Author Topic: Doom 3 (Read 12332 times)

enigma487 · « **on:** August 04, 2004, 07:36:23 AM »

has anyone else played this yet? i thought i had a pretty good computer, but i let it pick what settings would be best, and it picked 640x480, with minimal graphics options. i guess it's time for a new video card.

Uglydot · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2004, 09:39:40 AM »

Plays gorgeous on my rig. A64 3000+, 1024 pc3200 Geil Value RAM, 9800 pro A 417/366. I really enjoy the game so far too. The scripted events are very well done. I have read critisism of the flashlight usage, but I find that it really adds to the tense gameplay.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #2 on:** August 04, 2004, 10:19:34 AM »

I currently don't have the money to purchase the game yet, but a friend of mine says that the flashlight thing is annoying...Having to put away your flashlight to use a weapon is just silly in my opinion...

3rdrocket · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2004, 10:42:46 AM »

the main character should invest in some tape and strap the flashlight to his gun

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #4 on:** August 04, 2004, 06:46:47 PM »

I just bought it, but I need a few more megs of ram to play it : S

enigma487 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 04, 2004, 08:45:12 PM »

it doesn't play any better in my other box. dam i need a new video card.
box 1: P4 3.02 w/Hyper, 1GB RAM
box 2: A64 3200+, Asus K8V deluxe, 1GB RAM
i suppose i'm due for an upgrade....

Koopa Troopa · « **Reply #6 on:** August 04, 2004, 09:20:12 PM »

Anyone tried it with hardware around this* level?

*
GeForce 4 ti 4800se 128MB
AMD Athlon XP 2500+ 1.83GHz
1GB of RAM

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #7 on:** August 04, 2004, 10:00:35 PM »

That sounds like it should work well, it's quite a bit above minimum requirements, and I suspect their minimum requirements are a safe margin above the "real" minimum (like they did with Quake III).

Update: I just ordered a gig of ram

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2004, 05:04:44 AM »

I can run decently, wishing I had a newer video card. Running 1024x768 2xAA

2.4a (prescott) @ 3.6
1GB PC3200
9800 Pro @ 512/408 (I like to overclock, can you tell)
Abit IS7

Koopa Troopa · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2004, 11:16:52 AM »

BTW, for any of you that have DOOM3 and lots of RAM 512MB or more, check this out...

http://www.forumplanet.com/planetdoom/topic.asp?fid=5733&tid=1438663

I've only heard success stories from it so far. It has brought very big improvements for a lot of people.

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2004, 11:29:56 AM »

Thanks!

MattVDB · « **Reply #11 on:** August 08, 2004, 07:05:56 PM »

Wait! Doom 3 actually and finally came out?!?! Good thing I have absolutely no interest in it. Have fun everyone else who will enjoy it. :-D

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 09, 2004, 04:22:05 PM »

Done that mod already, there is another one that hardocp linked to, supposed to improve performance as well.

Uglydot · « **Reply #13 on:** August 09, 2004, 05:05:41 PM »

Yes, the cache size upping is a great little tweak, also turning on tripple buffering in my drivers also helped. If you use vSync, when the framerate dips below 60, it is halved to 30 and so on. Enabling tripple buffering stops this. You can change anisitropy also, I heard that it defaults to 8 in the config, so obviously lowering that will help. There are no two ways about it, though, the game is a beast.

Edit: mine is set to 512 and it works rather well.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 10, 2004, 11:05:53 AM »

I will try upping from 256 tonight. Also, you can try out the new 4.9betas if you want, seem to have boosted frames an adition 5 or 6 in some spots.

joeamis · « **Reply #15 on:** August 10, 2004, 02:33:18 PM »

have fun with it, hopefully I'll be able to play it in a year or so. Unless they let you run a 5 inch version of it on the computer... then maybe my computer could handle it. Or maybe I'll get an XBox, cause I do want Fable and some other games.

Dirk Temporo · « **Reply #16 on:** August 12, 2004, 02:47:47 PM »

I want to get this game, but I'm poor... And I doubt my computer would handle it.

