Our videos of DOOM 3 BFG Edition

Commented on 2012-10-19 16:41:06

Still can't grasp how Id made this game run on the huge old Xbox with a pretty decent framerate. That thing was a beast.

And I mean, really...

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_doom_3_bfg_editi...

Is this the kind of modeling we should expect from the PC version? no updated models?

In reply to

MrPix3l

Commented on 2012-10-19 17:01:54

I like the new motion blur with 60 fps, but i dont like the non existence of real time shadows with the flash light...

In reply to

2PintsOfInsulin

Commented on 2012-10-19 17:05:22 In reply to nostradamus

Posted by nostradamus

Still can't grasp how Id made this game run on the huge old Xbox with a pretty decent framerate. That thing was a beast.

And I mean, really...

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_doom_3_bfg_editi...

Is this the kind of modeling we should expect from the PC version? no updated models?

True. If I can get my xbox to boot again, I'll definitely give the old one a spin on it.

In reply to

andrewsqual

Commented on 2012-10-19 17:06:26

This message is in "Boulet Time" (TM), If you still *really* want to see it, click here

A beast? For every genre that came to Xbox 1, there was a better and more lush looking game on PS2. Killzone even looked better then Halo did. PS2 was a beast. The Xbox 1 was just for lazy people not willing to put the work in and reap some amazing graphical benefits.
Munches and Stranger were easily possible on PS2 but Oddworlds Inhabitants just saw the 700mhz Pentium 3 processor of the Xbox and said "Screw it, this will be easier". Pity nobody bought the games then.

Logion

Commented on 2012-10-19 17:18:06

I think I would rather try the Sikkmod for Doom 3 if I wanted to play Doom 3 again. http://www.moddb.com/mods/sikkmod

In reply to

nostradamus

Commented on 2012-10-19 17:45:21 In reply to andrewsqual

Posted by andrewsqual

A beast? For every genre that came to Xbox 1, there was a better and more lush looking game on PS2. Killzone even looked better then Halo did.

LMAO!

Blind Fanboys takes a new meaning.

In reply to

Driftwood

Commented on 2012-10-19 18:39:37 In reply to andrewsqual

To say that Killzone looked better than Halo, you must be pretty delusional. You're probably the only person on the planet to think so. Corridor-like environments and framerate issues, poor textures, yeah Killzone rocked technically speaking... It was still a pretty good game nonetheless.

That you would say that about Killzone 2/3 and Halo 3, I would understand, but saying that PS2 games looked all better than xbox exclusives, come on. I had all three consoles back then, I played them all, I was crazy about each platform's exclusive titles (Ico, FF, MGS 2/3, Rogue Leader, Zelda Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Halo, Rallisport Challenge 2, Stranger's Wrath, etc.) but I wasn't blind to see the difference between Splinter Cell on Xbox and PS2 to name but one example.

Anyhow, not really the place to discuss this. You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but trolling isn't the way to do it though. There was clearly a better way to put it if you ask me. Thanks for your comprehension.

In reply to

To say that Killzone looked better than Halo, you must be pretty delusional. You're probably the only person on the planet to think so. Corridor-like environments and framerate issues, poor textures, yeah Killzone rocked technically speaking... It was still a pretty good game nonetheless.

That you would say that about Killzone 2/3 and Halo 3, I would understand, but saying that PS2 games looked all better than xbox exclusives, come on. I had all three consoles back then, I played them all, I was crazy about each platform's exclusive titles (Ico, FF, MGS 2/3, Rogue Leader, Zelda Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Halo, Rallisport Challenge 2, Stranger's Wrath, etc.) but I wasn't blind to see the difference between Splinter Cell on Xbox and PS2 to name but one example.

Anyhow, not really the place to discuss this. You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but trolling isn't the way to do it though. There was clearly a better way to put it if you ask me. Thanks for your comprehension.

Masakari

Commented on 2012-10-19 19:40:53

Yeah. I didn't even have an Xbox (only had a PS2 back then), but really, Xbox games had much better graphics.

