Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
First Person Shooters (Games)

Doom 3 Demo Available 391

Posted by michael
from the fuligin-fun dept.
sanderb writes "The Doom 3 demo is out (on Windows). It does not seem to be linked on the Doom 3 site yet, but is available from e.g. 3D Gamers (includes torrent). Time to see what my FX5200 can do..." Other readers point to Fileaholic.Com and Shacknews.com.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Doom 3 Demo Available

Comments Filter:
  • by crtfdgk (807485) * on Sunday September 19, 2004 @01:50PM (#10291445) Journal
    [looking at minimum requirments] Man, imagine a Beowu....Oh nevermind.....
    • by Izaak (31329) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:07PM (#10291564) Homepage
      I am not buying Doom III until the Linux version is available for download. That was originally promised about a week after the Windows release... but I still don't see it. Any word from ID on this?
      • I agree, but I have to say that id never "promises" dates. Hell, they hardly ever even mention dates. I've been waiting for the Linux port and tracking it very closely for some time. Dates were never mentioned, much less promises.
  • You mean (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OverlordQ (264228) * on Sunday September 19, 2004 @01:51PM (#10291450) Journal
    they're just *now* getting a demo out? Doesn't that usually come *before* the game is released?
    • Re:You mean (Score:2, Insightful)

      by phantomAI (750299)
      I think id's strategy was to get people to buy the game first, even if it meant that their systems couldn't handle it.
      • Re:You mean (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Jahf (21968) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:14PM (#10291605) Journal
        That's nuts ... if you have a system that you doubt can run it, you don't buy it until:

        a) the demo comes out

        b) you upgrade

        or

        c) you cave in and try anyway

        It isn't id's fault if people do c) ... especially if they've announced that the demo will follow on the full release (even before they finish the Linux or Mac binaries), which they most definitely did say.

        And the trend lately has been for demos to come out shortly following the full release. Fact is, people who release a demo before a game's release are doing it with the knowledge it will probably not be a full showcase and it is worth it to try and drum up business. On the other hand, if a company knows that the game is high profile and will sell, there is far more incentive to finish the full game and then do a polished demo.
        • Re:You mean (Score:5, Informative)

          by nolife (233813) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @05:51PM (#10292732) Homepage Journal
          you don't buy it until

          Getting off topic here but something I will ALWAYS check for first is what copy prevention methods they use. I just got burned with Sims2. It will refuse to load if you have any "CD/DVD emulation applications installed", that means CloneCD, Nero, or Roxio installed on the computer. I am not talking trying to use the virtual CD to run the game, it will refuse to run from the original CD because it detects that software. The FAQ [custhelp.com] states to unload those applications and then play the game. I have CloneCD and Nero. I could not get the game to work unless I completely uninstalled CloneCD through control panal, not just "disable" it by removing the virtual drive option. The FAQ states there is a compatibility issue between virtual cd software and Sims2 which is COMPLETE BULLSHIT and a complete f**king lie, what they really mean is there is a chance that with those programs installed, you might be able to play the game with out the CD in the drive. I now either have to install/uninstall CloneCD all the time, sit and look at a $50 disc I purchased from EA, or wait until I can get a crack for the game I already bought. I should have just waited for the crack and not even bought the game to begin with. I tried to take the game back but of course, they refused because I opened it. I am still waiting back from EA tech support for what I can do with the game I just bought. I have a feeling I will get a canned response that it conflicts with the game or some other canned response that basically says tough shit sucker, you are out $50. What that means to me is don't buy any more games from EA, just wait for them in alt.binaries.games, you'll have a better chance of them working correctly.
      • Re:You mean (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bheading (467684)
        No, the strategy was to get people to buy the game first, as it isn't actually all that good.

        When you've got stuff like FarCry doing all kinds of mindblowing things with the visuals and the gameplay, and compare that with how far Doom3 has come given how long it has supposedly been in development, Doom3 is a huge let-down. I suspect ID were well aware of this, so they delayed the demo by a month and kicked a huge marketing machine into place behind the game to shift as many copies as humanly possible, bank
        • Re:You mean (Score:3, Funny)

          by xsecrets (560261)
          well maybe, but at least doom3 will run on my computer, while far cry is nothing more than a slide show.
        • Re:You mean (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Firehawke (50498)
          Really? I was totally disappointed with Far Cry. The AI seemed really flaky, where they could sometimes see you crouching in the middle of bushes so thick you couldn't see out, but other times couldn't see you if you were standing practically in front of them. Admittedly the water looked good, and the environments looked nice, but the gameplay was really suffering.
    • Maybe, but why should it?

