Does anyone else not like Doom3???

I tried the demo a week ago and I thought it was great. It kept me on the edge of my seat with the dark lighting thinking something was going to jump at me. I'm looking forward to getting me the game.

I also thought quake 4 was great. I have been a quake fan since 1999.
 
I liked Doom 3 a lot and played several of the SP mods.

Quake 4 was pretty good. Quake 2 was far superior and the best of the series, IMO.
 
You missed the train. Playing Bioshock now and compairing it to Doom3 is like compairing apples to oranges. If you didnt play it when it first came out, you missed out. For its time Doom 3 was a spectacular game and nothing at the time compaired to it, expect for maybe Far Cry.
 
The T-man said:
guys, it's a remake of DOOM!

what was DOOM? monsters come at you, you get to blast them,
so
DOOM3, looks incredible, atmosphere and sounds and overall creepiness is incredible, AND monsters come at you, you get to blast them, just like DOOM and you're complaining?
Click to expand...

The one aspect it kind of failed in comparison to the original games was the deviousness of the levels and different tricks and traps. Doom 1 and 2 levels had a certain something I miss from Doom 3. The encounters in RoE reminded me more of the original games. You know, trigger something and a door shuts and 5 monsters rush you. Or figuring how to get to hidden places. Doom 3 had some secrets but not as well done. Still, Doom 3 was a top notch game for its time.
 
Stereophile said:
Bad period or just the human character models ? Its graphics were pretty much state of the art, especially the lighting. The gameplay was straight forward but well executed. I thought RoE was better in that respect.
Click to expand...

I think just bad period. Granted HL2 used a different engine, came out a few months later and blew it out of the water.

I guess you could say doom 3 did what it was "supposed to." A crappy "remake" with upgrade graphics. What it should have done was taken the game to the next level.
 
Master Blaster said:
Starting flame wars eh? Doom 3 was great when it came out. It is and never was supposed to be a RPG/FPS as in BS, SS2, DeusEx...

stop already, the horse is dead.
Click to expand...

I agree. You can't compare the two. They're years apart timeline wise, and have totally different elements. Doom 3 on a technological stand point, was a remarkable achievement. It's just funny to me how everybody loved it when it came out, and were freaked out to the point where there were flame wars about why ID didn't put a flashlight on every single weapon instead of having to switch to a flashlight.

The game got great reviews, and the graphics still stand the test of time. The Doom 3 engine was a remarkable achievement. Gameplay wise, it was okay. We all got scared a few times, and had some spooky experiences with some pretty cool gunfights and enemies.


Here's the bottom line people... You can't compare the two. That's the final line. You can't take something more than 3 years old now, and compare it to a game that came out a few days ago. 2K had so much time to build upon what made Doom 3 good, and along with many other games, perfect different fright, and other factors from past games. I mean, isn't that what new games are; improving upon what already has been done in a new, and innovative way?
 
Doom3 didn't improve upon anything but graphics. And that just comes with time. But I guess if you wanna say that all Doom3's aim was to improve on graphics than fine. But it was nothing more than that.
 
I and many others at the time, thought it pretty silly that future weapons didn't have a light source attached.
Other than that, I enjoyed it. Played in a dim room, volume turned up... :eek:
 
texuspete00 said:
We also need to impeach this Nixon fellow.
Click to expand...

You are correct.. It is kind of late to be bagging on Doom3 at this point... It's kind of like impeaching somebody who has resigned, received a presidential pardon, and then died.. ;)

O.T. Doom3 was not as good as the hype imho.. But I thought it was a fairly solid title, once the flashlight mod was installed.. Without that mod, I never would have bothered after the first few levels..
 
So it's a nV ShadowTech demo using Doom gameplay and theme.
I didn't like IDSoftgame from Quak2 and up.

For me
I like Modern war realism tactical First person schooters.

