PDA

View Full Version : to you "Doom3 Sucks" crybabies


Judge
August 18th 04, 01:44 AM
First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -

if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
"Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
a FPS shooter.

If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
out yet to make it OpenGL!

So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.

Danny
August 18th 04, 02:02 AM
Judge wrote:
> First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
>
> if you dont think it's 'scary enough' -

In all fairness it has the odd 'oooo, what was that' moment and plenty of
'AAIIIEE what just jumped out at me' moments, but isn't really 'scary,
scary'.
Mind you, it takes a *lot* to scare me.

> go find yourself a copy of
> "Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
> a FPS shooter.

Undying is an absolute classic. Stunning game.

>
> If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
> original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
> another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
> getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
> of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
> day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
> Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
> out yet to make it OpenGL!

Doom 3's graphics have to be seen on a system which does them justice. I saw
the game at a friend's place who has a Ti4200, and the loss of image quality
was stark. On Ultra, on a meaty PC, words cannot describe how good it looks.
I bought my GT especially for it.

--
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

PRIVATE1964
August 18th 04, 02:06 AM
>
>Doom 3's graphics have to be seen on a system which does them justice. I saw
>the game at a friend's place who has a Ti4200, and the loss of image quality
>was stark.

I'm still using a 4200 so thanks for ruining my day!

Tom
August 18th 04, 03:07 AM
"if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
"Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
a FPS shooter"
I used to get chills down my back when I played that game, it was the
howls.
"Judge" > wrote in message
...
> First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
>
> if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
> "Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
> a FPS shooter.
>
> If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
> original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
> another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
> getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
> of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
> day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
> Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
> out yet to make it OpenGL!
>
> So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
> please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
> Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.

Larry Roberts
August 18th 04, 10:49 AM
>When Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
>out yet to make it OpenGL!

Your mistaken. Quake 2 supported OpenGl out of the box. Your
thinking of the original Quake.

FatDaddy
August 18th 04, 01:12 PM
since you have not purchase and or played the game you opinion has no value
you just a nobody

"Judge" > wrote in message
...
> First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
>
> if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
> "Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
> a FPS shooter.
>
> If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
> original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
> another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
> getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
> of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
> day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
> Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
> out yet to make it OpenGL!
>
> So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
> please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
> Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.

Eric
August 18th 04, 02:02 PM
They just need to stop rushing to "beat" it -- but should instead take it in
slowly, as this article makes clear:


http://www.avault.com/reviews/review_temp.asp?game=doom3

"Judge" > wrote in message
...
> First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
>
> if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
> "Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
> a FPS shooter.
>
> If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
> original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
> another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
> getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
> of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
> day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
> Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
> out yet to make it OpenGL!
>
> So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
> please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
> Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.

Eric
August 18th 04, 02:07 PM
And this quote says it all:

"It's only fair to evaluate this release on the basis of what it's trying to
achieve, as an updated version of the Doom series, and not on the basis of
recent convolutions in the genre. In a satisfying way, Doom 3 brings the
first-person shooter back to its roots, returning it to the simple, direct
gameplay that spawned this category of games over ten years ago. Rejecting
pressure from pseudo-sophisticated snobs who want to graft on artificial
complexities that have been so trendy in recent computer action titles, Doom
3 is a far cry from the pattern of the latest shooters, and to me, that's a
real blessing."


"Judge" > wrote in message
...
> First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
>
> if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
> "Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
> a FPS shooter.
>
> If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
> original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
> another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
> getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
> of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
> day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
> Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
> out yet to make it OpenGL!
>
> So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
> please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
> Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.

andy
August 18th 04, 03:42 PM
erm, it aint exactly ground breaking imo its just the usual quake/doom
variant game just all like all versions it too dam dark

i have an 9800xt and amd mobile cpu at 2.6ghz and can play it on ultra, it
isnt anything special.
plus to try and compare it with original HL is all fine and dandy
considering more people play HL variant games than doom3 ever will just goes
to show decent gfx dont actually make a game, dod/cs plus others will always
be better than doom3 that will last another month or 2 b4 its forgotten.


ps, far cry is a much better shooter to compare it with and i know which i
prefer



dont believe the hype!
"Judge" > wrote in message
...
> First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
>
> if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
> "Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
> a FPS shooter.
>
> If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
> original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
> another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
> getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
> of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
> day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
> Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
> out yet to make it OpenGL!
>
> So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
> please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
> Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.

