Doom3 System Requirements

[job]

With all the hubbub floating around the net lately about what would and what wouldn't run Doom3, we decided to bring an end to the system requirement confusion and contact the main man, John Carmack, himself. Here is the official word on the minimum system configuration you'll need to run Doom3.
*1GHz CPU
*256MB RAM
*GF1 or Radeon 7xxx series cardDon't expect to run it fabulous with that system setup , but everything will be playable at least.

http://www.3dactionplanet.com/doom/#PQN433439

Hey, maybe those 1Ghz eMacs will be able to run Doom3 afterall. Pffff...yeah right. :p

[Durandal7]

Damn. I knew the requirements would be hefty but still...

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by job
http://www.3dactionplanet.com/doom/#PQN433439

Hey, maybe those 1Ghz eMacs will be able to run Doom3 afterall. Pffff...yeah right. :p

ID's game engines have always been nicer to the less powerful systems. When you turn the graphic quality down on an ID game you get realistic frame increases unlike the Unreal Engine. If they are saying it will be playable with those specs I would say fully that even iBook will be able to play it.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Durandal7
Damn. I knew the requirements would be hefty but still...

That's a 1GHz Intel processor I would make a bet. Meaning that even a 700MHz G3 should be adequate.

[arn]

yep - these are likely PC specs...

so take with a grain of salt.

arn

[job]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Meaning that even a 700MHz G3 should be adequate.

Possibly. A case in point would be Shadowbane. The Mac Mhz requirement was less, but the VRAM was more.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by job
Possibly. A case in point would be Shadowbane. The Mac Mhz requirement was less, but the VRAM was more.

The megahertz used to be less in the 604e time where you only needed 133Mhz to run Unreal, while you needed a 180Mhz Pentium to run it.

Now the needed mega hertz are the same on PCs and Macs, I know people don't want to know this but a P3 is the same speed as a G3 and an AMD Althon XP is the same speed as a G4 clock for clock (according to SPEC benchmarking).

While the game will run on a 1Ghz eMac/iMac, you will have to put all the settings down to min which means you might as well play UT2003 because the graphics will be better. I also heard it will only work on a G4 or G5 because it has AltiVec enhancements and it is too slow on the G3. Anyway it is the graphics card that makes more of a difference in this game, you need a Geforce 3/ATI Radeon 8500 or better to get the most out of the game. There is no way it will run on a ATI 7500M in the ibooks.

[aarond12]

I am truly surprised. I expected to see like a 2.0GHz Pentium 4, 512MB RAM, and a hardware-based OpenGL-compatible video card with at least 64MB RAM.

I wonder how much of the visual processing will be performed by the video cards rather than the CPU?

[Bendit]

processor wise that is.

These days Macs tend to need the same specs and sometimes even more. Probably because developpers aren't too worried about optimizing every last line of code in the mac version since it won't be used for benchmarks or even reviewed much. They just ride off the success of the PC version.

Another reason for needing equivalent processor speeds could be because the developers know that most mac users tend to have pretty crummy video cards (just look at what's offered in the new iMacs or eMacs) and depend more on the processor than the video card.

[bousozoku]

I would certainly hope that my dual G4/800 would be enough to play it, with an upgraded video card. The screenshots they've provided look great.

[Kwyjibo]

this is why I got an xbox, reliable sources say it will go there like a month after the PC drop.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
this is why I got an xbox, reliable sources say it will go there like a month after the PC drop.

There's no way you will get full graphics quality with an XBox. It will be playable but it won't be as pleasing to the eye as a high end graphics card on a good computer.

[Dont Hurt Me]

not bad for minimum reqs, but if you really want to be in the game you need to double them. Doom3 is still going to make a lot of people cry,or rather their computers will be crying when they try to start crunching those numbers.

[Kwyjibo]

Originally posted by MacBandit
There's no way you will get full graphics quality with an XBox. It will be playable but it won't be as pleasing to the eye as a high end graphics card on a good computer.

i'm not a graphics freak at all.... playable is playable to me.

[Das]

Originally posted by MacBandit
There's no way you will get full graphics quality with an XBox. It will be playable but it won't be as pleasing to the eye as a high end graphics card on a good computer.