Most IDSoft games are blown up techdemo's.
But they Aim at a very simplistinck fast pace schooter gameplay with stupid zombies.Flank you from camping position or the rear. Very predictable.
Some people do like that.But in time that formula has worn out, lot of people don't like it anymore. But still that are a lot of people who like it.

Me hate it. I know what kind of game it was. I even didn't play it I watch my brother play it, he had interrest in it and after a couple of hours he didn't like it to so I delete it.

If I want I nice lookin tech demo I want something nice to be renderd. A zombie or a factory coridors renderd well is not good wonderfull GFX is just get more scary. Well that's IDsoft aim and formula.

Farcry is more like it. Nice enviorment. Except the monsters.
Crysis will be such Tech driven game for a nice enviorment.
Farcry II would be my kind of game. Nice enviorment and my kind of free gameplay.

Don't like Bioshock or oblivibion not my thing.
For RPG I like SF RPG or SPace roaming games.
MassEffect is such thing but xbox360 only. :(

I think wenn doom was out most hardcore gamer where into that kind of play because it was new. Now those kids are adult veteran player and have grow in to other gameplay needs and wishes. Also more casual gamers. Also a lot of other strong tiltes have introduce different but more compelling gameplay.
The target market has grown. Also the Game industry.
I think IDsoft now going a different route with rage. So I 'am interrested again. but no hype want see result first.

IDSoft aim could be don't fix what is broken but forgot that the hit formula has worn out in time. Doom3 did cash in but it wasn't a big hit.
 
eeyrjmr said:
Doom3 was was a tech-demo a bit like all Unreal games
Click to expand...

Umm...no, the Unreal/UT series were (are) actually fun to play if you like FPS', and have decent multi-player.

Right now, the big shit is stuff like STALKER and Bioshock and C&C Tiberium Wars. The Next Big Thing will be UT3 and Crysis. As someone said, a year or 3 from now we'll all be sayin' "WTH was so great about them"?? :roll:

It's evolution, baby.
 
aztec61 said:
Umm...no, the Unreal/UT series were/are actually fun to play if you like FPS', and had decent multi-player.

Right now, the big shit is stuff like STALKER and Bioshock. The Next Big Thing will be UT3 and Crysis. As someone said, a year or 3 from now we'll all be sayin' "WTH was so great about them"?? :roll:

It's evolution, baby.
Click to expand...

please quote me where I said that the Unreal games wern't fun. I actually still play UT2k4 and a bit of quake2 as well
 
Please explain how saying Unreal was a bit of a "tech demo" and putting it in the same bag as Doom3 is saying it's a decent game. I think we all know that Unreal, Doom3, and many others are used as benchmarks or to show off certain aspects of graphic cards, (ie: "a tech demo") but that's far from saying a game has good gameplay.
 
I also still enjoy UT2004. If it's a tech demo, I can't imagine how the "real game" would play. :p
 
Playing Bioshock now makes me feel that this is the way Doom series where meant to be

Just paint a Mars base instead of Rapture, replace the plasmids with maybe some Futuristic Tech (maybe a gravity gun that rests on ur finger tip)
Replace Big Daddys with Hell Knights... big moving tanks that r blind and wont atack unless disrupted
Keep but adapt most of the RPG elements

Doom 4 by 2k Games pls :D
 
SAW said:
That my friend, is a statment of TIME.

I remember playing one of Kings Quests games back on a 486 Compaq computer, 5 1/4 floppy disk. At the TIME, that game was great!!! Fun too. But to look back on it compared to TODAYS games....well, there really is no comparison.

When Doom (original) came out, it was the end all be all of gaming. EVERYONE played it, or so it seemed and if you didnt play it, people looked at you funny. Look back to it now and the graphics are laughable, to say the least.

Doom 3 came out.....Guess what....EVERYONE like it. It was the "end all be all of gaming"......at the TIME.

Then came Oblivion.....ahhhh, another mad rush to "end all be all of all games".

And now, the new kid on the block is BioShock.

