Doom III: Single-Player Review

By Kristan Reed Published 6 August, 2004

Right. That's it. London's too hot - we're off to Mars.

Version tested: PC

Order yours now from Simply Games.

It's hard to figure out what's more hellish. Being trapped indoors on a hot, sticky, humid London summer day at 32 degrees C, fighting off your body's desire to dissolve into a pool of salty ooze, or being trapped on a base on Mars in the future, fighting off an endless respawning succession of Satan's minions. The fact that we had to do both at the same time in order to get a review out on time simply made the experience all the more authentic. In our spare time, we sin for fun, so hell seems like our natural home; it's like playing tourist to your future.

Doom III kicks off with a knowing nod to Valve, with an opening sequence that bears more than passing resemblance to Half-Life but feels more like a fitting tribute to their excellent ideas than an all-out lift. Still, you can't help but smile as your grizzled, muscle bound marine arrives at work, faced with orders to go and see his superior, assorted grunting co-workers and jobsworths barking at you to get a move on or moaning about their lot at the UAC base.

Single white bad guy: seeks relic to enter the gates of hell

'Doom III: Single-Player' Screenshot 1

Of course, exactly to type, your initially humdrum arrival heralds the start of hell literally breaking loose. All but a handful of your colleagues are instantly turned into shambling Dawn Of The Dead extras, fixated on killing anything in sight, and suddenly your brief is to send a distress call, before eventually taking on the culprit - who happens to be the power-crazed boss of the base Malcolm Betruger. Now, where would videogames be without some megalomaniac let loose with supernatural powers, we often wonder? No-one expected anything different, of course, but rather than being a worthless over-the-top exercise in science fiction, the narrative is actually one of the game's strong points - but more of that later.

Ultimately the narrative's a sideshow to the main event. The reason Doom III's taken so long (over four years) to emerge is evidently the sheer amount of grunt work to get the tech in the state they wanted it. The result is largely magnificent - a true next-gen engine, and the sort that most serious PC gamers have been waiting years for; a game to truly test the capabilities of recent and forthcoming graphics cards, and an engine that fellow developers will be making games with for the next five years or so. For what seems like an age, PC games have been stuck in something of an incremental rut, but what id has produced consistently surprises with the grace and subtlety on what boils down to a very straightforward shooter - once you pick your jaw up off the floor and stop drooling at what's being displayed in front of your eyes.

Everywhere you look Doom III has improved on something incidental. Just take the environments. As samey as the interiors of a 22nd Century base inevitably become, it gets away with it by making every area feel alive. Every corridor, every office, every crawl space regardless of how bland has something going on inside it. A flickering light, a burst pipe pumping out steam, a PC monitor that you can actually read (and in many cases interact with), a smashed up fixture, a knocked over chair and discarded soft drink can. It no longer feels like a generic, tiled gaming environment that anyone could put together.

No wonder it took a gazillion man-years

'Doom III: Single-Player' Screenshot 2

Almost every single environment feels hand crafted, thought through, built. At times it feels almost too real. Look through a window for the first time and see the distortion effect behind it. That, along with 1500 other things will jump out at you and make you go "ooh - look at that". Enter a connecting corridor and gaze out wide-eyed onto the rocky exteriors of the red planet with swirling dust and feel the sense of awe wash over you. You might as well be there. This could almost be the real thing. Doom III's biggest draw is the sense of heightened immersion. This isn't marketing bullshit anymore; at times you're no longer just playing a game. In your head, this could be Mars.

No amount of mental imagining via text-based narrative, or Hollywood movie blockbuster special effects, could replicate the sensation of being on that UAC base in Doom III just trudging around, alone, afraid. This is one of the greatest realisations of an interactive audio/visual experience. Ramp up the detail, buy a bigger screen, spec up the surround sound system, dim the lights. Doom III creates a special atmosphere of tension around every corner, and is exactly the sort of game you can see the audio/visual potential in - and as a result you won't mind spending money to make the most of it. To play it any other way would be like trying to play a guitar with one hand. Frankly, anyone interested owes it to themselves to make the most of what's on offer here. This, along with a bunch of other games coming soon, is a hardware company's wet dream.

Doom III starts out tight and enclosed. Enemies come at you in ones and two. It feels claustrophobic, like Resident Evil crossed with Aliens. Every fight in Doom III has you reeling on your heels; there's rarely enough firepower to just send them packing - and when there's a bunch of them, close quarters combat will have you facing hammer blows, claws and fireballs raining down, bluring your vision, accompanied by shrieks of menace and pain. You learn to back the hell off - Doom III is never an easy ride. Nevertheless, the challenge is a sound one, because you're simply revelling in the unprecedented level of detail packed into every creature, every survivor, and it only ever looks better the closer you get to them. The stills can never do them justice, but seeing them in motion is something else; not only are they designed to a level that's reaching perfection, but they're animated with such convincing fluidity it's hard to take it all in.

Architect of death wanted: must have designs on the soul

'Doom III: Single-Player' Screenshot 3

And the spectacle is heightened all the more by simply watching them recoil in accordance with the force delivered. A mere pistol shot might nudge them slightly, a shotgun might even blow their brains out close up, but whack a rocket at them, and the chances are they'll go flying with hapless velocity. The damage modelling isn't quite as expansive - in that you can't target individual limbs - but the force of destruction is no less spectacular once you see their skeleton dissolving with the shattering force of your blast. Add to that the celebrated lighting capabilities of the engine, which plays a huge part in the game. For much of the game you're in partial darkness, and Doom III makes the most of scaring the bejesus out of you, placing enemies where you least expect them, or saving them until you trigger them by picking up an innocuous object first. It's a cheap trick, but one that serves the game well by keeping the player in an almost perpetual state of fear. Eventually you almost just learn to be scared, be ready, reloaded and primed for another architect of death to have designs on your soul.

One of the hasty conclusions drawn about Doom III is the tightness of the environments, which leads to an initially un-Doom-like experience, where manageable clusters have replaced the relentless assault of the many, and downed enemies merely vanish into the ether - obviously a CPU saving tactic, but disappointing for those that like to see the fruits of their labours (especially given that this was one of the trademarks of the original). The UAC base could never be described as the most expansive location for a game, but as things progress, the architecture changes subtly, along with the enemies that populate it. At first corridors are low and narrow, and this gives as false impression, as it turns out. Not only does the terrain start deforming (sometimes right in front of your eyes), but the terrain changes altogether (no spoilers from us!) - dramatically. Suddenly it's like playing an entirely different game, and one where the odds are stacked firmly against you. One where the only hope is that you'll actually get good enough to figure it out, and it's at that point Doom III really clicks. Once you raise your game in the face of brutally hard odds, it's like old times again, only with the most impressive graphics engine ever.

Even the audio stands out as being exceptional. Whether via the means of surround sound or, our preference, through headphones, you're constantly struck by the attention to detail. Just wandering around, it's like everything has a sound. The intermittent blips of a nearby terminal, the whooshing of air from a pipe, the faint footsteps of an oncoming enemy on a metal walkway above you. Possibly more than even the visuals themselves, the audio fills in the mental gaps of what's going on, and cannot be underestimated as to its role in making Doom III what it is. And more. Praise be for the addition of quality voice acting - if only every game developer realised how important this is to the overall atmosphere and suspension of disbelief. In what is a relatively solitary game, you don't come across too many survivors, but when you do it's worth the wait - each is blessed with excellent lip synching and facial animation that allows id to dispense with the idea of ever having to resort to rendering cut-scenes out of the engine.

id in good story, shock!

'Doom III: Single-Player' Screenshot 4

Even when things are getting lonely, the game's use of PDAs allows id to subtly tell a story in roughly the same manner that Capcom, Konami and Tecmo have been doing for years with their surivial horror game. In Doom III's case, instead of discarded notes and keys, the PDAs come with keycodes, security clearance, as well as their audio logs, emails and the odd videodisk lying around. Reading emails and listening to logs provides a unique insight into just how the base has ended up in this state in the first place, with many voicing concerns over security and a general dissatisfaction over many of the procedures leading up to the incident. Not only that, they often provide the combinations you need to access the many lockers around the base that provide crucial ammo, armour and health - often just when you need it most. All told, the narrative structure works well within the context of the incident, and although ultimately the concept of one man's megalomania causing havoc is hardly original, the execution makes it easy to forgive such an obvious route. And certainly, given that it's id's first attempt at injecting any kind of story element into one of its games, it's a big success, even if ultimately it hasn't quite got the imagination to come close to usurping some of its rivals in this respect.

Naturally, there have been complaints that Doom III doesn't do enough to take things forward, and in many respects those claims are hard to argue against. There are basic errors and omissions that seem unjustifiable. For example, why on earth couldn't there have been some sort of head mounted lamp? Forcing the player to ditch their weapon every time they need to illuminate the proceedings just seems daft - at least id could have compromised and made certain weapons one-handed (like the pistol or hand grenades). Other touches that seem standard in other games are also missing, such as being able to lean around corners, and adding other soldiers fighting on your side might have added personality and credibility. Small points, but things that would have made the game feel just a fraction better.

What many players will certainly end up arguing long and hard into the night over is whether Doom III's ostensibly old school, simple gameplay was the right direction to go in. Once the game opens up a little and becomes a little less like a survival horror FPS, the conclusion we came to by the end was that, yes, it definitely was the right decision. There's ultimately a place for all sorts of sub-genres to flourish within the broad bracket of first-person shooters, and to have strayed too far from the cherished Doom brand and all that it stands for would have been considered sacrilege. For the purposes of bringing the Doom gameplay up to date, after a questionable early portion of the game id absolutely hits the sweet spot between adding in the new features we know and love; the physics, the narrative, the benchmark audio/visual elements, while staying true to the relentless assault on the senses that the previous Doom games fostered.

Doomed to be Doom

'Doom III: Single-Player' Screenshot 5

Taking Doom III out of context and isolation is somewhat easier to do. It is not a varied game, and it's certainly about as far away from being original as you could get. In simple terms it's just one unending succession of locked door/find key tasks populated by the endless repetition of killing everything that gets in your way - but isn't that exactly what id games are supposed to do? Sometimes it doesfeel a little samey, although it would be harsh to interpret that as boring; there's simply too much going on in the environment for it to ever stoop to being that. It would have been nice to maybe have more than three or four extremely simple puzzles in the entire game, and to that end Doom III does little, if anything, to update the status quo. A bored, apathetic cynic might take a weary glance at Doom III and mutter sarcastically something along the lines of "ooh pretty graphics, shooting, zzzzzz, really exciting". Yes, if you want to completely miss the point about Doom III's appeal, then it is easy to sum it up into digestible, cynical chunks. More justifiably, you might also baulk at the amount of money it might take you to spec your PC and audio/visual equipment up to the 'right' levels. For the sake of one game, yes, it could well be out of the question, but bear in mind there are other games around the corner that will demand the same...

It may not feel like it's taking gaming forward to any appreciable degree in terms of astounding new ideas, but when it's as all round immersive and entertaining, who cares? The thrill of Doom III is simply that id has not only created something genuinely stand-out impressive on a technical level, but has gone on to create a beautifully unpretentious game that feels at home with itself in that it's not trying to be something it isn't. At once retro in its simplicity, yet managing to create a compelling world that drags you in, Doom III dissolves your apathy by taking you on the kind of harrowing journey in the unknown that all the best shooters should. Doom III feels like glimpse into the future of videogaming but without forgetting its past, and for that, Doom fans will be thankful. It's best not to think of what Doom III isn't or what it should have been; far better to celebrate what it is - a terrifying back to basics blast with incredible atmosphere. Doom III is id's crowning achievement, and well worth the wait.

