You haven't read very much then, S_DOG34.

1) The first game to support true 5.1 surround sound.

2) The game plays through a rich story, which was written and story boarded before production.

3) The physics engine, which is more powerful than HL2's, will add cool gameplay mechanics and interesting puzzles.

4) The light engine allows for dark spaces where monsters hide, waiting to jump out at you and make you taint your undies.

5) The player has a PDA, which he uses to communicate with other people trapped within the complex.

6) The computer consoles and switches are completely interactive. You walk up to one and your crosshair is replaced by a cursor, you press buttons on the computer screen, showing you just how real the game world is. A door locked by a keypad? You actually press the buttons on the keybad to open the door. Very immersive.

7) In one article I read, the demonstrator stressed that you had to be careful about shooting out the lights because there are monsters that only come out when it's dark.

8) Careful what you shoot at. Blasting a window in the Mars facility will result in a vacuum causing everyone and everything to get sucked out of the base and into the atmosphere, where you can't breathe.

9) The per-poly hit detection makes enemies harder to shoot. Since there are no longer hit boxes, you actually have to hit it to hit it.

10) Their use of scripting and heavily animated environments. Because they can take any section of any level and animate it professionally using Maya, they are able to create scripted areas where monsters break through walls or doors, come up from floorboards or down from the ceiling.

11) They have put a serious effort into making this a good single-player experience. They've said that their main goal is to scare you, but it's obvious that there is an objective and a plot and a story in the game that is advanced through NPC and PDA interaction along with in-game cut scenes. You put all of these things in a list along with the fact that id software has really not released very much information about the actual game, and you have to think it at least looks promising.

You're right, most of what has been published has been about the engine. But that is a good thing, not a bad thing. Valve is eager to show off a lot of things about Half-Life 2, so much in fact that we already know a lot about the story. But id has kept their mouths shut about DOOM 3's story, letting out just little hints and tidbits. They're keeping everything a secret. But you read Todd Hollendshead interviews and you hear him talking about interacting with NPCs, needing to protect scientists who are useful to you; all these little things that they let slip that add up to something very tangible.

I'm not saying it's a fact that DOOM 3 is going to be a good game. How can I? But just as I can't say it's going to be good, so you can't say it's not going to be good. There is no reason for doubt here, just gut feelings and excitement about Half-Life 2. And I do think Half-Life 2 will be great, it it won't take anything away from DOOM 3. They are different games with different styles, and I'm looking forward to them both.

That is my argument. Take it or leave it.

Kobalt, your rhetoric is, well, rhetoric. There is nothing anyone can say here that won't be perceived in a negative way by you. Actually, you're probably going to quote my "your rhetoric is, well, rhetoric" comment and tell me how I'm so smart for seeing rhetoric as rhetoric. Well, sorry break your heart, but it's easy to be you. It's easy to be an antagonist and a smart ass. But keep it up if it makes you feel good =)

I will freely admit that I am half-life biased, but in my opinion that just means that D3 wont have to be as good to impress me. Low expectations can be very easily exceeded. One thing is troubling though...everything posted about D3 concerns its graphics. Yes, they are pretty, but what about the gameplay? Looking at great graphics is cool and all, but I want to know why the gameplay makes it worthy of so much attention.

Kobalt, it comes down to one simple truth: you don't want DOOM 3 because you don't like any of id's previous games.

No, let's stop assuming shall we?

it is 100% certain that you will not like it because you don't want to like it.

Well im sure it is in your mind, in reality however..

I think you're just a flamer with some sort of "I hate id" complex.

Shrug you seem to think alot of things, cant help people that assume all the time.

I don't think anyone here said Half-life 2 sucked.

I don't think anyone said anyone did either.

Kobalt, it comes down to one simple truth: you don't want DOOM 3 because you don't like any of id's previous games.

Once you get over your bias and say, "look, this is a new game they're making, I will try it out," then you will be able to make a decision that is much more open.

You have not played DOOM 3. You can only guess how good it's going to be. But if you try the game with this kind of attitude, it is 100% certain that you will not like it because you don't want to like it. But if you open your mind and wait to play it before making a completely unbiased decision, then I may respect what you have to say. But right now? I think you're just a flamer with some sort of "I hate id" complex.

I don't think anyone here said Half-life 2 sucked.

