Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Quake First Person Shooters (Games)

Doom 3 Hardware Guide Debuts 392

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the time-to-upgrade dept.
Nosf3ratu writes "Over at HardOCP, the boys have teamed up with id software again to publish the Official Doom 3 Hardware Guide. As the guide states: 'With the prospect of so many new people being brought into gaming by DOOM 3, there will likely be a lot of questions regarding the computer hardware needed to support it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Doom 3 Hardware Guide Debuts

Comments Filter:
  • Sweeeeeet. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zedmelon (583487) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:13PM (#9834336) Homepage Journal
    From the hardware guide:
    "What we noticed immediately is that DOOM 3 looks incredible even at 640x480! "
    and
    "Looking at the image, it's surprising just how good Low Quality looks."

    My hopes weren't very high, but I'm relieved to see this. Now I know my TNT2 card will do just fine.

    But seriously, their test on a minimal system yielded encouraging results:
    "Our system was composed of a 1.5GHz Pentium 4, 512MB of Corsair RAM, and a GeForce 4 MX 440 video card"

    fp?

    • Re:Sweeeeeet. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by foidulus (743482) *
      I'm wondering how it will end up looking on LCDs whose native resolution is higher than the resolution that Doom suggests. If you don't run an LCD at it's native resolution, it tends to look very block and blurry, which could make the image even worse....
      Looks like I'll have to buy a 6800 if I want to play this game
      • Re:Sweeeeeet. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by proj_2501 (78149)
        I routinely play Starcraft and Unreal Tournament 2004 on my Powerbook G4 at non-native resolutions and they look fine to me.
        • Re:Sweeeeeet. (Score:2, Informative)

          by multriha (206019)
          Don't know about Unreal, but starcraft can't be run at a non-native resolution. It runs at 640x480 I believe always. Powerbooks at just smart enough to scale it properly to fit the screen.
          • Re:Sweeeeeet. (Score:3, Informative)

            by Usquebaugh (230216)
            FYI,

            native resolution, as discussed here, is the LCDs native resolution not the games.

            LCD have an optimal resolution, running at a lower res than this causes a degredation of the image.
        • Re:Sweeeeeet. (Score:3, Informative)

          by Minna Kirai (624281)
          I routinely play Starcraft and Unreal Tournament 2004 on my Powerbook G4 at non-native resolutions and they look fine to me

          If your laptop is a multiple of 640x480, like 1280x960, then the described blurriness wouldn't actually occur for you.

          The effect is worst when you run a program a a resolution close to, but not identitical to, the fixed rez of the LCD. That produces some fairly painful scaling artifacts.
      • Re:Sweeeeeet. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Naikrovek (667)
        just don't stretch it to full screen. 1280x1024 stretched on a 1600x1200 lcd looks shitty, but 1280x1024 unstretched on a 1600x1200 lcd looks fine.
    • Re:Sweeeeeet. (Score:3, Insightful)

      I must say, thank goodness. Maybe I'll get to play this game after all. I spent $600 upgrading my computer over a year ago and UT2003 still plays so choppy I can't stand it. It still gives me ulcers just thinking about it. Hopefully, if this is right, I'll be able to play DOOM 3 on my AMD 2600+ with 128 MB video RAM.

      Believe me, I tried everything to get UT2003 to run well on this system. /me pukes and then faints.

  • Systems (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mfh (56) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:14PM (#9834341) Homepage Journal
    FTA: "There are no major differences in image quality between NVIDIA and ATI video cards when playing DOOM 3 at the same settings."

    From this shot [hardocp.com], I would have to say, ATI looks nicer for quality of lighting. The blending seems more natural.

    FTA: "There is no doubt that DOOM 3's minimum system specifications can easily deliver a good gaming experience."

    If you don't mind frames dropping to this and their ultimate Doom 3 system [hardocp.com].

    FTA:"Without a doubt, our AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 system sporting the ABIT AV8 motherboard with 2GB of Corsair XMS RAM was the pinnacle of DOOM 3 performance in terms of image quality and speed when outfitted with the BFGTech GeForce 6800 Ultra OC."

    And that is a nice system by any standards. I think I am very interested by the Alienware Doom system [alienware.com]. The Aurora ALX looks sweet [alienware.com].

