-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Two new DOOM 3 XBOX screens
- Thread starter Blazing Sword
- Start date
Gattsu25 said:
While I don't believe it looks anywhere near as good as Halo XBOX/DX8+, it does look a little better on different hardware. When I enable the DX7 path on my 9700 Pro, it looks a bit better than that...but still quite terrible. The colors and lighting are destroyed and the textures have a very different look.
Those shots were not taken from my latest test (which was on a GF2mx), but rather, from a GeForce 4 Go!
for one, you seem to be running that at the lowest graphical settings imaginable while I ran it with everything that I could turn on at the highest and managed to pump out framerates that were comparable to the Xbox version's.
When I ran it with a GF2, I actually had TEXTURES, something wich those screens...uhh...lack. And the polygon count never struck me as that poor, but I don't have HALO (PC) or a GF2MX to test that out anymore...at any rate, what I played was definately comparable to what was released on the xbox, though the xbox version clearly had an advantage. what you're showing looks like nothing I've seen in the PC port and is more comparable to what games looked like back in the voodoo 1 days than what I was playing with that game's demo
Edit: typos and:
In case anyone was wondering, HALO PC + DS2 = Good Fun
When I ran it with a GF2, I actually had TEXTURES, something wich those screens...uhh...lack. And the polygon count never struck me as that poor, but I don't have HALO (PC) or a GF2MX to test that out anymore...at any rate, what I played was definately comparable to what was released on the xbox, though the xbox version clearly had an advantage. what you're showing looks like nothing I've seen in the PC port and is more comparable to what games looked like back in the voodoo 1 days than what I was playing with that game's demo
Edit: typos and:
In case anyone was wondering, HALO PC + DS2 = Good Fun
If they spent enough time on a dx7 path they could have used dot3 and made it look much better than that. I don't think Halo PC is a very good example. Plus doom3 uses stencil shadows and some other effects in register combiners. The technology is there in a dx7 card, its just real slow.
Well, I have a distinct feeling the sales of Doom 3 on the PC is gonna blow the sales of the Xbox version out of the water.
2-3 million sold on the PC. Maybe 500K on Xbox. You're crazy if you think most of the hardcore Doom fans (Don't underestimate how many there are) are gonna make the switch to XBox. Plus Doom 3 on XBox is going to get overshadowed by Halo 2. The 'casuals', as you say, will want Halo 2 instead. I don't blame them. If this was November and Doom 3 was coming out the same week as Halo 2, or after, I don't think I'd be as hyped for Doom 3 either.
Mrbob said:
Ninja Gaiden did around 500K+. I don't know the current sell through. Ninja Gaiden as a very diificult game and as such can be considered hardcore only. Yea there were some casuals mixed into that. I don't see Doom3 in the same category as Ninja Gaiden, therefore it should sell substantially better. If the XBox version turns out well and generates some good buzz, and based on those vids it looks like it should, then I see Doom 3 doing way more than 500k on the Xbox.
I don't think that's true, based on the demo. A lot of other things were reduced, though.
I can't believe what they pulled off on DX7 class hardware though. I am completely, utterly shocked. I still want to see the flashlight in action on one of those cards, though...
CrimsonSkies
Member
Where's the GeForce 2 MX shots?
MaddenNFL64
Member
It looks alright to me. Nowhere near the PC version, but it'll do . Of course, the XBox version will be the version I buy since my PC sucks ass.
. Of course, the XBox version will be the version I buy since my PC sucks ass.dark10x:
> Was it simply a light projecting from your point of view, or was there actually a full
> flashlight model?
Not sure what you mean. Anyway, it's been a while since I've played around with the flashlight. Not since the leak in fact.
> How does the actual beam compare to the current build of Doom 3?
The only thing I can remember is that there were three different textures you could use to alter the look of it.
> the only thing I was able to find was that the NV10 path (which a GF2mx will end up
> using) does not support the usage of vertex shaders.
Vertex shaders are used for T&L, animation, extruding shadow volumes (on more powerful cards). These are all things that can be done on the CPU. Pixel shaders could be a problem if Doom 3 wasn't designed around the DX7 featureset.
> If what cyba says is true, it should be possible to display these types of visuals on the
> PS2 hardware.
