Isnt DOOM3 a failure???

[BenSkywalker]

well, let me ask you this: remove the lighting, and now how is the iq?

So take away something that effects every pixel and object in the game and how is the IQ? Take away texture maps from UT and how did that look? Sorry, that line is just stupid.

"D3 is scary"- if you are two. Sorry people, D3 is pathetic at best in its attempt to be scary. I'll save in depth ripping for one of the software forum threads, but id did an extremely bad job with the fear issues. It is 'scary' in the same way bodily function jokes are 'funny'. EternalDarkness makes D3 look like it was aimed at infants, even ResidentEvil humbles D3(not that RE was all that scary, at least it got me to jump a couple of times). IMO id made an extremely poor choice trying to go for horror, their story was vomit inducing and they haven't a clue on how to pace a game for that purpose. When you hit Hell and they dispense with the BS and just go for the full on twisted shooter aspect the game gets MUCH better, horror is something they suck at.

"Doom3 is plenty bright enough"- calibrate your monitor and post back.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

well, let me ask you this: remove the lighting, and now how is the iq?

So take away something that effects every pixel and object in the game and how is the IQ? Take away texture maps from UT and how did that look? Sorry, that line is just stupid.

"D3 is scary"- if you are two. Sorry people, D3 is pathetic at best in its attempt to be scary. I'll save in depth ripping for one of the software forum threads, but id did an extremely bad job with the fear issues. It is 'scary' in the same way bodily function jokes are 'funny'. EternalDarkness makes D3 look like it was aimed at infants, even ResidentEvil humbles D3(not that RE was all that scary, at least it got me to jump a couple of times). IMO id made an extremely poor choice trying to go for horror, their story was vomit inducing and they haven't a clue on how to pace a game for that purpose. When you hit Hell and they dispense with the BS and just go for the full on twisted shooter aspect the game gets MUCH better, horror is something they suck at.

"Doom3 is plenty bright enough"- calibrate your monitor and post back.

sheesh ben.. open your mind a bit; you don't have to take everything literally.... remove the per pixel lighting, and replace it...

:roll:

what you would be left with is a game in many circumstances that looks much the same.. one shadow instead of multiple shadows, etc.. but with still the same mediocre textures and geometry. per pixel lighting is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and about the only thing the D3 engine offers (above and beyone other engines that is) - unless i'm simply missing something.

 

[CraigRT]

Engine is good (Although Far Cry's is awesome too)
but the game itself, does indeed suck.

 

[BenSkywalker]

sheesh ben.. open your mind a bit; you don't have to take everything literally.... remove the per pixel lighting, and replace it...

Sorry dude, that wasn't meant as a slam towards you in particular, I'm just getting very tired of listening to "well if you remove the major revolutionary shift in real time graphics the engine isn't that impressive" line.

per pixel lighting is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and about the only thing the D3 engine offers (above and beyone other engines that is) - unless i'm simply missing something.

It's the dynamic nature of it, and it is one of the major hurdles of real time 3D, more important in eventual terms then pretty much all of the advancements of the last couple of years combined. Now that we have dynamic lighting, the rest of our issues are just levels of refinement until we can hit 'realism'. Radiosity is the last major hurdle I see on the horizon(maybe ray tracing, but decent approximation can be had using shaders which wasn't the case with the very poor lighting implementations we have seen prior to D3).

 

[dennisjai215]

the game sucks in general quit talking about the engine it just SUCKS period.. and its not even as detailed i remember playing SoF which was alot better than doom3

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 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

Oooh, careful. You wouldn't want to damage the last remaining brain cell in your head.

 

[THUGSROOK]

yea i bought Doom III, and im playing it, but it aint that great.

its hard to play such a slow boring and stupid game when youve been hooked on Q3A deathmatch and Serious Sam for so many years.

did they really need a new engine for this garb? no

 

[OMG1Penguin]

Originally posted by: draazeejs
OK, I do not see really anything particular in this engine. To me both the indoor and outdoor scenes in FarCry
look by far much better. And the game need such dramatic system specs that it is just a joke for most users.
The same FarCry, for example, is a demanding game, but the Doom3 stutters every time I try to open a door etc.
And do not think I have the worst computer for today: A64 3000+, R9800 Pro.
I think in most of the cases the engine story is also blown up just because Carmack did it, so, it means - it MUST be good.
But what is the really big deal for us-players, if the games without this "fabulous" engine look better and run better???
I am sure HL2 will be a much better game and nowadays you can not impress anyone by shiny surfaces everywhere and stuff...
The game scenario and artwork is what matters. I think not so many people really care about those hyper-dynamic
shadows. In real life the lamps do not wobblw forth and back all the time, like they do in Doom 3. I got an impression that the game
just circles around all those new features, just to show - wow, we can do it, even if it does not make sense.