Given that we only took delivery of our hastily delivered import copy just days ago and have slept very little since, we plan to devote a standalone review to the multiplayer side of game early next week. The score issued here is based purely on the single-player experience, and was reviewed on a system comprised of a Radeon 9800 Pro using the Catalyst 4.9 beta drivers, 1GB RAM, and 3.4GHz Pentium 4.

Order yours now from Simply Games.

9 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
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 (211) Latest comment 4 months ago

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

  • Errol #1 8 years ago

    Great review.

    It sure is getting hard waiting for the Uk release though.

  • pjmaybe #2 8 years ago

    Predictable review IMHO.

    Peej

  • krudster #3 8 years ago

    Played it then Peej?

  • BradlayLaw #4 8 years ago

    Doom 3 is dark?

    Confirm/Deny

  • WriterUK #5 8 years ago

    Hmmm. Predictable, yes, and I thought you were doing a wee bit too much justifying there - perhaps because of that imminent, approaching score - but not bad, overall. You've shifted my interest from 'not at all' to 'kind of'.

    I have a feeling very few reviews will be as fun as this one, though.

  • UncleLou #6 8 years ago

    Great review, krudster. And finally a review that addresses the "originality" discussion correctly.

  • Senor_Sanchez #7 8 years ago

    waiting for my copy ! Looks phenomenal !! any chance of some 'hell' pics? its not all in the space station is it? cos that aint Doom if it is!!!

  • lost_soul #8 8 years ago

    This really is turning out to be a marmite game.

    I don't really like marmite.

  • Errol #9 8 years ago

    What is wrong with Doom 3 then, m8 ?

  • pjmaybe #10 8 years ago

    Yup played it. Formulaic, predictable and very pretty shooter of the First Person variety, sad geek or not I don't reckon it rated a 9 single player and I think if anything scores should dip multiplayer...

    But as usual, I get to be the only stick in the mud / lone dissenting non-fps fan...!

    Peej

  • UncleLou #11 8 years ago

    lost_soul, that's a bit worrying, you are one of those with an often similar taste in games as me. :-/

    Now wait, didn't you want to wait for your pre-order? ;-)

  • krudster #12 8 years ago

    /resists temptation to bring up Driv3r....

  • alcolepone #13 8 years ago

    pha, 9 !!

    the game quickly tires, i've only played the first 3 hours or so, but iam bored of it now.

    how many more dark corridors filled with crap monsters can there be. The engine is amazing and the lighting very atmospheric, but as a game its very dull.


    mulitplayer was fun for about 2 secs.

  • pjmaybe #14 8 years ago

    Hehehe was waiting for that.

    Still you'd get bored quickly if every post on this thread was "Yep good review mate, issa great game"...

    Once again though I wish just once I could see PC owners gushing about a game that didn't drive the PC tech tree through the roof, and wasn't FPS..

    Peej

  • krudster #15 8 years ago

    This isn't a game you can properly judge from a few hour's play - the last third is among the best the FPS genre has to offer. I agree the first quarter isn't really up to much. Bit boring, claustrophobic and formulaic. It gets better. Much better.

  • Whizzo #16 8 years ago

    I'm with lostie on this as well.

    There's some very nice things in the game; the PDA, graphics, characters, shadows etc but on the whole I'll go for a Blerk like "meh".

    I'm finding it a bit of a slog to be honest.

  • Amajiro #17 8 years ago

    Doom 3
    Edited by 1 at 08/08/04 @ 19:57

  • UncleLou #18 8 years ago

    Once again though I wish just once I could see PC owners gushing about a game that didn't drive the PC tech tree through the roof, and wasn't FPS..

    It's getting a bit silly now, Peej.

  • Tiitiz #19 8 years ago

    review and score is spot on imo

    looking forward to the coop play on the Xbox next

  • hulahoops #20 8 years ago

    "Great review.

    It sure is getting hard waiting for the Uk release though. "

    /errol mode
    Matron!
    /errol mode off

  • lost_soul #21 8 years ago

    "This isn't a game you can properly judge from a few hour's play - the last third is among the best the FPS genre has to offer. I agree the first quarter isn't really up to much. Bit boring, claustrophobic and formulaic. It gets better. Much better."

    Well, I'm not very far in, so if that's true, good. I just hope I can motivate myself to get through these early bits.

  • Mike_Hunt #22 8 years ago

    An excellent and fair review Krudster. By someone who obviously appricated the game for what it was and not what they wanted it to be.

    I still disagree with the torch comments - although your point on the combined use of single handed weapons such as the pistol was a very good one. Oh and good call on the lack of friendly marines fighting on your side, would've been a nice extra touch.

    Anyway, for what it's worth I totally agree - A well deserved 9/10.

    [MH]

  • Lutz #23 8 years ago

    Malcolm: I bet you a tenner that he will be doing...

  • Freek #24 8 years ago

    Hmm i'm still buying it, the graphics whore that is lurking insde me cannot ressist Doom 3, but the gamer inside me will probaly get dissapoitned after a while.

    Why is every1 forgiving Id for making a repetitive game that offers nothing new?

  • pjmaybe #25 8 years ago

    Malcolm you lack the courage of your convictions, at least have the guts to register and insult me properly, there's a good chap.

    Lutzie's tenner's well safe. Copy's long gone. The only possible reason I'll have for picking up a copy next friday is if everyone's really massively insistent on playing it at the LAN but I think with the list of games people have already expressed an interest in, Doom 3 multiplayer would be a bit weak in comparison.

    Peej


  • Mike_Hunt #26 8 years ago

    Once again though I wish just once I could see PC owners gushing about a game that didn't drive the PC tech tree through the roof, and wasn't FPS..
    huh?!

    Firstly I think some of the latest games have been developed with scaleability in mind. Far Cry, Doom 3, HL2 can all be run on half decent machines. Secondly, what on earth is wrong with developers constantly pushing things forward?! That's something that should be applauded and not criticised IMO. It really isn't their fault that people are trying to run their games on ancient (in PC terms) systems. If upgrading your PC is something that bothers you, stick to the consoles for a hassle free gaming lifestyle.

    I guess the reason that FPS games are so popular is that, when done well, you can be totally immersed and feel like you yourself are actually in the game.

    [MH]

  • pjmaybe #27 8 years ago

    NOOOo you misunderstand.

    Developers driving things on, I don't have a problem with that. But once, just once, I would love to see a thread in the forums or a comments section on here alive with people talking about upgrading their rigs to run, I dunno, say a decent properly rotateable gorgeously realised RTS, or driving game, or (ffs) a fishing sim! But it's always FPS.

    Good comment about scalability. You show me one gamer here or in the forums who will freely admit that they play all the latest FPS games on a PIII 800 running a 64mb graphics card and I'll show you a truly dedicated soul...!

    Peej

  • pjmaybe #28 8 years ago

    Anyway enough I'll bow out and let you lot get on with it..I dinna belong here.

    Peej

  • Freek #29 8 years ago

    An Athelon XP1800 with a GFti4200 is seriously low spec these days (wich is what I will be using for Doom3, possibly a new grahics card though).
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/04 @ 16:11

  • UncleLou #30 8 years ago

    But once, just once, I would love to see a thread in the forums or a comments section on here alive with people talking about upgrading their rigs to run, I dunno, say a decent properly rotateable gorgeously realised RTS

    Do I really have to name the one RTS I bet quite a few people will/would upgrade their rigs for?

    And iirc, you were the only person recently who thought it looked a bit "meh". ;-)

  • patlike #31 8 years ago

    I can't wait to play this. I really can't. I've only had time to have a small look and from a graphics perspective I've never seen anything like it. Frankly, I don't care if all you do is walk around and shoot stuff. That's what Doom was all about.

  • Freek #32 8 years ago

    Warcraft 3 surely would have been the one, had Blizzard done a stunning high end graphics engine, but they diden't so every1 could play it anyway.

  • valli #33 8 years ago

    Good review of a fantastic game. I seriously consider upgrading my graphics card just to get those lovely highres images running at 60 fps on my machine.

    It's never happened before, upgrading just for one single game. I'm slowly transforming into a gfx whore I think.

  • krudster #34 8 years ago

    Yeah, about the same. It's probably doable in 15 once you know how to kill each boss and all the object placement etc, but 25ish is fair for a first run through on normal - maybe more, if, like me, you spent 1.5 hours trying to suss out the Guardian boss.

  • Tricky #35 8 years ago

    Feck - 25 hours? I've only just got the plasma gun after roughly 5 or 6 hours of play so how long do you reckon is left after that?

  • krudster #36 8 years ago

    Well, there's 27 maps in total. I reckon an average of an hour each is fair. Check your autosaves and work it out from there. The first few sections are pretty easy by comparison. Once you get to Delta Labs it heats up a lot, and towards the latter third....OMFG!

  • MaTTy_P #37 8 years ago

    any1 know why in gods name this game runs better than farcry on my pc? :)

    good review, nice to see old school games showing the 'newbies' how its done.

    Off now to change my underwear as ive soiled it that many times already.

  • AnotherMartin #38 8 years ago

    A nine! No way, I'm dissapointed in you EG!

    All flash and no substance, a game that doesn;t really offer anythign new in terms of gamplay and a step backwards in others is not a nine.

    IMO, this games an 8 at best but more like a 6 or 7.

    Blinded by the light (or lack of), who'd'a thunk it.

  • Errol #39 8 years ago

    I disagree with the idea that a game has to 'offer something new'. If it is built a certain way, to provide a certain form of entertainment, a game is still capable of scoring very highly despite being 'unoriginal'.

    Originality is highly overrated in my opinion.

  • AnotherMartin #40 8 years ago

    Fair enough Erroll but surely 9's 10's and maybe even 8's hsould be reserved for truely ground breaking games that bring something new and unseen to the table.

    If a 10 year old game mechanic can be given a face lift and get a 9 where is the room to score truely remarkable games?

    I love the gfx, sound, production and atmosphere in Doom3 but under all that flash is a deciededly average game.

  • krudster #41 8 years ago

    Errol: Correct. Doing something well is more important than doing something that's new. Old is the new new. Apparently.

    If you can bring in new ideas, that's great, but bashing something on the basis that it's "more of the same" is really desperately missing the point here.

    It's like slagging off a football match and moaning that the rules haven't changed. Read between the lines
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/04 @ 17:15

  • chacha #42 8 years ago

    9/10
    better than halo??

    \ runs and hides

  • Xensor #43 8 years ago

    Great review. one question - it is multi monitor compatible?

  • AnotherMartin #44 8 years ago

    If a game scores a nine you shouldn't need to read between the lines it should jump up smack you in the face and say 'hey, I'm a nine'

    this one just kinds of winks at you and says 'hey, ain't it pretty', with that knowing look of if you're lucky you might get some fun later.

    And sorry Krudster, football is shit cus they haven't change the rules. Now if they intruduced exploding balls and electrified penalty boxes I might just watch. ;-)

    But then saying that the various rules of football have change to make it more enjoyable for the masses. The game you watch today is not the same game your granddad watched when he where a lad.

    I also don't think they have done D3 this particularly well, unless the intention was to creat a repetitive, derivitive boring gaming experience.

    What would be so bad a scoring this game a 7 or 8 on the EG scale. Surely this would be a score that reflects that while it is a very well done game it's just not a groundbreaking, genre defining one?

  • Freek #45 8 years ago


    If you can bring in new ideas, that's great, but bashing something on the basis that it's "more of the same" is really desperately missing the point here.

    It's like slagging off a football match and moaning that the rules haven't changed. Read between the lines

    Verry true, but isn't it the 9/10 games that take the genre to a new gameplay hights, where as the 7/8 games just do the same but with better graphics?
    What sets a great game apart from a good game is the innovation that goes beyond just the engine.
    Edited by 1 at 06/08/04 @ 17:35

  • MBar #46 8 years ago

    9/10
    better than halo??

