Doom 3 - the emperor's new clothes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sham B
  • Start date Start date
S

Sham B

Ive been playing Doom 3 for a day so far... and

Is it me, or is it that the only really notable thing about Doom 3 is the large amount of texture
data per level....but the way they have built up this texture data is, well, a bit rubbish.

What they have done is to use lots of different low quality textures rather than fewer good quality
ones.
Okay, so they are using bumps and specular maps, but *even if I use the max texture quality*, the
walls still look like bad quality JPEGs close up. The only reason I can think that is causing this
is that a lot of the level textures look as if they have been sampled from video stills...urgh!
The lighting is cool, sure, and so is that haze effect and the way glass causes distortion, but the
game world just breaks up into jaggies as soon as I go near a wall surface

Good design is all about squeezing in more out of what is there in terms of hardware, not creating
content for hardware that doesnt even exist, especially when you waste resources the way the Doom
engine does by moving in a direction that doesnt seem to me to create better quality graphics -
theyve just put loads of texture data in there.... both far more than most users have the capacity
for in their hardware, as well as far more than most users will actually notice.

Bottom line... frankly, if I lose the textures, I end up with a load of models that are obviously a
bit lacking in poly count when compared to something like far cry, and lots of angular architecture.

R9800 pro, XP2800, nf2, 1Gb

S
 
I wrote this , I think in this before, in a discussion about TruForm:

"... haven't you seen Doom3's models? If you are going with the hype "How
awesome and unbelievable Doom3's graphics are", you might have missed how
such low-polygon its models are! And the possible reason for it makes me
mad! The reason probably is that, since it will also be released for XBox, I
guess, id had to decide whether to build two models, one high-polygon for
PCs and one low for XBox, or just say "Our shaders and shadows are so good
that people will not realize how low-polygon our models are" and go for it.
Apparently, they chose the latter, so our PCs are Doomed ;)"

So, let's say I don't know anything about anything, but the guys at X-bit
labs should, right? Here's what they have to say about D3:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/doom3.html

Looks like we are not alone.

In fact, the game of the year I am waiting for was not D3, and FarCry is
only to keep me busy until my obsession arrives. I'm sure you know which
game I'm talking about! ;)

GT
 
Carmak said that 'Low Quality' requires 64mb, 'Med Quality' requires 128Mb,
'High Quality' requires 256Mb, 'Ultra Quality' requires 1Gb of video memory.
Simple as that.

'Ultra Quality' is uncompressed, 'High Quality' uses lossless compression,
'Medium Quality' uses compression, and low uses allot of compression.

I think game will need to start using more true forms but it needs way more
power then what we currently have. When we have 6GHz CPU and 1GHz video
cards with a gig of memory it'll be possible.

I'm annoyed at ATI's poor OGL performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 isn't bad
compared to Doom3 and it runs twice as fast with my 9800pro.

I'm looking to buy a newer generation card in the next few months, I may be
buying nVidia next time although I really want to buy another ATI.
 
fish said:
Carmak said that 'Low Quality' requires 64mb, 'Med Quality' requires 128Mb,
'High Quality' requires 256Mb, 'Ultra Quality' requires 1Gb of video memory.
Simple as that.
Click to expand...

No, id stated that UQ requires 500 Mb. In addition, you can see screenshots
of both HQ and UQ, and compare them side by side, and there is virtually no
difference.
I think game will need to start using more true forms but it needs way more
power then what we currently have. When we have 6GHz CPU and 1GHz video
cards with a gig of memory it'll be possible.
Click to expand...

Someone told me that the game does not support TruForm, due to shadow
calculations.
I'm looking to buy a newer generation card in the next few months, I may be
buying nVidia next time although I really want to buy another ATI.
Click to expand...

Good luck. I almost already decided for a GT, in place of my Radeon 9700
Pro. I'll get it ASAP when its ridiculous price tag comes down to normal,
and then the 512 Mb version is released, and then that becomes cheap :D
Well, probably I will not have such a patience and will end up getting a GT
around $300-350. I hate spending this much money just for a GPU :(

GT
 
By the way, I am really impressed by the consistency of the graphics quality
maintained on the broad range of available cards. Yes, maybe it does not
look like the pretty game out of this world, but it looks like however it is
supposed to look like on almost all current cards, with quite playable
framerates. I'll give Carmack this. Good coding!
GT
 
GT-Force said:
No, id stated that UQ requires 500 Mb. In addition, you can see screenshots
of both HQ and UQ, and compare them side by side, and there is virtually no

Someone told me that the game does not support TruForm, due to shadow
calculations.