At the resolution that the Xbox runs at (crummy tv resolution) they should be able to get a good fps with all details. Really, D3 is more resolution scalable than options scalable. Really though, who wants to play with a controller over a mouse and board except a true sadist?

I'll probably be reserving this game for my PC, but if it turns out that my pb 867 can get a good fps, I might give it a go. Right now, I'm less worried about meeting the minimum specs and more about this game meeting the minimum gaming specs (i.e. plot, great action, etc...)

[Bendit]

Originally posted by MacBandit
There's no way you will get full graphics quality with an XBox. It will be playable but it won't be as pleasing to the eye as a high end graphics card on a good computer.

As someone already pointed out, the very low resolution will make the game much faster, and also allow for some detail to be stripped away that wouldn't even be seen anyways, or atleast mess arround with the variable level of detail.

Games on consoles tend to look better then their pc counterparts (at equivalent specs, in this case p3 700mhz and a GeForce 3/4) because it is made for that specific hardware.

Right now in the graphics subroutine there are a ****load of logic paths depending on what kind of video card you have, and each videocard results in a slightly different output.

The xbox only has one video card. And it's a fairly modern one, and it will be used 100%. For example Doom 3 will probably not (atleast not depend) on features that are exclusive to a GeForce 3 or 4, or 5. Because only a few people have them, it takes a couple of years before people start taking advantage of their features.

On the xbox they can use the card to its full potential from the get go.

I think a doom3 port to the xbox is possible with a minimal decrease in graphics quality.

[couch potato]

yeah, the minimum:rolleyes:

the thing is, all id talks about are the graphics, and how great and ground breaking they are. they almost NEVER talk about the gameplay. there is no multiplayer? they must have concentrated on single player, then, rriiight?

but a quote from carmack says that Doom 3 will be shorter than most single player game today. sounds like they concentrated on graphics. so basically the game will be awesome if you can experience the nice visuals. back to reality- a good percentage of the population cant afford a G5 system, or a 2Ghz P4 with a nice radeon 9800 or a geforce fx. so basically, if you ask me, its gonna suck.

but ill just have to wait and see

[iJon]

xbox is a very powerful machine. with the game being optimized just for xbox i would expect it to play very well. and xbox will play doom 3 much better than any ibook or powerbook, probably many old powermacs as well.

iJon

[bousozoku]

Doom on the Atari Jaguar was very, very playable compared to other platforms. I'd expect the same for xBox. Now, if they would do it for GameCube...

[job]

Originally posted by couch potato
the thing is, all id talks about are the graphics, and how great and ground breaking they are. they almost NEVER talk about the gameplay. there is no multiplayer? they must have concentrated on single player, then, rriiight?

I'll be the first to admit, there were parts in the leaked alpha build that scared the everliving **** out of me. Think Resident Evil in first person.

The only other games that have ever made me jump were Clive Barker's Undying (a vastly underrated game IMO) and RtCW (the catacombs at midnight with no one else home and the sound maxed out :eek: ).

[iJon]

no kidding, i couldnt play that game at night, so freaking scary.

iJon

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by couch potato
...........the thing is, all id talks about are the graphics, and how great and ground breaking they are. they almost NEVER talk about the gameplay. there is no multiplayer? they must have concentrated on single player, then, rriiight? .................

I think multiplayer is being reserved for Quake4Arena which should be released next year. I saw a bit of info on it yesterday. It's based on the new Doom engine and it looks totally awesome. Makes UT2003 look like the DoomII.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Das
At the resolution that the Xbox runs at (crummy tv resolution) they should be able to get a good fps with all details. Really, D3 is more resolution scalable than options scalable. Really though, who wants to play with a controller over a mouse and board except a true sadist?


My thoughts exactly. FPS w/a controller?:eek: No thanx. You'd think MS would release a KB&M for the Xbox. Heck, the dreamcast had a KB&M.


Lethal

[Jimong5]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
My thoughts exactly. FPS w/a controller?:eek: No thanx. You'd think MS would release a KB&M for the Xbox. Heck, the dreamcast had a KB&M.


Lethal
I think goldeneye for the N64 worked great with a controler.... It just felt naural, admitadely, it was hard to look up and down, but all the basic functions you needed were there. I actually prefer the N64 controller over a KB and mouse, im just too cheap to get something to hook it up and make it work..

