The doom 3 myths...

Discussion in 'Games' started by Soulstorm, Mar 19, 2005.

  1. Soulstorm macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #1
    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:
    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.

    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!

    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...
     
  2. oingoboingo macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #2
    An excellent post. +5 Insightful.

    (Currently playing Doom 3 on my G5)
     
  3. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #3
    Out of curiosity, have you tried running it on the dual 1.25 G4?
     
  4. Soulstorm thread starter macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #4
    no. I intended to, but then I realized that my card was ATI 9200, which doom does not support. But when I have the chance, I will give it a shot (I would be amazed if it ran at all!)

    One thing I realized though. Frames per second do not necessarily measure the gameplay's smothness. There are some games that cannot be played at 20 fps. Fortunately, Doom 3 does, and we owe that to Aspyr.

    EDIT: Can anyone tell me how do I enable the console in the game? The tilde key does not work!
     
  5. GonzoRob macrumors 6502

    GonzoRob

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    #5
    i have just run doom3 on my 1.5ghz 12" powerbook .. it has 1.25 gig of ram. The game is very playable at low detail and res (15-25fps) .
    Pity the game-play isnt too hot. :)

    anyway, UT2004 is a much better buy for fps fans, it has tons of mods and runs at full detail and res perfectly. But, thats just me ...

    if doom3 can run ok then i guess WoW should be alright also :D


    Rob
     
  6. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #6
    Control+Option+~
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    Tigers coming and it looks like Tiger will let the game take over the machine instead of Panthers you can only use some of this Mac for Gaming :) Things are getting better
     
  8. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #8
    Lack of 5.1 surround sound makes Doom3 a little boring. Need cards for the Mac.
     
  9. DavidLeblond macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #9
    I've read that Mac's OpenGL implementation is flawed. Any truth to that?
     
  10. Soulstorm thread starter macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #10
    As far as anything else but gaming is concerned the answer is that apple's OpenGL implementation is perfect. But when our subject is games, well things are a little messy here. Here are a good startup points, but you need to make a research of your own. There are a lot I would explain but it would take much much time!

    http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/54334
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=114544
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=113915
     
  11. Chaz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    #11
    That's a really heated topic which comes up a lot because Mac games tend to be slower and choppier than their PC counterparts. What it really boils down to is that no one has ever built a game engine specifically for the Macintosh that takes full advantage of OpenGL.

    The most informed discussions take place over at arstechnica.com ...look anywhere else and you have to weed through a lot of uneducated posts by teenagers.
     
  12. TheGimp macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Location:
    anywhere, usa
    #12
    The low fps is not as apparent in Doom 3 because of the dark environments. One expects more of a stop-motion (almost strobe-like) effect in the dark, as when a car drives by in real life.
     
  13. Soulstorm thread starter macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #13
    Just for the record... When I try to run UT2004 at anything less than 20 fps (in an old computer of mine), the mouse not only lags, but it becomes pretty inaccurate in movements. This does not happen with doom 3.

    Wait for Tiger, then we'll see if the game is worth whining for...
     
  14. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #14
    So what happens when we play Doom 3 with our dual-core G5s? Doom 3 is only going to use 1 core? ID missed the ball when they did not write for multiple processors. Dual-core chips are the future.

    What happens when the PowerMac gets updated with dual dual-core chips? Doom 3 can only utilize 1/4 of the PM? That's ludicrous.
     
  15. Phat_Pat macrumors 68000

    Phat_Pat

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Location:
    I Live Where I Live
    #15
    At Ultra high :eek:

    I might have to try this.....
     
  16. Soulstorm thread starter macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #16
    Yeah, at Ultra High (anti-aliasing disabled, of course).
    The game is really playable, although sometimes it slows down when imps (with the fireballs) come to the screen. But as I said, this must be a bug that will be eliminated.

    Wait for Tiger...
     
  17. benpatient macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    #17
    ultra quality by definition requires anti-aliasing on the PC version. If you go in and turn it off, then it is no longer truly "ultra" quality. And honestly, the difference between ultra and high quality (visually) is less than the difference between 30 and 32 fps.

    In fact it is mainly using more advanced texture filtering and anti-aliasing...that's the main difference between the two. You'd be better off with "high", or actually, "medium" with the resolution bumped up one notch. that should result in the same FPS for most set-ups...but a much better visual experience...
     
  18. Phat_Pat macrumors 68000

    Phat_Pat

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Location:
    I Live Where I Live
    #18
    One thing i notice at Ultra is hat the bodies dissappear almost as soon as they hit the ground. (The humans; i relieze that the demons dematrialize... :rolleyes: )
     
  19. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #19
    You need a video card with 512MB RAM for Ultra High quality to be of any use. Ultra High and High Quality are virtually indistinguishable during normal game play. Looking forward to the next gen video cards that can provide 1600x1200 high quality with 4xAA at average 60 fps performance.
     
  20. ACED macrumors member

    ACED

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    #20
    only if our Macs are up to it, unlike now. Couldn't stand more humiliation for hardware not being up to it.
     
  21. Soulstorm thread starter macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #21
    I think that the 512 mbytes RAM applies for physical Computer RAM and not Video RAM...
     
  22. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #22
    They're not kidding. The textures for High Quality already saturate the 6800GT/X850XT's 256MB RAM. And that's under the assumption that the GPU is strong enough (e.g. bogus 5700's with 256MB RAM, the VRAM is not helping). Only the 512MB 6800Ultra's or X850XT's, which have been tech previewed but not released, can handle the Ultra High texture sizes without resorting to swap files.

    512MB of physical RAM is not a recommendation, it is a requirement. Playing this game with 1GB physical RAM, on the other hand, is within the norm if you want to get rid of stuttering between rooms; and if you want to even have a chance of playing MP.

    Here's the rumormill on these cards, but I expect an official announcement by ATi/nVidia within the next few weeks:

    http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/about49776.html [nVidia]
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21438 [ATi]
     

Share This Page