    \ runs and hides

    YES!!! THATS WHY THEY GAVE IT A NINE AND GAVE HALO AN EIGHT!!! 9 > 8, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You see, typing in capital letters make you appear angry. and i swear, if anyone mentions motorbikes, or l33t spelling of motorbikes, i will, personally, kill you.

    ...at nintendo.

  • krudster #47 8 years ago

    Cussing its originality is a fair point, and one I expected. It's indefensible on that basis. What is defensible is the score. Our scores are more based on the overall entertainment value, rather than the one that judges it on some sort of artistic merit. On those terms it would be in the 7 category, but Doom III more than makes up for its lack of new ideas by just crazily ladelling on the atmosphere and fear factor.

    You may not see it from the early part of the game. Like those classic songs you hate when you first hear them, it's a 'grower'. It's more like a triple album, with the dumb songs on first, building to the epics as it goes.

  • MBar #48 8 years ago

    what, like halo?

    / falls into own trap

    damn it! damn it! damn it!

  • AnotherMartin #49 8 years ago

    Ok, I'll reserve final judgement until I complete it, but that's the problem, it's just not pulling me back to play it.

    To be fair I pretty much knew it wasn't going to be my style of game, I love FPS', just not this style. But i was hoping to be plesently suprised and tbh the first hour did blow me a way a bit.

    I'm thinking HL2 will be more to my liking.

    I know they're normaly the most vocal bunch on forums but I find it interesting that reading around various forums I'm reading more about people playing about with it tweaking it etc than actualy playing the game. Which I feel is a good pointer to the fact that id have a great engine but a sub standard game.

    It's a great interactive tech demo and a good advertisement for the tech that id have create. I just hope someone picks it up and makes the game the engine deserves.

  • jiroczech #50 8 years ago

    Maybe I need to give it another chance, but on first play I wasn't impressed. I was expecting a far more full-on, visceral experience but it seems pretty tame. Also, lots of stuff in it annoyed me: the stupid forced torch/gun thing (about which I'm sure there's been loads of debate), the shitty PDA (having to listen to a whole audio clip just to listen out for the code at the end ) and stupid monsters bleating "Argh!", "Argh!" at you over and over again.

  • gamingdave #51 8 years ago

    "Our scores are more based on the overall entertainment value, rather than the one that judges it on some sort of artistic merit."

    As they should be, I dont care if im playing certain game 5000, if its fun its fun. That rule seemed to go out the window with driv3r though, come on, behind the lack of polish there was still a better than average game, speaking fun wise here. People how dont find driv3r fun, fair enough, but most just played "spot the bugs" instead of having fun with it. Mind I did take mine back after blitzing it over a long weekend.

  • krudster #52 8 years ago

    No, to be frank I rarely, if ever play games on the hardest difficulty settings. I'd be surprised if Nightmare mode makes you lose health - more than likely the grunts just take more hits and there's less health/ammo pick ups.

    Are you really dumb *and* a blonde?

    As for your Unreal 2 comment, I wasn't a fan of Unreal 2 (loved the first), and Doom III kicks it all over the place.

    Addressing those that wanted Doom III to be something else...could it not just be that you don't like id games in the first place? Would you expect Radiohead to make a skate punk album just because that's what the 'kids' want. Of course not.

  • krudster #53 8 years ago

    This thread isn't the place for a Driv3r discussion, but....I'm sorry, but the score had nothing to do with the bugs. It was down to the terrible gameplay design that drove me to new heights of Gaming Rage.

  • Errol #54 8 years ago

    I tried the Joint ops demo, and frankly it was the biggest load of rubbish I've seen/played in ages.

  • Kiigan #55 8 years ago

    Interesting review, cheers Kristan. A lot more positive than some of the comments I've heard from friends - but hey. it's all just opinions right?

    Bit strange to only review the single-player part though.

    Also, I think we can assume that many players won't be playing the game on a 3.4ghz monster - so in the absence of a demo to test hardware compatibility, I'd love to see more "ordinary" PC specs used as review rigs :)

    From what I've seen of Doom III, it looks very pretty but not good enough as a game to make me upgrade my one-year-old-but-terribly-out-of-date PC. A demo might change my mind though.

    Ian

  • Nillsens #56 8 years ago

    It only took me about 2 hours of playing it to want to go back to Harvest Moon. It's biggest problem it that it has NO (none, nothing nada) innovation outside of the graphics department. Just try and find one thing about it that you haven't seen somewhere else that isn't a visual touch.

    It playes almost exactly like Quake 2 when is comes to your own speed and maneuverability. I think this is the feeling that kept me gripped, since I played Quake 2 to death.

    The monsters are quite dumb at times, and more than often I would see them run back and forth over the same spot or literally run in circles, serious, no joke. They don't work together in any other way than surrounding you with numbers. The occasional Dead Marine will take cover, but sadly then you could hold a clock next to him, he has the ability to pop out at exactly the same time interval to shoot almost exactly the same amount of bullets. He also doesn't leave his cover when you get close enough to shoot him in the shoulder without him seeing you. Quite sad. Thankfully their pathfinding over the 5 or so meters they have to walk is generally OK and they make it around corners without too much trouble. On the other hand, sometimes when I was really outnumbered and ran a distance away (not through air ducts or over boxes, flat area) when I came back some of the mosters would be gone. Never knew running was a viable tactic to killing the enemy. Not to mention that jumping on somthing is often enough to get away from the mosters with no ranged attacks.
    e.g: "Oh no, it's a large quardupedal Demon with huge teeth OMG OMG!!! Oh well, I'll just stand on this chair and then I'll be safe,".
    It's not the difficulty that does this either, they make the same dumb mistakes on both normal and hard. By the way, the only difference between the two difficulties I could notice was that there were more enemies and they did more damage. No faster animations, no gained abilities and certainly not more adept at avoiding you blowing them up.

    I liked most of the weapons. The last weapon you get is LAME (not the BFG) and not at all fun to use. The machinegun sounds TERRIBLE, the chaingun sounds mild in comparison. No other complaints 'bout the guns. Three plusses for putting the beserk back in, made me laugh :p

    It scared me for a while, a couple of dark corners caused me to bump out of me seat. However... after a while you constantly expect being ambushed, what with enemies behind invisible doors and their ability to teleport into the room at any time (announced by everything going dark for a sec.). You just get suprised so often that... it's not at all suprising. Whereas the first hour or so had me scared to go through the next door, soon I was running around waving a chainsaw and screaming obscenities at the things that had tormented me. They weren't scary at all anymore, just fodder for whatever gun I had. This slowly chipped away the atmosphere. Once this happens, YOU again (like it many FPS's) are the thing that should be feared, not those silly monsters who only have two ways to attack you.

    To sum it up, it only really has two things going for it:

    It's quite playable because the controls are good (would have been hard for them to miss this one up).
    It looks REALLY nice. If you can afford it (mumbles grudge against people with an obscene income).

    So, if you like running down beautiful hallways shooting at beautiful dumb enemies with predictable attack patterns then this is for you.
    I guess that means it's for me too, since I finished the game. I had fun, but I resent it :p

    Edited by 1 at 07/08/04 @ 02:34

  • Aga #57 8 years ago

    Good comment about scalability. You show me one gamer here or in the forums who will freely admit that they play all the latest FPS games on a PIII 800 running a 64mb graphics card and I'll show you a truly dedicated soul...!

    Does AMD T-Bird 800 with a GF2MX 32MB card count? =)
    Edited by 2 at 06/08/04 @ 18:34

  • Slim #58 8 years ago

    Fully agree, Doom 3's single player is not a 9/10 game. Every rooms the same, open door, monster is directly behind it, monster spawns behind you too just for fun, shoot them, enter room travel through dark tiny corridoor and leave via next door, repeat. All the time your surrounded by pretty but pointless and non interactive animated machinery of some sort.

    The engines even dissapointment for me, tiny spaces, no outdoors, small number of monsters and a low player limit in multi. Considering what the unreal engine is pusing out these days, and the outdoor and vehicle vids we've seen of Half Life 2, and doom looks very weak.

  • perilikid #59 8 years ago

    I can sort of appreciate a score like 9 - although I would argue that for the same reason, Halo (heh) could've scored it as well. For all its flaws, a game can be lifted above the sum of its parts by the unusual, the unpredictable, the outstanding.

    I'd give Halo a 9: I can see its flaws (level repetition being the main one), but altogether the gaming experience is simply one of the best I've ever encountered. Were I to play Doom 3 I probably wouldn't - for the same reasons that people would.

  • Errol #60 8 years ago

    Were I to play Doom 3 I probably wouldn't - for the same reasons that people would

    Were I to play Doom 3 I probably would for the same reasons as other people probably would, but not in any way contradicting the reasons of those who wouldn't or those who think they would but actually woudn't for reasons similar to those that I gave earlier for being one of those who would.

  • krudster #61 8 years ago

    Slim is back!

  • Bumbuliuz #62 8 years ago

    My copy arrived this morning from the states ;) So I will be playing into to the night :)

  • Errol #63 8 years ago

    Night time is the best time to play it, I would guess.

  • medulla oblongata #64 8 years ago

    Why are the screenshots featured in the review old screenshots?


    Why no in-game shots?

  • Errol #65 8 years ago

    Bleed ?

  • KyuZo #66 8 years ago

    This game is incredible. Seriously, I can't figure you guys out. Wait 'till it's nightime, crank up the volume, turn out the lights, load up doom... how can you not enjoy it?

    I can't remember the last time a game made me break into a sweat so often from sheer terror and adrenline.

  • Errol #67 8 years ago

    What res and settings are you playing it at ?

  • Errol #68 8 years ago

    Some shots on <a href= "http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/showflat.p l?Cat=&Board=gaminggeneral&Number=4189458&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1">this</a> thread from a guy playing at 800x600 (full detail level) on a geforce 3 card.

    It looks sensational, and runs well !

  • Sko #69 8 years ago

    I think Nillsens pretty much has it nailed. Intentional or not, games have moved on. It's a shame that 'id' haven't.

    I'd give Doom3 a 6/10 at best... once you get over the gloss, you find a very predictable and very flawed game beneath.

  • UncleLou #70 8 years ago

    and if you take away the graphics.

    There are games that have technically impressive graphics, but yet their graphics don't achive anything like atmosphere or immersiveness, like Unreal 2.

    And of course there are games that are immersive and full of atmosphere despite having bad graphics.

    And there's the third category, games where the graphics are an important factor for immersiveness, atmosphere etc. , so they're much more than just eye-candy.

    So taking away the graphics, at least for games of this last category, to judge a game is not a valid method . It's like saying if you take away the motor of a Porsche, you're left with an average car, or if you take away the lead singer of a band, you're left with an average instrumental band.

    Graphics, gameplay, sound etc. form a unity that is more than the sum of their parts.

    Mind, I haven't played Doom 3 yet, but from what I've heard so far, it could very well be a game of the 3rd category.

  • striker #71 8 years ago

    Halo? What's that?

  • Whizzo #72 8 years ago

    A far superior game to Doom III...

  • striker #73 8 years ago

    Having played it, I'd say so Unclelou.

    And what makes people dislike Doom (the ones that have tried, though many arounf here surely didn't) is that they don't feel like they're in Mars fighting enemies and for some reason aren't afraid to take the next step.

    I do, as Kristan seems to, and that's what makes Doom3 great for me.

  • striker #74 8 years ago

    Cmon Whizzo, let me bait the tards, that line wasn't for you :)

    Though I still fin Doom vastly superior to the IMO average Halo.

    And why is that. Because I appreciate immersion and atmosphere above all in a FPS. Halo was much more about gamelay I believe. Well that and the fact it was one of the best FPS on a console.

  • Daryoon #75 8 years ago

    Oddly enough, I've gone back to playing Doom 64...

  • Freek #76 8 years ago

    So taking away the graphics, at least for games of this last category, to judge a game is not a valid method . It's like saying if you take away the motor of a Porsche, you're left with an average car, or if you take away the lead singer of a band, you're left with an average instrumental band.


