Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games

Doom III Trailer Debuts At E3 486

Posted by simoniker
from the just-plain-scary dept.
trub writes "The new Doom III trailer is out now on Gamespot.com (registration required). It's worth it.. don't mean to sound like a fanboy, but 'words can't describe...'" There are also mirrors that don't need registration via PlanetQuake3.net, and a BitTorrent link courtesy Gametab News for this 31mb DivX file. The game has also been officially confirmed for Xbox at E3, and you can check out more E3 news at Slashdot Games.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Doom III Trailer Debuts At E3

Comments Filter:
  • Sweet Trailer! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Smitty825 (114634) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @01:55AM (#5961550) Homepage Journal
    Not that this is very insightful, but I was able to see this trailer at E3. It kept showing on a loop, and each time it was shown, a large crowd gathered around. Everyone there seemed to comment that it was amazing, and it's worth spending a bunch of money to upgrade their PCs when it is released!
  • Any screen captures? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15, 2003 @01:55AM (#5961554)
    Are there any screen captures of the trailer for us dialup people?
  • by Viewsonic (584922) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @01:55AM (#5961557)
    XBox might be decent if your system is too slow, but to upgrade it decently will still cost about the same as an XBox .. Plus you will get all the mods and levels people will make, which you wont get on the XBox version.

    That, and 10 years from now when you've got a P12 Gforce FXP 50 that can do 2400x1600 3D fluid on your 50" monitor, you might be happy to play this instead of the 640x480P version on the XBox...............

    • by Squarewav (241189) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:04AM (#5961597)
      you can pick up a used xbox for about 150 even new one for 200, last I heard the pc version will require a rather expensive video card, but even then I suppose the xbox version will be rather crappy compared to the pc one, not just that the screen is stuck at 640x400 and interlaced at that, but im sure many effects will be left out to get a decent fps out of it. The xbox version is not marketed for pc users, but for console users
    • Who is to say that the Xbox version won't support extra mods and levels? That would be a cool feature.. download, burn to cd, go to menu on Xbox screen, load on to hard disk, play.

      You're right about the replay value though. The Xbox version will fade away after the console falls to obsolescence.
    • XBox might be decent if your system is too slow, but to upgrade it decently will still cost about the same as an XBox

      The Xbox is now at $180. A top-flight video card would cost almost twice that and even going down two "levels" in terms of card quality would still cost as much as $200. I won't even get started on the fact that there are still people out there who've barely broken the 1-GHz mark and could still be using SDRAM on an old motherboard (oops, I got started).

      I'm not going to make any claims

      • Okay, the price isn't comparable to an xbox.

        On the other hand, with every new video card or CPU review on slashdot, we hear a chorus of "why bother? Nobody can even use the power of a $400 system!" so that harmonizes nicely with "Doom3 is unrealistic! It requires too much computer!" The only time things are REALLY wrong is when there aren't people moaning on both sides of the issue.

        As for the 1 GHz barrier, I haven't broken it yet. I'm playing BF1942 with a C566 overclocked to 850, in a motherbo

      • I'm not going to make any claims that the Xbox graphics quality will match that of a good PC with a good video card as such claims would be false (though the next gen with 1080i might be close enough for jazz), but trying to argue that the price factor is comparable between Xbox and PC is never going to make it in the truth department.

        It's not necessarily a $200 XBox versus a $1000 PC, though. For a lot of people it's a $200 XBox versus a new $200 video card for the PC they already own. Or even a $100
    • by LordSah (185088) * on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:52AM (#5961797)
      I'll probably get both versions. XBox gaming lends itself to parties (that is, large groups of people playing and having a good time) much easier than PC's. If Doom3 has a similar multiplayer setup to Halo, then it'd be a blast to play with your buddies. It's sure easier than hauling your whole rig around for LAN gaming.
  • Ooooh (Score:5, Funny)

    by methangel (191461) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @01:56AM (#5961560)
    Reminds me of the 1994 Doom 1 release date. I had to upgrade to 4 megs of RAM! That was a trip.

    Hope my 768 megs of RAM is enough.
    • Same thing happened to me, my computer was supposed to have 4 megs of ram but it was like a few K short, I ended up getting like 8 megs for $70 on AOL. Hehe seems Doom is going to make me upgrade again (I need some more ram, a new video card, and a faster processor, gonna wait for the game to come out so I can get some pretty good prices on today's best hardware, which should run the game perfectly)
    • Reminds me of the 1994 Doom 1 release date. I had to upgrade to 4 megs of RAM! That was a trip. Hope my 768 megs of RAM is enough.

