If Doom 3 didnt have its Graphics Engine

[Drayvn]

So what would Doom 3 be like if the graphics engine wasnt as good, lets say, something like the CoD graphics engine.

My thinking, is it would have been an ok game, a good fps but no great title. When u see something like CoD or any other game, which is running on a 4 year old engine, but plays great, u know its a winner.

So again, would Doom 3 be any good without its fancy graphics?

 

[fsstrike]

I doubt it. Doom3 is fairly entertaining, but overall its not THAT good. It gets very repetetive, and I probably wouldnt of even bother playing it if the graphics didnt "interest" me so much. If you read the gamespot review of Doom 3 everything said is basically a negative comment. The only thing that saves D3 is the graphics, take that away and you have a regualr, ordinary, and boring game. Thats my opinion neway

 

[GZFant]

I play on 640x480 everything turned down so it feels like I know what it would be like to play Doom 3 without fancy graphics. It still looks great but the point it, as far as gameplay, it would be even worse if the graphics engine wasn't used.

My .02

 

[Shinei]

I guess some people don't know how to dip into a game and enjoy it. Doom 3's graphics aren't what make it good in my opinion, it's the story and atmosphere; the last game to pull off Doom 3's performance was Half-Life. Yes, killing Imps is tiresome after a while, but there's plenty of story to go around to make up for it.
Maybe I'm the only one who likes to get into a game.

 

[Bar81]

No, there are many of us. Just a lot of people, including myself, feel that there's no (good) story to get into and Doom III isn't a patch on Half Life. Frankly I find Doom III incredibly boring and annoying (in so many ways) even with the graphics. If they wanted to just redo doom they should have just bought the rights to Painkiller; that game feels like an updated Doom, and in a very good way. Doom III imho is a huge disappointment. Well, at least I tried it before I wasted my money on it.

 

[Bar81]

dp

 

[Goosemaster]

oh shut up. the whole point of doom3 is the engine. it is glorified development eye-candy which is the best of its kind

 

[Gamingphreek]

A lot of people here are probably young and have not played the original doom. For those of us who have played the original doom this is a huge thing, its like reliving past life. If you would have played the other Doom's you would know there wont be anything "new" per se as it is a retelling of the original story.

Doom series remains the series that revolutionized gaming, (remember DI and II were before HL).

-Kevin

 

[gururu]

I can't remember a game since Starcraft that I would've played if I wasn't impressed with the graphics or physics.

 

[DarkKnight]

I agree that if Doom3 had a different engine it wouldnt be as good, but its not because Doom3 is a bad game, but because the engine adds so much to the atmosphere. When I play Doom3 at night with the lights off and 5.1 surround sound up, the game freak me out (except those stupid zombie marines, i hate them, they feel out of place).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: fsstrike
I doubt it. Doom3 is fairly entertaining, but overall its not THAT good. It gets very repetetive, and I probably wouldnt of even bother playing it if the graphics didnt "interest" me so much. If you read the gamespot review of Doom 3 everything said is basically a negative comment. The only thing that saves D3 is the graphics, take that away and you have a regualr, ordinary, and boring game. Thats my opinion neway

jeeze, the game is crap; with OR w/o it's "fanvcy" engine.

it looks like 4 years was NOT enough time; the Bosses SUCK - they are SO (pathetically) easy - this is MY first FPS where i beat the final boss in ONE try. Once you get a "certain artifact", the gameplay "tips" in favour of the player (so much so, the "challenge" - whatever there WAS - is gone).

:roll:

And what do you think of the game's AI - is there ANY ai? or is it ALL scripted

This game is awful; a "one note" symphony of "gore-shock" repeated over-and-over until one gets sick of it . . . by the end, my volume was WAY down and i was just determined to finish this pile of crap.

IMO

anybody want a used copy of Doom III . . . cheap?

There is ZERO replay value in this - reminds me of Unreal II

:roll:

 

[jiffylube1024]

Tried posting this earlier, but AT was crapping out on my connection. Anyway...

