Can we start the Why Doom3 sucks thread yet?

[Byatt]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Tho I'm INCREDIBLY tempted, I'm NOT going to read this thread.... as I'm in the middle of writing a review of it right now and I don't want to have any preconceptions.

Suffice to say that I WILL give an honest review though, based on my own taste and experience, and if you want to know what that does to a game, check out my Halo review in the Hexus review archives..... I STILL don't get why people love that steaming pile of poop.

Hell Yes. As a point of interest, what do you think of Shrek?

[dkmech]

I couldn't stand halo. Had to stop playing it.

Do like shrek though.

[turkster]

So how does it stand graphically and gameplay wise in comparison to Far Cry Nomadd?

[TeePee]

I've been playing my imported copy of Doom 3 for the first time this evening, and I have to say, Doom 3 sucks because it scares the piss outa me...

[myth]

Originally Posted by TeePee

I've been playing my imported copy of Doom 3 for the first time this evening, and I have to say, Doom 3 sucks because it scares the piss outa me...

This is one game I'm glad I never paid for!

[MAS]

Everyone seemed to be concentrating on the graphics so hard that they seemed to forget that the game is just about repetitive killing. FPS's have come a long time since then, and people expect a lot more now.

I'll wait until I play it before I decide. I dont mind it just being a killfest. That's what Doom is about. Anyone who really though otherwise wasn't thinking about it. But I do hope the AI etc is good; if they can improve the graphics so much, you'd hope they'd do something with the AI.

[Nomadd]

re: "So how does it stand graphically and gameplay wise in comparison to Far Cry Nomadd?"

Well, I think its actually quite poor. Even on 'Ultra' settings @ 1280x1024 with 2xAA and 8xAF, the textures still look very blurry close up. The weapons models are excellent, though, and the character models - apart from the low poly count which makes them look quite angular - are OK, but no better than the character models in Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay.

The rest of the graphics - i.e. the levels themselves - just look very 'over shiny' and unreal - but in a really bad way. The whole world looks like it's made from some some of plasticine/plastic mix that has gone quite wrong. It always looks as if it's partly melting, if that makes sense? The place you really notice this is in one scene in a garage, as there is a jeep in there. This jeep just looks like it's fallen out of a jelly mold; it's horrid. Doom3 looks great from a distance, but the moment you really open your eyes and look close you see how artificial it all is. Maybe later generations of the engine on much more powerful hardware will look better, but at the moment, it just looks like a work-in-progress.

The comparison with FarCry is a good one, as it came with my 6800GT, so it's a game I've recently played all the way through. And it really does show you the difference in 'high-end' feature usage - i.e. shader effects. Look at those 'pipework' shots that people show you of FarCry, you know, where they have a brilliant worn yet shiny gloss painted finish; I didn't believe they were really that good until I saw them for myself, but they really are. I checked out every single piece of pipework in doom3, but they all look dull and blury, not a patch on the FarCry rendering. Ditto, the water effects on my 6800GT (set to high-detail), just looked awesome in FarCry; Doom3 has nothing approaching that, nothing. And those lockers and bits of machinery in FarCry that are 'finished' with shader effects, to make them look like a real piece of metal with a painted gloss finish, they are superb; Doom3's machines just look blurry and unrealistic in comparison. The only thing Doom3 does better as far as machines goes are computer terminal/screen/hologram effects, but even they aren't any better than you've see in any 20 other sci-fi themed games.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that FarCry is for the most part a very conventionally rendered game, with 'highlights' using shader effects - and those highlights are done exceptionally well, such that they really do add extra depth to the game (water and vegetation being the two major ones). Doom3 goes for a completely different rendering approach, and it fails really badly, IMHO. I think a lot of people are making the mistake of thinking Doom3's 'different' graphics are better because they are, well, different. But once you get over the 'shock' of that difference in rendering approach, it all just looks very unrealalistic and shoddy. And shadowing? Well, that's supposed to be a main selling point of this game, but Thief and Splinter Cell (1 and 2) have done this type of thing sooo much better - and they didn't have to dump their games in a complete world of darkness to try and make the effect work.