      Just imagine what Doom 4 will require. :)

  • Hmm, so I guess the Doom 3 trailer should entice me to register with gamespot. If i want a prick tease i'll just go elsewhere. Or better yet i'll save the money on the upgrades my computer will need to play that bad boy.

    Or better yet just get the trailer for free elsewhere.

  • Damn. (Score:5, Funny)

    by nounderscores (246517) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @01:58AM (#5961573)
    With that engine, you could make a mod which would be indistinguishable from reality.

    Just add an evercrack style backend and humanity will self-extinct due to lack of interest in sex.
  • Am I the only one who can't get it to work? May be my client is busted...
  • wow! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Maskirovka (255712) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:06AM (#5961604)
    I guess I'd better schedual a year off from college! The lack of productivity this game will cause....

    btw, I got 80k/sec from planetquake3's link. You guys are slacking.

  • That trailer is bad ass. I just switched over to a laptop completely (albeit a pretty good one). I may actually have to build a real system to play this mofo.
  • by fatwreckfan (322865) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:09AM (#5961611)
    Get the Half-Life 2 teaser here [ign.com] as well! It's not as good as the Doom III vid, but it still looks wicked. Half-Life was probably the best FPS I've every played, and a lot of my friends agree, so my fingers are crossed for HL2 to rock just as much.
    • I'm actually more excited about Half Life 2 I think... especially after seeing that trailer... the environments look supurb... it just looks like it might be that touch better when it comes to being a real immesive experience.

      What engine is HL2 using? Doom 3?
      • I think the two games will be very different as far as what they're going for. HL2 looks like a really immersive action game that's all about big battles, crazy physics, a subtle but well scripted storyline, and frantic action. D3 seems much slower and more secretive: something's always ready to rip your guts out, and you're afraid to move an inch. Then you snap and burst out with guns blazing, nearly get your head swiped off, and run in terror.

        Two different types of games, two different sorts of engi
    • The thing I liked the most about the Half Life video is that most objects in the game were interactive. You could move everything from propane tanks, to tables and mattresses and even window blinds. It may seem trivial when all you're really trying to do is kill monsters, but this level of detail in FPS games was long-overdue.

      I remember playing the Doom 3 Alpha last year(Sorry, John. I couldn't help myself =D). Although it was only in alpha stage, the game scared the shit out of me. It was genuinely scary.

      • by junkgrep (266550) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @06:59AM (#5962532)
        I have to say: these HL2 movies are beyond belief. It's not that the graphics are top-notch: they're gorgeous for what they need to be (don't know how to compare between games, though D3's models look more detailed, higher res): it's that the game looks like the first ever to make a real physics engine work in a game: and be part of the fun instead of an annoyance. The 30meg video of the running battle with the soldiers just goes on and on with cool stuff: and yet none of it looks scripted or canned: it could have played out very differently, in a million other cool ways. The way that objects tipped, wobbled, and tumbled, not to mention reacted to gunfire (like you shooting away a rolling barrel in the teaser) opens up whole new worlds of design possibilities that I hope Valve has really made the best of.

        The characters also look stunningly lifelike. Again, not because they are perfect 1zillion poly models, but because the animation and attention to sutble physical detail is incredible. HL2 is defiantely on my buy list, and I'm actually far more exicted about it than DOOM3, no matter how amazing it might look.

        That said, I'm really hoping that DOOM3 will be the game that puts id back on the map as a great SP experience. They have't really had a truly groundbreaking SinglePlayer experience since Doom, and that was largely because they were the first: they came in before FPS games got bogged down with cliches that were originally fresh in DOOM. But in D3 it looks like they've combined a love for top-notch technology with a desire to make it really work as an cohesive gaming experience. It looks creepy as hell. I just hope the game spreads out a little more from the suspiciously parodiable feel of:
        Player: Hey, I'm running around in a gorgeously rendered dank sewer!
        Carmack: No fool, it's a moonbase complex.
        Player: They have sewers on the moon?!
        Carmack: I... uh, yes.
        ...
        Carmack: Lookout: a spider!
        Player: Oh no! And look: a space crate! Made out of human femurs and plywood and some staples made out of a little girl's braces! I hope it's full of ammo and health, but you never know what's what up here on this crazy... wadda call it? Moon?

