You know...Come to think of it, Doom 3 ain't that bad.

[Echo Black]

Yeah, I know - This isn't three years ago. :hhg:

I've recently reinstalled Doom 3. Back when it came out, I really found it crappy as hell - Couldn't believe it was an id game. By the time I got to the monorail station, the action was repeating itself so often, I couldn't muster up the will to keep playing. I thought they ruined the Doom franchise with a half-assed horror (about this I haven't changed my opinion, though - Doom 3 isn't scary AT ALL) attempt. But playing it nowadays...

I see it's sort of a passionate nod to oldschool PC shooters. A nod to the kind of gameplay id got known for. The gameplay is repetitive, but Doom 1 and 2 were, (albeit much faster-paced, and that made them considerably more exciting to play) too. It's very polished, and even though I feel id has had better ventures through SP territory (RTCW is brilliant), Doom 3 sort of did its role as a follow-up to Doom 2. I just wish MP was something more than a tacked-on afterthought. :(

Thoughts? It's always interesting to reinstall games you hated years after you first played them, 'cause at first you were probably hyped about it and expecting something amazing out of the whole package. Doom 3 isn't amazing, but it's good. IMO of course.

[Phait]

Thoughts?

http://phaitplays.blogspot.com/2005/11/quick-review-doom-3.html

[avatar_58]

It's alright for what it does. I enjoyed it. It's not the epic Doom sequel I always wanted, but if you put that out of your mind it's pretty fun.

[Dr. Kill]

Doom 3's alright, but I like Quake4's more straightforward "run and gun" style better.

Doom 3 did have a far better console port, though.

[Kalki]

I liked the flashlight gameplay. It was something to do and was one better over Quake (which I had to gamma bleach to be able to see anything; still ended up brown though). The plot could have been more upfront outside of the neat backstory. As for scaryness, I rated it a few notches below Undying, which it didn't quite manage to beat.

I'll play it again, sure. Followed by Prey. :)

[Echo Black]

As for scaryness, I rated it a few notches below Undying, which it didn't quite manage to beat

I think that's pushing it a bit. Undying is genuinely well-done in the spooky department. It's psychologically creepy. Doom 3 spawns Imps behind you and makes monsters jump from sliding wall panels, and once you get the Shotgun, it's hard to be afraid of anything.

[Kev_Boy]

Doom 3's a terrific title with good graphics and great game-play. While playing it I always had the feeling of being in some B-horror movie which was great, I have good memories playing 2-3 hours at night every day for about 2 weeks.

[brabee]

I stopped soon after the scene with pinky demon. It was soon after the release and I was like "man, I have to play this game 'coz it's Doom 3". After a few months I was bored so I replayed it and slowly got very, very addicted :)
It's like most of ID games, no revolution, but very polished FPS game.

[Phait]

I think Alpha versions looked better, like that one spikey-pseudo-exo-skeleton monster with yellow eyes.... I dunno, a lot of those shots didn't show much but there was something more cinematic about them.. maybe color palette or something. Seemed like they did a little watering down for release... if you know what shots I mean.

[brabee]

I also think that the alpha was much more scary. You know, in the final version was no pinky demon attacking "from the wall" or "from the mirror", if you remember it...

[Loke]

I've always thought that D3 was good, never understood the hate it received. Of course the scary elements gets repetitive in the end but if you can look past that (and the pea shooters ;) ) Doom 3 ain't that bad.

It's always interesting to reinstall games you hated years after you first played them

That reminds me when I had huge difficulties with Rayman Revolution for the PS2 when I first bought it. Some of the levels were tough as hell, tedious boss battles, it just frustrated me to no end (with deaths well over 300 I actually managed to complete it though). Years later I tried it again and guess what, the game seemed so damn easy compared to previously. Zipped right past the last boss with less than 10 minutes without a shed of sweat or frustration.

[Bludd]

Only the beginning of Doom 3 is any good. After the gates to hell open, it is terrible.

It was a huge disappointment for me.

[Danule]

i love the game, i just started replaying it as well.

[Hudson]

Meh, I bought into all the hype being a huge Doom fan and was utterly disappointed.

[Scream]

I played about 1/4 of it and had had enough. Same thing for Quake 4. I'm done with id games.

[8IronBob]

Right, most id Software replay values have gone downhill after a while... Ever since John Romero left id, the games have gone south as far as quality.

[MAT]

I played it a few months ago on my new rig and enjoyed the hell out of it. It's definitely not revolutionary or something, but very polished and it had some great moments.

Can't say the same thing about Resurrection of Evil though. It sucked. Doom 3 shouldn't have had an expansion pack.

[Pontiaction]

Well, personally I loved Doom 3. Even went back and played through it again about a year after I first finished it. It's just exactly the kind of game I was looking for, and as a huge Doom fan from the very day the original game released, it was the sequel I always wanted. This is all IMO, of course; obviously tastes vary, and rarely do I see them vary as much as they have with Doom 3. Some love it, some hate it, some are okay with it...it almost seems to be a different game to each player.

I actually thought the levels in Hell were pretty well-done, maybe not as strong as the UAC portion of the game, but certainly a lot better than HL1's Xen. My favorite part was how the experimental teleporters were done, they really had a sense of being huge, dangerous things that you were almost scared to step into for fear of what would happen to you. A lot of this was helped by the ominous audio logs, which themselves borrowed one of my favorite pages from the System Shock series.

