Doom III

Published 21 February, 2005

Comments (22) Latest comment 7 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Blerk #1 8 years ago

    They look pretty good... but everything's still far too 'clean' to be properly scary. I mean, look at that bathroom - it's spotless! If this was Silent Hill they'd have had blood and shit smeared everywhere. Actually, if that was our office they'd have had blood and shit smeared everywhere as well...

    Official!
    Blerk's office toilets scarier than Doom 3!

  • UncleLou #2 8 years ago

    Yeah, the sophisticated lighting and the texture detail of the PC shots got lost somehow.

  • KyuZo #3 8 years ago

    If you look at the screenshot after the toilet one there's blood and.. well I dunno about the shit, but lots of blood smeared everywhere.

    I agree the screenshots don't seem to have the same impact as the PC ones though. But then you'd need a killer PC to beat the Xbox ones....
    Edited by KyuZo at 28/04/04 @ 10:07

  • Eldritch #4 8 years ago

    I see polygons here, and not that many. I'm underwhelmed.

  • Spanky #5 8 years ago

    I think 'they' should release a video, 'they' should know these screens look pap!

  • Cyhwuhx #6 8 years ago

    .::: Kudos to 'them' for releasing real screenshots instead of renders. That's also why you see jaggies and such.

  • Errol #7 8 years ago

    Yes, 'they' should (?).

  • Kami #8 8 years ago

    Also, I suppose the console market is very different from the PC market... it may have been dumbed down a bit for the X-Box due to the market being targeted.

    Just a theory though... will still get the PC version though. No excuse for the lack of lighting and bad jaggies thouugh... and quite poor textures too.


    As for you Blerk... ever heard of hiring a CLEANER?
    Edited by Kami at 28/04/04 @ 12:21

  • Blerk #9 8 years ago

    We had one, but the zombies ate him.

  • Pirotic #10 8 years ago

    looks alot poorer than the PC shots, but surely thats to be expected.

    i would compare it to halo 2, but without knowing the two games promised framerates its hard to judge.

  • BLACKSHEEP #11 8 years ago

    Well if it runs at 60fps (more like 30) then those visuals are fine. Come on does anyone seriously expect the Xbox to compete with the latest PC technology?

  • rIcHiEPoOh #12 8 years ago

    How the fuck can you dumb down Doom 3? And everyone here is talking like they expected it to look as good as the PC version.

  • KyuZo #13 8 years ago

    The floating skulls sing lullabies and the big pat-a-cake man rubs his belly and gives you a hug.

  • Kami #14 8 years ago

    "And everyone here is talking like they expected it to look as good as the PC version."

    Again with the Halo 2 comparison... Halo 2 goes above and beyond all graphical prowess I expected. Side-by-side with the original, Halo 2 isn't just leaps and bounds ahead, its progressed by light years!

    Some effort into the X-Box version would have been nice... but it just doesn't look like it's going to happen.

  • Eldritch #15 8 years ago

    "And everyone here is talking like they expected it to look as good as the PC version."

    No, but they didn't really try that hard, now, did they? Compared to Halo 2, this is a disappointment. Then again, maybe the engine is not that scalable.

  • Kami #16 8 years ago

    Possibly. But then again, the games not due 'til the end of the year... still plenty of time for ID to work their magic!

    It's only a job of cleaning up some of the scaling issues... not much to ask really.

  • Umbala #17 8 years ago

    Remember kids, things look better in action. You have to see the sunset yourself before it becomes beautiful. ;-)

    Oh, and why not use FSAA, when we have the technology for it? On newer TV sets with RGB cables, you will see the jaggies, and you will get annoyed when a sharp edge sticks out in places.

  • Kami #18 8 years ago

    Like I said, just some small scaling issues. Some jaggies are forgivable... most games will have them and thats just the way it goes...

    Scaling issues can be dealt with though. I think ID are trying to focus on everything working and then concentrate on the minor graphical touch-ups. Which is understandable and reasonable at the same time...

    On the other hand, it's a console port and it IS scaling down to a point... sometimes, you have to compromise...

    Blerk... ever thought of entering for "Britains Worst Work Toilets?" Get yourself on telly and those zombies may eventually get their own daytime TV shows and leave your bogs...
    Edited by Kami at 29/04/04 @ 12:59

  • Salvia #19 8 years ago

    "It's only a job of cleaning up some of the scaling issues... not much to ask really. "

    If it's so easy why don't you offer to do it for them..? What exactly do you mean by 'scaling issues'?

    "Some effort into the X-Box version would have been nice... but it just doesn't look like it's going to happen. "

    I'm sure VV would be glad to hear that you think they've been sat on their arses all this time doing the minimum amount of work to get the game to this state.

    "No excuse for the lack of lighting and bad jaggies thouugh... and quite poor textures too. "

    Apart from the fact that the Xbox has a much reduced spec compared to the PC hardware that D3 will require to run.

  • Pirotic #20 7 years ago

    Got to see this running in co-op mode the other day, and was very very impressed - 'almost' PC quality, and had a decent framerate.

  • HarryB #21 7 years ago

    now cmon... the game REQUIRES directX compatible hardware to run and yet this is running on a Geforce3 chipset... that's directx8.... that means emulation if dx9 effects wanna be used... give them a break, you're givin me a headache

  • tenma #22 7 years ago

    I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that the xbox version doesn't look quite as good as the pc version but then again, an optimal pc is always more advanced in terms of hardware than any console on the market. And i agree with whoever mentioned about the screenshots not being same as actual video. You'd have to be an idiot to entirely judge the graphics of a game based off screen shots. When you're running around in dimly lit environments, you're not going to notice the aliasing or other defects that are so visible in a still screenshot.
    Big deal, the graphics aren't as perfect as the PCs, but as far as console games go it's definitely pretty damn good in terms of graphics. It's pointless to incessantly put the game down just because your PC, which it was built for, can run it better.