Did anyone buy FarCry for the deathmatch? I'd prefer classic 4 player DM to that half-assed attempt at a multiplayer game. Point being that there are really only two kinds of games on the PC anymore: single player games and multiplayer games. Of course there is always an exception to the rule, but games like BF1942/Vietnam get ripped for their crumby single player experience when people bought those games for the multiplayer, just like people bought Splinter Cell for the single-player action.

but only because most of the people who play just want a quick dose of fun and not much haslle.
I agree that Multiplayer wont be very attractive to the average consumer, but then again the average consumer will buy the game mostly for its singleplayer.

This confuses me. First you agree most people dont like small deathmatch, then you say most people dont buy games for the multiplayer. Or did you mean most people that will end up buying the game wont do it for the 4 player dm? Thought that was obvious.


What I AM doing is, Im trying to change some peoples attitude to post random bullshit about a game that isnt even out, instead of trying to asses the value of a game on what little we know about it.

You poor naive soul, you rarely can ever change peoples attitude, let alone over the internet.

Comparing DOOM3 with Resident Evil? Maybe some parallels with the film, but the PC versions were poor, even for their time. Comparing a shoddy console port with predrawn graphics to a state of the art FPS? No comparison can be drawn.

Heh im not the one that started comparing doom 3 to resident evil, I was replaying to someone else post.

Since the majority of people to who I've shown the E3 DOOM3 video, go "christ that's amazing!",

Majority of what? People you have shown the game? Shit most people I know like anime but that doesn't mean it's mainstream.

Kobalt: What is your reasoning behind the opinion that DOOM3 is so bad? State your case. You said the graphics are shit, but why?

Personally I couldn't give a damn about the graphics really, im just sick of so many generic first person shooters and I dont think Doom 3 is going to be any different.I want another tribes, I want another half life etc, not the orginal doom with pretty graphics.

3. Issus: Typical deathmath servers for Quake III and Wolfenstein are 32 players. So 4 player is unusually low. A one Vs one deathmatch would bore the hell out of anyone, since the better of the two players would constantly win.

You are wrong about 1vs1 matches being extremely boring. That is only the case if the player you are playing has no skill. I found the most fun i had playing DM is against a great player who kicked my ass nearly every time. It made me a much better player and every time I won the feeling of victory was much more satisfying. The best way to improve your skill in a FPS is almost exclusively by playing 1vs1. Ask any good Quake or UT player and they will agree with this point.
Anyone can join a 16-32 player game and camp in the corner spamming rockets into a little room to score frags and win the match. Try this in a 1vs1 game and you will get slaughtered

Issus: Kobalt made a very valid point about deathmatch. 4 is poor. If everyone who plays wolfenstein and quake 3 switches to DOOM3 (ID can wish) then we'd need thousands more servers to meet demand.

Its true that there are a lot more 16 and 32 player servers out there, but only because most of the people who play just want a quick dose of fun and not much haslle.
I agree that Multiplayer wont be very attractive to the average consumer, but then again the average consumer will buy the game mostly for its singleplayer.
Another problem is that Doom3 has peer-to-peer networking meaning that all players will have to join a lobby before starting a match, and who there will probably be no joining on the fly (I could be wrong about this one, im not sure) that is why people who will play this game's Multiplayer will mostly play it in 1vs1.
Heh who would want to wait for 32 people to join before starting the match.

This comment was edited on May 25, 12:26.

You guys are fucking funny. Its not like there is a whole plethora of awesome FPS games coming out begging for your money. If you like FPS's and have an open mind [rare] then why wouldnt you at least try Doom 3 AND half life 2? Oh wait, because for some reason in your weird brains you choose one game to love and one game to hate, before they are even released. Explain the rationale in that? On 2nd thought don't bother.

I never stated that Half-life 2 is going to SUCK. Or that Doom 3 is going to RULE, or vice-versa. I think that both games will be pretty good. How good they will be will have to be seen.
What I AM doing is, Im trying to change some peoples attitude to post random bullshit about a game that isnt even out, instead of trying to asses the value of a game on what little we know about it.

1. Kobalt: Comparing DOOM3 with Resident Evil? Maybe some parallels with the film, but the PC versions were poor, even for their time. Comparing a shoddy console port with predrawn graphics to a state of the art FPS? No comparison can be drawn.

2. Kobalt: DOOM3 looks like shit? Compared to what? Maybe we should put your shit in an art gallery if it looks so good. Since the majority of people to who I've shown the E3 DOOM3 video, go "christ that's amazing!", so your opinion is in a minority. Unreal 3 engine does look very nice, but at this point it's just that, an engine, not a game.