      Id decided to go ahead and take care of the fans who have waited years for this game and get the full thing out there as quickly as possible. The people who aren't sure if they want to buy it or not can wait, I guess.

      When I put it like that it sounds like bad business.

      • Re:You mean (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Hi_2k (567317)
        Not for ID. Video games are becoming mainstream, but ID is still a "Hardcore" gamer's company. They know that their market is the kind of people who hang out in IRC and play 6-8 hours daily. Sure, some "Normal" people will buy it, but their fanboy base is huge.
        • Are you kidding? Id is probably the most mainstream FPS maker out there. Hell, it's probably the only FPS franchise that non-gamers have even heard of.
    • well, at least they're getting it out.

      can't say that much for other companies which pretty much just drop everything on a game once it's out of the door.
    • Re:You mean (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jonny_eh (765306) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @01:56PM (#10291495)
      They always said that the game would get released 'When it is done'. 'It' wasn't the demo, 'it' was the full game. The demo is a nice thing to have but if they waited till the demo was done, the game would only see a release now.
      Now, only if they hired an extra person to work concurrently on the demo so it could've been ready in August...
      • Re:You mean (Score:5, Funny)

        by Neophytus (642863) * on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:38PM (#10291736)
        Or do what Epic Games (Unreal) do. For every main build of an in-house game their script creates a 1) Full game 2) Dedicated server and 3) Demo build. The latter two are cut down from the full game as specified. Typically, though, the second two are not released.
    • Re:You mean (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sinergy (88242) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @01:56PM (#10291496) Homepage
      Creating a demo before the final product just pushes back the final product's release date.
    • Re:You mean (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Finkbug (789750)
      "they're just *now* getting a demo out? Doesn't that usually come *before* the game is released?"

      Let's see. I've got a game that millions pre-ordered years in advance. It's arguably the most anticipated computer game ever. It will sell out on the first day.

      What exactly do I gain with a pre-release demo?

      Seriously folks: why on earth would they demo DOOM 3 before the release? People were going to buy it anyway. Heck, a demo might well have decreased early sales as some (such as me) found it maybe the third
    • ...the 3 cd's I downloaded wasn't the demo!?
    • Re:You mean (Score:3, Insightful)

      You mean they're just *now* getting a demo out? Doesn't that usually come *before* the game is released?

      That used to be the case. First the demo, then the game. The demo would drive sales.

      But recent events have proven the Demo is either un-necessary or can even hurt sales.

      If a game has such a major fan base, like the people drooling over DOOM 3, then you have their sales already without the demo. They're going to buy the game opening day whether they've played a demo or not.

      Besides, nowadays there

  • by Bullseye_blam (589856) <bullseye_1@noSpAM.yahoo.com> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @01:53PM (#10291473) Journal
    "Time to see what my FX5200 can do..."

    Please don't.

    [and please don't buy an iMac for the purpose of playing Doom 3 acceptably - the 'Ultra' tacked onto the end doesn't change much].

    On second thought, if you just run around the game without ever using the flashlight, you won't be able to see anything anyway, so you won't realize that you're only getting 13 frames per second!

    -Bullseye
    • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:03PM (#10291531) Homepage
      Depends, for god-mode and just looking at the graphics a FX5200 + 1Ghz is enough, as long as no enemies are on the screen it also runs quite well or at least not much worse then the original Doom did on a 386er. Sure, as soon as monsters apear and the action starts the fps will drop down and the game will be almost unplayable, god-mode will help here.

      So yes, a FX5200 isn't enough to play the game, but its enough to look at the graphics and walk around a bit.
    • Too late :-)

      Short performance review: Pentium 4 2.8 GHz with FX 5200 does not really cut it. What is nice is that the 'heated air' effects work really nice because it's a DirectX 9.0 card (I also see no real slowdown there), but even at the lowest of all graphics configurations it's realllyyy slow. I wish I would get 13 frames when one of these goblin type creatures enters the picture, feels more like 2 frames a second then.

