Doom 3 system requirements

[Sundown]

Oh there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin 'bout gaming, a console man got to pull Halo out their ass. That's their one, that's their one. Halo. Halo. Let me tell you something once and for all. Halo was good, but compared to Half Life, Halo ain't poo.

You mean the one FPS that we also happen to now have on the PC... and as decent as it was (repetitive levels milking gamelength aside), wasn't that mindboggling? I almost think console gamers make such a big deal out of Halo mainly because they haven't played decent FPSs before.

Nah, I'm a gamer... I'll play games on both console and pc. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but its an undeniable truth that pcs are better for intense processing/graphics. And while you can say graphics aren't everything, they're a part.

Well, they're better... until the next console comes out, which makes us PC gamers all collectively pee green in our pants with envy. Then it's a year of catchup for graphics cards makers, when we can say "hey, this is almost as good as it was on PS 3/4/5", and another 6 months before we can smile smugly at console owners for the next three years, when the cycle repeats again. But that first year hurts. Oh yes it does. Hurts enough to make me go out and buy one of them damned things in order to play the newest Metal Gear Solid that also doesn't feature Snake.

-Al

[VF-2SS-BloodPhoenix]

Doom3 was designed to run on slightly older systems (via the 4 rendering paths), but to get the full effect you need the latest hardware and apparently there isn't a retail consumer desktop CPU fast enough for the latest video cards (X800/aka R420 series and GF6800 series/aka NV40) which will still limit the graphics bandwidth. You'll need something like a 500MB video card, a full GB of RAM and something along the lines of a 4.5Ghz CPU to enjoy all the little details of the game.

In my next PC upgrade I'm getting an A64-FX53 (2.4Ghz/400Mhz FSB/1MB L2), 2GB DDR400/PC3200, and maybe a GF6800U. I haven't upgraded yet because the MB for the CPU I'm getting is not even available yet.

Edited July 22, 2004 by VF-2SS-BloodPhoenix

[Max Jenius]

Doom3 was designed to run on slightly older systems (via the 4 rendering paths), but to get the full effect you need the latest hardware and apparently there isn't a retail consumer desktop CPU fast enough for the latest video cards (X800/aka R420 series and GF6800 series/aka NV40) which will still limit the graphics bandwidth. You'll need something like a 500MB video card, a full GB of RAM and something along the lines of a 4.5Ghz CPU to enjoy all the little details of the game.

In my next PC upgrade I'm getting an A64-FX53 (2.4Ghz/400Mhz FSB/1MB L2), 2GB DDR400/PC3200, and maybe a GF6800U. I haven't upgraded yet because the MB for the CPU I'm getting is not even available yet.

Yet few have a monitor on which these details would be noticable.

[VF-2SS-BloodPhoenix]

Yet few have a monitor on which these details would be noticable.

What types of monitors are those that you are referring to?

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I don't think the CPU clockspeed is that important once you are pass maybe 1.8-2.0 Ghz. Its probably the memory and graphics card that matters.

I think the Geforce4 MX sucks. I bought a ShuttleX Sn42 with the embedded GF4 MX and 512 shared RAM. Can't play IL2 with more then 24 B-17s without the system running out of virtual ram.

Anyone recommend a good card to go with the ShuttleX SN42? I think the longer cards won't fit into the SSF casing.

[VF-2SS-BloodPhoenix]

The latest video cards from Nvidia and ATI process much more data (they have more bandwidth) than the fastest CPU can handle, thus even a P4 3.4EE or A64FX can only try to keep pace. Of course lots of other variables come into play, like having an OS that isn't game only and not everything on a PC is 100% compatible. Most games (even today) rely too heavily on the CPU because developers don't expect everyone to have the latest hardware, which is why you need a better CPU than what is recommended.

Retracting Head Ter Ter, my sibling uses a Radeon 9700Pro in their shuttle, so try that (or something similar and cheaper if finances are an issue). It's small enough, and powerful enough for today's games, though it is a tight fit.

[Terpfen]

Well I've got a Trident CyberALADDiN-P4 memory size 32MB.

Is that any good? If not, I'll just wait till MOH Rising Sun 2...

I honestly recommend that you give up hopes of running Doom 3 on your laptop. It's just not going to happen. I'm sorry.

With regards to the rest of this thread...

Doom 3 on Xbox: I'm sure it'll run smoothly, but sacrifices will be made in order to achieve that. The first and most obvious sacrifice will be resolution. Consoles output at low resolutions anyway (PS2 outputs at 320x200, for example), so that's alright. Afterwards, further nvidia optimizations will be done, beyond what the PC version features. Of course, ATI optimizations will be dropped, which will change the rendering anyway. Then they have to adjust how the game loads to account for available RAM. More likely than not, the hard drive will be used to do more than save games.

[Keiichi]

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy

Official Doom 3 benchmarks! A tiny selection from the article:

As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good gaming experience. Even a subtle jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce 3 video card that is two years old will deliver a solid gaming experience that will let you enjoy the game the way id Software designed it to be. That fact alone should let many of you know that you will not be left behind in experiencing DOOM 3.

[mikeszekely]

Unfortunately, the Doom 3 version looks pretty crappy.

Take a look for yourself. Pay attention in particular to this and that.

Eh. At least you don't have to go out and buy a new video card that costs more than an Xbox in the first place.

