Soulstorm
Mar 19, 2005, 04:21 AM
First of all, I must say that i'm a big fan of FPS games, so you are reading this post from a person who (despite his age of 19 years) has spent 9 years playing FPS games approximately 70% of the time he can spend on gaming. I have played many fps's, all classic fps (i mean all of them) and I have seen many junk.
Let's move on...
Myth 1:
Aspyr has not made a good port of doom 3 on the mac
Wrong. Actually, the port is rock solid, and flawless. As far as performance is concerned, look at my system specs below. You will notice that I use 9600XT. Well, I can tell you that I play doom 3 in high quality settings, in 1024x768 resolution, and the game is actually playable!! (Fighting imps slows down the computer a bit, but this is because of a flaw in the lightning programming of the imp's fireball, which is something i expect to be fixed soon)... this is outstanding performance (in my opinion, always) from a card that costs 150 euros (180 dollars, i think). And look at my RAM!
At this point, I must say that i'n not going to give FPS numbers. Frames per second and Playability have much different meaning.
Aspyr did a great port. With 6800Ultra the game can reach approximately 60 fps. This is not aspyr's failure, it think it is a success. "However, PC's still outperform mac in this game". Yes, they do. But this happens in all games, and not just doom 3. We have to live with that. And let's not forget that performance updates are scheduled to be released for the mac. And tiger looks promising on this matter too! So, let's not blame aspyr.
They should make it support dual processors
No. They shouldn't. Recently, I read an article about Unreal Engine 3 going to support both processors, and the things I read in there (EDIT: Here is the link: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2377&p=3) made me realize that it is more complicated than it seems. A game designed to support only one processor cannot be ported into supporting two of them, without having to write the game completely from scratch. That would take time, and MUCH money.
Epic says that it is extremely difficult to program anything to support both processors. It is easy to asign other aspects (the sound, the AI) to a second processor, but splitting the graphic processing into two processors and then unifying the result into one piece flawlessly in order to be displayed on screen requires one-two years of work. Imagine how difficult it would be for Aspyr to do that for a game that was designed to take advantage only one processor!
Doom 3 is a good game
Yes and no. The first thing I see when playing doom 3 is it's graphics, which are outstanding. Yes, they look great. But how far has id pushed doom 3? (the things I say here apply for both PC versions and Macs-Yes, I have played both versions into high-end machines).
Not really far. Let's make a comparison between Unreal Tournament 2004 (which has one of the most popular game engines) and Doom 3.
As far as the engine is concerned, I admit that Doom 3 has a better graphics engine than Unreal. But how much better?? Are Doom 3 Graphics SOOOOO much better than unreal tournament's that they can justify so high system requirements? IMHO no, they arent. Unreal tournament has great graphics, and they do not come at the cost of performance, as doom 3 does. Unreal tournament also has great textures, and great environments (indoors and outdoors) and metals have almost the same metallic-like feeling with doom 3's. So, what's the fuss?
Also, Unreal Engine 2 has been designed to support indoor environments as much as outdoors. And performance between interiors and exteriors is pretty much the same. But, when was the last time I saw an outdoor environment in Doom 3? I don't recall any. The only thing that doom 3 does MUCH better that UT engine is it's shadows, but I don't concider that enough to justify the high-end system it needs to run.
As far as gameplay is concerned, I think that all unreal games are the winner. Because of the playability, the way you can move, and all levels give you the feeling that you can explore all aspects of them. Doom 3 makes me believe that is really afraid to show its capabilities into vast and large rooms.
Also, the game becomes repetitive after a while. And at some point, you lose the interest of finifhing it.
And now, a final question. How much sucess would doom 3 have, if not so much publicity would be given into its graphics engine? I know I bought it because it is a good game. But is is not what they told me it would be.
I expect your opinion upon this matter.
EDIT: Oh, and, now I run my doom 3 at Ultra high with 1024x768 (all advanced options on except anti-aliasing which is off.) My gaming experience is still the same...
Let's move on...
Myth 1:
Aspyr has not made a good port of doom 3 on the mac
Wrong. Actually, the port is rock solid, and flawless. As far as performance is concerned, look at my system specs below. You will notice that I use 9600XT. Well, I can tell you that I play doom 3 in high quality settings, in 1024x768 resolution, and the game is actually playable!! (Fighting imps slows down the computer a bit, but this is because of a flaw in the lightning programming of the imp's fireball, which is something i expect to be fixed soon)... this is outstanding performance (in my opinion, always) from a card that costs 150 euros (180 dollars, i think). And look at my RAM!
At this point, I must say that i'n not going to give FPS numbers. Frames per second and Playability have much different meaning.
Aspyr did a great port. With 6800Ultra the game can reach approximately 60 fps. This is not aspyr's failure, it think it is a success. "However, PC's still outperform mac in this game". Yes, they do. But this happens in all games, and not just doom 3. We have to live with that. And let's not forget that performance updates are scheduled to be released for the mac. And tiger looks promising on this matter too! So, let's not blame aspyr.
They should make it support dual processors
No. They shouldn't. Recently, I read an article about Unreal Engine 3 going to support both processors, and the things I read in there (EDIT: Here is the link: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2377&p=3) made me realize that it is more complicated than it seems. A game designed to support only one processor cannot be ported into supporting two of them, without having to write the game completely from scratch. That would take time, and MUCH money.
Epic says that it is extremely difficult to program anything to support both processors. It is easy to asign other aspects (the sound, the AI) to a second processor, but splitting the graphic processing into two processors and then unifying the result into one piece flawlessly in order to be displayed on screen requires one-two years of work. Imagine how difficult it would be for Aspyr to do that for a game that was designed to take advantage only one processor!
Doom 3 is a good game
Yes and no. The first thing I see when playing doom 3 is it's graphics, which are outstanding. Yes, they look great. But how far has id pushed doom 3? (the things I say here apply for both PC versions and Macs-Yes, I have played both versions into high-end machines).
Not really far. Let's make a comparison between Unreal Tournament 2004 (which has one of the most popular game engines) and Doom 3.
As far as the engine is concerned, I admit that Doom 3 has a better graphics engine than Unreal. But how much better?? Are Doom 3 Graphics SOOOOO much better than unreal tournament's that they can justify so high system requirements? IMHO no, they arent. Unreal tournament has great graphics, and they do not come at the cost of performance, as doom 3 does. Unreal tournament also has great textures, and great environments (indoors and outdoors) and metals have almost the same metallic-like feeling with doom 3's. So, what's the fuss?
Also, Unreal Engine 2 has been designed to support indoor environments as much as outdoors. And performance between interiors and exteriors is pretty much the same. But, when was the last time I saw an outdoor environment in Doom 3? I don't recall any. The only thing that doom 3 does MUCH better that UT engine is it's shadows, but I don't concider that enough to justify the high-end system it needs to run.
As far as gameplay is concerned, I think that all unreal games are the winner. Because of the playability, the way you can move, and all levels give you the feeling that you can explore all aspects of them. Doom 3 makes me believe that is really afraid to show its capabilities into vast and large rooms.
Also, the game becomes repetitive after a while. And at some point, you lose the interest of finifhing it.
And now, a final question. How much sucess would doom 3 have, if not so much publicity would be given into its graphics engine? I know I bought it because it is a good game. But is is not what they told me it would be.
I expect your opinion upon this matter.
EDIT: Oh, and, now I run my doom 3 at Ultra high with 1024x768 (all advanced options on except anti-aliasing which is off.) My gaming experience is still the same...
