Doom3 performance

[bunnyfubbles]

Well let's put it another way, everything sucks at a low framerate. Since the framerate is the direct window into the game it means that every aspect of the game is affected with the key areas being physics, aiming and shooting.

Flight sims and low scale RTS?s and RPG?s suck with a slow frame rate? Again you fail to see the logic behind actually thinking behind a game other than pointing and shooting which is apparently all you do. I managed to be very successful playing Tribes with a 10 fps frame rate with a high ping on top of that. Sure I couldn?t use my chain gun to save my life, but I could still ski and jet and rocket jump with the best of them, in fact I was arguably the best in the mod I played. Because of that ability to still be able to move I could fly in and land on enemy buildings and lob mortars all over the place taking out enemy troops and deployable defenses with great efficiency.

So what you're saying is that they win because they're playing crappy opponents, which is certainly plausible. You also seem to be agreeing with me because you're claiming that elite systems are helping people to increase their skill level.

Um, I never said they were playing crappy opponents; I?m talking about good players who can go toe to toe with me despite their handicaps, just as I was able to do the same when my system was holding me back. In fact if you were at all wise about the situation you?d realize that players playing and adapting on older systems in order to run with the ?big dogs? with new systems, once those players move up they are in turn leaps and bounds better than the jokes that have always been spoiled by their fast systems.

But keep in mind that:

• A good player on a crappy system will perform much worse than he would on a good system. Likewise an average player on a good system will often play much better than he normally does.
• Assuming two relatively identical skilled players, the one with the better system will win.

True, but the best players I know play on sub par systems (in your terms, in other words they are decent systems they just don?t push 2908129752198 fps with 120983x FSAA and 20482x AF), and if they upgraded there would be a good chance that they?d get much better. You?d be surprised at the results of players when upgrading how lazy they become and the upgraded system takes place of skills they once had, if only they?d apply the new system on top of what they?d already built up.

As far as the 2 identical players, I?d sure put my money on the one with the better system, but that?s only if I knew they were equally wise. Pointing and shooting is far from all it takes to be a good player let alone god like.

opinion, I've seen ppl play on it and be successful, I'm one who's done it.

Great but they and you will always get tooled against good players on faster systems unless the problem is network related (which is beyond the scope of this discussion).

Again you are being ignorant, there?s much more to games, especially the worthy team based ones not mindless run/gun/pointandshoot death match crap.

30 FPS is a jerky, unplayable slideshow. You try doing fast turns/spins/jumps and try to hit targets at long range with precision weapons and you'll fail miserably. An equally skilled guy on a faster system will simply run rings around you.

The ignorance beings to astound me, 30 FPS being a ?jerky, unplayable slideshow? is clearly an opinion when 30fps is FAR from a slide show.

You mean struggle as in they aren't able to run games at 1600 x 1200 with 4x FSAA and 8x AF?

No, I mean struggle at medium resolutions such as 1152 x 864 x 32 and 1280 x 960 x 32 with no FSAA.

Oh I guess 1024x768 and 800x600 are out of the question, but that?s right your standards are too high for you to even consider such a thing when other people would be more than willing to play at such resolutions. NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU.

Yes but you don't know what settings they're using and against what skill level they're playing. 640 x 480 x 16 against crappy opponents isn't fun at all.

Yes I do know what skill level they are playing when I?ve seen their systems and they played against me and have held ground, I also laugh at the thought of me being a crappy opponent.

These are the same people who want to enjoy online competition or an occasional single playe campaign but also want to spend their $400 on things such as rent.

An occasional gamer does not pay $400 for a card, nor would he be concerned about Doom 3 performance this early on. I am giving realistic and honest answers and I'm not overestimating the power of current hardware, nor am I trying to pass off a low framerate as playable.

Please read my post. I say nothing about an occasional gamer but a gamer who wants to compete, something that requires a lot of gaming, WITH the occasional single player game in the mean time WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT DOOM III WILL BE!!! Realistic answers my ass. ?Oh you?ll need a Pentium 6 1290488120983GHZ and a Radeon 2098509238 so you can play at 16000000000000000x12000000000000000 with 1024x FSAA and 2056x AF but still retain 1000fps?

Now if you even considered the actual question that started this thread

?Do you guys really think Doom 3 will require a top o the line rig to run? Would they dare to make a game that only .5% of the people can play it? Would it look good on lower settings, what is the minimum card it would run on, and so on... Opinions Please.?

