Low poly counts and Doom 3

[gkar1]

Ante P you do not have the right hardware to run the leaked demo. On my Radeon 9700 it looks very yummy.

Here have a taste:

http://www.speakeasy.org/~gkar1/doom3/

All of the shots have 16xAF and some form of AA enabled(6x and 4x). I forget which shots have which tho

is my HIS and/or Gigabyte 9700 Pro somehow inferiour to yours?

the videocard doesn't increase the polygon count, not does it stop textures from looking way too "bumped"
I think the bump mapping is exagerated no matter what other people think, it simply makes some stuff look too "soft" when it rather should have a "cold" sterile metallic surface etc.

nor does a videocard make the shadows look any different
sometimes they overlap the wrong surfaces and I don't like that they are solid
plus the borders of them are way to sharp

some textures are too low res too, your videocard doesn't help there either (and yes I run with aniso so that's not the problem)

I'm not saying that the game will suck or anything I'm just saying that I'm not impressed with the progress as of yet and that I expect that some of the "dilemmas" will be there in the final version too (low polycounts, "solid" shadows, too bumpy etc.)
no AA, AF or videocard will help me there

the physics aren't that good either, touch a box lying on the floor and it reacts as if you played soccer with it

and oh, did I mention that the weapons are REALLY ugly?

I can't help but laugh at your armchair quarterback attitude towards the game. It looks VERY good in motion regardless of what you think of the screenshots. I'm not an ID f@nboy, in fact i was/am a devoted UT addict. But when i see someting impressive i open my mouth. First time I loaded the intro my jaw dropped at the quality of this ALPHA build of the engine.

 

[hughJ]

"I think the really incredible use of the Doom3 engine, complete with higher polygon counts, will be seen 4-9 months after Doom3's release by 3rd party developers licensing the engine"

my main worry regarding this, is that developers may wind up trying to follow the same gimicks as id seems to be using in their design of Doom3.. the concept of dynamic shadow casting is pretty limiting in the types of games that can use it effectively.. only so many environments can be lit almost entirely by spotlights, rather than ambient.. and only so many environments can be small enough to make use of moving shadows casting onto near-by walls..

the "ooos" and "ahhhs" of moving shadows via a single suspended swinging lamp overhead will no doubt fade quickly after a couple weeks of playing.. especially when they offer no tangible change to gameplay itself..

 

[Johnny Rotten]

I read some of these posts of people not being impressed with the visuals, then I fire up the alpha, and watch the intro or check out some of the creature models and I just shake my head.

 

[PC-Engine]

From looking at only the screenshots, I can tell that this game is going to be freaking scary. It looks like a Resident Evil game. For a small outfit like id, they're doing a pretty good job IMO. However Silent Hill 3 for PS2 already beats this, but considering Konami has a butload of resources compared to id, I'd give JC's team some deserved credit 8)

 

[SlmDnk]

Agreed

I read some of these posts of people not being impressed with the visuals, then I fire up the alpha, and watch the intro or check out some of the creature models and I just shake my head.

Same here. People not impressed by the visuals of D3 Alpha is unbeliavable in a same kind of way as the visuals are unbeliavable. If you know what I mean...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

However Silent Hill 3 for PS2 already beats this,

Oh yes, especially without any per-pixel lighting or bump mapping. Come on...

 

[PC-Engine]

However Silent Hill 3 for PS2 already beats this,

Oh yes, especially without any per-pixel lighting or bump mapping. Come on...

Forgot all about that, I guess all the talk about stencil shadows made me forget..thanks for the lesson btw