      I always planned on upgrading the videocard after the new generation of games came
      • by phoxix (161744)
        What is nice is that the 'heated air' effects work really nice because it's a DirectX 9.0 card (I also see no real slowdown there),

        Doom3 is based on OpenGL, not DirectX-Anything. Actually, all of Carmack's work is OpenGL based. Hence why Mac and Linux love his games, and there is always a linux/mac port of his games eventually

        Sunny Dubey
        • by stonedonkey (416096) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @03:16PM (#10291928)
          Doom3 is based on OpenGL, not DirectX-Anything.

          Actually, OpenGL is just for graphics rendering. The "GL" stands for Graphics Library, IIRC. The game may still use things like DirectSound, DirectSound 3D, DirectInput, and other DX odds and ends. That's why the installer requests that you have DX9.0b on your rig before running the game.
    • actually with a 5200 (Score:5, Informative)

      by imr (106517) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:07PM (#10291555)
      It's possible to have a much better framerate if you decompress the whole paks file and remove the shadows option. You wont be able to join multiplayer games with that, but anyway the mp mode isnt worth much.
      And I'm talking a X2 improvement here, from ~15 to ~30 on my machine.
      Try to find all the other available tips that are on every d3 forum and put them in a separate cfg file. Some of them DO work.

      All in all, i found i got much more for the same money with ut2004 (2 dvds, a great editor, mapping and modeling video tutorials, mods, mods and mods) but still, d3 is a very good and very intense solo game. They did manage to keep the stress level up. Usually it really slows down after a few levels, here it keeps on being tense.
      • Decompressing the pak files? How exactly will that help? If you already have 1GB or so of RAM, most of the level data will be cached anyway.

        You need to run timedemo's to verify that unpacking actually helps.

        The question is, which is faster: the files unpacked, using the OS's file system; or Doom 3 handling the unpacking of resources? My guess is id probably did a good job and had a good reason for packing the files.
      • Or you could just go into options and disable shadows there.
        • by imr (106517)
          That's what i meant.
          Decompressing the paks gave a boost, and removing the shadows from the options>/i> helped also.
          I presume that the decompression of the pak can only help for slow system, like mine which has a little slow memory and a 5000rpm hard drive. But I also presume that systems with a geforce5200 are quite low ended.
      • I just read this and noticed it wasnt clear that you wont be able to join mp AT ALL with decompressed pak because of anti cheating protection.
        If you want to join mp games, you can, just put back the paks you kept in a separate folder and put elsewhere the decompressed files and folder.
    • by ergo98 (9391) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @03:25PM (#10291963) Homepage Journal
      On second thought, if you just run around the game without ever using the flashlight, you won't be able to see anything anyway, so you won't realize that you're only getting 13 frames per second!

      I completed Doom 3 on my rather antiquated GF4 Ti4400, and have a few comments regarding this:

      • The demands of the game vary considerably. On my lowly GF4 Ti4400 I ran at Medium quality, achieving a very acceptable framerate, for the majority of the game. There were a couple of sections that became a slideshow and required a downgrade to Low (one I suspect was a bug and perhaps someone accidentally duplicated a model a thousand times or so, as there was nothing visually exceptional in the area. The other was a massive opponent), but otherwise it ran great. The FX5200 would do that much better. The hardware complaints are generally people who think that they have some constitutional right to crank every visual setting to the top and achieve smooth gameplay on any rig
      • The comments about the flashlight are completely misguided, and are the result of people with their brightness turned down too far, or who played the game in a bright environment (which results in your own eyes having a vastly decreased ability to perceive the subtle darkness changes). Follow the instructions on the box and play in a darkened room and you'll have no problem apart from one or two short scenes that truly are dark. The idea that people used a patch because they can't read is baffling. If id is at fault, it's that they didn't supply a THX style visual diagnostic screen for people to adjust to, and that they don't put the "Are you in a dark room?" as a confirmation when you launch the game
      • Actually, you probably saw better performance with your Ti 4400 than someone with an FX 5200 would see.

        First, the Ti 4400 just doesn't support some of the slower stuff that the game is trying to do - you miss out on stuff like heat effects, while the FX 5200 will try to do all of that.

        Second, I'm pretty sure the 4400 actually has more render pipes on it than the 5200, which means it's slightly faster overall.