[Pancake]

Originally posted by Jimong5
I think goldeneye for the N64 worked great with a controler.... It just felt naural, admitadely, it was hard to look up and down, but all the basic functions you needed were there. I actually prefer the N64 controller over a KB and mouse, im just too cheap to get something to hook it up and make it work..

Man, Goldeneye was a good game. I played that so much I got to the point where I could take on three people at once and not get killed while killing each of them at least 10 times in a 10 minute game. I'll take a controller over a mouse and keyboard anytime. It all depend on what you played the most on.

These are the Thumbs that Mario built.

I remeber reading that Carmack said that if he optimised Doom 3 for the xbox it would run 30% better than pc with the same specs or something like that. He also mentioned it would come to ps2 or gamecube because they are powerful enough.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by Pancake
Man, Goldeneye was a good game. I played that so much I got to the point where I could take on three people at once and not get killed while killing each of them at least 10 times in a 10 minute game. I'll take a controller over a mouse and keyboard anytime. It all depend on what you played the most on.

These are the Thumbs that Mario built.

I remeber reading that Carmack said that if he optimised Doom 3 for the xbox it would run 30% better than pc with the same specs or something like that. He also mentioned it would come to ps2 or gamecube because they are powerful enough.

The reason the Xbox is 30% faster than a normal 733Mhz PC with Geforce 3 is that it uses hypertransport that helps get rid of a lot of the bottlenecks in PCs(much like the G5). Although the xbox version will not have as good graphics as the Mac/PC/Linux because the computer version supports Directx 9 features and the xbox is only directx 8.

Anyway I don't care about Doom3 anymore, I am now waiting for Half Life 2 which looks to have better graphics and definatly has a better story. The original half life is the most played game in the world, so Apple needs to get someone to port it to the Mac. There is of cource UT2004 coming out at the same time which is a mix of UT2003/Halo/Battlefield 1942 with impoved graphics which should be at least as good or maybe even better than Doom 3's.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by couch potato

the thing is, all id talks about are the graphics, and how great and ground breaking they are. they almost NEVER talk about the gameplay. there is no multiplayer? they must have concentrated on single player, then, rriiight?



There is going to be a multiply, although it will be the same as Quake3 with better graphics and different maps. Adding the multiplayer bit is part of the reason why it is taking so long.

[Sol]

It sounds like Doom 3 will be a polished demo of this new 3D engine. Looking at the Doom 3 movie of E3, the Resident Evil comparison seems spot-on. Blasting zombies seems like a popular theme in the world of modern video games.

I just hope that when it is released this game will play best on G5 systems. A real-world test like the frame-count of this game would impress computer users far more than any Photoshop bake-off.

[Wes]

Originally posted by Sol
It sounds like Doom 3 will be a polished demo of this new 3D engine. Looking at the Doom 3 movie of E3, the Resident Evil comparison seems spot-on. Blasting zombies seems like a popular theme in the world of modern video games.

I just hope that when it is released this game will play best on G5 systems. A real-world test like the frame-count of this game would impress computer users far more than any Photoshop bake-off.

I agree, only problem is that by the time these kind of games get ported to macs, the pc gamers have moved along to the next greatest thing. (Case in point AA, released 1 year ago for pc, but atleast they are going to keep the updates up to speed with the pc version). Also because it's a port, it usually won't run as well as if the code were correctly optimised for the mac.

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by aarond12
I am truly surprised. I expected to see like a 2.0GHz Pentium 4, 512MB RAM, and a hardware-based OpenGL-compatible video card with at least 64MB RAM.


The sick thing is, that at some point in the future, those will be the specs for computer games. Depressing, huh? But I hope by that time, that the graphics are next to perfect...the type of rendering that takes minutes or hours to do now can be processed in real time.

[9hundred]

Originally posted by Wes
I agree, only problem is that by the time these kind of games get ported to macs, the pc gamers have moved along to the next greatest thing. (Case in point AA, released 1 year ago for pc, but atleast they are going to keep the updates up to speed with the pc version). Also because it's a port, it usually won't run as well as if the code were correctly optimised for the mac.

