Doom 3 feedback thread

[msxyz]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman09

Trolls?
We've all seen the screenshots. Are you joking? The texture resolution is very high and so is the poly count...

No trolling, just facts. I'm not talking abut the game per se, rather its engine.
The lighting is great but the number of polygon is way too low for a modern game (look at Unreal2/UT200x for comparsion) and the surfaces quality is really poor. I've seen Quake3-based games with better textures.

It makes me wonder if this is the price to pay to have realistic, real-time shadows. I took this shot yesterday. Detail level was set to "quality", no specular.

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally Posted by h0102468

No he is right. I got my 6800 GT while the game is only good at atmosphere. The graphic quality is only attractive for its shadowing technique. The surface of the texture is nothing surprising and I can say is pretty not revolutionary. The shading technique is even worse than far cry. Doom3 doesn't worth the reputation. The game is a good game but actually the game doesn't worth so many years to make it. I wish H2 won't make me feel disappointed.

Not sure wth you're talking about. I played the game for about 2 hours yesterday, and it looks AMAZING. The textures are incredible in high quality on a 6800GT, and the game is smooth as butta at 1280x1024. You can read the text on the computer screens, ALL the computer screens, down to the little maintenance screens on walls and stuff. When I saw the first droid walking around and the shadow it cast, omg omg omg, I almost pissed myself. I can't wait to get my copy in the mail (hopefully tomorrow) so I can have full unfettered access to the game. The shadowing technology alone is worth the price of admission, as there's nothing quite as scary as facing a wall doing something and seeing the shadow of a zombie moving up behind you. I was sitting in the florescent lighting of an office yesterday taking turns playing with 4 other guys, and I almost screamed like a girl at one point.

I dunno how anyone could be dissapointed with this title, if anything, it's almost a little TOO realistic, since it mentally drained me to play for the amount of time I did, just the unnerving atmosphere will make it like sitting through the scariest horror movie you can imagine for 15-20 hours straight. You really do need the hardware to get the full effect, but we tried it out on a P4 3.0GHz w/ a 6800GT and a P4 2GHz machine w/ a Ti4400 128MB card, and while the lesser PC obviously had to knock down the resolution and some pretty stuff to play it comfortably, it still looked damned good, and once we had it configured just right, it ran, again, like butta.

Farcry is a great game, and it's a stark contrast to what Doom 3 offers as far as atmosphere, and while I think both games are pretty competitive graphically, when I looked at FarCry for the first time, I was no where nearly as amazed by it as I was by Doom 3. I can't wait to sit down on my own PC and try this puppy out.

Oh yeah, multiplayer Doom 3 looks solid as heck, we only had 2 copies to play around with, but in a couple of 1-on-1 lan matches, the multiplayer was smooth as silk, and the included MP maps are top notch. This is truly a game that will be a landmark in PC gaming history IMO.

[Intel17]

Originally Posted by msxyz

No trolling, just facts. I'm not talking abut the game per se, rather its engine.
The lighting is great but the number of polygon is way too low for a modern game (look at Unreal2/UT200x for comparsion) and the surfaces quality is really poor. I've seen Quake3-based games with better textures.

It makes me wonder if this is the price to pay to have realistic, real-time shadows. I took this shot yesterday. Detail level was set to "quality", no specular.

No specular? Dude, there isnt a "quality" option, only low, medium, high and ultra. And I have seen that shot elsewhere.

[SH64]

"Disappointed" isnt the right word .

its just that Doom3 dosent beat FarCry in the graphics department generally IMO. it only looks better indoors while FarCry looks superb in the outdoors & comes close to Doom3 in the indoors .

if Doom3 had massive outdoors , then all that would be changed .

[Intel17]

SH64,
have you gotten to the hell levels yet?

[Clay]

Originally Posted by gorebrush

Clay - I found the tearing was caused by having the Vsync off. As soon as I turned it on, boof there goes the tearing

Thanks, will try that...was too busy playing last night to bother.

[Ninjaman09]

How can you run the game with no specular? Of course it's going to look worse! Not to mention, the screen resolution in the picture is very low. What quality setting were you running in? Low or Medium?

Far Cry is not a good game to compare to Doom 3. It's only even comparable if you have a DirectX 9 video card, which many people don't, and even then it's hard to say. The engines are far too different to truly compare. Visually, however, Far Cry is a little less impressive, in my opinion.

Just because you don't have fast enough hardware to run the game on high settings doesn't mean no one else can. This post is very misleading, and it seems deliberate. Hence - trolls.

[aAv7]

I dont have the game yet, but seeing a thousand pics of it....it does look like quite blurred. Problem is they focused too much on the detail of shadows and the characters, and not enough on the corridors and surroundings. Far Cry seems to still be king of the hill.

[Bleeloo]

He didn't like the game, get over it. You're not going to change his opinion. Not everybody is going to jizz at the mere thought of seeing doom3 in all its hype/glory on a computer screen....

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally Posted by ultimate17

I dont have the game yet, but seeing a thousand pics of it....it does look like quite blurred. Problem is they focused too much on the detail of shadows and the characters, and not enough on the corridors and surroundings. Far Cry seems to still be king of the hill.

Loved FarCry, played through twice, once on my 9700 Pro and then again when I got the 6800GT. Loved the game, thought the setting was great, the baddies were for the most part outstanding, control was tolerable, multiplayer was pretty much crap because of the only tolerable control and the stiffness of the character you control. Still, I would give that game a 9/10.

Doom 3 after 2 hours in a cubicle at a local Comcast office = betta!

Only time and widespread distribution will tell the tale though.

[msxyz]

The specs were in my first post. It is no entry level machine (Doom 3 it's advertised to run on 1.5GHz P4 with 64mb GF4 cards). Sorry about the typo: I meant high quality; as I said no specular. We tried a few options to see how they impacted quality/performance. Without specular it runs quite faster with little impact on quality. Disabling bumps is quite a different story, though.

I'll eventually play it again for a little longer in the next weekend but the first impression (again, I'm talking about the engine and the engine only) is still a sense of disappointment.

[Zeno]

Originally Posted by ultimate17

I dont have the game yet, but seeing a thousand pics of it....it does look like quite blurred. Problem is they focused too much on the detail of shadows and the characters, and not enough on the corridors and surroundings. Far Cry seems to still be king of the hill.

No, the problem is that each surface in Doom 3 needs 3 textures (normal, base, and specular) and they were already pushing the limits of texture memory on each level. Also, games that use pre-calculated lightmapping can use a repeating detail texture to make a surface look more detailed (the sand in Far Cry, for example). This is more difficult to do and get looking good in a fully dynamic-lit environment.