The stuttering is due to you only have 512mb ram.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: dennisjai215
the game sucks in general quit talking about the engine it just SUCKS period.. and its not even as detailed i remember playing SoF which was alot better than doom3

SoF is better than Doom3? Really? I just have to shake my head at a statement like that...

To all of you complaining about Doom3 sucking and/or not being what you expected, exactly what was it that you expected? I read all the pre-release hype and I've played the game. From what I can see it delievers exactly what id said it would.

 

[lament]

I think Wired summed it up best:

It succeeds less as a game and more as a technology demo.

Graphics are amazing. It's scary.

But let's not kid ourselves.

After a couple times of getting a big health pack and have something jump out at you - it gets pretty old.

Walk. Kill. Get PDA. Examine files. Punch in a code. Get ammo/supplies. repeat. Ok, maybe one time I'll use a big claw to move some barrels, or maybe drive a monorail.

I dunno. Doom 3 was 3rd on my list of the big 4 for me (Half Life 2 being first, followed by STALKER, D3, then MoH: PA).

It's HL2's gameplay that I'm most excited about. The graphics don't look nearly as good as D3, but I don't care - eyecandy only goes so far. We're all still playing Day of Defeat and Counter-Strike for the gameplay, not the graphics.

I got to the Delta Labs before a hard drive crash wiped it clean today. I don't even feel like putting it back on.

They would need to come out with something extraordinary on the MP side for me to reinstall it.

 

[shortylickens]

-

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I have to agree with all the opinions of seperating the Game from the Engine.
I havent seen any arguments yet supporting the statement that the new engine "sucks".
It seems to be folks too cheap to move into the new millenium.


Just like I was bored with Quake 3, I like almost every game made with the engine. Especially when Lucas Arts got wise after Jedi Knight(Dark Forces 2) flopped. All their newer titles took less time to develop and looked better in the end.

I feel gipped for shelling out $55 but I know other companies will pay for the engine to use in some great games.
"IF" the id company doesn't make much money off Doom 3 sales, then it will be another reminder that players feel quality and play experience are still the main factors in Video Game Satisfaction.

Along those lines, does anyone know if Id is posting record profits, or are they hurting bad?

You paid $55?

:Q

i felt bad paying $44 for this crap . . . however, less bad since i just sold it for $20 (to someone on the forums who knows my opinion) . . .

i guess $24 isn't bad for 24 hours of tortur . . . err, gaming . .. and now someone else gets to "enjoy" it

personally, i think Doom iii is gonna be in the bargain bin pretty soon - there is ZERO replay value

 

[nitromullet]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/02/technology/doom3/

"It's blowing the doors off the stores," said Best Buy spokesperson Brian Lucas. "It's going to be one the biggest-selling weeks for PC gaming that we've seen."

 

[Mr Pepper]

Greetings all, it's been a long time since I've posted here, but I though I would toss in my 2 copper anyway.

Well, I'm only about 1/3 through the game, so you can take my opinion for what it's worth in that regard. I think D3 is just a different animal in a lot of ways from what some people want(ed) it to be. id has taken a proven formula (the same one that changed all FPS games forever since W3D) and has simply put some new spit-shine on it with D3. I personally don't think that is a bad thing at all, especially since id pioneered the genre from the beginning anyway. It's kind of like when people say they are going to "Xerox" some documents off, when they are really using HP hardware to do it. Basically, to me, FPS = id, or at the very least, a game using an id engine. That's just how my mind works and is my permanent "hats off" to id for changing PC gaming forever.

IMO just give id credit for doing what it has always done. They do their own thing, come up with their own ideas and execute them near flawlessly every time. What Blizzard is to RTS, id is to FPS. That is not to say that other devs have not taken these base ideas and expanded on them to come up with great new ideas. Far Cry is a great game and many others have been also.

Let's just give credit where credit is due is all I am saying. It may not be anything "new" but to take credit away from someone for doing something flawlessly, the way they always have done is rude imo. Especially since it was their idea in the 1st place really...

On a side note...

