Doom 3's shotgun sound actually wasn't too bad. The problem was that the actual sound always got overlaid with this loud CLUNK sound which people mistake for the actual firing sound. Don't know why that wasn't fixed.
DooM ]I['s shot gun is terrible. The spread is absurd, they literally ignore and change the physics implementation that they first built in that was based on actual shotgun physics for terrain/progression-"balanced" gun that you had to stick literally into the monster's face to get reliable results from because it had a 120 degree spread with birdshot ammo.
Not sure what difficulty you played, but I played it on nightmare and the shotgun left a great deal to be desired, and was literally the first thing I modded.
The shotgun was a catch all dependable weapon that could take anything down eventually with smart play in one and two, in three it was stepping stone weapon only good for monsters that had slow rates of fire like the imp or zombies you could have simply whacked with your flashlight to begin with, and it didn't even pain stagger anything major or threatening past the second difficulty, because it simply didn't do enough damage.
I remember seeing Hamst3r or whomever playing the Lost Episode of the BFG Edition, repeatedly trying to use the shotgun at medium range and usually doing jackshit to imps as a result. It's not that it's useless, it's just that it's such a specific purpose due to its design that it's really awkward to use. Narrowing the spread down to more realistic levels, or even slug accuracy, actually breaks the balance by making the shotgun the most reliable weapon aside from the Rocket Launcher and Plasma Gun all game long. It's pretty obvious they made it so that the Machinegun is usually supposed to be the general all-range weapon for most fights besides close-quarters until you get better aforementioned guns (or even the Chaingun).
Why would the shotgun NOT be the most balanced weapon in the game?
It's the fucking signature weapon.
DooM requires exactly: pissed off marine, shotgun, demons.
Everything else is extra.
Using the plasmacaster for rest of the game would be boring as fuck, which is pretty much what you're required to do, the ML is slow as fuck and has horrendous splash in maps that are 90% enclosed hallways and T junctions, the pistol and MG do NOTHING, and the BFG is slow as and underwhleming as fuck and seriously, grenades?
Three's weapon's progression and balance are simply bad, and don't reflect the franchise at all, simple as.
When your choices are Minigun/Caster/Nothing, there's something wrong. Every weapon should have a secure and natural place else you're literally [I]wasting money[/I] paying people to make them.
[QUOTE=subenji99;45167699] bumpmapping[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=subenji99;45167699]tricks[/QUOTE]
r-really? Where are we drawing the line between what is and what isn't trickery when we're talking about computer graphics, the ultimate art of illusion?
[QUOTE=Lijitsu;45167430]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.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be misinterpreting my defense. Severely. Notice how when I defend Doom III, it's always about the game's visuals. Not the gameplay, which is really really meh. The visuals.
Doom III was one in a handfull of games that took advantage of (at the time) experimental technology and relied on it. Half life 2 was the result of ultra-refined tried and true old methodology, while using some of that new stuff occasionally as a sort of spit shine. Everything under the hood of Doom III helped lay the foundation of real time computer graphics for the future of real time rendering, with some shit still having not changed yet after a decade. Half life 2 really can't claim to do that. Yeah, the art direction had much more direction, but break it all down and what is it really? Maps put together in a souped up Worldcraft and materials that aren't really a step up from anything from what had been around for years before HL2 hit the scene. It had some cool HDR stuff, but that didn't really take the world by storm the way unified lighting and baking high poly detail onto low poly objects did. Doom III, along with EFBB (and maybe even Halo 2 and maaaaybe even Trespasser)
I'm not saying Doom III is a good game when I defend it. I'm saying it's not to be undersold as the technical powerhouse it was. Hell, maybe being that technical powerhouse is part of what made it a sub-par game... I mean, Escape from Butcher Bay exists so that claim can't really work :T
Ok. I'm playing Unreal II right now. Its water was way ahead of its time. It doesn't really hold a candle to HL2's water in terms of looking like water, but vertex displacement in water is a standard now. Meanwhile, all the quirks and issues with HL2's water are double apparent now that vertex animated water is pretty much everything these days. It's like that. I'd defend Unreal II's water for looking the way it did because it sacrificed the convention to pave the future. It's a silly sentiment, but it's exactly what I mean when I say the things I say.
