Its gameplay is nothing NEW, though. The hype surrounding this does not equal the sales of any of the other games that are exactly like its description. The only thing going for it is eyecandy.
Ok, well then I must ask you this: what do graphics have to do with hype?Apparently, everything.
You just admitted the graphics do, in fact, look greatNo, I admitted that the engine has the potential for great graphics. I still say that the graphics for Doom 3 do not seem to live up to its hype.
What did you see in this video that made you think it will be anything like Unreal 2?The fact that the gameplay seems to consist entirely of shooting at monsters and watching cutscenes.
What did you see in the video that turns you off to the game?The lack of anything justifying its $50 price tag.\
The truth is, you have nothing until you play it. So play it, then gripe about it.The truth is, that none of you can give any real reason to look forward to this game beyond that it has a nice lighting engine and the word "Doom" in the title.
The original Doom had gameplayNo, actually, its gameplay wasn't that different from Wolf 3D. It simply seemed otherwise since it was one of the only FPS's on the market. Not to mention that Doom's gameplay idea has been played out so much since its release, it will not work for a new game. Unreal 2 proved this.
You act as though the lighting is purely eye-candy; the equivalent of a cutscene. In fact it is fully interactive, which is what the whole fuss is about. It will affect and in fact create gameplay.No, it is indeed pure eye-canding. You're thinking of Dues Ex 2.
I'm not sure I understand that statement.It was a typo, I meant "graphics". I've edited it in the original statement.
Well, sure, but those are all yet to be seen. One could say that something broad like "destructible objects" or "interactive environments" are a mainstay of high end gaming, but that doesn't mean that one game doesn't do it better than others, or that just because it's there that it's implemented well.You're not getting it. It isn't in Doom 3 at all. Doom 3 is simply a straightforward run-and-gun shooter. They've said this multiple times.
Now I just don't understand what you're basing these conclusions on. We've still hardly seen Doom 3.We've seen two movies, many lengthy previews, screenshot after screenshot, and even a leaked demo.
I mean, to an extent I see where you're coming from, I don't expect Doom 3 to have really deep gameplay, but I don't think anyone does.Its gameplay is nothing NEW, though. The hype surrounding this does not equal the sales of any of the other games that are exactly like its description. The only thing going for it is eyecandy.
Is it being hyped? not in the least bit.Tim Willits's recent little "DOOM 3 SHALL ROXOR J00!" interview begs to differ. Same goes for the other interviews that have gone up since E3, especially the huge PC Gamer article last year.
All the 3D character models are generated with Maya.. the models are simply ported into a key framing animation App and "viola!" life. I don't know what your talking about on that point????Look at the skull in the first screen shot. That's low poly, and certainly not smooth. What Doom 3 does is takes ultra-high-poly models and turn them low poly. This was covered in the PCG interview last year. And it seems that it hasn't turned out looking too good.
with Doom III there are obvious curvatures to surfacesIt just looks like there are a lot of curvatures, from their use of Normal Mapping. In actuality, they're low-poly models. Look at the bottom of the leftmost spider's left front leg. The angles are obvious.
But, as long as the creative processes don't hire idiots that make screenplays for movies like The Core and Armeggedon.. everything may turn out alrightIt would take one hell of a story to make up for the gameplay shortcomings in Doom 3.
Lighting is no substitute for gameplay.
No, only pixar-level graphics will give us pixar quality gameplay.
That's also possible in Half Life 2, Theif 3, Deus Ex 2, etc etc. Physics are now a mainstay in high-end gaming.
Only when it involves actual results instead of simple potential. This engine probably will be something great, but id certainly isn't showing it in Doom 3.
Why would I play such an uninteresting game?
Yea. Lighting is Everything when it comes to what you see around you.Lighting is no substitute for gameplay.
It's lighting fx that will give us Pixar quality gamingNo, only pixar-level graphics will give us pixar quality graphics.
You probably weren't all that impressed with the physics of the game ether, were you?I'm more impressed with the Havok engine.
When the zombie burst from the floor and the grating went bouncing to the ground.That's also possible in Half Life 2, Theif 3, Deus Ex 2, etc etc. Physics are now a mainstay in high-end gaming.
Hmmmmmm. Seems to me you don't have much of an appreciation for the evolution of gaming.Only when it involves actual results instead of simple potential. This engine probably will be something great, but id certainly isn't showing it in Doom 3.
So, tell us. What game makes you go WOW! Im sure you'll say Stalker. High polys and high rez textures. yea? Like a book. ....or, maybe your just trying to be differnt and stand out?I keep hearing about Stalker, but I actually haven't looked that closely at any media for it.
Well, we know one thing for sure. If you do play this. Your going to be complaning, complaining, the whole entire timeWhy would I play such an uninteresting game?
Because technology just isn't where you want it to be yet, if ever.Actually, it is where I want it to be. Deus Ex 2 is going to have much better Normal Mapping, and Half Life 2 is going to have better texturing, modelling, animation, physics, etc.
personally I am not into the spelling of the word as long as the point gets across.
Xombie, you have no credibility in your opinion.You can insult me until your face turns blue, but I have yet to see anyone actually state anything revolutionary or unique in this engine besides the lighting.
The graphics are amazing.
...the reason why id is using the Maya render also is because of the smooth modeling and bump mapping features it offersWhat's in Maya isn't necessarily what's seen in the game. The game renders using the D3 engine, not Maya. id has already said that the engine takes high-poly models and makes them low-poly.
have no idea why Xombie is so focused on textures...Because Xombie can't see any way to justify buying a $50 tech demo for a lighting engine.
If you are seeing textures?" it's due to the highly demanding nature of surface model bump mappingI didn't say I had a problem with there BEING textures. I have a problem with them being low res.
When you see a model rendered in Doom III you are seeing real time nurbed objects (which provides that smooth skin surface not angular)Then please tell me why there are quite obviously angular skin surfaces.
Carmack has incorporated into what is eqivelant to realtime CGI not those cool CGIs you see when a game intro begins.I'm sorry, but so what? The models still seem look like Quake 3 calibur ones in-game.
as for other effects: blood that behaves with the physics of water. and sorted other featuresAlright, water physics. That's impressive. But that still only makes two things.