3. Issus: Typical deathmath servers for Quake III and Wolfenstein are 32 players. So 4 player is unusually low. A one Vs one deathmatch would bore the hell out of anyone, since the better of the two players would constantly win.

Will the lack of co-op and limited multi-player spoil DOOM3? I don't know until I've played it.

The DOOM3 alpha was atmospheric and scary, despite having little AI, no weapons and being only 20% complete. The finished game will be a vast improvement.

Kobalt: What is your reasoning behind the opinion that DOOM3 is so bad? State your case. You said the graphics are shit, but why? Compared to what? Show me a similar game that's better (excluding Far Cry). It's not a case of right or wrong. Convince me that they could do better with current technologies. I always listen to solid argument. You said the spider monsters were a cliché, but the only similar monster I've ever seen was in "The thing" (John Carpenter's film). What new and wonderful monsters did you think the had in Half-Life 2? The bugs from "Starship Troopers" or the guys in gas masks (from Star Trek, Blakes Seven etc.). There are very few original monsters in PC games, which makes things like story and atmosphere more important.
If your argument is that the monsters are similar to ones in earlier versions of DOOM, isn't that the point? DOOM3 is a remake of DOOM1.

Issus: Kobalt made a very valid point about deathmatch. 4 is poor. If everyone who plays wolfenstein and quake 3 switches to DOOM3 (ID can wish) then we'd need thousands more servers to meet demand.

Let the counterarguments commence!

I have no idea why you think the enemies are designed terribly they look very good to me.

Differences of oppinion.

This is a tottaly subjective view here and is totally biased,

Oh wow because I dont like something you do im biased?

You will have 4 player multiplayer available OUT OF THE BOX

See, I like to base a game on it's merrits, not what it might have later.

for Deathmatch purposes 1vs1 is enough for everyone's needs.

No, if this was the case all dm servers would be 1vs1, which is actually rare.

What kind of nerdy fucking argument is this?

Wait, doom 3 is better, wait half life 2 is better. No wait, Quake 2 was better than unreal tournament.

No wait, Tribes sucked.

You guys are fucking funny. Its not like there is a whole plethora of awesome FPS games coming out begging for your money. If you like FPS's and have an open mind [rare] then why wouldnt you at least try Doom 3 AND half life 2? Oh wait, because for some reason in your weird brains you choose one game to love and one game to hate, before they are even released. Explain the rationale in that? On 2nd thought don't bother.

1.The only thing that the id fanboys can say will be different at all about doom 3 is it's going to be basicly resident evil in first person view. The fuck? There are some resident evil that came out that play like a fps so why is doom 3 different? It's sure as hell not going to scare anyone that resident evil wouldn't, thanks to it's terrible enemy design which brings up my next point-

2.The game looks like shit because of the shity textures and basicly whole art direction. Fucking robot spiders with a human head? wowow how scary and inovative the art team are. Instead of HL2 out of this world enemies we get generic cliche monsters that have been in every game since..doom. How nice after all these years id are just reusing shit from past games. I knew the differences between xbox and pc graphics it was the art, and even the pc graphics dont look so good after seeing the unreal 3 engine.

3.4 player multiplayer. nuff said

1st: Ive never played resident evil, it came out for the playstation first if I remember correctly and I play PC games. I have no idea why you think the enemies are designed terribly they look very good to me.

2st: Have you looked at even one screenshot of Doom 3? Shitty textures? Bad Art? This is a tottaly subjective view here and is totally biased, as far as I can tell Doom 3's graphics are unparallel, even die-hard Half-Life fanboys have admited that Doom 3 simply looks stunning. This second point you are making is pure provocation.

3rd: id have always said that Multiplayer will be scalable.
You will have 4 player multiplayer available OUT OF THE BOX, with the release of stand alone servers or patches this will be scaled up. Besides, for Deathmatch purposes 1vs1 is enough for everyone's needs. (Ask any pro Quake gamer)

This comment was edited on May 25, 02:31.

And like I pointed out, their technology was behind when ti was released, because id had already set the pace.

Uhh..wanna compare some quake 2 ss to unreal again?

Actually, the GameCube is a very advanced system.

I was referring to various things like nintendo focusing on the gimmicky Gamecube to Gameboy connectivity while everyone else is focusing on online.Not to mention their strange love of cartridges etc..

They had some interesting game modes, but they were ruined by the retarded weapons that made no sense.

Funny, I dont remember anyone saying that in all the assualt matches I played in.

UT was just a Quake 2 clone with more modes and cheesy weapons. It didn't have the fast pacing that Q3A did.