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
oh shut up. the whole point of doom3 is the engine. it is glorified development eye-candy which is the best of its kind

^Exactly! These kinds of discussions are maddening - 'what if Doom3 didn't have it's engine?' That's like asking what if Half Life didn't have a great story and plotline - then it would just be a sh!tty ugly game running on a (heavily modified) Quake1+ engine. What if Carmen Electra looked like a man? Do you think we'd all care about her then?


Doom3 is about mood and atmosphere, and that is what the graphics and engine help to facilitate. They spent 4 bloody years making the engine, so it's obviously quite important to the game!

Without sophisticated shadows and lighting, there's no question that the game wouldn't have the same impact, but without sophisticated shadows and lighting, don't you think the developers of the game would have taken a different path and focused more on the gameplay aspect instead? But they didn't, and that is the point. The focus was graphics - enjoy them!

Doom3 is a different game from Far Cry, Deus Ex, Splinter Cell, and all of the other "thinking" (term used loosely) FPS games - it's an old-school twitch shooter with an excellent engine to run it. If you don't like it's gameplay, nobody is holding a gun to your head, and you can pursue "thinking man's shooters" to your heart's delight.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: apoppin

There is ZERO replay value in this - reminds me of Unreal II

:roll:

Don't even compare D3 to Unreal II (although it's pretty true about the replay value). U2 was a rushed piece of junk. The story was a lark and the game was way too short.

There was one cool sequence in U2 where you have to assault a base with a team, then defend it from attackers - I remember playing that sequence thinking: if they just did 15 levels of this type of gameplay, the game would rock, but I know this is going to be it for 'cool' things in the game, because of all the bad reviews and such.

As it turned out, that was about the only redeeming part of the game. Listening to the main character talk was painful, ie "That's MARSHALL stupid Jar-head TO YOU." Ugh, who wrote that tripe? I still have nitemares about the dialog in that game!

 

[Alkaline5]

Just for the sake of nostalgia, I probably would've bought the game even if it used the original DooM engine (with shadows added, cause those just make the game IMO.)

If you started playing the game expecting revolutionary gameplay, then obviously you've never played an id game. The formula for all of them is basically: Run around, shoot things, try to figure out where you missed getting that last door key, and enjoy the scenery. (Although id threw in an element of suspense/horror this time on top of the classic formula.)

Sure it's not a "great" game (I won't argue that it is) but the atmosphere and the suspense elements make it pretty fun IMO.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Tried posting this earlier, but AT was crapping out on my connection. Anyway...

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
oh shut up. the whole point of doom3 is the engine. it is glorified development eye-candy which is the best of its kind

^Exactly! These kinds of discussions are maddening - 'what if Doom3 didn't have it's engine?' That's like asking what if Half Life didn't have a great story and plotline - then it would just be a sh!tty ugly game running on a (heavily modified) Quake1+ engine. What if Carmen Electra looked like a man? Do you think we'd all care about her then?


Doom3 is about mood and atmosphere, and that is what the graphics and engine help to facilitate. They spent 4 bloody years making the engine, so it's obviously quite important to the game!

Without sophisticated shadows and lighting, there's no question that the game wouldn't have the same impact, but without sophisticated shadows and lighting, don't you think the developers of the game would have taken a different path and focused more on the gameplay aspect instead? But they didn't, and that is the point. The focus was graphics - enjoy them!

Doom3 is a different game from Far Cry, Deus Ex, Splinter Cell, and all of the other "thinking" (term used loosely) FPS games - it's an old-school twitch shooter with an excellent engine to run it. If you don't like it's gameplay, nobody is holding a gun to your head, and you can pursue "thinking man's shooters" to your heart's delight.

True true, u can apply this to other games in differnent ways, but again, i have seen other games which try to balance the effect of having good graphics with good gameplay, so if u take one away, then it will be still good, Like Ground Control, it had for its time, good graphics and good gameplay, if u took wither one of those away, it would have still been a good RTS. And it was developed (its engine and its gameplay) in less time than Doom 3, and in my opinion, its harder to get the gameplay right for RTS's as its harder to balance 2 sides, with each other when ur actually gonna play both sides.

