Doom III

By Kristan Reed Published 19 May, 2004

Can the Xbox handle Id's terror strewn FPS? Find out, and download a high resolution version of the E3 trailer.

'Doom III' Screenshot 1

Assuming you weren't at E3 (or even if you were), you can download an official, high resolution version of the E3 trailer for Doom 3 Xbox right now via Eurofiles. Please refer to the usage guide if you've never used Eurofiles before or have any questions.

After the horrors of the E3 convention centre, we can fully comprehend the concept of a massive demonic invasion. At times, the deafening din of a dozen big name publishers trying to outdo one another coupled with the whooping of thousands of frenetic and sweaty gamers all desperate for their very own DS stylus toy was enough to convince you that this was the very entrance to Hades.

Despite the obvious excitement of getting to play Doom III on Xbox after the interminable wait, it was almost a challenge too far for this embittered hack. Feeling not dissimilar to a five foot girl caught in the mosh pit at Glastonbury, the throbbing mob seemed determined to make the queuing process a memorable one. Next time I'll bring body armour. Scratch that, a cattle prod will do nicely. Security don't check that closely anyway.

Unlike most booths, the Doom III area of the Microsoft stand had the foresight to supply headphones to blot out the cacophony of whooping Americans busy getting pumped, psyched and takin' names. It was to prove one of the masterstrokes of the show. Doom III with headphones is the future.

Moody reds

'Doom III' Screenshot 2

The demo kicks off in typically moody style, but technically an entire universe away from where it all started 11 years ago. Stuck in a darkened room somewhere on Mars in the Alpha Labs, with just a torch, machine gun, pistol and grenade for company, it's a surprise to see the Xbox carry all this meticulous detail off without too much in the way of compromise, save for a few moments of frame rate loss, which given the game is a few months away from completion is forgivable. Sweating in the glow of blinking console display lights and long sinister shadows, it's hard not to be instantly taken with the visceral intensity. With a background drone of indefinable effects creating an equally vile atmosphere, it's clear this is more than your average run and gun. It's a template for fear.

Clicking a nearby console switch, the door lock releases, and you get your first taste of the action. As far as FPSs go, this is as basic as they come; vile creature from hell emerges out of the shadows, chases scared space marine, space marine pumps lead and vile creature from hell dies a quick death as it crumbles into its own skeleton and vanishes. Rather than overwhelm you with clusters of baddies, from the evidence of the Doom III demo, it's about tight corridors and encounters in ones and twos. We can't speak for whether this is representative of the entire game, but the Alpha Labs sections we've seen over the past two years all appear to follow a similar pattern.

In terms of level design, there's little to say other than it's about as linear as you could possibly imagine, with occasional backtracking to grab a key or enable a console switch. We're unsure how this will translate in the full finished product, but we'd fully expect things to develop from a demo that surely must have been deliberately simplistic for the purposes of the show. Meanwhile, the controls feel slick and the weapons pack a punch - in true Id style, you're looking forward to the weapons as much as the progression of the game itself, and that's always a good sign.

Fear effect

'Doom III' Screenshot 3

What is undeniable is the fear factor the sparse use of light and shadow engenders. Add in the sound layer and it's almost an unbearable exercise in being alone in the dark as the otherworldly din kicks in to remind you you're somewhere near hell. Regularly zombie marines and the variety of other twisted, malformed and thus far unnamed hell spawn creep up from behind from an area you're sure you'd cleared beforehand.

You can't take anything for granted in Doom III. It's vital to reload after every firefight. The chances are, that next corner you walk round or the next door you walk through will be your next opportunity to snuff it. It might seem like a cheap trick to just keep using the shadows to launch the next assault, but in the right environment (at home, alone, curtains drawn, 5.1 surround set up turned up) the eerie, maniacal and deliberately hellish atmosphere will plainly work. Even in the bowels of hell that is the LA Convention Centre it was a plainly uncomfortable playing experience - and if that's the point, then job done, Id.

You might wonder how on earth Vicarious Visions has managed to do such a fine job of converting the game. So did we. Okay, the PC obviously offers a much better visual experience, with better texturing and sharper resolution, but as far as console games go, you won't find many titles pushing the machine this hard. The character models might not to be everyone's taste, but in technical terms there's little in the way of compromise - and take the possibilities of FPSs to 'a whole new level'. The shambling zombies might not be the most imaginative thing in the world, but in this context it'd be stupid not to wheel out this most overused of gaming clichés. Still, as mighty fine as the backdrops undoubtedly look, with the most insane level of detail possible right now, it's a shame there's little evidence of destruction - other than pre-defined moments when monsters decide to burst through walls or whatever.

Fated

Where Doom III undoubtedly succeeds is through sheer technical brute force, overlaid with a surprising degree of subtlety in terms of its atmosphere. No-one should expect a revolution of gameplay design, but as an experience that pushes the right buttons it does precisely what fans of Id titles would hope. With Live play thrown in, there's plenty to look forward to, and we left with our cynicism buried. Check out the official Xbox trailer and die.

Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (107) Latest comment 8 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Kami #1 8 years ago

    Looking a little better - the last batch of Doom3 XB shots were jaggy to hell. These look a mite more polished and clean.

    Looking forwards to Doom 3... I'll still pick up the PC version but I'm sure the X-Box version will do well as well.

  • mcmonkeyplc #2 8 years ago

    /prepares to shit ones self.

  • templar-wizard #3 8 years ago

    nice.
    i knew those dudes VV wouldnt fk it up.

  • Blerk #4 8 years ago

    it's a surprise to see the Xbox carry all this meticulous detail off without too much in the way of compromise, save for a few moments of frame rate loss

    Aha - that's what I was worried about after looking at the trailer. The frame rate seemed very low in the actual 'action' bits. Sounds like it was better in the game itself.

  • Khab #5 8 years ago

    Um... Somehow I find it REALLY hard to be excited about this one at all... Maybe it's because I never really played Doom properly when it came 'round the first time, or maybe it's because it's looking more and more like it's a typical iD game.

  • Blerk #6 8 years ago

    Somehow I find it REALLY hard to be excited about this one at all...

    Hey, isn't that my line? :-)

  • Killerbee #7 8 years ago

    Rather than overwhelm you with clusters of baddies, from the evidence of the Doom III demo, it's about tight corridors and encounters in ones and twos.

    Hmm... personally I prefer the wide open spaces and hoards of baddies to shoot at, like Halo or Transformers. Closed spaces are fine if there's some puzzle solving element to the game to keep you otherwise amused, but for a pure shooter, surely big, open spaces and lots of baddies is where it's at?

    TBH, the graphics are amazing, but I can't see what advances they've made in gameplay terms here.

    Put it this way, I won't be placing a pre-order just yet.

  • KraftWerk #8 8 years ago

    ..or maybe it's because it's looking more and more like it's a typical iD game.
    ---

    So.. This is a bad thing?

  • BravoGolf #9 8 years ago

    ....to blot out the cacophony of whooping Americans busy getting pumped, psyched and takin' names....

    LOL! Glad you agree
    Edited by 3 at 19/05/04 @ 13:35

  • Mirkan #10 8 years ago

    First off, brilliant article. Few sites manage to keep this level of inspired mix of humour and information that makes for a delightful read.

    Kristian, when you say "not to everyone's tastes", do you mean the design or the quality of the models? Some screenshots seem to indicate blockyness, the kind I'm not even used to seeing in games these days, but it seems way less apparent in movies.

  • joephish #11 8 years ago

    I agree with kevf123 about the fading - arrrg soooo annoying!

    As for the game itself... yaaaawwwwn. Yay, the graphics engine is pretty pretty, but the game looks reeeally yawn. A combination of 'sick' and 'booorring'

  • rygel #12 8 years ago

    Hmm... Actually this seems like a complete departure for iD regarding gameplay... A sort of First-Person resident evil (without the hella annoying door animations).

  • martyngates #13 8 years ago

    Doom III with headphones is the future.


    Heheee :-)
    Just ordered a set of 5.1 surround sound headphones.


    -- dont forget to put your xbox live headset on your 6th ear!, but i wondered about that too?