[QUOTE=27X;45170513]Why would the shotgun NOT be the most balanced weapon in the game?
It's the fucking signature weapon.
DooM requires exactly: pissed off marine, shotgun, demons.
Everything else is extra.
Using the plasmacaster for rest of the game would be boring as fuck, which is pretty much what you're required to do, the ML is slow as fuck and has horrendous splash in maps that are 90% enclosed hallways and T junctions, the pistol and MG do NOTHING, and the BFG is slow as and underwhleming as fuck and seriously, grenades?
Three weapon's progression and balance are simply bad, and don't reflect the franchise at all, simple as.
When your choices are Minigun/Caster/Nothing, there's something wrong. Every weapon should have a secure and natural place else you're literally [i]wasting money[/i] paying people to make them.[/QUOTE]
To be completely fair, you have Doom, and then Doom 2 a year later which was basically a promised direct sequel that is really just a gigantic expansion pack sequel. Discounting the Final Doom since they're just fan-made map packs sold for retail with no distinct influence on the series itself, Doom 64 is the only other official game until Doom 3. It was a strong IP for obvious reasons, but I wouldn't of exactly called it a full-blown 'franchise legacy' yet. And I can respect Doom 3 for trying to do its own thing at that.
Yeah, the D3 shottie kinda sucks and infact the weapon set in general is rather underwhelming, but you're coming off as rather angry about these things because they don't compare to the original games rather than taking them at their own merit. Just because the D1&2 Shotgun and Double-Barreled Shotgun are still the kings of shotguns in FPS games to this day doesn't mean a game sucks dinosaur dick because it doesn't have a good shotgun, at least not in my opinion.
Speaking of the D3 arsenal, anyone know of any good mods that alter them rather well without completely making the enemies a pain in the ass as well?
I played the whole Doom 3 (RoE and Lost), and I can tell you how bad the Shotgun is, feels like the worst shotgun in shooters. This thing is the most inconsistent junk, sometimes it nailed an Imp in just 2 shots, and sometimes it failed to kill one on its 2nd shot where it was supposed to kill it already.
I didn't like the way it looked or sounded. It was all weird and smooth and round, and the sound of it didn't have any oomph to it.
[QUOTE=Cows Rule;45171104]I didn't like the way it looked or sounded. It was all weird and smooth and round, and the sound of it didn't have any oomph to it.[/QUOTE]
Thinking about it, I've rarely seen any model replacements for the weapons in D3. There's the occasional mod that does so, but usually those are total conversions or multiplayer-related. Is it a huge pain in the ass to animate or import models into Doom 3 or did the modding scene just not really care enough to do it usually?
D3 is a niche title and making scripts to exactly match your weapon's animation and states is a pain. As for models, straightforward tools were never available til well after the games new car smell had worn off.
[quote] angry [/quote]
Blunt =/= angry.
DooM's weapon balance was rather effective until three. I didn't bother getting mad, I just modded what I wanted, and modded the enemies to be up to the weapon's utilities once I understood how the scripts controlled their behavior.
Doom 3's shotgun was too close range for me, too. It wasn't a pleasant surprise after the shotgun being like a pellet rifle in the earlier games. I can kind of see what they were going for since the levels are fairly claustrophobic, but having a range of like 3 feet was too short to be effective.
[QUOTE=ZeroTimesCookie;45168051]making flying noclipping zombiemen which fire BFG shots is fun in WhackED[/QUOTE]
I have made suicide bombing shotgunners (with accompanying combustible shotgun), demons that walk up to you just to shoot you with a pistol, and cyberdemons that shoot endless streams of homing missiles.
doom 3's shotgun is so awful. you literally had to be touching an imp to 1hk it and even then it sometimes didn't work
[QUOTE=xalener;45170607]You seem to be misinterpreting my defense. Severely. Notice how when I defend Doom III, it's always about the game's visuals. Not the gameplay, which is really really meh. The visuals.[/QUOTE]
Actually I was mixing you up with Talvy. Whoops.
