The great thing about opinions is they're like a**holes and everyone has one. And if it's not your a**hole, it probably stinks. Here's the deal:
Doom 3 looks awesome, even on my system at Medium settings. I haven't noticed any of the graphic glitches you're talking about. Then again, generally when I'm close enough to a monster to get a real good look at him I'm scareds**tless and attempting to hit the fire button as fast as I can (or running away while trying to reload). Also, I don't believe you ever played the leaked alpha. The graphics were horrible, the pace was slow, the shadows weren't THAT great, all of that at 20 FPS tops. I'm playing Doom 3 at 40 FPS, at least, on medium settings. On high I can still get 30 FPS. FAR better than I can get on a good day with Far Cry. Far Cry was a tech demo that should have never been made into a game. Or, since it was, it's engine needed serious tweaking, and still does.
Also, is the story a little tired? Maybe. But id did it first, and id did it best, and they're at it again! I've NEVER been so freaked out in a game.
The only valid complaint anyone could have would be the cost of that pacemaker you'll need after playing this game for 20 hrs.
I don't need to have played Doom3 to have my 2 or 3 cents here.
Sander usually writes what I consider to be credible and well written articles, but this latest addition to the otherwise high-caliber postlist is the least believable of all his articles I've read to date.
Comparing this new game with FarCry is your first and minimum-required mistake that leads to complete incredibilty. For comparing ANY game that has an ounce of potential with such a game as FarCry is an atrocity in itself.
FarCry sucks complete arse. Pardon the language, but not much more could be said for it. I slugged away playing that piece of crap for hours just PRAYING that the abuse my siblings offered for my playing such a terribly lowgrade game would turn out worth enduring for just ONE interesting point of storyline or new streak of gameplay. The game offered not one new thing to the genre, or any genre. The one point at which i thought it was all on was when you are left temporarily without a weapon to speak of aside from your machine gun and a clip. It was actually hard, actually intense, and oh my god it was actually enjoyable for a minute there. Then once you've had your taste, it's back to the ammo hoarding, incessant left clicking repetitiveness of the abomonation that is FarCry.
i'm still vaguely looking forward to Doom3. The positive remarks I've heard thus far are coming from the same people who told me FarCry had an awesome plot twist and good ending... eeeeep! WRONG on both counts. So i'll just have to wait and see. Meanwhile, i don't think such seemingly paid-for propaganda referencing atrocious games like good old FarCry should be allowed to be posted. Except of course that they instantly spark rises out of everyone near and far. Now me-included :-D
I've only played 3-4 hours of doom3 as I have been busy with real-life, but I can see where sander is coming from, but the game's still the best looking as far as I'm concerned. PS, I also like far cry, I guess I've been blindfolded for the past 5 months thinking it's a good game and having played through it 3 times.
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @ 2.8GHz
2GB G.Skill PC4000 RAM
PNY nVIDIA GeForce 7900GS
250GB 16MB Cache SATA Western Digital
more in-depth specs in profile
In the past few years I have noticed that more and more games are being written for an already-crowded FPS genre.
Unfortunately, I am seeing more and more emphasis on eye-candy, special effects and hype and less and less emphasis on original design. Designers will go where the money is - flight Simulations have all but disappeared for this reason (not enough money in it ). I don't suppose they like games that you are still playing years later instead of running out and buying new ones .
I am not generally into FPS games. Most of my favorites tend to be strategy-based. That's a matter of choice, and I have nothing against FPSs; Quake-style games give me vertigo... but curiously the Descent series did not
As a personal observation I find that some of the older games are the most fun. Currently I am playing SSN (very old but a lot of fun) and Conquest: Frontier Wars (my current fave multiplayer game) BattleZone II, with a little Dungeon Siege and Freelancer on the side when I need a little eye candy.
I just wish that they would remake Carrier Command... now THAT would be fun.
I would also disagree. I think that doom3 has delievered on everything it promised. The graphics are next generation. The game play is intense as hell (I don't remember jumping out of my seat since my first head crab surprised me in half-life). The sound is all together great. I'm glad that Trent Reznor was not fully involved in the music end of it (sounds a lot like tool to me). I have about 3 hours invested so far and I'm loving every minute of it.