I was just trying to ask ppl what they thought, again to agree with what u said, if it was something like Splinter Cell, it is about its graphics engine, the lighting and stuff, as thats what u need for it to be a good game, because it was about stealth, but then again, Doom 3 isnt about stealth, and i would have thought they would have been able to put more effort into the gameplay, as there is Carmack working on the Engine, while presumably, there will be another team working on the gameplay, and i would have thought they would have been able to come up with something much better than what we see in Doom 3. Of course, the graphics does create the atmosphere, so taking away that would be detrimental to the effect of the game as thats what it was striving for, but the other side of that, Doom 3 was solely relying on the engine for its atmosphere, there are many more games where its gameplay also helps to create atmosphere, that saying something like CoD, its graphics engine wasnt amazing even with the amount of work they put in to tweak the engine, so it relied on its gameplay for its atmosphere, but still, if u took that away, the graphics could still hold its own.

Im just saying maybe Doom 3 relied to much on one aspect of the game to create its gameplay, while in others the 2 things a both seperate entities that need to be merged together to creat a great game, while when they are apart, its a good game.

 

[nitromullet]

Doom3 couldn't be Doom3 without this engine. It relies heavily on the shadows. Period. If it didn't have the lighting effects than it just wouldn't work. I'm not sure what exactly people expected from id, but Doom3 is pretty much what I expected it to be. There are some people that like it (like myself) and others that don't. Those of you that don't can stop trying to make me not like it by spinning the "are you sure you like it?" question with different angles. I still like it, and you still don't... Likewise, no matter what you say or how you spin it, I will not like Painkiller. PK was a waste of $45 IMO and it insults my intelligence to have it sit on my desk, but some of you may like it and that's cool. My dislike of the game brings me no joy whatsoever and I don't how you trying to change my opinion on Doom3 will bring you any joy either.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Drayvn

Im just saying maybe Doom 3 relied to much on one aspect of the game to create its gameplay, while in others the 2 things a both seperate entities that need to be merged together to creat a great game, while when they are apart, its a good game.

No question there - Carmack's brilliance in the engine shines through, while the rest of the team who designed the levels just looks ordinary. I agree that, for the time Carmack spent designing the engine, the rest of the company looks a bit lazy, not designing something revolutionary to match it.

As a matter of fact, they just took the old guns from Doom and plunked them in the new (awesome) 3d environment, whilst adding the Quake Rocket Launcher (yippee) and the Soul Cube (the only innovation of the entire game).

I still hold the game in higher regards than most - I'd give it a 92% or 93%, while most review sites seem to have settlede on the ~88%-89% range (or 8.8-8.9, whatever your rating system cup of tee is), however there's no question that it could have been so much more.

As I have said in the past, Halo, for it's time, was a much more revolutionary game (and just plain better).

 

[Drayvn]

I would like to add, that i still like Doom 3, its not the Amazing Game i thought it would be, but hey, i like mostly every kind of game, i take it for what it is, so i like it, it doesnt have the replay value, but its still cool to have a kick around in it when u have nothing else to do!

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: Drayvn

Im just saying maybe Doom 3 relied to much on one aspect of the game to create its gameplay, while in others the 2 things a both seperate entities that need to be merged together to creat a great game, while when they are apart, its a good game.

No question there - Carmack's brilliance in the engine shines through, while the rest of the team who designed the levels just looks ordinary. I agree that, for the time Carmack spent designing the engine, the rest of the company looks a bit lazy, not designing something revolutionary to match it.

As a matter of fact, they just took the old guns from Doom and plunked them in the new (awesome) 3d environment, whilst adding the Quake Rocket Launcher (yippee) and the Soul Cube (the only innovation of the entire game).