  • HarryB #14 8 years ago

    graphics look pretty bad in the pics
    I dont even think this looks very good on pc really - far cry was much better for me

    and im much more excited about half life 2 - looks more realistic

  • krudster #15 8 years ago

    Thanks Mirkan

    /slips fiver under the desk

    When I mentioned the character models, I meant the style won't be to everyone's tastes. But then what is? In terms of technical accomplishment, it's pretty much benchmark. But then Ressie 4 is pretty astonishing too, in a more lifelike sense, and on the Cube!

  • HarryB #16 8 years ago

    so did you play it - im just interested in the responsiveness of controls etc
    because when i played it on pc before my framerate was really high but the actual game moved in a pretty sluggish way...

  • MikeD #17 8 years ago

    The anti-ID crowd is out in full force. :-)

    Personally I thought the old doom games and quake were brilliant single player games. Quake 2 was a tad bit of a disappointment, but still not bad. If they pull it off correctly this should be one of the scariest games evar! Think first level undying!

  • krudster #18 8 years ago

    I liked the controls personally - a lot tighter than, say TimeSplitters 3 (which I play after this), but had no issues with them at all. Not much different to Halo 1 or 2 really.

  • HarryB #19 8 years ago

    ok thats fine then probably been changed since that dodgy alpha thing that was out on the net

  • Khab #20 8 years ago

    Wasn't that like three E3's ago now?

  • Cubfan #21 8 years ago

    "....to blot out the cacophony of whooping Americans busy getting pumped, psyched and takin' names...."

    Americans... we're so stupid and unsophisticated! Its TRUE!!!!!!

  • MikeD #22 8 years ago

    He didn't say Americans are stupid, just that they get stupidly excited.

  • Cubfan #23 8 years ago

    And what about the Asians, what were they like?

  • prettyboytim #24 8 years ago

    I think I'm probably too much of a pussy to play this game.

  • krudster #25 8 years ago

    Asians are literally the quietest people on Earth. No wonder they like ghost stories.

  • perilikid #26 8 years ago

    I'd probably have to agree with prettyboytim. I'm not sure I could go through a whole game constantly being surprised/horrified/freaked out. Mind you, if all they have is things coming out of the shadows - or predictably juxtaposing moments of eerie quiet with jumpy bits (see the end of the E3 trailer) - I might just be bored.

    Personally, encountering the Flood in Halo, and the first time I saw one of them get up after I thought I'd killed it, were enough to get the adrenaline going.
    Edited by 1 at 19/05/04 @ 17:00

  • Slippy #27 8 years ago

    I'm looking forward to this. I like being made to jump during games although a history of heart problems on both sides of my family doesn't bode well for the future!

    Anyone played Return to Castle Wolfenstein with a 5.1 set-up in the dark? Seriously spooky in the Egyptian ruins bit :o)

  • UncleLou #28 8 years ago

    The anti-ID crowd is out in full force. :-)

    Personally I thought the old doom games and quake were brilliant single player games. Quake 2 was a tad bit of a disappointment, but still not bad. If they pull it off correctly this should be one of the scariest games evar! Think first level undying!

    /is in full agreement with MikeD

  • krudster #29 8 years ago

    It sort of crumbles as if toasted with a flamethrower. It's a way of keeping up the frame rate on Xbox I'd imagine. The PC versions I've seen all have the bodies lying on the floor, and still react to your gunfire etc.

  • perilikid #30 8 years ago

    What's the point in making a game for a console if you have to compromise to the extent that it'll affect the gameplay?

  • MikeD #31 8 years ago

    The slowdowns will.

  • Badass #32 8 years ago

    All I can say is - I got the leaked e3 demo and ran it on my laptop last year...the framerate was really crap ('cos the graphics card was shite and it was obviously never meant to be played on anything other than a dev machine), but it managed to scare the shit out of me..having played silent hill 2 on my own, in a dark room, with full 5.1 surround sound and loved every scary moment (had to stop playing at times), this game is most certainly be on my pre-order list.
    quite apart from that, the original doom was ace.

  • Pirotic #33 8 years ago

    Been playing a recent build of the PC version recently (April 04 build) its a cracking game so far, and now that its starting to get optimized the framerate is pretty decent on a modest spec PC (30fps on a 9600 with most settings on high)

    I was a bit unsure about Doom before getting my hands on it, i was a big fan of the Quake series in multiplayer but ID's single player games lacked atmosphere, you dont really care whats around the next corner and just side-straff with guns a blazing.

    Doom 3 is a different style of game, they really use the shadows and the ambient sounds to make you paranoid something is watching you, and half the time your right and some scary-ass alien starts tearing you a new hole.

    the levels, as mentioned - are very tight and most of the wide open areas are either in the dark or fogged off which does sorta reduce the "wow" factor (i suspect its for performance issues just as much as for gameplay).

    the AI is pretty stupid (as always) but the animation has some nice touchs, humanoids now have heads which 'tilt' to look at you, so if your on a higher up platform than say a "fat man" he'll star up at you while clawing the air, its like Dawn of the Dead.

    Co-op should be fantastic if they can keep the atmosphere, really looking foward to this one.

  • 3william56 #34 8 years ago

    "it's about tight corridors and encounters in ones and twos" and dissapearing corpses?

    Surely this is a hardware limitation, not a style choice? Sounds like the Box (and the PC? Is it the same?) can't handle more than a couple of the character models at a time. Must be one heck of a background to suck up that amount of processor power.

    Not that this is neccesarily a serious downer, but one of Doom's defining characteristics was the claustrophobic wobblies created by being suddenly surrounded by fire spitting / gun toting / slime spitting horrors on all sides. The article sounds like there's been a radical change in gameplay - from frantic run and gun Doom insanity towards a slower Resi Evil or Silent Hill Survival Horror mechanic. Though as Doom's been copied to death, it might be a good thing.

    BTW: the persistant corpses were a neccessary game mechanic in the old Dooms - sometimes it was the only way to navigate - by the carnage you left behind.

  • beep #35 8 years ago

    The character models don't look that amazing. Take away the bump mapping and you basically have Quake 3 calibre models. Doom 3 looks more like a light and bump mapping extravaganza. I'm sure the next next wave of games will be high poly and bump mapped up the rectum.

  • rygel #36 8 years ago

    I'm sure the next next wave of games will be high poly and bump mapped up the rectum.

    Sounds painful...

  • MikeD #37 8 years ago

    I'd say you're not completely wrong Steven. The videocard in the gamecube is the same core that later became the radeon 9700-9800 series. But besides videocard there are other issues like memory and processing power, on which the cube falls behind the Xbox.

    And you can't be serious about the ps2, right? :-)

  • steven #38 8 years ago

    "I'd say you're not completely wrong Steven."
    :)
    " The videocard in the gamecube is the same core that later became the radeon 9700-9800 series."
    Actually i never knew that. Out of curiosity, do you have proof?

    " But besides videocard there are other issues like memory and processing power, on which the cube falls behind the Xbox. "

    Processing power? I refuse to believe the Xbox has better processing power. They are two completely different architectures but even then a 485 Mhz power PC is just as effective as an Intel 733 Mhz processor.

    As for Memory. You have a point. But remember 64 MB DDR RAM (XBOX)of memory is shared, and is one of the slower memory in the industry.
    On the other hand, 24 MB 1T-SRAM (fastest memory around)whch gamecube uses is dedicated to graphics. 16 MB of DRAM is very slow i know but it is mainly for sound and you could even use it for other things that don't require a fast memory. Lets not also forget the extremely fast 3 MB embedded memory on the graphics chip too. All this means the cube isn't far behind in memory.

    "And you can't be serious about the ps2, right? :-) "
    Actually I am.


    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 14:28

  • Pirotic #39 8 years ago

    the PS2 would be out of the question, while it can move data around faster than any other console - it just doesn't have the processing power required to do the lighting techniques used.

    if you know a way of getting the PS2 to do xbox quality pixel shading i'd like to hear it ;)

    As for Gamecube, i agree with Steven - it can do anything the xbox can (minus the hard-disk).

  • MikeD #40 8 years ago

    proof? I thought it was well-documented. Though I think it was designed before ATI bought the ARTX design team.

    anywho, here's an interesting article about all the tech in current consoles:

    <a href=http ://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000288>link< /a>
    I've conceniently linked that to the gamecube section.

    any more info about cube/ati must be easily found by googling I imagine.

