Doom 3 BFG edition. Anyone excited for this?

May 22, 2011
7,255
0
0
Does anyone even know why this is a thing? They must know it's not going to be a big seller and redoing a mediocre game just doesn't make much sense to me.
Because of Doom 4. There are many people this gen, mainly console gamers, that have no idea what the Doom games are. Getting to know them, can get them at least interested if not hyped for the next chapter.
 
Jun 9, 2009
6,087
0
0
You should be able to with those specs, it's like butter on my i5 with 670, you just need to tweak the skid mod options, don't max them all out, I sure one of them kills your framerate, I remember trying each one individually.
If you could post a guide to run sikkmod with HD textures at 60 FPS at 1920x1200 I would be grateful.
 
Sep 16, 2005
6,045
0
0
There are many people this gen, mainly console gamers, that have no idea what the Doom games are..
That blows my mind. Even 90's kids should remember the Doom games on PSX and N64.

I also don't understand the complaints. Even if you consider D3 a mediocre FPS, you're still getting the RoE expansion (which is pretty good) plus an entirely new expansion pack (Lost Missions), along with the original Doom PC games. That's approaching Orange Box value.
 

JNT

Member
Dec 6, 2011
1,889
0
0
The flashlight didn't cast shadows in the original Xbox version either.

Well, let me qualify that a bit. Your flashlight didn't cast a shadow, but if you were playing co-op, your buddy's flashlight cast shadows everywhere. It was rather impressive, actually, and makes me question why they removed the shadows from the first-person flashlight.

I'm actually stunned and extremely disappointed that it doesn't cast shadows in the BFG console versions. I understod it on the original Xbox, but now it seems an unnecessary downgrade.
I wrote a shadow volume renderer a few months ago, and I found that, when rendering lights that originate from the player's location, shadows would almost never be visible even when they were actually rendered. Also bear in mind that, for shadow volumes, you effectively have to re-render the entire scene for each visible light and then add the result to the screen. By turning the shadows from the player flashlight off you effectively spare yourself from rendering the entire scene over again, at the cost of shadows that you can hardly see. This is a pretty fair trade-off if you are targeting 60 fps.
 
May 22, 2011
7,255
0
0
Tim Willits is going around claiming the flashlight in the original game wasn't possible to have it always enabled, because the shadows were killing the performance, but nowadays it's not a problem so they were able to bring it back, mounted on the weapon. It's a pretty weak excuse if they brought it back without casting any shadows; that means they could have done the exact same thing 8 years ago as well. (edit: in fact they did that for D3: RoE Xbox I think?)

And shadows from the flashlight on the original PC game *were* noticeable.
 
Jun 29, 2011
23,813
4
570
Tim Willits is going around claiming the flashlight in the original game wasn't possible to have it always enabled, because the shadows were killing the performance, but nowadays it's not a problem so they were able to bring it back, mounted on the weapon. It's a pretty weak excuse if they brought it back without casting any shadows; that means they could have done the exact same thing 8 years ago as well. (edit: in fact they did that for D3: RoE Xbox I think?)

And shadows from the flashlight on the original PC game *were* noticeable.
Forward renderers have to rerender the scene anyways with a light, regardless of shadows. Correct?
 
Jul 16, 2008
9,571
0
0
Hmmmm... I was looking forward to getting this, but Serious Sam 3 is out on XBLA on Wednesday, which has dampened my enthusiasm. For old school-type FPS action, I think Sam may be the way to go...
I wouldn't classify either as 'old-school', they're both just mediocre shooters, though SS3 is kind of redeemed in co-op.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,457
1,057
1,515
www.eurogamer.net
Tim Willits is going around claiming the flashlight in the original game wasn't possible to have it always enabled, because the shadows were killing the performance, but nowadays it's not a problem so they were able to bring it back, mounted on the weapon. It's a pretty weak excuse if they brought it back without casting any shadows; that means they could have done the exact same thing 8 years ago as well. (edit: in fact they did that for D3: RoE Xbox I think?)

And shadows from the flashlight on the original PC game *were* noticeable.
I always thought the shadows cast by the light in the original PC version looked different from the rest of the shadows. It always looked like some sort of trickery.
 

JNT

Member
Dec 6, 2011
1,889
0
0
Tim Willits is going around claiming the flashlight in the original game wasn't possible to have it always enabled, because the shadows were killing the performance, but nowadays it's not a problem so they were able to bring it back, mounted on the weapon. It's a pretty weak excuse if they brought it back without casting any shadows; that means they could have done the exact same thing 8 years ago as well. (edit: in fact they did that for D3: RoE Xbox I think?)