        Between those two effects, I wouldn't be supprised if there was a 10-15 FPS difference between th
  • Yay (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrP- (45616) <rob@@@elitemrp...net> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @01:54PM (#10291480) Homepage
    Now I can see if my 32mb TNT2 will work!
  • by Reducer2001 (197985) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @01:55PM (#10291489) Homepage
    Bought it, played it, didn't like it. It tries to be too much like Doom2, but doesn't make it....at all.

    I played Doom 1 & 2 for many hours when they came out, both solo, co-op and deathmatch. I played Doom 3 through once and had no desire to play it again.

    Once you realized that when you picked up that 'too good to be true' item, you'd be blitzed by ten monsters suddenly spawning, it got old REAL quick. And yes, it does look pretty. But so did Matrix Revolutions.

    • Did you really play Doom3? I can't remember any time when you get "blitzed by 10 monsters" --usually they come at you 1 and 2 at a time (probably to keep framerates up).

      The game is great if you like fighting demons jumping out at you in a dark space station. If you'd rather play online war games, you won't like it. My only real complaint is that it was too long -- beginning and end are good. The middle was trudging through a dozen identical levels fighting the same guys over and over.
    • by EpsCylonB (307640) <eps@@@epscylonb...com> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:14PM (#10291601) Homepage
      I was dissapointed as well, fanboys will tell you that you have no right to criticise as this is "the original Doom updated, you knew exactly what you were going to get".

      That just isn't true, there was more variation between the different levels in the original game than in Doom 3. The dark corridors do their job, this is an incredibly scary game, but gameplay wise it becomes boring and repetitive very quickly.

      Graphically it is astounding and no doubt some great games will be made with the engine. But ID is now just a tech house if the lack of gameplay innovation in Doom 3 is anything to go by. We have all laughed at Romero's failings since leaving ID but they need more really creative people like him.

      Doom3 isn't a awful game, just not a trailblazer like Doom and Quake were.
      • I've never understood people's awe over Id. They don't make very good games. I mean, Doom was very, very good, but every game they've made so far has been a retread of it. And before anyone starts whining about how they make great engines, and let other people use them to make great games, shut the hell up. They made the game, they marketed it, they released it, they sure as hell can be judged on it.
        • by EpsCylonB (307640) <eps@@@epscylonb...com> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:37PM (#10291734) Homepage
          Both Doom and Quake 1 had fantastic level design that really broke new ground. ID also are responsible for basically creating the online multiplayer FPS genre (usually credited to Quake 2, it was present earlier but Q2 was the breakthrough).

          But creatively they haven't done anything interesting since Quake 1.
        • id started out making great games with great engines, ever since quake 2 (including it mind you) they've been making great game engines and crappy games. Quake 2 actually played pretty well but it looked like shit, everything was washed out. I still feel that Quake is the pinnacle of id so far. You could play it pretty smoothly over a decent modem connection and it was truly a breakthrough in graphics.
      • by Plugh (27537) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @03:02PM (#10291843) Homepage
        That just isn't true, there was more variation between the different levels in the original game than in Doom 3.
        Agreed 100%. At this point, I'm counting on people making their own levels [gamespy.com] to save this game. Ahh, if only I had the kind of time I used to have in High School and College.

        Contrast Doom 3 levels with the level designs in Quake 2 [idsoftware.com]. I'll never forget the alien scientists doing Mengele-style operations on the Marines, while they cried out "Make it Stop!"... now THAT was FUCKING SCARY.

        The dark corridors do their job, this is an incredibly scary game
        Sorry, I disagree. Yes, even after setting the Brightness control to a pretty high value, I am still left asking: why the fuck did I shell out the cash for a Radeon9800 Pro, just to see a fucking 90% BLACK SCREEN?

    • by Osmosis_Garett (712648) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:15PM (#10291615)

      So in other words, you had preconceptions about this game which weren't met and therefor you set it aside. Personally, I found the element of surprise to be the main attraction. This is a horror game, along the lines of the original Resident Evil games and the like. Doom and Doom2 were full on FPS games with no 'terror moments', but Doom3 is full of them. The spawning monsters are anything but surprising; the teleportation process takes a second or 2 and by then you should be in a good vantage point to mow them down with whatever weapon you choose. The real fear comes from the creatures that are already there, lurking in shadows and not making BAMPH noises when they attack.