    And if you say you are serious about the ps2 you would convince me a lot more by telling me what techincal achievements have been made on it that are comparable to the doom 3 on the xbox instead of just saying 'Actually, I am'. :-)

  • rygel #41 8 years ago

    Pirotic: As for Gamecube, i agree with Steven - it can do anything the xbox can (minus the hard-disk).

    Erm... Actually no... The gamecube "Flipper" chip has actually a fixed function pipeline. So no programmable vertex and pixel shaders can be used.

    MikeD: The videocard in the gamecube is the same core that later became the radeon 9700-9800 series.

    I don't see how this could be the case given what I have just said above; as we all know the 9700-9800 have vertex and pixel shaders in abundance.

    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 14:50

  • steven #42 8 years ago

    Seen it before.

    What i wanted was proof thatwas the videocard in the gamecube is the same core that later became the radeon 9700-9800 series. I just wanted a link to that NOT the comparisons of all three consoles.

    Poly Counts: PS2 is up to the Job.
    Unified lighting model: PS2 is up to the job (ala Silent Hill 3)
    Bump Maps: Can be done on PS2 via software (Yes it takes a hit on hardware but still feasible)

    As for technical achievments, Onimusha 3 on PS2 have you seen the effects used in that game?

  • steven #43 8 years ago

    "Erm... Actually no... The gamecube "Flipper" chip has actually a fixed function pipeline. So no programmable vertex and pixel shaders can be used."

    Why then does Star Wars rebel strike used that effect extensively?????
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 14:59

  • MikeD #44 8 years ago

    I've seen onimusha 3 and you can't really compare a prerendered background with some guy walking around with an fps. That's just not the way it works.

    Ignoring that i still wasn't impressed with onimusha 3 graphically, sorry.

    Bumpmaps the way and quantity Doom 3 has are not feasible on the ps2, considering it's hardware. And then there's still the memory.


    The gamecube flipper chip is of course not exactly the same as the 9700. But it's the same team that designed it. There must be at least some similarities. In any case it should be as powerful as the ramped up geforce 3 the xbox has.

  • steven #45 8 years ago

    "I've seen onimusha 3 and you can't really compare a prerendered background with some guy walking around with an fps. That's just not the way it works."

    You admit that Onimusha 3's backgrounds are good enough to be called pre-rendered eh? But guess what? They are rendered in FULL 3D. Amazing eh?

    "Ignoring that i still wasn't impressed with onimusha 3 graphically, sorry."
    I can also say I am not impressed with DOOM 3 XBOX. Point?

    "Bumpmaps the way and quantity Doom 3 has are not feasible on the ps2, considering it's hardware."

    Proof?

    "And then there's still the memory."

    I accept but you could load data via checkpoints can't you?

    "The gamecube flipper chip is of course not exactly the same as the 9700. But it's the same team that designed it. There must be at least some similarities. In any case it should be as powerful as the ramped up geforce 3 the xbox has."

    You still haven't shown me proof?
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 16:29

  • MikeD #46 8 years ago

    proof schmoof. You want proof on bumpmapping, you won't get it because there is no proof. But you have to wonder why many games manage to look better on xbox/gamecube. Often because they have the power left to do extra anti-aliasing and such. (splinter cell looked better, prince of persia and so on).

    You want proof the core is exactly the same, you won't get it because there is no proof, and of course it's not exactly the same. But if you discuss hardware this way there is very little to discuss, because you'll always have to speculate to some degree unless you work at all companies.

    I haven't played onimusha 3 long, but I remember I wasn't too impressed. I'll pay more attention next time.

  • MikeD #47 8 years ago

    Looking at the onimusha 3 screenshots in Eurogamer right now I'd say: no it is not at all impressive, and I wouldn't have mistaken it for prerendered backgrounds. It's been more than a week since I played, and I don't have photographics memory.

  • steven #48 8 years ago

    "proof schmoof. You want proof on bumpmapping, you won't get it because there is no proof. But you have to wonder why many games manage to look better on xbox/gamecube. Often because they have the power left to do extra anti-aliasing and such. (splinter cell looked better, prince of persia and so on)."

    Its you trying to prove me wrong about a version of DOOM 3 being possible on PS2 and for me to believe you, you need to give substantial proof otherwise your statements are as valid as me claiming the SNES could do Resident Evil 4!

    "You want proof the core is exactly the same, you won't get it because there is no proof, and of course it's not exactly the same. But if you discuss hardware this way there is very little to discuss, because you'll always have to speculate to some degree unless you work at all companies. "

    So if there is no proof then its OK. I wanted to believe you here but since there is no proof?

    "I haven't played onimusha 3 long, but I remember I wasn't too impressed. I'll pay more attention next time."

    Please pay more attention :)

  • steven #49 8 years ago

    Screenshots are not the best way to judge games. I mean look at those new XBOX doom 3 shots they are horrible.

  • MikeD #50 8 years ago

    But Doom 3 won't be done on ps2, so how could one get real proof? You can't; but reason tells me that it wouldn't be able to do it. Like I said: if you argue only about things for which there are definite proof then you don't argue much.

    But apparently it is o.k. to make unsubstantiated claims that something CAN run a game, but it isn't o.k. to say it can't? A bit odd.

    Let's say theoretically that if a team completely rebuilt the engine for the ps2 hardware and added extra checkpoints it might be able to do it. That probably isn't economically sound to do and would take ages. So the practical power of the xbox is bigger in this case than the gamecube and the ps2 because the xbox is x86 technology.


    The core in the flipper and on the 9700 isn't the same. Not only was there a year's time inbetween them but the crew at ATI also had to take into account the legacy of the older cards, a company never starts from scratch on one. So you were right on that one, but I'd be surprised if there weren't at least some similarities. Especially since it was the team with the artx crew in there that worked on the r300 core while the crew that made the radeon 8500 worked on the generation the would exceed it (and failed, I might add. But that's another story.)
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 15:35

  • Pirotic #51 8 years ago

    just done some research, indeed - the gamecube GPU is nothing like the Radeon 9700/9800 series, and therefore please discard what i said about the gamecube as i was misinformed ;)

    bottom line is, Doom 3 doesn't push alot of polygons, it doesn't even require that much RAM - what it does require are programable pixel shaders so the PS2 and Cube are out of the question.

    and yes, you could 'recreate' the effects using the CPU, but seeing as its already suffering framerate problems on the xbox i doubt it could be pulled off on the PS2 or Cube.

  • steven #52 8 years ago

    "But Doom 3 won't be done on ps2, so how could one get real proof? You can't; but reason tells me that it wouldn't be able to do it. Like I said: if you argue only about things for which there are definite proof then you don't argue much."

    Also if you argue without proof the you points are as valid as anyone elses.

    "But apparently it is o.k. to make unsubstantiated claims that something CAN run a game, but it isn't o.k. to say it can't? A bit odd. "

    Prove me otherwise then.

    "Let's say theoretically that if a team completely rebuilt the engine for the ps2 hardware and added extra checkpoints it might be able to do it. That probably isn't economically sound to do and would take ages. So the practical power of the xbox is bigger in this case than the gamecube and the ps2 because the xbox is x86 technology. "

    So it is the teams inability to 'optimise' rather than the power of the cube and PS2 that is to blame eh?


  • steven #53 8 years ago

    "bottom line is, Doom 3 doesn't push alot of polygons, it doesn't even require that much RAM"

    I am with you there

    " - what it does require are programable pixel shaders so the PS2 and Cube are out of the question."

    I am NOT with you here. The Gamecube is capable of recreating the Pixel shaders via hardware. PS2 via software though.

    "and yes, you could 'recreate' the effects using the CPU, but seeing as its already suffering framerate problems on the xbox i doubt it could be pulled off on the PS2 or Cube. "

    CPU for PS2. GPU for XBOX and CUBE.
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 15:44

  • MikeD #54 8 years ago

    No, I said theoretically. I don't think the ps2 would ever be able to. Above, Pirotic gives some good reasons why not.



  • MikeD #55 8 years ago

    You do realise that the ps2 would have to emulate through software, besides having to do all the AI, physics etc. computing? Even you have to admit that's highly unlikely.