Danny
August 18th 04, 05:59 PM
PRIVATE1964 wrote:
>> Doom 3's graphics have to be seen on a system which does them
>> justice. I saw the game at a friend's place who has a Ti4200, and
>> the loss of image quality was stark.
>
> I'm still using a 4200 so thanks for ruining my day!

:(
Sorry dear fellow.

--
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

Les
August 18th 04, 06:50 PM
Eric wrote:

> And this quote says it all:
>
> "It's only fair to evaluate this release on the basis of what it's trying to
> achieve, as an updated version of the Doom series, and not on the basis of
> recent convolutions in the genre. In a satisfying way, Doom 3 brings the
> first-person shooter back to its roots, returning it to the simple, direct
> gameplay that spawned this category of games over ten years ago. Rejecting
> pressure from pseudo-sophisticated snobs who want to graft on artificial
> complexities that have been so trendy in recent computer action titles, Doom
> 3 is a far cry from the pattern of the latest shooters, and to me, that's a
> real blessing."
>

That sounds like some tit being all trendy and going against the grain.
You can't change MY opinion by telling me what someone ELSE thinks of
the game. I did play og DOOM1+2 and QUAKE1+2 etc etc. Its not even on a
par with Half-Life gameplay wise, again in my opinion.


>
> "Judge" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
>>
>>if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
>>"Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
>>a FPS shooter.
>>
>>If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
>>original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
>>another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
>>getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
>>of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
>>day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
>>Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
>>out yet to make it OpenGL!
>>
>>So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
>>please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
>>Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.
>
>
He's only 12 years old than me, was he writing code at age 12?
--
Les
AMD64 3200+
2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
Gigabyte GA-K8VNXP
Leadtek A400 GT
SB Audigy

Eric
August 18th 04, 06:55 PM
Why -- what does Doom 3 NOT do for you. You run around maps, trying to kill
things that are trying to kill you. Same as any other FPS. Difference here
is, cooler graphics and the ultimate sound.

What exactly did you expect?

"Les" > wrote in message ...
> Eric wrote:
>
> > And this quote says it all:
> >
> > "It's only fair to evaluate this release on the basis of what it's
trying to
> > achieve, as an updated version of the Doom series, and not on the basis
of
> > recent convolutions in the genre. In a satisfying way, Doom 3 brings the
> > first-person shooter back to its roots, returning it to the simple,
direct
> > gameplay that spawned this category of games over ten years ago.
Rejecting
> > pressure from pseudo-sophisticated snobs who want to graft on artificial
> > complexities that have been so trendy in recent computer action titles,
Doom
> > 3 is a far cry from the pattern of the latest shooters, and to me,
that's a
> > real blessing."
> >
>
> That sounds like some tit being all trendy and going against the grain.
> You can't change MY opinion by telling me what someone ELSE thinks of
> the game. I did play og DOOM1+2 and QUAKE1+2 etc etc. Its not even on a
> par with Half-Life gameplay wise, again in my opinion.
>
>
> >
> > "Judge" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
> >>
> >>if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
> >>"Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
> >>a FPS shooter.
> >>
> >>If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
> >>original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
> >>another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
> >>getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
> >>of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
> >>day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
> >>Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
> >>out yet to make it OpenGL!
> >>
> >>So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
> >>please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
> >>Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.
> >
> >
> He's only 12 years old than me, was he writing code at age 12?
> --
> Les
> AMD64 3200+
> 2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
> Gigabyte GA-K8VNXP
> Leadtek A400 GT
> SB Audigy

Les
August 18th 04, 07:21 PM
Eric wrote:

> Why -- what does Doom 3 NOT do for you. You run around maps, trying to kill
> things that are trying to kill you. Same as any other FPS. Difference here
> is, cooler graphics and the ultimate sound.
>
> What exactly did you expect?
>

the Ultimate sound? Cooler Graphics compared to...the original? The
textures "appear" very low res and ugly, especially close up.

