Doom 3 multiplayer preview (quakecon 2003)

[Bjorn]

Gamespy has a preview of Doom3's multiplayer

http://www.gamespy.com/quakecon2003/doom3/[/url]

[BNA!]

Just in case you're interested, I think I've listed almost any preview here:
http://www.doom3world.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1322

[Entropy]

The planetquake review says:I'm not sure the specs of the computer I played on, but I have to say the game play did feel laggy at certain points.
The GameSpot review completes the picture:However, we played the game on high-end PCs equipped with Nvidia's GeForce FX 5900 cards, and the demonstration ran at 640x480 resolution with only four players.
It seems there's simply no system available on the market today that can drive D3 well. At 640x480.
Ouch.

Entropy

[Malo]

you tend to feel the lack of fps more in a mutliplayer environment though because of the sense that you need to be constantly on the move and looking everywhere. I don't think single player will seem as laggy though I do agree that at a decent res, there won't be much around that could possibly play it at full detail.

though by the time it's released.... Nv40 & R420 ??

[Entropy]

you tend to feel the lack of fps more in a mutliplayer environment though because of the sense that you need to be constantly on the move and looking everywhere. I don't think single player will seem as laggy though I do agree that at a decent res, there won't be much around that could possibly play it at full detail.

though by the time it's released.... Nv40 & R420 ??

I agree that framerate is nowhere near as critical for non-competitive play. From what I've seen of the alpha, todays high-end should be able to provide reasonable single player performance, and by the time of release the high-end cards should be able to provide an experience that isn't marred by performance annoyances as long as you're modest in your resolution/quality settings.

For me, who think todays high-end cards draw too much power, there's more of a problem. There is no moderate power draw card that provides acceptable performance, and there is no guarantee that one will show up on this side 0.09um. But hope springs eternal.

(For any type of competitive play though, system performance is likely to be a big factor for a long time to come. The relatively equal footing enjoyed by Quake3 (or CS...) players won't be achieved for years to come.)

Entropy

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Depends on the gameplay. If the game is a slower, more thoughtful sci-fi/horror, then slow framerate won't matter. If it's a fast paced action shooter, lack of frames will hurt it.

I got the impression from ID's comments that they are trying to tell an "Alien", rather than an "Aliens" type of story.

[Pete]

Considering the PlanetQuake quote, perhaps iD is delaying Doom 3 until the hardware is there to support it?

[Gubbi]

Considering the PlanetQuake quote, perhaps iD is delaying Doom 3 until the hardware is there to support it?

What ? And miss an opportunity to do a rehash Doom III Arena 9 months after the Doom 3 release and cash in?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Cheers
Gubbi

[Forbidden Donut]

Considering the PlanetQuake quote, perhaps iD is delaying Doom 3 until the hardware is there to support it?

Well, Carmack himself said that the min requirements were a p3 1ghz and a GeForce1.

Furthermore, I've read posts of people playing the Alpha and having it be almost playable on a 9800 pro at 1600x1200 6xAA 16xAF (estimated framerates without using fraps were around 15). Unless the engine has either become much more sophisticated or has become unoptimized in the time since the Alpha was released, I can see current hardware running the single player without much of a hitch.

[digitalwanderer]

Considering the PlanetQuake quote, perhaps iD is delaying Doom 3 until the hardware is there to support it?

What ? And miss an opportunity to do a rehash Doom III Arena 9 months after the Doom 3 release and cash in?

Doesn't make sense to me.

Cheers
Gubbi
:lol:

I think if there was any way possible for Johnny-boy to push the game out the door before Sept 30th he would, if there were PCs out capable of running the game or not.

It ain't gonna be ready for a while yet, this is just hype. :roll:

[Entropy]

Considering the PlanetQuake quote, perhaps iD is delaying Doom 3 until the hardware is there to support it?

Well, Carmack himself said that the min requirements were a p3 1ghz and a GeForce1.

Furthermore, I've read posts of people playing the Alpha and having it be almost playable on a 9800 pro at 1600x1200 6xAA 16xAF (estimated framerates without using fraps were around 15). Unless the engine has either become much more sophisticated or has become unoptimized in the time since the Alpha was released, I can see current hardware running the single player without much of a hitch.