A clone..with different modes, different weapons and a different pace(this might come as a shock to you, but not everyone loves quake 3s pace], but it's a clone..oook and quake 3 on the other hand that was no different from quake 2 besides it was a bit faster was original.

Tribes was a POS game. Don't even get me started on that.

Even if you didn't like the game it was unique, which cant be said for most games.

Do you have anything to back this up?

I would if I could find 4+ year old game articles that I had no idea what the name was. Some old interview.

the graphics (that includes models and textures) weren't as good.

Heres a ss of an outdoor quake 3 map:

http://www.lugie.sk/screenshots%20html/quake%20iii/Quake%203%206.JPG

Heres one of UT

http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/xmicro_gf2mx/images/ut_1s.jpg

best I could in a min with google image search but ut = much more beautiful.

Ok im confused here, so you think a computer can handle co op fine, but say it might be a resource issue as if saying a computer cant handle co op because of a resource issue. Please clarify.

Stop twisting what I say. I never said a PC could do it, and I never said it couldn't. I AM MERELY BRINGING UP IDEAS. Whether the idea has merit or not is a seperate issue. I'm simply pointing out the fact that console gaves have co-op while PC games don't. Even the PC version of Halo did not have co-op. Why is this? There is a reason, and I want to know what it is. I can speculate by tossing around different ideas, and that was one of them.

Thanks for stating the obvious, however to say a game is good just because people buy it like deer hunter...

C'mon. All of the games I listed didn't just sell, they got rave reviews and were played by millions of people around the world. these aren't budget games, they were $50 a piece. Try to argue in context here.

Creators of unreal..or are they the ones that create the engine..always confuse the companies.

Epic made Unreal. And like I pointed out, their technology was behind when ti was released, because id had already set the pace.

much like nintendo are dinosaurs at everything besides games.

Actually, the GameCube is a very advanced system. People bash it because of its low CPU speed, but it handles a lot of very good special effects better than the PS2 or XBox. Its games have a unique look, but one that the other consoles cannot duplicate.

Look at all the gameplay modes UT and tribes had compared to quake 3

Quake 3 was what it was: a deathmatch game. UT had more modes, but the gameplay was not as solid. The movement wasn't very fluid, the graphics (that includes models and textures) weren't as good. They had some interesting game modes, but they were ruined by the retarded weapons that made no sense. Quake 3 had the basic FPS guns, but are there better weapons for a deathmatch style FPS? I think not.

UT was just a Quake 2 clone with more modes and cheesy weapons. It didn't have the fast pacing that Q3A did.

Tribes was a POS game. Don't even get me started on that.

id was so cocky that they had no competion that CTF barely even made it in, that is until the UT demo came out...

Do you have anything to back this up?

never said that. I merely suggested that it could be a resource issue. If you paid attention to more than what you wanted to, you'd realize this.

Ok im confused here, so you think a computer can handle co op fine, but say it might be a resource issue as if saying a computer cant handle co op because of a resource issue. Please clarify.

This is a matter of opinion. But I think the millions of people who bought DOOM, DOOM 2, Quake, Quake 2 and Quake 3: Arena may disagree with you. Especially since every time a new id game has been released everyone says, "wow. Look at that! Awsome! Hahaha, great blood!"

Thanks for stating the obvious, however to say a game is good just because people buy it like deer hunter...

What is DE?

Creators of unreal..or are they the ones that create the engine..always confuse the companies.

I think this timeline shows how id software advanced the FPS market, along with the online multiplayer market. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Your right however, im not sure why you are telling me this since all I have said is id hasn't done much since doom besides graphics. Just saying id are dinosaurs with everything concerned since graphics, much like nintendo are dinosaurs at everything besides games.Look at all the gameplay modes UT and tribes had compared to quake 3, with its dm and quickly tacked on CTF.id was so cocky that they had no competion that CTF barely even made it in, that is until the UT demo came out...


This comment was edited on May 24, 19:33.

No i dont want you to say everything is great, but if you have a reason and a valid argument why you think a certain game is going to be bad than please post it.