It's all irrelevant anyway. The only FPS I want between now and the end of the year is Halo 2.

Oh there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin 'bout gaming, a console man got to pull Halo out their ass. That's their one, that's their one. Halo. Halo. Let me tell you something once and for all. Halo was good, but compared to Half Life, Halo ain't poo.

Nah, I'm a gamer... I'll play games on both console and pc. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but its an undeniable truth that pcs are better for intense processing/graphics. And while you can say graphics aren't everything, they're a part.

Actually, Half Life 2 is one of the FPS that I'm looking forward to on Xbox, once they get around to setting a release date... of course, HL2 will have to go gold for PC first... and my grandkids could be having grandkids before that happens. Other that that, I'm really looking forward to Star Wars: Republic Commando and Perfect Dark Zero (although PD0 is looking like an Xbox next launch game, at this rate). I only mentioned Halo 2 because I'm not really interested in Doom, Medal of Honor, or Rainbow Six... Halo's the only FPS I want this year (SW:RC was pushed back to Feb).

The reason console gamers keep bring up Halo (opr Goldeneye) is because PC elitists seem to have this notion that the only way to enjoy a FPS is on a PC, preferably one that costs a ridiculous ammount of money, even though they're only going to turn around and spend another fortune to upgrade it when the next big PC FPS comes out. And yet, console gamers have found plenty of enjoyment out of the FPS made for Xbox or PS2 (although it'd be kinda weird on PS2... I mean, the Xbox, like the N64, has triggers... for your triggers...). Halo, Goldeneye, and Perfect Dark were all highly acclaimed, Nightfire, Unreal Championship, and Medal of Honor were respectable, and some people even enjoyed stuff like Timesplitters and Red Faction.

And, aside from the hardcore PC gamers, most people don't feel like spending fortunes on their PCs. They don't feel like downloading patches because their sound card wasn't supported. A lot of people, from casual gamers to hardcore console gamers (personally, I like to think of myself as a casual PC gamer, hardcore console gamer) prefer the ease of dropping the game in their console and playing... especially on the high def 54'' widescreen TV with the Dolby Digital 5.1 surround (it's a shame more games don't support more high def resolutions). And it's nice to have a buddy over and just ask him to bring an extra controller, rather than having him drag his whole PC out for a LAN. (Mind you, Xbox LIVE is leveling the online playing field between consoles and PC.)

Fact of the matter is, for 99.99% of the games out there, I'd rather play it on console. It might look prettier on PC, but that doesn't mean that I'll have more fun with it there (of course, I speak for myself... I know I have friends who are insanely good players on PC, but suck on console). When I do play games on my PC, I tend to go for stuff like Morrowind or Neverwinter Nights.

Oh, and by the way, some other company handled the porting of Halo to PC, not Bungie themselves, and they've got a reputation for butchering it. So just remember, if you thought Halo was fun on PC, you should know that the PC version sucked compared to the Xbox version.

[Radd]

One word for you, guys.

Xbox.

We covered that already.

[Druna Skass]

And, aside from the hardcore PC gamers, most people don't feel like spending fortunes on their PCs. They don't feel like downloading patches because their sound card wasn't supported. A lot of people, from casual gamers to hardcore console gamers (personally, I like to think of myself as a casual PC gamer, hardcore console gamer) prefer the ease of dropping the game in their console and playing... especially on the high def 54'' widescreen TV with the Dolby Digital 5.1 surround (it's a shame more games don't support more high def resolutions). And it's nice to have a buddy over and just ask him to bring an extra controller, rather than having him drag his whole PC out for a LAN. (Mind you, Xbox LIVE is leveling the online playing field between consoles and PC.)

Fact of the matter is, for 99.99% of the games out there, I'd rather play it on console. It might look prettier on PC, but that doesn't mean that I'll have more fun with it there (of course, I speak for myself... I know I have friends who are insanely good players on PC, but suck on console). When I do play games on my PC, I tend to go for stuff like Morrowind or Neverwinter Nights.

Couldn't have said it better...

[Jawjaw]

I like consoles in that you just drop in a game and it works. Although, I have had games lock up and seen bugs just like on a PC. However, what I don't like about a console is that it is limited to the crappy resolution of the TV. Granted, the XBox supports higher-resolutions but I don't have a HD tv. Not everyone has a bigscreen high end tv. On my PC, everything looks better even with an old video card. True it costs money to keep a PC current, but you don't have to buy the latest and greatest to stay fresh. What I also don't like about consoles is that you cannot upgrage them. You have to wait 5 years or so for the next version.

Some games like sport games are better on consoles. However, consoles will never be good for fps which are my favorite type of games. Try spinning around 180 degrees and hitting a small target within a second on the console. Pretty tough if possible. On the PC, it's easy. I just got done playing GTA VC on the PC. I enjoyed the hell out of it on my PS2 but found it much easier to play on the PC, especially when it came to shooting weapons. The higher resolutions allowed me to see further and spot things like hidden packages, rampages, etc. much easier.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Being a PC fan my comments here might be seen as somewhat skewed but in my eyes PC gaming is a "rich man's hobby". As others have said you have to keep dumping time and money into your PC every few years to stay in the system requirements zone to play the new games... but consoles are just a one time purchase and then you can play the games automatically.

