-snip-
I guess it's pretty obvious by now that nobody here knows anything about DooM 3 mapping...
Is there some DooM 3 mapping community that's still alive?
Does doom3world.com have forums? Is its community still active?
[QUOTE=Talvy;45156128]Dammit people, is there anything you don't hate about DooM 3? :(
So far the visuals were shit, map design was shit, horror was shit, action was shit, gore was shit, and weapons were shit.
That doesn't sound at all like the 8.5/10 success DooM 3 was. :/[/QUOTE]
You're going to have a difficult time finding people who grew up on Ultimate Doom/Doom II that don't think Doom 3 was a massive let down. At best you're going to find a couple who liked it and a somewhat larger portion of people such as myself who thought it wasn't bad but that it didn't feel at all like a Doom game. There's a reason why Doom 3 is more or less dead after ten years while the older ones are still alive after two decades.
Just beat Pirate Doom, that was amazing. A friend of mine was in the credits too.
Have any cool map packs come out lately? I haven't been keeping up.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;45159291]You're going to have a difficult time finding people who grew up on Ultimate Doom/Doom II that don't think Doom 3 was a massive let down. At best you're going to find a couple who liked it and a somewhat larger portion of people such as myself who thought it wasn't bad but that it didn't feel at all like a Doom game. There's a reason why Doom 3 is more or less dead after ten years while the older ones are still alive after two decades.[/QUOTE]
I actually grew up with Doom and Doom 2 and I personally love Doom 3. I thought it was an interesting take on the doom universe.
[QUOTE=CountChocula651;45159471]I actually grew up with Doom and Doom 2 and I personally love Doom 3. I thought it was an interesting take on the doom universe.[/QUOTE]
Do note how I accounted for that. You're in a severe minority of the people I described.
Sigh, DOOMEdit refuses to save my map files with their original names and locations... they all go in [I]Data (D:)/Programs[/I], with the name "Doom 1.3.1", instead of [I]Doom 3 1.3.1/base/maps[/I].
Guess it's the time for another reinstallion! :suicide:
[QUOTE=Alice3173;45159484]Do note how I accounted for that. You're in a severe minority of the people I described.[/QUOTE]
This shit stops me from posting more regularly, there's always some wiseass trying to debunk everything said with a contradictory statement EVEN when you've spent a great deal of time writing your post to cover all angles.
why did they even ditch Trent Reznor's sounds for Doom 3 they were way better
Still waiting for admin approval to Doomworld forums...
Now I'm trying to figure out why can't I change the volume of speakers with the [I]s_volume[/I] tag.
[editline]edit[/editline]
Figured that the volume can only be lowered from its default state. It's the same with all games... WHY?
[QUOTE=Cone;45161061]why did they even ditch Trent Reznor's sounds for Doom 3 they were way better[/QUOTE]
I'm not familiar with his NIN music, but everything he does with movies or games is fucking phenomenal.
The soundtracks to the original Quake and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (give it a listen) in particular. Not having him on Doom 3 was a huge mistake.
[QUOTE=Cone;45161061]why did they even ditch Trent Reznor's sounds for Doom 3 they were way better[/QUOTE]
Because he didn't make them for free.
I don't trust id Software at all to create a Doom sequel, I'd rather see some other enthusiastic studio creating it, similar to the latest Wolfenstein.
I want it to be good, but the pessimist says it's going to try a "new take" on Doom like Doom 3 did. And do so badly.
I'm afraid of them going open world and it being Rage like.
tbh I didn't really like the cyberdemon's head shape in the teaser
[t]http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lna0xjcun91qjpo7uo1_500.jpg[/t]
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Cyberdemon_Doom2.jpg[/t]
The old art would be perfectly fine to use for the design. It doesn't look outdated at all.
Well, maybe the top one, the doom 2 cover art looks too much like he's got cyber-undies.
how hard is it to just make spectacular, recognisable remakes of the original designs
this isn't fucking Warhammer, you don't need to shoehorn grimdark into everything
[editline]20th June 2014[/editline]
Serious Sam 3 got it right imho
i'd actually be fine with the teaser cyberdemon design if they gave it hooves
I don't like the cyberdemon's head shape in the original. Looks far too goofy.
^ I agree. No professional artist should be forced to do some shit someone already did exactly how they did it. For one, it's am insult to them, and for two, why fucking have them if the job Is already done?