[QUOTE=Lijitsu;45167430]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.[/QUOTE]
The original was my first DooM, but DooM 3 holds a better place in my heart. It's ok not to like the game, just like it's ok to argue why. If I said DooM 1 sucked, everyone would be questioning me too.
I wish id kept the birdman design for the hell knight:
[IMG]http://games.cnews.ru/doom/pics/captures/doomIII-captures37.jpg[/IMG]
Actually, even though this was just a tech demo and not the actual intended look of the game I wish they'd kept it, it looks a lot more lonely and melancholy.
Early version of the CPU level:
[img]http://games.cnews.ru/doom/pics/captures/doomIII-captures35.jpg[/img]
Me and a buddy are messing with Doom, and we're trying to change the difficulty names but the custom pictures don't show up. Can anyone help? I've looked it up and I haven't managed to get an answer.
We're certain they're the same resolutions as the original ones, but maybe the colour palette isn't right.
[QUOTE=Xubs;45176640]it's in the Doom graphic format right? (if you're making this for older engines which I assume)[/QUOTE]
We saved it as bitmap, and they just appeared invisible. I then used WAD Mangle to make it the Doom graphic format, and it just looked all fucked up. (Colours were dark, background wasn't transparent, cut off)
[QUOTE=Xubs;45176699]palette problems
Are you saving it with regular old Paint, or a more advanced editor (like photoshop)?[/QUOTE]
Something more advanced. Paint.NET, that is. My friend is actually the one making the pictures, not sure why I said "we".
EDIT: I'm not fully certain on how to convert an image to a certain palette in Paint.NET, by the way.
[QUOTE=xalener;45170607]
Ok. I'm playing Unreal II right now. Its water was way ahead of its time. [/QUOTE]
Not just the water in that game.
The particles look outstanding, and some like the smoke nades are actually volumetric and react to things like gunfire or explosion shockwaves. And it had an early, kinda rough implementation of dynamic shadows -
(Don't mind the lack of muzzleflash, that's just because of my timing)
[t]http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/577899631174743873/272BF32AF6FD9FA06B34E2E60F0D42C6CF7A05A5/[/t]
Dynamic. Shadows. [B]SOFT[/B] shadows - that are smoother than a lot of modern game's shadow edges now. And this was in 2003. Roughly over a year before Doom 3 came out.
It also has the benefit of a pretty decent artstyle too, but still - volumetric smoke/physics-reacting particles and dynamic soft shadows are something that only reared their head way down the line
For me, it's pretty much:
DOOM 64 > DOOM II > DOOM (Ultimate) > Final DOOM > DOOM 3
And, yes, DOOM 64 is - in my opinion - the best one of the franchise so far.
Might not mean much but the first DOOM I ever played was the shareware version of the original DOOM back sometime in early (or mid) 1994 (and I'll be 32 years-old this summer). Saying this because I did "start playing DOOM" with the original / old ones (well, that would be the first, Ultimate, and DOOM II), but they're not my favorites, although they're amazing anyway. I think that DOOM 64 just hit the nail right on with every single aspects (atmosphere, graphics, sounds, smoothness, levels designs, new weapon, new enemy designs and creepy ambient "music").
As far as DOOM 3 goes I thought that it was [I]alright[/I], could have been much worse, could have been better. I liked the first few moments. At first, you know, DOOM guy "going to work" and things start to go messy, similarly to how it happens in Half-Life with Gordon Freeman. That part was neat, definitely liked the first few moments until (and including) when all hell breaks loose. Then, it starts to get monotonous and too claustrophobic for my tastes. I was also disappointed by the outdoor "levels" (part of levels anyway), they were small, short and underwhelming (but I admit... it's Martian outdoor, got to be boring to look at regardless). Then, near the end of the game when you start seeing (and getting "into") the hell'ish levels I thought that it was finally "back on track" with a definitive "DOOM feel" to the whole thing, I liked it. So overall it was a mixed bag... but it wasn't terrible, it was alright.