I still hold the game in higher regards than most - I'd give it a 92% or 93%, while most review sites seem to have settlede on the ~88%-89% range (or 8.8-8.9, whatever your rating system cup of tee is), however there's no question that it could have been so much more.

As I have said in the past, Halo, for it's time, was a much more revolutionary game (and just plain better).

I would have settled for the 85% to 90% mark, but thats only the opinion of me, its still one great game to play, its been a long time since a horror game, namely System Shock 2, so its good to have a refresh.

And i agree, Halo was amazing, i just wish it came to PC earlier, as it was a little late for my liking, as there were game which came out just as good, but if it had come out 6 months earlier, man it would have stormed the charts and lodged in ppl's heads much longer...

 

[newb54]

I am glad you made this thread. We really needed another Doom 3 thread...

 

[DAPUNISHER]

If Doom 3 didnt have its Graphics Engine

and if frogs had wings.....

I think the biggest mistake id made, was not realizing how much ADD and Adult ADD have grown. Mindless shooters like painkiller and UT appeal to this crowd far more, and it's a big crowd.

 

[Brackus2]

the point it halo was a LAUNCH game for the xbox, likely the best game for its time in the last 4-5 years.

Anyway, the point of Doom3 is the graphics, there cannot be a question of "without its graphics would it still be good" the answer is like 90% NO. The game is a little scary, and with a 5 speaker system im sure it would sound like things were creeping up, and dying behind me, but then someone would just ask "what if doom didnt have good sound or graphics"

Fact: Doom3 has amazing graphics, so much that 85% of computers out there (pulled that number from my ass so dont bitch at me) cannot run it, at least not the way it was meant to.

We are a forum dedicated to video cards and fast machines, of course we are bitching about it as we love the new technology, and discuss it, doom3 rocks as far as it was supposed to rock for, and the engine still exists for other companiesn and games to use it, that is the real key, just as the unreal engine was and is being used for other games currently.

Dont just look at Doom3 as a single game, think of it as a mindset and a graphics showcase, that can be used to make many further games that may appeal to different individuals more.

That said, play the game with surroundsound, at high-ultra high graphics at at least 800x600 and the lights turned off, tell me how much the game sucks then, because if you allow yourself to be immersed in the game some of the stuff is pretty scary,

Dustin

 

[jlmadyson]

Doom is nice but I'm a much bigger Half Life fan. I'm ready for some HL2 thats all I can say.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

That said, play the game with surroundsound, at high-ultra high graphics at at least 800x600 and the lights turned off, tell me how much the game sucks then, because if you allow yourself to be immersed in the game some of the stuff is pretty scary,

Myself and others have suggested this as well, but it's asking too much of someone with ADD, adult or minor. Those that refer to Painkiller as what D3 should be are the perfect example. It requires nothing more than constant action to enjoy that title. D3 requires you have basic acting ability and imagination. If you can't "bury yourself in the role" there is no way D3 is going to be fun for you.

I see many complaining it's too easy as well, did they play on the toughest level of difficulty? If so, I bow to their gaming skillz.

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

That said, play the game with surroundsound, at high-ultra high graphics at at least 800x600 and the lights turned off, tell me how much the game sucks then, because if you allow yourself to be immersed in the game some of the stuff is pretty scary,

Myself and others have suggested this as well, but it's asking too much of someone with ADD, adult or minor. Those that refer to Painkiller as what D3 should be are the perfect example. It requires nothing more than constant action to enjoy that title. D3 requires you have basic acting ability and imagination. If you can't "bury yourself in the role" there is no way D3 is going to be fun for you.

I see many complaining it's too easy as well, did they play on the toughest level of difficulty? If so, I bow to their gaming skillz.

I couldnt agree more. The game's graphic engine only adds to its overall visual stimulation. The only major part of that engine, that is essential to to Doom 3 as a whole, is the advanced lighting/shadow elements that tremendously add to the fear factor. This is mainly why the game is so good. No other game I can think of has the same "feeling" elements that doom 3 scares us with.