GoldShadow1 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 13, 2004, 05:37:50 PM »

I don't really care about this game. I want innovation, and I'm waiting for Half-Life 2. Sure, I wouldn't mind playing it if I found it used for $10, but other than that I don't really care. I *would* like to play a demo though, just for a graphics tech demo.

Uglydot · « **Reply #18 on:** August 13, 2004, 05:42:48 PM »

Half life 2 is basically going to rely on the physics engine. Any FPS at this point isn't goint to be very innovative, it is a played out genre.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #19 on:** August 13, 2004, 06:07:20 PM »

I was mighty unimpressed with the little go-through at a friend's house...Wow, the game is really pretty...Big deal...The game was interesting for the first halfhour with all the PDA stuff, but as you go through the game it's just a trite FPS(with monsters coming out of walls...what?) Though I'm not a huge fan of Doom or FPSs in general, so maybe that's why...

KnowsNothing · « **Reply #20 on:** August 14, 2004, 06:09:25 AM »

Quote
Any FPS at this point isn't goint to be very innovative, it is a played out genre.

I thought Geist looked pretty innovative. I'm sure there are more ways to make FPS's more original, it's just that developers are probably too afraid to try.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 14, 2004, 06:30:32 PM »

Watching just about any game that relies upon clicking a button is boring unless you are playing.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #22 on:** August 15, 2004, 09:58:38 AM »

Quote
Watching just about any game that relies upon clicking a button is boring unless you are playing.

Wtahcing someone play just about any game is boring, except for DDR of course.

Quote
I thought Geist looked pretty innovative. I'm sure there are more ways to make FPS's more original, it's just that developers are probably too afraid to try.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there- there's plenty develoeprs could do with FPS's they're just not ready to take the risk of breaking from the tried and true mold and attempt something new.

Draygaia · « **Reply #23 on:** August 16, 2004, 10:29:09 AM »

They need a Japanese mind there since the only thing I hear about from people about new FPS is always graphics. There are some but they always end in failure. Who is most likely to think of a wizard using wands for an FPS game? Plus a lot of the existing fans are going to think of g@y and messed up. They want soldiers with guns and only want to kill. Comparing MP will be really dope but there are a lot of things in MP that they could atleast use in the single player since really I look at who does the best multiplayer.

I still plan to get this game once I get a new computer. I just really like Id Software. Their FPS online is just really awesome. Even the old deathmatch kicks ass. I like their past games even more than Counter-Strike. Quake III, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Doom, etc I only liked Half-Life for its single player.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 16, 2004, 02:57:54 PM »

I don't know if graphics are the only thing that matter. There is only so much you can change in a fps, but there are still innovative things out there. In ET they made a hybrid between rpg and fps where you gained experience and weapons for kills/objective completions. In cod there was a great hoop la over there being a lot of realism, sound, environment, ai.

Obviously fps aren't going to be everyone's piece of cake, but if you watch someone play and decide that sucks, you haven't given it a fair chance.

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #25 on:** August 16, 2004, 08:48:48 PM »

a stonewall with vines told me doom 3 has subpar multiplayer. Well that might change when those crazy moders in the mod community unleash their crazy mods of doom.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #26 on:** August 17, 2004, 02:39:26 AM »

If you want inovative FPS gameplay, get a popular FPS and get some mods. Few FPSes are innovative out of the box (though you should try Deus Ex and maybe Tron 2.0), but modders who have zero financial risk and no suits telling them to make crap add real innovation. People complain that with games getting more complex the one-person dev teams are gone. Bull####. There are enough one-person dev teams producing awesome mods (since a lot of the assets don't need to be altered) and a mod doesn't need to replace everything. The best mod for Half-Life is Canned Tuna, which only alters the weapon behaviour while reusing graphics and everything.

joeamis · « **Reply #27 on:** August 23, 2004, 09:38:31 PM »