EDIT: Also remembered the 'floors' in FarCry looked great in places, really detailed and beautifully rendered. Those rusty metallic 'grated' floors, the flat metal plates with the 'nobbles' on; and the shiney floor tiles of the science labs. Again, I spent ages looking at the floors in Doom3 for similar effects, but found none - just the same blurry, over-filtered look that the rest of Doom3 has.

Sorry to sound so negative, but I really can't understand why people rate this games graphics so highly - and that's coming from me, a real graphics whore. The graphics feelings I had on playing the first and second Doom just isn't there; that same feeling I had for the graphics in Quake2 on my Voodoo setup; the same feeling I had with the original Unreal on my Voodoo2 set-up; none of that is there in Doom3. It will not be one of those games I remember for 'wow, great graphics'. Maybe the engine is possible of great things, and it's just going to take someone other than ID to get them out - i.e. like Raven. Who knows, time will tell.

And when all the above is said and done, it still doesn't cure Doom3's shallow, repetitive and frustrating gameplay. :-( Sure, even FarCry got a bit dull towards the end, but Doom3 leaves you bored after just 1 hour of play. The problem is that there is just no variety, no sense of scale, no change of day (or daylight!) to darkness, no vehicles, no larger outdoor areas, no..well, you get the idea. You carry on playing it for hour after hour as you convince yourself that there MUST be something new/different/exciting just around the corner, but all you are met with is more disappointment because it's just more of the same.

Like I said before, I'm sure some people will love it. I wanted to, but just ended up hating it for all it's shortcomings - that so many so called reviews seems to think are only worth knocking 5% off a 'perfect' score for. Jeez, if this thing can score 90-100%, then I think it's time for me to find a new hobby after 25 years of computer games playing. The industry has gone mad.

Nomadd (the only guy on the planet who doesn't like D3! :-)

[Devilbod]

Ok, going to get flamed for this but - it's a FPS what do you want? A plot? I have yet to play a fps with a plot that I get involved with and dont anyone claim Half-Life had one...
It did - kill or be killed is the plot. Maybe one day they will bring out an proper attempt of a rpg/fps hybrid (like Deus Ex) and you might end up with a thinking mans game. Until then if I want story over guns I choose something from Square-Enix. But it's unlikely because a lot of fps fans dont like cut scenes and when your aiming at a fps market with a fps game...

AI? if you want to play a game with a great AI then play online, even developers understand that, nothing equals playing another human.

And if you like your world dark, gothic and scary then great. Dont winge that the graphics are poor when they might not be to your taste - Personaly I think there great, it works realy well you feel cramped, always looking for the exit trying to second guess where the next baddie will be. I always look for the details and Doom 3 is all about that the light and shadow system, the bump and spec maps, what this game is show caseing is how close to a properly rendered 3D scene that you can get at the mo in a game.

As for the torch thing I like that because it is a bit more realistic, I only have two hand and a full size mag light would mean I cant carry something else, it adds to the whole fear thing for me

It sounds to me everyone was expecting something more than Doom 3 was ever going to be.
But for fans of the dark nasty levels, something jumping out at you, and something that requires more than a little skill to play well then this game is for you.
I personaly love this game and its good old fashioned fun, thats why I enjoyed Pain Killer, I dont expect anymore from an fps uther than a gun a baddie and some form of map.

In short I love this game, I love the style, the graphics, the game play, the sound, everything. Its the same style game as the original, it's the same as Quake 1 and Quake 2 nothings changed and for that I'm greatfull, because thats exactly what I was hoping for.

If your expecting more from Half-Life 2, then good luck personaly I've seen nothing to suggest that HL2 is going to be any different, fancy physics, nice graphics and bit of scripted AI, but nothing to suggest that anything wonderous or new is going to be in it - novelty items maybe, but once you get past the novelty of the grav gun and the buggy, what underneath a kill or be killed FPS.