    It's about graphics so that would be taking away the styling of the Porshe and the half naked cage dancers of the band.
    You'd still have a sports car that's exciting to drive, and you'd still have the bands music.
    So the analogy doesn't quite work.
    But i'm just nitpicking for no reason ;) :D
    Edited by 1 at 07/08/04 @ 02:15

  • beep #77 8 years ago

    Doom 3 - Single Player

    Setting a bit of a precedent for all future reviews aren't you?

  • ThwartedEfforts #78 8 years ago

    Nine out of ten? As usual you're crackers.

    A nine should bring more to the table than a lick of varnish. A nine should be recognition of everything the original was famous for: pioneering multiplayer, panoptic views, laugh-a-minute co-op, satisfying weaponry, all the stuff that makes the Doom ports so popular.

    What we have here is an overdue, over-engineered follow up that sucker syou with lush visuals on the first run through but which nobody sane will be playing past October. Honestly, truthfully, people will have either completed it or been bored giddy by it.

    It's all engine and no game. But I should care, eh?

  • matrim83 #79 8 years ago

    Thing is I bought Halo a year ago (PC not XBOX) and I reloaded it a few days ago and just finished playing for the third time and it's still great. Now in all fairness I havent played Doom 3 but going by the reviews I really don't see myself doing the same with it. Halo and HL are still for my money the greatest FPS's of all time. Though I still will buy Doom 3.

  • UncleLou #80 8 years ago

    It's about graphics so that would be taking away the styling of the Porshe and the half naked cage dancers of the band.

    Sorry, Freek, but you kind of missed the point of my analogy*. What I was trying to convey was that the graphics, for this category of games, is much more than the styling of the Porsche or the cage dancers (= the eye-candy). :-)

    *edit: might very well be my fault, so here's another example:

    Would "Night of the Hunter", or "The Third Man" be the great movies they are if they hadn't been shot in expressionistic black and white?
    Edited by 1 at 07/08/04 @ 09:23

  • Nillsens #81 8 years ago

    "This whole breaking doom III into - enter room, shoot bad guy argument is sloppy and lazy at best. Name me one FPS that you don't do that in at length. Of course if you put it that way your going to create a boring image."

    We're not creating that image, the game is. As far as repetition goes, Doom 3 manages to somehow emphasize it. Surely you didn't still think it was 'suprising' or 'fair' or whatever when the walls open up just centimeters away from you to release an imp and another spawns in right behind you. If they have to rely on that to 'suprise' you I find it more than a bit cheesy. Not to mention the imp behind the door. I found myself opening doors from the side just to avoid the inevitable cheese damage.
    And, anyhow, most FPS's nowadays offer some other feature too such as vehicles, some special ability, stats of some sort, heck even an inventory. Doom doesn't have any of this or anything else apart from the PDA (which I did like) and thus the diversity is not as large as other games.
    Sure, Halo had exactly the same type of architecture throughtout large sections of the level and yes, it did get repetitive. But the thing is, it featured some neat AI, vehicels, a new race of enemies introduced later to keep things fresh... Despite the repetition you kept going because you knew that the option for variation was still very much there. I'd glady trudge down one or two samey corridoors as long as I get out after that and get to drive around or meet some marines or whatever. It's subtle variation, but it works.

    "Sorry, Freek, but you kind of missed the point of my analogy*. What I was trying to convey was that the graphics, for this category of games, is much more than the styling of the Porsche or the cage dancers (= the eye-candy)."

    That is most certainly true for the atmosphere. And atmosphere is an important part of this game. But atmosphere and gameplay are two seperate things. Those FMV games like Myst etc... some people might argue that they have quite a pronounced atmosphere, but in my opinion they are devoid of the kind of gameplay I want.
    I just think that at the heart of any game there should be rock solid gameplay. Anything else is nice, but not a prerequisite.
    Edited by 2 at 07/08/04 @ 12:02

  • Dynamize #82 8 years ago

    Pfff, don't have the hardware to run it all pretty like (which seems to be important however you cut it), and it sounds pretty average in the concept department, plus I'm really getting tired of the FPS as a genre. Think I'll give it a miss.

  • ThwartedEfforts #83 8 years ago

    UncleLou, you're right, but the original comment is still valid. Take away the expectation, dilute the hype, ignore the 'HL2 vs D3' sparring, pull Carmack's john thomas out of everyone's mouth and there's not that much to see.

    No, okay, there's plenty to see just nothing to do - a helicopter ride over the GRand Canyon. I'm sure you'll tell me yes, that's right, that Doom III is a treat for the senses, but this review and others like it promise so much more. They say there's a game here, yet a surprising number of us have given up trying to find it..

    This one also makes glib remarks about some pretty key issues. The copycat plot is "a knowing nod to Valve" and a "fitting tribute", a comment which sidesetps rather than tackles the issue of borrowed/unoriginal storyline. In any other review of any other game, "a knowing nod" would become "a ripping off" and nose-dive the score accordingly.

    It also treats the single player as a separate issue, despite it being one box and one game you buy, as though entire sections of any game can now be arbitrarily ignored. THink one aspect of your blockbuster might tarnish an otherwise glowing review? Leave it out!

    PC Gamer in the UK said 90 per cent - perhaps I'm being cynical, but to me that translates to 80-something without Activision exclusively humpiung their leg. Oh, what might have been..!

  • striker #84 8 years ago

    It's ridiculous that just because the intro was similar to Hlaf-Life the score should be lower. Just have fun with your games and stop analysing them.

  • Whizzo #85 8 years ago

    There's other "homages" to HL in there too, when I saw an air vent spewing body parts I had a flashback to exactly the same thing happening six years ago.

  • Frankypanky #86 8 years ago

    and if you take away the graphics

    i think any game would become kinda shite when you take away the graphics. or at least very hard to play.


    /coat

  • Errol #87 8 years ago

    So, no game can have an air-vent spewing body parts without it being a homage to Half-life ? wtf ?

  • Whizzo #88 8 years ago

    When it's done exactly the same what else are you supposed to think it is other than something copied from Half Life, something everyone who's played it will remember.

  • Kronos #89 8 years ago

    As a test then turn off all the fancy grafix and play it for a while and see how you feel. Its looks startlingly dull without bumpmapping I can tell you.

  • Errol #90 8 years ago

    As a test, play Half-life through again with all the textures turned off (so just wireframe or bare polygons) - it looks startlingly dull I can tell you.

  • KyuZo #91 8 years ago

    As a test pluck out your eyeballs and live the rest of your life blind. The world looks startlingly dull without eyeballs I can tell you.

  • Dynamize #92 8 years ago

    And the blind develop keener senses of touch and hearing, beholding their environment in a different way, in some ways inferior, others superior to one who can see. In much the same way, one might be able to better appraise the qualities of a game without all the eyecandy.

  • medulla oblongata #93 8 years ago

    I remember farcry doing the air vent body part spew thing aswell, are they trying to say something?.


  • CerealKey #94 8 years ago

    Well I certainly won't be buying the Doom III Text Adventure then.

  • elchuppa #95 8 years ago

    so what if Doom III doesn't offer your 3 different ways to get to the (same) end of a level. Doom III makes that one path's quality obliterate everything that has come before, since Halo just about every FPS I've played has upped poly counts but remained somewhat sterile. Doom III changes all of that, finally giving a game world the kind of richness that makes it comparable to a (good) movie. This is what makes it so god damn scary IMO. I absolutely love this game. It's everything that I was hoping for. I feel like I've stepped into the future of gaming.

    playing on a -
    Athlon 64 2800+, Gig of DDR400, GeForce6800 NU 128
    runs smooth as butter at 1280x1024 on High.

    Edited by 1 at 07/08/04 @ 17:36

  • cov #96 8 years ago

    most perceptive comment is in the review... judge it for what it is not what it isn't or indeed what it is not trying to be. Id have made a game to specific criteria that will appeal to some and not to others

    Ironically, considering some of the negative comments on D3, there is a place in the games market for variety

    I don't want deus ex, operation flashpoint, thief 3 etc ... they exist already. I want a straightfoward visceral simple fps experience. I don't want a game with extra keys to lean, the whole point is full on go ahead action, not creeping around - that fundamentally changes the game dynamic. I don't want every key mapped for various functions... for doom I want to strafe left and right go forward and back and fire a lot.

    I've not played the game but all the reviews, negative and positive, and comments from players reaffirm this is the game I want to play because it clearly the game ID wanted to design and appears to fulfil my expectations of what a doom game shld be

    This appeal to some, as it has, and not to others, as it hasn't. There's no point trying to convince each other they are wrong because either the game suits what you want from it or it won't...

    This is not because of my general personal preferences regarding games, just what I expect and what from various titles at various time. I love deus ex, operation flashpoint etc... for what they intended to do and how well they did it. If D3 isn't gorgeous, brainless, violent, destructive and with a great engine that feels right (another perceptive comment) ... then yeah it is a bad game according to what it intended to do.

    But it's nonsense to play something you know you'll not like because you bring expectations that were never part of the brief or even the concept of a doom3 game and then complain it doesn't do exactly what you knew it wouldn't.

    The one comment that really raised my interest was by Nillsen who said it played "exactly like Quake 2 when is comes to your own speed and maneuverability" as I played q2 to death too, multiplayer, and have never found an engine that felt as right, either too light, too heavy, with too little weight, too much, or too complex or too simple manouverability. If this is the case then d3 will exceed my expectations, and many other old q2'ers who have never found a mp game to love in its stead, because then D3 mp may develop into the replacement for q2 we have never really found :)

  • Errol #97 8 years ago

    Yes, the Quake II DM still stands as the finest example of its genre. If Doom III has captured the player movement of Quake II, that alone will interest me.
    Edited by 1 at 07/08/04 @ 16:50

  • #98 8 years ago

    I think the limited running will be a bit annoying in DM.. other than that it does feel a lot like Quake2. It's sort of slow, the weapons fire slowly, the projectiles are slow -- hehe, you get the picture.

  • skalmanxl #99 8 years ago

    It's always fun to read comments from clueless people. A grade might just as well only be based on the amazing experience that a game is, without forcing the game to do something else above it.

  • UncleLou #100 8 years ago

    Hehe, big confusion here, everybody seems to disagree with everybody to an extent.

    Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
    Some of the people can be all right part of the time.
    But all the people can't be all right all the time
    I think Abraham Lincoln said that.

  • medulla oblongata #101 8 years ago

    I disagree, I'm right

  • NeuralCord #102 8 years ago

    £18 from www.mx2.com

  • StanleyPointLarge #103 8 years ago

    I never really liked the original doom. I just liked the engine and enjoy games like heretic and other that used the doom engine. Quake was the same.

    Doom III has something more, yes the story is crap, but at least it has one this time. The controls are simple and the weapons sound pretty bad. But the engine creates an atmosphere that really scares the willies out of me. The gameplay doesn't really bring anything new to the genre but it really does what it set out to do well. Scare you!

    And for those of you who don't like this game, wait until you start playing games that other developers have created using this engine and give a nod to id for being technical genius'. Buy this game anyway, even if you don't play it and make sure id keep going!

  • StanleyPointLarge #104 8 years ago

    The flashlight (or torch, I'm English), I can't make up mind if I like it or hate it.

    I think I found it really annoying to start with, consistantly changing between the 2, but after a while I seem to have got used to it. Occasionally still annoying though when your trying to shoot something that you can't see!

  • medulla oblongata #105 8 years ago

    They could of done it so the weapons that you can carry in 1 hand, pistol, grenade etc lets you have the flashlight in the other.

    But when it comes to the shotgun and plasma gun and chaingun etc you have to make do with the darkness.

  • Errol #106 8 years ago

    Looks like you should be visiting another site, if you hold such views.

