• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

New DOOM 3 Screenshots

by Maarten Goldstein, Jul 30, 2002 4:06pm PDT
Related Topics – DOOM 3, Activision, screenshots

This is a nice surprise, two new DOOM 3 screenshots from the Activision press event Activate. The shots are in a 1600x1200 resolution so they might take a while to load on a modem.

[ more DOOM 3 screenshots ]


Read all the News

More DOOM 3

News

Read more »
boxshot

DOOM 3

  • PC, XBOX
  • Release Date: Apr 4, 2005
  • Genre: Action
  • Developer: Vicarious Visions
  • Publisher: Activision

Videos

  • Video: Zombie Slayer Trailer
View more »

Screenshots

  • Screenshot
  • Screenshot
  • Screenshot
View more »


Comments

« Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
136 Threads* | 497 Comments*
  • #499
    Refresh Thread
    By: Lawdrich x
    Reply
    Doom 3 looks great to me. There are some glitches, and it was never ever
    going to look like the final fantasy movie in a game, but it looks awesome
    none the less.

    One thing I noticed though, and I don't know if it's already been said,
    cause I can't be arsed to read the 500 odd comments, but to me the 2nd pic
    of the two zombies in the tunnel, looks like it was composed from several
    shots. The shadows on the foreground zombie are on the right side of his
    head, and on the post immediately to the left the shadows are on the
    opposide side. The fat zombie behind looks like the the light is above and
    in front, because the shadows are cast downwards (below his nose and chins).

    What I'd say has been done, is that the (possibly empty) tunnel was taken at
    floor level, judging from the big metal square frames in the background.
    Although that is a presumption, as you can't see the floor. The lighting is from the right hand side, near the ceiling as the pillar is lighter near the top.

    I think the two zombies came from two other screenshots, and were dumped in
    the tunnel picture. I'm also guessing that the zombies not being
    anti-aliased would make it easier to cut and paste them in photoshop.

    I love conspiricy theories. It's like X-Files or something. :)

    By the way, I still think Doom 3 looks great. I don't actually care if the
    picture was hacked in photoshop, because if it was, the original parts still look awesome. I'm just trying to stir up trouble. :P
    Aug 01, 2002 10:25am PDT

    Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.

  • #495
    Refresh Thread
    By: kill3rclown x
    Reply
    I seriously can't believe people are bitching about these graphics. I've seen comments about the models being too edgy and boxy. What the HELL?!!! You people are insane. I mean really it's as if you won't be pleased until you have the damned holodeck in your bedroom. This is a game people wake up and you're living in reality not in your scifi wet dream. Part of me thinks these unrealistic expectations MUST be from 14 year olds that simply don't know better.

    Anyway- what they've showed us is very impressive stuff, it's real time rendering of a quality that you could barely touch a few years ago with a ton of SGIs. It's going to be as if you're _inside_ the final fantasy move. Well, maybe not quite but _almost_.

    Not surprising the response to these shots though, it's just like MOST the games you people come here to bitch about. The technology that we have come to be spoiled with and what has become "standard" is simply amazing. Very very few games get to market that are "bad", where as according to the average reader of one of these useless websites 90% of the games are shit.

    Ripping on Doom3 just takes the cake, you simply can't convince me there is anything "disapointing" about these screenshots.What a bunch of whiners, grow up and if you don't think it's good then go make something better. It's easy to be an armchair critic. ;)
    Jul 31, 2002 8:47pm PDT

    Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.

  • #494
    Refresh Thread
    By: Sling_Blade x
    Reply
    It looks awesome, a few minor things though that I hope they work out for the game:

    1. The scientist's left hand is at a horribly wrong angle... that dude must be really uncofortable.
    2. The scientist's shadow falls on the console but when falling on the actual screen dissapears abruptly... I think this was intentional, but it looks all wrong. Hopefully Carmack can work his magic and make the shadows blend more.
    3. There especially needs to be more "fuzzy" shadows in general. Perhaps he can tie the shadows to particular lights and make some lights produce fuzzy shadows and some lights produce sharp ones. It would be an artificial way of achieving it but it would look a lot better. You rarely see sharp shadows, really you only see them when there is just 1 light source and you get the spotlight effect, or when an object is very close to what it is casting its shadow on. The latter concern prbably isn't something implementable, because it would require a shadow to go from blury to sharp as it got closer to whatever was casting it.
    4. The soldier's collar texture is doing something funky with the neck texture.
    5. Good to see we are still using clip boards in the 22nd century (or whenever this is)
    Jul 31, 2002 7:57pm PDT
  • #458
    Refresh Thread
    By: Sebastian Sylvan x
    Reply
    You all know me as the uber id fanboy. But frankly, the more I see of this engine, the less good I think it looks.

    It's just WAAAY to low poly for my tastes. I realize why this is (because high poly scenes would cause shadow volume operations to take too long) but I don't understand why the choice was made to go with stencil shadows.

    Yes the quality is excellent compared to shadow buffers(very nice and crisp shadows). But in most cases a little fuzzier shadows would look better anyway. Just as long as you don't get that extreme aliasing of low poly shadow buffers.

    Over all I just stencil shadows are the wrong way to go. They might work for DOOM 3 if they don't take to long, but as games are expected to have high poly models and environments with higher order surfaces and displacement mapping and truform and such (which doesn't work with stencil shadows) shadow buffers will be a lot more practical.

    I mean anything that has a depth can cast a shadow. There is basically nothing tricky about shadow buffers. An alpha texture WILL cast a shadow if you merely enable an alpha test. A character with truform and displacement mapping WILL cast correct shadows without any coding subtleties required.

    Stencil shadows are just waaay to "hackish" for me. As memory bandwidth and video card memory gets larger (like >= 64 mb) stencil shadows just seems increasingly more like a bad idea. They're just to complicated, too CPU demanding, too limiting and to fragile to use when there's a better alternative (which I think shadow buffers are).

    It's be interesting to see what Carmack thinks about this. He mentioned once that he was going to implement them for DOOM to compare them against stencil shadows, but that was in the GF2 days. With A GF3 or above I would guess that stencil shadows pose more limitations than they're worth.
    Jul 31, 2002 3:22am PDT

    Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.