And shadows from the flashlight on the original PC game *were* noticeable.
Usually though a Doom 3 engine-like pipeline should look something like:
For every light in scene...
Generate shadow volume using current light and render shadow volume to stencil buffer...
Render scene using current light and stencil buffer as mask.

Maybe being able to skip the second step proved a big enough performance gain now, but not back 8 years ago. I'm just speculating, since I have never actually bench marked this.

Note that I actually did not comment on how noticeable shadows were in Doom 3. I really only have my own experience to fall back on. That being said, I still believe that the concessions that were made were made because the decrease in visual fidelity was offset by the increase in performance. In this case the shadows from the flashlight weren't noticeable *enough* to justify generating and rendering shadow volumes.

Forward renderers have to rerender the scene anyways with a light, regardless of shadows. Correct?
No, but when rendering shadow volumes it might be a good idea to do an ambient light prepass (otherwise there could be shadows around the scene that are pitch black). Regardless, I doubt increasing the intensity of the ambient light would actually look convincing enough to pass as a flashlight.
 
I doubt that this will happen. There's just no way Doom 4's gonna bomb.

Really curious how it will look and when it's going to be released. I predict Carmack's gonna blow us away.
but Doom should be something amazingly special. I was quite disappointed with Doom 3 and Rage was a real letdown.

Maybe it's just because Doom was such an amazing experience back when i first played that shareware copy. Maybe they should stop making sequels for it. Dunno :/
 
Sep 26, 2010
2,509
0
0
Tim Willits is going around claiming the flashlight in the original game wasn't possible to have it always enabled, because the shadows were killing the performance, but nowadays it's not a problem so they were able to bring it back, mounted on the weapon. It's a pretty weak excuse if they brought it back without casting any shadows; that means they could have done the exact same thing 8 years ago as well. (edit: in fact they did that for D3: RoE Xbox I think?)

And shadows from the flashlight on the original PC game *were* noticeable.
As I mentioned before, Doom 3 on the Xbox had no flashlight-generated shadows in single player. That also applies to the expansion. They were still amazing for their time.

I wrote a shadow volume renderer a few months ago, and I found that, when rendering lights that originate from the player's location, shadows would almost never be visible even when they were actually rendered. Also bear in mind that, for shadow volumes, you effectively have to re-render the entire scene for each visible light and then add the result to the screen. By turning the shadows from the player flashlight off you effectively spare yourself from rendering the entire scene over again, at the cost of shadows that you can hardly see. This is a pretty fair trade-off if you are targeting 60 fps.
In fairness, my limited experience with the PC version of Doom 3 suggests that what you say is true, namely that first person shadows are usually subtle when noticeable. That said, they contribute to the ambiance and cohesiveness of a scene, and given how the game's assets appear to have been left largely unenhanced, it's still extremely disappointing if this effect was removed.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,457
1,057
1,515
www.eurogamer.net
As much as I love Doom 3, I still believe that the gameplay was somewhat compromised as a result of performance limitations.

Nearly every enemy in the game warps into the environment or only appear when the player crosses a certain threshold while dead bodies disintegrate almost immediately. Basically, in the end, active enemies only occupy the space directly around the player. When they DO occupy that space they are also completely aware of the player and will continue to attack until killed.

I've always felt that placing active patrolling enemies throughout the level while allowing enemies to lack player awareness until the player is spotted would have improved the experience quite a bit.

What continues to stick with me is how all of this was presented in the original 2003 Doom 3 E3 demo. Most enemies encountered are not initially aware of the player and can actually lose track of the player. I know this was all scripted but I loved the concept. Being spotted only to quickly hide in a room while an enemy searches for you seems thrilling and is one of the things that made System Shock 2 so terrifying. The presence of patrolling enemies would be equally terrifying (remember those large patrolling robots in Shock 2?).

THIS is the one thing that I feel would have elevated Doom 3 to legendary territory. It was the piece of the horror puzzle that they completed missed. In that sense, I really do believe that the demands of the engine forced them to limit certain aspects of the game.
 
May 22, 2011
7,255
0
0
As I mentioned before, Doom 3 on the Xbox had no flashlight-generated shadows in single player. That also applies to the expansion. They were still amazing for their time.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. The problem is the PC version had flashlight shadows.. 8 years ago. For me it's not "okay" if this version lacks them. That's completely backwards. But I'm hoping they were removed only from the console versions.
 