In reply to

nostradamus

Commented on 2012-10-20 01:08:03

he's pretty much entitled to like more its ps2 exclusive games and with it its multipltaform games, but to bring such fanboysm on a well known fact (the gpu was pretty much a gen ahead in terms of shaders) just to troll the fact that a top Showcase PC game was easly ported with just a Year gap, is to be called on his bullshit.
This is one of the well known reasons the Xbox was a beast, was the fact that Id didn't went to cash on the ps2 sales with a extremely downgraded game if it existed and it's equal downgraded ps2 port thrown into the xbox(maybe then the game would run @ 60fps? who knows...), they decided to copy the pc development to the console directly, the only one with similar hardware to cope with doom III requeriments of the day, and they made it run. Whats impressive is how much better than most xbox games it looked b/c of the heavy use of lighting and bump-mapping, most pc of that time had a bit a hard time to run doom III, almost the Crysis of it's time, it was always a crazy back and forth between crytek crazies with Farcry and Id crazies with Doom III.

Want another example? Chronicles of Riddick and the crazy tech of low-poly that looks really good, almost top notch pc models that starbreeze debuted on EFBB. Everyone was awestruck with the game @ the time. And the console still struggled to have more showcase material b/c of the vast array of multiplatform games that were ported from PS2 lead development.

In reply to

he's pretty much entitled to like more its ps2 exclusive games and with it its multipltaform games, but to bring such fanboysm on a well known fact (the gpu was pretty much a gen ahead in terms of shaders) just to troll the fact that a top Showcase PC game was easly ported with just a Year gap, is to be called on his bullshit. 
This is one of the well known reasons the Xbox was a beast, was the fact that Id didn't went to cash on the ps2 sales with a extremely downgraded game if it existed and it's equal downgraded ps2 port thrown into the xbox(maybe then the game would run @ 60fps? who knows...), they decided to copy the pc development to the console directly, the only one with similar hardware to cope with doom III requeriments of the day, and they made it run. Whats impressive is how much better than most xbox games it looked b/c of the heavy use of lighting and bump-mapping, most pc of that time had a bit a hard time to run doom III, almost the Crysis of it's time, it was always a crazy back and forth between crytek crazies with Farcry and Id crazies with Doom III.

Want another example? Chronicles of Riddick and the crazy tech of low-poly that looks really good, almost top notch pc models that starbreeze debuted on EFBB. Everyone was awestruck with the game @ the time. And the console still struggled to have more showcase material b/c of the vast array of multiplatform games that were ported from PS2 lead development.

Driftwood

Commented on 2012-10-20 01:13:42 In reply to nostradamus

I'm not talking to you...

In reply to

MrWhite

Commented on 2012-10-20 04:41:44 In reply to andrewsqual

Comedy gold.

Should change your name to "andrewpasquale". Get it?

In reply to

Akumajo

Commented on 2012-10-20 19:15:54 In reply to nostradamus

Posted by nostradamus

Still can't grasp how Id made this game run on the huge old Xbox with a pretty decent framerate. That thing was a beast.

And I mean, really...

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_doom_3_bfg_editi...

Is this the kind of modeling we should expect from the PC version? no updated models?

You missed that the XBox 1 port of doom 3 and RoE paled in terms of graphics to the Halo series on the same platform and other first person shooters... sure Doom 3 looked pretty but although people enjoyed its graphics it was pretty shallow in comparison to other games.

Still what is more important is how it runs on current gen consoles, the Xbox 1 that I had died, so did 5 other people I know and pretty soon I am sure that prices will go up if people are into collecting that old thing which is kind of pointless because you can just use a X360 to play the old games.

Posted by Driftwood

To say that Killzone looked better than Halo, you must be pretty delusional. You're probably the only person on the planet to think so. Corridor-like environments and framerate issues, poor textures, yeah Killzone rocked technically speaking... It was still a pretty good game nonetheless.

That you would say that about Killzone 2/3 and Halo 3, I would understand, but saying that PS2 games looked all better than xbox exclusives, come on. I had all three consoles back then, I played them all, I was crazy about each platform's exclusive titles (Ico, FF, MGS 2/3, Rogue Leader, Zelda Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Halo, Rallisport Challenge 2, Stranger's Wrath, etc.) but I wasn't blind to see the difference between Splinter Cell on Xbox and PS2 to name but one example.

Anyhow, not really the place to discuss this. You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but trolling isn't the way to do it though. There was clearly a better way to put it if you ask me. Thanks for your comprehension.

I can understand that guy went overboard with his comment but back then when the first demo of Killzone 1 came out on the Magazines it really was shocking even to people who favored the "raw power of the Xbox 1" like me, obviously I tried to look for flaws but at the end of the day it was an impressive title on that platform that seemed to challenge the more obviously powerfull Xbox... did it have better graphics than even Halo 1, of course not and its obvious because of hardware limitations being that PS2 spec was pretty much a late 1998 to early 1999 hardware design while Xbox used a graphics chip that had been released in 2001.

