Doom III scans from new PC Gamer

[kami]

I am still undecided if I will buy this for Xbox or PC...on one hand, Carmack says it will keep all of the visual fidelity of the PC version and I won't have to upgrade anything. Another plus to Xbox is that I get a way bigger screen, plus my xbox is hooked up to my reciever and home theater via optical cable, so I get the true 5.1.

Now the PC version...better multiplayer capabilities, though there's no reason to think that Doom3 won't support Xbox Live. Also the potential for mods on the PC version, which we will most certainly see. However, I don't know how well it will run on my current system: AthlonXP 1900+, 768MB, GF4 Ti4200 128MB (o/c to Ti4400). I do not plan on upgrading this any time soon.

I guess the answer is....BUY BOTH 😱


BTW Skoorb, Doom1 also had terribly mediocre AI, but that's not really needed for this type of game. I don't remember that AI ruining my experience 🙂 And it was intended to be single player from the start...they are just tossing on a multiplayer function so people won't be pissed off, and also so there would be the potential for mods I guess.

 

[Maverick]

I wouldn't get this for Xbox...I'm not gonna play Doom3 with a controller! Besides I think you'll get far better graphics on the PC. I can see your points about having a bigger screen and 5.1 sound. But you could always put together an HTPC 🙂

Multiplayer is going to suck for Doom3. The game isn't meant for it. It would be like a multiplayer resident evil. Other interviews said its going to be 4 player max, deathmatch only, and no co-op. I doubt this engine is good at rendering outdoor environments. Every screenshot we've seen is a dark indoor environment. These days all the good multiplayer games can render huge outdoor environments. It will be another engine or two after this one when we start to get UT or BF1942 sized environments with Doom3 graphics.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Lucky
i thought it was designed to be playable around the 8500.

It is designed to run "well" on the Radeon 8500/GF3 series of cards. It is "optimized" for those cards (although the 9700 will run it faster with AF and AA enabled).

Those of your thinking you will need a 9700 or NV30 just to play it are dreaming.

 

[kami]

Besides I think you'll get far better graphics on the PC

Did you read my post? 😛 BTW have you ever seen Halo. I'm not sure of any games on the PC that look that good, UT2003 included.

As for the controller, after lots of console playing you become very good with the controller. I'm pretty confident that I'm about 90% as good I am with the mouse/keyboard at this point.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Lucky
i thought it was designed to be playable around the 8500.

It is designed to run "well" on the Radeon 8500/GF3 series of cards. It is "optimized" for those cards (although the 9700 will run it faster with AF and AA enabled).

Those of your thinking you will need a 9700 or NV30 just to play it are dreaming.

exactly what I'm thinking!!!

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: kami

Besides I think you'll get far better graphics on the PC

Did you read my post? 😛 BTW have you ever seen Halo. I'm not sure of any games on the PC that look that good, UT2003 included.

As for the controller, after lots of console playing you become very good with the controller. I'm pretty confident that I'm about 90% as good I am with the mouse/keyboard at this point.

That's almost an admission that you're not good at PC FPS games.

 

[Maverick]

Originally posted by: AdamK47 - 3DS

Originally posted by: kami

Besides I think you'll get far better graphics on the PC

Did you read my post? 😛 BTW have you ever seen Halo. I'm not sure of any games on the PC that look that good, UT2003 included.

As for the controller, after lots of console playing you become very good with the controller. I'm pretty confident that I'm about 90% as good I am with the mouse/keyboard at this point.

That's almost an admission that you're not good at PC FPS games.

lol exactly

 

[bonk102]

wow

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Why is it a bad thing? They can design the game in such way that it's not needed.

Not needed? By taking out immersive gameplay?

The USE key gives the illusion the gamer is in the game making things happen. Opening cabinets, flipping switches, pulling levers, picking up keys, etc. These things we've taken for granted in other games. Carmack didn't want the USE key because it was "gimmicky" so the gamer uses the rediculous flash-like interface for interactivity. He thinks that isn't gimmicky?!

Opening cabinets, flipping switches, pulling levers etc. etc. can all be done without "use" key. Picking up keys and such has been automatic in just about every game I have played.