        And yeah, that's ADRIAN Carmack I be talking about, Word.

        You hear me though Carmack? I can only spend so much time on the moon: if you don't take me somewhere out in the open, like a gorgeously rendered outdoor plain of hell stretching out in all directions, or inside the guts of a giant, organic demon-spawn citadel with blood-seeping lungs for walls and tanned human skin for throw rugs, I don't know what I'll do.
        Probably just sit my ass down on a crate and doodle on the PDA that you thought would make for a great action game. I hope it has a spreadsheet function, because tax day is always around the corner! (note to id: make evil tax-spider and Hitler-spider)
  • Post Speeds? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by E1ven (50485) *
    Just for the sake of an unofficial experiment, could people please post the speed of their download, whether by BitTorrent, Freenet, or FTP?
    Please also, if possible, post the maximum speed of your connection, or if you are downloading anything else at the time.

    It would be very useful to help to collect some data on this.

    -Colin
    • Just like the subject says, 190 Kilobytes/s, max 200KB/s
    • thrue BitTorrent it started off at 20k/s then jumped to 150k/s, then again im on cable modem that gets about 350k/s, got to love living in a small town that has cable inet, esp when no one knows they have it
    • Using BitTorrent:

      Not sure about the download, but I'm pushing out around a steady 150 kBytes/sec (wavers between 130-175 kB/s on average, and managed to peak it at 198 kBytes/sec.

      Averaging around about 100-110 tcp connections (both directions), peaked at about 120 when I was doing 198 Kb/s.
      • Re:Post Speeds? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Cef (28324)
        Uploads have dropped to less than 50kB/s for me, and I've gotta go home, so the client goes bye bye. No outbound data charges here fortunately!

        Notes:
        Link: 2 Mbit fibre (UEComm, Australia)
        Max Upload: 198 kBps
        Max TCP connections: 123
        Outbound data transferred: 570+ MiB

    • My DSL is pitifully slow these days, but this BitTorrent d/l is slower than I've seen with other torrents.

      I started at 2kB (big B is bytes/sec, little b is bits/sec) down and 10kB up but now am 14/7...actually it's changing too fast.

      I'm going to leave my torrent open and go to sleep. 128kbs upload sucks but it's better than dialup! Enjoy!

      Okay, now 24kB/1kB. Not sure what's up with the upload; maybe everyone's at the same point in the download as I am. I have upload limited to 10kB since my connection is
    • bittorrent, started off at 30.. now at 250kb/s.

      university provided 100mbit.. shared with the whole house and i don't know how big the backbone is(pretty big, by any standard).

      excuse me but i can't have it uploading 200kb/s+ for very long (transfer limits are in effect if i would abuse this connection).
    • 480kB/s down, 250kB/s up at the end. Both slowly increased as I accumulated more and more of the file.

      I'm on a campus net connection, with a 10Mbit ethernet connection to the campus backbone.
  • HL2 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dnixon112 (663069)
    The Doom 3 trailer was pretty impressive, graphics-wise. However, the Half-Life 2 trailer displayed more astounding physics and AI. Both engines, years in the making, and built from the ground up are sure to compete for consumer and developer dollars. It'll be interesting to see which will be the ultimate victor. You can find the Half-Life 2 movie here: http://users.pandora.be/vanhoef/HL2/halflife2_pce3 2003_2dn_qt.zip
  • by Fuzuli (135489) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:24AM (#5961682)
    I really don't care much about the gameplay of Doom III. Why ? Because Carmack's greatest contribution to gaming is not the games he creates for the last few years, his real contribution is the technology he gives to many talented others for implementing their ideas in a more stunning way.
    What if gameplay of Doom III sucks ? What if it does not make it to the hype ? Nothing..No problem at all: as we've both seen before someone with a good idea will licence the technology and will give us a new game that'll rock our world. And considering Carmack's huge affords to make his technology easy to modify, we'll probably see much cooler mods too. Half life, was built on quake 2 engine, quake 3 engine was the base for medal of honor, and the list goes on. Carmack is not only coding a game, he's creating the technical foundation for next generation of games, and even just for that he deserves respect and all his Ferraris. Still i can guess how many will be bitching about "how Doom III sucks" when the game is out. Just try to see how much the guy alone has done for gaming. And for god's sake please stop that "what a wasted talent" bullshit, we have enough of scientists, and genius elsewhere, let the man do what he likes with his own brain .
    • by l810c (551591) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:58AM (#5961825)
      I really think they are going for(and will have) the 'Complete Game' this time. The engine has basically been done for a while. They are now working on content. It may still be pretty straight forward find key/move forward gameplay, but I think the atmosphere and battles will rock.
    • by Osty (16825) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @03:13AM (#5961877)