    Xian has some cool quotes for the guys at Hard|OCP here [hardocp.com]. Most notably:

    "I am proud to say that DOOM 3 is quite possibly the most aurally detailed and complex game ever made, on any platform."

    Drooooool.........
    • by spellraiser (764337) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:52PM (#9834921) Journal
      Strange that this hasn't been posted already ... well, here it is:

      DX 9.0 compatible 3D card w/ 64MB RAM*
      MS Windows 2000/XP
      Pentium 4 1.5 GHz or Athlon XP 1500+
      384 MB RAM
      8x CD-ROM
      2.2 GB of HD space
      Broadband (for multiplayer)

      *Supported 3D Graphics chipsets:
      ATI: Radeon 8500, 9000, 9200, 9500, 9600, 9700, 9800
      NVIDIA: GeForce 3, GeForce 4MX, GeForce 4 Titanium, GeForce FX, GeForce 6

      • Sorry if this is an old issue, but DirectX 9.0 3D card? Aren't they using OpenGL?
        • They refer to DirectX 9.0 cards because that's what most people recognize. It IS an OpenGL card, and it will use OpenGL rendering paths. However the OpenGL enhancements present on a DirectX 9 card are better than the OpenGL enhancements on a DirectX 8 card... ...it's all a name game pretty much.
    • Re:Systems (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CyberKnet (184349)
      Please bear in mind they are using a BFGTech card. I have personal experience with both PNY cards, and BFGTech cards... My PNY FX5200Ultra passed on, and to replace it, I got a BFGTech 5600Ultra.

      I am here to tell you today that in terms of FPS, the BFGTech is better. As it should be, it's a 5600 ultra, and the PNY card was a 5200 ultra. However, in terms of image quality, the BFGTech is far, FAR, FAR below the PNY card. Using the exact same drivers.

      BFGTech cards are inferior. I would never recommend anyon
    • Re:Systems (Score:3, Informative)

      by DeltaSigma (583342)

      From this shot [hardocp.com], I would have to say, ATI looks nicer for quality of lighting. The blending seems more natural.

      I couldn't find any real discernable difference between the ATI and nVidia side-by-side images, but I thought there must be at some microscopic level.

      So when you pointed this one out I decided to test it.

      I pulled the image into photoshop and copied the nVidia screen ontop of the ATI screen. I got them as best aligned as I could and then changed the nVidia layer's blending to "Di

    • Re:Systems (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Billly Gates (198444)
      For $5,500 listed for the ultimate doom system, I wonder how a cheaper SMP system would perform playing it?

      I bet you guys did not know that doom3 supports smp in Windows.

  • New Hardware (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Klar (522420) <curchin@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:15PM (#9834363) Homepage Journal
    With Doom3 and HL2 comming out very soon, I am interested to see how this will affect sales in new CPU's and video cards. Will there be a great boost in sales so people can play these games? I for one have just bought a new computer to allow me to play these--although it is a laptop, and I need to get a faster HD for it.. heh
    • Re:New Hardware (Score:2, Informative)

      by stonedonkey (416096)
      With Doom3 and HL2 comming out very soon, I am interested to see how this will affect sales in new CPU's and video cards. Will there be a great boost in sales so people can play these games? I for one have just bought a new computer to allow me to play these--although it is a laptop, and I need to get a faster HD for it.. heh

      It's been horrendous with video cards, especially the 6800GT OC, which is regarded as Doom 3's "sweet spot" for price-performance ratio. I lucked out, apparently, buying that card rig

      • by ostiguy (63618) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:40PM (#9835647)
        AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
        Dear Gateway Valued Customer,

        This e-mail is sent to you to informyou of a change with your Estimated Arrival Date which was 07/28/04. Theorder number in question is xxxxxxx for the Radeon X800XT Card. Dueto a delay at our manufacturing facility, your order has a new DelayedArrival Date of 08/27/04. As with all dates provided by Gateway, this isnot a guaranteed date of arrival but only an estimate. Because of thisdelay, you do have the right to cancel this order if this date does not meetyour needs. Please note that your order has been placed into priority toarrive to you as soon as possible.

        You can check the status of your orderat anytime by dialing the following number;
        ostiguy bangs head repeatedly against desk
    • These benchmarks help alot, I bet I'll play HL2 more than doom3 due to CS Source. So after I see benchmarks on ATI vs Nvidia on HL2, I can use the combined scores from both game to pick the best all around GFX card. Nvidia might own in Doom3, but Nvidia always seems to be better on ID games only. ATI seems to be better on Unreal and HL.