We've gotten used to dual-firing modes because it provides a better, more varied gaming experience. I can think of a hundred situations in Half-Life where the alt-fire was useful. Sticking to a single firing mode is Carmack's ego getting in the way of game development.

Again, we don't really need dual-fire modes. Dual-fire is one of those features that game must have because "everyone else has it too!". It doesn't necessarily contribute anything to the game itself. I think you should play the finished game before saying that it will suck because it has no "use" key and dual-fire guns.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Lucky
i thought it was designed to be playable around the 8500.

It is designed to run "well" on the Radeon 8500/GF3 series of cards. It is "optimized" for those cards (although the 9700 will run it faster with AF and AA enabled).

Those of your thinking you will need a 9700 or NV30 just to play it are dreaming.

No, you will not "need" 9700 or NV30 to play Doom3. GF3/4 will be able to run it. With low resolution and limited details that is. Hell, I bet GF2 is able to run the game, if I drop the resolution and details enough! But that's not really the point. The point is that "Which vid-card will run the game at good resolution/details and acceptable FPS?".

 

[0roo0roo]

Again, we don't really need dual-fire modes. Dual-fire is one of those features that game must have because "everyone else has it too!". It doesn't necessarily contribute anything to the game itself. I think you should play the finished game before saying that it will suck because it has no "use" key and dual-fire guns.

i agree, i still prefer q3 weapons to ut's. its just a feel kinda thing i guess.

dual fire is ok for single play stuff though

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: styrafoam
This was linked to on VE3D- scans

That first shot is unfreakingbelievable!

Hey u bastard 🙂 I thought we r gonna see some new doom screens and not the ugly face of the local dutchy at shacknews......

grrrrrgrrrrrr for luring me in

 

[Phuz]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: apoppin

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Lucky
i thought it was designed to be playable around the 8500.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is designed to run "well" on the Radeon 8500/GF3 series of cards. It is "optimized" for those cards (although the 9700 will run it faster with AF and AA enabled).

Those of your thinking you will need a 9700 or NV30 just to play it are dreaming.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, you will not "need" 9700 or NV30 to play Doom3. GF3/4 will be able to run it. With low resolution and limited details that is. Hell, I bet GF2 is able to run the game, if I drop the resolution and details enough! But that's not really the point. The point is that "Which vid-card will run the game at good resolution/details and acceptable FPS?".

Are you for real?
Doom 3 will be fine @ 800/600 on a R8500 with medium settings/+ when the time comes.
Initially they said it was only @ 30fps in 800/600 and I know it has come a long way since then.

Carmack is one of the main reasons we're seeing such rapid development in the video (and even cpu) industry.
But he's not going to lose half of his market on people who just saved for GF3/R8500. These cards are not second rate.. and he knows not everyone can spend oodles of money / per PRODUCT cycle on video cards... No one buys every generation of video cards...

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Phuz
Are you for real?
Doom 3 will be fine @ 800/600 on a R8500 with medium settings/+ when the time comes.
Initially they said it was only @ 30fps in 800/600 and I know it has come a long way since then.

Carmack is one of the main reasons we're seeing such rapid development in the video (and even cpu) industry.
But he's not going to lose half of his market on people who just saved for GF3/R8500. These cards are not second rate.. and he knows not everyone can spend oodles of money / per PRODUCT cycle on video cards... No one buys every generation of video cards...

Doesn't that article say that D3 is running at 800x600 on R9700 with some room for improvement? So lets say it plays well on 1024x768 on 9700 with 8500 and the like stuck at 800x600. Since when is 800x600 acceptable resolution? Maybe back at TNT-times, but not today. Gamers want higher resolutions. They also want lots of details. Low details for 8500 @ 800x600, forget about aniso or FSAA. About the same for GF3/4. To me and alot others, that's not acceptable. Sure you CAN play D3 with GF3/8500, but you need to cut down on details and resolution and you can forget about aniso. It works on GF3 and the like, but will it show it's full potential or be as enjoyable as it could be? Nope.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Phuz
Are you for real?
Doom 3 will be fine @ 800/600 on a R8500 with medium settings/+ when the time comes.
Initially they said it was only @ 30fps in 800/600 and I know it has come a long way since then.