      Try playing it when you're in the mood, and with a bit of effort put into getting absorbed in the game such as a darkened room, headphones, etc. Also, try not to make broad generalizations such as saying "when you pick up that 'too good to be true' item you get blitzed by 10 monsters". This game is anything but a one trick pony and if that is all you saw I really wonder if you spent any time at all examining the game. Doom3 is rich with backstory, interwoven into the game System Shock2 style with logfiles and email communications, not to mention the videos explaining the whole purpose of the lab installation.

      Its too bad you couldn't look at the game carefully enough to notice these things. Doom3 is a work of art.

    • Once you realized that when you picked up that 'too good to be true' item, you'd be blitzed by ten monsters suddenly spawning, it got old REAL quick.

      I didn't really witness too much of that. If you want to see a real pain in the ass, try Serious Sam. A mere +2 health vial will cause about 300 monsters to spawn and attack you.

      As for trying to be too much like Doom 2, I wish it actually was more like Doom 1 or 2, but instead you get closed, dark areas, overly difficult monsters, and few scenery changes.
    • I agree with parent poster (I don't remember encountering ten baddies at once, though?). The game never really feels like the original Doom games if not just because it's very rare to get more than 5 monsters thrown at you. D3 is really just a simple shooter with awesome graphics.

      I would have to add that Doom 3 just isn't about innovative gameplay. If that's what you want, look elsewhere (HL 2?). This game is just a straight-up FPS game, nothing more, besides the awesome engine.
    • by DrXym (126579) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:54PM (#10291815)
      I'm not sure what all the hype is about. I own Doom 3 and I also own Far Cry. I've completed both too. Far Cry, is a much, much, much better game.

      It is better for a multitude of technical reasons, but I'll first mention why Doom is worse - the whole thing is flashlights, scripts and triggers. It might have been acceptable to use triggers in the original, but not in this day and age.

      Progress through the game consists of a Quick Save, edge forward with the flashlight, Quick Save, step on trigger, look for baddies, fumble for gun, shoot baddies. If successfull repeat. It's just boring and shows little imagination. The baddies simply appear for the most part from nowhere so there is no anticipation, planning or strategy - just step on the trigger and shoot. There is little AI to speak of except for zombie troopers who at least duck behind cover. It's a shame because some of the levels are fantastically designed.

      Now compare to Far Cry. First off this has outdoor zones that are truly massive, leading to some interesting play (e.g. you can snipe, attack in a vehicle, from the sea etc.) It also has drivable vehicles. It has a great physics model. The baddies are also fairly intelligent (they do some dumb things but they not are not completely stupid). There is a lot of randomness to the play so the game plays differently each time. Finally, the level design is better again than Doom. It also got there first with the "evil doctor" plot.

      On the bad side, Far Cry has few save points but there is a console command to work around that. It also has much higher system requirements but looks gorgeous if you turn the quality up the full way.

      Neither has much in the way of network play (capture the flag etc.) but at least Far Cry sets you up with a server list making it easy to join a game.

      To me Doom feels a year out of date. And for my money Doom was something of a let down. If you haven't bought it already, play the demo and make up your own minds, but my advice would be to skip it.

      I never played the original Half Life, so I'm keen to see what the fuss is about for the sequel, but that would the one I am interested in a demo for.

      • by 26199 (577806) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @06:41PM (#10293023) Homepage

        I've also played both, and would tend to disagree.

        IMHO, Far Cry wins on one thing and one thing only; the fact that you can choose several different approaches means I'll probably play it more times.

        Doom 3 wins on plot... it was much more believable than Far Cry. Sure, it got samey after a while, but unless you completed it all in one sitting, that wasn't a problem... Far Cry also starts to feel a bit repetitive towards the end.

        Incidentally, I think that if you cheated to save in Far Cry you missed out... the tension that came from not having saved recently was a big part of the playing experience for me. (It got frustrating once or twice, but was well worth it in the end).

