I guess this proves you can write a scalable gfx engine!

#1 Interesting. Any comments on the game play in DIII ? Did the game live up to its horror expectations? I played the demo but lost interest after about 20 minutes, not sure why.

#2 That's crazy, Jarrod. And, it still looks pretty good.

#3 Those wacky canadians have more time on their hands that I do! :-)

a friend of mine played it, said same thing the reviewers did, "nice techincal demo, not much 'gameplay' "

#4 Well it looks awesome, and the controlling movement is solid, but the immersion is missing something. It did not affect me like the original doom. What do you think is missing ? I am sorry to hijack this thread but it's important to discuss why this game with some of the best graphics atm differs from its predecessor. You think they put subliminal messages in the original Doom ? j/k

#5 They probably didn't really care. For them it really is a technical demo, because I'm sure they make more on engine sales than game sales. I haven't played the game, but I've noticed with modern shooters in general there aren't quite as many enemies to battle at once. Also, we've all grown older since Doom, so we're used to this game style. Plus we've gotten better (hopefully) at gaming, so it doesn't provide a challenge anymore. Add to that the technology advances with Doom III were expected... they weren't seemingly as innovative as the advances for Doom.
That's my take on it.

#6 I played about halfway through Doom3 before losing interest.

The horror aspects of HL2 were far more effective IMO.

#7 I'd have to disagree. HL2 had a bigger fun factor for me, but the horror aspect of Doom 3 was un-beatable as far as im concerned. I couldnt put the game down once i started it, and i cant think of a single game thats made me jump in my chair more times than doom 3 did.

The atmosphere, lighting, sounds, and suprizes made for a very immersive and spine tingling game play experience.

My only beef with the game was the horrible net code for the multi-player and the fact that you spend a very small amount of time actually IN hell. most of the game play occurs at the mars facility, and that was a disapointment for me.

#8 Looking trough the screenshoots my first tought is:
Take away all the shaders and fancy GPU magic it looks like any other game.
Guess it proves that modern games are becoming more artist centered than before..

#9 Heh...There was much more horror in PacMan...
I've played doom3 almost 10 minutes....too boring.

#10 I purchase Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. Played both all the way through.

Doom 3 was good looking (for what I could actually see) and fun but it didn't blow me away. I felt like I was simply a spectator being led through a dark alley. It made me jump occasionally but it soon became obvious that if I was to pick up that pack in the corner being lit by a solitary light, I'd be pounced on. Don't want to dis' the engine, it's feature rich; the game doesn't sell it though.

Come on, if forcing a user to switch between a light and a weapon isn't a ploy to force you to "enjoy" the darkness/shaders then I don't know what is. Shame they didn't realise that it wasn't fun to do so.

Played Half-Life 2 and initially was bored of being led into the game in a near demo-style but it soon unleashed what I could interact with; almost everything. Whilst still being led, I could stop and smell the roses (read that "smash boxes").

If I was asked if I'd prefer to scurry around in the dark and blow away monsters or run around a bright, interactive environment and kill monsters then I'd choose the bright environment everytime.

Doom 3 - High tech, too dark, too much hype, great "hell"-levels, great engine. Half-Life 2, great physics, great environment, great textures, hype about right, fun to play, great engine, didn't want the levels to end.

Each to their own I guess though.

- Melv.

#11 If anything was overhyped it was HL2, it was far too short, it's naff lighting was dire (Shining a torch in a dark corner and it staying dark and shadowed was a joke) and it's storyline was appalling. They tried to merge the cool bits of too many different games, call of duty, the matrix, star wars and a random selection of British 1970s cult classics really just don't mix well together. On the plus side for HL2 the vehicles were nice, the geometry was very well formed (Valve's mappers are by far the best asset Valve has, well apart from their amazing PR overhyping machine perhaps) and finally the physics were nice. Valve hyped HL2 up to be some uber-game for far too long and when it finally came out it turned out to be just another FPS, albeit better than most but it didn't do anything special and it only took around 1/5th the time to play through that Doom 3 did. Valve's mappers working in id's engine would be a thing to see that's for sure, well that is if they bothered to create enough scenery to last you more than 5mins, but then that's all down to the content vs. quality vs. cost triangle, I guess valve axed content in favour of quality and cost in the mapping department.

All that said, I still think Farcry, despite being a somewhat buggy game on really probably did the best things this year, Farcry didn't need the overhyping PR department that Valve has but still acheived more - just as fun, lasted longer, far more solid storyline. It wasn't quite as technologically advanced in the graphics area as Doom 3, or the physics are as HL2 but it really can't be knocked.