Plus with consoles having internet connections and such the lines between a PC and a console are blurring. It's hard to justify a PC purchase if all you do is play games and look at boobie pics on the internet as the consoles with internet browsing can do that easily at a tenth of the price.

I myself am a hardcore audio/videophile. I own a brand new (thank you state farm insurance!) HDTV and DTS entertainment center... when I buy my computers I am the same way, at the time I buy them I check all the boxes and demand all the top of the line things even though I'll most likely never use them. For god's sake I have two DVD-RW drives on my computer and I have yet to burn even a single DVD! Yes it is a "Waste of money" to some people and I don't really need all that power and crap as all I do at home is play games and surf the net but I just want that hemi if you know what I mean. If given a choice between a nice V-6 and a Detroit Diesel V-10 I'll take the latter... just to have the extra power. I have the disposable income (no kids, good job, semi-understanding wife) so to me the PC is a nice "investment"... even though it is nothing of the sort. Consoles just seem wimpy compared to the uber deep-blue twin fan whine of my PC... But that is just my opinion.

... plus wives tend to see the PC as a "tool" and not a "toy" even though they could not be more wrong.

Edited July 22, 2004 by JsARCLIGHT

[VF-2SS-BloodPhoenix]

Nevermind...

Edited July 22, 2004 by VF-2SS-BloodPhoenix

[wakobi]

Unfortunately, the Doom 3 version looks pretty crappy.

Maybe so..... BUT!

A) I can assure you that if you spent 150 bucks on a PC it sure as hell wouldn't run it to the same standard as an XBOX if at all!

B) The XBOX version has system link co-op which is NOT in the PC version at all

C) Todd H (Big Cheese at ID) said he was overseeing the conversion with John Caramack (The guy who helped build the engine) and V.Visions (The guys who are converting it) to ensure it's as stable in terms of frame rate as poss

D) The natrual aliasing effect done by NTSC/PAL TV's will ensure that what you see doesn't look as harsh as that screenshot from an unfinished version since PC resolutions are so sharp that they bring out every little imperfection

For all those folks who cant afford a powerful enough PC, an Xbox + DOOM 3 is still a VERY worthwhile alternative.

[Sundown]

The reason console gamers keep bring up Halo (opr Goldeneye) is because PC elitists seem to have this notion that the only way to enjoy a FPS is on a PC, preferably one that costs a ridiculous ammount of money, even though they're only going to turn around and spend another fortune to upgrade it when the next big PC FPS comes out.

The reason PC owners scoff at console Halo being held up and offered as the epitome of FPS gaming goodness is because the only real way to enjoy an FPS fully is with use of a mouse. It's just night and day... and PC players simply can't imagine putting up with the cumbersome joypads for smooth, precise, and immersive targetting. They've just been spoiled. And if multiplayer is one's thing, there's nothing that comes remotely close to what the PC offers in terms of connectivity and competition.

Frankly, Halo without a mouse IMO *pales* in comparison to what a good FPS experience on the PC can and should be like. Of course, if your X-Box is moused-equipped, power to you. But I'm betting a large percentage of console owners don't even own a mouse and keyboard to go with their box.

D) The natrual aliasing effect done by NTSC/PAL TV's will ensure that what you see doesn't look as harsh as that screenshot from an unfinished version since PC resolutions are so sharp that they bring out every little imperfection

True, non-HD TV's tend to naturally anti-alias the display, but it remains that the display itself is still usually at crummy resolutions, even in progressive mode. With anti-aliasing being widely available on PC graphics cards now, the final image quality of a game will still look far better than the same game would on a console. If you want to simulate the TV's natural aliasing with a PC, you can do one of three things.

1. Hook the display up to a TV using the video-out port found on most video-cards.

2. Run the game at 640x480 (progressive NTSC resolution).

3. Smear Vaseline on your screen.

-Al

Edited July 22, 2004 by Sundown

[Max Jenius]

Which monitors? Large ones with itty bitty dot pitch. IIRC a poll taken a few months ago said that the vast majority were on 17'' monitors... = hella tiny.

Man, and all the console people talking about upgrade this and upgrade that... and how much PCs cost... that's a valid argument... but we're not arguing cost and an X-box is not in any way whatsoever a viable replacement for PC. Oh and these days you can make a budget pc that can play Doom 3 perfectly fine(better than X-Box I'd wager) for approximately $700. That's hardly a fortune... I've worked some crappy jobs and still been able to afford everything I like. . . including computer stuff.

Just because something costs more doesn't mean its not better. We're talking graphics quality. And if you wanna pull the control issue... well you won't catch me playing ANY fps with a controller. That's lame... mice are just faster.... they're made for precision pointin and clicking lol. While it may not be a "trigger" its not as if a console controller's plastic, analogue, triggers are in any way close to or even similar to firing a gun. You're pushing a button no matter where you party... (well till you go to the range as I'm sure a lot of us like to do).

I must say that for its time, Goldeneye was ok... but it was already outdone in multiplayer by Quake. Halo... many have said sucked.. but I wasn't going to say that earlier. I mean... I liked Goldeneye, but even then it was choppy and ugly... it was more for the comedy relief that I played.

But we all have our own opinions... and different people place different values on different aspects. Me? I prefer gameplay and graphics over everything else. I mean, sure snobs may say that graphics aren't everything and they aren't... but a GORGEOUS game like Farcry is going to suspend my disbelief more than a graphically sub-par game like well hey... Quake. Of course there are other factors, but we all get the point.

