Doom III: Single-Player Comments by Kristan Reed

Great review.

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

Predictable review IMHO.

Peej

Played it then Peej?

Doom 3 is dark?

Confirm/Deny

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.

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

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!!!

This really is turning out to be a marmite game.

I don't really like marmite.

What is wrong with Doom 3 then, m8 ?

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

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? ;-)

/resists temptation to bring up Driv3r....

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.

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

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.

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.

Doom 3

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.

review and score is spot on imo

looking forward to the coop play on the Xbox next

"Great review.

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

/errol mode
Matron!
/errol mode off

"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.

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]

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

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?

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

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]

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

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

Peej

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).

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". ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

9/10
better than halo??

\ runs and hides

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

what, like halo?

/ falls into own trap

damn it! damn it! damn it!

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.

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.