Intel17 Posted May 8, 2004 Ok, why the heck does doom 3 use such low resolution textures? I mean the alpha leak had HORRIBLE textures and the characters looked really bad. I really hope the final game will look good cuz i dont want it to lose out to HL2, stalker and far cry. 0 Share this post Link to post
Scabbed Angel Posted May 8, 2004 How did it look bad? Compare it to any of the models in farcry once. . . or HL2 for that matter. 0 Share this post Link to post
Job Posted May 8, 2004 It's an alpha. Alphas are incomplete/unhoned. Of course there will be lacking in some areas. Let it go and wait for the final product, which I hear is going to be released in Q3 - for the PC anyway. 0 Share this post Link to post
Intel17 Posted May 9, 2004 The alpha's characters were really bad and the self shadowing didnt look right. In the first map of the alpha, when the doomguy gets outta the elevator, and if focuses on his head, it looks pretty bad. and his ear didnt even look like an ear and you could see a line right down the middle of his face, as if the poly count was low. I really hope the final game looks better! 0 Share this post Link to post
S1lent Posted May 9, 2004 Why were you using "alpha"? Man, I don't get why people use the leaked versions of game. 1. They're incomplete 2. Most every leaked game looks bad 3. They're illegal and weren't meant to be released yet 4. It ruins the final game when it comes out. It's like watching half a movie and then waiting 3 months to see the end. I don't understand why people go through the trouble of getting them. 0 Share this post Link to post
S1lent Posted May 9, 2004 Ya....oh, and just for the record...you know, for those people who would read that and say "Doom 3 isn't coming out in 3 months, what is he talking about," it was just an example... 0 Share this post Link to post
Ricki Posted May 9, 2004 intel, you obviously have a shit computer or just didn't configure the setttings properly. it looked excellent on my "friends" pc. 0 Share this post Link to post
chilvence Posted May 9, 2004 I had the seams with certain drivers, and I had ugly textures before I turned of the texture compression. Its all just down to settings. You cant expect an impromptu leak of the code to be set up correctly... 0 Share this post Link to post
Son of Osiris Posted May 9, 2004 Alright Job, where did u hear D3 is coming out Q3....name your 'source' 0 Share this post Link to post
Job Posted May 9, 2004 My brother of 31 works for a PR company for the video game industry. He said that the PC Doom III is due Q3 and Doom III for Xbox is due Q4. 0 Share this post Link to post
Intel17 Posted May 9, 2004 Ricki said:intel, you obviously have a shit computer or just didn't configure the setttings properly. it looked excellent on my "friends" pc. P4 3 gig 1GB Pc3200 ram IS7 board (i865) Radeon 9800 pro 256 @ XT speeds Ran it with full details turned on, 1280 resolution 16x AF i dont have a shit computer but its just an alpha, so i think that itll look much better in the real game 0 Share this post Link to post
chilvence Posted May 9, 2004 Great, but did you fiddle with the cvars at all? Ive had it looking like total shit and absolutely stunning on the same machine. There isnt an options menu here, you're not even supposed to have it. Dont run it thinking its some kind of express preview given only to the cultural elite. 0 Share this post Link to post
Ricki Posted May 9, 2004 Intel17 said:P4 3 gig 1GB Pc3200 ram IS7 board (i865) Radeon 9800 pro 256 @ XT speeds Ran it with full details turned on, 1280 resolution 16x AF i dont have a shit computer but its just an alpha, so i think that itll look much better in the real game hmmm... my pc is only a little better than that, but your definately right... maybe there is just something in the settings you missed.... nevermind, the screens from the real game look extremely promising. 0 Share this post Link to post
Deathmatcher Posted May 9, 2004 Take a look at those Doom1 Alphas. Compare them to the final game. 'Nuff said. 0 Share this post Link to post
Intel17 Posted May 9, 2004 The graphics were the same, the design was different in the doom1 alphas but im sure Doom 3 will be stunning when released. The alpha looks good on my machine but if you look closely at everything you notice flaws. like with the light done with fragment shaders the quality of the shaders is bad, like you see in far cry on a GeForce FX card. but its only a crappy alpha. 0 Share this post Link to post
deathbringer Posted May 9, 2004 As everyone has said, its only the apha, look at screenshots of the real game and try to imagine what they must be like in motion..all other games look primitive by comparison 0 Share this post Link to post