Doom 3? I'm gonna play on the PC....and drool...

[Cdr Fokker]

IMO, STALKER is going to kick the crap out of D3. Pretty damn good graphics coupled with amazing gameplay elements (STALKER) wins out over just great graphics alone (D3), at least in my book.

Also, who here has seen the promo images of the Unreal 3 engine?

Back to the talk of systems: I have a feeling that D3 isn't going to be that good at all for people with lower-end machines. Yes, they might meet the requirements, but the major draw of D3 (aside from "it's doom") is the graphics, as well as a little bit of the atmosphere that the graphics create

As for the talk of consoles - "true" FPS's suck on consoles (meaning ones without assisted/auto aiming and the like). Why? The console is geared toward the joypad instead of the mouse and keyboard. It is much harder to get the speed and precision of a mouse from any sort of stick on a joypad. People also talk about consoles looking just as good - maybe better - graphically. But that's due to some of the issues already addressed, such as the lower resolutions of TVs, which means that the lower-power consoles can still deal with a lot of stuff (try running your PC games at TV resolutions all the time and see what kind of speed you get with that).

[Terpfen]

IMO, STALKER is going to kick the crap out of D3. Pretty damn good graphics coupled with amazing gameplay elements (STALKER) wins out over just great graphics alone (D3), at least in my book.

Also, who here has seen the promo images of the Unreal 3 engine?

Back to the talk of systems: I have a feeling that D3 isn't going to be that good at all for people with lower-end machines. Yes, they might meet the requirements, but the major draw of D3 (aside from "it's doom") is the graphics, as well as a little bit of the atmosphere that the graphics create

As for the talk of consoles - "true" FPS's suck on consoles (meaning ones without assisted/auto aiming and the like). Why? The console is geared toward the joypad instead of the mouse and keyboard. It is much harder to get the speed and precision of a mouse from any sort of stick on a joypad. People also talk about consoles looking just as good - maybe better - graphically. But that's due to some of the issues already addressed, such as the lower resolutions of TVs, which means that the lower-power consoles can still deal with a lot of stuff (try running your PC games at TV resolutions all the time and see what kind of speed you get with that).

One: try playing the game before you bash it for not having any gameplay. According to PC Gamer, a plot is present, complete with mission objectives. For people who like shooting everything that moves, you do that while completing mission objectives--just like Half-life!

Two: according to HardOCP's Doom 3 benchmarks from July 20, Doom 3 will run fine on low-end machines. I quote: "As of this afternoon we were playing DOOM 3 on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4 box with a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and having a surprisingly good gaming experience. Even a subtle jump to an AMD 2500+ with a GeForce 3 video card that is two years old will deliver a solid gaming experience that will let you enjoy the game the way id Software designed it to be. That fact alone should let many of you know that you will not be left behind in experiencing DOOM 3."

Three: I know plenty of people who prefer to play FPS games with controllers instead of the mouse/keyboard combo. Let's not be elitist here, shall we? Isn't it the gameplay that matters most? You seemed to believe that at the start of your post.

Edit:

Four: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. looks to be a pretty good game, assuming it ever gets released. At this point, it's a lot like Half-life 2. It's promising a lot, but will we ever play it?

Edited July 23, 2004 by Terpfen

[Max Jenius]

Three: I know plenty of people who prefer to play FPS games with controllers instead of the mouse/keyboard combo. Let's not be elitist here, shall we? Isn't it the gameplay that matters most? You seemed to believe that at the start of your post.

PFF.. its not being elitist at all. Mice allow you to point and click WAY faster than any pad. When you need to whip around to kill enemies sneaking behind your ass while fighting another group out front you'd want a mouse. This is especially true in straight DM games... where its all against all and you're turnin 360 shooting, and changing your elevation... its much MUCH more intuitive. Or you could have a "quick 180 spin button" but that wastes a button that could be used for other, more useful abilities.

Its not elitist at all, I've played with both and the sticks simply don't have the range of speed that is required in fast paced DM games. Sure you can do ok, but I wouldn't bet any money on a pad-player vs a mouse player.

X-Boxes have mice... don't they? So it ain't even an issue of PCs vs Consoles because both options are available on both machines.

Look at it this way;

You've got a mouse, a device made for the sole purpose of target acquisition and clicking (extends to shooting...)

Then you've got the standard console controller that hasn't evolved that much from the NES platforming days when games were made for 2d space. But this is still PERFECT for the games that one sees on the console. . . but not so hot for FPS games.

For fighters and most adventure games I love consoles, but for FPS games the choice is obvious.

[Radd]

And flight sims. X-Wing just would not work on a console, and the Rogue Squadron and Jed iStarfighter series are just gimped arcade shooters.

[Max Jenius]

And flight sims. X-Wing just would not work on a console, and the Rogue Squadron and Jed iStarfighter series are just gimped arcade shooters.

Not that arcade shooters are bad. I do appreciate the analogue stick for those arcade shooters....

But sims require many buttons... I'm not a big fan.

[Cdr Fokker]

One: try playing the game before you bash it for not having any gameplay. According to PC Gamer, a plot is present, complete with mission objectives. For people who like shooting everything that moves, you do that while completing mission objectives--just like Half-life!

