Doom Eternal Release Date, Gameplay Details and Everything Else We Know So Far, Spoilers

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,875
Wonder if this is all true? Hmm:

"id Software will be pushing the Xbox One X to its limits with Doom Eternal and will be targeting a 4K resolution at 60 FPS along with HDR support. A previous demo shown at QuakeCon was described as running on "very high-end" PCs, however id executive producer, Marty Stratton said, "Everything you saw [in the demo], that’s pushing the envelope. Our goal will be to make it look like that at 4K on the [PS4] Pro and the Xbox One X, never really sacrificing the 60 frames per second.”

We still have a few months to go until Doom Eternal's release, so it's likely the upcoming months will be filled with news on the game. We will keep you updated with any news we find before Eternal's launch on March 20, 2020."

https://www.trueachievements.com/n40280/doom-eternal-release-date
 
tangoseal said:
Vulkan is very efficient. I have no doubt they can pull this off. I'm very excited for the PC version. I think Inplayed Doom 2016 7x through on Nightmare and loved it everytime a real replay value kind of game.
Click to expand...
Doom 2016 has trouble keeping 60 FPS at 2560x1440 on the One X. Makes me wonder what sacrifices they made in the new engine to hit their target. Makes me wonder about the PC version since console compromises always affect the PC.
 
I appreciate close release date announcements. I hate when it gets announced and it is still 10months or more away. Like Ill just forget about it by then
 
Armenius said:
Doom 2016 has trouble keeping 60 FPS at 2560x1440 on the One X. Makes me wonder what sacrifices they made in the new engine to hit their target. Makes me wonder about the PC version since console compromises always affect the PC.
Click to expand...

Oh good point. But as far as PC version, you can easily sustain 200fps at ultra settings even at 3440x1440
 
Armenius said:
Doom 2016 has trouble keeping 60 FPS at 2560x1440 on the One X. Makes me wonder what sacrifices they made in the new engine to hit their target. Makes me wonder about the PC version since console compromises always affect the PC.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about the PC version. There's not much doubt in my mind that its highest settings are going to give grunty boxes a workout: id's been doing that ever since Wolfenstein 3-D. But given that the XBox One X's effective GPU speed sits right around a Radeon RX 590, a high end GPU should drive 1440p60 without much fuss, especially given that the XBOX is still running 2.3 GHz Jaguar cores.
 
Last edited:
Halon said:
I wouldn't worry about the PC version. There's not much doubt in my mind that its highest settings are going to give grunty boxes a workout: id's been doing that ever since Wolfenstein 3-D. But given that the XBox One X's effective GPU speed sits right around a Radeon RX 590, a high end GPU should drive 1440p60 without much fuss, especially given that the XBOX is still running 2.3 GHz Jaguar cores.
Click to expand...

It's not like 60 fps is enough for a game like Doom. Well, at least not to me. I am still very twitchy, even at my age.
 
Looking forward to it (always been a fan of Bethesda's DooM series). Be pretty cool to see how it runs on One X, but I'll still be playing it on PC (KB+M, baby!).
 
Armenius said:
Doom 2016 has trouble keeping 60 FPS at 2560x1440 on the One X. Makes me wonder what sacrifices they made in the new engine to hit their target. Makes me wonder about the PC version since console compromises always affect the PC.
Click to expand...

where supported..

Variable Refresh Rate
Variable Resolution
 
external-content.duckduckgo.gif

external-content.duckduckgo.gif
 
Doom Eternal is over 20 hours long.

During our preview demo, we also had a chance to speak with creative director Hugo Martin. He discussed how Doom Eternal is handling difficulty in new ways and how all its elements of combat and exploration come together, but Martin also made mention of the game's length. "We're hell-bent on engaging you from beginning to end. This is a 22-plus hour game," he said.

15 minutes of gameplay at Polygon
 
I ignore all comments about game length because all gamers are different. Something that takes a "journalist" 22 hours could take an average gamer 15 hours to get through. Seems like they're trying too hard to justify the cost of the game with how long it takes while as a consumer I am always more about the quality of the time I spend with a game moreso than the quantity. I was completely satisfied with my $60 purchase of Modern Warfare simply from the single player content, which took no more than 10 hours to get through.
 
Armenius said:
I ignore all comments about game length because all gamers are different. Something that takes a "journalist" 22 hours could take an average gamer 15 hours to get through. Seems like they're trying too hard to justify the cost of the game with how long it takes while as a consumer I am always more about the quality of the time I spend with a game moreso than the quantity. I was completely satisfied with my $60 purchase of Modern Warfare simply from the single player content, which took no more than 10 hours to get through.
Click to expand...

Wish I could 'like' this a few more times. I agree it is all about the quality of the experience. How long you COULD spend on a game isn't a relevant metric to me. If that were the case, games with multiplayer could be classed as infinite. Which would make all single player games seem inadequate. Games with side quests and achievements and secrets add a lot of 'potential time' but if you don't hunt them down or even know of them, then the game could feel short.

It really is just marketing people coming up with crap to talk about. For me it is like you said, personal. If I am compelled to finish a game that is a great feat in itself. More often than not, I get bored and stop playing. If a game is too long that will happen for me.

That said I am excited for this and might give them a shot and get it day 1, or day 15 depends on where the paycheck lands in respect to release, havent looked lol.
 
Armenius said:
I ignore all comments about game length because all gamers are different. Something that takes a "journalist" 22 hours could take an average gamer 15 hours to get through. Seems like they're trying too hard to justify the cost of the game with how long it takes while as a consumer I am always more about the quality of the time I spend with a game moreso than the quantity. I was completely satisfied with my $60 purchase of Modern Warfare simply from the single player content, which took no more than 10 hours to get through.
Click to expand...

Like how the IGN reviewer claimed he took 75 hours (!) to finish the Path of Exile 10-act campaign.

But yeah this game looks like it's going to have a really amazing multiplayer experience so hopefully that's something they support this time around. Doom 2016 multi was basically DOA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top