I agree the game is pretty tense and scary. At least so far, but nothing has quite beaten how badly the Silent Hill series has creeped me out. That's some messed up stuff right there....

 

[ronnn]

I super enjoyed doom 2, but haven't bought Doom 3 yet. The price in Canada is high and am afraid that my 9700pro isn't up to the task (some say it is great on this card, others such as BFG say it is lacking). I would say that the game was a roaring success, judging by the amount of people that bought it. :beer:

 

[vladik007]

" I fully agree, Doom3 is the scariest game I've ever played. When I play in the dark with 5.1 sound, I'm nervous the whole time because I don't know whether there's a zombie hiding in the shadows or when a demon is gonna teleport behind me. The sound and the shadows make the atmosphere great. Alot of people have complained about the scripted sequences but I find that those are the most interesting parts of the game. Remember when you first see pinky? While it was banging on the door infront of me I had never been so scared in my life. This the best single player game ID has ever made. "

Exactly my thoughts. When Pinky started banging those doors , i turned and wanted to just run away , not even to shoot the bastard.

IF i have one complaint with the game , it's that it's too long for me , seasonal gamer. I thought Max Payne's were just about right lenght , so Doom seems like twice as long. I know i'm in minority , that's just my taste with games , i like em short and sweet

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: ronnn
I super enjoyed doom 2, but haven't bought Doom 3 yet. The price in Canada is high and am afraid that my 9700pro isn't up to the task (some say it is great on this card, others such as BFG say it is lacking). I would say that the game was a roaring success, judging by the amount of people that bought it. :beer:

I wouldn't worry about not being able to play Doom3 well on a 9700 Pro, I've played it on a 9600XT and it was very playable so a 9700 Pro should be able to handle it. I found that having 1gb memory and a fast cpu made for a much smoother Doom3 experience than just having a fast video card.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

well, let me ask you this: remove the lighting, and now how is the iq?

So take away something that effects every pixel and object in the game and how is the IQ? Take away texture maps from UT and how did that look? Sorry, that line is just stupid.

"D3 is scary"- if you are two. Sorry people, D3 is pathetic at best in its attempt to be scary. I'll save in depth ripping for one of the software forum threads, but id did an extremely bad job with the fear issues. It is 'scary' in the same way bodily function jokes are 'funny'. EternalDarkness makes D3 look like it was aimed at infants, even ResidentEvil humbles D3(not that RE was all that scary, at least it got me to jump a couple of times). IMO id made an extremely poor choice trying to go for horror, their story was vomit inducing and they haven't a clue on how to pace a game for that purpose. When you hit Hell and they dispense with the BS and just go for the full on twisted shooter aspect the game gets MUCH better, horror is something they suck at.

"Doom3 is plenty bright enough"- calibrate your monitor and post back.

Regardless of how technically adept you are in this area, I'll be damned if I'll sit here and have you dictate to me what I can or cannot derive from this game! or except your rantings as fact. You are entitled to your opinion but don't for a moment believe you can analyze this in a manner which negates any dissention with your view point. I do not agree with you, and nothing you post will change that. Furthermore, it will not make either of us right or wrong, simply of different view points.

I'll save in depth ripping for one of the software forum threads, but id did an extremely bad job with the fear issues.

That is your opinion, not a fact! I hope you will be magnanimous and pardon me if I choose not to share your perspective, and also find your conclusions borish. :roll: </sarcasm>

 

[James3shin]

After playing the game, I can say that it has a great "atmosphere" as i belive Cainam said...technology wise, the lighting and mapping, is impressive but not mind blowing, the lighting is quite a treat though moreso then anything else. As for the engine, im impressed how it looked on a friends 9500pro, its a very scalable engine it seems, and seems flexible. The indoor scenes we know are great, but the outdoor scenes, the far and few looked pretty darn good too, i mean there wasn't too much interaction during outdoor areas, but they did look nice. I think it'll be a nice engine and alot of good games will come from it. Just my 2 cents.

 

[dragonballgtz]

<---- hasn't played it yet

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: draazeejs
Well, I do not understand all that hype behind that DOOM 3. I was expecting something new, but there was NOTHING new. Super-boring gameplay, beginning was just a bad copy of HL1

Which is ironic, given the beginning of HL1 was a bad copy of Doom 1.

In my opinion the Doom3 is just a failure, and it is ridiculous, how much people talk about it, just because it is a work of the legendary id. If a completely unknown company would release a game like this, nobody would even notice it.