Notice the three letters in front of my statement: I M O. That'd be IN MY OPINION. From what I have seen, and what I, personally, think, D3 will not be my kind of game. But STALKER probably will.

Comparisons to HL don't get you very far. That game fell WAY short of the hype which I had heard about. While good, it certainly isn't something that should be continued to be followed closely today. With the increase in processor and memory capabilities, we should now expect more ineractivity, more dynamic elements, and less linear shoot-em-up gameplay. D3 will probably give the latter. Why? Because it's doom, for one (and that's what people are expecting from it). Generally, what I've seen also shows this, that while there will be a storyline, the game will still be predominantly straightforward action.

Also, I didn't straight out bash D3. I said that IMO, good graphics + incredible and somewhat-original (at least in the way they're combined) elements > what D3 will probably offer, but all in what I would like from a game. Did I say straight out that D3 sucks? No. Did I imply that I think D3 will probably be mostly eye candy? Yes, but until it comes out, we don't know at all, so it's all opinions. Plus, just because I don't like something doesn't mean everybody doesn't like it. Probably the opposite - if I don't like something, chances are, there's a big following.

[Terpfen]

PFF.. its not being elitist at all. Mice allow you to point and click WAY faster than any pad. When you need to whip around to kill enemies sneaking behind your ass while fighting another group out front you'd want a mouse. This is especially true in straight DM games... where its all against all and you're turnin 360 shooting, and changing your elevation... its much MUCH more intuitive. Or you could have a "quick 180 spin button" but that wastes a button that could be used for other, more useful abilities.

It's extremely elitist, and childish to boot. "MY TOY IS BETTER THAN YOURS," whined the child. PC players prefer the mouse or trackball and a keyboard. Console players do just fine with a gamepad. This is really a stupid argument.

Its not elitist at all, I've played with both and the sticks simply don't have the range of speed that is required in fast paced DM games. Sure you can do ok, but I wouldn't bet any money on a pad-player vs a mouse player.

Perhaps you don't, but perhaps others do. Perhaps you don't like trackballs, but perhaps others do. I remember one LAN tournament--I believe it was a QuakeCon--where the champion used a trackball. I can't use a trackball to save my life. I can't stand the things. But if the trackball led this person to victory, more power to them.

This is not an issue of the quality of the tools, but the quality of the user. I personally use a mouse and keyboard, and restrict my FPS gaming to the PC. I even wait for GTA releases on the PC, just so I can use the mouse and keyboard (not to mention improved graphics, FSAA, inserting my own mp3s, and enhanced sound.) But I don't sit here and say, "GTA sucks with a gamepad."

X-Boxes have mice... don't they? So it ain't even an issue of PCs vs Consoles because both options are available on both machines.

The Xbox lacks a mouse. The only keyboard available is for exclusive use with Phantasy Star Online.

Look at it this way;

You've got a mouse, a device made for the sole purpose of target acquisition and clicking (extends to shooting...)

Then you've got the standard console controller that hasn't evolved that much from the NES platforming days when games were made for 2d space. But this is still PERFECT for the games that one sees on the console. . . but not so hot for FPS games.

The mouse was invented in the same time frame (late '70s/early '80s) as the joypad. The idea that the joypad is useless because it's an old design is ridiculous. Using this argument, I can buy an Xbox tomorrow, then say it's superior to my PC because it's newer.

I prefer to look at it this way;

Some people like the mouse and don't want to use a gamepad. Some like the gamepad and don't want to, or can't, use a mouse. Some act like children when they say "my controller is better than yours!"

For fighters and most adventure games I love consoles, but for FPS games the choice is obvious.

I agree that the PC is a better platform for FPS games. That doesn't mean the gamepad is inferior. I know a few people who are just like you, except in reverse; they love the gamepad and can't get used to keyboard/mouse control. They do just fine with the gamepad, while we do just fine with the keyboard/mouse.

Grow up, please.

[Terpfen]

Notice the three letters in front of my statement: I M O. That'd be IN MY OPINION. From what I have seen, and what I, personally, think, D3 will not be my kind of game. But STALKER probably will.

Oh, you're entitled to your opinion. You're just not entitled to your own set of facts. It's rather fanboyish to knock a game you haven't tried based on unconfirmed criteria. I can say, "GTA San Andreas is going to suck because of X, Y, and Z," but that doesn't mean it's an informed opinion. Likewise, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. could completely suck. It could become tedious traveling over the game's territory. The story could be Hollywood cheese. But that doesn't mean it will. That's why I'll play the game to find out what it's like.

Comparisons to HL don't get you very far. That game fell WAY short of the hype which I had heard about. While good, it certainly isn't something that should be continued to be followed closely today. With the increase in processor and memory capabilities, we should now expect more ineractivity, more dynamic elements, and less linear shoot-em-up gameplay. D3 will probably give the latter. Why? Because it's doom, for one (and that's what people are expecting from it). Generally, what I've seen also shows this, that while there will be a storyline, the game will still be predominantly straightforward action.

I agree that Half-life is overhyped. I didn't like it much myself. However, what I did like was the fact that there was a point to your exploration and shooting. There were places to go, objectives to achieve. Doom 3 provides this. Will it be interesting? More likely than not, it will.

Using Doom and Doom 2 as examples of what Doom 3's gameplay will be like is a weak analysis, IMO. Quake was a brainless shoot-'em-up, whereas Quake 2 focused more on exploration. Same name, different gameplay. Play Doom 3, then form your opinion about its quality, not vice versa.