  • steven #56 8 years ago

    "No, I said theoretically. I don't think the ps2 would ever be able to. Above, Pirotic gives some good reasons why not. "

    Thats funny because in THEORY, ALL effects used in DOOM 3 can be done on PS2 in one way or another.
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 15:50

  • steven #57 8 years ago

    "You do realise that the ps2 would have to emulate through software, besides having to do all the AI, physics etc. computing? Even you have to admit that's highly unlikely."

    Ever heard of the vector units VU1 and VU0 for PS2? Sony claims 70% of developers fail to use them properly. Maybe a bit of programming skills would make the PS2 capable of doing this.

  • steven #58 8 years ago


    "There is no way Doom 3 can ever be ported to PS2 or Gamecube in it's current incarnation, without reducing the technology to the point where it ceases to be more than intellectual property linking the license. "

    Proof please? Tell me the effects this game uses that are impossible to implement on Gamecube.

    "The Gamecube's limitation is somewhat involved."

    What limitations?

    "ArtX developed the flipper VPU, and this is indeed the core around which R300 is built. However, compromises in fill rate and pipeline architecture means it only has a DX6/7 generation pipe."

    FLIPPER LSI GPU you mean?
    What compromises in fillrate and pipeline architecture elaborate.

    " So as ArtX tell developers, it's only possible to generate the effect of shaders by manipulation of the pipe for very basic post-processing or by using multi-texturing."

    The TEV pipline can be used to do shaders extensively and it is under programmer control.

    " The latter eats bandwidth and wouldn't be able to cope with Doom3's requirements even at 100x100 or some such resolution."

    You do know that 8 simultaneous textures can be done on gamecube per pass? How does this eat bandwidth?

    "Carmack is using fragment shaders, but the key is programmability - PS2 doesn't have any such support. Shaders control the interaction of light and texture, without which you can't create Doom3's bumpmapping effects, like the rippling caked blood on the fat zombie's stomach, all the stuff that makes the game come out at you."

    Agreed. But remember Gamecube can do ALL these thing via hardware. PS2 thru software.

    "Doom3 without all that stuff looks like Quake 3, basically. On top of which you'd need to run a Havoc2 quality physics engine on a PS2 which is pretty unlikely. A Gamecube has a better chance of doing decent physics, but the ram on it probably won't be fast enough. "

    Havok 2 is very possible on PS2 as shown in the new game called Merceneries and even Max Payne 2 did that.
    Gamecube has the fastest RAM technology available so how then can it not be fast enough?


    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 17:43

  • Pirotic #59 8 years ago

    but even the PSone could do all of doom 3's effects in software if you really wanted it to. :p

    the bottom line is sure, you could port it over to the PS2 or Gamecube if you spent enough time on optimisations and graphical trickery, but they'd never look and perform as well as the xbox version.

    i suspect if you used the texture multipassing on the gamecube to good effect, you could emulate some of the effects closely, but it wouldn't be as accurate as the real deal.
    Edited by 2 at 20/05/04 @ 18:04

  • MikeD #60 8 years ago

    If a 233 mhz cpu would be capable of emulating these effects and still running a game at full speed why would any pc or console need a videocard?

    edit: as pirotic above me already states. Beaten by 16 seconds ;-).
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 17:58

  • steven #61 8 years ago

    "all these technicalitys are doing my head in, the gamecube cannot possibly do all the effects which the xbox version at a playable framerate without alot of compromise's."

    Again I ask WHAT effects can XBOX do that Gamecube can't?

    "Saying that a PS2 could do it "in software" isnt very helpfull, the PSone could technically do all of Doom 3s effects "in software", but its never going to be playable."

    But on PS2 it will be playable due to superior CPU and overall architecture.

  • Pirotic #62 8 years ago

    steven, im not trying to get "high and mightly" but i've coded for the PS2 and Xbox and the biggest problem i can see is that in order to even emulate these effects, your going to need alot of framebuffers.

    now take the huge resolution of the textures we're talking about here (they had to seriously cut them down for the xbox, but they are still huge by PS2 standards) and imagine just how much VRAM you'd require for all these effects.

    once you've allocated that ram to the visual effects, your going to have nothing left over for the game, the maps, the animations, the audio.

    not to mention the huge overheads in terms of CPU for emulating these effects, the Xbox can do them in the GPU putting no strain at all on its CPU.

    now even if you got john carmack himself to do low level coding the 233mhz CPU just wouldn't be upto the task.

    it simply isnt possible on PS2, even if you somehow found a way to get the processing side done, the memory restriction isnt something you can overcome.
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 18:12

  • steven #63 8 years ago

    First up, do you agree it can't run on a 233Mhz PS2? If you need proof for that it's self evident - the fact that one of the biggest intellectual properties of all time is not appearing on the biggest platform of all time, despite being made by a company who love farming out their tech.

    The PS2 engine running at approx 295 Mhz is a completely different architecture from a 733 Mhz intel so you can't compare their speed correctly.
    How do you know the deal isn't exclusive That Microsoft didn't pay for an exclusive version?

    "Architectures, cache, FPUs, it all counts, but name we one 233mhz server chip from any stable that could run something of Doom3's class. "

    Look above ^

    "And you keep mentioning software, doing things in software.. For that you need huge CPU time overheads, and you need RAM, both of which are in short supply on PS2. "

    The effects that require software are few so it is still feasible to implement them.

    "As for Gamecube, that's more interesting to discuss, at least."

    Yeah a cube is up to the job.

  • steven #64 8 years ago

    Pirotic i am NOT implying that a PS2 version will look as good as the current xbox one, but to tell me it is impossible to do on PS2, that i refuse to believe let alone Gamecube.

  • Pirotic #65 8 years ago

    "The effects that require software are few so it is still feasible to implement them. "

    dude, you've just shot yourself in the foot - the whole backbone of carmacks latest baby is based on shaders, its what makes it unique from the previous engines and its why it was created to begin with - to use the latest functions of the latest graphics cards as much as possible.

    Your basically saying they should get the Quake3 area engine, dump the doom3 maps in and say "looks its doom 3" :p
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 18:16

  • MikeD #66 8 years ago

    "The Flipper graphics core is a fairly simple fixed function GPU aided by some very powerful amounts of memory bandwidth, but first onto the architecture of the graphics core. Flipper always operates on 4 pixels at a time using its 4 pixel pipelines; each of those pipelines is capable of applying one texture per pipeline which immediately tips you off that the ArtX design wasn't influenced by ATI at all. Since the Radeon and GeForce2, both ATI and NVIDIA's cores have been able to process a minimum of two textures per pixel in each of their pipelines which came quite in handy since none of today's games are single textured anymore.

    The fact that the Flipper's T&L is a fixed function T&L unit is a bit of a disappointment as well but it would have been impossible for ArtX to implement ATI's SmartShader programmable pixel and vertex shaders into their design and still meet Nintendo's strict deadlines. The one thing that is playing to the GameCube's favor is that the Flipper GPU was designed solely with console gaming in mind, and the input that went into the T&L unit was much more closely tied to the developers than some of the earlier T&L units for desktop PC graphics cards. Although it may be better suited for its target use than the earliest T&L units for PCs, there is no skirting the fact that with a fixed function T&L pipeline there are limitations to exactly what game developers will be able to do. After seeing what over two years of fixed function T&L support in games for the PC was like, we'd hope for much more out of developer use of Flipper's GPU.

    Anti-aliasing is very important when it comes to console games and it's thus very important that Flipper offer AA support. The core does feature support for a 7-sample multi-sample AA algorithm but it's clear that turning on 7-sample AA isn't exactly the most realistic option. ATI informed us that the number of samples is adjustable and can be set by the developer, but as was the case with Xbox, we did not see any examples of AA being implemented in any of the launch titles.

    Based on the operating frequency of the core (162MHz) you can tell that the Flipper graphics core isn't a fill-rate monster, but what it is able to do is portray itself as a very efficient GPU. The efficiency comes from the use of embedded DRAM."

    from the anandtech article at:
    http ://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1566&p=3

    So no 8 pixels per pass but 4.