  • perilikid #107 8 years ago

    "Reviewreader", so you find it entertaining to anonymously post personal, opinionated, critical comments?

  • Errol #108 8 years ago

    I think ReviewReader displays about the same level of intelligence as the Zombies in Doom III are reputed to display.

  • WoodenSpoon #109 8 years ago

    If you don't agree with the review don't buy the game.

    So you're saying EG is soft?

    If anything they mark rather harshly sometimes.

  • UncleLou #110 8 years ago

    But this game was supposed to redefine gaming - at least according to the hype

    What are you talking about? There was hype that it'd redefine gaming? Someone was clearly taking the piss out of you.

    As much as I was and still am looking forward to Doom, I never had the idea that it'd redefine gaming.

    No wonder you're disappointed. :p

  • jaa #111 8 years ago

    Well, Kristan, when it comes to FPS's, it seems you guys can't give 8's (too low!) nor 9's (too high!). How about a scale with half values?... ;)

  • krudster #112 8 years ago

    Comments from the likes of ReviewReader are water off a duck's back, they really are. If I'd marked the game down for being not enough of a progression then there would have been even more people slagging me off for that.

    I don't think standing up for Doom III was the easy option by any means. After a few hour's play, I was broadly in agreement with most of this review's detractors. It felt like a high 7, or an 8. Only seeing the game through to the end convinced me otherwise.

    But then EG rarely toes the critical line in either direction, but that's life. It's unrealistic to ever expect anyone, whatever they're into to agree with one another. What you get with EG is honest, straight talking opinion, and ones that we will back up and believe in to the hilt.

    Calling us apologists is a joke, and heralding the US sites as some sort of bastion of truth is even funnier. Most of the time they give even the lamest most generic games over 7, and anything vaguely good gets 8s or 9s. Lots of people WANT Doom III to be shit, and maybe in their minds it is. Good luck to them. I get the same thing with music or film all the time - people who are just desperate to believe that band X's new album or director Y's new movie is over-rated or under-rated. It's called opinion. We're not saying ours is right or wrong, but you can be sure it's what we believe, and that we go hell for leather to make sure that we've put the hours in to come to that conclusion. If you don't agree, we don't lose sleep over it. That's life. People disagree on whether Peanut Butter is, in fact, Mana from heaven. That goes to show how ludicrous life is!

    Get over it. Seriously. Get over it. Spending ages reviewing a review and turning it into a personal diatribe under an anonymous post has to be one of the saddest things I've ever seen on this website. If you've got something to say to me, post me an email - it's on the site.
    Edited by 1 at 08/08/04 @ 00:26

  • perilikid #113 8 years ago

    But peanut butter isn't Mana from Heaven! And anyone who says different is a liar and an arachid apologist! ;o)

  • striker #114 8 years ago

    Exactly. Reviewing a game isn't science, you know?

    Though it became the rule to call it a "review" it should be called "opinion" instead.

  • Nillsens #115 8 years ago

    (about random monsters popping up)
    "This happened in Doom I and Doom II all the time as well. And we are talking about a Doom game here. If you didnt like it before then your not going to like it now. Doom III is doing what we should expect to - giving us another Doom experience."

    I'm not saying I didn't like it, it just IS cheesy. I finished all three Doom games, just like most of us here and enjoyed the whole experience aplenty. However, I'm pretty sure there is not one person who has had doubts about ambushes you can't stop in any way. I would just like the option to avoid 20 odd damage without having to reload and replay my game with foreknowledge.
    I was expecting another Doom experience, but somehow new and refreshing at the same time. I based my expectations on anything in particular other than what I have done in the past in FPS games and what I would like to see done better or added in the future. What I would have liked too see, for instance, is more varied use of the physics engine. Being able to push the occasional table over for cover, and the implementation of physics on part of the level design would have already made it more immersive (I'm no technical wiz so correct me if I say the impossible, just my imagination).
    I dunno, I just feel it should have had more varied things to do.

    "I think the limited running will be a bit annoying in DM.. other than that it does feel a lot like Quake2. It's sort of slow, the weapons fire slowly, the projectiles are slow -- hehe, you get the picture."

    It causes you to think more about your next move, IMO. Makes the battles more intense, and the frags more gratifying. I've got an arrangement to do a Doom 3 LAN sometime soon :D
    BTW, didn't Carmack say the engine was capable of handling more mthan four players, but that they consciously decided to start Doom 3 off on a smaller scale, or something like that?
    Edited by 1 at 08/08/04 @ 05:31

  • Errol #116 8 years ago

    And what, pray tell, did you expect from a DOOM game ? Did you actually play Doom I and II ?

  • Errol #117 8 years ago

    there were about 50 games better than doom since then

    In Doom's genre, I can only think of about 2 games better actually. What are the other 48 you are thinking of ?
    Edited by 1 at 08/08/04 @ 11:45

  • matrim83 #118 8 years ago

    I have to agree with ReviewReader here. I have been plaing for two hours and already it's repetative and insipid. AI seems to be a pathetic joke here.

  • penhalion #119 8 years ago

    @Errol

    er Doom is a FPS so any FPS is in the same genre...why what type of game were you under the impression Doom was?

    As for your 50 better games question can we say

    Doom2
    half life
    serious sam
    return to castle wolfenstein
    call of duty (and all expansions)
    medal of honor (and expansions)
    farcry
    Unreal
    Unreal2
    Quake
    Quake2
    battlefield 1942
    ghost recon
    delta force
    soldier of fortune
    soldier of fortune 2
    quake 3
    unreal tournament
    unreal tournament 2003
    unreal tournament 2004
    quake3 team arena

    I'm sure you can fill in the rest of the list yourself..heck why did I even answer your mail it was a clear I've spent 50 bucks ona tech demo and now need to justify it type mail anyway ;o)

  • penhalion #120 8 years ago

    @reviewreader

    Sadly I agree with most of your points. Once people play doom3 (and there will be many) they will wonder why it was given such high scores. This in turn will start to errode their confidence in any site that simply praised doom3 because it was made by ID and therefore must be cool and new and exciting.

    Doom3 is pretty much 60% repetition and 40% oh why were the rest of the levels not like this?!? I will not spoil it for you but, let us just say the last few levels are what the rest of the game should have been like.

    Given this there isn't really any way to justify the scores it has recieved so far in the press. I would have given doom3 say 5 for tech innovation and (though you may not want to hear it) 2 for gameplay a total of just 7 out of 10.

    My review summary would have been something like

    Sadly after waiting for 4 years for this game, it is disappointing to see that ID have brought nothing new to the table apart from visual effects. The story is disjointed from the actual gameplay (your fellow marines can't bring down hellspawn with rockets while you kill em with a simply shotgun) and the AI is at pre 1995 level. It is this reviewers opinion that so much more time was spent on the technology than the gameplay and sadly with all the environmental polish this short coming shows all the more clearly.
    Edited by 1 at 08/08/04 @ 12:22

  • Errol #121 8 years ago

    Doom2
    half life
    serious sam
    return to castle wolfenstein
    call of duty (and all expansions)
    medal of honor (and expansions)
    farcry
    Unreal
    Unreal2
    Quake
    Quake2
    battlefield 1942
    ghost recon
    delta force
    soldier of fortune
    soldier of fortune 2
    quake 3
    unreal tournament
    unreal tournament 2003
    unreal tournament 2004
    quake3 team arena

    In my opinion most of that list fail to better the original Doom. And games like BF1942, UT 2003/2004 et al are not in the same genre.
    Edited by 1 at 08/08/04 @ 12:37

  • DNM #122 8 years ago

    Just what is a 'carreer' anyway?

  • DNM #123 8 years ago

    I simply want to be entertained by a game, being as it comes under the arm of 'Entertainment'. I've not played the game yet, and won't until it plops onto my doormat as I want the full experience .. ie ripping the cellophane off, jamming the CDs in the drive and pacing the room while it installs. For me, I'm not looking for any originality in the game, it's pretty clear that's not really going to happen. I just want a modern day version of the game that got me into PC gaming in the first place. If it turns out to be cack, then so be it.

    My only critique of the review is lack of actual screenshots you took while you played! What ever happened to the bonus page of screenies EG used to do when I wrote here? :o)

  • Daryoon #124 8 years ago

    And what, pray tell, did you expect from a DOOM game ? Did you actually play Doom I and II ?

    But that's the problem - it isn't much like the old games, it's more like Half-life.

  • striker #125 8 years ago

    @ReviewReader
    Say what you want about GameSpot or IGN, but at least they call them out as they see them. They demand the same degree of quality from ALL games, not just the ones that were supposed to be good games and not just some scary piece of shit.

    Sorry ro break your credibility, but IGN gave the game a score of 8.9 and Gamespot wasn't that far with 8.5....

    You were saying?

  • Nause #126 8 years ago

    MaTTy_P

    The reason is simple, you probably have a geforce card, am I correct ? Doom 3 is a Open GL game, geforce handles them better and Far Cry is a direct 3d game. It also might have to do with the smaller enviroments.

  • MoFo #127 8 years ago

    If the original Doom was groundbreaking in terms of gameplay then I don't see we shouldn't expect to see groundbreaking innovations in this new Doom. It just doesn't offer anything new. I don't see how it would have been that hard to make the game stick to its roots whilst still offering something new and innovative.

  • MaTTy_P #128 8 years ago

    correct nause. :D cheers anyhow...bloody direct 3d :)

    thread has become what shall be now known as 'the flaming grounds'

  • Errol #129 8 years ago

    This thread is hell on earth.

  • Sko #130 8 years ago

    It's even getting as repetitive as Doom 3 too... ;)

  • matrim83 #131 8 years ago

    "StanleyPointLarge hit the nail on the head. Wait for the mods and/or the new games made with this engine.
    Hell, I can't remember the last game I bought that WASN'T modable..."

    Thats kinda frustating too when the best of multiplayer comes not from the developers but the modders.

  • Daryoon #132 8 years ago

    No it IS like the old games thats what seems to be the problem for some people.

    I've played it, and it feels nothing like the old games. The whole environment and level structure is completely different - its trying to be 'realistc', whereas the old games were more concerned with making the maps challenging and fun. Sure there's a few of the old tricks in there, but it's still more HL than Doom. Are there even any secret levels??!

  • penhalion #133 8 years ago

    My last word on Doom3 for all those claiming it is in the same mould as the original doom. To you all I have to say is "Knee deep in the dead"

    In Doom3 there are no piles of corpses to follow, no mass of cackodemons to look at in satisfaction after a hectic few minutes of blasting. In fact no corpses at all they simply disintegrate!

    I guess this state of the art engine couldn't cope with the load (though I would have used a speed tree type imposter system for that but hey what do I know ;o)

    In my opinion Doom 1, though far less visual than doom3 is by far a the better game (I'm playing it now as I got fed up of trying to like Doom 3)

  • Johnson #134 8 years ago

    Face it, all comments after the 150th one are either a repeat of a previous point, irrelevant or simply not very interesting at all.

    This one, for example, falls into the last two categories.

  • striker #135 8 years ago

    Doom3 is not complete crap, props for the technology and ambiance, but a 9 or god forbid a 10 it is no

    Yeah, oly a 8.9 I recon....

  • rez606 #136 8 years ago

    yeah still havnt played it yet, but really i think whats important is how other devs are gona use that engine. D3 technology is so advanced, jus think of the cool stuff we'll be playin soon based on its code.

    quake 2 was a dissapointment but Half life ran on a modified version of its engine.... :)

  • Errol #137 8 years ago

    quake 2 was a dissapointment

    What planet are you living on ? Quake II was, and still is, the finest example of DM/online gaming.

    Perfect in every respect.
    Edited by 1 at 08/08/04 @ 23:06

  • Khanivor #138 8 years ago

    ReaderReview, your list of games is grasping a bit there, and falls well short of 20, let alone fifty. Although, considering that you must have some time-travel abilities to know that the Call of Duty expansion is better then Doom maybe I should just leave you alone.