Top of the line rig to run? Well if you consider 1600x1200, 60fps, and full detail as merely ?running? not only do I feel sorry for you I find it very humorous.

?Would they dare make a game that only .5% of the people can play??, certainly that would be far from wise and I believe a Doom III release when the 9200 and 5200 rule the budget niche will cover the bases and open up a much wider market for sales. Certainly it would be unwise to make a game that is only ?playable? on hardware that is far from being available yet, which is exactly what you are suggesting.

?Would it look good on lower settings?? Obviously an opinion but I?m going to have to say it won?t look appalling enough to make you want to gouge your eyes out, and I?m willing to be a large majority will accept a low resolution and level of detail as a trade off to be able to play the game.

?What is the minimum card it would run on?? Well according to the all wise BFG10k, we?ll have to wait for a Radeon 10xxx and a GeForce XP 6xxx or whatever. Whereas I still hold firm that a GeForce3 and Radeon 8500 will be a desirable minimum.

?Opinions please? I?ve given mine and along the lines of answering the original question without deliberately trying to force my opinions upon anyone nor coming to any certain conclusions. Certainly offering the opinion that Doom III will be playable on a Radeon 8500 is far less as deceiving as claiming you?ll absolutely need an R400/NV40 to even consider playing it at enjoyable levels.

Keep your hardware, try it out when the game comes, should you not be able to run it at desirable settings then you?ll have to upgrade your hardware plane and simple but I still hold firm to a claim that owners of a GeForce3 or Radeon 8500 will most likely be able to run through the game and still enjoy themselves.

owned

that?s what I thought

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Well let's put it another way, everything sucks at a low framerate. Since the framerate is the direct window into the game it means that every aspect of the game is affected with the key areas being physics, aiming and shooting.

Flight sims and low scale RTS?s and RPG?s suck with a slow frame rate? Again you fail to see the logic behind actually thinking behind a game other than pointing and shooting which is apparently all you do. I managed to be very successful playing Tribes with a 10 fps frame rate with a high ping on top of that. Sure I couldn?t use my chain gun to save my life, but I could still ski and jet and rocket jump with the best of them, in fact I was arguably the best in the mod I played. Because of that ability to still be able to move I could fly in and land on enemy buildings and lob mortars all over the place taking out enemy troops and deployable defenses with great efficiency.

So what you're saying is that they win because they're playing crappy opponents, which is certainly plausible. You also seem to be agreeing with me because you're claiming that elite systems are helping people to increase their skill level.

Um, I never said they were playing crappy opponents; I?m talking about good players who can go toe to toe with me despite their handicaps, just as I was able to do the same when my system was holding me back. In fact if you were at all wise about the situation you?d realize that players playing and adapting on older systems in order to run with the ?big dogs? with new systems, once those players move up they are in turn leaps and bounds better than the jokes that have always been spoiled by their fast systems.

But keep in mind that:

• A good player on a crappy system will perform much worse than he would on a good system. Likewise an average player on a good system will often play much better than he normally does.
• Assuming two relatively identical skilled players, the one with the better system will win.

True, but the best players I know play on sub par systems (in your terms, in other words they are decent systems they just don?t push 2908129752198 fps with 120983x FSAA and 20482x AF), and if they upgraded there would be a good chance that they?d get much better. You?d be surprised at the results of players when upgrading how lazy they become and the upgraded system takes place of skills they once had, if only they?d apply the new system on top of what they?d already built up.

As far as the 2 identical players, I?d sure put my money on the one with the better system, but that?s only if I knew they were equally wise. Pointing and shooting is far from all it takes to be a good player let alone god like.

opinion, I've seen ppl play on it and be successful, I'm one who's done it.

Great but they and you will always get tooled against good players on faster systems unless the problem is network related (which is beyond the scope of this discussion).

Again you are being ignorant, there?s much more to games, especially the worthy team based ones not mindless run/gun/pointandshoot death match crap.

30 FPS is a jerky, unplayable slideshow. You try doing fast turns/spins/jumps and try to hit targets at long range with precision weapons and you'll fail miserably. An equally skilled guy on a faster system will simply run rings around you.

The ignorance beings to astound me, 30 FPS being a ?jerky, unplayable slideshow? is clearly an opinion when 30fps is FAR from a slide show.