I read in an interview ID said they weren't putting alot into the multiplayer because they wanted the fans to do it, because they know modders can make some amazing things. It's easy when all they have to do is switch up whats already been completed by the makers. Unless ofcourse it is a graphical mod or very complex.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #28 on:** August 23, 2004, 10:06:43 PM »

Oh, most mods want to be TCs (i.e. replace everything, even if it makes no sense) just for the sake of being TCs. There are mods for Far Cry and do you know what the first thing they made was? New weapon models. MP5, SPAS12, etc, all of which were already in the base game. I bet when Half Life 2 comes out everybody will throw in their version ofthe MP5, etc. Only very few mods are smart enough to focus at making a fun addition to the base game instead of trying to woo everyone with their 100% replaced graphics. I think the problem is that many see mod work as a step ladder into the game industry instead of a hobby for fun.

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #29 on:** August 24, 2004, 07:52:41 AM »

Quote
I read in an interview ID said they weren't putting alot into the multiplayer because they wanted the fans to do it, because they know modders can make some amazing things. It's easy when all they have to do is switch up whats already been completed by the makers. Unless ofcourse it is a graphical mod or very complex.

Thats a crappy decision from Id because if I where to buy a PC shooter for 54.99 I'd expect it to have it good multiplayer out of the box BUT NOOO were going to have wait for better multiplayer via mods. Sorry if it sounds like a flame but its really disapointling especially for the 54.99 price tag plus other possible expenses for upgrading your PC.

joeamis · « **Reply #30 on:** August 24, 2004, 02:00:32 PM »

Well you gotta think about it this way, if ID spent even more time on the multiplayer the game could very well have sold for $60 instead. Also the game would've came out a couple months later too. They were very excited in the interview for letting the modders do the multiplayer game even more justice, they've liked getting people to do mods since Doom 1. And the multiplayer they did make themselves for Doom 3 atleast meets conventional standards as far as game types. Atleast this way, with not spending another 2-3 months doing more multiplayer types, they can start on their next games earlier too.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #31 on:** August 24, 2004, 09:37:48 PM »

It sold for 55 because of the name. Enter The Matrix cost 55 on PC here, Doom 3 only 47 (both Euros, normal price for PC and GBA games is 40-45).
Also, Doom 3 is like Half-Life, a singleplayer experience with a rather neglected multiplayer (OOTB HL MP stinks), though I'd say except for the bandwidth usage D3 is pretty good in MP (except for the buggy server browser). They could have pulled an Unreal II, but they didn't. I guess after Quake 3 being pretty much an MP-only game they rather wanted to make an SP game this time round.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #32 on:** August 25, 2004, 03:27:02 PM »

YES! Now they will have it out in 2007 instead of 2008!

KDR_11k · « **Reply #33 on:** August 25, 2004, 10:15:01 PM »

WTF are you talking about?

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 26, 2004, 02:33:29 PM »

Joe saying they would start development sooner by 3-4 months by skipping MP. Quake3 was released January 2000. We only have to wait 4 years for their next game. A month or two is nothing for id.

joeamis · « **Reply #35 on:** August 26, 2004, 03:03:54 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
It sold for 55 because of the name.

It costs alot of money to make very good game engines, and games with visuals of that caliber. I wouldn't say it's just because of the name, especially for how long the title was in development. ID has always pushed the barrier with technology.

I didn't say they skipped MP, they just did less. And ID has always been a company about letting the user get in and mod the game more so than most companies. They did it first with Doom 1 and have always been excited about giving the user more input into the games beyond just playing it. And Quake 3 was released in December of 1999. Between Quake 3 and Doom 3, ID has released other games... on consoles. And when you have to wait years for their PC releases I'm glad when another 3 months isn't tacked on.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #36 on:** August 27, 2004, 12:16:52 AM »

Games don't cost more or less because of quality or cost, they cost more because the game is hyped up enough that people wil buy it even at an increased price. Remember how hyped Enter The Matrix was? Doom 3 was treated as one of the three saviours of PC gaming adna s such they knew the fans would buy it, 55 or not.

joeamis · « **Reply #37 on:** August 27, 2004, 04:06:05 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Games don't cost more or less because of quality or cost, they cost more because the game is hyped up enough that people wil buy it even at an increased price. Remember how hyped Enter The Matrix was? Doom 3 was treated as one of the three saviours of PC gaming adna s such they knew the fans would buy it, 55 or not.