Of course! You are exactly right. The Mac is behind the PC in gaming.

[iJon]

Originally posted by Pancake
Man, Goldeneye was a good game. I played that so much I got to the point where I could take on three people at once and not get killed while killing each of them at least 10 times in a 10 minute game. I'll take a controller over a mouse and keyboard anytime. It all depend on what you played the most on.

These are the Thumbs that Mario built.

I remeber reading that Carmack said that if he optimised Doom 3 for the xbox it would run 30% better than pc with the same specs or something like that. He also mentioned it would come to ps2 or gamecube because they are powerful enough.
its because hte xbox is a computer, and a pretty good one too. it easily performs equally or better with a system with same specs. and with a game optimized just for a xbox will probably play better than most of the macs and your typical pc's near those specs.

iJon

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by couch potato
yeah, the minimum:rolleyes:

the thing is, all id talks about are the graphics, and how great and ground breaking they are. they almost NEVER talk about the gameplay. there is no multiplayer? they must have concentrated on single player, then, rriiight?


From what I've read, which seems very lame to me, is that Doom III is supposedly just Doom I again, with new graphics. What, they couldn't spend 5 minutes to think up a new plot? That was one thing I liked about Half-Life...there was something of a plot integrated between shooting head crabs.

If you read the book Masters of Doom, it gives an interesting look at id Software and the two Johns which started it. From my perspective, id is almost like John Carmack's R&D company for game engines. Cool technology, but sorely lacking on other game playing aspects.

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by job
Possibly. A case in point would be Shadowbane. The Mac Mhz requirement was less, but the VRAM was more.

That's a perfect example. I got a kick out of that. My brother needed at least a 700 MHz machine, while I could run SB on a 350 MHz Mac. However, without a video card upgrade, it wouldn't meet the 32 MB video card limit. Even my 400 MHz Powermac only has 16 MB.

[P-Worm]

Originally posted by Bendit
processor wise that is.

These days Macs tend to need the same specs and sometimes even more. Probably because developpers aren't too worried about optimizing every last line of code in the mac version since it won't be used for benchmarks or even reviewed much. They just ride off the success of the PC version.

Another reason for needing equivalent processor speeds could be because the developers know that most mac users tend to have pretty crummy video cards (just look at what's offered in the new iMacs or eMacs) and depend more on the processor than the video card.

I thought that id was different than that because they optimize for AltiVec and multiple processors. In that case, my Dual 1 Ghz machine should do just fine.

P-Worm

[Wes]

Originally posted by P-Worm
I thought that id was different than that because they optimize for AltiVec and multiple processors. In that case, my Dual 1 Ghz machine should do just fine.

P-Worm

Yes, There is a glimmer of hope, because I, too, have heard that they do SMP and Alti.

[Vlade]

2004!!! NOOOO!!! a year and a half ago it looked good... whats taking so long???

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Wes
I agree, only problem is that by the time these kind of games get ported to macs, the pc gamers have moved along to the next greatest thing. (Case in point AA, released 1 year ago for pc, but atleast they are going to keep the updates up to speed with the pc version). Also because it's a port, it usually won't run as well as if the code were correctly optimised for the mac.

Doom III should make it to the Mac at almost the same time as the PC version. It is not a port it is a bottom up development on the Mac coinciding with the PC development. This is the way ID does there ports. That's why QuakeIII rocks on a Mac. In fact the first Demo ever shown of Doom III was at a MacWorld on a PowerMac.

Also as with QuakeIII it will have SMP and Altivec support.

[blueBomber]

Originally posted by hvfsl
...Although the xbox version will not have as good graphics as the Mac/PC/Linux because the computer version supports Directx 9 features and the xbox is only directx 8.


doom 3 uses opengl, not direct 3D.

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Doom III should make it to the Mac at almost the same time as the PC version. It is not a port it is a bottom up development on the Mac coinciding with the PC development. This is the way ID does there ports. That's why QuakeIII rocks on a Mac. In fact the first Demo ever shown of Doom III was at a MacWorld on a PowerMac.

Also as with QuakeIII it will have SMP and Altivec support.
Beat me to the punch. People need to remember that not everyone ignores/delays/puts no effort into their Mac ports.