Carmack is one of the main reasons we're seeing such rapid development in the video (and even cpu) industry.
But he's not going to lose half of his market on people who just saved for GF3/R8500. These cards are not second rate.. and he knows not everyone can spend oodles of money / per PRODUCT cycle on video cards... No one buys every generation of video cards...

Doesn't that article say that D3 is running at 800x600 on R9700 with some room for improvement? So lets say it plays well on 1024x768 on 9700 with 8500 and the like stuck at 800x600. Since when is 800x600 acceptable resolution? Maybe back at TNT-times, but not today. Gamers want higher resolutions. They also want lots of details. Low details for 8500 @ 800x600, forget about aniso or FSAA. About the same for GF3/4. To me and alot others, that's not acceptable. Sure you CAN play D3 with GF3/8500, but you need to cut down on details and resolution and you can forget about aniso. It works on GF3 and the like, but will it show it's full potential or be as enjoyable as it could be? Nope.

There is nothing but your opinion to support your speculation. Carmack has already stated that the 8500/GF3 will run DoomIII well at playable framerates. 😛

 

[kami]

Originally posted by: AdamK47 - 3DS

Originally posted by: kami

Besides I think you'll get far better graphics on the PC

Did you read my post? 😛 BTW have you ever seen Halo. I'm not sure of any games on the PC that look that good, UT2003 included.

As for the controller, after lots of console playing you become very good with the controller. I'm pretty confident that I'm about 90% as good I am with the mouse/keyboard at this point.

That's almost an admission that you're not good at PC FPS games.

If by that you mean I play for fun and don't waste my life away on them, then yes. I never stated I was some godlike player.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: apoppin
There is nothing but your opinion to support your speculation. Carmack has already stated that the 8500/GF3 will run DoomIII well at playable framerates. 😛

Well, I have what the article says. And yes, GF3 etc. will run D3. But at what resolution? What details?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: apoppin
There is nothing but your opinion to support your speculation. Carmack has already stated that the 8500/GF3 will run DoomIII well at playable framerates. 😛

Well, I have what the article says. And yes, GF3 etc. will run D3. But at what resolution? What details?

We'll see . . . right? Anything else is pure speculation - Carmack did not specify what he considered "runing well" at playable framerates means (refer to Anand's review of the mobile Radeon where Carmack was surprised that a laptop would also run DIII "well"). And we do know the Xbox's 733Mhz processor and specialized GF4 will also be up to the task.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: B00ne


Hey u bastard 🙂 I thought we r gonna see some new doom screens and not the ugly face of the local dutchy at shacknews......

grrrrrgrrrrrr for luring me in

Yah, what's with that???? :disgust:

 

[BigJohnKC]

Hey, I wanted to see the scans, but I do believe the pictures have been changed....meesa thinks j00 got h4X0r3d.😛

 

[CraigRT]

Hot. Wet. :Q

 

[cricky]

That game looks un-freaking-believable. That giant head on the Jumbotron is FREAKY...

THE SYSTEM IS DOWN... THE SYSTEM IS DOWN...

--Christopher

 

[toant103]

Originally posted by: whitecloak
OMFG 😱

 

[Lucky]

Since when is 800x600 acceptable resolution? Maybe back at TNT-times, but not today. Gamers want higher resolutions. They also want lots of details.

Hmm....Guess I'm blind. 800x600 has served me perfectly well as a gamer through CS, RTCW, BF1942,...

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Since when is 800x600 acceptable resolution? Maybe back at TNT-times, but not today. Gamers want higher resolutions. They also want lots of details.

Hmm....Guess I'm blind. 800x600 has served me perfectly well as a gamer through CS, RTCW, BF1942,...

You are the exception to the rule.

Let's think about D3's performance logically for a while, shall we? Doom3 will be more demanding that UT2003 is. I think we all agree on that? How much more demanding? I would guess quite alot.

According to this chart, using Athlon XP 2200+, GF4 Ti4600 get's following FPS in Botmatch:

1024x768: 49,81fps
1280x1024: 49,32fps
1600x1200: 38,26

With FSAA and aniso, those numbers become 25,57fps, 17,24fps and 10,8fps.

Based on those result, my guesstimate would be that Ti4600 get's about 30fps at 1024x768. That's WITHOUT aniso. Now, I wouldn't call that great.