Enter the Matrix sold in the US for $49.99. Games don't cost more or less because of quality or cost?

?! Tell that to developers and publishers. That logic would mean budget games don't exist. ID, especially John Carmack has always pushed technology in their games. It took alot of money to make Doom 3 look as good as it does, and it was in development for a long time. Pushing the technological envelope and long development times cost more money. I'm not saying the name had nothing to do with the cost, but if the game cost less to develop it could've very well sold for $45.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #38 on:** August 27, 2004, 11:56:21 PM »

Budget games. Okay, but those are usually budgeted because the publisher doesn't expect them to sell at full price and hopes a lower price helps. Price depends on customer demand first and foremost. If videogame costs were really related to the cost of development, you wouldn't see entire shelves of uniformely priced games. Besides, most of that dev money iD spent will be made back with engine liceses (their main business).

joeamis · « **Reply #39 on:** August 28, 2004, 12:36:00 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Budget games. Okay, but those are usually budgeted because the publisher doesn't expect them to sell at full price and hopes a lower price helps. Price depends on customer demand first and foremost. If videogame costs were really related to the cost of development, you wouldn't see entire shelves of uniformely priced games. Besides, most of that dev money iD spent will be made back with engine liceses (their main business).

Budget games are sold at a low price for more reasons than that. And almost always the reason the publisher doesn't expect them to sell at full price is because the games were made on a low budget. Budget games are usually those with low budgets and short development time (less cost). Price does not depend on customer demand first and foremost, if that was the case then games would all be different prices reflecting the demand for each. Another reason games are uniformly priced is because it's an established standard. They've shown pie charts before as to where the money goes for each game sold.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #40 on:** August 28, 2004, 11:08:36 PM »

A game made on low budget runs on a low budget because someone obviously decided the game wasn't worth a full budget because it wouldn't sell anyway, right?

joeamis · « **Reply #41 on:** August 30, 2004, 10:43:44 AM »

sometimes. But there's lots of reasons for budget games. Sometimes a company already has other games in development with bigger budgets and thus can't make another big budget game, but would really like to release a game before the larger game in development for a year to multiple years releases. Other times a company simply can't afford to make non budget games, and thus all they make is budget games. Other times a company has to cut back on a title that originally had a large budget and thus make it as a budget game. And then there's times where a company releases a game at a budget price to attempt to garner more market share in that genre (ESPN Sports). There are alot more reasons as well, I won't bother keep typing all of them.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #42 on:** September 01, 2004, 03:47:23 PM »

Yes your right, ID did produce Quake 3 Arena for DC, that obviously constituted a lot of effort. Also allowing another company to produce RTCW obviously, took a lot of effort.

Saying they allow the modders to build the mp for them is a lame excuse for saying, we are too lazy, do it for us.

Doom 3 will make more on the engine being leased out to other companies than it will on the game profits itself. The arguement that 'they have to make money somehow' is pretty pointless.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #43 on:** September 01, 2004, 08:51:44 PM »

Well, how "good" was the Half-Life MP OOTB?

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #44 on:** September 02, 2004, 05:27:45 PM »

It sucked, but Valve has since then taken a lot of effort into making the MP a big focus.

joeamis · « **Reply #45 on:** September 02, 2004, 07:23:15 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: manunited4eva22
Yes your right, ID did produce Quake 3 Arena for DC, that obviously constituted a lot of effort. Also allowing another company to produce RTCW obviously, took a lot of effort.

Saying they allow the modders to build the mp for them is a lame excuse for saying, we are too lazy, do it for us.

Doom 3 will make more on the engine being leased out to other companies than it will on the game profits itself. The arguement that 'they have to make money somehow' is pretty pointless.