Blizzard and id....Blizzard and id...OK, it aint much anymore, but we all know who to blame for a significant chunk of that...

Anyway, I'm pretty shocked by these minimum specs myself. That's really quite astounding when you look at the graphics. What I'm not shocked about is the fact that it's not coming out this year. AFAIK, we haven't even had a new movie for several months.

[Das]

Well, with Half Life2 coming out, I don't mind D3 getting bumped. That much FPS action in one month would give my wrists CT syndrome.

[couch potato]

Originally posted by hvfsl
There is going to be a multiply, although it will be the same as Quake3 with better graphics and different maps. Adding the multiplayer bit is part of the reason why it is taking so long.

um, didnt you hear? either there is no multiplayer or there will be, but it will be no more than 4 players per server. so basically 2 vs 2 or 4 player deathmatch. that sounds like fun to me:rolleyes:


yeah, they probobly are saving it for quake 4. but then i would have to buy two games...:(


is half-life 2 gonna make the mac? last i heard, they were thinking about it:confused:

[BaghdadBob]

Are we sure about the multiplayer? What's your source.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Are we sure about the multiplayer? What's your source.

I haven't heard about Doom III but I do know for a fact that QuakeIVArena will be out next year using the Doom III engine.

[Trekkie]

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
this is why I got an xbox, reliable sources say it will go there like a month after the PC drop.

It will be a cold dark day in hell when MS gets anywhere near my TV

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by Trekkie
It will be a cold dark day in hell when MS gets anywhere near my TV
Don't get a TiVo system.

[blueBomber]

I remember an old story talking about the multiplayer, saying that it would be a max of 4 people. This would seem true considering some of the limitations rumored to be in the engine (not having the ability to put more than 8 characters in a scene comes to mind). But, we will not know for sure until right before it's release. But Carmack is on record saying that the multiplayer will be secondary to the single, and that the deathmatch will be closer to Doom 2 than Quake 3.

Also, about those minimum system specs... umm... when is the last time a cutting edge 3D game ran even playable on minimum system specs? Quake 3 on the PC said it needed at least a 233 Pentium with 32 megs of ram. Not if you call 10 fps playable (which isn't, even by the wildest stretch of the imagination). Double it, and you should be good to go.

[BaghdadBob]

You know, if the limitations on the engine make it so there can only be eight in a room at once I think this might actually mark a good thing for gameplay. I would love to see a more evil, more intelligent version of Doom II than YET ANOTHER strafe-blast-strafe-blast-strafe-blast-strafe-blast spree. There are plenty of those out there to play. Besides, how many guys would you run into at a time in Marathon? And Marathon, IMO, could be PLENTY unnerving.

And as much as I like the idea of ungodly massive levels with hundreds of guys running into eachother and getting blasted into bits, some real good intimate deathmatching is just my style.

I think we've grown so accustomed to what is expected out of a shooter that we can forget that it wasn't always so, and you can't tell me that all of the greatest games you've played came out in the last five years.

Whoever said that bit about "Resident Evil neets FPS" has just my thoughts based on the screenshots/movie. Sounds f***in' GREAT!!

Let the PPP II begin!

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Are we sure about the multiplayer? What's your source.

ID have released press releases talking about the multiplayer supporting up to 32 players, also Gamespy have a lot on it as well. By the way ID offically said that Quake 4 will not come out until 2005 at the eariest. Below is a link
http://www2.cex.co.uk/cex_feature.asp?ct=1&id=6843

Also I know on the PC/Mac/Linux Doom 3 will be an opengl based game but it will use the advanced pixel shaders that Direct X9 also uses. The Xbox version will use Directx 8 which is not as good as Direct X9 or the version of open gl (I think 1.4) being used on the computers.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by couch potato
um, didnt you hear? either there is no multiplayer or there will be, but it will be no more than 4 players per server. so basically 2 vs 2 or 4 player deathmatch. that sounds like fun to me:rolleyes:


yeah, they probobly are saving it for quake 4. but then i would have to buy two games...:(


is half-life 2 gonna make the mac? last i heard, they were thinking about it:confused:

Serria cancel more games than any other company, they cancelled half life for N64, Dreamcast and Mac, the Mac and dreamcast version were finished but they never released because they did not think enough people would buy them.

