Doom III Visuals

Philippine Mango

Diamond Member
Oct 29, 2004
5,594
0
0
Is it just me or am I not the only one that is not impressed by the graphics in doom III... I mean I've been playing farcry for so long on systems with lower specs and when I play doom III on high end systems it doesn't look *that much better. It seems like just a really overrated game... I can see the huge jump from games like most games to far cry but not farcry to doom III. I didn't purchase doom III but played the demo, unless there is something different in the demo I don't think I should bother purchasing doom III. I am though going to buy HL2 though because I do notice a difference and is a nice upgrade from the old CS of '98.

---

PSA - This is not the Software - Apps, Programming and Games forum.

AnandTech Moderator
 
Mar 19, 2003
18,289
2
71
The lighting and models were for the most part very impressive, as were some of those interactive keypads and such, but I just couldn't get over the widespread use of way-too-low-resolution Quake2 style textures on everything else. :(

Edit: And yes, I think I'm still probably more impressed with FarCry.
 

dderidex

Platinum Member
Mar 13, 2001
2,732
0
0
The redeeming feature of Doom3 was that it still looked VERY GOOD on a GeForce FX 5200 (non-Ultra) - *almost* as a good as a full 6800 (although lower res - which really doesn't hurt Doom3 at all - and no FSAA, etc).

Carmack really did a very, very good job optimizing the engine to provide a 'similar experience' across the entire range of commonly available graphics cards.

That's impressive.

Especially compared to Far Cry that really, really looks like and performs like CRAP on anything less than a cutting-edge system.

Granted, if you HAVE a cutting-edge system....I don't suppose Doom3 IS that impressive compared to what else is out there. It's just impressive how well it scales, really, and how good it looks and how fast it performs on really 'budget' to 'mainstream' systems.
 

Philippine Mango

Diamond Member
Oct 29, 2004
5,594
0
0
Originally posted by: dderidex
The redeeming feature of Doom3 was that it still looked VERY GOOD on a GeForce FX 5200 (non-Ultra) - *almost* as a good as a full 6800 (although lower res - which really doesn't hurt Doom3 at all - and no FSAA, etc).

Carmack really did a very, very good job optimizing the engine to provide a 'similar experience' across the entire range of commonly available graphics cards.

That's impressive.

Especially compared to Far Cry that really, really looks like and performs like CRAP on anything less than a cutting-edge system.

Granted, if you HAVE a cutting-edge system....I don't suppose Doom3 IS that impressive compared to what else is out there. It's just impressive how well it scales, really, and how good it looks and how fast it performs on really 'budget' to 'mainstream' systems.

Thats not true at all! Its the complete opposite! For example I can play farcry at 1024X768 Medium details etc. on my laptop! IBM thinkpad T42. Mobility Radeon 9600 which is soso and it looks great! My main system (desktop thats overclocked) only looks marginally better (better details and higher res). But when I played doom III on the same laptop, I got horrible graphics and was forced to play at 640X480 and barely could keep 30FPS. I average about 60-25FPS on my laptop playing farcry. I was seriously not impressed with Doom III because not only did it require and consume so many system resources but it wasn't that much better than facry which requires much less and looks just as good and can pump up the higher resolution. Possibly you were running the game on less than 512MB of ram... Even on the highest of the highest end systems will stutter if you have even 512MB of ram. Farcry is the game where once you meet the minimal graphic requirements and CPU speed, the only thing slowing you down is really the amount of ram you have. I have 1GB of ram on my laptop and on my desktop, ever since I added the extra 512MB I haven't noticed the occasional sutter from loading off the HDD.
 

konakona

Diamond Member
May 6, 2004
6,285
1
0
farcry DOES play like CRAP on lower end machines. ti4200 and rad8500 are no go.. >.<;; the sad part is, it doesnt even look that great even on higher end machines. enough of this doom3 bashing, when it comes to looks there is no comparison doom3 being the clear winner. oh, i must add thats IMO to be PC.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
but I just couldn't get over the widespread use of way-too-low-resolution Quake2 style textures on everything else. :(

dude.. that's the style.. Everything Carmack programs is supposed to be a slightly-varied shade of brown!

EDIT: oh ya.. I just beat Farcry and I'm trying to make myself get 'into' Doom 3, but I can't... I think I'm gonna go finish Unreal 2 and maybe play some Star Trek: Elite Forces 2 instead..
 

user1234

Banned
Jul 11, 2004
2,428
0
0
I inifitely prefer far cry, but after looking at someone else playing doom 3 I must admit that the graphics are amazing, even better than far cry especially if you compare to far cry's indoor areas. Of course doom 3 cannot compare to fry cry's amazing outdoor scenes, but nevertheless doom 3's mostly indoor graphics are so realistic, there's really nothing that comes close. The lighting, the monster models, the textures and the fluidity of it all is just perfect. Then again, the gameplay itself is anything but brilliant, it's just a repetitive corridor crawl, with annoying stuff like monsters popping at you from wall closets and not being able to see what's happening, having to constantly switch between light and weapon, and having to save and reload every 5 seconds. No strategic depth whatsoever, just pure (repetitive) shooter in confined spaces. Great grpahics though.
 

oogabooga

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2003
7,806
3
81
virtualgames, i'm more impressed with the visuals in your sig than the alpha or the final :)

edit: changed profile to sig, used the wrong word
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
My main quam, if I may, is that although the Doom3 engine brings a lot to the table in terms of detail, it still remains unrelistic. Everything ,frankly, is too clay like to and pudgy to be mistaken for reality.
FarCry seemed to be the same way but to a lesser extent with more realistic textures and enviroments.


Now half-life 2 on the other hand looks downright freaky. The amount of realism, from newspapers strewn across the floor to dull colors, is truely awesome in that it makes the overal experience more realistic.


Doom3 shows detail-based potential, but not reality-oriented results.
 

user1234

Banned
Jul 11, 2004
2,428
0
0
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
My main quam, if I may, is that although the Doom3 engine brings a lot to the table in terms of detail, it still remains unrelistic. Everything ,frankly, is too clay like to and pudgy to be mistaken for reality.
FarCry seemed to be the same way but to a lesser extent with more realistic textures and enviroments.


Now half-life 2 on the other hand looks downright freaky. The amount of realism, from newspapers strewn across the floor to dull colors, is truely awesome in that it makes the overal experience more realistic.


Doom3 shows detail-based potential, but not reality-oriented results.


I feel that far cry engine is not as efficient as doom 3's, as it still feels somewhat slugish even in indoor environments, while doom is more smooth (both at very high detail, same resolution). I'm definitely looking forward to games based on the doom engine. Of course, I'd also appreciate a far cry expansion pack, or similar game, but I like to see some performance improvements that would eliminate the stutters.