JNT

Member
Dec 6, 2011
1,889
0
0
What continues to stick with me is how all of this was presented in the original 2003 Doom 3 E3 demo. Most enemies encountered are not initially aware of the player and can actually lose track of the player. I know this was all scripted but I loved the concept. Being spotted only to quickly hide in a room while an enemy searches for you seems thrilling and is one of the things that made System Shock 2 so terrifying. The presence of patrolling enemies would be equally terrifying (remember those large patrolling robots in Shock 2?).
The leaked build of the game was sooo good. Still feels like squandered potential playing the finished product today.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. The problem is the PC version had flashlight shadows.. 8 years ago. For me it's not "okay" if this version lacks them. That's completely backwards. But I'm hoping they were removed only from the console versions.
Regardless, isn't there just some console variable to fix that?
 
Sep 26, 2010
2,509
0
0
As much as I love Doom 3, I still believe that the gameplay was somewhat compromised as a result of performance limitations.

Nearly every enemy in the game warps into the environment or only appear when the player crosses a certain threshold while dead bodies disintegrate almost immediately. Basically, in the end, active enemies only occupy the space directly around the player. When they DO occupy that space they are also completely aware of the player and will continue to attack until killed.

I've always felt that placing active patrolling enemies throughout the level while allowing enemies to lack player awareness until the player is spotted would have improved the experience quite a bit.

What continues to stick with me is how all of this was presented in the original 2003 Doom 3 E3 demo. Most enemies encountered are not initially aware of the player and can actually lose track of the player. I know this was all scripted but I loved the concept. Being spotted only to quickly hide in a room while an enemy searches for you seems thrilling and is one of the things that made System Shock 2 so terrifying. The presence of patrolling enemies would be equally terrifying (remember those large patrolling robots in Shock 2?).

THIS is the one thing that I feel would have elevated Doom 3 to legendary territory. It was the piece of the horror puzzle that they completed missed. In that sense, I really do believe that the demands of the engine forced them to limit certain aspects of the game.
I never actually saw the Doom 3 E3 demo, but in fairness to id, this enemy behavior is in line with every other Doom game. I remember an interview with Carmack where he specifically highlights how they removed enemy patrols in Doom whereas this was a feature present in Wolfenstein. As a design decision I'm neutral about it. I imagine the need to balance enemy placement with lighting played a role since patrolling enemies would necessarily move in and out of places with particular lighting.

One thing I did like about enemies in Doom 3 is that, if I recall correctly, a fair number of them had semi-random spawn areas. That is to say, they could jump at you from different areas on different playthroughs. I thought that helped keep the tension up if you chose to replay the game.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. The problem is the PC version had flashlight shadows.. 8 years ago. For me it's not "okay" if this version lacks them. That's completely backwards. But I'm hoping they were removed only from the console versions.
Oh, it's not OK for me either, believe me. It's perhaps enough to discourage me from purchasing it. I'm just highlighting how both Doom 3 releases on the OG Xbox had the same limitation.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,457
1,057
1,515
www.eurogamer.net
I never actually saw the Doom 3 E3 demo, but in fairness to id, this enemy behavior is in line with every other Doom game. I remember an interview with Carmack where he specifically highlights how they removed enemy patrols in Doom whereas this was a feature present in Wolfenstein. As a design decision I'm neutral about it. I imagine the need to balance enemy placement with lighting played a role since patrolling enemies would necessarily move in and out of places with particular lighting.

One thing I did like about enemies in Doom 3 is that, if I recall correctly, a fair number of them had semi-random spawn areas. That is to say, they could jump at you from different areas on different playthroughs. I thought that helped keep the tension up if you chose to replay the game.
Enemies in classic Doom were at least present in the stage prior to the players arrival. You COULD encounter enemies before they saw you (though they did not patrol).

Doom 3 is a very different game, however, and I feel it would have benefited the experience immensely.
 
May 17, 2010
3,776
10
570
I always thought the shadows cast by the light in the original PC version looked different from the rest of the shadows. It always looked like some sort of trickery.
That was due to the light location with perfectly sharp shadows.
This led some people think that it was some sort of screen space effect, even though all shadows are handled exactly the same in the game.

All shadows in the game were perfect shadows from an infinitely small light source.
 