The only way to get HF2 on the Mac is for Apple to get involved with it.

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by hvfsl
ID have released press releases talking about the multiplayer supporting up to 32 players, also Gamespy have a lot on it as well. By the way ID offically said that Quake 4 will not come out until 2005 at the eariest. Below is a link
http://www2.cex.co.uk/cex_feature.asp?ct=1&id=6843

Also I know on the PC/Mac/Linux Doom 3 will be an opengl based game but it will use the advanced pixel shaders that Direct X9 also uses. The Xbox version will use Directx 8 which is not as good as Direct X9 or the version of open gl (I think 1.4) being used on the computers.
Yeah, I didn't think it would be very id-like to have such limitations in their engine. That said, I stand by my last post (damn geminis always want it both ways, huh?).

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Don't get a TiVo system.

Not to take this thread off topic but why do you say not to get a Tivo system in reply to someone not wanting Microsoft on there TV? Tivo is Linux based not windows. I know this because I have one.

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Not to take this thread off topic but why do you say not to get a Tivo system in reply to someone not wanting Microsoft on there TV? Tivo is Linux based not windows. I know this because I have one.
It was my understanding MS had jumped on the TiVO boat. Maybe it's not related to all systems, but as I understand they are involved. Been too long since I saw it and rather than research it further at the time I filed it under "reasons not to get TiVo."

[Vlade]

Originally posted by hvfsl
the Mac and dreamcast version were finished but they never released because they did not think enough people would buy them.


Can you post a link saying it was done, I was of the understanding it was to hard to port compared to the money they would make, so they canceled it while in early development.

[blueBomber]

Originally posted by Vlade
Can you post a link saying it was done, I was of the understanding it was to hard to port compared to the money they would make, so they canceled it while in early development.

I wouldn't think it would be that hard to port (it is just a heavily modified quake engine after all). Valve probably just didn't want to bother, they were already making truckloads of money off the PC version.

[Sol]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
People need to remember that not everyone ignores/delays/puts no effort into their Mac ports.

The Omni Group should be on your list of companies that do make the effort to polish Mac ports. Giants was the first game on OS X to support Altivec and dual processors. If only every port had those two features...

Ambrosia is another company that comes to mind for their Mac-only and Mac-first games. Enigmo is their latest and the wild-west shooter Billy Frontier is next.

I would also mention Bungie for the Marathon, Oni and Myth games which were all Mac-first but since they are now owned by Microsoft I do not think we can count on them any more. I expect Halo for Mac to be released later than the Windows version and have little or no optimisation for G4, dual processors and the G5.

[maraczc]

Originally posted by Bendit
processor wise that is.

These days Macs tend to need the same specs and sometimes even more. Probably because developpers aren't too worried about optimizing every last line of code in the mac version since it won't be used for benchmarks or even reviewed much. They just ride off the success of the PC version.

Another reason for needing equivalent processor speeds could be because the developers know that most mac users tend to have pretty crummy video cards (just look at what's offered in the new iMacs or eMacs) and depend more on the processor than the video card.

One thing that has to be noted is that a Mac can actually run a game quite well on the minimum requirnments while most PCs can't even though the minimum requirnments are quite low.

So sure a game might have min pc reqs set at Pentium 3 450 MHZ 64 Ram 16 MB GFX Card and min Mac reqs set at G3 600 MHZ 128 Ram 32 MB GFX Card but try playing that game on a 450 MHZ PC.

Unreal Tournument 2003 runs quite well on my iBook and it doesn't even truly meet the minimum requirnments for it to play at all.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
It was my understanding MS had jumped on the TiVO boat. Maybe it's not related to all systems, but as I understand they are involved. Been too long since I saw it and rather than research it further at the time I filed it under "reasons not to get TiVo."

MS might make their own PVR software but they have no relation with Tivo. If anything they would probably like to buy Tivo out as they really don't like Linux. Trust me there is NO reason to not get a Tivo.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Sol
The Omni Group should be on your list of companies that do make the effort to polish Mac ports. Giants was the first game on OS X to support Altivec and dual processors. If only every port had those two features...