You mean struggle as in they aren't able to run games at 1600 x 1200 with 4x FSAA and 8x AF?

No, I mean struggle at medium resolutions such as 1152 x 864 x 32 and 1280 x 960 x 32 with no FSAA.

Oh I guess 1024x768 and 800x600 are out of the question, but that?s right your standards are too high for you to even consider such a thing when other people would be more than willing to play at such resolutions. NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU.

Yes but you don't know what settings they're using and against what skill level they're playing. 640 x 480 x 16 against crappy opponents isn't fun at all.

Yes I do know what skill level they are playing when I?ve seen their systems and they played against me and have held ground, I also laugh at the thought of me being a crappy opponent.

These are the same people who want to enjoy online competition or an occasional single playe campaign but also want to spend their $400 on things such as rent.

An occasional gamer does not pay $400 for a card, nor would he be concerned about Doom 3 performance this early on. I am giving realistic and honest answers and I'm not overestimating the power of current hardware, nor am I trying to pass off a low framerate as playable.

Please read my post. I say nothing about an occasional gamer but a gamer who wants to compete, something that requires a lot of gaming, WITH the occasional single player game in the mean time WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT DOOM III WILL BE!!! Realistic answers my ass. ?Oh you?ll need a Pentium 6 1290488120983GHZ and a Radeon 2098509238 so you can play at 16000000000000000x12000000000000000 with 1024x FSAA and 2056x AF but still retain 1000fps?

Now if you even considered the actual question that started this thread

?Do you guys really think Doom 3 will require a top o the line rig to run? Would they dare to make a game that only .5% of the people can play it? Would it look good on lower settings, what is the minimum card it would run on, and so on... Opinions Please.?

Top of the line rig to run? Well if you consider 1600x1200, 60fps, and full detail as merely ?running? not only do I feel sorry for you I find it very humorous.

?Would they dare make a game that only .5% of the people can play??, certainly that would be far from wise and I believe a Doom III release when the 9200 and 5200 rule the budget niche will cover the bases and open up a much wider market for sales. Certainly it would be unwise to make a game that is only ?playable? on hardware that is far from being available yet, which is exactly what you are suggesting.

?Would it look good on lower settings?? Obviously an opinion but I?m going to have to say it won?t look appalling enough to make you want to gouge your eyes out, and I?m willing to be a large majority will accept a low resolution and level of detail as a trade off to be able to play the game.

?What is the minimum card it would run on?? Well according to the all wise BFG10k, we?ll have to wait for a Radeon 10xxx and a GeForce XP 6xxx or whatever. Whereas I still hold firm that a GeForce3 and Radeon 8500 will be a desirable minimum.

?Opinions please? I?ve given mine and along the lines of answering the original question without deliberately trying to force my opinions upon anyone nor coming to any certain conclusions. Certainly offering the opinion that Doom III will be playable on a Radeon 8500 is far less as deceiving as claiming you?ll absolutely need an R400/NV40 to even consider playing it at enjoyable levels.

Keep your hardware, try it out when the game comes, should you not be able to run it at desirable settings then you?ll have to upgrade your hardware plane and simple but I still hold firm to a claim that owners of a GeForce3 or Radeon 8500 will most likely be able to run through the game and still enjoy themselves.

owned

that?s what I thought

Dude stop trying to justify playing games on sh!tty rigs. My roomate used to run a 533 celeron with integrated graphics last semester. Hed play CS, Warcraft(just the missions), and some other games (like RA2). While the games ran on his computer, there was no way in hell I would be able play like that. Have you ever seen CS in software mode :disgust: or played WC3 on like 480*320 (he had a 15 inch monitor) :disgust: . Trust me it is not a pretty sight. Hed usually get 1.5 kills to 1 death in CS while he was playing on him computer, however when he played on mine, that score would go up to 2 to 1 ratio or even 3 to 1. This is not the only time I have seen this, as I have had other roommates with sh!tty rigs see similar increases in ability.

 

[SickBeast]

What does "owned" mean?

 

[BFG10K]

Flight sims and low scale RTS's and RPG's suck with a slow frame rate?

Never did I once mention other games and I was simply using the term "everything" as a counter at your attempt to belittle my "certain moves" comment.

