Doom 3 IQ Mods?

noobman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
1,475
After playing some Dead Space last night I realized that I have never beaten Doom 3. I popped in the discs and installed the game again, thinking that it might look pretty sharp compared to what it looked like on my old rig.

Unfortunately, it looked pretty lousy. The shadowing was cool but it was missing so much. I know that it's a five year old game and that it's not supposed to be groundbreaking, but it should look better than it does.

I looked up a ton of mods that improve the game's quality and I found millions... but a lot of them make the game look like ****


Does anyone have any suggestions?
 

PrincessFrosty

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
5,905
This is partly due to rose tinted glasses effect, and partly because Doom3 wasn't that fantastic looking for its time, it had a very nice lighting system but actually most of the game was low poly and fairly bland.

Doom3 was a good game for what it was but I doubt you'll be able to do anything significant to it to improve the graphics.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,629
http://doom3.filefront.com/


1024 textures......http://doom3.filefront.com/file/1024x_Textures;88186

just type textures or modles into the search bar on the site

There you go , you should be able to find a texture pack there. There are a lot of mods on this site that can significantly increase the visual fidelity of this game, just search around. :)


ALSO here is the Widescreen Wiki that tells you how to exit the cfg file to make Doom 3 widescreen.

http://www.widescreengaming.net/wiki/Doom_3


To the above poster, How can you say that Doom 3 was bland? When it came out it was the pinnacle of video game graphics, nothing came close. I expect the same thing when Doom 4 is released, it will change everything once again.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
2,340
Yeah, there's a ton of cool stuff on Filefront (and still being added to, by the looks of it). Bloom, parallax mapping and specular highlights are a few things (beyond the obvious textures and models) to look out for.

I made something a while ago to get plasma projectiles to cast shadows (out of the question in 2004, but my x1950pro coped alright a few years later). I can probably dig it up if you're interested.

Doom3 wasn't that fantastic looking for its time, it had a very nice lighting system but actually most of the game was low poly and fairly bland.
It was exceptionally good-looking for its time. The only games even in the same league at the time were Far Cry and HL2. Yes, the poly counts were pretty low, but there was more than enough detail in everything else to make up for it. Besides, you could hardly even tell unless you caught a corner in a silhouette. (Though I think rubbing your face in it with that extreme close-up of a bald head in the opening minutes of the game was a terrible move... You can probably blame most of the negative reactions on this alone.)
 

PrincessFrosty

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
5,905
i guess i just see through the bump mapped effects, sorry but you can slap as much of that as you like on walls and they wont look 3D to me, you need some actual polys in there to give it some real depth.

It looked good for its time but I dont know about exceptional, it certainly had exceptional lighting, but thats just once piece of a much larger pie.
 

Dreaz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,656
I dunno what you're on Princess, but Doom3's graphics were exceptional for its time.

The original E3 demo was impressive, and the demo was in-game footage (unlike most games nowadays at E3 with their fancy trailers).

So yeah, the game doesn't look so great now, and there's been complaints about the plastic effect and low poly counts; however, that really has little to do with how the game was received and perceived when shipped.
 

spine

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
2,673
While Doom3's lighting and bump mapping were pretty impressive, the textures were unusually low quality, even for the time. They had to be because there was/is so many lighting layers all taking up texture memory.

For some this design tradeoff looked great, for others the low res textures simply made it look downright ugly.
 

ShuttleLuv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
7,225
Doom 3 was way ahead of it's time. The game made painkiller look like a cartoon. And painkiller was pretty damn impressive looking, especially in the texturing. It just had a bland single player.
 

ThisMonsterLives

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
1,273
What hardware was available when Doom3 was released 5 years ago? X800's and 6800's were the very best right? id had to make the game playable for the majority of gamers who had even slower cards.

I think the game looked pretty amazing. The problem a lot of the hard core gamers had was staring at every little flaw instead of just playing the game and enjoying it as a whole.

The cyberdemon was way too easy though. They messed up there. :p

The expansion pack was very polished and even better than the original game.
 

inotocracy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
5,625
^ Yeah, 6800 series was top dog at the time and it ran D3 extremely well (I remember ATI's cards were pretty much flawed when it came to the engine, they couldn't run it that well at all). D3 looked great when it was released, I think the problem is so much time has passed and the engine has aged a bit.
 

inotocracy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
5,625
I believe Kyle said it was a hardware specific limitation at the time with ATI.. could be wrong though. (something about ATI not supporting SM3.0?)
 
Top