      Hurry up and weight. Myself I want to wait for a dual PCI Express board before I upgrade, and I dont see any out yet. So no hurry to upgrade *YET*.

    • Dunno, but I think you'll see a sharp rise in street muggings by desperate geeks ...
    • Re:New Hardware (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Total_Wimp (564548)
      There's a symbiotic relationship between hardware vendors and software vendors that make resource-intensive software.

      id makes software that makes people go out to buy new geForce card >> nVidia makes lots of money.

      nVidia tells everyone that Doom 3 is the greatest game to ever be seen on this planet >> id makes lots of money.

      The software maker actually has an incentive to make a product that is percieved as a resource hog because of this positive feedback loop. It's kind an informal paid endo
  • OSX version Needed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by artlu (265391) <artlu@a r t lu.net> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:15PM (#9834369) Homepage Journal
    Then, i can use my Dual 2.0 G5 with Apple's gorgeous new displays. Yes, i know LCD is bad for gaming, but the new apple monitors are just crazy. At least my "Stock Game" [groupshares.com] looks good on the monitors.

    Actually, does anyone know if ID is planning an OSX release like they did with Quake 3?
    • Actually, does anyone know if ID is planning an OSX release like they did with Quake 3?
      Yes, but not for a while yet. They said the linux release would be "soon", but OSX was still a ways down the road.
    • by Nosf3ratu (702029) <Nosf3ratu AT sbcglobal DOT net> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:20PM (#9834440)
      Yes, they are.
      Todd Hollenshead, acting CEO of id said in an email shortly after the announcement of the release date, of OSX and Linux:

      "Mac and Linux: Unfortunately I don't have dates for either of these. However, Linux binaries will be
      available very soon after the PC game hits store shelves. There are no plans for boxed Linux games.
      More remains to be done for the OSX version of DOOM 3 and that will take some time. We won't release
      the OSX version until it's just as polished as the PC version. The date for OSX DOOM 3 remains "when it's
      done", but I can confirm that it's definitely coming. "
    • How is an LCD bad for gaming, the refresh rate?

      I play HL and GTA:VC on my Dell Laptop with the 15.4" display and it looks much much better than my 21" CRT I use a secondary monitor. The refresh is amazing, and the picture quality is crazy crisp. I would use an LCD over a CRT any day, even a smaller LCD too.
      • The refresh rate isn't a big problem unless you desire visible fps over 60 (the vast majority of LCDs refresh at 60 Hz). The "response time," though can cause a problem. This is the speed at which the pixels change color. Slow response time is why all the old LCDs used to leave mouse trails even before mouse trails were a setup option in a GUI. Things have improved to the point where such trails are hardly noticeable, but in fast-moving games you can still end up with afterimages as the LCD pixels attem

    • I've got an NEC MultiSync LCD screen with a 16ms (avg) response time, and FPS games display beautifully. Just have to make sure the PRT is at least 16ms or so. The low-end LCDs are too laggy, pixel-wise, and you get that horrible ghosting.
    • Uh... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Cyno01 (573917)
      The new Apple Displays have a 16ms refresh rate. Thats plenty good for gaming. I think there are only a few samsung displays that are quicker than that at 12ms... I bought a 20" yesterday. :D
  • by Ford Prefect (8777) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:15PM (#9834372) Homepage
    Interestingly, Windows 98 won't be supported [eurogamer.net].

    I'll be in the weird situation of having a game that will run on my PC in Linux, but not on my games-only Windows installation.

    Makes a change! :-)
    • Isn't that a sign that it might be time to move away from '98 then?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Thief 3 wasn't supported on Win9x/ME either. Turns out it the biggest problem was the inclusion of the executable icon using an ordinal OOB on Win9x!

    • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:40PM (#9834766)
      > Interestingly, Windows 98 won't be supported.

      "Won't be supported" or "Won't work"?

      Those aren't necessarily the same things. My 9800XT "isn't supported" on my 98SE gaming rig either - but it works just fine.