Well, I've played the alpha myself on different gfx-cards (8500, GF4Ti, R9700P+) and it is absolutely unplayable on anything below the R9700 level. Ignoring the problem with shooting, the framerate still drops into the teens with 8500/GF4 at 640x480, no AA, no AF. Anyone who claims 15 fps (with FRAPS? Huh?) at 1600x1200 6xAA 16xAF is wildly optimistic, or possibly looking into a wall. Don't take my word for it, look at the controversial DOOM3 tests staged by nVidia, and ignore the results of the nVidia cards. Those data use a much later build of DOOM3 and are probably more reliable. Example: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDc0LDI= where a 9800P 256MB card, arguably the fastest gfx card in existance, manages 70 fps at 1024x768 noAA, noAF. (On a 3GHz P4 with 800MHz fsb.) Since that is an average, the dips are likely to go just below 30 fps. That's acceptable (though uninspiring) performance for a non-critical single player game in my book. Note that the 9600Pro at the same settings manage 35 fps, indicating dips into the low teens, which is an exercise in frustration IMHO. Particularly since nothing says that this demo is critical in terms of frame rate.

That 1GHz, GF256 spec should be compared to the Pentium 233 spec of Q3, i.e. the limit for utter uselessness with all settings turned down as low as they go. I have a Barton@3200+ speeds plus a spiffy Radeon 8500, and let me assure you that my system is not sufficient to provide an even remotely acceptable DOOM3Alpha experience.

Sure, different people have different standards but come on - this is still a turn-aim-shoot-dodge game.

Btw, I don't have a problem with the game being demanding on the hardware. That's OK, people will upgrade to play it. I know people who, unable to contain themselves, have already done so. So far I've managed to resist the urge. Holding out to the actual release of the game will take a super-human effort though. That PowerVR announcement can't come soon enough. :)

Entropy

[pascal]

With my new computer (P4-2.4/768MB/FX5600) the D3E3leak is runnng fine :)

I deleted the original dom3.cfg file and it created a new one.

When I start map 2 the initial framerate is 42 at 800x600 which is good because the nv20 path is being used. When I try the nv30 path some problems happens. The peak memory usage was 484mb with WinXP.
I hope the real game will be much better because this E3leak is nothing, not even a demo.
My guess the minimal usefull configuration for single player should be 2GHz Athlon/512MBDDR/GF4Ti, but no warranty here.

[Reverend]

Well, I've played the alpha myself ...
You mean you played the illegal leak.

[Entropy]

Well, I've played the alpha myself ...
You mean you played the illegal leak.

Yup.

Ent

[Reverend]

Then don't, or at least don't mention you play the leak in our forums.

We don't, have never, nor will ever condone the use of illegal software (however they may have been made available, in whatever state they may be in) but in this case, I have struggled to get John Carmack to answer my emails that have resulted in two official interviews... and I hope you will appreciate my paranoia about anything within this site (officially or in our forums) that may further jeopardize my future chances of having a decent "relationship" with John.

[Forbidden Donut]

Considering the PlanetQuake quote, perhaps iD is delaying Doom 3 until the hardware is there to support it?

Well, Carmack himself said that the min requirements were a p3 1ghz and a GeForce1.

Furthermore, I've read posts of people playing the Alpha and having it be almost playable on a 9800 pro at 1600x1200 6xAA 16xAF (estimated framerates without using fraps were around 15). Unless the engine has either become much more sophisticated or has become unoptimized in the time since the Alpha was released, I can see current hardware running the single player without much of a hitch.

Well, I've played the alpha myself on different gfx-cards (8500, GF4Ti, R9700P+) and it is absolutely unplayable on anything below the R9700 level. Ignoring the problem with shooting, the framerate still drops into the teens with 8500/GF4 at 640x480, no AA, no AF. Anyone who claims 15 fps (with FRAPS? Huh?) at 1600x1200 6xAA 16xAF is wildly optimistic, or possibly looking into a wall. Don't take my word for it, look at the controversial DOOM3 tests staged by nVidia, and ignore the results of the nVidia cards. Those data use a much later build of DOOM3 and are probably more reliable. Example: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDc0LDI= where a 9800P 256MB card, arguably the fastest gfx card in existance, manages 70 fps at 1024x768 noAA, noAF. (On a 3GHz P4 with 800MHz fsb.) Since that is an average, the dips are likely to go just below 30 fps. That's acceptable (though uninspiring) performance for a non-critical single player game in my book. Note that the 9600Pro at the same settings manage 35 fps, indicating dips into the low teens, which is an exercise in frustration IMHO. Particularly since nothing says that this demo is critical in terms of frame rate.

That 1GHz, GF256 spec should be compared to the Pentium 233 spec of Q3, i.e. the limit for utter uselessness with all settings turned down as low as they go. I have a Barton@3200+ speeds plus a spiffy Radeon 8500, and let me assure you that my system is not sufficient to provide an even remotely acceptable DOOM3Alpha experience.