    And no smartshader. Also not a huge fillrate, which I believe Doom 3 needs, which is why Carmack was so excited about the r300/nv30 and above technologies.

  • MikeD #67 8 years ago

    from said article about cpu's:

    "While the PS2's Emotion Engine has a lot of potential, developers have continuously stated that the platform is too difficult to program for. With both GameCube and Xbox using widely available and common CPU platforms, the real competition exists between the Cube's Gekko and the Xbox's Intel CPU.

    In terms of raw performance, the Celeron 733 (4-way set associative L2) will outperform the PowerPC 750 running at 500MHz in any of the synthetic benchmarks we've seen. We can only assume that a 733MHz CPU with a 133MHz FSB and 8-way set associative L2 cache would only be faster than the Gekko giving the Xbox the CPU performance advantage.

    Both platforms have good compiler support and the tilt of the hat goes to IBM's Gekko in terms of having a very flexible ISA.

    Where the GameCube does clearly come out on top however is in heat production and die size. The Gekko produces around 1/3 the amount of heat as the Xbox CPU and measures in at close to half of the die size. This leads to tremendous cost savings in the production of the CPU that translates into the ability to price the GameCube at $199 instead of $299 like the Playstation 2 and Xbox."

    and gpu's:

    "The PS2's Graphics Synthesizer is entirely too dependent on extreme parallelism in order to fill its 16 pixel pipelines which could be the cause of many of the slowdowns we've seen in games for the platform. Many of Electronic Arts' titles have been ported to both GameCube and Xbox and the first thing everyone seems to notice is that the slowdown problems that existed with the PS2 are now gone.

    The GameCube wins in terms of GPU efficiency courtesy of the embedded 1T-SRAM from MoSys. However the use of a fixed function T&L pipeline is a bit of a turn off for the GPU. Again this is another situation in which it would have been beneficial to have ATI's input into the design of the product before it was finalized. It is a shame that ATI acquired ArtX after the design was already completed otherwise we might have seen a programmable T&L pipeline instead.

    Raw GPU power and feature set does go to the NV2A core that is in the Xbox. Games such as Dead or Alive 3 are perfect examples of how easy it is for developers to write these custom pixel and vertex shader programs as well as how great the results can be.

    Both Flipper and the NV2A support texture-compression which plays a major role in the use of higher-resolution textures in games. On the launch titles for the GameCube we've seen a number of lower resolution textures being used compared to the Xbox launch titles. That could just be a sign of the early adopters not taking advantage of the technology yet or it could be due to a lack of main memory bandwidth, it's too early to tell."

  • steven #68 8 years ago

    Piroti
    The reason ID gave for doom 3 being impossible on PS2 had nothing to do with the shaders according to the interviews i read.

    "So no 8 pixels per pass but 4."
    Hmm you mean textures?
    If so then why did a GC launch title do 8.

    "And no smartshader."

    RS3 a cube title used pixel and custom shaders in their game so am i to believe that?

    "Also not a huge fillrate, which I believe Doom 3 needs, which is why Carmack was so excited about the r300/nv30 and above technologies."

    At least the fill rate is REALWORLD unlike those of microsofts' :)

    "In terms of raw performance, the Celeron 733 (4-way set associative L2) will outperform the PowerPC 750 running at 500MHz in any of the synthetic benchmarks we've seen."
    The benchmarks I have seen tells me the PowerPC at 400 Mhz is equivalent to a 700 Mhz intel processor.

    "We can only assume that a 733MHz CPU with a 133MHz FSB and 8-way set associative L2 cache would only be faster than the Gekko giving the Xbox the CPU performance advantage. "

    Like they said ASSUME. Assumptions are not facts.


    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 18:31

  • MikeD #69 8 years ago

    This is Anandtech, why would they lie?

    And yes I meant textures, sorry :-).


    edit: oh, and why don't you link us to those interviews. I'd be interested in reading them. I didn't know they had elaborately discussed the issue.
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 18:31

  • Pirotic #70 8 years ago

    as john carmack once said

    "We knew that PS2 and Gamecube were out of the question due to particular graphics requirements (global illumination, normal mapping, shadow volumes etc.)"

    global illumination and shadow volumes are done using shaders on the xbox, not sure about normal mapping.

    gamecube could do them to some degree, but it'd be slower and with only 24mb of vram you'd also have to downgrade the graphics in other areas (textures etc)
    Edited by 2 at 20/05/04 @ 18:37

  • steven #71 8 years ago

    Pirotic Was it John carmack or Vicarious Visions that said that? I dont remember John carmack saying so.

    MikeD concerning interviews there's one at Gamepro.com and also one at Computer and videogames. com but can't find the link yet.

    How will it be slower since we know gamecube's memory has the fastest access time/latency? How?
    Edited by 3 at 20/05/04 @ 18:40

  • Pirotic #72 8 years ago

    damn, you got me *cue death animation*

    Vicarious Visions said it, but thats still a bloody reliable source - seeing as they've seen the source-code, engine specs etc.

    i'll bow out of this conversation now, as its geting increasingly illogical.

    neither PS2 or gamecube could not do Doom 3 justice, of course you could remove features and water them down so they'd run on the platforms but if your happy with watered down graphics you'd still be playing the originals.
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 18:44

  • steven #73 8 years ago

    "damn, you got me *cue death animation*"

    I thought i did

    "Vicarious Visions said it, but thats still a bloody reliable source - seeing as they've seen the source-code, engine specs etc."

    A team that couldn't port Jedi Outcast to the Gamecube properly are NOT a reliable source to me. Their programming skills are questionable.

    "i'll bow out of this conversation now, as its geting increasingly illogical. "

    In what sense.

    "the ps2 cnore gamecube could not do Doom 3 justice, of course you could remove features and water them down so they'd run on the platforms but thats not the point is it? its all about the graphics :D "

    You haven't proven anything.

    "What do you mean by fatest access time? Compared to what?"

    Don't you know that 1T-SRAM which the gamecube's main memory uses has the fastest access time out of the three consoles?

    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 18:49

  • Pirotic #74 8 years ago

    i may not of proven anything, but nore have you other than blabbing on about statistics you clearly dont even understand.

    anybody who thinks its possibly to emulate bump-mapping, shaders, shadow volumes and illumination all in software on PS2 needs to learn programing and give it a try, as neither logic or common sense seems to work.

    the PS2 is the biggest console, Doom 3 is a big game - if they could port it to the PS2, and make a bucket load of money - dont you think they would of done?

    Steven, may i ask if your a compuer programmer for a living? or if you own an xbox? as i think you answer lies in their somewhere.

  • steven #75 8 years ago

    "i may not of proven anything, but nore have you other than blabbing on about statistics you clearly dont even understand."

    What you are saying IS what you ASSUME so keep your assumptions to yourself .

    "the PS2 is the biggest console, Doom 3 is a big game - if they could port it to the PS2, and make a bucket load of money - dont you think they would of done?"

    Microsoft paid for Doom 3 to be exclusive.

    "Steven, may i ask if your a compuer programmer for a living? or if you own an xbox? as i think you answer lies in their somewhere."

    I do program but not professionally and i do have an XBOX happy now?

  • Pirotic #76 8 years ago

    man, i feel so stupid..

    just went upstairs and jesus was their playing the PS2 version, also turns out they've canceled the PS3 - as they've just realised they can emulate all the new features on the PS2.

    anyway, would stick around to apologize but i gotta get back to playing the GBA version.

    ;)

  • MikeD #77 8 years ago

    I agree with pirotic. Your constant strange demand for 'proof' whenever someone argues something is highly annoying and you are basically ruining what could otherwise be an interesting and enjoyable conversation.
    Maybe you shouldn't act so defensively. Yes pirotic assumes you know nothing of the statistics you mention because it seems that way and you do nothing to make it seem otherwise. Whenever the conversation gets interesting you ask for proof or mention some vague game or the other which uses some option does it must be true.

    You even accuse a highly respected and professional hardware site of lying, for no good reason. You have effectively killed the conversation which I think is a shame.

  • steven #78 8 years ago

    " agree with pirotic. Your constant strange demand for 'proof' whenever someone argues something is highly annoying and you are basically ruining what could otherwise be an interesting and enjoyable conversation."