A lot of people bitched about the mutual exclusivity of the flashlight and your weaponry, but I thought it added to the suspense in a positive way, despite the possibility of being less realistic.

I never finished the expansion pack (Resurrection of Evil) though, for reasons I can't quite articulate.

By contrast, I hated Quake 4. Absolutely loathed it. But then, the only Quake I ever liked was Quake 2.

[hanged_man]

Can't say the same thing about Resurrection of Evil though. It sucked. Doom 3 shouldn't have had an expansion pack.
So true ...i remember the good old days of PlanetDoom forums and reading all the previews of the game, i can never forget how me and everyone were hyped for this, i admit i was kindda disappointed with the final game (especially when i played the alpha) i was expecting the final game would be close to it but i still enjoyed the game and ID proved that they never release a broken unpolished game

[ZuljinRaynor]

I loved Doom 3. Still do.

[Phait]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9555/image88942ccp6.png

I can't find bigger images but someone's avatar here features one of the early monsters - this is what I meant by looks better/more realistic. I wish I could find actual shots, but they're far gone now.

[NutWrench]

I think it's the atmosphere that really pulls me in and makes Doom 3 enjoyable. Terrific graphics, lighting and sound design.

Unfortunately, Id didn't want to exclude folks with 64meg graphics cards, so they had to make a lot of tough choices on what to keep and what to cut. This resulted in a lot of repetitive gameplay as the same monsters and environments and effects were used over and over again.

[jimbob]

i tried Doom 3 multiple times, and the expansion too but i still hate it. but like with most ID games, i might somewhat like it ten years post release.

[Sang]

I enjoyed Doom 3 but only in short bursts. Took me over a week to complete it (this is rare for a linear shooter)

[gt1750]

I have yet to play this game :o

The demo ran like a slideshow on my laptop even at lowest settings. I just wish it's engine was optimized better - like Source. I can play HL2 on medium detail @ 1024x768 with no problems but D3 with lowest settings @ 640x480 was hardly playable. The strange thing is that even Prey demo performed better than D3 demo on my system.

[Jiminator]

I think doom3 was mostly an experiment on a lot of different technologies. some worked well, others not so much. the game was a vision of things to come. the main problem with it was that you could play the first level 27 times and there would not be much difference in playing the different levels. I really think they used a level generator to generate the levels, with the exception of massive machines which were custom per level. Now hell was a creative level, but there should have been more like that. Then the darkness, along with the enemy respawns always behind or to your side. They were used so much it was a gimmick. Not only was it bad enough being dark, but some of the enemies threw smokey fireballs, the smoke further conceals them. The overall level design, goes something like this. You are at point x and need to get to point y, so you go to point z where you throw a switch. Now a door opens taking you back directly to point x/y. Rinse and repeat. There was just not much creativity there.

[Steve]

Doom 3 is pretty good but I found it a little too easy. Deathmatching with my Father is a lot of fun :D

[LeadBullet]

I think Doom was kind of what it was because it was constrained by what it had to be when they chose to use the new rendering technology that they did. Things are a little different now with the more powerful machines, but at the time most people wouldn't be able to have Doom 3 at all near playable if it wasn't a really dark corridor shooter.

I think on the technical side any polygons that are lit by a light get an additional pass for each additional light. Then being that their lights all seemed to be a lot of basic linear point lights I can see how that would make it hard to try to fill up any areas with bright natural lighting if you have to try to make sure that you have as little surface area as possible that is touched by multiple lights.

Not as big of a deal on todays machines, but I think at the time it was what they had to do so people could play the game at all. Then in cases like Prey the engine was probably just optimized over time, new hardware comes out and new video drivers are released.

[8IronBob]

About the last game that id did well was probably Quake II, probably. After that, I'm thinking that Doom 3 needed some more solidity to the monster graphics and strategic placements, and variety of monsters to shoot at. Don't think that having a flood of imps just any old where just slapped in there will make a level fun.

[Echo Black]

About the last game that id did well was probably Quake II, probably. After that, I'm thinking that Doom 3 needed some more solidity to the monster graphics and strategic placements, and variety of monsters to shoot at. Don't think that having a flood of imps just any old where just slapped in there will make a level fun.

:confused: You're not making any sense.

[Steve]

:confused: You're not making any sense.

Seems to be a trend with him :o

[Dr.Dude]

As far as Quake IV goes, I've got to say that one disappointed me--I'd been dying to see a direct sequel to Quake II (Which I loved) for many years and IV just didn't live up to those hopes, though admittedly they might have been a bit too high. I have yet to finish the game. :o

Doom 3, on the other hand, I absolutely loved. The game had a terrific atmosphere and addictive game play that had me hooked from beginning to end; I think the only modern games that have hooked me that same way since have been Half-Life 2 and Prey.

[Mr_Diffrence]

I enjoyed it, it just needed more Hell, co-op out of the box and a lot of the stuff RoE had.

[Hudson]

It needed more monster closets too, and spawning in front of you when theirs an item in the room. Couldn't get enough of it.

[Steve]

It needed more monster closets too, and spawning in front of you when theirs an item in the room. Couldn't get enough of it.