      (Why do I game on 9x? Because it's the same 9x license that came with the box six years ago. Because 9x doesn't run services that listen to ports. Because I can boot with a floppy and reimage -- even though, unlike my friends' 2K/XP boxen, I've never had to, because the box has never been 0wn3d. :)

      /me glances at the log of RPC/DCOM worm attacks, every few seconds all bouncing against unopenable ports, from even goddamn dialup IP addresses, and laughs.

      Yes, 98SE is a DOS shell. Yes, 98SE isn't a real OS. Yes, 98SE is a toy. Yes 98SE has no security model. And yes, for a single-user gaming rig, that's why it's better than a real OS.

      In the meantime, 98SE doesn't require me to "activate" it after I swap hard drives or motherboards. 98SE doesn't phone home. 98SE doesn't run services I don't need. And when it crashes, it crashes hard enough that nothing's writing to the hard drive when I press the hard-reset button. 98SE boxen (as long as you're not using M$'s crapware browser and mail client) can be plugged onto the evil Intarweb - straight out of the box - without even a firewall, and not get 0wn3d.

      (This rant expired by the equivalent crashes on the same game played on a friend's XP rig - I observed that when a game in XP goes down hard, the OS keeps running. That's not a feature, that's a bug! No mouse, no GUI, just a frozen 3D rendering of the game, but the hard drive light just flickers happily as the remaining components of the OS busily "manage" the swap file. You sorta wait for the light to flicker out, and hope that you press the hard-reset button before it comes back up. WTF kind of crap is that?)

      2K/XP are for Microsoft boxen that do real work. For a gaming rig, they're overkill. Gimme a stripped-down DOS box any day.

      Now that the rant's out of the way -- who cares if DOOM3 is "supported" on 98SE. I'm sure we'll find out within 72 hours whether or not it "works anyways".

      • Most of the reasons you've listed for not wanting to switch from 98 to 2k/XP are pretty silly.

        In the meantime, 98SE doesn't require me to "activate" it after I swap hard drives or motherboards.

        Neither does XP. I've swapped/added many a hard drive to my XP computer, and it never asked me to re-activate. A motherboard is entirely a different matter, since the activation is closely tied to that. Even then it's a simple matter of saying "reactivate over the internet", and a few seconds later you're done.

        9
    • "not supported" as in "won't run" or as in "we haven't tested it and we're not gonna help you if you have problems with that"?
    • Considering that to even run Doom 3 you'll have to had purchased a computer within the last two years why would you expect them to support a 6 year old OS?
  • by Drewser (801348) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:20PM (#9834435)
    This means I have to upgrade my laptop now to be able to play in class.
  • Heh heh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by stratjakt (596332)
    These things always make me laugh. HardOCP, TomsHardware, all the "hardcore modder" sites.

    No doubt this article will convince a bunch of clueless wannabe's that they MUST piss away $1000 in hardware over the next week else they won't be playing Doom 3.

    Which, of course, drives "obsolete" stuff, like the (now over 6 months old!) Radeon 9800 XT into the bargain bin for me!

    Between these moron sites, and morons at Best Buy and CompUSA, it's a great time to be a tech bargain hunter.

    Not too long ago, I overhe
    • Re:Heh heh (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      wow, you are incredibley CHEAP

      fucking poor morons who cant afford the latest hardware

      yourj ust like that win98fag earlier
    • Re:Heh heh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by untermensch (227534) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:27PM (#9834548)
      While I mostly agree with your statements about sites like HardOCP in general, did you RTFA? They keep stressing over and over again that Doom3 plays fine on remarkably low-end systems, and that there is no real need to upgrade from the several-years-old systems that many of us have.
    • Re:Heh heh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fireduck (197000) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:30PM (#9834598)
      No doubt this article will convince a bunch of clueless wannabe's that they MUST piss away $1000 in hardware over the next week else they won't be playing Doom 3.

      Actually, they post framerates for the recommended low end system that seem perfectly respectable (i.e., hovering around the 20-30 range) for an ancient system. I'm running a athlon 2100+ with a GeForce4 TI card and I'm not about to upgrade cause of this game.

      (now when HL2 comes out and I've got 2 pieces of eyecandy that are droolworthy, I might think about some sort of upgrade...)
    • Re:Heh heh (Score:5, Informative)

      by moonbender (547943) <moonbender@gmai l . com> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:32PM (#9834630)
      From the article:
      There is no doubt that DOOM 3s minimum system specifications can easily deliver a good gaming experience. We found it simply incredible that a system this old could run DOOM 3 at all, much less run it well. It may be hard to believe, but we can honestly recommend spending $50 on DOOM 3 if you have a system comparable to this. You can still have a very worthy DOOM 3 experience with it.