You have stated the obvious with "You run around maps, trying to kill
things that are trying to kill you" All fps are like that, but I don't
feel like part of the story. Heck I prefer Jedi Knight 2, Jedi Academy,
Tron 2.0, MOH, COD, HL (apart from the stupid Xen levels)Max Payne, and
the more obvious one :).

They moved away from the Doom/serious sam style game, but they haven't
put enough in to make it more interesting as a slower paced game, more
interaction with the base computer system possibly?

I also find I am now more annoyed by spawning monsters, rather than
afraid of them. Most of them you just back off round a corner and
shotgun them in the face as they come round, or let them walk into the
chainsaw, shoot exploding barrel etc.


> "Les" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Eric wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And this quote says it all:
>>>
>>>"It's only fair to evaluate this release on the basis of what it's
>
> trying to
>
>>>achieve, as an updated version of the Doom series, and not on the basis
>
> of
>
>>>recent convolutions in the genre. In a satisfying way, Doom 3 brings the
>>>first-person shooter back to its roots, returning it to the simple,
>
> direct
>
>>>gameplay that spawned this category of games over ten years ago.
>
> Rejecting
>
>>>pressure from pseudo-sophisticated snobs who want to graft on artificial
>>>complexities that have been so trendy in recent computer action titles,
>
> Doom
>
>>>3 is a far cry from the pattern of the latest shooters, and to me,
>
> that's a
>
>>>real blessing."
>>>
>>
>>That sounds like some tit being all trendy and going against the grain.
>>You can't change MY opinion by telling me what someone ELSE thinks of
>>the game. I did play og DOOM1+2 and QUAKE1+2 etc etc. Its not even on a
>>par with Half-Life gameplay wise, again in my opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Judge" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
>>>>
>>>>if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
>>>>"Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
>>>>a FPS shooter.
>>>>
>>>>If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
>>>>original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
>>>>another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
>>>>getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
>>>>of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
>>>>day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
>>>>Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
>>>>out yet to make it OpenGL!
>>>>
>>>>So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
>>>>please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
>>>>Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.
>>>
>>>
>>He's only 12 years old than me, was he writing code at age 12?
>>--
>>Les
>>AMD64 3200+
>>2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
>>Gigabyte GA-K8VNXP
>>Leadtek A400 GT
>>SB Audigy
>
>
>


--
Les
AMD64 3200+
2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
Gigabyte GA-K8VNXP
Leadtek A400 GT
SB Audigy

Eric
August 18th 04, 08:00 PM
"Les" > wrote in message ...
> Eric wrote:
>
> >
> the Ultimate sound? Cooler Graphics compared to...the original? The
> textures "appear" very low res and ugly, especially close up.

Sound is awesome on 5.1 -- if you don't have it, you are missing much of the
doom3 experience. The graphics are almost universally praised -- not sure
why you find them low res.


>
> They moved away from the Doom/serious sam style game, but they haven't
> put enough in to make it more interesting as a slower paced game, more
> interaction with the base computer system possibly?

I think this is the key in your dissapointment. Most who dislike doom3,
like a faster paced, huge amount of things coming at you at once (a la
serious sam).

Those who take it slowly, and let it soak all in (and like to do so), love
doom3.


>
> > "Les" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>Eric wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>And this quote says it all:
> >>>
> >>>"It's only fair to evaluate this release on the basis of what it's
> >
> > trying to
> >
> >>>achieve, as an updated version of the Doom series, and not on the basis
> >
> > of
> >
> >>>recent convolutions in the genre. In a satisfying way, Doom 3 brings
the
> >>>first-person shooter back to its roots, returning it to the simple,
> >
> > direct
> >
> >>>gameplay that spawned this category of games over ten years ago.
> >
> > Rejecting
> >
> >>>pressure from pseudo-sophisticated snobs who want to graft on
artificial
> >>>complexities that have been so trendy in recent computer action titles,
> >
> > Doom
> >
> >>>3 is a far cry from the pattern of the latest shooters, and to me,
> >
> > that's a
> >
> >>>real blessing."
> >>>
> >>
> >>That sounds like some tit being all trendy and going against the grain.
> >>You can't change MY opinion by telling me what someone ELSE thinks of
> >>the game. I did play og DOOM1+2 and QUAKE1+2 etc etc. Its not even on a
> >>par with Half-Life gameplay wise, again in my opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Judge" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
> >>>>
> >>>>if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
> >>>>"Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
> >>>>a FPS shooter.
> >>>>
> >>>>If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
> >>>>original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
> >>>>another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
> >>>>getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
> >>>>of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
> >>>>day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
> >>>>Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
> >>>>out yet to make it OpenGL!
> >>>>
> >>>>So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
> >>>>please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
> >>>>Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>He's only 12 years old than me, was he writing code at age 12?
> >>--
> >>Les
> >>AMD64 3200+
> >>2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
> >>Gigabyte GA-K8VNXP
> >>Leadtek A400 GT
> >>SB Audigy
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Les
> AMD64 3200+
> 2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
> Gigabyte GA-K8VNXP
> Leadtek A400 GT
> SB Audigy