      Half life, was built on quake 2 engine

      Nope. Quake 1 engine.


      You're correct, though. Id's main contribution since Quake 1 is the advancement of engine technology. Quake 2's single player game more or less sucked, and Quake 3 didn't even really have one. However, with Doom 3, Id is supposedly focusing mainly on single player. That means that the single player game should be at least decent, if not good, but more importantly that the multiplayer aspects are likely not getting the attention you expect. As well, theCarmack has said in the past that the Doom 3 handles only a few models on-screen at a time. More than that and it can really start to bog down. That means it'll be great for the atmosphere Doom 3 is trying for, with more tension and paranoia than screens full of monsters, and less great for much else. Will that change? Sure. Hardware will get better, and I'm sure some 3rd parties like Raven will have a go at modifying the engine. The point is that the Doom3 engine is going in quite a different direction from the Quake3 engine, and may not be well-suited (at least initially) for most third-party licensees.

    • Once again.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Inoshiro (71693) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @04:26AM (#5962059) Homepage
      Half-Life was based on the Quake 1 engine.

      "At its core, it's a Quake 1 engine. You can tell this by comparing Half-life's map compiling tools with those shipped with Quake1. You'll find very minor differences -- none of them are fundamental. The core rendering is architecturally identical to Quake1, the only "significant" change is removing the fixed palette, making map lighting RGB instead of 8 bit, and converting software rendering to be 16 bit color instead of 8 bit color, which was pretty easy and only required minor code changes. Our skeletal animation system is new, though it was heavily influenced by the existing model rendering code, as were a lot of our updated particle effects, though less so with our beam system. Decals are totally new, our audio system has some major additions to what already existed, and at ship time our networking was almost totally Quake1 / QuakeWorld networking but about a year later Yahn rewrote most of all of it to be very different in design. The most highly changed sections are the game logic; ours being written in C++ and Quake's being in written interpreted "Quake C". Our AI system is very very different from anything in Quake, and there's a lot of other significant architectural changes in the whole server and client implementations, though if you look hard enough you can find a few remnants of some nearly unmodified Quake1 era entities buried in places."

      More details over here [valve-erc.com].

      So if they can do that with the Quake 1 engine, imagine what they should be able to do now.
  • Doom 3: Playing it (Score:4, Informative)

    by westyvw (653833) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:27AM (#5961694)
    Well since I have played the Alpha:

    You NEED a fast vid card and at least 512 megs of ram. The ram really helps.

    I dont see how the XBOX can even get this to look right without seriously watering it down.

    Playing this game on a PC is like playing Doom, in the sense that it suprises you, hell is even scary.

    But the way it looks just brings you in, I found myself looking at the tiles in the bathroom, at checking out the elctron pulse by stanind in it WOW.

    Carmack has gone all out to add in the visual features, using light and shadow to his advantage, and those monsters are frightening. They attack with a vengence.

    heres a link that will help you with the Alpha, including graphic modifiers. Nice FAQ in as well:

    http://www.evem.org.au/evem/archives/games/doom_ 3_ alpha_help.html
    • by gl4ss (559668)
      the alpha makes no sense of performance as it is very obvious it lacks various optimizations (memory for one, the music is unpacked & etc).

      and the parts where memory/cpu/'features'(there were places where you could get it to stumble under 1 fps when looking at a corner, so hidden surface removal didn't work that well, if at all) didn't make it crawl it worked 'ok' on a freaking gf2gts(32mb)/512mb(sdram) and duron 1200mhz when you toyed around with the settings.