Ambrosia is another company that comes to mind for their Mac-only and Mac-first games. Enigmo is their latest and the wild-west shooter Billy Frontier is next.

I would also mention Bungie for the Marathon, Oni and Myth games which were all Mac-first but since they are now owned by Microsoft I do not think we can count on them any more. I expect Halo for Mac to be released later than the Windows version and have little or no optimisation for G4, dual processors and the G5.

MacSoft is now being ran by the guy behind Bungie from back in the day. He has great plans for the company and hopefully we'll be seeing good things from them in the future.

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by MacBandit
MS might make their own PVR software but they have no relation with Tivo. If anything they would probably like to buy Tivo out as they really don't like Linux. Trust me there is NO reason to not get a Tivo.
Other than subscription costs and their little "info sharing" scandal...nonetheless I have taken to be addicted to programming that is on too late for my 4:30 rising -- soon to roll back to 3:30, so very likely I will end up with one anyway.

@ Sol: Yes, I made a thinly-veiled reference to Bungie there, anyone who's seen me post on the subject before knows they are close to my heart, and I greatly resent MS for ********** the Mac community right up the wazoo once again. Ambrosia...well, I've been using their games for several years, but the Counter Strike crowd aint gonna give us kudos for Maelstrom and Escape Velocity and more than they would give props to Realmz....

[Edit] I don't know if TiVo still has subscription costs. I'll do my research when I'm in the market say, by Christmas depending on whether I get my cushy county jail job...

[Trekkie]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Don't get a TiVo system.
Why, becuase it's all based on Linux?

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by Trekkie
Why, becuase it's all based on Linux?
Nevermind/go back a few posts to my flame war with MacBandit.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
Other than subscription costs and their little "info sharing" scandal...nonetheless I have taken to be addicted to programming that is on too late for my 4:30 rising -- soon to roll back to 3:30, so very likely I will end up with one anyway.

@ Sol: Yes, I made a thinly-veiled reference to Bungie there, anyone who's seen me post on the subject before knows they are close to my heart, and I greatly resent MS for ********** the Mac community right up the wazoo once again. Ambrosia...well, I've been using their games for several years, but the Counter Strike crowd aint gonna give us kudos for Maelstrom and Escape Velocity and more than they would give props to Realmz....

[Edit] I don't know if TiVo still has subscription costs. I'll do my research when I'm in the market say, by Christmas depending on whether I get my cushy county jail job...

Hey if you want any info when your getting ready just let me know I'll give you my personal perspective.

Also yes, there are still subscription services but if you get a DirecTV/Tivo it's $5 a month rather then $10. Also with the DirecTV setup you get higher quality video then with any other Tivo setup.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by Vlade
Can you post a link saying it was done, I was of the understanding it was to hard to port compared to the money they would make, so they canceled it while in early development.

The news about half life on the mac and dreamcast is serval years old, Serria said about it in an official statement. They didn't release the dreamcast version because the Ps2 had just come out and the dreamcast had not sold very well. It costs a lot of money to release a game, but since they did not think it would sell they didn't bother. I read this in the official Dreamcast mag in the UK.

The Mac version had a slightly different reason, they had the same dreamcast excuse, but they also said it would cost too much money to keep up the maintainance of the game (keep it patched with the PC version). I read this on Macworld.com a few years back.

Serria also canncelled a PC game a few years that was meant to be a spaceship sim in the Babylon 5 universe. But they canncelled that because said there was too much pirating of their games.

[Dont Hurt Me]

with all this stuff going on with gaming companies you would think apple would do like microsoft and buy some or something. Or perhaps a blockbuster mac only title ( not talking bugdom/ottomatic) Halo like,or Doom3,Half life or whatever. Something that lure's people into mac gaming..................doesnt that news of doom3 next year suck.

[job]

Originally posted by Wes
I agree, only problem is that by the time these kind of games get ported to macs, the pc gamers have moved along to the next greatest thing. (Case in point AA, released 1 year ago for pc, but atleast they are going to keep the updates up to speed with the pc version). Also because it's a port, it usually won't run as well as if the code were correctly optimised for the mac.

The only AAA title I can think of that had a simul. release was Deus Ex. How I love that game, let me count the ways....