They've done more between Quake 3 and Doom 3 than you're implying. After Quake 3, they did an expansion pack: Team Arena that took a year to come out. They also did Wolfenstein 3d for gba, been co-developing spvquake, and have also been co-developing Quake 4.

And your argument about them making money on the engine only strengthens the fact that they've been busy and working hard. They make amazing game engines, quite adaptable ones, and with Doom 3's it's clear that it took alot of time to produce. You saying that theres an argument about "having to make money somehow" is stretching things quite a bit. I already acknowledged that the name had something to do with the price, but given the work that went into making the game... is also a substantial reason. If they didn't make the engine so advanced and the graphics, they could've done it cheaper and made the same profit at a $45 dollar pricepoint...

They're not simply lazy when they say let the modders do the mp. For one, they did mp for Doom 3, and results from players have said that instead of just 4 players, there have been upto 16 player matches from modders already, so it's clear that the game can handle it and appears Id went with 4 to maintain the tradition of Doom. Also Id clearly focused on creating Doom 3 as a single player game, and the mere fact that they included mp at all is icing on the cake. And if you've seen or read interviews with Id about it, you would see how much they want the modders to have the ultimate say this time around, I find it hard to believe that you can't just believe that especially since Doom 1 was really the first time a company actively encouraged lots of modding.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #46 on:** September 02, 2004, 10:56:18 PM »

They limited MP to four players because four players already lags like hell online. I heard that consumer grade computers cannot even handle serving a 16 player game.

manunited: Well, how long did it take for those changes to happen?

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #47 on:** September 03, 2004, 04:22:19 PM »

It took CS for that to happen. Ever since then, valve has been the one to beat in MP making (yes CS was a mod, but valve has built the community far more than any mod)

I find it hard to believe that you can really swallow: ITS A TRADITION! ITS OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE WE MAKE NO MULTIPLAYER! THATS YOUR JOB!

Oh I forgot about Team Arena and a port of wolfenstein 3d to gba! Wow, How could I ever doubt that they were not spending 100% of their time on those games. Quake 4? Quake 4 dev has barely begun. Carmack himself said he has barely started on it.

joeamis · « **Reply #48 on:** September 04, 2004, 03:27:57 PM »

Well obviously you don't know much about Id, their history, and interviews if you think that didn't make a big mp because "they were lazy". And you keep saying they made NO multiplayer, they did make mp, just not a full fledged mp. And their plan all the way through was to make a single player game. Their last game was primarily multi player. And this time they wanted to do primarily single player.

I'm not saying they spent 100% of their time on those games, I'm stating they did more than nothing else between Quake 3 and Doom 3 which you had implied. Quake 4 is also being designed using the Doom 3 engine, so they made the engine with that in mind either in the beginning or at some point in it's development.

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #49 on:** September 05, 2004, 09:00:47 PM »

I hope Quake 4 wont be a similar Flashlight FPS since that was kind of lame even if it caused the ambiance of the game. For some weirdening reason I always found Quake more fun than Doom. It would be interesting and cool if ID brought back the Heretic series.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #50 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:12:15 PM »

So because they have a history of letting the burden of making a good multiplayer setup fall to the mod community, they must continue to do so? What would be so wrong with relelasing mod tools and a complete multiplayer? Or are we still playing id can do no wrong?

joeamis · « **Reply #51 on:** September 09, 2004, 05:53:58 PM »

That shows you don't know their history. They want the player to have more input into the game than just playing it, they want the player to be able to design too. Their last game was multiplayer as I've said before, and this time they focused on making a good single player game, adding multiplayer at all, was a bonus. You ask too much of companies I guess.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #52 on:** September 10, 2004, 10:14:15 AM »

Well, what would have made that MP mode into a "complete" MP mode? Additional game modes? D3 shipped with more modes than Half-Life did. More maps? Come on, it has ONE map less than Quake and I don't think people complained about THAT.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #53 on:** September 11, 2004, 09:30:45 AM »