Good luck. I almost already decided for a GT, in place of my Radeon 9700
Pro. I'll get it ASAP when its ridiculous price tag comes down to normal,
and then the 512 Mb version is released, and then that becomes cheap :D
Well, probably I will not have such a patience and will end up getting a GT
around $300-350. I hate spending this much money just for a GPU :(

GT
Click to expand...
I replaced a 9700 Pro with a 6800 GT (which is really an Ultra anyway).
Although I only tried the Doom3 beta with the 9700 man, this new card is
well....Doom3 at 1280x1024 and you can play on the "Ultra High" setting if
you want. More than double the default 3dMark03 and FarCry at 1280x1024 on
all the highest settings including water on Ultra whatever. It's bad ass.
 
fish said:
Carmak said that 'Low Quality' requires 64mb, 'Med Quality' requires
128Mb, 'High Quality' requires 256Mb, 'Ultra Quality' requires 1Gb of
video memory. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true, but any card can actually show you what ultra quality is, and all it does is give
you uncompressed textures. You cant really play at this texture quality, although you can see what
it does if you get close to a texture, which is to show you full quality textures.

When seen at ultra quality, you can see that the textures show noise not because they are
compressed, but because they are simply not very good. They all have coloring on them that looks
consistent with the textures been sampled rather than hand edited. I see color blooms on some of the
worse ones that tell me they have been taken from video stills. So, they have sampled video for the
textures and then simply used them without even taking the video noise out. Dont they know how to
properly smooth a texture so the noise is hidden by using non-contrasting colors? Why do they have
to use large non repeating textures to fill up current video cards, when they could just have used
well designed repeating textures like they do in Far Cry and every other mainstream game? Do they
not know that leaving that noise in has significantly increase the compressed size of the full
quality textures?

Is it because they wanted to stick a 'next generation - doesnt work with todays technology because
this game is really complex' sticker on the cover? Sorry to go on, but I see loads of people looking
to upgrade to play Doom 3, and I feel that they are being short changed, which is why I bring it up.
I even wrote a 5 star review of the game on amazon uk based on the first 5 hours of my playing, and
missed this issue (the issue really showed up when I played doom in a darkened room - as it is meant
to be - later the same day).

The game Operation Flashpoint uses the same video sampled testures technique, and they use higher
quality textures, and that is a few years old! They get away with it because they do it
*selectively* and not blindly on *everything* like Doom does.

I use 3DMax and can see that this is really such a basic technical mistake or downright sloppiness.
This issue with textures is the one thing that is forcing users to upgrade their hardware, because
although the lighting and sound is big, current hardware can handle that. Worse still, ID have
invested so much resource on the texturing that it imposes lower poly count on the actual models.

Looking at Half life2 screenshots, I can tell that they are breaking up large areas with repeating
textures. These are small but highly detailed textures (and in some cases, the textures look to be
almost solid colors, which is very efficient - you add the material texturing with the bumpmap and
specular), and Im guessing that they will not suffer from pixilization break up when the player gets
close, simply because they are smaller but higher quality. It also means that there will potentially
be no issue with high video GFX capability requirements. This is through good design and
optimisation (assuming my hunches are right here). Far cry simply poplates the game world with lots
and lots of the same textured objects viewed at different angles (ie trees!) to make them look
different. Again, thats good design because each tree is highly detailed and stays so as you get
close to it.

Disclaimer...
I am not a fanboy of HL2, Far Cry or Doom3... in fact my most wanted game is Rome Total War, which
is a game that looks to be highly detailed, and has replayability (it actually formed the basis for
a TV program here in the UK where celebrities take the place of generals in historical battles and
lead their virtual army in real time, and of course bickering and arguing amongst themselves as they
do in true reality TV fashion!), so the RTW graphics engine has already been seen in this country in
detail, and looks to be awesome. Of course, I could be accused of being anti FPS here, but I loved
both Far cry and Max Payne 2

S
 
Is it because they wanted to stick a 'next generation - doesnt work with todays technology because
this game is really complex' sticker on the cover? Sorry to go on, but I see loads of people looking
to upgrade to play Doom 3, and I feel that they are being short changed, which is why I bring it up.
I even wrote a 5 star review of the game on amazon uk based on the first 5 hours of my playing, and
missed this issue (the issue really showed up when I played doom in a darkened room - as it is meant
to be - later the same day).

The game Operation Flashpoint uses the same video sampled testures technique, and they use higher
quality textures, and that is a few years old! They get away with it because they do it
*selectively* and not blindly on *everything* like Doom does.

I use 3DMax and can see that this is really such a basic technical mistake or downright sloppiness.
This issue with textures is the one thing that is forcing users to upgrade their hardware, because
although the lighting and sound is big, current hardware can handle that. Worse still, ID have
invested so much resource on the texturing that it imposes lower poly count on the actual models.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty disappointing stuff. I'm not about to run out and buy a
$600 video card any time soon, and it'll be a long long time before I
buy my first geforce ;)

A lot of early feedback seems to prefer UT2004 to Doom3 anyway.
Wouldn't surprise me, Unreal Tourney blew away Quake3 in my opinion,
and I couldn't see what everyone saw in return to wolfenstein.

The great thing is you can wait a couple of years and play the damn
thing with a bargain board. I'm still about a dozen games behind
anyway.
 