  • Khanivor #139 8 years ago

    Not meaning to be derogatory, just voicing an opinion: I think many who are not impressed with Doom 3 because it brings nothing ‘new’ or ‘original’ to the table are just the kind of people that are beloved of marketing people and salesmen. People who have been influenced into having a strong desire to only buy things that are new, where the newness is the only reason to buy the product. If something is not doing anything that hasn’t been done before yet it delivers so well on the job it has taken on it will be disregarded, if something comes along and offers, say a 1mega-pixel camera or polyphonic ringtones, then that is good and must be purchased.

    Originality and newness is all well and good, but doing something different does not provide merit on its own. Hooligans may have been the first football violence game, but it was still a pile of shite. I’m sure we can all think of many other examples. Doom 3 has a groundbreaking engine and solid and highly enjoyable gameplay. I’d rather play Doom 3 as it is then a modern day equivalent to Trespasser.

  • Freek #140 8 years ago

    Marketing people like the gamer who just buys the sequal, not the original title becuase that means having to invest in a risky project that may not sell verry well or is difficult to market.
    Licencess and sequals, that's what they like.

  • Talha #141 8 years ago

    " Every corridor, every office, every crawl space regardless of how bland has something going on inside it. A flickering light, a burst pipe pumping out steam, a PC monitor that you can actually read (and in many cases interact with), a smashed up fixture, a knocked over chair and discarded soft drink can. " Well, all that was there in Far Cry. For Gods's sake, give some credit where it is due. FC came up with the FIRST NEXT-GEN ENGINE, and for hell's sake it is their maiden effort!!! Look what they did to the FPS, and in my opinion, Doom III is all about taking the genre back to 1994, stellar graphics notwithstanding. My point is that it is a great game graphically, and THAT IS IT. You would expect that much from something four years in the making.

  • Talha #142 8 years ago

    " Every corridor, every office, every crawl space regardless of how bland has something going on inside it. A flickering light, a burst pipe pumping out steam, a PC monitor that you can actually read (and in many cases interact with), a smashed up fixture, a knocked over chair and discarded soft drink can. " Well, all that was there in Far Cry. For Gods's sake, give some credit where it is due. FC came up with the FIRST NEXT-GEN ENGINE, and for hell's sake it is their maiden effort!!! Look what they did to the FPS, and in my opinion, Doom III is all about taking the genre back to 1994, stellar graphics notwithstanding. My point is that it is a great game graphically, and THAT IS IT. You would expect that much from something four years in the making.

  • MoFo #143 8 years ago

    Doom 3 is ok, but were it not for the jaw-dropping graphics engine would people still be praising it as much as they do? If this were produced on the same engine as say Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Quake 3 Arena?) I believe this would have scored a 6 or 7, simply because the gameplay is bland. Sorry to upset all you id whores.

  • lemonfist #144 8 years ago

    so when's that demo out?

  • Errol #145 8 years ago

    Almost any pc will get you better performance than an xbox.

  • UncleLou #146 8 years ago

    A £100 card won't get you better performance than an Xbox. I'd rather spend the extra to get an Xbox personally.

    And your point being?

  • merk #147 8 years ago

    640x480 from 2' on a 19" monitor looks like cack though.

  • martyngates #148 8 years ago

    "640x480 from 2' on a 19" monitor looks like cack though. "

    640x480 on a 43" projection tv using video out looks stunning tho

  • merk #149 8 years ago

    martyngates: exactly!

  • merk #150 8 years ago

    Truthsayer: as long as people enjoy the game what does it matter? A simple slick shooter which can use the new abilities of the newer hardware is most welcome, but the engine development is more important, and it seems to be good.

  • UncleLou #151 8 years ago

    Whole thing reminds me of Dragons Lair and Laserdisc players.

    Yes. Because it's exactly the same situation with graphcis cards. They'll just work with Doom 3, and you'll never be able to use them for any other games. They're a doomed standard.

    Besides, all reviews and forum posters who say the game runs well on old Geforce 3/4 cards which you can pick up nowadays for next to nothing are lying, lying, i tell you. :-D

  • Errol #152 8 years ago

    Considering that a ti4600 runs it on medium at 1024x768 (32bit) decently, I don't think the Doom III engine can be called very demanding.

  • caboosemoose #153 8 years ago

    Yawn. Add my name to the list of people who think the game part of this title is thoroughly tedious. The graphics are extraordinary - in fact the more you see, the more impressive the engine becomes, it's so polished that at first it's easy to be underwhelmed by the visuals. With time you appreciate the stunning attention to detail that's on offer.

    Ultimately, my view is that this is another glorified tech demo. id are never going to pitch it as such because that's bad business practice, but anyone who suggests that this game is exciting to play must have appalling short term memory. It's incredibly repetitive, totally lacks any sense of adventure and rips off and number of now very old titles.

    I really don't think it's a problem that the game is average at best, the engine will hopefully drive some great games in the future. but I hate the fact that the gaming press is so desperate for a decent shooter that it has collectively decided to say "hey, we know it's derivative, predictable but isnt it just great...wow...drool...blather..yadda yadda..." Doom 3 is a deeply ordinary game built on a great engine, it's so bloody obvious it hurts.

    Edited by 1 at 09/08/04 @ 15:22

  • cov #154 8 years ago

    errol, q2 sp was a bit bleh, but you're right mp has never been exceeded by any *engine* (before anyone starts not gametype, graphics etc...) - funny to see a few discontented q2 die-hards coming out of the closet :)

    and sorry reviewreader but you are making a redundant comparison as those are all very different games and have a very narrow definition of what makes a good game.

    Not every game has to push gameplay boundaries to be a good or even great game - try applying that argument to any other entertainment or art medium - innovation is only one criteria for what are often dubious comparative value judgements anyway

  • cov #155 8 years ago

    btw going to wait until I play d3 for comment on the actual game, but Kristian's review has been the best written I have seen on or offline. Whether I agree or not I thought the approach he took was fairminded and intelligent.

  • Dirtbox #156 8 years ago

    IDKFA

  • Errol #157 8 years ago

    I WANT TO KILL HIM! I HATE YOU CARMACK! DOOM 3 SUCKS! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! CARMACK BASTARD YOU BASTARDDDDD!!!

    lol.

  • krudster #158 8 years ago

    Time for a cliche: Horses for courses.

    Any advance on that?

  • Scimarad #159 8 years ago

    Deathbringer please reasure me that you ARE locked up in some institution somewhere...

  • Sp3nn1e #160 8 years ago

    Hmm. This thread got boring quite a while ago now :-)

  • Feanor #161 8 years ago

    "Time for a cliche: Horses for courses.

    Any advance on that?"

    How about varying mileage? :)

  • Amnesia #162 8 years ago

    Well it had to happen. Gaming now has an old sod brigade mumbling into their pint about how it used to be better back when. If you missed these games first time round - the original doom, the original quake - they really really reaallly suck to someone who plays them for the first time now. No really they do. Banging on about Doom is the gaming equivalent of coming across all misty eyed reminiscing about how much more fun it was to take the gaming equivalent of a crap in an outside loo in the middle of January when these days you can span the pan in centrally heated comfort.

    Doom originally - fantastic ground breaking etc. Lot of respect (no really). But it's shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite now. Get over it. Doom does not have any great gameplay and has no AI, it was simply new 10 years ago. So groundbreaking +10. Gameplay by modern standards 0. So what exactly was it that we're supposed to take out of it and apply to a new game? Nothing basically. There's nothing in the *game*, it's just all in your fond memories of how it made you feel. Not the same thing at all.

    Oh, Quake 2. That's really shit too :)

  • krudster #163 8 years ago

    Go home.

    No.

    Really.

    Go home.

    You are?

    Oh.

  • Startled Pancake #164 8 years ago

    Right thats it, Im not playing any more of this game. People were complaining about half life having too many scripted sequences, BUT THATS ALL THIS GAME IS! It doesnt even have the humour element of the origional doom in that the beasties will fight when they accidentally shoot each other. Pacman had better AI than this. No really, it did.

    I dont care that the last third is brilliant, I cant face playing through the second third to get there. Imp spawning? Right one must be spawning right behind me then... Theres is almost nothing you can do tactically to improve your chances, because all the beasties are hidden around you in demonic cupboards just hanging about for their curtain call. Dont they get bored? What about the ones stuck in demonic cupboards at the end of the game? They'll have been standing motionless for like 24 hours, wont they get cramp?

    If you have the IQ of a bucket, this game may well appeal and if you enjoy searching for the rooms trigger point and blasting away madly in the newly occuring blackness go for your life, you'll love it. Alternativley put Aliens into the DVD drive turn your monitor off, and click wildy all over the place with your mouse. Its cheaper and less moronic. Just to qualify I really enjoy a good FPS, unfortunatly this isnt one of them.

  • cov #165 8 years ago

    like the nic :)

  • tiddles #166 8 years ago

    I think it's ironic that, judging from various interviews with iD over the years, Doom III is the game they originally wanted to make, but didn't have the technology to do it - instead back in 1993 they had to settle for a mere kick-ass blastfest. Just goes to show that technical limitations often do a lot more for creativity than scope for developers to do whatever they want (which usually involves producing a slightly dull Aliens rip-off).

  • Machiavel #167 8 years ago

    They've been kindly called a "Brain-dead pentium" before...

    Imagine one coupled to a 5200!

  • ThwartedEfforts #168 8 years ago

    Amnesia said: If you missed these games first time round - the original doom, the original quake - they really really reaallly suck to someone who plays them for the first time now. No really they do. Suck suck suck, suck suck. Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite. Shittyshit. Doom is shit. Yes.

    jDoom is a free, beautifully made Doom replica for today's graphics hardware. It adds mouselook, jumping, 16-player multiplayer and a bunch of other mod cons - all while remaining 100% faithful to the original. It's a real hoot that anyone can enjoy on any PC, typing pool spec upwards, and you've never downloaded it because Doom is shit.

    The fun factor is often what's missing from these highly engineered, self-absorbed blockbusters. Ever wondered why people still play Counter-Strike? Ever wondered why you can still buy Twister? Let me assure you, Doom is most definitely not shit. It's old, yes, but still fun. You're just playing the wrong version.

  • Nillsens #169 8 years ago

    "I don't think you'll find many that agree with you Errol. Q3's movement and weapon dynamic is so much deeper and more refined than Q2."

    Go and play Doom 3 with the graphics on low during MP for an hour. Then go play Quake 2 MP for an hour. Then come back and tell me with a straight face that it doesn't feel the same.

    "only innovative games should be encouraged."

    The most important statement EVER!!! Best example I can think of at the moment: Viewtiful Joe 2.
    In the original, he could slow, zoom and mach. If all the sequel would add would be far prettier graphics and things that try to make me jump out of my seat (har har, sorry) then I would not get it.
    However, he has gained a new ability, replay. This alone already allows me to experience the same thing... IN A NEW WAY!!! Tada!!!
    The most important part of the industry moving forward unlocked :p

    The big problem now... where is Doom 3's little bit of gameplay innovation? Don't get me wrong, I don't think Doom 3 sucks, by no means. But it should not be scoring over an 8. Scores higher should be reserved for games that either think of something new, or think of a much better way to do somehing already done.

    "Not meaning to be derogatory, just voicing an opinion: I think many who are not impressed with Doom 3 because it brings nothing ‘new’ or ‘original’ to the table are just the kind of people that are beloved of marketing people and salesmen. People who have been influenced into having a strong desire to only buy things that are new, where the newness is the only reason to buy the product. If something is not doing anything that hasn’t been done before yet it delivers so well on the job it has taken on it will be disregarded, if something comes along and offers, say a 1mega-pixel camera or polyphonic ringtones, then that is good and must be purchased."