Cheat protection for starters. More than 4 players without having to hack up stock MP would have been nice as well... But I'm asking too much, your right, if they aren't going to charge me 50 dollars to buy the multiplayer independently from the single player, I am asking far too much.
I'm tired of playing around with ID CAN DO NO WRONG arguements.

joeamis · « **Reply #54 on:** September 11, 2004, 07:10:06 PM »

It's 4 players because it's a throwback to the mp from the other Dooms. Having 4 players only is a unique thing, and adding more players changes the whole atmosphere and gameplay of the game. If you want a game with 16 or even 100 player multiplayer online, there are already many out there. Because it doesn't fit your personal status quo, doesn't mean it's half-assed crap. You seem to ignore the fact that companies either make a primarily single player game or primarily multi player game. There are so many instances of games that are only single player and people say it would've been cool to have some sort of multiplayer feature... (Pikmin/Pikmin 2 comes to mind). And theres always the possibility that an expansion pack may come out, and make the game as good as you personally want it. The argument isn't ID can do no wrong, it's more like from your point of view: "ID can do nothing but all wrong."

KDR_11k · « **Reply #55 on:** September 11, 2004, 09:37:25 PM »

Carmack stated that the reason for the four player limit was because there was no consumer-grade computer available that could handle serving an MP game with that many people. It'll probably be lifted in later versions, but those maps weren't designed for more players, either.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #56 on:** September 12, 2004, 03:25:38 PM »

Carmack is probably right, but gee not many people actually host off of their pcs. Heck BFV servers do fine on Dual Xeon 2.4s with 2GB of memory. Now lets compare:

Game with vehicles and 32 people, massive maps, etc. A game with highly detailed models and up to 4 people. I really see his point. Carmack is a genius, not just for the doom franchise, but for the rocket stuff as well, but he is still allowed to make excuses.

I think Doom 3 is a great singple player game, I just think it could be a better game if they had gone ahead and done a complete multiplayer.

I have a solution to making the 4 player thing work. Make an option to have 4 players max on some maps. Add a few features, BAM you have your super throwback mode.

Yes a lot of companies do that, but is there some kind of law written in stone that says; thou must not make a good multiplayer if thy maketh a good single player? Call of Duty has a more than decent multiplayer, and a great single player to work. But they are a massive minority, as you will explain.

joeamis · « **Reply #57 on:** September 12, 2004, 07:28:30 PM »

One thing I originally said, or I think I had said was that I doubt the game could handle more than 4 players on peoples PC's. So they hacked in and managed to get 16 players. In any case the game was designed for single player, and only 4 is a throwback as I said. If the game wasn't to be the best single player experience they could make to begin with then it would be easy to have a full fledged multiplayer mode, but that was not the case. That's the huge factor here... If you wanted full fledged multiplayer then they would've had to made sacrifices for the single player game, and why the h3ll would they do that, when the plan from the get-go was for the best single player game they could make?? BFV was not designed as the best single player game they could make, infact it was designed specifically for multiplayer, so that point is mute. There is no law that one must not make a good multiplayer if they do a good single player, and there is no law that if someone makes a single player game it must be multiplayer as well... Some games are designed from the beginning for both single player and multi, CoD being one of them. That also means the game could've been better, atleast looked alot better if it was designed just for single player. As for those games being the massive minority, games like CoD, well they are... Look at all the games released in the past year, and you will see that there's a load of single player only titles, a small amount of great single player+small multiplayer games, an even smaller amount of full fledged single+multi games, and a smaller amount of multi only games. It's funny how you bring the rocket thing into this, the guy's worked on game engines for what 15 years? give or take some years, and because he's not successful launching a rocket (how many have been, outside National Governments?) so he's full of excuses...

I must reiterate the fact that if they were going to make a full fledged mp, the single player game would've had to been sacrificed... And just because ID is the type of company that likes to make either a 1)primary single player title, or 2)primary multiplayer title, doesn't mean they're lazy or whatever you like to say, excuseful, etc. Most game companies follow the same philosophy, primarily single or primarily multiplayer. Only in the last year or two has there begun to have a conversion of the two (mp online).