And yeah, now that you mention it, flight sims and RPGs suck with a low frame too. In fact anything realtime sucks at a low framerate, since the framerate is directly responsible for the "realtime" portion of the game.

I managed to be very successful playing Tribes with a 10 fps frame rate with a high ping on top of that. Sure I couldn't use my chain gun to save my life, but I could still ski and jet and rocket jump with the best of them, in fact I was arguably the best in the mod I played.

Rocket jumping and being competitive at 10 FPS? ROFL. I'm sorry, I'm not going to call you a liar but I will say that your statements are extremely hard to believe. Let's just leave it at that.

Um, I never said they were playing crappy opponents; I'm talking about good players who can go toe to toe with me despite their handicaps, just as I was able to do the same when my system was holding me back.

Again your comments are subjective as you don't know exactly how your opponents' systems were running, nor do you know what the opponents' handicaps were. You're also shifting the goal posts all the time and switching between using yourself and your opponents as an example and when I try to single out either you or them, you play word games in a vain attempt to discredit my comments.

In fact if you were at all wise about the situation you'd realize that players playing and adapting on older systems in order to run with the "big dogs" with new systems, once those players move up they are in turn leaps and bounds better than the jokes that have always been spoiled by their fast systems.

There's absolutely no denying that skill plays the biggest part in the issue but the framerate is very important too. The best player in the world is going to suck on a crappy system because it'll be a ball & chain, holding him/her back. It's as simple as that and no amount of "adapting" is going to help against skilled opponents who are on blazing systems. Without an adequate framerate you simply can't see enough information to play well.

True, but the best players I know play on sub par systems (in your terms, in other words they are decent systems they just don't push 2908129752198 fps with 120983x FSAA and 20482x AF),

Ah, and just what are "my terms" precisely? What standard or benchmark are you using? And are you talking about detail levels or framerate, because each of those is a subject on its own?

I think you need to clarify exactly what it is you're disagreeing with me about.

and if they upgraded there would be a good chance that they'd get much better.

Of course they would and that's exactly what I've been saying all along. A faster system always increases a player's skill level, regardless of their normal skill level.

You'd be surprised at the results of players when upgrading how lazy they become and the upgraded system takes place of skills they once had, if only they'd apply the new system on top of what they'd already built up.

There's no denying that fast systems increase the level of skill and that's exactly what I'm saying. Also your comment about laziness is a total strawman in this discussion since it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. The player may or may not get "lazy" when they upgrade but quite frankly this is totally irrelevant.

Again you are being ignorant, there's much more to games, especially the worthy team based ones not mindless run/gun/pointandshoot death match crap.

Oh? And what else is there? Are you moving in these games? Are you shooting? Are you trying to do jumps/spins/turns? If you are then framerate is your direct link into the game to achieve this. The better the framerate, the more you can see in less time, and the more appraised of the situation you are at any given time.

The only games where framerate is irrelevant in that respect is in non-realtime games such as turn based strategies, although you certainly want a good framerate there too for better animation smoothness. About the only time framerate is a non-issue is in a text adventure game.

The ignorance beings to astound me, 30 FPS being a "jerky, unplayable slideshow" is clearly an opinion when 30fps is FAR from a slide show.

How can that be ignorant? Tell me, when was the last time you ran your monitor at 30 Hz? If your eyes can see a difference with a static , non-interactive image then they sure as hell can see a difference in a fully interactive situation like a 3D game where every single action causes the world to react around you.

Oh I guess 1024x768 and 800x600 are out of the question, but that's right your standards are too high for you to even consider such a thing when other people would be more than willing to play at such resolutions. NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU.

I could reply in the same way using 320 x 240 x 16. I guess that means a Voodoo3 isn't obsolete after all, huh?

Also Doom 3 is much more demanding than any of today's games are and you should expect to drop at least two resolution levels from the current games. Bottomline: if the GF3 and 8500 are struggling in today's games you're simply dreaming if you think they'll be able to run Doom 3 just because they're the target minimum. Again, it's a hardware features minimum, not a performance minimum.

Yes I do know what skill level they are playing when I've seen their systems and they played against me and have held ground,

And what was their framerate?
What were their game settings?
Ping?
Background programs?

And what about your system?

I suspect their game speeds weren't much slower than yours because they were using butt-ugly settings to compensate for their slow rigs. Either that or you had some kind of inferior network connection while they didn't.

I also laugh at the thought of me being a crappy opponent.