[QUOTE=Joazzz;45158294]in my opinion it looks terrible. everything looks like it's made literally out of plastic. which is precisely what i said in my original post.[/QUOTE]
It's 10 fucking years old you plonk. Normal maps were voodoo magic, and specular maps were rare. Bitching about doom 3's plastic look is like bitching that early cell phones didn't have screens.
I liked the aesthetic, I loved the base designs in both Doom 3 and Quake 4. They had a good, heavy industrial feel paired with looking futuristic, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Ghost101;45165676]I liked the aesthetic, I loved the base designs in both Doom 3 and Quake 4. They had a good, heavy industrial feel paired with looking futuristic, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that just about every area looks the same.
[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;45164118]tbh I didn't really like the cyberdemon's head shape in the teaser
The old art would be perfectly fine to use for the design. It doesn't look outdated at all.
Well, maybe the top one, the doom 2 cover art looks too much like he's got cyber-undies.[/QUOTE]
I like the new design except for the horns, they make the cyber look like a moose.
[QUOTE=Xubs;45165081]Compare Doom 3 to Half-Life 2. Both a few months from each other in the same year. Half-Life 2 [I]default[/I] looks infinitely more realistic than Doom 3 ever did in every single aspect of its graphics.
Its plasticness wasn't called out at the time because its shadows were a new novelty and graphics of those standards were rare, but they COULD do better at the time, and Half-Life 2 proves that.
It's a perfectly valid complaint.
Of course HL2 is a completely different game aesthetically, but there are still aspects of the graphics which are better in HL2 than they are in Doom 3, like facial animation. I'm just using HL2 as a point that graphical design in games aren't all about shaders, and Doom 3's aesthetic frankly sucks. It looks ugly. It's a problem with the game's actual design itself.[/QUOTE]
Do you remember what vanilla 2004 hl2 looks like? I guarantee its not what you remember.
[QUOTE=xalener;45166814]Do you remember what vanilla 2004 hl2 looks like? I guarantee its not what you remember.[/QUOTE]
I do. It looked way better than Doom 3 does.
[QUOTE=xalener;45166814]Do you remember what vanilla 2004 hl2 looks like? I guarantee its not what you remember.[/QUOTE]
I remember what I thought back then. The game looked phenomenal. My jaw dropped when I saw the trailer and the reflective floors of the train station were shown.
That's extremely arguable.
[editline]20th June 2014[/editline]
Chrille plz
[QUOTE=xalener;45166842]That's extremely arguable.
[editline]20th June 2014[/editline]
Chrille plz[/QUOTE]
Was Doom 3 your first Doom game or something? You seem to be just about taking it personally that people don't like the game - either as a Doom game or just in general.
Doom 3 went balls to the wall crazy with bumpmapping on almost every texture, masking the (sometimes drastically) low polycount of the underlying models. HL2 only used such tricks sparingly.
The Doom 3 shotgun was the least satisfying FPS shotgun in existence. That's my main gripe :v:
[QUOTE=Xubs;45165081]Compare Doom 3 to Half-Life 2. Both a few months from each other in the same year. Half-Life 2 [I]default[/I] looks infinitely more realistic than Doom 3 ever did in every single aspect of its graphics.
Its plasticness wasn't called out at the time because its shadows were a new novelty and graphics of those standards were rare, but they COULD do better at the time, and Half-Life 2 proves that.
It's a perfectly valid complaint.
Of course HL2 is a completely different game aesthetically, but there are still aspects of the graphics which are better in HL2 than they are in Doom 3, like facial animation. I'm just using HL2 as a point that graphical design in games aren't all about shaders, and Doom 3's aesthetic frankly sucks. It looks ugly. It's a problem with the game's actual design itself.[/QUOTE]
envmapping is actually cheaper than point specular so idk what you're saying hl2's BDRF about 'better' - envmaps don't play well with dynamic lighting well and its transitions are jagged and at the best of times they're rough approximations of the surrounding environment
doom 3 was (in a techincal perspective) better than half life 2 on pretty much every visual front
[QUOTE=subenji99;45167699]Doom 3 went balls to the wall crazy with bumpmapping on almost every texture, masking the (sometimes drastically) low polycount of the underlying models. HL2 only used such tricks sparingly.[/QUOTE]
they're not tricks and it's a shame that valve still relied on last-last-last gen workflows with HL2 instead of taking full advantage of pixel shaders
Did the Shotgun fucking blow ass in HL2?
No?
Then HL2 >>>> Doom 3
(i'm just fucking around btw don't mind me :v:)
making flying noclipping zombiemen which fire BFG shots is fun in WhackED
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