I bet :p

[Echo Black]

It needed more monster closets too, and spawning in front of you when theirs an item in the room. Couldn't get enough of it.

Don't forget darker areas - the game is far too bright and shiny, it's sort of annoying how overdone the lighting is! :rolleyes: ;)

Seriously, artistic decisions aside, what was id thinking? It's annoying. This screen was taken with the in-game gamma a few notches past default and it's still too goddamn dark:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5795/doom3yougottabekiddingmsz3.png

Sometimes people just want to know what they're shooting at, instead of switching between flashlight and weapon, taking shots where you think you saw the monster. Doom is supposed to be pure shooting, why the gimmick?

[Mr_Diffrence]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9555/image88942ccp6.png

I can't find bigger images but someone's avatar here features one of the early monsters - this is what I meant by looks better/more realistic. I wish I could find actual shots, but they're far gone now.

'Birdman' was from the February 2001 Macworld confrence.

http://www.doomworld.com/php/screenie.php?dir=/macworld/

http://www.freakygaming.com/gallery/action_games/doom_3/birdman_smiling


If 'Recall to Hell' EVER comes out then they plan on having it as an enemy:

http://recalltohell.d3files.com/images/screens/model1.jpg

http://recalltohell.d3files.com/media.htm

[ZuljinRaynor]

Doom 3 is a love it or hate it game. But it was polished. Not to perfection but polished more than a lot of games.

[Airtraffic]

I hated doom3 so much...someone on this forum got a copy for free, hope he enjoyed it at least!

[Mblackwell]

Don't forget darker areas - the game is far too bright and shiny, it's sort of annoying how overdone the lighting is! :rolleyes: ;)

Seriously, artistic decisions aside, what was id thinking? It's annoying. This screen was taken with the in-game gamma a few notches past default and it's still too goddamn dark:


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5795/doom3yougottabekiddingmsz3.png


Sometimes people just want to know what they're shooting at, instead of switching between flashlight and weapon, taking shots where you think you saw the monster. Doom is supposed to be pure shooting, why the gimmick?

You can use the console to alter the intensity/brightness of lights too. Just to note.

Even though the game is dark I didn't really have any problems figuring out what I was shooting, especially since shooting causes things to get lit up.

Whoever said it above was right, they were massively constrained by technology. They wanted to make it able to run on a lot of machines and so cut down on some features. Whoever mentioned Source as optimized hasn't got things quite right there. Source isn't especially optimized, but it runs decently because it's generally doing less than Doom 3 was, which was entirely real-time lighting and every surface being normal mapped. People forget that it ushered in the current generation of tech, at least as far as what people expect. So yeah, it ran like crap on a lot of computers, but it also ran really well on others (higher end cards for the time), and the performance scaled really well with the hardware, and has continued to do so over time.

It's true though, Prey did have additional optimizations, as did I believe Quake 4 (which sometimes ran slower than Doom 3, but that's because of additions they then added).

It's definitely far from a bad game, and has some interesting story elements with the logs and e-mails. It's not a perfect game but it's well polished, so in a way it's perfect for what it is. I liked it and the ROE expansion. They're not my favorite games but they were pretty badass, and freaky at night with all the lights out and some good sound.

[Superczar]

You know...Come to think of it, Doom 3 ain't that bad.

Well, I hope so! I was thinking of getting the Quake/DOOM package on Steam...

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Doom 3 wasn't that bad, but it should have been better.


It had its scary moments, I even jumped a few times. It was just a total let down, including the GAY end battle... which was just awful.

[Steve]

Doom 3 wasn't that bad, but it should have been better.


It had its scary moments, I even jumped a few times. It was just a total let down, including the GAY end battle... which was just awful.

Have to agree with you there. You know, I thought the cyberdemon would be a great boss battle but I was bloody wrong. Even on nightmare it was way too easy.

I wanted a epic battle against one of the coolest bosses in gaming but I had to hit the twit a few times with a bloody cube.

[Kev_Boy]

Source isn't especially optimized, but it runs decently because it's generally doing less than Doom 3 was, which was entirely real-time lighting and every surface being normal mapped.

Who cares whether it does less than Doom 3's engine, if whatever Doom 3's engine does is stupid. I don't want nor care about real-time lighting and even less about normal mapping.

[Komb.at]

Enemy placement was my biggest turn off. Imp's waiting for the player in tiny clean-up-closets got really annoying...

[Vroomfondel]

I bought the whole id package on Steam, and though that I would definitely try to finish Doom 3 now, but after playing it about halfway through, I just couldn't force myself to do it any more. There was nothing that made me want to keep playing.

[Nihilanth]

I :love: DOOM 3.

[Malgon]

I enjoyed Doom 3, even after all the hype. It wasn't the second coming by any means, but it had some consistent atmosphere and some tight gunplay to go with it imo. I'd probably play it again someday, but not for sometime yet. ;)

I never played D3A unfortunately (which I still have to get to someday), but I felt the earliest showings of the game at the Macworld expo, conveyed something unlike the final product. I can't explain it, but the mood wasn't the same. The video of it gave me a sense of a darker version of the older games. I guess if I wanted a perfect D3 game it would have been like the Doom Bible, as it had a great setup and tone to it. I can only dream. :)

[Stense]

I think Id did, as far as the technology is concerned, an astonishing feat. When it came out I was expecting to need to run it on low settings and battle the frame rates as much as the demons. But I was able to play perfectly well on high settings without much slow down, the engine was brilliantly optimised in my opinion.