Give it a year and people will be saying EXACTLY what you just said, but will be saying it about BioShock. Mark my word, it WILL happen.
Click to expand...
You're incorrect.

Because in a year, people who goto install Bioshock just simply will not be able to because the Sony will have given up running the activation server, and the game devs will have already put the game behind them to care to release a fix.

Even if the activation severs are up, many people may have already shot away their virtual install slots and will SOL.

LOL
 
SuperGee said:
So it's a nV ShadowTech demo using Doom gameplay and theme.
I didn't like IDSoftgame from Quak2 and up.

For me
I like Modern war realism tactical First person schooters.

Most IDSoft games are blown up techdemo's.
But they Aim at a very simplistinck fast pace schooter gameplay with stupid zombies.Flank you from camping position or the rear. Very predictable.
Some people do like that.But in time that formula has worn out, lot of people don't like it anymore. But still that are a lot of people who like it.

Me hate it. I know what kind of game it was. I even didn't play it I watch my brother play it, he had interrest in it and after a couple of hours he didn't like it to so I delete it.

If I want I nice lookin tech demo I want something nice to be renderd. A zombie or a factory coridors renderd well is not good wonderfull GFX is just get more scary. Well that's IDsoft aim and formula.

Farcry is more like it. Nice enviorment. Except the monsters.
Crysis will be such Tech driven game for a nice enviorment.
Farcry II would be my kind of game. Nice enviorment and my kind of free gameplay.

Don't like Bioshock or oblivibion not my thing.
For RPG I like SF RPG or SPace roaming games.
MassEffect is such thing but xbox360 only. :(

I think wenn doom was out most hardcore gamer where into that kind of play because it was new. Now those kids are adult veteran player and have grow in to other gameplay needs and wishes. Also more casual gamers. Also a lot of other strong tiltes have introduce different but more compelling gameplay.
The target market has grown. Also the Game industry.
I think IDsoft now going a different route with rage. So I 'am interrested again. but no hype want see result first.

IDSoft aim could be don't fix what is broken but forgot that the hit formula has worn out in time. Doom3 did cash in but it wasn't a big hit.
Click to expand...

I was going to nitpick this more, but i'll just say it's a terrible post. There's so many things wrong with it that i'm curious what your train of thought was when you wrote it.

You don't like Bioshock, Oblivion, or Doom 3, but you love FarCry 2 (you: "my type of gameplay") (a game which we know NOTHING about at this point, other than that it's set in Africa). Now, I absolutely loved Farcry, but saying that you don't like Doom 3 b/c it was predictable, and stupid... then what was Farcry? Other than the massive environments, enemies pretty much reacted the same everytime. And also, to call a game that was years in development a fucking "tech-demo" is absurd.

And for RPGs you wrote that Bioshock and Oblivion are not your type of RPG. First of all, you can't compare the two b/c Bioshock is far far away from being a RPG. There's a enormous difference between "RPG elements," and a actual RPG. Personally, I don't like RPGs, they're too long, and drawn out, and I never got into them b/c i've mostly played FPS games. But Oblivion, kind of changed that somehow for me b/c it was really unique, and interesting for some reason. It had the first person element, and didn't use some stupid-ass Final fantasy based combat system where you take turns hitting people.

But, to each their own. I just thought some of the things you mentioned were really awkward considering you like shooters like me.
 
eeyrjmr said:
sure some games come out of it from their in-house dev's BUT they are move concerned with where their real income comes from and that is from licencing
Click to expand...
Are you Todd Hollenshead, by chance? Mind showing us id's financial records?

I'd like to think that id made a substantial amount of money from sales of Quake 3, Doom 3, Quake 4 and so on. I think you're blowing the licensing aspect completely out of proportion.