      i'm _pretty_ sure that you can _play_ it
  • mirror in sweden (Score:5, Informative)

    by fredan (54788) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:32AM (#5961720) Homepage Journal
    doom3_e32003.mpg [fredan.org]
  • alternate downloads (Score:2, Informative)

    by himitsu (634571)
    check out http://www1.giga.de/download_von_news/0,2862,4579_ e32k2_orange,00.html everyone loves german download sites that dont cost money by the month.
  • Graphics glitch? (Score:4, Informative)

    by andi75 (84413) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:53AM (#5961806) Homepage
    Has anybody noticed the graphics glitch after about 47 seconds, where you have an outside view of the facility and a mono-rail? It seems to me that even though the mono-rail car passes through shadows, the translucent window isn't shadowed at all! I think it should at least darken a bit...

    Any graphics guys care to comment?

    - Andreas
    • I assume you're talking about this bright spot on the roof [networkoftheapes.net] and how it seems to glow, but gets occluded by shadow [networkoftheapes.net]. From a 3D perspective and what I know it could be any of the following, in least to most likely order:
      • The level of detail on the polygons is changing and we just happen to catch it at a long ugly spot. There is no odd morphing or shifting of polygons, so this is REALLY unlikely.
      • The lighting engine or visibility engine is ignoring those polygons completely, as if they are "detail" brushes [gamedesign.net] or
    • by nothings (597917) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @05:54AM (#5962368) Homepage
      I haven't looked at the video to see the graphics glitch of which you speak, but I am a graphics guy, and the core technology used in Doom 3 for shadowing, called stenciled shadows, doesn't work with translucent/transparent surfaces.

      Basically, the algorithim uses the Z values stored in the Z-buffer to determine whether each pixel is in shadow or not. (The Z-buffer is used for hidden surface elimination, and normally stores the single nearest opaque-surface.)

      When you draw transparent surfaces, you end up with multiple surfaces visible at each pixel--the nearest opaque surface, and all closer transparent surfaces. But there's only a single value in the Z-buffer, so the checks to determine shadow determine whether that particular point (back-projecting that pixel to that depth) is in shadow.

      So either transparent surfaces pick up the shadowing of the surfaces you see through them, or you turn off shadowing for transparent surfaces (and maybe do something else for them, like raycast one or more points on the surface to the light sources and use that info for shadowing the whole surface or each vertex).

  • I'm downloading the trailer via the BitTorrent link. I love Q3 and i hope Doom3 will be fun too. I have a dual athlon with an ATI Radeon 9000 Pro, so i hope that's enough. 1.5 GB ram doesn't hurt either.

    Anyway, just a remark on the BT Link. with BT, the slashdot effect works in reverse. The more people download it, the faster transfer rates you see. BitTorrent (and p2p in general, to a slightly lesser extent) is unspeakably cool because of this.

  • by martin-boundary (547041) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @03:08AM (#5961859)
    Anybody got a link to the ASCIImation version? My text browser can't cope with graphical trailers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 15, 2003 @03:17AM (#5961895)
    So i go through the hassle of actually registering, just to get this when i try to download:

    Protected Delivery - Microsoft Windows Required
    We are sorry. This protected delivery is only available through Kontiki's secure delivery software running on a Windows PC (Windows XP, 2000, ME, 98, or NT4).
    Please try to access this content through a computer running Microsoft Windows.

    Some of us don't run windows (i personally run Linux/OSX)
    [something about a conspiracy against me]
  • The gamespot article mentioned a shorter, higher quality game is being considered. Well I'm not buying a short game for $60 regardless of how good it looks. Let's see some reasonable play length.
  • More Links!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by zeekiorage (545864) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @04:42AM (#5962110)
  • Mirrors for all (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gossy (130782) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @04:51AM (#5962142)
    For those who don't want to register to Gamespot, can't get there, and also can't hit planetquake3..

    Mirror 1 [go2host.de]
    Mirror 2 [4players.de]
    Mirror 3 [reddeth.com]
    Mirror 4 [swschwedt.de]
    Mirror 5 [doupe.cz]

  • by StrawberryFrog (67065) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @05:30AM (#5962277) Homepage Journal
    don't mean to sound like a fanboy, but 'words can't describe...'

    How about "3d shooter game sequel with fancy shadows"?
  • by master_p (608214) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @06:43AM (#5962495)
    I've played the Doom III Alpha version, and my jaw dropped to the floor.

