New Doom 3 XBOX screenshots

[Lord FlatHead]

http://doom3.gamevision-network.de/

Notice the flashlight.

[Melfice]

These are also over on GamePro's website, plus a few few more which I haven't seen posted here yet. Anyways, same old crap, screenshots of the same tiresome monsters. Normally I'd be glad to have new screenshots, but now I say just release the damn thing already, actually that's all I have to say about it at this point. I'm really close to not being interested anymore.

[Arioch]

I both agree and disagree.

If they can't show us some new stuff, then it's better not to repeatedly flash the same images in our face.

On the other hand, my anticipation level for Doom 3 has never been higher.

[DaJuice]

Damn, the x-box version looks like ass.

[Linguica]

DaJuice said:

Damn, the x-box version looks like ass.

[Intel17]

DaJuice said:

Damn, the x-box version looks like ass.

[Ricki]

for some reason, all the gamepro screens have a weird green blurry glow to them..

all the same screens are on IGN at: http://media.pc.ign.com/media/014/014934/imgs_1.html

they look a bit better

[Intel17]

Too bad Xbox can only play at 640x480, hahaha

[TH-555]

hi-res usually just reveals the flaws in the engine, ala elite force.

OK, my two cents:

the first ever xbox screenshot looked great, just the model was toned down. in the newer ones, the models look fine, but the lighting is pissy. VVISIONS make UP yOuR MIND! good models or good lighting!??!?!?! pick dammit

the shots do look crappy, wont deny it, but it has sort of an old-school console look, low res and messy, which is nothing new to me. It beats the shit outta splinter cell at least, but vvisions did say that the end product would look better than halo2, which i doubt, but It wouldnt bother me.

[toxicfluff]

Halo2 looks patchy though. Some of the textures are terrible and blurry.

But yeah, the jaggedness of 640x480 is really apparent in the shots. Luckily, TV's are almost blurry enough to cover it up anyway.

[Melfice]

There's X-Box screens that look good and bad, there's PC screens that look good and bad. It's like that with every game, it isn't because the X-Box's version is gonna look like ass, as we've seen way better looking screenshots from the X-Box version before.

[Intel17]

PC version will definetly be better grpahically running on a GFFX or a Radeon 9800+

[toxicfluff]

Melfice said:

There's X-Box screens that look good and bad, there's PC screens that look good and bad. It's like that with every game, it isn't because the X-Box's version is gonna look like ass, as we've seen way better looking screenshots from the X-Box version before.

There's only been one released prior to this.

However, it looks much closer to the PC version than I thought it would.

[Melfice]

ToXiCFLUFF said:

There's only been one released prior to this.

However, it looks much closer to the PC version than I thought it would.

Guess I read wrong then, because I was pretty sure all those screenshots from the last Gamepro specifically said they were from the X-Box version, I think it even said so on the magazine. I could be illiterate...

[toxicfluff]

Melfice said:

Guess I read wrong then, because I was pretty sure all those screenshots from the last Gamepro specifically said they were from the X-Box version, I think it even said so on the magazine. I could be illiterate...

I doubt you are. And also, I didn't get the magazine. I have seen a fair bit of bullshit in the Xbox magazines though; Doom3 features that I have picked up - many screenshots which are known on the net to be PC ones and the like.

But seeing as how you got the magazine and have been following the screenshots released online, I'll take your word for it.

[TH-555]

ToXiCFLUFF said:

But yeah, the jaggedness of 640x480 is really apparent in the shots. Luckily, TV's are almost blurry enough to cover it up anyway.

tell me about it, I hate that in smaller TVs. however lo-res isnt that bad, it doesnt even become that apparent when using a HI-def adapter, Altho I really wouldnt mind higher res.

with that being said, that first xbox screen with the HELLKNIGHT LOOKS LIKE ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!1!1!!1111!!!

[Intel17]

THe zombies look ok, but when the Xbox is called on to render a monster like the hellknight...eww!!

EDIT: Also The pinky demon looks bad too in comparision to the PC version.



Seriously, do you think Xbox will even get the 29.97fps it needs in the game?

[TH-555]

john carmack seems to be optimistic, but if it can look not as good as halo2, then it should get a better framerate, right? I think you guys under-estimate the xbox somewhat. I admit that I at times have over-estimated it, but the huge halo2 e3 real time demo didnt have any framrate slowdown, even with all the blood, which cuased framerate problems with teh first game.

in short, as long as it looks cool and plays good Im happy. it is doom after all, crappy graphix didnt ruin my experience with the original doom.

[Melfice]

ToXiCFLUFF said:

I doubt you are. And also, I didn't get the magazine. I have seen a fair bit of bullshit in the Xbox magazines though; Doom3 features that I have picked up - many screenshots which are known on the net to be PC ones and the like.

But seeing as how you got the magazine and have been following the screenshots released online, I'll take your word for it.

Heh, just thought I'd say sorry for the attitude with the 'illiterate' comment :P Wasn't in the best of moods when I saw that (and I sorta get tired of people on Dw dogging on X-Box so much, for christ's sake, its not that bad, regardless if M$ made it).

[Coopersville]

I think the XBOX screens look fine.

[DaJuice]

Err...you sure?



At it's worst the pc version still looks a lot better than this I think. I don't really care though, I don't have an x-box or a good pc to run the game.

[Disorder]

Maybe it looks a lot better in motion.

[Job]

Keep in mind that the Xbox version is not entirely finished yet.

[Lutrov71]

Who cares if it doesn't look as good as the PC version! It still looks awesome! Jeez! :)

[toxicfluff]

Eh?



These pics vary so much from place to place, but this one looks about right to me.

[TH-555]

DaJuice said:

Err...you sure?

At it's worst the pc version still looks a lot better than this.

thats bullshit and you know it. minimum req. for D3 is a GeForce1, and the xbox has a GF4 with no OS to run, and the engine is custom built to the box as well.

I can say this with total honesty, its not fanboyness, honestly.

[Laguna]

Essentially, it's Doom 3. I am fortunate enough to have a machine that will run it (supposedly) "very smoothly" at "medium or high detail." Unfortunately, it seems, some people do not have the option of having these high-end machines, and if they can get the opportunity to play it for roughly $350 as opposed to a few thousand, more power to 'em.

[Fredrik]

TH-555 said:

the xbox has a GF4 with no OS to run

1. The XBox is running a stripped down Windows 2000 kernel so there's an OS.
2. Even on a PC, the OS hardly puts any extra load on the graphics card at all. The CPU and memory are a different matter.

[TH-555]

true, but the xbox, being a designated PC, doesnt need as much processor power, so the sluggish 7ooMH not is a factor.but more importantly.....

Now do games running on minimum specs usually have dynamic lighting or decails? No, not really, and you see both in those screenshots.

[Melfice]

Actually screenshots vary from magazine to magazine and even at times inside the magazine. Note that the screenshots on Doom3.com didn't look all that much better than that last zombie that was posted. I've noticed when reading EGM (Electronic Gaming Monthly), that half of their screenshots look like absolute shit, and then on the same article, others look excellent. This was the same case in a PSM magazine I bough in their MK: Deception article. In other words: Screenshots are not really all that dependable.