Doom 3. Is it worth it?

Stg Granite

Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Old already. But I've always thought about geting it.
Oh, man, such beautiful graphics which seem to stand up even by today's standards!!
But, tell me, do you think it's worth it? Is it worth its name?
 
It's a DOOM game, and as the franchise's history tells us, it's not trying to be a breakthrough in discovering the cure for cancer.

DOOM 1- Awesome display of VGA graphics for the windows OS, run around, get alittle sweaty when your about to die, kill things from hell.

DOOM 2 - Doom 1 but with more guns and levels.


DOOM 3- Awesome display of the 3rd generation video cards capabilities, Scary sometimes, shoot things, Multi-player option.


If you like these qualities in a game, DOOM is the game for you!
 
Yeaaaaah I was unable to finish D3... *sighs* I guess I'm just tired of the horror FPS deal.
 
Doom 3 contains a lot of cheap and predictable scares for the most part. Some people find it very scary though. I personally think it's a very mediocre game and I enjoyed other D3 engine games much more (Quake 4, Prey).
 
Doom 3 does look nice. And it was fun to see the old monsters reimagined in a more realistic 3d way.

However, I didn't like it and didn't finish it. #1 disappointment was that the game was nothing but endless corridors. The thing I loved most about the old Dooms was the creative level design, which used wide-open spaces, huge vertical changes, shelves, pits, towers... Doom 3 is corridors. That's it. Go forward, the lights go off, monster pops out of hidden cupboard, shoot, go forward some more.

The first hour of gameplay is great. Then, downhill fast.

misteryo
 
I liked Quake 4 a lot more than Doom3. I just don't enjoy having to use a fucking flashlight. But, some parts of it was ok and the graphics and physics (like when you can see the shockwave from an exploding rocket, and a dead body sort of riding it away from the center of the explosion) were breathtaking. The PDAs were fun sometimes, the little bad ass bodyguard side story was mildly entertaining, but as noted previously, the lack of larger rooms or open spaces is annoying.
 
I liked doom 3. It wasn't anything like it's predecessors but it was fun. so yeah, i liked it, much more then Prey or Quake 4.
 
I played Doom 3. I had nightmares about blood filled rooms and flying jellyfish monsters. :o
 
It isn't scary, and the Doom 3 engine is only good for corridors so the level design sucks.

It's not a horrible game, just incredibly generic and boring, it doesn't help that they made the art design more subdued in comparison to its predecessors and redesigned the monsters into their "cool" counterparts where they look just like any other monster in the FPS scene.
It feels very, very generic, on the other hand, the shooting is satisfying and it has a gloomy atmosphere with impressive lighting (for 2004).

Unless you want to play a glorified tech demo, I suggest you pass it over, it's just id Tech 4 with a small layer of gloss in order to justify putting it on store shelves.

EDIT: The graphics don't stand up by today's standards, the textures are relatively low res and the character models are blocky, the only reason it still might look good is because the lighting tends to make it more difficult to see the flaws in he graphical design, in other words, it's too dark to fucking see anything.
 
Eyenixon said:
EDIT: The graphics don't stand up by today's standards

Because the Doom 3 was first released for Microsoft Windows on August 3, 2004. Long time ago. :)

But I must agree with this one:

, the textures are relatively low res and the character models are blocky, the only reason it still might look good is because the lighting tends to make it more difficult to see the flaws in he graphical design, in other words, it's too dark to fucking see anything.

Way too dark...
 
I was directly responding to the OP where it says "Oh, man, such beautiful graphics which seem to stand up even by today's standards!!"

They may do so in videos, but when you're playing the game on your PC without the quality loss of a video, the problems become apparent and you realize that it is indeed, a game released in '04.
 
I am not going over the graphics to much, a game can have VGA graphics but if it still looks good then I am not going to complain it's not current gen.

Doom 3 itself.
Well it's an okay game, nothing really to special.

You can probably get a good couple of nights out of it and its expansion but I honestly don't think people will come back to it once they have finished both.

Not really much lastability.

A while ago some modders were working on recreating Doom 1 into Doom 3 but I do not know what came of that project.

Personally I found Quake 4 rather average, it looked good but it honestly did not have anything to set it apart from other Sci-Fi shooters.
 
Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey and Chronicles of Riddick all use the same engine, and to me they all pretty much blend into one mediocre FPS with strong shadows and a whole lotta dark. Of these, I haven't completed Riddick, and don't think I ever will.

Doom 3 took the cake though, for being completely unlike its prequels, and being far more like a sequel to System Shock 2.
 
You could see things in System Shock 2 and there was variety, Doom 3 is too dark corridors with endlessly repetitive gunplay, it didn't even have the virtue of interesting level design to maintain a consistent element of fun like the originals did.

Man, Doom 3 be bloated.
 
Unkillable Cat said:
Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey and Chronicles of Riddick all use the same engine, and to me they all pretty much blend into one mediocre FPS with strong shadows and a whole lotta dark.

Chronicles of Riddick doesn't use the same engine. It just looks similar. Which is interesting considering that it was made by much smaller developer from Europe and they came up with the engine that easily stood up to Doom 3, and actually ran better. I LOVE Chronicles Of Riddick game (and no I don't like the movie). Dark areas worked fine in Riddick considering it was half stealth game and you could actually see in the dark later on. I'm actually shooting lights everywhere I can in this game, while I hate dark areas in Doom 3.
 
Hm... I see, no one said it is a great game... This is not very instigating. :(

Meh, whatever, I don't want to lose my money. That's it.
 
I would really avoid Doom 3, the level design is repetetive, it becomes predictable quickly as you will learn to what corner the monster spawns when you pick up that med kit,scares are cheap (and not scary) and of course you cant see ANYTHING because the game is so bloody dark.
I couldnt finish the game, and i like FPS games.
Doom 3 is very tedious, and simplistic, when compared to other shooters that came out in 2004.
Far cry had open maps and good A.I,
Half-life 2 had gravity, interesting areas and Alyx (and her arse).
 
Multidirectional said:
Chronicles of Riddick doesn't use the same engine. It just looks similar. Which is interesting considering that it was made by much smaller developer from Europe and they came up with the engine that easily stood up to Doom 3, and actually ran better.

It's very VERY similar. In fact, I would go as far as to say that there's no difference at all. EFBB ran just as sloppily for me as the other id Tech 4-engine games.
 
Back
Top