    Hahaha, what a silly prejudice. I'm complaining and I HATE mobile ringtones. I mean, I'm using the word HATE about ringtones...
    Seriously, where did you get that from?

  • gamingdave #170 8 years ago

    Has anyone bashing the score for not taking originality into account actualy read the review?

    "It is not a varied game, and it's certainly about as far away from being original as you could get."

    The fact monsters spawn behind you, dont attack till you grab a pickup, well theyre tried and tested entertaining game mechanics.

    Doom is what doom is. Complaining about it is like complaining about House of the Dead, if you dont like it you dont like it. But dont bash the reviewer cause you dont like the game.

    --edit--

    oh and pointless thread
    Edited by 1 at 10/08/04 @ 17:48

  • yegon #171 8 years ago

    Great link from kevf. Seen it before. So very very true.

    Exactly the same arguments will emerge when Half Life 2, Halo 2, and Stalker et al are released.

    Some people say Halo 2 vs Half Life 2 vs Doom3.

    I say Halo 2 *AND* Half Life 2 *AND* Doom3 (that said, I am finding D3 a tad repetitive, but there ya go).
    Edited by 2 at 10/08/04 @ 17:59

  • bungalooBunny #172 8 years ago

    "Doom is what doom is. Complaining about it is like complaining about House of the Dead, if you dont like it you dont like it. But dont bash the reviewer cause you dont like the game. "

    I'll second that.
    Edited by 1 at 11/08/04 @ 01:01

  • mash the x button #173 8 years ago

    Does the pc/console game medium have much life left in it? Seems to me that it's just one sequel after another nowadays. Ok, the graphics may be better, but so what?!?
    Why don't studios publish original material?
    "Because that's not where the money is honey"...
    If everyone waited 6 months after release and for the price to drop it would be interesting to see the reaction.
    Edited by 1 at 10/08/04 @ 22:19

  • Lutz #174 8 years ago

    Does it have m040Rb1k3s!!!onetwo

    And indeed, OMGWTFLOL IDDQD

  • UncleLou #175 8 years ago

    have similar specs, got it this morning, running it on 1.8 Athlon, GF4ti 4400 & 512 RAM.

    started with res at 1024x768, medium detail settings, no FSAA.

    it's playable... just, dropping res to 800x600 smooths it out, guess you'll probably have to do the same.

    Good to hear, the girl-friend wants to play it (!), and there are pretty much her PC's specs, too.

    Besides, I tried 800*600 on medium on my PC, and it still looks lovely. The low resolution isn't nearly as obvious as in other games.
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/04 @ 11:33

  • Frank #176 8 years ago

    "These are my specs:
    AMD Athlon 1700+ processor
    GForce FX5200 128mb DDR
    512mb SDR Ram"

    I also have a similar spec:
    XP1800+ @ 1.75Ghz
    ATI 9700Pro 128Mb
    512Mb SDram @151Mhz

    with a few tweaks it's running doom3 @ avg. 35fps on medium, no AA, all effects and 1024x768
    It looks great! I could drop the res to get more speed, but for most of the game (so far) it's coping ok.
    And speaking of the game...
    I'm shitting bricks playing this, it's pretty scary, lots of atmosphere.
    But it is a bit 'survival horror' at the moment. Which is fine, because it seems to be drawing me in on a fairly comfortable learning curve.
    I am seriously temted to use the 'duct tape' mod though.
    I hate the dark!
    Eeek. WTF was that ove there!
    *moistens pants*

    :edit
    Fek! My machine is old & crap! Arse!
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/04 @ 11:39

  • Whizzo #177 8 years ago

    Embattle wrote : Doom 3 is the Star Wars Episode One of games.

    Now that really sums up DoomIII for me completely, I salute you for your excellent analogy.

  • UncleLou #178 8 years ago

    /approaches Whizzo with chainsaw

  • krudster #179 8 years ago

    Played it with our on-loan 6800 Ultra last night and it's quite extraordinarily beautiful. We're in for a treat over the next few years by the look of it.

  • Errol #180 8 years ago

    I'm playing on a Gf4ti 4600 at 1024x768 medium detail (all advanced settings on), and it looks totally stunning (and runs perfectly - does not even slow down with multiple enemies on screen).

    So far, (and I'm at alpha labs 1 bit) this game is an easy 95% +.

  • medulla oblongata #181 8 years ago

    Your damn right basil!

  • gamingdave #182 8 years ago

    ReviewReader, but the review was balanced, he pointed out the good and bad points, but didnt think the fact the game mechanic was unoriginal in anyway lessened the enjoyment. Reviews ARE ment to be about opinion, thats why the reviewers name is mentioned. You read reviews and over time decide if you trust an individuals opinion or not. Everything was discussed in the review. If you looked at the score, went out and bought it becasue it got a 9, then were upset when you find out it wasnt original then thats your stupid fault for not reading the review.

    Oh and wtf are you on about, just looked on gamerankings and theres a consistantly high score, infact only 2 under 8/10 and an average of 89%.

    Hope your gone for good and troll somewhere else.
    Edited by 1 at 12/08/04 @ 16:51

  • bungalooBunny #183 8 years ago

    It's not just the visual experience, it's also a VERY scary game with ingenious level design.

    Best Id game so far, IMO.

  • UncleLou #184 8 years ago

    Yes, because if you like shallow games, you're shallow, too.

    *rolls eyes*

  • Errol #185 8 years ago

    Been playing it now for 8hrs + and still absolutely sensational (95% +).

  • ThwartedEfforts #186 8 years ago

    the better that medium looks, the better the base gameplay will be.

    The better a game looks the more enjoyable it can be, but better graphics giving improved gameplay? Like a car handling better if it's just been waxed? Shurely shome mishtake.

    Slight change of subject. Remember the first level of Doom ever, where you looked across the map to see bad guys sparring with one other on the other side? The odd fireball heading your way from miles distant? I imagined the update might build upon images such as this, and what people remembered and loved most about the game, but any nods to prior versions were all contrived.

    If D3 were less of a corridor shooter and had coop I think it'd have some real comeback factor. But I've finished and there's really not a lot to come back to...

  • harshman #187 8 years ago

    No. No. No. I'll tell you now. The critics are 100% correct here. Great eye candy. Boring predictable game with cheap tricks that wear off after not too long.

    A couple of sessions of good gaming here, then it loses you. 6/10.
    Edited by 1 at 15/08/04 @ 00:57

  • Dynamize #188 8 years ago

    Just uninstalled it a minute ago, caved and had to pick it up and have a gander, even if my machine is piss-poor for running it.
    I lasted about an hour and a half and then gave up, just found it dull. Once the initial hesitation brought on by the cupboards opening when X pick-up is, erm, picked up and such wore off, it was just a chore guessing where the next enemy would saunter out from.
    The atmosphere's decent, but ruined by my low expectation of any real interactivity, or the gameplay rising above the age-old Doom ethic.
    The engine's nice, even if it did run at about 10fps on medium, though I didn't notice much beyond what I'd already seen in Deadly Shadows or Far Cry. Bump-mapping off and I don't understand why it's still sluggish, because it seems to look worse than some fairly dated stuff.
    Gameplay's pretty dull, from what I played. Monster turns up, stand still, aim, fire until it drops, no room for maneuver on your or the monster's part, apart from a bit of backpedal if it's getting too close. The torch stuff, annoying and a result of either a) some ham-fisted attempt to create atmosphere, or b) some ham-fisted attempt to make the game harder, to my mind anyways.
    So yeah, it's poo, I don't like it. 5/10. All yous who disagree with me are scum and...errr...rubbish :).
    I dunno, maybe I just don't "get it", but if I need to make an effort to "get" a game, it doesn't smell right to me.
    Ho hum.
    Oh yeah, sorry for turning this into a Reader's Review type thing :)

  • medulla oblongata #189 8 years ago

    For a start if your getting 10 fps then your not going to have much fun no matter what game your playing, I find it strange that you complain that the graphics are'nt special.
    But how can they be if your system can only run at 10fps on medium, think about it, how can it look special with your set-up?


    The game is by no means original but it seems that you went into this game ready to pick it apart, for me the game got better and better the more i progressed.


    It's exactly what I wanted and more.

  • Dynamize #190 8 years ago

    Absolutely true, playing it on an Athlon XP1700+ is pretty bad, but I was still slightly confused as to why it still chugged with everything on low, bumpmapping off etc, yet looked inferior to Far Cry etc when they run pretty nicely.
    As far as the graphics not being anything special, that's obviously down to my crap machine. On medium at 1024x768, despite the poor framerate I was impressed with the skin textures during the opening sequence, but on the whole it looked much like Thief 3 or Far Cry to me. I could be totally missing some great graphical touches, granted, my machine blatantly can't do the engine justice.
    I won't pretend I didn't go in thinking "this isn't going to be all it's cracked up to be.", but the intro and the dark atmosphere drew me in a fair ways. Suddenly it was "Oh my, I'm going to have to take everything back. This is pretty exciting, engaging stuff!".
    Unfortunately it didn't pay off with gameplay to my tastes when the shooting started and, for me, the atmosphere was eschewed by the drudgery of the monster encounters and the disappointing level design.
    Like I said, I just don't get it. Plenty of other gamers do it seems, there's obviously fun to be had with it, but for me and a seeming minority it turned out fairly lacklustre.
    I'm now going to render my lengthy musings pointless, and make myself feel stupid by pretty much stating the obvious "each to their own", because it seems to make the most sense in hindsight.
    Still, pshaw 9/10. grumble grumble :)

  • medulla oblongata #191 8 years ago

    Have you tried turning shadows off?


    I did and it doubled my framerate,

  • Dynamize #192 8 years ago

    Yeah, that was my first port of call. Seemed to help in that the low frame rate became inconsistent i.e. I'd get some smooth game time at certain points, but still sluggish in the main.
    I think it's just another sign that this CPU needs to be put out to pasture. I've been eyeing up an AMD64, or a P4, can't decide which, and the associated costs of a new motherboard, PSU, proly even a case means I might as well buy a brand new computer. I hate not being quite clever enough to understand all the bits in a computer.

  • UncleLou #193 8 years ago

    Absolutely true, playing it on an Athlon XP1700+ is pretty bad

    Can't quite agree. I was playing it on the girl-friend's PC this weekend - Athlon XP 1800, Geforce 4 Ti, 512 MB. Medium detail, all advanced options (except AA) turned on, 800x600 resoultion. Runs pretty good, with only slight slow-downs when a few monsters appear at once.

    I agree that textures, bump-mapping and special affects aren't looking better than in Far Cry, but the monsters, NPCs and especially the animations are miles ahead of Far Cry.

  • penhalion #194 8 years ago

    @Dynamize

    Don't feel you are in the minority for not finding doom 3 to be anything new or interesting. It appears that the Majority of gamers who purchased it didn't get why magazines scored it 9/10 either. As a result of this and word of mouth it isn't exactly moving off shelves.

    This goes to show that the gaming public are no longer fooled by companies that spend years on the tech and 2 minutes on the game then quote the total time as the game development time. Don't they know by now that a hastily tacked on game shows no matter how shiny the eye candy! (never thought I'd put ID in this categories but just goes to show that fame goes to peoples heads no matter the industry)

    Here in england Doom3 went from £45 to £35 to £29.99 all in the same day as word got around about how much BS reviewers were touting about a game that was simply sub standard in all but looks. A friend at HMV has told me that people simpy didn't turn up to get their pre-orders on the first day!

    Thankfully companies learn quickly when their pockets are hit. I trust Carmack will stop trying to make gamers his bitches expecting them to buy whetever he puts out wether it's good or not (romero tried and look what happened to him)

    Anyways I'd take the doom fanboy brigades hyping up of how good doom3 is with a large pich of salt after all the majority of gamers have cottoned on to the BS now and simply left the game on shelves. One for the good guys me thinks (at least here in the uk).