        Basically, I think both are awesome :-)

  • by goneutt (694223) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @01:58PM (#10291506) Journal
    If you put out a preview that lets people discover their computer doesn't have the power to keep up they deffinatly don't buy the box.(I know, thats what those software nutrition labels are for, but they can get vague.)
    Those that buy the software, install and discover their computer needs $300+ worth of upgrades are stuck with the software due to the no open returns policies. Thus hype sells more games if you don't put out a preview.
    • If you have a reasonable CPU (if you haven't you'd have noticed with games much older than Doom 3) you can get a graphics card that can play the game for 60-80 bucks (Radeon 9550, I played it on a 8500 without much of a problem), which isn't much more than you pay for a game.
      Seriously, Doom 3 isn't that demanding, a system that cannot keep up with Doom 3 likely has problems with other current games as well.
  • Quote^2 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Amorpheus_MMS (653095) <amorpheus@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @01:59PM (#10291513)
    Time to see what my FX5200 can do...

    "Get used to disappointment." ;)

    Although I have to say that so much of the game is black, one could almost expect it to run on a RivaTNT.
    • if weren't drawing all the polygons you can't see with your crap-light, seriously there isn't a light switch? anywhere? i see computers and handhelds but no nightvision? this is what halflife was supposed to look like, it will be interesting to see how badly d3 gets stomped

      and its too bad too cause they may well take the "piracy fukced us"

      i for exmaple pay for the games i pirate if they're any good (like neverwinter nights, which i played all the way through before i ever bought it and which subsequently
  • by davidoff404 (764733) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:01PM (#10291517)
    I got my demo ages ago thanks to BitTorrent. It was a lot bigger than this one too...
  • demo after release (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Paralizer (792155) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:01PM (#10291518) Homepage
    I suspect they are doing this so that those who are/were skeptical about the performance of the game on their machines will have a chance to test it out before purchasing the full version.
  • Looks decent, although it gets a bit choppy when there are a lot of monsters on the same scene. Now on to my ATI Rage tests...
  • I've never actually completed the first level of any of these so downloading the demo is as good as buying it, but cheaper!

    All the servers are slashdotted at the moment though (Torrent is no use as I'm behind NAT). Need to wait a few days.
  • Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by isNaN (45985) <sebastian@claesson.gmail@com> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:07PM (#10291554)
    But where are the linux binaries? Aren't ID supposed to be the big linux supporters?

    When they release them I will probably buy the game just for supporting them back but are they comming anytime soon??
    • I don't think the linux binaries they put out for Quake 3 ever made enough to recoup the expense of doing the port. Expect them to take their time on this...
      • Re:Linux? (Score:3, Informative)

        by kerrle (810808)
        Actually, it's not the economics. It's been mentioned by Carmack that it's basically driver issues that are holding back the release. NVidia's are fine, but ATI's drivers have no chance in hell of running Doom III under linux right now. Similarly, the OSX port is basically done, but the performance just isn't good on most macs.
  • by IronChefMorimoto (691038) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:08PM (#10291567)
    Releasing the demo nowadays AFTER the release seems, to me, like a great way to find out if you want to buy the game, without the majority of bugs that might plague a BETA-quality demo.

    In my mind, a game software manufacturer will release a demo POST-release to entice those who haven't decided yet to purchase the game. Someone who downloads, say, the Doom3 demo, can decide if the software will work on his/her machine without some of the pre-release bugs that might plague the product. ATI vs. Nvidia compatibility immediately comes to mind.

    On the other hand, if you're releasing something that's entirely new (in terms of a game/concept), then you could potentially risk lack of interest by releasing the demo AFTER the game itself. A new product can benefit greatly from a demo, I think, and in this regard, it would be wise to release it with some bugs.

    In the case of Doom3, I must admit, though, that making people wait another month or two for a demo for a game that took 4-5 years to develop is a little dumb. Reviewers and gamers alike have been mediocre about the game -- for it being more of a technology demo (the Carmack engine -- hehehehe) than a good game with a good story. This sort of reviews, I think, would make a buyer think twice about getting the game at initial release prices.

    If the demo had been out beforehand, perhaps potential buyers would not have pre-conceived notions of what to expect of the game overall because they would only play a small portion of it in the demo. The graphics would ooh and ahh and really get the idea of buying such a terrific looking game in the minds of potential buyers. It would be a buyer's remorse thing (after iD has pocketed the sale) if the buyer then decided that, "Yeah, the graphics rock, but it was kind of bland and the story was OK."