Sham B said:
Ive been playing Doom 3 for a day so far... and

Is it me, or is it that the only really notable thing about Doom 3 is the large amount of texture
data per level.
Click to expand...

It is notable that the grunt you play is too dumb to hold a flashlight in
one hand and a pistol in the other.

Personally I think id lost the plot after Quake 1.
 
It is notable that the grunt you play is too dumb to hold a flashlight in
one hand and a pistol in the other.
Click to expand...
Personally I think id lost the plot after Quake 1.
Click to expand...

Uhh, Wolfenstein 3-D, DOOM 1, and 2 didn't have very good plots either. :P
--
"The ants are my friends, they're blowin' in the wind. The ant, sir, is
blowin' in the wind." --the misheard lyrics to Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in
the Wind"
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ The Ant Farm: http://antfarm.ma.cx
| |o o| | E-mail: (e-mail address removed) or (e-mail address removed)
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address if your e-mail was returned.
( )
 
It is notable that the grunt you play is too dumb to hold a flashlight
in one hand and a pistol in the other.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the game yet but I think they really missed a trick with
this. Ok, they need to keep tension high with their nice, but limited
engine, so no taping the torch to your head or shotgun. I can sort of live
with that. But they could at least have given us the option of being able
to have the torch in one hand and gun in the other, limiting us to
two-handed guns in the dark, or wimpy weapons with the light on. Not much
of a choice, but an added dimension to gameplay.
Personally I think id lost the plot after Quake 1.
Click to expand...

I agree. I quite enjoyed Q2 recently but only because it was all I could
play (in software mode) when I was stranded with an old laptop. Q3 was
just... well, Q3. Tedious offline, and I haven't enjoyed the online Quake
scene since the good old days of Q1 when there seemed fewer idiots and
more serious players online. Maybe I just got old :-)

Andrew McP
 
One of the things I miss from the old Doom games, is the sheer number of
zombies n such coming after your butt.

Doom 3 limited this so much, that it just doesn't quite feel the same.

They traded atmosphere and eye candy for gameplay, when they should have
found a balance for each.
 
Gareee© said:
One of the things I miss from the old Doom games, is the sheer number of
zombies n such coming after your butt.

Doom 3 limited this so much, that it just doesn't quite feel the same.

They traded atmosphere and eye candy for gameplay, when they should have
found a balance for each.
Click to expand...

Doom3 is simply the biggest dissapointment ever.

This game is WAY to linear... You can't do ANYTHING out of order. I feel
sorry for anyone who's wasted money on it. I get more fun playing the
original Doom.

Give me Quake 3 playability with more eyecandy and a LOOSE storyline that I
can follow if I want to bother.
 
Noozer said:
Doom3 is simply the biggest dissapointment ever.

This game is WAY to linear... You can't do ANYTHING out of order. I feel
sorry for anyone who's wasted money on it. I get more fun playing the
original Doom.

Give me Quake 3 playability with more eyecandy and a LOOSE storyline that
I
can follow if I want to bother.
Click to expand...

Is there any storyline in Q3?

I've not recieved D3 yet but I'm resigned/looking foward to a linear shoot
fest. However, I am more than ever looking foward to HL2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R
which, I think, will be much innovative.

In the end a lot of people, including me, got involved in the hype
surrounding D3 ....

BillL
 
Noozer left a note on my windscreen which said:
Doom3 is simply the biggest dissapointment ever.
Click to expand...

Was anyone expecting more than a linear corridor shooter with nods to
the original Doom? I know I wasn't. This Doom is pretty much exactly
what I expected it to be.
This game is WAY to linear... You can't do ANYTHING out of order. I feel
sorry for anyone who's wasted money on it. I get more fun playing the
original Doom.
Click to expand...

Because of the originals branching storylines and level of interactivity
with the enviroment?

I'm not saying D3 is a great game - noone can argue the points of it's
linearity, repetiveness, it's lack of innovation in it's gameplay and
it's habit of resort to cheap tricks for making you jump. But D3 isn't
supposed to. This is pretty much exactly the game iD wanted to make.

If you like features which clearly D3 doesn't have you would be best
advised to find another game.
 
Stoneskin said:
Noozer left a note on my windscreen which said:


Was anyone expecting more than a linear corridor shooter with nods to
the original Doom? I know I wasn't. This Doom is pretty much exactly
what I expected it to be.


Because of the originals branching storylines and level of interactivity
with the enviroment?
Click to expand...

lol, I think everyone is bitten by the nostalgia bug when it comes to the
orignal Doom, and they confuse its novelty with its greatness. IIRC I never
finished it because it became fairly dull. The same with Serious Sam. I
enjoyed that for quite a few levels, but then it just became dull. I was
impressed by the huge dude at the end though.

For me the biggest disappointments were Unreal 2 and unfortunately Deus Ex 2
is shaping up the same way (only just started that one). I didn't expect
that much from Doom 3 either.
 
Back
Top