In reply to

[quote=nostradamus]Still can't grasp how Id made this game run on the huge old Xbox with a pretty decent framerate. That thing was a beast.

And I mean, really...

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_doom_3_bfg_edition-20669-2565_0009.jpg

Is this the kind of modeling we should expect from the PC version? no updated models?[/quote]

You missed that the XBox 1 port of doom 3 and RoE paled in terms of graphics to the Halo series on the same platform and other first person shooters... sure Doom 3 looked pretty but although people enjoyed its graphics it was pretty shallow in comparison to other games.

Still what is more important is how it runs on current gen consoles, the Xbox 1 that I had died, so did 5 other people I know and pretty soon I am sure that prices will go up if people are into collecting that old thing which is kind of pointless because you can just use a X360 to play the old games.

[quote=Driftwood]To say that Killzone looked better than Halo, you must be pretty delusional. You're probably the only person on the planet to think so. Corridor-like environments and framerate issues, poor textures, yeah Killzone rocked technically speaking... It was still a pretty good game nonetheless.

That you would say that about Killzone 2/3 and Halo 3, I would understand, but saying that PS2 games looked all better than xbox exclusives, come on. I had all three consoles back then, I played them all, I was crazy about each platform's exclusive titles (Ico, FF, MGS 2/3, Rogue Leader, Zelda Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Halo, Rallisport Challenge 2, Stranger's Wrath, etc.) but I wasn't blind to see the difference between Splinter Cell on Xbox and PS2 to name but one example.

Anyhow, not really the place to discuss this. You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but trolling isn't the way to do it though. There was clearly a better way to put it if you ask me. Thanks for your comprehension.[/quote]

I can understand that guy went overboard with his comment but back then when the first demo of Killzone 1 came out on the Magazines it really was shocking even to people who favored the "raw power of the Xbox 1" like me, obviously I tried to look for flaws but at the end of the day it was an impressive title on that platform that seemed to challenge the more obviously powerfull Xbox... did it have better graphics than even Halo 1, of course not and its obvious because of hardware limitations being that PS2 spec was pretty much a late 1998 to early 1999 hardware design while Xbox used a graphics chip that had been released in 2001.

Driftwood

Commented on 2012-10-20 20:20:41 In reply to Akumajo

I never said it wasn't impressive for the hardware. ;)

In reply to

Akumajo

Commented on 2012-10-20 22:11:45 In reply to Driftwood

Posted by Driftwood

I never said it wasn't impressive for the hardware. ;)

I understood thats why I commented that about Killzone 1, it did specially in the demo disc prove to be a "WTF??!! how did they pull that off on PS2??!!" when I played it and later showed it to others and we back then were just trying to pick it apart because we felt there was no way this game could look that good back then...

In reply to

Megido

Commented on 2012-10-20 22:43:11

Doom 3 on xbox looked a lot worse than the PC version though. Still impressive for the time, just not as pretty as the PC counterpart. Also killzone may have looked great for a PS2 game but it played like ASS.

In reply to

Akumajo

Commented on 2012-10-21 21:59:11 In reply to Megido

Posted by Megido

Doom 3 on xbox looked a lot worse than the PC version though. Still impressive for the time, just not as pretty as the PC counterpart. Also killzone may have looked great for a PS2 game but it played like ASS.

The problem with Doom 3 on Xbox 1 was that IdSoft decided not to handle the port imho... they could have done that to gain console fans specially when it was pretty much only on Xbox back then but they didn't so both D3 and RoE did not look as good as even the PC version running the game with a GeForce 3 200Ti (which I had and ran it impressively despite its 175Mhz and 64MB ram) it was a lost opportunity...

Reguardless lets see how this game sells, I already bought these games back in 2004 and 2005 so far I am not really impressed and will prefer to wait for Doom 4 to see what they do.

Also Megido Killzone was mentioned but this thread is not about it but you mentioning that shows you never played the game.

In reply to

Megido

Commented on 2012-10-22 16:17:32 In reply to Akumajo

Posted by Akumajo

Also Megido Killzone was mentioned but this thread is not about it but you mentioning that shows you never played the game.

Uh, yes i did. It just sucked. Killzone 2 sucks as well. They look good but the gameplay is some of the most uninspired tripe i've ever had the misfortune of experiencing. They look great though, that's for sure :P

In reply to

Sath

Commented on 2012-10-22 17:16:37

Killzone was shitty, Killzone 2 was okay, so was Killzone 3 (Killzone 2 had shitty controls compared to 3 so 3 is better lol).