[Nomadd]

Devilbod: Glad you liked the game. But please, let's just drop the "all fps's are simple so you chose the wrong game".

I absolutely loved D1, D2, Q1, Q2, Q3, Hexan 1/2, Duke-3D, HL1, SoF, RtCW, COD, Splinter Cell 1/2 and at least 20 or 30 other fps's I could add to that list. It IS the genre I following avidly and love. The problem is NOT one of chosing the wrong genre to play, but of Doom3 being more than 10 years out of date and trying to hide that behind new rendering technology. How you can even begin to compare the simplistic gameplay/gameworld rubbish that is Doom3 to Halflife (that's 1, I'm talking about - a game we've all played) is utterly beyond me. So I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on this one. Like I've said a couple of times now: I'm sure some people will like this game. I didn't, hence why I express my views in some detail, to justify exactly what I didn't like about it. I'd urge anyone thinking of picking this up to try the demo first, or buy from a shop they can get a refund from. If they like it, then they can keep it; nothing lost.

Nope, I'm not expecting HL2 to blow me away in the manner HL1 did. But I am hoping that it's considerably better than Doom3 - it's can't fail to be.

Nomadd

[arsen]

D3, nice graphics, machine killer on full though, very good at the beginning, guarenteed to scare you whoever you are, after 2-3 hours, your bored, 4 hours, you loose the storyline (was there ever one) 5hours, im just playing to take screenshots, 6 hours.. messing about, 7 hours (why am i still playing?) .. deleted.

[Ceefer]

Nomadd, I'm really pleased you've posted a detailed critical review. You've saved me £25 as I'm now pretty sure I won't be buying this game. I'm very disappointed its all so dark, I must admit, as I was looking forward to this game but I'm not keen on very dark first-person shooters. As you said, that one was of the great things about Far Cry - a balance of well lit and dark locations.
Is this the first ever FPS where you can't shine a light and fire a weapon at the same time? It seems incredible to me that its been programmed this way - you'd think that a marine in the 23rd century or whenever its supposed to be would have the ability/resources to attach the light to his person or to his weapon (duct tape anyone?). It just doesn't make any sense. At the very least he could hold his pistol in one hand and the flashlight in the other

[Devilbod]

Ok sorry about that I probably should have made it clearer, I was hopping and had all indication that Doom 3 was a return to an old style fps and to my joy and a lot of other people horror thats exactly what it is and why I like it.

One reason is because I played Half-Life all the way through again not that long ago and realised that it ok to compare games to there older 'fathers' but when you do you must remeber that you tend to compaire it to that feeling that you got for the first time playing.
Half Life was a great game but when you go back now and play it again it doesnt quite work as well, the first levels are great but after the mid point the game slowly dies a slow death until it turns into a rather poor platformer on Zen, and those levels on Zen where awful. The whole game just threw new things at you, like the Army and then the assains, helicopter, tanks to keep you interested other than that it did become a bit sparse (for me) in the enemy department, spent more time running around finding route a to point b more than fighting. It would get really interesting and just when you thought you where amassing enough ammo to destroy a whole army and where about to take on a boss, the boss would come along that wouldnt really require guns to kill, usally a press of a button.
In terms of baddies, there where only a few - most of which could be avoided with a simple side step and the novelty of the army and assasians wore off once you realised they spent most for the time running at you and then running away from you.
One of the things that made a difference was the weapons, they where real (for the most part) and that was a whole new aspect added to the fps genre that spawned Counter Stike.
The Graphic at the time where amazing because everyone was used to in door levels and tunnel of Quake 2, but they did tend to repeat them but if you take in the time thats understandable. But then it was quickly eclipsed by the release of Unreal.

Dont get me wrong it was a great game at the the time and a deffining moment for a lot of people. But it's as easy to slate a game as it is to praise it.

Doom 3 is great for me because it doesnt shove a load of novelty items at me to keep my interest, it is 10 years old game but with the latest graphics enhancements and for that I profoundly greatfull because it does remind me of those Quake 2 days before I ever cared about AI, wether it does this or has that. It's a blast for me and that why I enjoy it.