To each his own. Of what I have seen of it (short spurts playing it at a friend's place), Doom 3 is an evolution graphics- and physics-wise over what we have now. Id has never been known for making grade A games in terms of playability, most of the good id-engined games came from Raven. No doubt Quake 4 will be what Doom 3 could have been.

 

[MajorCatastrophe]

"Isn't DOOM3 a failure???"

No.



I have to admit, when I started playing it I wasn't that impressed, but I've got to Alpha Labs now (just seen that ripped open dude stuck to the ceiling) and the game is getting really scary. Everything just seems to build up and get more intense all the time. Having things sneak up behind you was irritating at first but I think it actually helps create the overwhelming sense of paranoia I get when playing. I'm using Medusa 5.1 headphones (yeah, they work!) and I can't even move from one side of a room to another without every little noise making me look around to check what's going on.

The gameplay is oldskool but the experience is definitely next-gen.

 

[Bateluer]

Its never going to be possible to make a sequel to games like the original Dooms and please everybody. You will never ever be able to please everybody, no matter how great, how action packed, how scarey you make the atmosphere, people will always expect more from the sequel.

Having just bought D3 a day ago, I will say the game runs without any lag or issues at all on my P4 2.4C w/ 6800. I like the slow methodical gameplay more than the run and gun action, but thats just my opinion. If I want to run around and shoot things, I can play UT/2k3/2k4. The game is very dark and I did have to turn up the gamma settings to see things better, thats more my LCD than the game. Using the flashlight removes problem. Why the Mars Marines don't have light attachments on their weapons like real military is beyond me though.

Seeing what people do with this engine should be very very interest.

 

[Pulsar]

Why is Doom 3 not a failure? I can answer that.

First, let's talk about the game itself, not the engine. The game is a collection of nostalgia. For many old time Doom players, this game is incredible. You spend the first half of the game going "Wow, they tied that in here! That's great!" especially when you notice the subtle but great way they've taken portions of the first game and done a "remake" of it.

Now, for NEW doom players, this is like any other video game. Your preconceptions going in will effect your final conclusions. I went in KNOWING that the game was dark. So I turned off the lights, turned up the sound, and started to play.

No it didn't completely blow my mind. But it was a damn good game. It was scary. Well scripted. Had a reasonably good story line behind it. Was fun to play.

The Engine:

I have to wonder if you have any clue here what you're talking about. This is an engine that makes near cinematic quality renderings, BUT CAN STILL RUN ON OLD TECH. That's right, Ti4400's, two generations ago, and 8500's, can still run this. That in itself is amazing. But how about real time shadows. Standard adherance. Scripting Language. Included full featured editor that is common with the most part for developers. A "material" system that allows 3D materials like professional 3D modeling programs. An engine that can handle large outdoor areas and enclosed indoor areas with a ton of polygons. Real time multi-point lighting. Multiple lighting sources. An excellent physics engine that /EASILY/ mimic actual conditions. Hell, with a little ingenuity in the scription language you can use the Doom 3 engine to model fluid flow in real time in 3D (don't worry - you'll hear more about this later).

This is another home run by ID. Congratulations guys.

 

[BenSkywalker]

You are entitled to your opinion but don't for a moment believe you can analyze this in a manner which negates any dissention with your view point.

Well, there are fairly basic psychological trends in terms of generating fear amongst humans which they could have used to create a far more effective emotional experience, they failed to do so. The pacing for the title is such that it got to the point where if I saw an enemy ahead of me the first thing I did was turn around(not shoot in front of me) because I knew there was going to be something behind me. The level of predictability is such that inducing fear into anyone with a remotely reasonable level of mental facilities would be impossible going the route that id did. There is no real tension developed throughout the title, a few interesting things they were doing with the audio effects went nowhere and the potential for a decent story fell apart about 2/3rds of the way through the game and just vanished. D3 is an engrossing experience on an emotional level for the same people that thought MaxPayne had a good story.

Furthermore, it will not make either of us right or wrong, simply of different view points.

I don't see it as right or wrong, just how it is. Basic psychology and writing will tell you that.

That is your opinion, not a fact!

How many horror titles have you played through? How many of them were less effective at inducing fear then D3? I really do see it as simple fact, Eternal Darkness makes D3 look like it was aimed towards infants. I'd be interested in hearing how many horror based titles you have played through, because D3 certainly ranks near the poorest in terms of generating fear that I've ever seen.