Dallows said:
I think [Doom 3's graphics were] just bad period. Granted HL2 used a different engine, came out a few months later and blew it out of the water.
Click to expand...
You bet. Source's lightmap rendering was totally revolutionary. Changed the face of real time rendering, it did. Particularly impressive was the radically advanced texture mapping, being able to apply textures to surfaces. Wow!
 
phide said:
You bet. Source's lightmap rendering was totally revolutionary. Changed the face of real time rendering, it did. Particularly impressive was the radically advanced texture mapping, being able to apply textures to surfaces. Wow!
Click to expand...

So I take it you believe Doom3 > HL2 graphically?

I thought this argument was already done.
 
Graphically, yes, absolutely. In terms of art direction, however, I think Valve did end up with a bit of an upper hand. The transition from traditional T&L texture-mapped rendering to a fully unified dynamic lighting model and multi-pass shaded surfaces meant trade offs had to be made, and that's clearly evident when you look at Doom 3's low-complexity character models. Source is the clear and obvious winner in terms of facial animation, of course -- HL2 has the finest facial animation system ever implemented in a game.

As far as rendering is concerned, the Source engine is more comparable to Quake 3 than it is to Doom 3. The polygon count is high, and texture resolution is high, but aside from a couple "ooh-ahh" shaders, there's nothing fantastically impressive there. Most of the surfaces are one pass, with a texture map only. In Doom 3, most surfaces are three-pass (diffuse, specular and normal/bump). HL2 uses low-resolution shadow maps for dynamic objects, but the rest of the lighting model is entirely static save for dynamic lights, a technology first utilized in Quake.

I've always thought HL2 was the better game, but Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey, and so on, are visual feasts.
 
I liked doom3 and loved quake 4.

What I'm shocked though is how much the doom 3 engine pretty much flopped. I mean it's a good engine. Looks great. But there are no games really coming out with it. You got Quake 4 (ID game) and Quake Wars, and Prey.

Unreal and Source populating everything else.
 
Dallows said:
So I take it you believe Doom3 > HL2 graphically?

I thought this argument was already done.
Click to expand...

There is no argument. Doom3 had real-time lighting. HL2 had static lightmaps. And shadows that go through desks and tables. Real good stuff.
 
eeyrjmr said:
Doom3 was was a tech-demo a bit like all Unreal games
Click to expand...

Just because they use the game to show off the engine doesn't automatically make the game bad. FarCry actually started as a pure tech demo and moved onto being a full game in the end and many consider that to be a great game.

Doom3 was popular and many people liked the gameplay style, the Unreal games are popular but are a niech market and so tend to sell well but die out after a while.

You comments seemt to have a negative feel about them, I can't seem to shake that, all the unreal games are brilliant both in their design and art direction and implimentation of the technology to achieve it, I don't consider them bad just because they're the selling point of the engine.
 
i liked the first few levels but after that i found the game boring
 
phide said:
Graphically, yes, absolutely. In terms of art direction, however, I think Valve did end up with a bit of an upper hand. The transition from traditional T&L texture-mapped rendering to a fully unified dynamic lighting model and multi-pass shaded surfaces meant trade offs had to be made, and that's clearly evident when you look at Doom 3's low-complexity character models. Source is the clear and obvious winner in terms of facial animation, of course -- HL2 has the finest facial animation system ever implemented in a game.

As far as rendering is concerned, the Source engine is more comparable to Quake 3 than it is to Doom 3. The polygon count is high, and texture resolution is high, but aside from a couple "ooh-ahh" shaders, there's nothing fantastically impressive there. Most of the surfaces are one pass, with a texture map only. In Doom 3, most surfaces are three-pass (diffuse, specular and normal/bump). HL2 uses low-resolution shadow maps for dynamic objects, but the rest of the lighting model is entirely static save for dynamic lights, a technology first utilized in Quake.

I've always thought HL2 was the better game, but Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey, and so on, are visual feasts.
Click to expand...

That's cool and all. I'm not going to argue technicals with you, because I don't know. What I do know however, is that I enjoyed looking at HL2 more than I did Doom3.
 