PRIVATE1964
August 18th 04, 10:16 PM
It's because most gamers have become very spoiled. Myself included.

We have had so many good games up to this point that it's tough to find a game
that will meet our expectations.

Les
August 19th 04, 12:07 AM
Eric wrote:

> "Les" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Eric wrote:
>>
>>
>>the Ultimate sound? Cooler Graphics compared to...the original? The
>>textures "appear" very low res and ugly, especially close up.
>
>
> Sound is awesome on 5.1 -- if you don't have it, you are missing much of the
> doom3 experience. The graphics are almost universally praised -- not sure
> why you find them low res.
>
>
I've got 4.1 setup, so not too dissimilar (sp) sound wise, using an
audigy. The graphics (this applies to FarCrys indoor levels too) just
seem to be loads of bump mapped textures that look, well, ****e up close
(bar character models)


>
>>They moved away from the Doom/serious sam style game, but they haven't
>>put enough in to make it more interesting as a slower paced game, more
>>interaction with the base computer system possibly?
>
>
> I think this is the key in your dissapointment. Most who dislike doom3,
> like a faster paced, huge amount of things coming at you at once (a la
> serious sam).
>
> Those who take it slowly, and let it soak all in (and like to do so), love
> doom3.
>

I enjoy both styles of action gaming (I completed Project IGI without
cheats or trainers, go too quick and an hours work is gone!!), just I
don't feel there is enough immersiveness to match the slower pace.

I applied the "Duct Tape Mod" the other day, the one that only adds a
small intense flashlight to the shottie and assault rifle. Its actually
helped me to feel more "there" rather than flicking back and forth
between weapon and torch (reminds me I am playing a game too much you
see). Now have to decide whether to flick back forth between torch and
strong weapon (for monsters that take more than 1 shottie blast to the
face) or be able to see a bit better, but have a weaker weapon in hand
for the "surprise" monsters.


--
Les
AMD64 3200+
2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
Gigabyte GA-K8VNXP
Leadtek A400 GT
SB Audigy