As for the game itself, I really enjoyed it. It was repeatative, bland at times, predictable, dull story full of cliches and tired storytelling techniques, not nearly as scary as Id thought it was and used imps far too much. But the guns, monsters, level design, graphics and sound were all top notch and made for a fun game. Not exactly earth shatteringly original, but I thought it was a fun action game.

[Bludd]

Doom 3 wasn't that bad, but it should have been better.


It had its scary moments, I even jumped a few times.

It was only genuinely scary at the beginning when you were told to go alone to that transmitter or whatever it was. After that, and throughout the rest of the game, it was a flood of the same means of "scaring" you; the monsters popping out from a hidden door right behind you. That is not scary, it is only startling.

I consider the abandoned hotel level in Vampire Bloodlines to be a genuinely scary experience. Almost as scary was the orphanage level in Painkiller.

[Kev_Boy]

What is scary then?
Seriously what other method is there to scare...

[Bludd]

Atmosphere, building and maintaining a feeling of terror by hinting, not blatantly showing.

If you were genuinely scared every single by the anticipation of a monster appearing behind you, you must have some kind of problem with your short-term memory.

[Talos]

I love Doom 3 since the day it was released. RoE is even better!
I must have played through both games like 4-5 times. It's not just that I love the oldschool feeling but also the fact that it's a rather lenghty experience with jaw dropping graphics some pretty neat shock effects and maybe the best looking hell in gameing history so far.

The levels after the hell were pretty cool too - central processing ftw!

So uhm long story short: I love Doom 3 :D:love:

[Bludd]

I don't understand the lauding of Doom 3 as an old school shooter. Painkiller did this much better, it is faster paced (like Doom 1 and 2 was) and it launches hordes of enemies at you (like Doom 1 and 2 did). Painkiller was, for me, what Doom 3 should have been. It also had a conceptually brilliant end level, frozen in time at the moment right after a nuclear blast.

[IHerman]

If you compare it to Doom 1, yes it's quite impressive, but FPS-games are so much more nowadays.

The endless amount of IMPs that kept popping up everywhere, the endlessly boring corridors and the lack of variety made it a failure if you ask me. Or to say it more subtle: "It did NOT live up to my expectations"

Apart from hell all the levels are pretty much the same, the environment doesn't change and neither does the architecture.

The first three or four levels were absolutely awesome, by the way, but after that there's just not enough new stuff to see.

[Bludd]

But you missed my point ENTIRELY. People say it is old school and I maintain that Painkiller is so much better at being the old school shooter for the next generation.

[jimbob]

It was only genuinely scary at the beginning when you were told to go alone to that transmitter or whatever it was. After that, and throughout the rest of the game, it was a flood of the same means of "scaring" you; the monsters popping out from a hidden door right behind you. That is not scary, it is only startling.

I consider the abandoned hotel level in Vampire Bloodlines to be a genuinely scary experience. Almost as scary was the orphanage level in Painkiller.
the orphanange level in Thief 3 is also really scary.

a good scary game is scary even when nothing happens, a bad scary game throws everything and the kitchen sink at you.

[Nihilanth]

It's always interesting to reinstall games you hated years after you first played them

I have the exact same thing with Invisible War right now. I hated the demo, now I'm playing full and while not groundbreaking, I still find it enjoyable.

Sometimes people just want to know what they're shooting at, instead of switching between flashlight and weapon, taking shots where you think you saw the monster.

It's a cool gameplay idea, in my opinion. But I guess people just prefer to run&gun in DOOM 3 rather than take their time, for some reason. :rolleyes: I never understood the criticism regarding DOOM 3 being pitch black and forcing you to constantly switch between gun and flashlight. Totally untrue. There were ONLY 2 or 3 places where you HAD to fight in pitch black environment (reception in Alpha Labs 1, escort mission at the end of Alpha Labs 2 and specimen transfer area in one of the Delta Labs, 2b I guess) and even there you were given an opportunities to succeed (AL1 - there was an illuminated spot where you could wait for zombies, AL2 - scientist had a light, DL2b, specimen container illuminated areas).

Doom 3 wasn't that bad, but it should have been better.

DOOM 3 is one of those games that there're tons of things I'd like to change, yet it's great to play it anyway.

the monsters popping out from a hidden door right behind you. That is not scary, it is only startling.

There were A LOT of things that were scary as hell in DOOM 3. Obviously Imps jumping at you are not one of those things. It's not even monsters that are scary there. Various hints, little things here and there, elements that suggested something that happened for instance. Observe.

I don't understand the lauding of Doom 3 as an old school shooter.

I don't get calling DOOM 3 an oldschool shooter as well, as much as I don't see how can anyone say that Painkiller has gameplay similiar to DOOM 1/2 or Quake.

a good scary game is scary even when nothing happens

Penumbra tech demo! I was scared as hell while playing it, scared as hell I tell ya. And there were only like 2 small monsters there.

[Bludd]

Oh, yeah. How could I forget that Penumbra demo. That thing scared me shitless, I couldn't even complete it because it messed my head up so much.