      I know some of you are thinking that it would be tough to call gaming at 640x480 a good gaming experience, but the environments in DOOM 3 are very forgiving in terms of resolution as discussed in our IQ section. Do we suggest you use a higher resolution to place yourself in an even more immersive environment? Without a doubt, but it is hardly a requirement to really feel a part of the DOOM 3 story.
      And in the conlusion:
      All that aside, I'm still astonished by our experience on the min spec system. While we think you'll likely have the best experience at the resolution and quality levels we suggested, dont think for a second that those are the actual requirements for playing DOOM 3. If I had a 1.5GHz Pentium and GeForce 4MX system that was two years old, I would still purchase this game knowing I was in for an incredible experience.
      So yeah, I think this article is fairly balanced. They don't pretend you need the absolute latest and greatest to play the game. I don't think it's very insightful, really - their conclusion seems to be "well it runs best on really fast systems, but we guess you can also run it on older systems in 800x600" which isn't exactly a surprising outcome. OTOH I guess they do test Doom 3 on a large range of systems which will give you a fairly good idea at what res and quality settings your own systems will be able to run it, so the article does have its uses.
    • I'm glad to see someone agrees with me.

      There is a direct, demonstrable link between video quality, frame rate, and the amount of fun you're having playing a game. If you don't have video quality and frame rate pushed to the max, you're simply cheating yourself. And since you "can't put a price on a good time", it only makes sense to spend whatever it takes to have the latest and absolute greatest hardware. I, for one, am thankful that all these hardware sites are helping us pick out the best new hardwar
    • Re:Heh heh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lightwarrior (73124) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:08PM (#9835193) Journal
      Parent: -1, Troll.

      He didn't read the article. He just makes blind suppositions about the content of the because it's from a hardware enthusiast site.

      Part of the beauty of these sites is that we can get information about how the hardware you and I have in our computers perform compared to what's available. They clearly demonstrate what framerate and image quality you're likely to get, compared to what different hardware is capable of.

      Consider my situation. My computer is pretty current, though my video card is about a gen and a half behind the bleeding edge. I'm curious what sort of frame rate and IQ I can expect when my Doom 3 preorder arrives. I know that I'm probably going to be runnining in 10x7 with MQ - maybe HQ (they didn't benchmark my *exact* system).

      That's fine. Sure, I could blow $600 on a top of the line video card to improve my framerate, but I don't consider it worth it for a card that will outperform 99% of the games I own.

      Assuming Doom 3 is the game it's hyped to be, a year or two down the road I'll be able to come back and play this game in all the glory I could have spent $600 now to see. It's a matter of personal preference.

      Hell, I've been doing that with System Shock 2 and Deus Ex for years. Each new video card yields at least one more playthrough, with higher graphics settings, more AA/AF, or whatever.

      In regards to your situation of screwing someone out of perfectly good hardware, did it ever cross your mind to inform the gentleman that his hardware was perfectly acceptable, and that the Best Buy salesperson was just trying to make a buck?

      In less polite terms, I hope I'm never mugged when you're around.

      -lw
    • Re:Heh heh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rpdillon (715137) *
      OK, lets not jump the gun here...

      The folks over at TomsHardware, HardOCP, whatever tech site you want to pick on are in a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEAGUE than the idiots that work or shop and CompUSA, Circuit City, whatever.

      Those sites cater to folks that want specs on high end hardware. Everyone knows that there is a sweet spot in computer hardware somewhere between cutting edge and one generation old. Performance vs cost in computer hardware (as in cars, machinery, whatever) is exponential, and most people rea
  • SMP (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iamthemoog (410374) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:22PM (#9834461) Homepage
    Nice article, though where's the multi-processor graphs? "Ultimate DOOM3 Systems" still only shows single CPU systems.

    Any clues anyone? It seems the game is pretty much video card limited, but a 2nd CPU might flatten out the frame rates to a more even level instead of bouncing up and down from 17 to 60 FPS ...