    I have just watched the HL2 trailer. My jaw has been stuck on the floor and I can't pick it up!!! The moment that on-screen girl smiled, I realized that HL2 will kick Doom III ass big time.

    Doom III is not about the game. It is about the engine, the technology. The game is just a demo of what the engine can do.
  • by riflemann (190895) <riflemann&bb,cactii,net> on Thursday May 15, 2003 @06:45AM (#5962496)
    It's all nice and pretty that games have more and more advanced video and animaton, but one thing that I think is sorely lacking is that of audio advancements.

    The biggest failing of most games nowadays is that the same SFX are recycled over and over, with perhaps just a small variation in pitch.

    How about having true dynamic audio so that when you hit the same enemies over and over, they dont just blurt out exactly the same sound effect? Generating the sound for a particular monster should be done from a variety of generators that create the sound for that moment according to what is happening to them.

    Fourier based audio generation such that entering a large hall makes the sounds boomy, low and echoy, whereas a small passageway has appropriately short echoes and higher pitch?

    If the sound was truly dynamic in that way, then that would work for truly scaring the shit out of me!

    • by htmlboy (31265) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @10:42AM (#5964022)
      while i don't know about the use of different sounds to liven things up, we do know that doom3 is engineered to take advantage of 6.1 surround sound. they wanted to create as emersive an environment as possible, and so spent a lot of time makeing the sound believable. trent reznor of nine inch nails was even brought onboard to share his expertise.
  • by ch-chuck (9622) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @07:01AM (#5962535) Homepage
    FPS desperately need another element of realism: the buildings should get shot up as well as the players.

    I've been playing Doom, Quake for years and during a 3D session of QII the other day it hit me: you can shoot the biggest gun at the littlest thing and it just bounces off. The plasma gun at least leaves burn marks in the wall but they quickly 'heal' - seems like a really awesome addition to the game would be walls that collapse when a stray rockets hits them - the game world should start out like a well kept castle or building, but as the game goes on it slowly turns into rubble as it gets shot up.

    Just a thought.
  • Warning (Score:3, Informative)

    by blibbleblobble (526872) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @08:03AM (#5962781)
    If you want to download this trailer, not only must you sign-up for an account, give personal details etc, but you have to be running Internet Explorer on Windows, in minumum-security mode, to allow them to install software on your machine (ActiveX?) before you can view the trailer.

    Who was it who said "don't double-click on exe files from untrusted sources"?
  • by Cereal Box (4286) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @09:02AM (#5963190)
    What is the big obsession with FP shooters having long, drawn-out storylines? I know geeks tend to equate convoluted plotlines with quality, but come on. You're playing an FPS... the whole point of the game is to SHOOT things while you control the character from a FIRST PERSON perspective. Who gives a damn about a story? Do you really need motivation to shoot things? No! I just want good graphics, fast action, and a whole army of things to kill. That's what made the original Doom so much fun! It wasn't bogged down in endless cutscenes where talking heads discussed the political ramifications of wiping out monsters on Mars, it just had lots and lots of killing! That's what's fun! I have no doubt that Doom 3 will be fun PRECISELY because there won't be an annoying storyline to get in the way of the action!
  • by UnConeD (576155) on Thursday May 15, 2003 @02:01PM (#5966033)
    Why do people always talk about Carmack as a 'Game designer'? He doesn't make games, he makes graphics engines. And he's damn good at that.
    Warren Spector, now that's a *game* designer (Thief, System Shock, Deus Ex). Or Steve Barcia, of Master-of-Orion fame.

    I once went through the trouble of downloading a Carmack presentation off the web about Q3 at the time. "Um...yeah.... um... basically we have like tons of shiny things that really kick ass. It looks really awesome."
    Thank you for that wonderful insight, I really couldn't have deducted that from the screenshots.

    Quake2 was a mindless shooter which constantly made me feel that my monitors blue-channel was broken (everything was brown/yellow). It didn't come close to Unreal's awesome atmosphere, colorful environments, sense of 'going somewhere', ...

    Who is the writer for Doom III's storyline? How will the voice acting be? How about (non-)linearity? What is the level of sound interaction in the games (i.e. not just 'gun::fire() { playsound("bang.wav"); }').
    All these questions get ignored because it has normal mapping and stencil shadows.

FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.

Working...