[8IronBob]

Even tho Doom 3's original story line was a disappointment, I really can't complain about Resurrection of Evil expansion, tho. That one really brought the game to a dimension that the original game should have been like in the first place. Now that made the game far better with that gravity gun (which would later be used in HL2: Ep 2). However, nothing set Doom 3 apart for me until someone came out with that Classic Doom mod for Doom 3, and I've been playing that one for hours on end, and haven't looked back at the original Doom series ever since.

[Telee]

What is scary then?

Chase scenes!

Seriously, chase scenes always freak me out. All other methods, not so much.

[avatar_58]

Now that made the game far better with that gravity gun (which would later be used in HL2: Ep 2).

Err....what on earth are you talking about? The gravity started in Half-life 2, not episode 2. ROE copied Valve, not the other way around.

[Telee]

IIRC the command for a gravity gun was already in the original Doom 3 alpha, long before Half-Life 2 was released, so they didn't really steal the idea.

[avatar_58]

However had HL2 never been released ROE would not have used it. It was cut because id didn't feel it was nessesary. Having seen how much people enjoyed it, it was added back into ROE.

[Mountain Man]

I agree that Doom 3 "isn't that bad", and by that I mean it met the minimum of what I expect from a video game in that it provided me with decent, trouble free entertainment. There just wasn't much to it beyond that, which is why I maintain my opinion that it's decidedly average as far as games go.

[Hudson]

As average as a glass full of tap water

[Steve]

What is scary then?
Seriously what other method is there to scare...

Silent hill series is the only lot of games that has freaked me out in someway.

[MAT]

What is scary then?
Seriously what other method is there to scare...

Undying was scary; its atmosphere was simply tense. And it had few closet monster jumps IIRC. Believable characters+family curse=scary.

[Mountain Man]

The only time I've been really apprehensive in a game was when playing the hotel level in Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. What makes it so tense is that everything happens just barely in your view. You'll look up just in time to glimpse a shadow run across the end of the hallway. You'll approach a door and it'll suddenly thump as if somebody's trying to open it, but when you peer inside, the room is empty. The worst was when you were directed to open a running dryer that that had something inside it making it thump, and it was suggested through various clues that it was the head of a murdered child! It turned out to be just a doll's head, but the apprehension I felt was still very real. It was almost all psychological scares as very few things in that level could actually hurt your character.

[Pontiaction]

That hotel level in Vampire: Bloodlines was simply brilliant, I wished there had been more areas like that. Well, okay, the underground prosthetics office was pretty messed up too.

I agree that the best scares are the psychological ones. Silent Hill is my favorite "horror" game series of all time because it screws with your mind so completely, although to be honest, I really loved me some Condemned as well.

Doom 3 was more "startling" than "frightening," like a big-budget Hollywood remake of a superb Asian horror flick. But the tension in the atmosphere was awesome. I'm also a big fan of the "futuristic military / industrial" setting like from Alien/Aliens, so that took the whole thing up a notch for me.

Dammit. I'm going to have to reinstall Doom 3 now. You bastards.

[Mblackwell]

Who cares whether it does less than Doom 3's engine, if whatever Doom 3's engine does is stupid. I don't want nor care about real-time lighting and even less about normal mapping.

Then you may as well shut up and go back to playing Pong. I'm not sure where you get this magical idea that what it's doing is "stupid". It's pushing tech to the next level, and hardware has advanced since that all of the features in Doom 3 (such as per-pixel lighting and normal maps) are now standard features in most games. It set a graphical bar.

As for the atmosphere of the game to me it felt like and old school shooter with all of the newer twists I'd come to expect. At it's heart it was still a corridor shooter though, so if you played it for too long at one time it got old. I'm not much of a marathon gamer anymore though.

As average as a glass full of tap water

So at what point in the thread were you planning on saying something constructive?

[Steve]

I feel like playing Doom 3 now :) But... I've lost my CD :(

[Kev_Boy]

A superb Asian horror flick.

Do those even exist??? :D

[Loke]

I feel like playing Doom 3 now :) But... I've lost my CD :(

I've been thinking of it for a while. Never got the chance to show of the last few levels for my bro either.

[wayskobfssae]

:doh:

What so many people seem to forget about having that "hundreds of enemies rushing you" kind of FPS that we all miss from the 90's, is that these days easily, each one of those enemies would consist of at least 10k polys (and in a modern game that's probably a small number).

Point is, it takes ridiculously little additional power to draw extra sprites on a screen. Rendering 3D models is a totally different story. And with every new advance in technology players cry for more realism. If there's another Doom game, chances are nobody will be happy unless it has bare minimum, full volumetric lighting and fog with tertiary reflections. This is why you see so few of these kind of games. Computers just can't handle that much crap going on at once. Something would have to be sacrificed somewhere to make it even close to feasible.

[Bludd]

So the hordes of enemies you faced in Painkiller were just a mirage then?

[Mountain Man]

Doom 3 was promoted as a slow-paced survival horror, where your wits would have to compensate for an inadequate ammo supply. What we got was a fairly standard run-n-gun shooter with the art direction of a survival horror and a lighting/shadowing technique that, as revolutionary as it was from a technical standpoint, made it near impossible to see half the things you were shooting at. I probably would have loved it if it was the former, but as the latter, it left me feeling rather underwhelmed.