    I am one who read the Doom3 reviews, waited until a friend bought a copy and got tired of trying to finish the bland story, and played it for him. I enjoyed the experience, but given my expectations after reading reviews, I am still glad my friend shelled out the $55 for the game. He has the discs back now, and I will most likely wait until the game drops to $30 or something to buy it. There are other things to play right now.

    My two cents.

    IronChefMorimoto

    • Yeah, in a perfect world, releasing a polished demo after the game instead of some unfinished product is a great idea, unfortunately in reality this practice hurts even more, because it encourages more people to pirate the game so they can get their "demo" early. And then a good part of those people might not buy the game, and therefore have just pirated it.
  • Mac version (Score:2, Interesting)

    by thedogcow (694111)
    I really wish they should give more specifics on a mac version. They used a mac to demo Doom 3 way back when for E3, they acknowledged they had a mac version a couple weeks ago that runs... what is the big deal?
    I really want to see how Doom 3 performs on my new DP 2.5GHz G5, particularly when I get my Nvidia 6800 Ultra DDL card.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:19PM (#10291633)
    Just turn off your monitor and move your mouse around frantically. That pretty much will capture the essence of Doom 3 and saves yourself the download. ;)
  • Anyone tried it... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Trikenstein (571493)
    With a Radeon 8500?
    All the reviews I've seen are running it on pretty current hardware.
    Radeon 9800 pros and newer.
    And the nVidia equivalents.
  • by sahonen (680948) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:46PM (#10291764) Homepage Journal
    Nto realyl being a hardcore gamer and all that. It'll be interesting to see how well it runs. Deus Ex 2 ran okay when I cranked the detail levels down.
  • I wonder how much difference a demo would have made in the number of pirated copies being traded via P2P, had it been available before or at the time of the game's release?
  • Doom3 really doesn't offer anything new, other than some high-end graphic effects. It's eye-candy with little substance. If you've played Doom1/2, or Quake1/2, then you've already played Doom3.

    Here's the game in a nutshell: Land on planet, end up being (nearly) the sole human survivor, go into room, get ambushed, open door, get ambushed, find keycards to unlock doors, get ambushed, etc.. Then fight the boss at the end.

    Even though the gameplay is stale, the graphics are excellent. But I did notice that t

  • For those that care, (I'm usually modem, so I defer downloads when they get too big,) the file is reportedly 483,603,646 bytes large.

    I know what I'll be doing at work on Monday.

  • ... the linux installers?

    At least UT2004 shipped with linux support out of the box.

    I have that nice shiny Doom3 box sitting on my shelf, purchased with the assurance from id that support for linux would be following closely on the heels of the retail release. :(
  • by CliffH (64518) <cliff...hairston@@@gmail...com> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @04:02PM (#10292147) Homepage Journal

    Believe it or not, at 800x600, medium quality all around my little GeForce 3 plays this just fine. My system isn't the fastest thing around either (P4 1.8 oc'd to 2.4, 1GB RAM, fast WD SE Hard drives) so even with modest hardware the game is still very playable. One of these days I'll do some actual benchmarks (maybe today) and see what kind of framerates I'm getting. In any event it is very playable and very enjoyable.

    Cliff

  • another fast mirror (Score:4, Informative)

    by zr-rifle (677585) <zedr@zedrMOSCOW.com minus city> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @04:19PM (#10292254) Homepage
    here [www.ngi.it]
  • by GweeDo (127172) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @04:24PM (#10292272) Homepage
    I have a 5200 128MB on an Athlon XP 2600+ with 1GB of RAM (gaming isn't my big thing on my pc) and it runs well @ 800x600 medium quality. I did a few tweaks like unpacking the compressed files and such. So all you fools saying the 5200 won't play it well would do well to shut up and get informed.
  • by kikensei (518689) <joshua@NOspAm.ingaugemedia.com> on Sunday September 19, 2004 @05:29PM (#10292612) Homepage
    Was on August 22nd. Linuxgames.com interviewed Timothee Besset, id's linux client guy. The interview is here: http://www.linuxgames.com/?dataloc=articles/ttimo/ Botton line, as of the 22nd, he said the linuc client was a few weeks away. It was already working, with "surprisingly good performance compared to the windows version", but he doesn't want to release until it's well polished.
  • by Snaller (147050) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @05:37PM (#10292651) Journal
    ... but apparently that's not a bug but a feature - it seems black is easier to render on the fly ;-)

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...