Id software may not create the most intelegent games in the world, but the are some of the most fun to play. And I think that Sander needs to get some glasses or get his prescription checked!!! Low quality quake3 art work, please. I played Q3 almost every day for a year, Doom3 looks nothing like Q3. Maybe you were to busy looking for things not to like, and you just missed the waves in the glass, or the pulsing reflections of the mysterious growth, or the weird eyes of the baddies. The only thing that I have seen (heard) is the power up sounds are updated Q3 sounds. Far Cry was a good game, but it doesn't hold a candle to Doom3.
The only thing I am a little disappointed in is the storey line. It seems a little weak. Other than that it was worth the wait.
I don't care about the graphics too much since i have a fx5200 but i am enjoying the game very very much. I like the story, the creativity and the monsters. I think it is like art on the terror side. I have played farc cry and it's such a stupid story and the sounds can't compare with doom 3's creepy sounds. Mayb far cry has realistic images or jus photos of beatiful spots should i say? Instead of creating and inventing facilities such the ones in doom 3. I repeart i don't care to have a sun shining while i kill unknown humans but i like the creations of the these horrible monsters invented from a fantastic brain. Its like art! I don't like a well draw of a sun i like a distorted sun that shines a black light!
I would agree with Sean to an extent. I still think that Open gl is a great way of rendering games. I come from an era when open gl and glide were the top dogs. Directx 9 has yet to truley impress me. I do believe that it has come a long, long way in a couple of years. UT2004 is a fine example of that. But, on the other hand far cry did not run as good as Doom 3 does; or did it have the depth of art work.
In short, your $500.00 card should run Doom3 fine (unless it is an ATI). ATI's are well known for not running open gl at acceptable frame rates (they even had to release an hotfix for Call of Duty). If your have a Radeon your day will come with Half Life 2. And all of Nvidia people will be crying the blues. One thing to remember, Open gl is more gpu dependant than direct3d which is more cpu dependant. Check out this link for a comparison http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/d3d-vs-opengl.html. That is why the Nvidia's almost always have higher clocked gpu's, and runs open gl games better.
meaning easy porting to linux, MacOS, and other platforms.
DirectX is windows only.
To JEFF: ATI has promised better and updated OpenGL drivers, because of Doom 3. I must admit my 9800 pro 128MB did a pretty good job ( P4-2.53/ 1Gig PC1066 RDRam -> that helps a lot cos it is good at heaving big chunks of mem fast!) at high quality but even at ultra with no compression had a good framerate, except when new textures had to be loaded , that stalled the game a lot for seconds at a time sometimes. at high qual setting the hiccups were tolerable ( .5 seconds mostly and much rarer)
But i am curious how much more performance d3 will ahve once the updated drivers are available.
Yea I think that all video cards (with the exception being the nvidia 6800 ultra's), are going to have problems with Doom 3. My 5700 ultra runs the game great at the high settings, but chokes some on the ultra high settings. Most of it could be cpu though. And I haven't really been playing around with the settings too much right now, just playing the game is more important to me at this moment.
Hopefully some patches and updated drivers will help everyone's game play.
OpenGL was chosen because it was available and because in comparison to DirectX 7(which was the most recent version when Quake III was released and Doom III was a concept) it does rendering both faster and with better quality.
Paul, most games that are ported have at least two rendering APIs. Look at the Unreal series, which was ported to both Mac and Linux. It has always had support for DirectX and OpenGL... and the original Unreal and UT both support Glide and SGL.
Does this mean IDSoft is lazy?
No... it's because John Carmack knows OpenGL like the back of his hand. He chose half of his programming team based on OpenGL proficiency, among other qualities.
By no means am I saying OpenGL is a bad API... but had they had at least OpenGL 1.4 or DirectX 8, this texturing/model predicament would be a non-issue.
Paul... why does your system have stutters on Ultra High? I'm able to play on Ultra High with no compression or texture downsizing. My average fps is 30-40, which is very playable.