[Danule]

Doom 3 was promoted as a slow-paced survival horror, where your wits would have to compensate for an inadequate ammo supply. What we got was a fairly standard run-n-gun shooter with the art direction of a survival horror and a lighting/shadowing technique that, as revolutionary as it was from a technical standpoint, made it near impossible to see half the things you were shooting at. I probably would have loved it if it was the former, but as the latter, it left me feeling rather underwhelmed.

if you really couldn't see half the time than turn your monitors brightness up, it was not that dark.

[Bludd]

But it was, and playing games with washed out graphics (due to excessive gamma) is not The Way It's Meant To Be Played. :D

[8IronBob]

...even washed out with the 8800GT or the G92 GTS? Jeez, and Carmack said that game was made with that type of graphics card in mind. I demand an answer here!

[avatar_58]

...even washed out with the 8800GT or the G92 GTS? Jeez, and Carmack said that game was made with that type of graphics card in mind. I demand an answer here!

What the hell are you talking about?

[Bludd]

...even washed out with the 8800GT or the G92 GTS? Jeez, and Carmack said that game was made with that type of graphics card in mind. I demand an answer here!

You are insane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction

[Mountain Man]

if you really couldn't see half the time than turn your monitors brightness up, it was not that dark.
I was slightly exaggerating for effect, but Doom 3 is a very dark game by design.

[Danule]

I was slightly exaggerating for effect, but Doom 3 is a very dark game by design.

everyone complains that they cant see anything in the game and basically the whole time everything is visible there are only a few instances where it is completely dark. the flashlight is also included so you can see if it get too dark its part of the game play.

[8IronBob]

At least the Quake IV lighting was a touch better than Doom 3, when you compare other games based on the engine. At least it had more outdoor lighting to it, giving it that better ambient light in most areas of the game.

[Bludd]

everyone complains that they cant see anything in the game and basically the whole time everything is visible there are only a few instances where it is completely dark. the flashlight is also included so you can see if it get too dark its part of the game play.

Yeah, the flashlight. Choose between flashlight and gun? No duct tape in the future? Great game design if your intention is to piss of the player.

[gamejunkie]

Oh great, another "DOOM 3 IS DARK" thread :rolleyes:

Comment aside, I found it fun.

[Bludd]

Yeah, but we all know what your tastes in things are, gamejunkie. :rolleyes: :D

[ZuljinRaynor]

Doom 3 is good, polished fun.

[Hudson]

I agree it's extremely polished, it's just a shame it gets boring after an hour of the same exact thing over and over :(

[Bludd]

I agree, it is a boring, highly polished disappointment of a game. It is not an old school shooter, it is not very frightening and it is not innovative. For me, Bioshock is what Doom 3 could have been.

[ZuljinRaynor]

It is an old school shooter. That was the whole point of it.

[Hudson]

Not really, Painkiller was an old school shooter.. Doom 3 was more of an attempt to reinvent the franchise as a survival horror game in first person.

[ZuljinRaynor]

No it wasn't. It was the old school shooter with just an extra coat of black paint.

[Bludd]

The only old school thing it does is the keycard/switch thing.

[ZuljinRaynor]

The gunplay is very old school though it has reloading.

[Bludd]

Reloading isn't old school. Few weapons in Doom 1 and 2 had reloading at all.

[Steve]

Doom 3 was too slow paced for an "old school" feel.

[ZuljinRaynor]

Bludd, this is why you suck. You can't read. I said gunplay was old school though (like even though) it had reloading.

[Bludd]

Bludd, this is why you suck. You can't read. I said gunplay was old school though (like even though) it had reloading.

I read it as "The gunplay is very old school, though; it has reloading."

Oh and screw you, this isn't the post thread.

[LeadBullet]

Bludd, this is why you suck. You can't read. I said gunplay was old school though (like even though) it had reloading.

Oh and screw you, this isn't the post thread.

Reading your guys posts is like watching Richard Simmons and Elton John in a slapping match. It's funny for a second, but then just gets annoying and gay.

-

On the subject of Doom 3, I thought it was in a similar class as Prey. It used new tech so it was cool looking, and you could tell there was some time and money behind it by playing it. In the end though I was kept feeling like there was something missing. Although this was much more the case in Doom 3 since slower systems and earlier versions of video drivers and the engine kind of forced it into more restrictive and cramped spaces.

I think part of why it bugged me also was because about anywhere I went it always looked the same for the most part. It would have been cool to see more frequent variations in the appearance of the areas.

[avatar_58]

Why does everyone call Painkiller/Serious Sam old school? I don't ever remember playing shooters with hordes of enemies flanking you and spawning out of thin air. Doom and Wolf3D has enemies that were placed there, and very rarely did you end up in "Painkiller-like" scenarios versus an entire army.

I like Painkiller, but it does NOT scratch any nostalgic itch for me. I consider Serious Sam and it's spawn to be a different monster all together.

[Steve]

Why does everyone call Painkiller/Serious Sam old school?
I call it old school due to the speed of things - running speed of the character, fast gameplay overall, etc.

[avatar_58]

You do not move that fast in any old shooter I've played. Using bunny hopping you can basically move the speed of light. Also most old shooters consisted of exploration to find keys. Painkiller is linear with "clear the room" gameplay.

So as was said - Doom 3 is actually far more of an "Old school" shooter in more ways than Painkiller.