    Oh so you expect me to believe every claim you make without proof to back up those calims? I ain't stupid.

    "Maybe you shouldn't act so defensively. Yes pirotic assumes you know nothing of the statistics you mention because it seems that way and you do nothing to make it seem otherwise. Whenever the conversation gets interesting you ask for proof or mention some vague game or the other which uses some option does it must be true."

    Yes I know nothing about what i am talking yet none of you who 'know' what they are saying are able to provide proof? The irony of this is hilarious.

    "You even accuse a highly respected and professional hardware site of lying, for no good reason. You have effectively killed the conversation which I think is a shame."

    Some of those statements were assumptions from that site NOT facts.

    Without proof your statements are as valid as all those things Pirotic just said about PS 2 PS 3 and GBA......
    Edited by 2 at 20/05/04 @ 19:23

  • MikeD #79 8 years ago

    So you are saying your claims are also that invalid.

    Good that we cleared that up.

  • steven #80 8 years ago

    Did any of you accept that they were valid in the first place?

  • MikeD #81 8 years ago

    That's not the point. You say our claims are invalid because we didn't show any proof. Since you did not prove anything yourself are your claims also invalid? From the beginning that is.

    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 19:33

  • steven #82 8 years ago

    Yeah you are right my comments ARE invalid AS long as YOURS are TOO UNLESS you provide proof. But I DO have proof for my statements I just can't find links yet.

  • steven #83 8 years ago

    A look at the gaming industry right now is all the proof anyone could want.

    Hmm really seeing as GC games to me are technically more advanced than XBOX games.
    "The PC has graduated to fully pixel-shaded, bumpmapped games, a la Far Cry (the console port will be interesting to see), Doom3, Half Life 2. This is the 'next gen' technology, also in games like X2: The Threat, Singles, etc. In between there was a "step-up gen" of real time shadowing and lighting, such as Chrome, NWO, etc. "

    Using the TEV creates the same effects. Again what does pixel shading do that the TEV cannot?

    "The X-Box is the only console to follow the step-gen, in games like Halo 2, Deus Ex:IW, Thief 3. Games which uses heavy shaders and the trademark shadows. "

    RE4 uses trademark shadows and RS3 for gamecube used these techniques.

    "This generation has simply not come to PS2 and Gamecube. It's as simple as that. Where we've seen those games ported, they've had the heavy shader, pixel and vertex, functions parred down or dropped. "

    Examples??????


    If you don't believe all the hardware tech stuff, it doesn't matter, just look at the state of the console gaming industry. Where there's a will there's a way, and there was no way. Money would have found it :) I assure you the mighty Killzone on PS2 won't have pixel-shaded graphics and shadows either. Nor will anything on the Gamecube. Halo 2 will. Thief 3 on X-Box will. Of course it won't compare to PC, but it will run. "

    Like I said RS3 uses these techniques.

    "Now you've put me in the odd position of defending Microsoft, oh dear :) Definitely time to drop this conversation ;-) "

    Drop when you want to.

  • MikeD #84 8 years ago

    Are you talking about rs3: racing simulation or Rainbow Six 3?

  • steven #85 8 years ago

    RS3 =Star wars rogue squaron 3 rebel strike.

  • Pirotic #86 8 years ago

    lol, we should send this guy off to the next E3, would be bloody funny.

    Over at the atari Stand..
    Talker: "Unreal Engine 3 users per-pixel lighting fo..."
    Steven: "ROUGUE SQUADRON DID IT!!!"
    Talker "Using a 20 million polygon high resolution mesh, which is then mapped onto the low polygon 20,000 mesh to ma..."
    Steven: "ROGUE SQUADRON DID IT!!!"
    Talker: "All these textures use 3 pass pixel shaders to cre.."
    Steven: "erm... erm.... ROGUE SQUADRON EMULATED IT!111!!"

    :D

    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 19:54

  • steven #87 8 years ago

    You are making silly comments now.

  • Pirotic #88 8 years ago

    and saying a gamecube launch title used shaders when the hardware doesn't even support it makes sense does it?

    as for "Trademark Shadows" - that isnt even a feature, he was just saying they are a trademark of modern shader-driven games..

    so whats this fancy "Trademark Shadows" technique RE4 uses then?

  • steven #89 8 years ago

    RS3 is NOT a launch title. Like I said RS3 used pixel shaders, cube maps, light scattering, self shadowing, unified lighting model, max of 8 texture layers per pass, max 8 hardware lights, Bump mapping on every surface all at 60 FPS and at over 20 million polys per sec. Proof me otherwise that it did not do so.

    exactly see that interview?
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 20:02

  • Pirotic #90 8 years ago

    arg, at least read the bloody thing instead of just picking out words at choice.

    from the interview:
    "we’ve already heard you are using the Flipper to simulate pixel shaders"

    so in otherwords, it doesn't use pixel-shaders, it simulates them, as in - it looks almost the same but it still isnt pixel shading - we've already discussed it, you can simulate some effects but the sheer quantity of the shader effects would put to much strain on the flipper.

    As for the "bump mapping on every surface" which you claim.

    I can't think of a single game which bump-maps every surface, bump-mapping is an effect used on certain textures to add shadows/detail to an otherwise flat surface. and while some games use it alot (halo for instance), using it on every surface would be hideous.
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 20:16

  • steven #91 8 years ago

    That is an ignorant statement they created the same kind of effect which means it is essentially the same.

    "In Rogue Leader we used a simple texture, this time we are simulating water physics and apply these in realtime with complex shaders."

    what about that?

    And remember Factor 5 also said there is NO effect the XBOX can do that the GC can't. Can you disprove them?

    Funny as you are guilty of the same thing (picking quotes) I stand by my words. The Gamecube CAN create the same effect that Pixel shading can so it can essentially Do pixel shading just in a different way.
    Edited by 3 at 20/05/04 @ 20:22

  • Pirotic #92 8 years ago

    yes, its essentially the same

    except a programable shader uses very little overhead on hardware which supports it, but using multitexturing to "simulate" the effects (which they've done on gamecube) which eats memory bandwidth for lunch.

    which is why doom wont appear on gamecube, which is what this discussion is all about.

    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 20:22

  • steven #93 8 years ago

    yes, its essentially the same
    exactly.

    "except a programable shader uses very little overhead on hardware which supports it, but using multitexturing to "simulate" the effects (which they've done on gamecube) which eats memory bandwidth for lunch. "

    Funny because Factor 5 claimed these effect are no more complex to simulate on GC than on XBOX.

    "which is why doom wont appear on gamecube, which is what this discussion is all about. "

    Doom 3 won't appear on GC bcos ID won't waste their time creating the same effect on GC via a method they are not useed to. Oh and Microsoft....
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 20:27

  • Pirotic #94 8 years ago

    Indeed peter, you raise some good arguments :)

    (but im not sure what heat has to do with anything, lol)

    the processing speed i feel would be an issue with the gamecube, Doom3 is a lot more advanced than RS, but like you said - if it could run RS at 60fps it could at least give doom 3 a fighting chance.

    but from what i've seen, its really pushing the xbox to the limits - and the xbox CPU is better (or at least on par) with that of the gamecube AND the shading effects are done via the xbox's GPU.

    so even if the shader simulation on the gamecube didnt use up too much CPU it'd probably still slow it down enough for it to be an unplausable conversion.

    not to mention the shading simulation would have to mimick almost exactly the PC/xbox version else it may have an effect on gameplay.

    my main problem is the RAM, it has 24mb of vram which isnt really enough to begin with, but simulating the effects will take up a great deal of that. im certain it just wouldn't have enough ram to do the job.

    if it dropped a couple of the shader effects, i think it could run at probably at a similar frame-rate to the xbox, but returning to the argument the bottom line was it couldn't do the same as the xbox at the same framerate.

    for despite being more advanced in the xbox in other areas its still lacking in the areas which matter the most to doom3's performance.

    none of us can really prove it either way. we'd really need to find out exactly how much ram simulating the effects would take on the gamecube.
    Edited by 2 at 20/05/04 @ 20:43

  • steven #95 8 years ago

    The Xbox Doom3 code is not more advanced than RS3. The PC one yes.

    Shading effects are done via GPU for gamecube too. Your point?