cpaoli
August 19th 04, 06:18 AM
What are you rendering the game with, a Matrox. If you can't see the
textures in full glory, its got to be a crap box.
"Les" > wrote in message ...
> Eric wrote:
>
> > Why -- what does Doom 3 NOT do for you. You run around maps, trying to
kill
> > things that are trying to kill you. Same as any other FPS. Difference
here
> > is, cooler graphics and the ultimate sound.
> >
> > What exactly did you expect?
> >
>
> the Ultimate sound? Cooler Graphics compared to...the original? The
> textures "appear" very low res and ugly, especially close up.
>
> You have stated the obvious with "You run around maps, trying to kill
> things that are trying to kill you" All fps are like that, but I don't
> feel like part of the story. Heck I prefer Jedi Knight 2, Jedi Academy,
> Tron 2.0, MOH, COD, HL (apart from the stupid Xen levels)Max Payne, and
> the more obvious one :).
>
> They moved away from the Doom/serious sam style game, but they haven't
> put enough in to make it more interesting as a slower paced game, more
> interaction with the base computer system possibly?
>
> I also find I am now more annoyed by spawning monsters, rather than
> afraid of them. Most of them you just back off round a corner and
> shotgun them in the face as they come round, or let them walk into the
> chainsaw, shoot exploding barrel etc.
>
>
> > "Les" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>Eric wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>And this quote says it all:
> >>>
> >>>"It's only fair to evaluate this release on the basis of what it's
> >
> > trying to
> >
> >>>achieve, as an updated version of the Doom series, and not on the basis
> >
> > of
> >
> >>>recent convolutions in the genre. In a satisfying way, Doom 3 brings
the
> >>>first-person shooter back to its roots, returning it to the simple,
> >
> > direct
> >
> >>>gameplay that spawned this category of games over ten years ago.
> >
> > Rejecting
> >
> >>>pressure from pseudo-sophisticated snobs who want to graft on
artificial
> >>>complexities that have been so trendy in recent computer action titles,
> >
> > Doom
> >
> >>>3 is a far cry from the pattern of the latest shooters, and to me,
> >
> > that's a
> >
> >>>real blessing."
> >>>
> >>
> >>That sounds like some tit being all trendy and going against the grain.
> >>You can't change MY opinion by telling me what someone ELSE thinks of
> >>the game. I did play og DOOM1+2 and QUAKE1+2 etc etc. Its not even on a
> >>par with Half-Life gameplay wise, again in my opinion.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Judge" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
> >>>>
> >>>>if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
> >>>>"Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
> >>>>a FPS shooter.
> >>>>
> >>>>If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
> >>>>original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
> >>>>another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
> >>>>getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
> >>>>of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
> >>>>day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
> >>>>Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
> >>>>out yet to make it OpenGL!
> >>>>
> >>>>So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
> >>>>please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
> >>>>Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>He's only 12 years old than me, was he writing code at age 12?
> >>--
> >>Les
> >>AMD64 3200+
> >>2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
> >>Gigabyte GA-K8VNXP
> >>Leadtek A400 GT
> >>SB Audigy
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Les
> AMD64 3200+
> 2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
> Gigabyte GA-K8VNXP
> Leadtek A400 GT
> SB Audigy

cpaoli
August 19th 04, 06:23 AM
Sorry, but you playing it with a 9800xt and a 2.6 is definitely not optimal,
and I seriously doubt you are playing it on ultra. That setup is not ultra
material.

"andy" > wrote in message
k...
> erm, it aint exactly ground breaking imo its just the usual quake/doom
> variant game just all like all versions it too dam dark
>
> i have an 9800xt and amd mobile cpu at 2.6ghz and can play it on ultra, it
> isnt anything special.
> plus to try and compare it with original HL is all fine and dandy
> considering more people play HL variant games than doom3 ever will just
goes
> to show decent gfx dont actually make a game, dod/cs plus others will
always
> be better than doom3 that will last another month or 2 b4 its forgotten.
>
>
> ps, far cry is a much better shooter to compare it with and i know which i
> prefer
>
>
>
> dont believe the hype!
> "Judge" > wrote in message
> ...
> > First off, let me say I havent even played the game yet. BUT -
> >
> > if you dont think it's 'scary enough' - go find yourself a copy of
> > "Clive Barker's Undying" - that game had quite a few scary moments for
> > a FPS shooter.
> >
> > If you think the graphics arent ground breaking - load up Half-Life
> > original, or even Quake2/3, maybe Duke Nukem? iD has taken things to
> > another level just like they always have. Yes, those levels are
> > getting closer and closer, because we've reached damn-near-real levels
> > of detail. The original Doom2 was mindblowing in it's day, but that
> > day was back when 4mb of ram on the MOTHERBOARD was 'high end' . When
> > Quake 2 came out, it wasnt even 3D - the 3dfx board had not even come
> > out yet to make it OpenGL!
> >
> > So all you spoiled brats and johnny-come-lately PS2/Xbox rejects
> > please cool your jets as to what is and what is not 'groundbreaking'.
> > Carmack was writing code when you were still a sperm cell.
>
>

Les
August 19th 04, 06:19 PM
cpaoli wrote:
> What are you rendering the game with, a Matrox. If you can't see the
> textures in full glory, its got to be a crap box.

Were you replying to me?

System spec in sig. Using a 6800GT in high detail mode 1600x1200. My
observations are exactly that, MY.

glory my arse

--
Les
AMD64 3200+
2x512 MB corsair platinum 3500
Gigabyte GA-K8VNXP
Leadtek A400 GT
SB Audigy