geekmarine Posted May 9, 2004 Hey, I think the alpha is intereting, like a peek inside the game while its being made. I mean, the original alphas are crap, but they're still interesting, in a sense of seeing where the game went, designwise. 0 Share this post Link to post
Nunez Posted May 9, 2004 I played the alpha through and through. The reason why the graphics suck is because everything isn't implemented yet, well not all the colors. The game still looked good for a friggin' alpha though. I deleted the alpha 2 days later. I got tired of re-installing the 49.xx nvidia drivers. 0 Share this post Link to post
Intel17 Posted May 9, 2004 What hasnt been implimented in the Alpha thats in the final game? 0 Share this post Link to post
deathbringer Posted May 9, 2004 Good lighting, Good models, Good textures, More levels, A story, A game... 0 Share this post Link to post
Epyo Posted May 9, 2004 Isn't the alpha 1 and a half years old already? 0 Share this post Link to post
Intel17 Posted May 10, 2004 yeah it is. But the thing about textures, look at this screenshot http://www.planetdoom.com/images/image.asp?screenshots/official/14l.jpg 0 Share this post Link to post
Skeletor Posted May 10, 2004 are you a hl2 fanboy? lol, j/k. anyways....if you know anything about game developement, youll know what an alpha is, but im assuming you dont. an alpha is an unfinished program that is usually used to show off for technology demos. hell, it isnt even a finished demo. theres missing textures, un-coded events, the code, and this is IMPORTANT, the code isn't optimized for most graphics cards ( the alpha i believe was optimized for the radeon 300 series of cards or something like that ) so on most computer that dont have the specific graphics card, its going to look like crap, which most alpha screenshots come from. Also, most games these days use a one set of textures, and write code that resize those textures to certain resolutions. The alpha might not have that texture resize code which is why it might look shitty....so like everyone else has said, don't judge the game off of the alpha. 0 Share this post Link to post
Zaldron Posted May 10, 2004 All wrong answers. This is how the game looks. No one will redo textures, no one will retouch most of this stuff. Sure, a correction here and there, but that's it. This is the actual, final size of the textures. Many of the graphical assets you see will remain untouched. The game is taxing enough already, they can't make bigger textures just like that, even if they had a legion of artists. An incremental increase of the texture quality would be four times heavier. There are no comps that can run this without hiccups, so it's futile to implement bigger resources. Nothing stops anyone from doing a level with 4096x4096 textures.. at 0.3 fps. So you don't like it. How interesting. Please tell us more. 0 Share this post Link to post
Skeletor Posted May 10, 2004 Zaldron said:All wrong answers. This is how the game looks. No one will redo textures, no one will retouch most of this stuff. Sure, a correction here and there, but that's it. This is the actual, final size of the textures. Many of the graphical assets you see will remain untouched. The game is taxing enough already, they can't make bigger textures just like that, even if they had a legion of artists. An incremental increase of the texture quality would be four times heavier. There are no comps that can run this without hiccups, so it's futile to implement bigger resources. Nothing stops anyone from doing a level with 4096x4096 textures.. at 0.3 fps. So you don't like it. How interesting. Please tell us more. Yes, they can't make bigger textures because bigger textures arent made. like i said, there is most likely ONE set of textures, probably made for the current highest resolution. These textures are then resized by code to fit the users wanted resolution. So if a resolution is at 1280xwhatever, the code can resize those textures to 1024x768 or whatever resolution choices there are. If the developers made resources for every resolution, the game would probably be 18273GIGS (an exaggeration but you know what i mean). 0 Share this post Link to post
doomedout Posted May 10, 2004 Basically in a nutshell: GG no re kthxbye ID. 0 Share this post Link to post
dsm Posted May 10, 2004 Skeletor said:are you a hl2 fanboy? Sheesh, can't one make a comment about cons in the Doom 3 screenshots without being accused of being a fanboy? At least, if he was an HL2 fanboy, at least he's being discreet. I don't care enough about the textures - I'm more interested in the character models, and especially when they are in motion, because that's where Doom 3 truly looks sexy. 0 Share this post Link to post