Sure, different people have different standards but come on - this is still a turn-aim-shoot-dodge game.

Btw, I don't have a problem with the game being demanding on the hardware. That's OK, people will upgrade to play it. I know people who, unable to contain themselves, have already done so. So far I've managed to resist the urge. Holding out to the actual release of the game will take a super-human effort though. That PowerVR announcement can't come soon enough. :)

Entropy

Agreed that the min specs will be far too low for the game to actually be pleasurably playable. However, the guy did post a screeny of the 1600x1200 6xAA 16xAF as proof that he was actually running it at that resolution. He didn't use fraps, he just said that his guess was that it was averaging around 15FPS, with the biggest dips happening with a first time gun shot. While these aren't settings and framerates I'd be happy at, I think 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8xAF will likely be playable.

Of course, I'm basing this on someone's personal account. Like you said, the build that was tested in those somewhat bogus (IMO) benches was certainly a more recent. build. I've just heard a lot of people saying that, especially with the recent cat drivers and their openGL optimizations, the alpha leak is extremely playable. No first hand experience for me though.

And regardless...I'm looking forward to it :D

[Entropy]

Then don't, or at least don't mention you play the leak in our forums.

I'll respect your wishes in this.

Ent

[vrecan]

am I the only one who finds these screens really unimpressive next the the high rez hl2 vids and screens that have been seen. And the fact that valve has said that the frame rate is pretty much locked at 60fps on a 9800pro at 1280x960 I think it was. I really haven't seen anything very impressive from doom3 I really hope they are just holding back for the release!

[incurable]

am I the only one who finds these screens really unimpressive next the the high rez hl2 vids and screens that have been seen. And the fact that valve has said that the frame rate is pretty much locked at 60fps on a 9800pro at 1280x960 I think it was. I really haven't seen anything very impressive from doom3 I really hope they are just holding back for the release!
No, you're not the only one, I also think the HL2 screenshots & videos are much more impressive than the D3 screens we've seen so far. That doesn't mean I wont download a D3Test (or similar) as it becomes available, though, just that I don't expect it to blow me away.

cu

incurable, fearing to be stuck with his GF4Ti forever :cry:

[Malo]

I personally think screenshots don't really do DOOM3 justice. A third of the engine is spent on lighting and you can only see the benefits of the dynamic lighting in motion. Anyone whom has seen Doom3 and written reviews about it always comment on the lighting factor.

HL2 is still static lightmaps for the environment, though the model shadows will be impressive I imagine. But having a completely dynamic lighting system in the detailed environments of D3 will, IMO be more impressive than HL2 will ever be...

[Natoma]

Personally I'm more looking forward to what the other games that use the respective engines will look like. I think we've all found that a company freed from having to develop an engine and create the game at the same time will be able to pour far more resources into actual game development and graphic tuning, as evidenced by HL with the Quake engine, albeit heavily modified.

[Nupraptor]

am I the only one who finds these screens really unimpressive next the the high rez hl2 vids and screens that have been seen.I'm completely the other way around. I've found HL2 to be kind of unimpressive, overall. Its graphics are certainly better than anything else currently out, but... that's to be expected. Next gen games = next gen graphics. It's a step up from No One Lives Forever 2, but it's not a giant leap. Doom 3, however, has a stunning cinematic quality, due in no small part to its lighting.

[99 to Life]

am I the only one who finds these screens really unimpressive next the the high rez hl2 vids and screens that have been seen.I'm completely the other way around. I've found HL2 to be kind of unimpressive, overall. Its graphics are certainly better than anything else currently out, but... that's to be expected. Next gen games = next gen graphics. It's a step up from No One Lives Forever 2, but it's not a giant leap. Doom 3, however, has a stunning cinematic quality, due in no small part to its lighting.

Hi, this is my first post here :).
I agree that Doom 3 does have it's own cinematic look and quality, but the textures aren't as detailed as Half-Life 2. I could be wrong...we all could be wrong since we haven't really seen anything other than the E3 videos and unmentionable leaks. The tests of Doom 3's performance are very misleading to ATI users, who in the end will have the overall better experience when playing the game. Nvidia will use it's own Nv30 codepath, thus reducing everything to FX12 (?) while ATI will be running in FP24 (R350 can maybe do FP32). With the current state of drivers from Nvidia and from ATI, it looks like ATI will pull ahead with it's almost 5-10X faster PS2.0. I guess we'll have to wait for an actual test that we can run to determine just how well Nvidia can run Doom 3 on it's (faulty) Nv30.

As a side note, I hope there will be a widescreen option in the game...Half-Life 2 already has it.