  • striker #195 8 years ago

    That's very interesting. Where did you get those numbers from? And is it a simple majority or a qualified majority? If so, how much?
    Edited by 2 at 16/08/04 @ 00:11

  • Judas808 #196 8 years ago

    Doom 3 is the most terrifying game I have played to date; FPS survival horror.

    An AMD Arthlon™ XP 1700+ CPUs should run this game fine. Firstly, check your video card is upto the job. Secondly, check your PC is virus free. A guy I work with came to me and said, "FarCry" is running really badly, can you help me upgrade my PC?", So I asked him what spec his PC was, he replied "P4 2.6GHz, 512MB RAM, RADEON® 9700 PRO 128MB....". Obviously, more than adequate to run FarCry, so I said, "Have you got virus/firewall protection?" (he had broadband you see), he said "No". So I advised him to use an online virus checker, removed any viruses with the tools you can download, and go out and buy virus/firewall protection software. He found over a hundred viruses. His PC is clean now, and FarCry runs like a dream.

    The minimum PC Specification for Doom 3 is:

    1.5GHz or equivalent CPU
    384MB RAM
    NVIDIA® GeForce™3 or RADEON® 8500 and above

    I would add to this and say stick to a DirectX® 9.0 GPU/VPU and steer away from budget cards based on NVIDIA® GeForce4™ MX, GeForce™ FX 5200 - 5500, RADEON™ 9000 - 9250 GPUs/VPUs.

    At default "Low Quality" 640x480, no "tweeks", with the above in mind it runs fine.

    My own personal recommended list of GPUs/VPUs to go for would be:

    NVIDIA® GeForce™ FX 5700 - 5950
    NVIDIA® GeForce™ 6600 - 6800
    RADEON® 9600 - 9800
    RADEON® X800

    Oh, and to raise a point. The feeling I'm getting from a lot of the negative opinions on Doom 3, is that its fundamental gameplay hasn't changed from the original Doom. A little news-flash for all you haters out there; Doom 3 is a remake, yes to clarify once more, a remake. The fundamental gameplay isn't going to change. Doom 3 is Doom with a new awesome 3D engine and absolutely awesome audio. And because of those two improvements, its much more terrifying than its forefather. Any complaints you have, you have with the original too, by default. So just face it FPS just ain't your thing.

    Doom's gameplay was wicked, I'm glad id software has preserved it and not tried anything fancy to "jazz" it up in Doom 3.

    To close, I've seen AI run on the spot and in circles in FarCry.

  • penhalion #197 8 years ago

    @striker

    These figures are from shops in and around london. Even Amazon uk is selling Doom3 for 28.99 here now and it has an average user review of just 3 stars.

    Are you one of the few who didn't see past the graphics and loved the game. If so then good for you but, you will find that casual gamers don't pay too much attention to graphics, especially when a game is simply too dark to even see them properly. My faith in common sense is restored.

  • penhalion #198 8 years ago

    @Judas808

    It's late and I'm laughing at your post (sorry but i really am). You haven't played the original doom have you. It is neither overtly dark nor does it pretend to have a plot. It is simply a pure adrenalin rush as you try to close a portal to hell and inadvertently end up on the wrong side of it. Even then your bad ass marine simply shrugs and pretty much says come get some to the hoards from hell!

    Play the original Doom, then play Doom 2 then play Doom3, then take that attitude of yours and the resulting red face with you when you leave the room :o)

  • striker #199 8 years ago

    Sorry, but you must have ever checket amazon before... Doom 3 is selling at the same price or higher than most PC games.

    And I was asking where you were getting the numbers about the majority of players disliking it. Where?

    Yes, I did see beyond the graphics, but I have certainly not sismissed them. They are part of the game and are great. As is the sound. Take that away from it, play it without being scared by graphics, sounds and monsters (nothing wrong with that, some people are more easily scareds than others), and yu end up with a rather average game.

    BUT, if you are scared, if you wave your flashlight around in horror, if you hate encountering monsters as they scare you, if you are scared to take the next step, that is, if you play the game as the developers wanted you to, then it's an incredible game.

    Then again, if you're not scared, then the game is not for you.

  • striker #200 8 years ago

    Damn! Why do I bother arguing with someone who is stupid enough to claim without a doubt that the majority of players dislike the game?

    I never learn...

  • striker #201 8 years ago

    And actually mate, I'd forgotten how Doom was. So after playing a bit of Doom 3 I downloaded and tried Doom for Windows 95.

    To my surprise it's actually much alike, with hidden monsters and triggers, spawning enemies and flickering lights.

    You had more enemies to fight, but then there's got to be something there to scare you, and back then it couldn't be neither lighting nor sound.

  • penhalion #202 8 years ago

    @Striker

    You claim the majority like it then do you. The figures as I already stated come from the shops in and around london. This is immediate feedback to the distributors and hence people I work with and know in the industry. Amazon is claiming 44% off the recommended retail price are you seriously telling me that is normal for a new game. I happen to know it isn't and this isn't limited to online retail either with places like Gamestation and Game doing similar deals to shift copies.

    Simply being vocal does not make something true so you can sit and chant the matra doom3 is good all you like. Luckily reality doesn't bow to your will.

    As I said if you liked the game then nothing anyone says should bother you. Clearly negative comments about doom3 Do bother you so I guess even you are having trouble ignoring the obvious i.e. that ID have made a $55 tech demo and you went out and bought it oops!

  • striker #203 8 years ago

    Have you checked other PC games prices already?

    No? You really should to stop making such a fool of yourself.

    And I don't claim nothing, I just fail to understand how you discovered the opinion of the majority of gamers...

    I don't even say the game is great! I just say that if someone feels like I do playing it, hat is , scared, then the game is a succes to those players.

    I don't care if you like it or not. It is you that has a problem with people liking it if you ghave to come to an internet forum to say for a fact that the majority of gamers don't like it... that's a stupid thing to say in itself, as saying the majority liked it would be.
    Edited by 1 at 16/08/04 @ 01:45

  • asphaltcowboy #204 8 years ago

    "Even Amazon uk is selling Doom3 for 28.99 here now and it has an average user review of just 3 stars."

    EVEN Amazon are selling at this price? You sound very shocked by that. Which is funny... because they've been selling it at that price from ages ago - right when pre-orders began. mx2.co.uk and play.com have also been selling it for around the £25-29 mark. That's quite a standard online retail price for PC games nowadays, didn't you know? Has no one told you? What the hell are you talking about?

    With regards to HMV... I'm not surprised they dropped their prices... show me a moron who'd actually pay £45 for ANY PC game... *sigh*

  • Peekaboo #205 8 years ago

    2 Cents worth -Brilliant game. Does exactly what Carmack said it would. It's Doom, updated, scary as hell, intense and VERY pretty. Really enjoying it. Very much a "What the Fuck was that ????!!!!" game. Quite glad it turned out as it did actually, anything else and it would have felt to far removed from what made the original Doom so much fun.

  • Amajiro #206 8 years ago

    299

  • Amajiro #207 8 years ago

    300!

  • Judas808 #208 8 years ago

    @ penhalion

    Thank you for your comment. However, you are incorrect in your assumption.

    In response to your "assumption". My parents bought me my first computer when I was 12 years old. I first saw Doom when I was 17 years old. I was visiting my girlfriend at university when I saw it on someone Else's PC. I saved some cash and bought a PC 6 months later, suffice to say, along with Heretic, Hexen, Doom 2, I played Doom quite a bit back then, before Duke Nukem 3D arrived, followed by Quake.

    I disagree with your opinions on Doom I'm afraid. And I never once said, to quote "overtly dark", don't know where you got that one from. I stated a very well know fact; Doom 3 is a remake of Doom. This fact which you seem unable to comprehend, answers the criticisms you have about Doom 3.

    Oh and finally, just to make it personal like you did. I don't think you've ever played Doom, nor Doom 3 for that matter. I think you wingeing on this post because you don't have the PC to run it, and your just bitter.

    Oh and I'm 29 now. And I don't like being called a liar. And I should be free to express my opinions on posts like this without being accused of being one.

  • Nikanoru #209 8 years ago

    Doom 3 is a remake of Doom.

    Please explain, because I have yet to encounter E1M1, or any other map, or even any distant variants thereof.

    You mean the script is a remake, or something? I don't know what you're getting at.

    Edit: Penhalion, you must be the sort of person who is destined to spend his life as some office prick. The sort of person who starts talking about spreadsheets during the good part of a movie. No imagination, no feelings, deviod of all joy and childlike wonder.

    Not being able to experience the adventure of this game, not being able to immerse in its beautifully crafted world and feel the butterflies in your stomach, basically because your only dreams consist of rows of numbers and technicalities, preferably in Microsoft Excel, is one thing. Trying to force that grey, numb world of yours on other people is something else entirely. You better quit while you're ahead (even though you're not).


    Btw, the last two paragraphs go out to anybody who judges the game by a list of checkboxes (like somebody said).
    Edited by 2 at 17/08/04 @ 08:34

  • Varsity #210 8 years ago

    More of a re-interpretation than a re-make. Doom 3 assumes the events in Doom never happened.

  • MoFo #211 8 years ago

    I'm surprised at how some people seem to feel that criticising Doom 3 is akin to heresy. I enjoyed Doom because it was fresh and original. Doom 3 is not fresh or original - hence I'm not finding it particularly enjoyable. Ok I lie, it was for about two hours.

    If other people like it then fair enough, but don't call me a dumb gamer or whatever you like because of it. So some people like to play a game that offers something original whilst others prefer to be stuck in the past and are afraid of change. Whatever...

    ...losers.
    Edited by 1 at 17/08/04 @ 14:21

  • Judas808 #212 8 years ago

    Nikanoru,

    I see what you saying, it isn't a remake in a level by level sense, but early on in development of Doom 3 I distinctly remember id software use the term "remake", which is why I've chosen to use that term. Its just more fleshed out. Doom 3 feels like Doom to me. I have a good imagination, so there was always more to Doom in my head. Its good to see some of things I wished for back then, come to life now.

    Mofo,

    There someone goes again. Because people have a different opinion to you they are "losers" and "afraid of change".

    Everyone else,

    When I played Doom 3 for the first time, I got Doom remade. Perhaps I am seeing this game though rose-tinted-glasses, but I think its brilliant. And the younger people I meet think is brilliant too, even though they missed Doom. I wasn't expecting anything more than Doom 3 has brought to the table. Some people on this post are criticising Doom 3 for things it didn't . I just think it should be criticised it on things it set out to do.

    Its like saying to someone "You've got a crappy tattoo" when they haven't even got a tattoo. Do you see what I'm saying?

  • Tiger_Walts #213 7 years ago

    Started playing from scratch on my laptop. (Runs really well too :D) I noticed something pretty funny; check out what the guy who gives you your PDA types on his terminal.

  • jonnyreb #214 7 years ago

    Maybe a bit late in the day to ask.....but are we going to see a multiplayer review of this? Unless it's already done and I missed it.

    The only reason I'd buy it is for the MP element, and so far all I have heard is about the SP experience.

  • suj #215 4 years ago

    So where is the multi player review? It's only been 3 and a half years.
    Edited by 1 at 19/03/08 @ 00:31

  • Verwandlung #216 4 years ago

    haha

  • AlphaOmega #217 4 years ago

    Hello. This is 2008 calling. Turns out Doom 3 was better than a lot of games that followed in its footsteps. There will be this supposedly AAA game in 2007 called Bioshock that not only has a worse story but worse graphics, worse gameplay and is pretentious to boot!

  • Syon #218 4 months ago

    Haha, I just came... here ;) to take a snap look at the game's score/review and wow, Doom 3 is better than RAGE (a.d. 2011);) Well anyway I'm not gonna troll on this one. For me... damn, I just love id games no matter what score they get. Cheers!