TomGreen321 said:
I never even bothered to finish it. I made it about 80%, then was too bored to bother.
Click to expand...


Sounds exactly like me. :eek: Lame game of the year award back when it came out as far as I was concerned. I always finish games that I buy but I had to make an exception on Doom 3.
 
I liked Doom3.... Game still looks good to this day... specially for how old it is.
 
I think Doom 3 needs gibs, I know there are some shabby mods for it, but I mean like REAL gibs. Like a limb blowing system. I don't get how the zombies just turn orange and poof when you kill them.
 
i played it when it came out. i was bored then. navigatin tiny places, and having shit jump out at you, you kill it, you fo find the password. over and over. it was sort of pretty, but i found it really boring. i played half life 2 instead. that game made me expect more entertainment. d3 was boring as fuck to me.


still play quake 3 arena though, nothing but simple lightning fast gameplay there.
 
Dallows said:
That's cool and all. I'm not going to argue technicals with you, because I don't know. What I do know however, is that I enjoyed looking at HL2 more than I did Doom3.
Click to expand...

ditto for me also.
 
I loved Doom3, Quake4 and Prey. I think the Doom engine is very good to be honest, it can't do outside areas like the Source Engine but it can do very good indoor areas and the light effects are second to none. Couple that with a low system demand for the Doom engine and I have to admit it suprised me how good it was.
 
I liked Doom 3, played through it twice now.

I liked playing it, along with Half Life 2, at max settings and getting real nice framerates, and being visually impressed. Then when I go play new games, at low settings/resolution, I still get bad framerates. The funny thing is, they look 10 times worse at low settings than Doom3/HL2, yet they also perform about 10 times worse as well. Makes me wonder.

Good example, I tried playing Graw2 recently on my 6800. At 1024x768 low settings, not only did it look like ass, it performed like ass as well. And the mouse lag was horrible. Same thing with Bioshock. Looked like shit (at my settings), and also performed like shit. Maybe its because I'm not into game development, but all other technical issues aside, and we focus on just video performance, why does Game A, which at lowest settings looks 10x worse than Game B, have to perform 10x worse than it as well? It's just not right.
 
/em turns into a sheep and begins to beat the horse some more.

Threads like these do NOT do anything but bring them out from under the bridge to senslessly flame. The OP didn't even put a thought into the original post, just a simple setup to bash Doom 3... an old game already.... Too bad you missed it by a few years.. Regardless weather you liked or disliked Doom 3, this thread certainly doesn't add anything new to the discussion, so why fucking bother debating and pulling quotes over this game... FFS 4 pages of useless debate over an old game... I would think by now just seeing the OPs original post the regulars would realize wtf this thread is for. :rolleyes:
 
I played Doom3 when it came out. I didn't like it.

I played HL2 which came out just a few months later, and liked it.

I played SS2 about a year and a half ago which had come out waaaay before Doom3, and loved it.

No, the problem was not time, I just didn't like Doom 3 period. The criticism started immediately after Doom3 started, it's not some new thing brought on by passage of time. It was just an average game on a new engine from a well-recognized company. As for being based off Doom, it added things that weren't in the original Doom, like logs, in-game plot, flash-light usage. It also failed to be like the original Doom in terms of enemy quantity, spacing, and combat speed. It struck the perfect "sour spot" of not changing enough from the original Doom to be good, and changing just enough to lose what made the original Doom good(Hey, worked just fine for Serious Sam).
 
Frosteh said:
... the Unreal games are popular but are a niech market and so tend to sell well but die out after a while.
Click to expand...

In defense of the Unreal/UT series, although they've lost some players b/c UT2k4 is older now, it is still the 6th most popular online game server.

http://archive.gamespy.com/stats/

I'd say that's a little more than just a "niche" market and a long way from "dying out".
 
Prey was good, Quake 4 was decent, and Doom 3 was bad. That is the general consensus every time I talk to anyone about these games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top