Well heres an earlier post, im not sure if you ignored it or didn't find it saticfactory or whatever. Of course these are just 3 I thought off the top of my head at the time and there are plenty more:


1.The only thing that the id fanboys can say will be different at all about doom 3 is it's going to be basicly resident evil in first person view. The fuck? There are some resident evil that came out that play like a fps so why is doom 3 different? It's sure as hell not going to scare anyone that resident evil wouldn't, thanks to it's terrible enemy design which brings up my next point-

2.The game looks like shit because of the shity textures and basicly whole art direction. Fucking robot spiders with a human head? wowow how scary and inovative the art team are. Instead of HL2 out of this world enemies we get generic cliche monsters that have been in every game since..doom. How nice after all these years id are just reusing shit from past games. I knew the differences between xbox and pc graphics it was the art, and even the pc graphics dont look so good after seeing the unreal 3 engine.

3.4 player multiplayer. nuff said

Agreed,though you seem to be ignoring the fact that he said that a computer cant handle co op.

I never said that. I merely suggested that it could be a resource issue. If you paid attention to more than what you wanted to, you'd realize this.

Wasn't it a ultima game that had the first first person perspective? Could be wrong though.

A lot of games had a first person perspective. But is there any doubt in anyone's mind that id changed the way in which people see games like that? It went from all right angles, 1 ceiling height, 1 floor height, very mazey stuff, to elevators, stairs, ledges, different light levels. There's a world of difference between the FPS genre before and after DOOM was released.

You say that as if every novel written has been good.

No, he was simply using it to illustrate a valid point, which is that they're using methods that aren't typically used in the gaming industry but in the movie industry, which is to put it all down on paper before production.

I disagree, imo DE would have pushed graphics foward, but this is another debate...

What is DE? And the game that started the 3D excelerator craze was Quake with its OpenGL support. Look at the competition during that time: Descent, Duke3D, Dark Forces, Shadow Warrior... all of these other games were 2D (or 2.5D, or whatever). I think the next real game to compete with this kind of technology was Unreal, which was released 3 years later, a year after Quake II and Half-Life. And don't even get me started on Quakeworld, the most revolutionary network code of all time.

I think this timeline shows how id software advanced the FPS market, along with the online multiplayer market. Is there any evidence to the contrary? No. Just pure speculation. But speculation doesn't do any good because history has already been written. That is the way it is.

Graphics? Yes. Gameplay and art? no way.

This is a matter of opinion. But I think the millions of people who bought DOOM, DOOM 2, Quake, Quake 2 and Quake 3: Arena may disagree with you. Especially since every time a new id game has been released everyone says, "wow. Look at that! Awsome! Hahaha, great blood!"

Im not sure what to do, most of peoples reason for calling me a troll is for bashing a game, so would you rather me say everything is going to be great or?

No i dont want you to say everything is great, but if you have a reason and a valid argument why you think a certain game is going to be bad than please post it.
If you post for example:
"DOOM 3 IS GOING TO SUCK BIGTIME!!! AND ALL OF YOU ARE FUCKING LOOSERS"
, then yes people will call you a troll for mindless game BASHING. If on the other hand you try to argue your point with at least some manners and, like I said, reasons or even better proof then no one will call you a troll or accuse you of anything although they might argue with you normally. (Which is kind of the point of these boards)

Geez, Kobulb, your posts used to be funny in a perverse kinda "how stoopid can this guy be?" kinda way, but now you're just plain boring.

Please refer to Zeph's post #94 as an example of a genuine discussion, and contrast it to your simplistic, contrarian diatribes. You're like the old Monty Python sketch - "You're not arguing with me, you're just contradicting everything I say!" "No, I'm not!".

Zeph, I have to admit I took you for a troll, too, at first, but your last post was well-written, if a bit long-winded. And it was actually on the freakin topic, which is more than I can say for my post!

Alls I can say is I've preordered Doom 3 and I'll make my decision on it AFTER I've played it. All this speculation, hypothesizin' and tangential discussion can be interesting while we await the release, but the proof of the game is in the playing.

PsycSui has been saying that a computer has to multi-task and is not fully aimed at making game engines shine. This is a true statement.

Agreed,though you seem to be ignoring the fact that he said that a computer cant handle co op.

Doom, the first immersive quality gaming experience. All MMORPGs are based off this experience,

Wasn't it a ultima game that had the first first person perspective? Could be wrong though.

A novel was written for this game!

You say that as if every novel written has been good.

Anyone who doubts the power of this game doubts the power of ID to change the way we enjoy computing.

I thought this pretty obvious. Of course if you doubt a game based on a company you doubt their abilty.

If not for ID, I believe we would still be at GeForce 4 level today.

I disagree, imo DE would have pushed graphics foward, but this is another debate...

ID software has always pushed the envelope.

Graphics? Yes. Gameplay and art? no way.