Stencil shadows, yes. Per-pixel lighting/bump-mapping, no. That said, I think id's reasoning for not bringing Doom 3 to PS2/GC is nonsense. They claimed you couldn't get the full experience on those systems and while at least a PS2 version would look different I think it could still work well in its own right (think Silent Hill). Of course, you're not gonna get them to admit that M$ paid them off.
> If Doom 3 really can display all of those effects properly on a GF2mx, I will never again
> doubt the power of id.
I wouldn't praise id on the basis of lazy programming. I mean the ground in some of those Halo shot doesn't even have textures! There's sure as hell nothing preventing you from using textures in DX7.
m0dus:
> yes it does.
No it doesn't.
> Progressive scan is the technology which has been used in computer monitors for years.
I know what progressive scan is. Progressive scan eliminates line flickering and reduces the visibility of scanlines but the effective resolution is the same.
> It seems plainly idiotic to pander on about how you can achieve high visual quality
> settings at slide show framerates
The point is that the Xbox version is severely downgraded. And Doom 3 running on a 32 mb GF2 MX just helps illustrate that. I'm not much a PC gamer myself (graphical adventures are the only types of games I enjoy on PC) so I can certainly understand the appeal of playing on a big screen tv but whether you like it or not Doom 3 on Xbox does not look anywhere near as good as Doom 3 on PC.
> Was it simply a light projecting from your point of view, or was there actually a full
> flashlight model?
Not sure what you mean. Anyway, it's been a while since I've played around with the flashlight. Not since the leak in fact.
> How does the actual beam compare to the current build of Doom 3?
The only thing I can remember is that there were three different textures you could use to alter the look of it.
> the only thing I was able to find was that the NV10 path (which a GF2mx will end up
> using) does not support the usage of vertex shaders.
Vertex shaders are used for T&L, animation, extruding shadow volumes (on more powerful cards). These are all things that can be done on the CPU. Pixel shaders could be a problem if Doom 3 wasn't designed around the DX7 featureset.
> If what cyba says is true, it should be possible to display these types of visuals on the
> PS2 hardware.
Stencil shadows, yes. Per-pixel lighting/bump-mapping, no. That said, I think id's reasoning for not bringing Doom 3 to PS2/GC is nonsense. They claimed you couldn't get the full experience on those systems and while at least a PS2 version would look different I think it could still work well in its own right (think Silent Hill). Of course, you're not gonna get them to admit that M$ paid them off.
> If Doom 3 really can display all of those effects properly on a GF2mx, I will never again
> doubt the power of id.
I wouldn't praise id on the basis of lazy programming. I mean the ground in some of those Halo shot doesn't even have textures! There's sure as hell nothing preventing you from using textures in DX7.
m0dus:
> yes it does.
No it doesn't.
> Progressive scan is the technology which has been used in computer monitors for years.
I know what progressive scan is. Progressive scan eliminates line flickering and reduces the visibility of scanlines but the effective resolution is the same.
> It seems plainly idiotic to pander on about how you can achieve high visual quality
> settings at slide show framerates
The point is that the Xbox version is severely downgraded. And Doom 3 running on a 32 mb GF2 MX just helps illustrate that. I'm not much a PC gamer myself (graphical adventures are the only types of games I enjoy on PC) so I can certainly understand the appeal of playing on a big screen tv but whether you like it or not Doom 3 on Xbox does not look anywhere near as good as Doom 3 on PC.
Well, in the final game, the flashlight is just that; an actual flashlight held in your hands. I was simply curious as to whether that model was present in the leak or not. I doubt it, though. Probably was handled much like Half-Life or something...
Yeah, that's true. Those operations were quite possible when simply using the CPU, so it clearly isn't a problem.
Heh, you're not kidding. Gearbox did a terrible job handling the fixed function render path for Halo PC. I guess that is like a worst case scenario.
I wonder how it would run on a 32mb GF2mx? Probably a lot of additional HDD access due to lack of video memory.
jedimike said:It's impossible to argue image quality... but to me, the difference is certainly minor not severe.
This is severe...
That is also NOT how the game looked on my GF2MX....i said it before but I don't know what the hell kinda settings dark took those screens at but when I played on a GF4 it had !!! textures!!
That pic is worse than N64!