But I do agree this is going to be a love it or hate it game it's already obvious by you and me , but I should imagine it will get worse especaily after Half-Life 2 comes out.

I for one have the lowest expectations of Half-Life 2 because all I've seen so far is some scripted events and more of the same as Half-Life 1, the physics is nice but I'm waiting to see how interactive they really are or whether they are just for a breif pause in the gameplay to go 'ohh'. I hope as well that the AI in it lives up to the hype but some how I doubt it becuase it will most likely end up being 'if this happens do this' affair. I'll just have to wait and see if it ever comes out...

[chaoticone]

Originally Posted by arsen

D3, nice graphics, machine killer on full though, very good at the beginning, guarenteed to scare you whoever you are, after 2-3 hours, your bored, 4 hours, you loose the storyline (was there ever one) 5hours, im just playing to take screenshots, 6 hours.. messing about, 7 hours (why am i still playing?) .. deleted.

you have it already ?

[paradidle]

Reading this thread I have learnt a few things....

1) This thread seperates the Doom boys from the Half Life Boys
2) Nomadd should get out more
3) Nomadd has too much spare time on his hands

I know you are voicing your opinion Nomadd and you said how much you didnt like doom 3 in your 1st post. Now can we please keep it to THE 1st post!? WE ALL KNOW NOW YOU DONT LIKE DOOM 3 lol! I think this thread should have been calleed Nomadd versus the World!

[Pete]

one question,
did the first vids of d3 have the same 'shoddy' over filtered graphics as in the game?
or were they lying to us?
im asking because i thought hl2 graphics looked amazing when the first started showing videos of it, just worrying if the actual games graphics are going to be somewhat different,

[Nomadd]

re: "I think this thread should have been calleed Nomadd versus the World!"

I thought I'd calmed myself down - but then every games site I hit yesterday just kept coming up with another Doom3: 100% score. So my blood was boiling again! :-) I guess really I don't *hate* this game as much as it comes across (even though I probably have used the word 'hate' in relation to it), it's just that I feel it's useful to have a reasoned counter-argument to some of those very high review scores that keep popping up everywhere! :-)

The reason I added the longer bit yesterday was because someone asked a very fair question: Doom3 rendering v FarCry rendering. That was something I wish I'd raised in my first post, as it gave the opportunity to really question the specific shader effects - and their success or otherwise - in both games.

re: "This thread seperates the Doom boys from the Half Life Boys"

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Haven't seen any fanboyism in this thread. I think what we all want is TWO great games: D3 and HL2. God knows we've had to wait long enough for them! Unfortunately the first one, for me at least, has been a huge let down. I hope the second one isn't the same... :-)

re: "Nomadd should get out more" and "Nomadd has too much spare time on his hands" and "WE ALL KNOW NOW YOU DONT LIKE DOOM 3" and "please keep it to THE 1st post!?".

Smillies noted. :-) But none of that was really necessary or added anything useful to this thread, did it? And that was your attempt at trying to tell me to keep the thread 'on topic'..? No offence taken. :-) Still, you really must try to stay on topic! :-) And I'd rather see one thread where everyone makes their feelings known, than 300 separate 'What I think of Doom3...' threads. :-)

I've just looked 'outside'. The sun is shining. It's way too bright for me, as I'm now conditioned to 'eternal darkness' after playing Doom3. Maybe I will go out later, once the sun has gone down and the (re)spawning monsters have come out to play. Just hope the batteries in my flashlight hold up. :-)

EDIT:

Pete: I think it's resally difficult to judge a game by videos. Even more so screen shots. You really have to be sat in front of the 'real thing' to make a final call, IMHO. I'm not expecting 'great' things from HL2, so I woouldn't get your hopes too high. Have a look at the latest 3 screenshots (for what that's worth!) that Valve released yesterday: looks nice, but not stunning. BTW, sorry if this bit crept us off-topic again! :-)

Nomadd v World. :-)