Oh, and I don't think DX:IW is going to be any good either. Have you guys seen the interface? They turned a perfectly good PC future/machina RPG in console fodder. Damn Ion Storm.

[job]

Originally posted by hvfsl
The Mac version had a slightly different reason, they had the same dreamcast excuse, but they also said it would cost too much money to keep up the maintainance of the game (keep it patched with the PC version). I read this on Macworld.com a few years back.

The network code for the Mac version of Half-Life was completely different than the PC version and thus would have been incompatable, i.e. Macs would need their own dedicated servers, etc. Apparently Sierra didn't want the Mac version to go ahead due to this reason. Doesn't make any sense to me as we have games today (Dungeon Siege) that are network incompatable with their PC counterparts.

[sacrilicious]

Originally posted by hvfsl
Anyway I don't care about Doom3 anymore, I am now waiting for Half Life 2 which looks to have better graphics and definatly has a better story.

Story?

Dude, it's a FPS. Get your priorities straight. It's all about killing monsters/etcs. :D

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by sacrilicious
Story?

Dude, it's a FPS. Get your priorities straight. It's all about killing monsters/etcs. :D
I will agree with that without even a bit of fecetiousness. I play RPGs for story...and no, I'm not giving square exemptions....anymore.......

I play an FPS to raise my blood pressure.

[iJon]

i cant wait till i cna play the multiplayer at quakecon. i didnt even know doom was suppose to have multiplayer.

iJon

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by iJon
i didnt even know doom was suppose to have multiplayer.

iJon

That's the probable delay.... like stated earlier.
What's hot now? XBox Live, PS2 live, etc >>> multiplayer.
Me thinks Doom3 WASN'T intended to be multiplayer, but suddenly someone at ID stopped the press and thought it necessary to include multiplayer capability.
Cross platform, I hope!

[iJon]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8
That's the probable delay.... like stated earlier.
What's hot now? XBox Live, PS2 live, etc >>> multiplayer.
Me thinks Doom3 WASN'T intended to be multiplayer, but suddenly someone at ID stopped the press and thought it necessary to include multiplayer capability.
Cross platform, I hope!
that makes sense, because my friend who i am goign to quakecon with is a HUGE gamer and he always keeps up with the latest game info and when i told him he was very surprised because neither of us had ever heard anything about doom 3 having multiplayer, we always thought thats what quake is for.

iJon

[BaghdadBob]

@ Macsrgr8: I believe it would be awfully new for id not to have thier multi be cross-platform.

@ iJon: whawhawhaWHAT? IIRC, doom is where the term "Frag" came from. It is the original deathmatch game. I would have been awfully disappointed if III didn't have multi, even if it was limited.

[dextertangocci]

Damn. I knew the requirements would be hefty but still...

What's so hefty about those requirements? Even in 2003?

The actual requirements for the game are like 3 times that anyway:rolleyes:

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been closed yet.

BTW, does anyones MB/MBP also have troubles playing DOOM3's sound through the internal speakers? Mine only works if I connect external speakers or earphones:( This all happened after I installed the universal update patch:(

[paddy]

What's so hefty about those requirements? Even in 2003?

The actual requirements for the game are like 3 times that anyway:rolleyes:

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been closed yet.

BTW, does anyones MB/MBP also have troubles playing DOOM3's sound through the internal speakers? Mine only works if I connect external speakers or earphones:( This all happened after I installed the universal update patch:(

Why did you resurrect an almost 2 year old thread?

[Striderdm1]

hey another Doom3 thread!! ;)
Strider

[sk1985]

That's a 1GHz Intel processor I would make a bet. Meaning that even a 700MHz G3 should be adequate.
Actually when a game has it's minimum specs the PC version is usually able to run the game on a much lower rated machine. The mac version tends to need a more powerful machine to run the game. This at least has been my experience for the most part. The mac version usually needs more ram, a higher powered CPU, and in some cases a faster GPU or one with more memory then it's PC counterpart (it's either a combo of those things or just one of them). Now I'm not saying this is always the case because I'm sure there are some exceptions, but this usually tends to be true. At the very least a mac version of Doom 3 would need a 1 ghz G3 (I don't even know if those exist or a dual processor model) or a 1 Ghz G4 version.

EDIT I didn't see how old this thread is.