Jan 31, 2012
14,216
0
0
aaa
Or alternatively, if it doesn't sell, Doom 4 will go and hang out with Prey 2.
oh they'll still finish it, they'll just push it out the door and forget about it like RAGE

I'm still mad they didn't bother making any DLC or releasing mod tools for it (despite saying that they will), if they just got rid of all the bullshit in between missions, RAGE would have been a great game
 
Mar 15, 2007
5,855
0
0
USA
www.sk3tch.com
lol rec'd a shipped notice from Amazon last night and I frankly forgot this thing was coming out so soon. It's the PC version and looking at the product page I see very little reason to have picked this up (other than I'm a huge Doom fanboy - so I'm happy). I find the PC version to be very, very peculiar. I understand there's the Lost Missions for 3 but other than that there are literally 2-3 bullets that pertain to the consoles only! They've kind of pissed on PC gamers with this release unless I'm seriously missing something - and the only marketing I have seen is simply the copy that is used on Amazon's product page so that's all that I am going by.

I'll give Doom 3 another go. I enjoyed it but I am too much of a pussy to play it for long. Game is SCARY!
 
Nov 8, 2004
7,051
3
0
USA
As much as I love Doom 3, I still believe that the gameplay was somewhat compromised as a result of performance limitations.

Nearly every enemy in the game warps into the environment or only appear when the player crosses a certain threshold while dead bodies disintegrate almost immediately. Basically, in the end, active enemies only occupy the space directly around the player. When they DO occupy that space they are also completely aware of the player and will continue to attack until killed.

I've always felt that placing active patrolling enemies throughout the level while allowing enemies to lack player awareness until the player is spotted would have improved the experience quite a bit.

What continues to stick with me is how all of this was presented in the original 2003 Doom 3 E3 demo. Most enemies encountered are not initially aware of the player and can actually lose track of the player. I know this was all scripted but I loved the concept. Being spotted only to quickly hide in a room while an enemy searches for you seems thrilling and is one of the things that made System Shock 2 so terrifying. The presence of patrolling enemies would be equally terrifying (remember those large patrolling robots in Shock 2?).

THIS is the one thing that I feel would have elevated Doom 3 to legendary territory. It was the piece of the horror puzzle that they completed missed. In that sense, I really do believe that the demands of the engine forced them to limit certain aspects of the game.
I've stayed out of this thread because I see little has changed with Doom 3 but I did love the game.

dark10x, your post resonates with me on two levels.

1) I fully agree with you and did even back in 2004.
2) In addition, I always loved the imp intro sequence. How they crawl off the ceiling or out of a wall. But then they become dumb.

I'm currently playing Serious Sam BFE and while this game is full of dumb enemies (I like the SS series because of this, mindless fun is great once in awhile) there is one enemy whose AI is what I would have loved to see out of the imps. The Space Monkeys from Chapter 7, Unearthing the Sun. They stay pretty much out of view of your flashlight, and swoop down to attack. When you spin to attack them they jump back up onto the pillars and walls always trying to stay out of view of your flashlight.

Doom 3 would have benefited a lot from imps and other enemies like this. The atmosphere was perfect for smart enemies, good placement, and searching and losing you, as you put it. With some better AI, and different attacks and approaches, Doom 3 would have been completely on another level.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,457
1,057
1,515
www.eurogamer.net
Doom 3 would have benefited a lot from imps and other enemies like this. The atmosphere was perfect for smart enemies, good placement, and searching and losing you, as you put it. With some better AI, and different attacks and approaches, Doom 3 would have been completely on another level.
High five.

It's a damn shame that didn't happen as there is a lot of great stuff in Doom 3 that is spoiled by the dumb enemies and limited placement.
 
Nov 8, 2004
7,051
3
0
USA
High five.

It's a damn shame that didn't happen as there is a lot of great stuff in Doom 3 that is spoiled by the dumb enemies and limited placement.
Space Monkeys here. Give them a little more health and fireballs from the walls and you've got your perfect imp. This guy is good so you don't get to see them running away much unfortunately: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi_Jg3-8TZg&t=14m34s
 
Jun 9, 2009
6,087
0
0
Here I am considering picking up the PC version to support Doom 4 getting released and I realized its not listed on Steam! No Steam, no buy!

I guess I will try to get my system running sikkmodd again.
 
Mar 15, 2007
5,855
0
0
USA
www.sk3tch.com
Here I am considering picking up the PC version to support Doom 4 getting released and I realized its not listed on Steam! No Steam, no buy!

I guess I will try to get my system running sikkmodd again.
Pretty sure it is Steam. At least according to cursory research I did on Amazon's page...they're also releasing it on Steam per this page: http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1408944-doom-3-bfg-edition-faq/ - so I'd be pretty impressed if the PC retail release was NOT Steam integrated.

EDIT: confirmation, it's Steamworks: https://twitter.com/DOOM/status/244495971252322304.