  • Huh??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TopShelf (92521) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:22PM (#9834473) Homepage Journal
    "With the prospect of so many new people being brought into gaming by DOOM 3..."

    Does anyone really see Doom 3 as some kind of crossover phenomenon that will make people start gaming and suddenly go buy top-notch computers to support their new addiction? I highly doubt it. This sounds like a huge event for the computer gaming crowd, but not much beyond that.

    Sorry to poo-poo the hyperbole, but come on...

    • Thank you. That was my first thought on reading this. While Doom 3 will certainly spur some graphics card, memory and processor/motherboard sales, I don't think that the average Sims player is going to go all creamy over it. Now, Sims 2 might be a different story...
    • I have to agree with ya. Im still skeptical that doom3 will be any good, gameplay wise. sure it looks great, but...
    • People are really masturbating all over this game to obscene levels. It's not going to be *that* big of a milestone in gaming. It's another atmospheric FPS shooter with a plotline.

      I mean, I've already done the shadowy, bump-mapped corridor thing in a little game called Far Cry that in addition to that, has outdoor levels with an infinite distance. I doubt I'll be seeing anything in Doom 3 that is as fun as driving an inflatable boat into an enemy camp on a gorgeous outdoor beach.

      The indoor areas of Far
    • I'm not a FPS guy...never was very good at them, mainly due to the time involved in learning the controls. I read that line and thought - hey, maybe this ones for me!

      Then I watched the trailer. Um...maybe not. SSDD. Looks cool though. I'll probably watch somebody else play it for a couple minutes extra before I get bored.

  • Autospooge (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AliasTheRoot (171859)
    Is it too much to ask that we have some confirmation that Doom3 is actually a good game before /. spams us with 15 stories a day on it?

    There's tons of games coming out all the time, many are better than the mediocre junk id foists on us in the name of selling graphics engines, why dont they get covered?
    • Re:Autospooge (Score:5, Informative)

      by th1ckasabr1ck (752151) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:34PM (#9834660)
      Go pick up the latest PCGamer and read the review. Or go check out PlanetDoom [planetdoom.com] and read the reviews in the forum section. All signs point to it being an amazing game that completely lives up to the hype.
    • Re:Autospooge (Score:2, Interesting)

      by stratjakt (596332)
      I don't know, but I can tell you that Far Cry kicks ass. It supports the latest in rendering techniques, but more importantly, it's a fun game with great level design and awesome enemy AI.

      Doom 3 isn't going to impress me nearly as much as it would have if Far Cry hadn't beat them to the punch. Id didn't set the bar this time, CryTech did.
    • Because it's Doom 3 maybe?

      Whether the gameplay itself warrants it or not, the game deserves more press in places like this because of the history of Doom and ID and Carmack.

      If you haven't noticed there is a bit of Geek culture here and this game is a big deal for the Geek community.

      Before we all saw the LotR in theaters we were all still hyped about it. And that's OK. Sure, Doom 3 could flop, but it's lofty place in our current Geek culture is justified.
  • New Standards (Score:2, Interesting)

    by micr0c0sm (801346)
    It is obvious that this sets a new standard for hardware scaling in games. 640x480 at low quality looks stunning, as does 1600x1200 at high. The fact that 80% of modern hardware (remember 78.1% of statistics are made up) can run it proves that id software is as dedicated as ever to providing the best gaming experience as possible. This guide also sets a new standard in thorough reviews. Granted this shouldn't be expected for every game, although it proves [H]ardOCP is comprised of a dedicated team (than
  • by FerretFrottage (714136) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:25PM (#9834515)
    1. Chainsaw
    2. Boomstick
    3. Super boomstick
    4. Chaingun
    5. Rockets launcher
    6. Plasma gun
    7. BFG
    and a bit of armor

    what more do you need?

    Aren't they standard issue for all Space Marines?
  • by MattRog (527508) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:26PM (#9834535)
    Even looking at the configuration screen shots gave me a little wood: I can't imagine the unparalleled joy I will feel when I start it for the first time.