[Steve]

You do not move that fast in any old shooter I've played.
I'm certain that you move faster in Doom\Duke3D compared to painkiller and Serious Sam :o

edit: I may have misread that quote. :o

[Bludd]

You do not move that fast in any old shooter I've played. Using bunny hopping you can basically move the speed of light. Also most old shooters consisted of exploration to find keys. Painkiller is linear with "clear the room" gameplay.

So as was said - Doom 3 is actually far more of an "Old school" shooter in more ways than Painkiller.

Wow, so you are actually saying that linear monster-clearing levels is not old school? Have you played Wolf3d, Doom 1 and 2 or Quake?

[ZuljinRaynor]

Clearing out rooms is like in every FPS ever. :o

[Bludd]

Well, for example in Far Cry and Crysis you can skip numerous firefights.

[ZuljinRaynor]

Well, that's true. Didn't think of that.

[Echo Black]

For the most part, Doom 1 doesn't have HORDES of monsters to dispatch (save for a few specific levels). Doom 2, however, kicks the bucket in this regard. "Refueling Base", anyone? I think that level alone is over 300 monsters or something - And a lot of them are on arena-like rooms, like Painkiller would later do.

Also, the runspeed in older games like Blood, Duke 3D, Doom, etc. is a lot faster...Take Duke 3d - You run faster than a car and jump as high as a house - And that's without steroids! Jump at the streets in Hollywood Holocaust and you'll level with the movie theatre sign. I personally think that's awesome, always loved the speed.

Also, you don't actually move faster by bunnyhopping in Doom 3. In Quake 4 you do.

[Destructor]

*Yawn*. Yeah...Doom 3...isn't...tooo...ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.

[Little Conqueror]

Doom 3 was a decent game, to be honest. There were parts of it I preferred to Half-Life 2, but there were parts of Half-Life 2 I preferred over Doom 3 as well. The best qualities from both games combined would've made for one hella awesome, epic, thoughtful shooter. A lot of the reason Doom 3 is so maligned is because it came out right before Half-Life 2, which was infinitely more hyped.

[Scream]

To me there is no comparison between HL2 and Doom 3. HL2 packs in so much more variety of gameplay (vehicles, puzzles, use of physics) and environments, while still feeling cohesive. It actually has a storyline, and characters that you could possibly care about.

To be fair, I've only played 1/4 of Doom 3, and on the Xbox (I played HL2 on the 360), but other than the fact that they are both in first-person, I don't see a lot of basis for comparison. Depending on your perspective, you could call Doom 3 "old-school" or "classic", while HL2 was fresh and innovative. I found Doom 3 to be derivative and tired. It amazed me at the time of it's release that a lot of the same people that make fun of me for liking Halo were staunch supporters of Doom 3. To me, Halo had way more variety and interesting (and fun) gameplay, and even with it's large sections of cut and paste levels had more interesting level design than Doom 3 (although admittedly I didn't play D3 long enough to get to the Hell levels, so maybe I missed out there). The only thing D3 had on Halo IMO was graphics.

Anyway, like everything else it comes down to personal preference. For me personally, if I'm going to play an old-school action shooter that sticks pretty much to corridor crawling (no vehicles, puzzles etc), I want it to have a lot more enemies than Doom 3 did. I think the people here who have stated that it's not a FPS, but is a survival horror game in first person have got it right. I don't like survival horror games, so I guess that's why I didn't like it much. Everyone's different.

[hanged_man]

Doom 3 was promoted as a slow-paced survival horror, where your wits would have to compensate for an inadequate ammo supply. What we got was a fairly standard run-n-gun shooter with the art direction of a survival horror and a lighting/shadowing technique that, as revolutionary as it was from a technical standpoint, made it near impossible to see half the things you were shooting at. I probably would have loved it if it was the former, but as the latter, it left me feeling rather underwhelmed.

Well said

[avatar_58]

Wow, so you are actually saying that linear monster-clearing levels is not old school? Have you played Wolf3d, Doom 1 and 2 or Quake?

You do not have to kill everything in those games, and they do not consist of large open areas where all you do is marathon kill. Doom 2 (as was stated) has a few levels like this, but for the most part enemies are placed in hallways and you try to locate keys and switches.

Painkiller and Serious Sam are just kill fests that require near 100% kill ratios per area to proceed. They are almost always in wide open areas and the gameplay consists of war like battles.

I fail to see how one can compare Wolf3D to Serious Sam. That boggles my mind...

[Mountain Man]

Oh great, another "DOOM 3 IS DARK" thread :rolleyes:
As if it wasn't.

[Kev_Boy]

Doom 3 sought it through its technology, ambient lights result in a slower frame-rate because they need to overlap other lights. And the lights that are there don't bounce around resulting in no ambient light from them. The result is a very dark environment.

[Mblackwell]

Honestly, this is why I don't really listen to game hype much, I just watch videos here and there, glance at previews, and read reviews. I don't pay attention to much in the way of advertisements or other things like that for games, although for id games I tend to watch their presentations because I'm interested in the technical aspects of what's going on, which they usually like to explain.

