpoints is beyond retarted.

try hitting F5. RTFM...

LOL

 

[CVSiN]

ESC and save works too =P
dumbass =p RTFM

 

[newb54]

Monetarily Doom 3 is a huge success. And I can?t wait to see what game developers can do with its engine. Gameplay wise yeah it was a failure. It gets old so fast and multilplayer is a joke. Lets be honest if it wasn?t called Doom III it would be just a pretty game that would be considered slightly worse than painkiller. Nothing special at all.

 

[konakona]

ok, i guess i was fed with another lie. he started earlier and he got to boat, told me you cant save except the autosaves at the checkpoints =p now, how do i beat that helicopter? does he take damage when he get shot? sniped him, hit him like 10 times with grenade launcher and more with rifle and still cant take him down before the boat completely sinks