New Screens

[Wobbo]

dsm said:

I HATE when people say that something suck. Saying that something sucks gives the impression that the guy who said "x sucks" thinks that the work done on 'x' is sloppy.

Well, YOU try and do better.

so its impossible to criticize anything unless you can do better?
So if micheal jordan scores zero point in a 96 gamr no one has the right to say that game sucked?

STUPIDEST THING YOUVE EVER SAID NO QUESTION

the shadows suck, point blank. the tradeoff is made so that they can be dynamic. Quake 1 had better shadows, but they didnt move with the environment. Its not that big of a deal anyway, graphics arent everything

[Shaviro]

Xian said:

Quake 1 had better shadows

no.

[Wobbo]

Yes. Better lighting in general. BUT IT WAS STATIC, and if the designers use it right, they could pull off some interesting stuff

[dsm]

Xian said:

so its impossible to criticize anything unless you can do better?
So if micheal jordan scores zero point in a 96 gamr no one has the right to say that game sucked?

STUPIDEST THING YOUVE EVER SAID NO QUESTION

the shadows suck, point blank. the tradeoff is made so that they can be dynamic. Quake 1 had better shadows, but they didnt move with the environment. Its not that big of a deal anyway, graphics arent everything

Now you're attacking me. That's not polite.

Quake 1 didn't even have shadows for the characters so how the fuck can you say that q1 has better shadows? Furthermore you're basing your opinion on a few screenshots that have been brightened up, a blurry, leaked movie, another movie, which still isn't near the quality of the actual game and might I finally add: the game is NOT FINISHED yet.

The more I read your arguments, the more silly I think they are.

And you can't compare a computer game with a basketball match - making a computer game is a complicated process that requires skill - skill that I doubt you have, so saying that the shadows suck in such an aggressive manner is like saying "id are a bunch of losers who don't do their job right". I'm sorry, but that's the way I interpret your posts.

You're on an internet forum, people can't tell what mood you're in, so choose your words wisely. Saying that something sucks is definitely not always the smartest thing to post.

[Shaviro]

Xian said:

Yes. Better lighting in general. BUT IT WAS STATIC, and if the designers use it right, they could pull off some interesting stuff

errr. You never noticed the lighting in quake. There were no good shadows. Are you just trolling it up? I'm getting sick of listening to your wild accusations about how much doom 3 sucks.

[dsm]

Shaviro said:

I'm getting sick of listening to your wild accusations about how much doom 3 sucks.

Y'know, I'm getting a sneaky suspicion that Xian and AndrewB are posting this crap about how Doom 3 sucks JUST to annoy the crap out of everyone else. This may not be the case, but in any case, it is my firm suggestion that you stop whining, because it serves no other purpose than to annoy people.

[Shaviro]

dsm said:

Y'know, I'm getting a sneaky suspicion that you and AndrewB are posting this crap about how Doom 3 sucks JUST to annoy the crap out of everyone else. This may not be the case, but in any case, it is my firm suggestion that you stop whining, because it serves no other purpose than to annoy people.

heh. Maybe you should note you're not talking to me, but Xian :P

[Zaldron]

Xian said:

Quake 1 had better shadows, but they didnt move with the environment.

Only if the light rays run paralel to the worldspace grid and the brushes have no other angles but 90° ones. Artifacting sucks. Besides those 2 shots use blank lights, while the best shots of this engine are those with masked lights.

[Forge315]

Go to this post, there's a cool edited pic by a guy named iCeT.

http://forums.3drealms.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=005735;p=2

[GS-1719]

Forge315 said:

Go to this post, there's a cool edited pic by a guy named iCeT.

http://forums.3drealms.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=005735;p=2

The UT contingent is really getting desparate if they are trying to pick apart Doom 3 images. The nice thing about the Doom 3 folks is that we can just put those screenies next to any other game and say 'Doom 3 is better...'

[Forge315]

No -- the one with Carmack; it's funny.

[wasted]

ok, the characters made cool - reflections and curves little bit edged but it still looks better that ive seen before (yeah, here you can say that i havent seen anything, heh >:)...

also the disign of the marines and sciguy is very good... hey, i think that guy is not just a scientist - hes some kind of man in black from HL... maybe hes a chief of security or smthng...

[Livo]

Well, I wish that iD themselves would release the screenshots, not the publishers. We can't speculate on the brightness, jagged edges, messed up model detail because we don't know what gamma setting the pics were taken with, the system specs and what settings like 4XAA for example were on and which ones weren't.

Still, hopefully some of the model complaints will be cleared up in the following months.

[Lord FlatHead]

Jesus Christ, those 3DRealms forums guys are worse than Xian. "Boring 2D texture on wall". THIS IS A GAME, REMEMBER ?? Just because the term "photo-realistic" has been used, people begin expecting 10x more from Doom III than GeForce-level hardware can deliver.

Wait till you're playing it. On a computer. Beautifully animated at >60fps on your NV30, with monsters jumping at you from the shadows. Then tell me the models are "too low-poly".

I'll punch you.

[EVIL]

Amen! flathead

[Livo]

Lord FlatHead said:

Jesus Christ, those 3DRealms forums guys are worse than Xian. "Boring 2D texture on wall". THIS IS A GAME, REMEMBER ?? Just because the term "photo-realistic" has been used, people begin expecting 10x more from Doom III than GeForce-level hardware can deliver.

Wait till you're playing it. On a computer. Beautifully animated at >60fps on your NV30, with monsters jumping at you from the shadows. Then tell me the models are "too low-poly".

I'll punch you.

I see nothing photo-realistic about Doom 3 at all. Not even Carmack's next engine will be close to photo-realistic IMO.

Personally, I don't care about the polycount on models that much, unless it's absolutely insane. WHAT you do with the model is what counts, not the polycount. I've seen very nice fairly low-polygon models, as well as very high ones that looked crap.