Also, I didn't straight out bash D3. I said that IMO, good graphics + incredible and somewhat-original (at least in the way they're combined) elements > what D3 will probably offer, but all in what I would like from a game. Did I say straight out that D3 sucks? No. Did I imply that I think D3 will probably be mostly eye candy? Yes, but until it comes out, we don't know at all, so it's all opinions. Plus, just because I don't like something doesn't mean everybody doesn't like it. Probably the opposite - if I don't like something, chances are, there's a big following.

You didn't need to say Doom 3 sucks. Your implications did it for you.

[Max Jenius]

It's extremely elitist, and childish to boot. "MY TOY IS BETTER THAN YOURS," whined the child. PC players prefer the mouse or trackball and a keyboard. Console players do just fine with a gamepad. This is really a stupid argument.

No... actually I wasn't saying that. Perhaps its simply mouse envy.

There's no division, I play both and know many that do in fact we regularly have lans with hundreds of people at my university where we play both console and pc games. Want me to do a poll next time? You're reading too much into this and you make it seem like its black and white. I'm talking about FPS games, in fact I challenge your gamepad FPS buddies to a game vs mouse players. I may not have all the tools, but I'll make it happen since you seem so confident.

Perhaps you don't, but perhaps others do. Perhaps you don't like trackballs, but perhaps others do. I remember one LAN tournament--I believe it was a QuakeCon--where the champion used a trackball. I can't use a trackball to save my life. I can't stand the things. But if the trackball led this person to victory, more power to them.

Trackballs are also faster than joypads. Its not preference. They're just better for the job man. Just like a cheese slicer cuts even slices better than a knife.

This is not an issue of the quality of the tools, but the quality of the user. I personally use a mouse and keyboard, and restrict my FPS gaming to the PC. I even wait for GTA releases on the PC, just so I can use the mouse and keyboard (not to mention improved graphics, FSAA, inserting my own mp3s, and enhanced sound.) But I don't sit here and say, "GTA sucks with a gamepad."

Comparatively it does... in fact they made GTA3 better than the PS2 version in many ways BETTER by adding the mouse look... and that has nothing to do with the user. It was just way more intuitive. Good example!

The mouse was invented in the same time frame (late '70s/early '80s) as the joypad. The idea that the joypad is useless because it's an old design is ridiculous. Using this argument, I can buy an Xbox tomorrow, then say it's superior to my PC because it's newer.

I'm not saying its useless because its old, nor am I saying its useless at all. I'm saying that for first person shooters specifically, the mouse/trackball is a better tool. And if these superiour joypad users are down, I welcome the competition.

Some people like the mouse and don't want to use a gamepad. Some like the gamepad and don't want to, or can't, use a mouse. Some act like children when they say "my controller is better than yours!"

Nobody really said that at all. Its a specific point. So far the only names that I've seen called are "child" and "elitist" and they weren't uttered by anyone boosting the mouse.

I agree that the PC is a better platform for FPS games. That doesn't mean the gamepad is inferior. I know a few people who are just like you, except in reverse; they love the gamepad and can't get used to keyboard/mouse control. They do just fine with the gamepad, while we do just fine with the keyboard/mouse.

Yeah, they can't get used to it. I CAN AND DO get used to both, but for FPS games, the PC is the obvious choice. There's just too much you can do with a mouse that cannot be accomplished by a micro analogue stick. Hell, I'd take a flight stick over a gamepad for FPS games too... and I don't even own one. And if you agree then why are you arguing for something that you do not believe to be true? Just because you can't get used to something doesn't mean it isn't superior. Hell, my grandma still uses her old ass typewriter... despite the superiority of the laptop. Is that her choice? Yes. Does that make typewriters just as good as a laptop? Not by a long shot.

Grow up, please.

More insults. From the mature one no less.

lol... wasn't there something about an X-Box scorned?

Wasn't there something about Doom 3 in this thread? You know, before Tepfren went around being so mature?

[Terpfen]

There's no division, I play both and know many that do in fact we regularly have lans with hundreds of people at my university where we play both console and pc games. Want me to do a poll next time? You're reading too much into this and you make it seem like its black and white. I'm talking about FPS games, in fact I challenge your gamepad FPS buddies to a game vs mouse players. I may not have all the tools, but I'll make it happen since you seem so confident.

Actually, there IS a division, because consoles are the more popular gaming platform. This is why PC developers are porting more and more of their games to the Xbox (off the top of my head, Deus Ex 2, HL2, Doom 3), or even switching platforms altogether (Bungie). I have consoles, and I have a PC. I use the keyboard/mouse combo on the PC, and I use the joypad on the consoles. I'd say that's a fairly obvious--black and white, even--decision. You're either using one or the other to play Doom 3.

As for me reading into this... my problem is with your clueless attitude, not your preference.

Comparatively it does... in fact they made GTA3 better than the PS2 version in many ways BETTER by adding the mouse look... and that has nothing to do with the user. It was just way more intuitive. Good example!

Yeah, I enjoy using the mouse and keyboard myself. But all you need to do is look at sales figures to discern that more people prefer the gamepad. I've never heard complaints of GTA being unenjoyable on the PS2 because of the controller.