    How come these so called problems weren't apparent in RS3 which uses more effects than DOOM 3 XBOX. Not to mention running at double the frame rate and much more polygons.
    Edited by 3 at 20/05/04 @ 20:45

  • Pirotic #96 8 years ago

    "How come these so called problems weren't apparent in RS3 which uses more effects than DOOM 3 XBOX. Not to mention running at double the frame rate and much more polygons"

    its not the number of effects, its how much processing power they take up, plus i dont believe you for a second that RS3 has more effects than Doom3 unless you have some sort of evidence for that, which would be pretty difficult considering Doom3 isnt even finished yet :p

    The thing about the effects in RS3, is that they were designed for the gamecube from scratch - and therefore they look nice, and probably dont push the hardware too hard either leaving plenty of cycles for polygons etc, the lighting is done using a built-in feature exclusive to the flipper for instance - which was used for the up close lighting effects and doesn't have any CPU overhead (ATI were impressed by RS)

    if they were to make a conversion of a game which used custom shader effects, they'd have to mimmick them almost exactly - which could use ALOT more ram and processing power than aproximating the effect.

    As for ram speed, indeed im aware that the gamecube has very fast ram. but thats not an issue - if the machine doesn't have enough ram its the medium seek time which will matter, and mini-dvdroms may be pretty quick - but its nowhere near fast enough to be used as an alternative to the extra ram the xbox offers.

    And i haven't even started on how the xbox version uses the hard-drive to cache data, such as sound, in order to free up some ram.

    (sometimes when you fire a gun for the first time, it pauses for a split second as it loads the sound, hopefully they'll optimize that)

    the bottom line here i think is, people are slagging off the xbox version saying the textures are too blurry, the framerate isnt stable etc - and i've tried to prove to you that in order to port this onto the gamecube it'd a.) have less ram to work with and b.) have less Cpu to work with, i dont think people would be happy with the result, which is why it isnt going to happen.

    wish some techies could back me up here ;)
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 21:01

  • steven #97 8 years ago

    its not the number of effects, its how much processing power they take up, plus i dont believe you for a second that RS3 has more effects than Doom3 unless you have some sort of evidence for that, which would be pretty difficult considering Doom3 isnt even finished yet :p

    What else are they adding? For now DOOM 3 on XBOX is NOT as ADVANCED as RS3. Simple eyes tell. Bump mapping everywhere, self shadowing everywhere, light scattering, 20+ million polys/sec at 60 FPS, cube maps etc.

    "The thing about the effects in RS3, is that they were designed for the gamecube from scratch - and therefore they look nice, and probably dont push the hardware too hard either leaving plenty of cycles for polygons etc, the lighting is done using a built-in feature exclusive to the flipper for instance - which was used for the up close lighting effects and doesn't have any CPU overhead (ATI were impressed by RS) "

    So if they were to optimise DOOM 3 to fit gamecube's strength then it is entirely feasible eh? That what i have been saying these consoles are comletely different so to achieve simiilar results would mean tackling the problem in a completely different manner.

    "if they were to make a conversion of a game which used custom shader effects, they'd have to mimmick them almost exactly - which could use ALOT more ram and processing power than aproximating the effect. "

    Not the case with RS3 though :)

    "As for ram speed, indeed im aware that the gamecube has very fast ram. but thats not an issue - if the machine doesn't have enough ram its the medium seek time which will matter, and mini-dvdroms may be pretty quick - but its nowhere near fast enough to be used as an alternative to the extra ram the xbox offers. "

    How then does Metroid Prime NOT load with such complex and Huge geometry?

    "And i haven't even started on how the xbox version uses the hard-drive to cache data, such as sound, in order to free up some ram. "

    The hard drive is essentially a L3 cache used to drive data which the cube already has on board so couple that with the Cube's drive seek time and you see it is not entirely impossible.

    "the bottom line here i think is, people are slagging off the xbox version saying the textures are too blurry, the framerate isnt stable etc - and i've tried to prove to you that in order to port this onto the gamecube it'd a.) have less ram to work with and b.) have less Cpu to work with, i dont think people would be happy with the result, which is why it isnt going to happen. "

    No ID are too lazy to optimize it to the cube's strength. But then who can blame them? How many copies can DOOM 3sell on cube?

    wish some techies could back me up here too ;)
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 21:15

  • MikeD #98 8 years ago

    First of all you can't compare 2 different genres with eachother technologically. That just doesn't work.

    Rogue Squadron 3 has completely different set of rendering priorities than an fps game.

  • steven #99 8 years ago

    RS3 is technically far more advanced than that Quake 3 engine. I believe even the dreamcast managed that.

    'Splinter Cell'
    You are not serious. GC has managed Pandora tomorrow without any serious compromise. Heck even PS 2 managed that too.

    You talk about fill rate yet the PS2 actually has the best Real world fillrate too of the 3.

    Metroid Prime and it's forth coming sequel, Rogue Leader series on Cube all use per pixel technology. It seems you know little about Cube games....

    There is simply NO effect the XBOX can do that can't be done on Gamecube.
    Edited by 4 at 20/05/04 @ 22:01

  • MikeD #100 8 years ago

    Are you guys brothers? So far I've been ignoring Peter mostly because he seems to only use marketing lists by Sony(no offense though:-)), on the contrary to Steven, who seems to use postmortems by factor 5. Only now did I realise the last names are the same.

    anyway, from factor 5 themselves:

    "Dealing with Gamecube's two-part memory architecture, which has 24MB of "fast" (very fast, actually) RAM and 16MB of "slow" RAM that is pretty close to a small ROM cartridge in terms of access and speed, can be a bit of a hassle. This is especially true if one has to make multiple subsystems - implemented by multiple programmers - using the ARAM at the same time. Using the main processor's virtual memory unit, we mapped a section of the ARAM area into the normal address space. We ended up using this dynamic mapping system to avoid having to deal with code overlays by moving code into this virtual memory area, as well as to make access to data in ARAM much easier and more flexible then with manual ARAM DMA transfers."

    from:
    http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20020501/engel_02.htm


    Yes they have some very fast ram, but their other ram is rather slow (much slower than xbox ram) which was probabyl near to useless for a game as Doom 3.

    Which, i think, is the point 'hardware person' was making. You say rogue squadron is technically more advanced than doom 3 on xbox. While I dispute that, even if it's true it's not going to make a bit of difference on development for Doom 3. Fps games have always been the most taxing games of all. They've always taxed the memory/videocard/cpu alike, and as a combination, with the shaders the gamecube would ahve to simulate it just wouldn't be up to a Doom 3 that's the same looking as the xbox version.
    Edited by 1 at 20/05/04 @ 22:10

  • MikeD #101 8 years ago

    And if it all is just a question of money, as HP states, why isn't Sony buying any of these games, since you claim it can also do this.

    Can't say sony isn't interested in FPS games, timesplitters, MoH, Red Faction and Killzone prove the opposite.

  • Pirotic #102 8 years ago

    lol, came back and you guys are still at it :)

    its not possible, it'll never happen - you have more chance of seeing a eurogamer thread stay on topic than you have Doom3 on PS2.

  • MikeD #103 8 years ago

    Since splinter cell was touched upon earlier. From the postmortem of the splinter cell ps2 port team: eukie!

    " Player comment: "There's too much loading."
    I saw some players complain that the PS2 version's loading happens too frequently. This is due to the hardware constraints - the PS2 has less memory than the Xbox and PC. We knew about this problem from the beginning. We considered making the loading process more interesting for players by displaying special effects as it occurred (some animation or sounds, etc.), but we weren't able to come up with any good ideas. We used just one such "effect" in the game, and many people probably haven't even noticed it."

    Unfortunately it isn't a very technical postmortem, it doesn't talk about pixelshaders, shadows, lighting. Just that they had to deseign very carefully for the ps2's low specs.

    But this bit shows that a game designed for xbox had too many loading points. Can you imagine what a game designed for pc would be like on ps2? from 512 mb system memory (at least) and 64 mb (at least) video memory to the ridiculously low amount of memory on the ps2. It would have loading every 2 seconds, despite it looking nowhere near what Doom 3 is supposed to look like.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/04 @ 12:04

  • 3william56 #104 8 years ago

    Jeez guys - handbags away...

