Doom III: Single-Player Comments by Kristan Reed
Right. That's it. London's too hot - we're off to Mars.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
previous 50
|
Comments: 151-200 of 217 in total
|
next 50 
Poster
|
caboosemoose
09/08/04 @ 14:19
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 09/08/04 @ 15:22
|
|
0
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 |
|
0
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 :) |
|
Startled Pancake
10/08/04 @ 08:54
0
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. |
|
0
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).
|
|
ThwartedEfforts
10/08/04 @ 14:53
0
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. |
|
0
"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
10/08/04 @ 16:48
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 10/08/04 @ 17:48
|
|
0
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 2 times,
most recently on 10/08/04 @ 17:59
|
|
bungalooBunny
10/08/04 @ 18:24
0
"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 1 times,
most recently on 11/08/04 @ 01:01
|
|
mash the x button
10/08/04 @ 21:09
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 10/08/04 @ 22:19
|
|
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 12/08/04 @ 11:33
|
|
0
"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 1 times,
most recently on 12/08/04 @ 11:39
|
|
gamingdave
12/08/04 @ 15:51
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 12/08/04 @ 16:51
|
|
bungalooBunny
12/08/04 @ 18:40
0
It's not just the visual experience, it's also a VERY scary game with ingenious level design.
Best Id game so far, IMO. |
|
ThwartedEfforts
13/08/04 @ 17:23
0
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... |
|
0
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 :) |
|
0
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 :) |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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. |
|
deathgibbon
15/08/04 @ 18:54
0
The graphics in Doom 3 are brilliant. I can't wait till somebody makes a game with them. Just imagine... a game with the Doom 3 engine!
|
|
0
@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). |
|
0
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. |
|
0
@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. |
|
0
@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) |
|
0
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. |
previous 50
|
Comments: 151-200 of 217 in total
|
next 50
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