I don't read fan sites, game theories, etc. I just play the game and judge it on its own merits. So for me Doom 3 came as a mostly fresh experience with no specific expectations (except that it was supposed to be a retelling of Doom 1). When I got the game and first bumped into a cone and the darn thing slowly tipped over and bounced slightly before settling on its side it blew my mind. It's the little things that got me about the game, all of which were pretty nice and shiny and new at the time, or if not new pretty polished versions of things I liked from other games, for instance the PDA being basically a proper computer GUI for managing SS2-like logs, and the computer screens themselves being interactive with no need for a USE key. Just point and click. To me it just felt so refined, like a culmination and streamlining and what had come before into a nice neat new package with enough of a boost to usher in the next generation of titles.

So I guess instead of let down I was pleasantly surprised.

[Stense]

I really loved the computer screens in Doom 3. I think you hit the nail on the head Mblackwell, the game felt refined. A lot of spit and polish went into Doom 3 to make it. It may not be the most original game ever, but its damn fun for what it is, in my opinion.

[crunchy superman]

Aside from the either/or ignorance with the flashlight and the repetitive Imp closets, I enjoyed D3. It wasn't trying to be anything more than what it was, and I suppose most folks were just expecting more.

[jimbob]

that and the fact they kept calling it the best thing since sliced bread, the second comming of christ and the game to end all others to name a few.

[Mblackwell]

that and the fact they kept calling it the best thing since sliced bread, the second comming of christ and the game to end all others to name a few.

But what game do they NOT do that with?

Hence, avoid hype trains. You're bound to be let down.

[Pontiaction]

Hence, avoid hype trains. You're bound to be let down.Bingo. I was so out of the loop in 2004 that I didn't even know Doom 3 was coming until a week before release. Come to think of it, all of my favorite computer games hit me out of nowhere -- System Shock, Half-Life, SS2...in each case, I wasn't paying attention and suddenly there they were, I got curious and tried them, and enjoyed some masterpieces of gaming.

The only game that actually lived up to the months of hype I participated in was Duke Nukem 3D. And the only game I ever spent more time playing, over and over, was Wolfenstein 3D -- ironically, another one that hit me out of nowhere. But back in the early '90s, it was easier to be disconnected from the PC gaming world since it wasn't quite so mainstream and commercial as it is today.

[Danule]

To me there is no comparison between HL2 and Doom 3. HL2 packs in so much more variety of gameplay (vehicles, puzzles, use of physics) and environments, while still feeling cohesive. It actually has a storyline,

doom 3 does have a story, you just need to read your PDA's its pretty interesting. :)

[Kalki]

Interesting backstory, sure. The events upfront weren't as strong.

[Bludd]

I really loved the computer screens in Doom 3.
I agree, those were pretty awesome and well integrated. The only problem is that they are probably the best thing about the game, and that is very sad. :D

[Nihilanth]

Interesting backstory, sure. The events upfront weren't as strong.

That's the point! Storywise I've always been more interested in the past and background of the UAC Mars Base. I consider the whole "Betrugers rush for ultimate power" and "seal the Hellhole and save the Earth" to be the least important aspects of DOOM 3's universe.

[Kalki]

Ideally, you want both sides of the story to be equally measured. The best plots are when the backstory and current events are linked together (history repeating itself in the now / having the chance to redeem old mistakes). Bertruger's character and actions weren't played up strongly enough to do any of that. He was there just so we could have the obligatory boss battle.

[Stense]

I agree, those were pretty awesome and well integrated. The only problem is that they are probably the best thing about the game, and that is very sad. :D

I wasted so long playing Super Turbo Turkey Punch 3 (or what ever it was called), Sarge shouted at me later. I cried. He shouted more. :(

[Mblackwell]

That's the point! Storywise I've always been more interested in the past and background of the UAC Mars Base. I consider the whole "Betrugers rush for ultimate power" and "seal the Hellhole and save the Earth" to be the least important aspects of DOOM 3's universe.

Actually, I really like things like this. For instance, that's why I enjoyed the Myst series, you could read everything and study and find out what happened in the past. What you were doing right then was really insignificant in comparison, at least until the end. But I really enjoy being able to find out the history behind what I'm looking at. To me that kind of context is more important than exactly what's happening at the moment. Maybe it's just me.

[Nihilanth]

Maybe it's just me.

And me, at least when it comes to this practicular game.

[Mountain Man]

I really loved the computer screens in Doom 3. I think you hit the nail on the head Mblackwell, the game felt refined. A lot of spit and polish went into Doom 3 to make it. It may not be the most original game ever, but its damn fun for what it is, in my opinion.
I think it would have benefited greatly if it had been half its length. There was just way too much redundancy to hold my attention to the end.

[Stense]

I would have to agree that it did drag a bit towards the end. The post-hell levels (well up until the dig sites) seemed rather unnessecery.

[Malgon]

Doom 3 had some nice ideas, such as the PDA system (used in SS/2 earlier) and the GUI system for computers but unfortunately not too many other spiffy ideas. The gunplay was rinse and repeat, and although it was fairly tight (imo), as MM said, it probably would have benefited if it were cut much earlier on. Back story was solid enough, but for what was currently going on (being just a long chase sequence) it was fairly bog standard.

One thing that I've always felt is that id games are highly polished, and refined in what they do, while not actually providing anything varied or new. Regardless, I've enjoyed id games for the most part, and perhaps out of a nolstalgia of Doom 1 and 2 more than anything else, I am interested to see what they will release next.