I'm not saying its useless because its old, nor am I saying its useless at all. I'm saying that for first person shooters specifically, the mouse/trackball is a better tool. And if these superiour joypad users are down, I welcome the competition.

Actually, you're not. You're saying that for FPS games, there's no alternative, and that FPS games are playable only when using the mouse/keyboard combo, and you insult the joypad in terms of its potential for FPS games. You may think you're merely expressing a preference, but it sure isn't coming off like that.

Nobody really said that at all. Its a specific point. So far the only names that I've seen called are "child" and "elitist" and they weren't uttered by anyone boosting the mouse.

Actually, this entire argument we're in stems from you bashing the joypad as a controller for FPS games. Had you merely said, "Because I don't like using the joypad in FPS games, I'll skip Doom 3 on the consoles," we wouldn't be here right now. Instead, your point was and is, "The joypad sucks for FPS games and I don't know how people can use that damn thing, it's so unresponsive and slow," despite the fact that neither one of us have heard a single line of complaints from joypad users. If you want to peg me as the immature one here, go right ahead; you're still on record as whining about something you never use in the first place.

Just because you can't get used to something doesn't mean it isn't superior. Hell, my grandma still uses her old ass typewriter... despite the superiority of the laptop. Is that her choice?  Yes. Does that make typewriters just as good as a laptop? Not by a long shot.

Another "it sucks because it's old" argument. Already covered this.

lol... wasn't there something about an X-Box scorned?

I wouldn't know. I don't own an Xbox.

Wasn't there something about Doom 3 in this thread?

Yeah, we're still on the topic of the merits of Doom 3 on the PC versus Doom 3 on the Xbox, and given that control is a requirement of playing a game, I'd say the fact that we're talking about gamepads, mice, and keyboards says we're still on topic.

Or at least, we WERE on topic, because I think I've made my point. Discussion over.

[Druna Skass]

I've never found a need for mouse precision in an FPS when I have a MACHINE GUN...

If you're a sniper, play long enough with a controler and you'll adjust, just watch some those guys who spend too much time on SOCOM.

I've played FPS on both PS2 and PCs, to be honest, the key board and mouse just piss me off. You can rotate just as fast with a stick as you can with a mouse, all you need to do is jack up the sensetivity.

The only games I've found the mouse any useful for me are RTS.

But hey that's just my opinion and personal preference...

[Blaine23]

I gave up on PC gaming years ago. Too much trouble to keep with the specs and the more I grew up and began using my PC for work, the less I cared about that stuff.

I have a pretty big system, capable of rendering architectural 3D drawings, print graphics, and replicating web servers for development... yet I still don't have the specs neccessary to play games and blow up crap in this day and age. That's a bit funny, if you think about it.

I bought a PS2 to play Grand Theft Auto a few years back and I get all the mindless entertainment I need from it.

The PC is strictly for work. And wasting time here. And downloading ridiculous amounts of mp3s and pr0n.

[Jawjaw]

I've never found a need for mouse precision in an FPS when I have a MACHINE GUN...

If you're a sniper, play long enough with a controler and you'll adjust, just watch some those guys who spend too much time on SOCOM.

I've played FPS on both PS2 and PCs, to be honest, the key board and mouse just piss me off. You can rotate just as fast with a stick as you can with a mouse, all you need to do is jack up the sensetivity.

The only games I've found the mouse any useful for me are RTS.

But hey that's just my opinion and personal preference...

True, you do get used to the paddles but you just can't deny the precision and speed of the mouse. If you jack up the sensitivity of the joystick for quick roations, then it becomes more difficult to make smaller adjustments. Try navigating in windows with a joystick or a nipple pointer device on some laptops. It is very doable but not as fluid as a mouse. Consoles would be much easier to use if you could hook up a mouse and keyboard. Other things I would like to see in the next gen consoles: play DIVX movies, play MP3's with built in jukebox, support DVD audio, and act as a basic PVR.

[justvinnie]

It certainly is not impossible to get an accruate aim on a joypad, but mice are way more intuitive. If it was the other way around, then you would see joypads connected to computers to move the cursor around instead of mice. I'd much rather aim with a mouse than a joypad. It takes too long to adjust to the accuracy and precision necessary to aim well with a joypad.

vinnie

[Max Jenius]

Actually, there IS a division, because consoles are the more popular gaming platform. This is why PC developers are porting more and more of their games to the Xbox (off the top of my head, Deus Ex 2, HL2, Doom 3), or even switching platforms altogether (Bungie). I have consoles, and I have a PC. I use the keyboard/mouse combo on the PC, and I use the joypad on the consoles. I'd say that's a fairly obvious--black and white, even--decision. You're either using one or the other to play Doom 3.

*yawn* Yeah, and people that play consoles don't own a PC. . . like your example. You sound pretty divided there.

As for me reading into this... my problem is with your clueless attitude, not your preference.

Oh, so I'm clueless now?

Yeah, I enjoy using the mouse and keyboard myself. But all you need to do is look at sales figures to discern that more people prefer the gamepad. I've never heard complaints of GTA being unenjoyable on the PS2 because of the controller.

Yeah, and sales figures don't mean that a person cannot own both and just because someone owns a console doens't mean they prefer the gamepad. And you called me clueless. GTA3 for PC came out wayyy after the original... and the PS2 is the best selling console around... what did you think would happen? duhhhhh....

