• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Could Doom3 be pulled of on the Gamecube?

wobedraggled

Banned
Dec 2, 2004
1,141
0
0
Some good reading in here, thanks guys, I knew It could be done, but to what extent was my issue.

AndI dont trust a word out of Carmack's mouth, he's an arrogant nerd, nothing more.
 

teh_pwn

"Saturated fat causes heart disease as much as Brawndo is what plants crave."
Jun 14, 2004
14,602
33
1,585
Austin
No. None of the consoles can handle it. Just because Xbox has a butchered version doesn't mean it's handling it.

The PC version is extremely heavy on lighting. Beyond this generation of consoles. That and it has well defined textures and massive amounts of bump mapping.

So could Gamecube handle a butchered version? Certainly. It would be weaker than Xbox on some accounts, and better in others. Xbox would have more true sound tho, so Xbox wins.
 

Dr_Cogent

Banned
Dec 17, 2004
14,095
0
0
USA
Speevy said:
I would like to see Riddick on the PS2. That would be funny.
Buahahahahahaha!

Not!

wobedraggled said:
Some good reading in here, thanks guys, I knew It could be done, but to what extent was my issue.

AndI dont trust a word out of Carmack's mouth, he's an arrogant nerd, nothing more.
Carmack is the man, don't diss the guy. :)

The Xbox was around the hardware design that Carmack was shooting for, that's why he had all the nice things to say about it. GC Doom 3 < Xbox Doom 3 < High End PC Doom 3

Obviously that's all just speculation, but it's an educated guess.
 

EternalDarko

Member
Jan 24, 2005
2,590
0
0
Borys said:
Doom 3 went to Xbox not because it's the strongest console out there but because there's a market for this kind of game (FPS) on the green console. The majority of Xboxers (that's a neutral term, right?) love shooters and they'll love Doom 3.

Really, I don't see any point in porting D3 to GameCube. Pay me $100 and I'd still couldn't find it. 95% of people interested in Doom 3 has already beaten it, the rest will get it next week on Xbox. That leaves 0% of market for the Cube version.

Thats not true, the Majority of PC FPS players I know, including myself thought Doom3 was nothing more than a tech demo. We all got it for the hype and got bored of it after a few hours. I'm sorry but people won't love it just because it's an FPS.
 

tahrikmili

Member
Sep 30, 2004
5,632
0
0
EternalDarko said:
Thats not true, the Majority of PC FPS players I know, including myself thought Doom3 was nothing more than a tech demo. We all got it for the hype and got bored of it after a few hours. I'm sorry but people won't love it just because it's an FPS.
I think you missed the point..
 

aaaaa0

Member
Jun 11, 2004
2,803
0
0
Short answer:

No, not the way Carmack intended his lighting algorithm to run.

Longer answer:

The Gamecube GPU simply does not have the featureset that Carmack needs to run the Doom3 lighting algorithm as it is intended to be run.

Of the current generation consoles, the only one with a GPU that has the necessary operations is the xbox.

That said, just because the XGPU has the necessary operations, does not mean the xbox is fast enough or has enough RAM to run Doom3's engine at a comparable detail level to a high-end PC. Of course it does not. However, that does not change the fact that, in principle, his full lighting equation can run on the xbox GPU.
 

Shompola

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
3,914
0
0
-=::[Eagle-Vision]::=- said:
DOT3 BM is indeed the same as normal mapping.
It is a subset. Normal mapping is indeed a variation of bump mapping. But the point is that because both of those methods use normal maps, it doesn't necessary mean they do the calculations in the same way and for same purposes.
 

Fafalada

Fafracer forever
Jun 22, 2004
7,606
84
1,675
jarrod said:
in an older thread on normal mapping (around the time Riddick came out) the techie verdict seemed to be that both GC and DC were capable of normal mapping while PS2 wasn't (though it could likely achieve similar results using a different process). Anyone care to comment on that?
You can use Flipper's dependant read to do DOT3 when one operand is constant, ie. you could do distant lights with it (like sun and stuff).
Doom3 however uses only local lights, and for this case you're stuck with the same kind of texture-combiner DOT3 emulation that you would do on PS2 - requiring several texture stages (multiple cycles per pixel) for one DOT3 operation - needless to say this would be quite slow.
The other problem would be that pretty much all geometry processing(from lighting to animation and volume shadow processing) would have to be done on the CPU, and Doom3 is mostly a CPU limited application to start with.


aaaa0 said:
It has EMBM, which is not the same thing.
Actually GC's dependant read is a little more complex then EMBM though.
 
Jun 9, 2004
258
0
0