Its all about atmosphere, sound and gunplay feeling with those games, similair to Halo games IMO. Actual gameplay is just plain boring, if it wasent for its atmosphere and visuals i wouldnt bother with them.

I am more of a Crysis player when it comes to FPS.

In reply to

Akumajo

Commented on 2012-10-23 01:57:51 In reply to Sath

Posted by Sath

Killzone was shitty, Killzone 2 was okay, so was Killzone 3 (Killzone 2 had shitty controls compared to 3 so 3 is better lol).

Its all about atmosphere, sound and gunplay feeling with those games, similair to Halo games IMO. Actual gameplay is just plain boring, if it wasent for its atmosphere and visuals i wouldnt bother with them.

I am more of a Crysis player when it comes to FPS.

See Megido is just intentionally derailing the thread and got a follower...

Problem of course being that FPSs being compared in a Doom 3 thread... considering how backwards (stuck in pre-N64 GoldenEye 007 era) Doom 3 is in comparison.

In reply to

Megido

Commented on 2012-10-23 09:48:55

Ok, so here's how i remember Killzone; smalle grey corridors and small arena type areas where you fight waves of helgast. here's how i remember doom 3; small grey corridors and fairly small open areas where you do a wee bit of exploring. In terms of mechanics i think at least Doom 3 tried to do something cool with the light as a mechanich. It failed miserably imo, but at least they tried. Killzone is just a super average shooter with, for ps2 standards, great graphics.

And what's pre golden eye supposed to mean? Golden eye didn't bring anything new to the table aside from shite controls.

In reply to

Akumajo

Commented on 2012-10-26 01:48:53 In reply to Megido

Posted by Megido

Ok, so here's how i remember Killzone; smalle grey corridors and small arena type areas where you fight waves of helgast. here's how i remember doom 3; small grey corridors and fairly small open areas where you do a wee bit of exploring. In terms of mechanics i think at least Doom 3 tried to do something cool with the light as a mechanich. It failed miserably imo, but at least they tried. Killzone is just a super average shooter with, for ps2 standards, great graphics.

And what's pre golden eye supposed to mean? Golden eye didn't bring anything new to the table aside from shite controls.

That post alone just shows you lack credibility... n64 GoldenEye 007 game went forward and for the PS2 even Killzone 1 was something meaningful... even if it gets crapped on by Microsoft fanboys/employees... (no I'm not talking about you)

And Doom 3 which is what this thread is about... the only "cool thing" was its use of "volume shadows" or thick shadows... the problem is that even an older 3d engine like the Halo 1 engine when properly made into a MP map on PC and when playing in the library (despite having much more light to avoid frustration) basically was capable of almost the same things even though Halo series was not really designed to put you in pitch black levels.

Doom 3 failed miserably even to PC gamers of the time, even with people like me who actually purchased the games on PC... we... I still like it as a game but if I wanted to point out all its flaws just mentioning the n64 GoldenEye 007 is overkill with gas and a lighter. ;p

In reply to

[quote=Megido]Ok, so here's how i remember Killzone; smalle grey corridors and small arena type areas where you fight waves of helgast. here's how i remember doom 3; small grey corridors and fairly small open areas where you do a wee bit of exploring. In terms of mechanics i think at least Doom 3 tried to do something cool with the light as a mechanich. It failed miserably imo, but at least they tried. Killzone is just a super average shooter with, for ps2 standards, great graphics.

And what's pre golden eye supposed to mean? Golden eye didn't bring anything new to the table aside from shite controls.[/quote]

That post alone just shows you lack credibility...  n64 GoldenEye 007 game went forward and for the PS2 even Killzone 1 was something meaningful... even if it gets crapped on by Microsoft fanboys/employees... (no I'm not talking about you)

And Doom 3 which is what this thread is about... the only "cool thing" was its use of "volume shadows" or thick shadows... the problem is that even an older 3d engine like the Halo 1 engine when properly made into a MP map on PC and when playing in the library (despite having much more light to avoid frustration) basically was capable of almost the same things even though Halo series was not really designed to put you in pitch black levels.

Doom 3 failed miserably even to PC gamers of the time, even with people like me who actually purchased the games on PC... we... I still like it as a game but if I wanted to point out all its flaws just mentioning the n64 GoldenEye 007 is overkill with gas and a lighter. ;p