by you got to give thumb to John Carmack and his tech4 engine, right?? it was doing something revolution, such as normal mapping, and by that combine with real time dynamic lighting, it can make low poly objects appear complex/high poly, in short, using lower power to give the illusion of much higher graphic power!!
1) Doom 3 was already behind the times when it came out. It was seen as old hat in comparison to deeper shooters like Half-Life 2. And on top of that, I don't think it was a particularly good translation. Too many things made it feel like a completely different game than what Doom in 3D should have been.
2) I'm not saying that the final product that is Doom was how id imagined it. I'm saying that the gameplay elements have a certain idiosyncratic nature to them that would be awkward on a modern engine.
Doom 3 was trying anything too new, and it was trying to stay close to its root, some people complaint linear gameplay, but isn't it how classic doom did it back then?? the production team knew they were doing something not too different form the old doom, cause if they did, would you complaint about it being "non-doom"??
and answering to your previous post, when you say "I'd like to know how id expects to take a cartoonish, unrealistically fast, labyrinthine, somewhat surreal, non-representational 2.5d shooter and expect to translate it to today's market."
this is who they did it with Doom 3, they reinvented it, yes, after what we have seen in Doom 3, we can say, hmm, not necessary a good idea, but you have to understand that that was the first time they reinventing doom, and thats the decision they took, and it pretty damn good, we can say it now cause we actually have classic doom and doom 3 on the table to compare. I know, people would have wanting a pure demon butt kicking like the old doom, but isn't that what Id gonna do (I hope :/) in Doom 4?? and Doom 3 is a good game in its own right, just not 100% doom, thats all.