    I suspect one of these things will occur:
    1) my heart will stop for two or three seconds when I hear the first 5.1 audio
    2) my bladder will burst from playing through the entire game in one marathon 54 hour session
    3) I will immediately develop carpal tunnel and a permanent curved spine from sitting in my computer chair
    4) My eyes will melt in their sockets like the Nazis in Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark
    5) all of the above

    BRING IT ON
  • 3D Sound? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Lumpmoose (697966)
    The article recommends a 5.1 speaker setup. Since EAX isn't supported (erm, yet) and it uses software-based audio, how does the game interface with, say, a normal DD/DTS reciever and it's digital vs. 6-channel analog inputs? I'm waiting for a DD-advertised game to actually output a Dolby Digital signal w/o an nForce.

    /hopeless Creative junkie
  • by sverrehu (22545) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:30PM (#9834603) Homepage
    The interesting question is: What is the optimal hardware for running Doom 3 on a GNU/Linux system? I haven't played a game since RtCW, and I want to buy a new system to play Doom 3 on GNU/Linux. I know nothing about the current state of hardware support for various high-end graphics cards on GNU/Linux.
    • by Nosf3ratu (702029) <Nosf3ratu AT sbcglobal DOT net> on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:37PM (#9834723)
      Here's the long and short answer:

      ATI 3d support is spotty at best. Nvidia support is excellent. Their cards perform just as good (if not better, in some cases) in Linux as they do in Windows. I have been gaming with Linux and Nvidia exclusively for about three years (including all the recent titles, such as RtCW, Q3, UT2K3, UT2K4, and ET) and it performs very well. Pair up a big nVidia with a 64bit Athlon, and you've got an excellent gaming rig.

      So, the answer: The optimal hardware is the same, no matter what the operating system (although you would require less RAM on Linux, for example, if you use a slim window manager, as compared to XP, etc, etc, ymmv, and all that rot.)
      • Agreed, nVIDIA drivers for Linux are solid. If anyone wants to really squeeze all the possible juice out of their machine for gaming:

        1) Switch to runlevel 1:
        -> init 1
        2) Disable swapping:
        -> echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/swappiness
        3) Start sound manually:
        -> /etc/init.d/alsasound start
        4) Start networking manually:
        -> /etc/init.d/network start
        5) Start X without a window manager:
        -> startx xterm
        6) Launch Doom from the xterm prompt
        -> /games/doom3/doom3.sh???

        You might be able to take it a
    • With ATI cards at least, I'm sure the GNU/Linux performance will be considerably worse than Windows, since the best drivers available are based on the FireGL series, not the Catalyst series. I'm not sure how things stand with Nvidia, but again I strongly suspect the drivers won't be as good.
  • Doom3 Board (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vurg (639307)
    Don't forget your customized Doom 3 zboard keyset [zboard.com].
  • JPEG Compression (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Overand (590318)
    I don't know if I'm the only person who noticed this, but these screenshot images are REALLY poorly compressed; doing a side-by-side comparison is pointless if all you see are JPEG Jaggies.
    • Actually, they're very well compressed. Yes, they are JPGs, but they're at a very high quality, as you can see by looking at them closely. Yes, there are a very few visual artifacts, but when you actually look at them unzoomed (as they were intended to be viewed) you can easily see the differences in quality between one picture and the next.

      The only images compressed at a noticeably low quality were the shots of the video control panel, which obviously doesn't warrant wasted bandwidth. Likewise, going with
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:51PM (#9834915)
    Gnnnnnnh! By God, please don't read the article if you are a spoiler-sensitive person. The fps-graph clearly indicates the locations of monsters as the article describes how "some heavy action that requires the video card to draw several monsters at one time, the frame rate can drop down". Thankfully I didn't look at the x-axis too carefully. Be cautious, people! This article may truly be the demise of your Doom3 experience!
  • Quake? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skiman1979 (725635) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @02:54PM (#9834944)
    Just curious, is there a reason this story is posted with a Quake 3 icon? Isn't there a games icon?
  • That's right. If you have a star trek holosuite you will be able to have the ultimate Doom experience, up to having your own heart attack from the realism.
  • Will There Be Demos? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LighthouseJ (453757) on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:16PM (#9835311)
    Any word anywhere on Doom 3 demos? If at all possible, I try the game demos to see how the game performs on my computer. I don't want to buy an unreturnable software game and find out I'd need to upgrade laptop hardware before it's framerates are sane enough to play with.
  • by foidulus (743482) * on Thursday July 29, 2004 @03:33PM (#9835538)
    about the benefits of speed holes. I put a few in my machine and I am rip roaring ready to go!

[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...