Actually, you're not. You're saying that for FPS games, there's no alternative, and that FPS games are playable only when using the mouse/keyboard combo, and you insult the joypad in terms of its potential for FPS games. You may think you're merely expressing a preference, but it sure isn't coming off like that.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not expressing a preference either, I'm basing this on observation from years of experience playing both on consoles and PCs on more servers than I can count. Yeah, I must say I do prefer the superior tool... but I'm a sucker for efficiency. ... and my challenge still stands.

Actually, this entire argument we're in stems from you bashing the joypad as a controller for FPS games. Had you merely said, "Because I don't like using the joypad in FPS games, I'll skip Doom 3 on the consoles," we wouldn't be here right now. Instead, your point was and is, "The joypad sucks for FPS games and I don't know how people can use that damn thing, it's so unresponsive and slow," despite the fact that neither one of us have heard a single line of complaints from joypad users. If you want to peg me as the immature one here, go right ahead; you're still on record as whining about something you never use in the first place.

Pff, now you're just being flat out ignorant. You haven't heard any complaints ... ok... does that prove anything? No.... especially not on this site. Why don't you go over to PA Forums and ask THEM what they prefer? Its a bigger board and everyone is a gamer.

Another "it sucks because it's old" argument. Already covered this.

No, its a "better tool for the job" not "it sucks because its old" are you even reading my posts? I don't think so... take some reading comprehension classes. Oh... and one way to win an argument is not making putting words in your opponents mouth... especially on a message board where everyone can see that is not what your opponent said.

Yeah, we're still on the topic of the merits of Doom 3 on the PC versus Doom 3 on the Xbox, and given that control is a requirement of playing a game, I'd say the fact that we're talking about gamepads, mice, and keyboards says we're still on topic.

Or at least, we WERE on topic, because I think I've made my point. Discussion over.

Keep telling yourself that. Slinging insults and putting words into the mouth of the person you're debating with doesn't mean you've made any sort of point. In fact it means that you're fighting a losing battle. This discussion was over when I made my first post on the subject. You chose to drag it out with your ramblings, but hey that's fine its been relatively simple to quell as you simply don't seem to be able to comprehend... but I can live with that. You're right though, the discussion is over, you've proven on more than one occasion that your strategy is to put words into peoples' mouths and argue with that... rather than what they said... which is kind of the whole point of debate... but that's ok. Look at the number of FPS games for the console and for the PC, look at those sales figures.... hell, make a poll on PA... I'll bet you $20 that KB + mouse will win the day. Oh, I also thought I should mention it funny that you claim that I can't get used to a joy pad when I've already stated that I play both and get used to them.. then you bring up your pad playing friends that "can't get used to the kb + mouse" and they're golden... yes... the discussion is over indeed.

[Max Jenius]

It certainly is not impossible to get an accruate aim on a joypad, but mice are way more intuitive. If it was the other way around, then you would see joypads connected to computers to move the cursor around instead of mice. I'd much rather aim with a mouse than a joypad. It takes too long to adjust to the accuracy and precision necessary to aim well with a joypad.

vinnie

That pretty much sums it up right there.

[Sundown]

It's extremely elitist, and childish to boot. "MY TOY IS BETTER THAN YOURS," whined the child. PC players prefer the mouse or trackball and a keyboard. Console players do just fine with a gamepad. This is really a stupid argument.

It's not a stupid argument. It's not even really an argument at all. While pads might be *sufficient* for a console player, who isn't spoiled by the natural, intuitive, and responsive nature of a mouse... and while it might be sufficent with games that add a bit of auto-aim nudging to assist the inherently innaccurate nature of the gamepad... there's really no argument that mice make much better targetting devices than pads do at their best.

A pad might be usable... its akwardness might even fade away with some practice... but nearly anyone who's used both at length and who doesn't have emotional biases towards one way or another will likely conclude that a mouse would serve an FPS much better, especially in games that allow for or require quick and precise targetting of very small targets.

Yeah, I enjoy using the mouse and keyboard myself. But all you need to do is look at sales figures to discern that more people prefer the gamepad. I've never heard complaints of GTA being unenjoyable on the PS2 because of the controller.

That's a pretty dubious use of statistics to determine whether people prefer the gamepad over a mouse for use in any given FPS. The fact of the matter is, consoles are more accessible for most people, at a much lower pricepoint and for a whole lot less hassle. And they likely own a console to player other types of games consoles excel at... and which gamepads excel at. Just because they already own such a system, and even if they go out and buy an FPS for that system... does not mean they would prefer a gamepad to a mouse on an FPS. They buy and use consoles for a host of other reasons, outside of game controller preference.

Just because something is usable doesn't mean something else can't be inherently better for the job. Just because one (or many) refuses to adapt to the better option doesn't mean that option ceases to be superior. Just because one deems his tool "good enough" doesn't mean the other tool doesn't have much more to offer.

I have never heard of a hardcore FPS gamer purchase a console for the express purpose of playing FPS's with a gamepad. In fact, if gamepads were as servicable at mice in FPS's, you'd see more of them used in PC FPS's. I've seen all of none.

-Al

Edited July 23, 2004 by Sundown

[Max Jenius]

Other Gamers Responses.....via PA Forums...

Good post Sundown, but I guess you're just immature too. Along with the people on the PA forums guess they don't know anything about games/gaming. Tepfren is just too mature for us.