KDR_11k · « **Reply #58 on:** September 12, 2004, 11:27:57 PM »

In BFV you have to calculate up to 32 cylinders and a few lines when combat happens. In Doom 3 you're calculating animations, lighting and almost all polygons to get the server's state. The lighting is serverside, the animations have to be handled serverside, etc. Why? Doom 3 uses per polygon collisions. Whereas previously a player was a cylinder or a bunch of cylinders they're now exactly what they look like. That's no problem in singleplayer, but once you add netcode to that it's a disaster. shots are no longer lines intersecting cylinders, they're prisms intersecting complex geometry. In Doom 3 you won't accidentally hit your teammate when shooting over his shoulder.
Doom 3 isn't just gaphics, it has a full-fledged physics engine and the most accurate collision model ever used by an FPS.

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #59 on:** September 13, 2004, 03:04:44 PM »

If that is the case, damn you got me

Nice one KDR. I thought that basically every FPS was based on the idea that if the person was in a sector and the shot was calculated to go above that sector, it was scored as a hit, else it continued until it hit something, be it boundary or wall. Guess I was wrong on that one, but then again, I don't do too much programming.

As for talking about how doom 3 is the greatest game ever, have you actually played it? It's fun, but it's got a bland story, and the gameplay could use some work.

MaleficentOgre · « **Reply #60 on:** September 13, 2004, 06:46:30 PM »

If doom 3 wasn't so damn pretty it wouldn't get as much love as its getting. I have doom 3 and I love it. But honestly there are only so many different metallic walls in hell that one can run into, I'm sure that hell and mars have some more intereseting enviroments. and once you get down to it, the entire game is walk and shoot, walk and shoot, walk and shoot, pee your pants, walk and shoot. The physics engine is amazing, and that's where most of the fun in the game lies.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #61 on:** September 13, 2004, 09:23:15 PM »

It's an FPS, what do you expect? Besides, I never claimed that Doom 3 is the best game ever. The best FPS ever is very likely Deus Ex, no matter what any number of Halo or Half-Life 2 fanboys want you to believe.

MaleficentOgre · « **Reply #62 on:** September 14, 2004, 03:58:19 AM »

Deus Ex 1 is one of the most underrated shooters out there. But best ever is kind of a stretch. I'm not sure which FPS is but I'm pretty sure that its not deux ex.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #63 on:** September 14, 2004, 06:09:35 AM »

Well, most people would say if it's not Deus Ex it's either Half-Life or Halo (some retro heads would throw in Quake, which I'd rate better than the two others mentioned but still not Best Game material), which aren't too hot, either. Guess that comes with the genre, I can't think of an FPS that really stands out. That might just be my apathy towards the genre lately, though. I got tired of FPS games, got Doom 3 only because all the mods will be going teither there or to Half-Life 2 (I wonder how those people who have started HL2 mods feel about the constant delays...).

Renny · « **Reply #64 on:** September 14, 2004, 11:43:37 AM »

NOLF. Ha. :¬]

joeamis · « **Reply #65 on:** September 14, 2004, 09:35:35 PM »

I don't think Doom 3 is the best game, I just think ID did everything they could to make it the best single player fps they could. Some people say Farcry is better than Doom 3. As far as what notable fps I think of lately, well I haven't played alot lately, and easily enjoy most though. I liked Red Faction way back and RF 2. TS2 was great, wish the story single player mode was better unfortunately I never got to play it alot in the multi modes, loved the arcade modes though. I enjoyed Night Fire alot more than I thought it would, especially more than my opinion of the game before I rented it. I look forward to Killzone, Geist, TS3, GERA, and I forget the rest. Doom 64 was actually a blast, I played it two weeks ago to the end. I've never played Halo, would like to try it atleast. One game I like better than them all, even GE and PD, is Quake 3 Arena. It's only Quake I've played, just picked up Quake 64, but Q3A has some excellent levels, cool mods, and is just plain fun.

News:

Author Topic: Doom 3 (Read 12332 times)