To be honest, however, I don't know what I actually "want" from another DOOM. I do welcome the arrival of DOOM IV (or whichever title they're going to give it, be it just [I]"DOOM[/I]" or calling it [I]DOOM IV: This Time It Won't Be Pitch Black[/I]) but I'm not sure if I'd want something fresh for the franchise. I usually agree with the "Don't fix it if it ain't broken" idiom, but as far as the original "working" formula is concerned we've had DOOM II that followed it (that following the original's formula and just expended on it), DOOM 64 (which just made it virtually perfect, for my tastes) and Final DOOM (which in and of itself was also good). And then came DOOM 3 which sort of kept the roots (DOOM guy, Mars, Hell breaks loose after experiment, fight the Cyberdemon) but perhaps tried to change too much without being different enough to allow it (to allow the desired changes that the devs had in mind to work as their intended). I lot of people called (and still do) DOOM 3 a "tech demo", well to a certain extent I do agree, at the time it really was a technically / technologically impressive game... but it was a game... I just think that maybe its technical side stole the "show" because the "show" (game-play, personality, atmosphere) was lacking to distinguish it from the tech aspects.
That's how I see it anyway... still, DOOM 3 wasn't bad, not at all.
Now what I expect from DOOM IV is hmmm... is... well I don't know, time will tell, but I think that I've had my fill with DOOM 64 already.
Ultimate Doom > Doom 64 > Final Doom > Doom 2 > Doom 3
Level design is what really decides these choices for me.
Doom 64's level design is just absolutely fantastic, it also was using some cool specific tech that they coded into the modified engine that allowed stuff to be done at the time that wasn't possible for the community back then.
[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;45180014]Unreal II[/QUOTE]i think i need to play Unreal II now
[QUOTE=xalener;45166842]That's extremely arguable.
[editline]20th June 2014[/editline]
Chrille plz[/QUOTE]
Point was that HL2 impressed me way more back then than Doom 3 did, visually (subjective as it might be). I mean that's the core of the discussion, right? Doom 3 might have more sophisticated programming under the hood, but evidently (as this discussion is a thing) they failed to properly implement that. Probably because it undersold in terms of character detail and low-poly models in order to achieve dynamic shadows and whatnot.
Altough the reason I posted was probably because I felt that you underplayed how good HL2 looked.
My main gripe with HL2 has always been that it feels kind of floaty. You feel more like a camera with a gun attached to it than a person holding a weapon. Half Life 1 didn't really feel that way, but it might have been a combination of good animations and sounds for the weapons.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';45181102]Ultimate Doom > Doom 64 > Final Doom > Doom 2 > Doom 3
Level design is what really decides these choices for me.
Doom 64's level design is just absolutely fantastic, it also was using some cool specific tech that they coded into the modified engine that allowed stuff to be done at the time that wasn't possible for the community back then.[/QUOTE]
While Doom 2 has the worst maps ever, it has the best gameplay enhancements.
For me it's a toss up between Doom and Doom 2.
[QUOTE=TheCombine;45184128]While Doom 2 has the worst maps ever, it has the best gameplay enhancements.
For me it's a toss up between Doom and Doom 2.[/QUOTE]
the chasm for best level in any game ever
Is armor horrendously broken in Doom 3 BFG? I'm getting hit and I lose all this health but my armor barely takes a scratch.
Everything's broken in BFG, you think I'm being all hyperbole and I'm not.
[QUOTE=Xubs;45185145]but Doom 2 is literally the only Doom anyone really mods for in huge amounts anymore, it's got all the best megawads, all the best ZDoom content for it, therefor Doom 2 best Doom game, all the time[/QUOTE]
Is there even any actual advantages to modding Ultimate Doom over Doom II? Doom II has the super shotgun and has a full 32 maps instead of 9 map episodes and a couple new enemies iirc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