I never once said this.

Please read my post. I say nothing about an occasional gamer but a gamer who wants to compete, something that requires a lot of gaming, WITH the occasional single player game in the mean time WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT DOOM III WILL BE!!!

30 FPS sucks ass unless you're someone who has never played games before and/or has never seen anything better and thus don't know what you're missing out on. A 15" monitor is great until you see a 19" one. A Honda is great until you drive a Porsche.

Top of the line rig to run? Well if you consider 1600x1200, 60fps, and full detail as merely "running" not only do I feel sorry for you I find it very humorous.

That isn't even the correct level of acceptable play for me. My absolute minimum is 60 FPS average at 1152 x 764 x 32 + 16 fast anisotropic with all game details on full except shadows, truform and all of the other framerate sapping junk disabled. And no FSAA either.

I severely doubt that Doom 3 will run at such settings at such speeds on either a GF3 or 8500, and even if it did, it's still the minimum which isn't very pleasant (though it's not total ass like 30 FPS or 1024 x 768 or less).

My preferred target is 120 FPS average (or more) at 1600 x 1200 x 32 (or more) with the above settings and I'm expecting an R400/NV40 (or better) will be required to pull this off in Doom 3. You can forget about anything today being able to run Doom 3 at such settings and at such speeds.

Certainly it would be unwise to make a game that is only "playable" on hardware that is far from being available yet, which is exactly what you are suggesting.

Oh come on now, don't be so naive. When was the last time the minimum specs for any game actually meant anything? Doom 3 may list 8500 & GF3 cards as the target but we all know that's a manufacturer minimum which is usually something retarded like 30 FPS at 640 x 480 or even just a hardware features minimum (like in this case).

If you continually go off the minimum specs then you will get burned every time and your gaming experience will suck ass.

Obviously an opinion but I'm going to have to say it won't look appalling enough to make you want to gouge your eyes out, and I'm willing to be a large majority will accept a low resolution and level of detail as a trade off to be able to play the game.

Again I use the 320 x 240 example. I agree that some of it is subjective and my standards may be a bit higher than other people's but it's universal fact that minimum requirements for games are always far too low (1/3 IMO) because it allows more copies of the game to be sold.

I've given mine and along the lines of answering the original question without deliberately trying to force my opinions upon anyone nor coming to any certain conclusions.

I'm not forcing anything on anyone and in fact I'm telling everyone to wait for the game and then decide whether or not to upgrade. However what I am saying is that most people will find that an upgrade will be necessary.

Certainly offering the opinion that Doom III will be playable on a Radeon 8500 is far less as deceiving as claiming you'll absolutely need an R400/NV40 to even consider playing it at enjoyable levels.

I'll tell you for a fact that the R400/NV40 will make Doom 3 far more enjoyable that any other card currently available.

Keep your hardware, try it out when the game comes, should you not be able to run it at desirable settings then you'll have to upgrade your hardware

I agree 100% and I'm not telling anyone to upgrade for an unreleased game. All I'm saying is to be ready to upgrade because the minimum specs are not going to do the game justice at all, just like they never do for any other game.

 

[BFG10K]

Before upgrading, I played MOHAA at 25 fps. And I kicked ass doing it.

And I'm sure you're kicking even more ass now that you've upgraded. Also why don't you cap your framerate on your new system to 25 FPS, try MOHAA again and tell me if it's still "acceptable".

What does "owned" mean?

In this case absolutely nothing.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

ok saying 30 fps is slow and annoying is one thing, but REFUSING to play a game because it is not a constant 60 fps is ludicrous. True, in online play, for most fps games an average of 60 fps is pretty much needed for a smooth playing experience. But for single player games, like Splinter Cell for example, you don't need to have a 60+ fps average in order to enjoy the game, I get 30-40 fps at my settings and I'm really enjoying the game. It really is dependent on the game, however, and as our video cards get more powerful maybe we can one day reach that 60+fps average that we seem to want so badly. But, it's not like i'm gonna sit here and cry about it and not play a game because it cannot live up to those expectations.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Well, BFG10K, I guess for your standards (JESUS CHRIST!!!) a GeForce 3 or equivalent will not be acceptable, but for the more "normal" people out there like me who expect maybe 1024x768 with max detail, not necessarily any anisotropy or FSAA unless performance allows it, it would probably be ok (not the best, of course, but it would work).