    Let's cut to the end of this, before EG's servers overload.

    Both sides are right, both sides are wrong, and both sides are stubborn nerds with FAR too much time on their hands...

    Steven - There's no way either the Cube or the PS2 could display Doom 3 in the same level of detail and at the same frame rate as the Xbox version. Honest. Deal with it. Please.

    Pirotic /Hardware Guy: Wth compromised visuals (bump mapping is hardly critical to ANY game), and loading times, yes, the PS2 and Cube could do a "version" of Doom3 with the same essential gameplay, same maps and acceptable visuals. Graphics whores might b*tch about shaders and poly counts (but then, they'd be playing the PC version anyway), but the GAME would be the same. Whether you'd choose to accept the visual downgrade is a matter of personal choice (Half Life was still a fine game on the PS2, downgraded graphics or not).

    Personally, if the GAME was good, I wouldn't give a toss whether it was on a Quake 3 engine. On the other hand - if Doom3 is such a weak game that it's can't stand examination without it's pretty graphics, you can keep that PS2 conversion.

  • steven #105 8 years ago

    "Yes they have some very fast ram, but their other ram is rather slow (much slower than xbox ram) which was probabyl near to useless for a game as Doom 3."

    So now memory speed is a problem. OK if that is so, the 24 MB main memory of GC is much faster than the whole 64 MB of XBOX, your point?

    "Which, i think, is the point 'hardware person' was making. You say rogue squadron is technically more advanced than doom 3 on xbox. While I dispute that, even if it's true it's not going to make a bit of difference on development for Doom 3. Fps games have always been the most taxing games of all. They've always taxed the memory/videocard/cpu alike, and as a combination, with the shaders the gamecube would ahve to simulate it just wouldn't be up to a Doom 3 that's the same looking as the xbox version. "

    OK Metroid Prime is a FPS for GC how then does it NOT load AT ALL. If the cube's memory is such a drawbacl, then how did Metroid Prime achieve that even with the level of detail and Geometry at 60 FPS?

    "The RS3 > Doom3 tech is wrong on so many levels it's not even worth arguing about it. Even the article on which all this is based isn't disputing something like that. Plus, by your argument I could throw Shader Model 3.0 into a game and then call it more advanced than Doom3 because it uses newer code-calls from my chosen API. "

    I am wrong funny but if you are so sure that i am wrong then prove it. I still believe and I am SURE that Rebel Strike is technically superior to Doom 3 XBOX.

    "Except RS3 doesn't do that, what new tech is it using, exactly? I sent YOU that link to try and help you see through the marketing bull"

    Erm Light Scattering? A DX 9 effect (thought only possible for next gen consoles). Simulating complex shaders for various effects? Real Time IK? Real time reflection/Refraction mapping? Real time light and shaows? Bump Mapping on every surface? Still Managing to push 20+ million polys/ sec at 60 FPS with FSAA is a technical acievement on ANY console level NOW YOU give me the specs of DOOM3 XBOX and lets compare.

    "It's up to you to prove your case, if you claim the Gamecube can handle the per-pixel generation, why aren't those games being announced on Cube yet? It is all just a question of MS's money? "

    Factor 5 has already used it so has Retro studios? Can you prove otherwise?

    "its not possible, it'll never happen - you have more chance of seeing a eurogamer thread stay on topic than you have Doom3 on PS2. "

    Cos Microsoft HAS the exclusive deal eh?

    "Unfortunately it isn't a very technical postmortem, it doesn't talk about pixelshaders, shadows, lighting. Just that they had to deseign very carefully for the ps2's low specs. "

    Just as VVs reason for PS2 and CUbe's inability had nothing to do with pixel shaders too. Yes and ID or VV just had to design DOOM 3 carefully for PS2's low specs.




    Edited by 1 at 21/05/04 @ 10:43

  • steven #106 8 years ago

    "Metroid Prime loads all the time, you can see it when a door pauses before opening when you try to pass through it. It just loads little and often. The Gamecube has a nice quick drive mech. It's just not as quick as a HD though."

    Metroid Prime takes advantage of the L3 cache that the gekko possess the game is constantly streamed from the GameCube disc in burst packets. This essentially means MP is loading ALL the time but in REALTIME. What i was trying to prove was that handling ernomous data is rarely a problem with gamecube if it's advantages are taken care of. I mean technically astounding games rarely load on GC compare with XBOX and PS2 equivalents. Good Point though.


    "The PS2 sorely lacks texture memory, and this is compounded by the lack of hardware texture compression. You can see this by doing direct comparisons in games such as GTA, where the Xbox textures are blatantly clearer. A game as texture hungry as Doom III would look so blurred they'd be laughed out of town. "

    But it does not eliminate a version on PS2 completely does it?

    "Given the development time required they probably wouldn't get their money back on the Gamecube, especially when other platforms are pushing online multiplayer which is an absolute requisite for an id game, given the choice between Xbox Doom III with Live! and Gamecube without any online functions, although they may be graphically similar I know which one I'd pick, and I'm am N fanboy at heart. "

    Best thing I have heard all the while. You've made an excellent point.
    Edited by 1 at 21/05/04 @ 11:28

  • steven #107 8 years ago

    "I dont think the GC could do Doom3 as much justice as Xbox"

    Again YOU don't think. Thats your opinion and it is DEFINITELY NOT A FACT! I think DOOM3 can be done BETTER on gamecube THATS what i think so whats your point?

    " could and the joker who is claiming Rebel Strike is more technically adavanced than Doom3.... Bwahahahahahahha, Do you see normal mapping, dynamic lighting, dynamic shadows and advanced phyics all in realtime (not to mention Doom3 is in first person)?"

    Clearly shows you DON'T know the Rebel Strike engine. I am also comparing it with XBOX DOOM3. Normal Mapping isn't present in Rebel Strike I know but DOT3 bumpmapping is present on EVERY surface in Rebel Strike and I actually think it looks better than the normal maps in the XBOX version of DOOM3. Again dynamic light and shadows ARE present in REBEL STRIKE. You seem to only point out DOOM3's strong points so how about i boast about rebel strike having higher poly counts than even the PC doom 3 (20+ million), light scattering technique not found in XBOX DOOM3. Maximum of 8 layers of textures and 8 hardware lights again NOT even possible on XBOX and absent in the XBOX DOOM3. Rebel strike even runs at DOUBLE the frames per second. Did I mention the realtime IK used in that game too? Didn't see that in XBOX DOOM3. So what have you proven to me?

    " Besides Factor 5 have always been big fans of Nintendo so take whatever they say with a grain of salt."
    Also ID has NO experience with the Gamecube so am I to believe them when I even doubt the have a Gamecube development kit!

    "GC is powerfull in its own right but: Xbox>GC "

    You have no benchmark to prove that so that is just an opinion NOT a fact!

    "The GC has 24 MB of 1T-SRAM which is fast but it only translates to 2.6 GB/s where as Xbox has 6.4 GB/s to 64 mb of ram even taking into account the 1GB/s for CPU bus and 75% efficiency of Xbox ram its still more bandwith GC has to the main RAM. "

    Forgot that the bandwidth HAS to be shared with every damn thing in the hardware?

    "GC has some fast Cache(PS2s is even faster): A 1MB Embedded Texture Cache with 10.4 GB/s
    But Xbox also has cache on its GPU allthough not much is known about it except there is Texture, Pixel and Vertex cache available estimated to be around 128-256kb in size and very fast, another point which is known is:
    GC cache is either 8 times to 4 times larger than the Xbox's (128 KB or 256 KB).
    Xbox can feed it's cache with 3 times greater data per second than the GC. (based calculations from sources from segatech.com, Planet Gamecube's technical forum and Beyond3D.com) "

    You have just stated each machines strong points and i tend to agree with them but what has it got to do with DOOM3 being possible on Gamecube.



    "So GC is an efficient machine perhaps more so than Xbox but thats not to say Xbox isn't efficient either and even with efficiency taken into account the outcome is still Xbox>GC, GC simply cannot mach Xboxs raw power"

    Again without a proper benchmark, we can't know for sure whether your statement is true.
    Edited by 1 at 24/05/04 @ 11:34