 

[chsh1ca]

Okay, since this thread has turned into a discussion on the multiplayer performance of a game that is GEARED FOR SINGLE PLAYER, I feel the need to point out how petty and ridiculous those of you arguing about it are being. I haven't seen anything official from Id, but is Doom III even going to have multiplayer at launch?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

yea doom 3 wont even have the deathmatching garbage. It will be a scary horror game from what I've heard. Thus, the game will not require super fast fps in order to play the game well.

 

[BoomAM]

30 FPS is a jerky, unplayable slideshow

Not always.
Normally 30fps is fine, but when a game gets more complex on screen, then the frame rate will drop to jerky levels. In fast paced games.
For alot of game, 30fps is fine.
C&C Generals is locked at 30fps. Thats not jerky at all.
GTA3 is locked at 30fps. Thats not jerky either.
Warren Spector said that he was aiming for a constant 30fps for DeusEx2.

So it depends on both the game, and whats going on in the game really doesnt it.
There are plenty of games out that 30+fps are not required for decent game play. Splinter Cell for example.

And these people who say they can`t live without FSAA/AF. What a load of bull. Did`nt you play games before gfx cards became powerful enough to do these features?

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
yea doom 3 wont even have the deathmatching garbage. It will be a scary horror game from what I've heard. Thus, the game will not require super fast fps in order to play the game well.

Doom3 will actually have a multiplayer mode. Just basic deathmatch though. Nothing more.

 

[Rogozhin]

I don't want to play my games without AF and AA and they have to be at least 1024x768 resolution @32bit.

For example.

I had my grandfathers computer at my house for repair, it's an 800mhz duron 256MB DDR 2100 K7S5A, 40 gig HD, leadtek geforce 4 mx 400 and windows xp home. I reformatted it with the latest drivers and loaded up IL-2 STurmovik (a game I play alot of on my system).

I know how to setup rigs and graphics options so i optimized it for his rig and ran it at 1024x768 @32bit with medium graphic settings and NO AA and NO AF. It was still a slide show at 25fps. Flybys were hidious to look at and there is no way to play the game well with it since SA is dimished 10 fold by running it like this. AA is very important for flight simmers since you can't determine the siloutte of a plane unless AA is applied. It just looks like a big black blob instead of the distinctive wing shape of an FW.

If you truly are going to be better than average gamer (in multiplayer) on a game that is more than some run and gun BS like quake and UT then you need a good system.

Doom 3 will run an damn near anything but you will be running super low res with the lowest settings possible, so why the hell buy the game in the first place if you can't play it the way it was meant to be played? If you don't have money to buy some upgrade for your system then go get a job or a second job.

Rogo

 

[BoomAM]

The thing that alot of people forget is that there is more than graphics to make a game good. Alot of you seem to give the impression that as long as you have FSAA/AF and high res graphics then nothing else matters.
Would a game be better or worse with full acoustic sound coming out of your speakers, or a few beeps?
Would a game be better or worse if it has you controling it with the "F" keys.
Would a game be better or worse if the gameplay itself sucked.
The thing is, alot of you complain about crap graphics, FSAA/AF and stuff, and seem to only care about these, but the fact is you`d soon be complaining if any of the above were missing/dodgy.
Rogozhin, you give a good argument about the advantage of FSAA in flight sims, but how did gamers manage before the "invention" of FSAA?
If Doom3 is a good game, then no-one will care how good the graphics are, as long as the gameplays there.
Look at DeusEx, its one of the best games ever released, but the graphics on it were rubbish. Did people care? No they didnt, cos the games other qualitys such as immersion, gameplay and sound, made you forget about the graphics.

Remember
GRAPHICS DO NOT MAKE A GAME GOOD.

 

[YoungChowFun]

GRAPHICS DO NOT MAKE A GAME GOOD.

I totally agree with you. However, I dont think many will care if Doom3 is a good game or not. It's certain that Doom3 will be one that everyone wants to brag about what fps they can get out of it (A new benchmark as well.) I personally dont want to play the whole game, I just want to see how it fairs with my system.

 

[BoomAM]

Good point. Most people, on AT anyway, will only buy it for benchmarking. To be quite honest, who blames them.
Im getting it for two reasons.
1) For benchmarking
2) To be able to say i own every version of doom out, in original form. Sad i know. lol