Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Doom 3 Demo Available

michael posted about 10 years ago | from the fuligin-fun dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 391

sanderb writes "The Doom 3 demo is out (on Windows). It does not seem to be linked on the Doom 3 site yet, but is available from e.g. 3D Gamers (includes torrent). Time to see what my FX5200 can do..." Other readers point to Fileaholic.Com and

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

oh the power (5, Funny)

crtfdgk (807485) | about 10 years ago | (#10291445)

[looking at minimum requirments] Man, imagine a Beowu....Oh nevermind.....

Re:oh the power (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291484)

min. requirements aren't that bad.
bad are only the poor models. hands look like fist-gloves with a texture wrapped around them. and even in the beginning where all people are supposed to be alive their skin looks like they've became zombies 2 years ago.

the only neat things in doom3 are the light effects. and yeah the darkness!!! ;)

Re:oh the power (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | about 10 years ago | (#10291575)

In my observation, even on a GF4-Ti4200, the game looks really good when in motion. The screenshots really don't do it justice.

Where is the Linux version (4, Interesting)

Izaak (31329) | about 10 years ago | (#10291564)

I am not buying Doom III until the Linux version is available for download. That was originally promised about a week after the Windows release... but I still don't see it. Any word from ID on this?

Re:Where is the Linux version (1)

Paralizer (792155) | about 10 years ago | (#10291600)

I don't remember them promising the port with a date set on it. I do remember them talking about it in an interview, they have one guy working on the port, and they are hoping to "get it done soon".

Re:Where is the Linux version (0, Troll)

phreakv6 (760152) | about 10 years ago | (#10291606)

They'll release them in a few weaks, and although DooM 3 uses OpenGL alot, some things are hard to port, like the heat wave which uses DX9, that'll take some time. Meanwhile, I'm just as anxious as you are, so I'm playing it with Cedega.

Re:Where is the Linux version (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291681)

They are not mixing dx9 with OpenGL -- don't think that this is possible.

They are using the OpenGL ARB GLSlang extensions for advanced graphics.

Re:Where is the Linux version (1)

kerrle (810808) | about 10 years ago | (#10291769)

They are not using DX9. That's absurd. The "heat wave" and other distortion effects can be done with shaders in Open GL, and that's what they're doing.

Re:Where is the Linux version (2, Informative)

rpdillon (715137) | about 10 years ago | (#10291640)

I agree, but I have to say that id never "promises" dates. Hell, they hardly ever even mention dates. I've been waiting for the Linux port and tracking it very closely for some time. Dates were never mentioned, much less promises.

Re:Where is the Linux version (1)

Jahf (21968) | about 10 years ago | (#10291643)

Wow, I'm having a flashback to Neverwinter Nights ...

Re:oh the power (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291603)

how is the parent redundant? it's the first post for crying out loud!

Uh...the game is out (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291448)

So why would I want a demo?

Re:Uh...the game is out (5, Insightful)

Syzar (765581) | about 10 years ago | (#10291464)

To test how well game works on your comp, that is without pirating it.

Re:Uh...the game is out (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291599)

How is this redundant when, if you sort the comments by date, it's the first to pose the question? This site really has gone downhill over the last 5 years (the comments, not the stories, although the duplicates and MS bashing are a bit peculiar, seeing how they're so easy to avoid).

You mean (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 10 years ago | (#10291450)

they're just *now* getting a demo out? Doesn't that usually come *before* the game is released?

Re:You mean (2, Insightful)

phantomAI (750299) | about 10 years ago | (#10291468)

I think id's strategy was to get people to buy the game first, even if it meant that their systems couldn't handle it.

Re:You mean (5, Interesting)

Jahf (21968) | about 10 years ago | (#10291605)

That's nuts ... if you have a system that you doubt can run it, you don't buy it until:

a) the demo comes out

b) you upgrade


c) you cave in and try anyway

It isn't id's fault if people do c) ... especially if they've announced that the demo will follow on the full release (even before they finish the Linux or Mac binaries), which they most definitely did say.

And the trend lately has been for demos to come out shortly following the full release. Fact is, people who release a demo before a game's release are doing it with the knowledge it will probably not be a full showcase and it is worth it to try and drum up business. On the other hand, if a company knows that the game is high profile and will sell, there is far more incentive to finish the full game and then do a polished demo.

Re:You mean (3, Insightful)

bheading (467684) | about 10 years ago | (#10291688)

No, the strategy was to get people to buy the game first, as it isn't actually all that good.

When you've got stuff like FarCry doing all kinds of mindblowing things with the visuals and the gameplay, and compare that with how far Doom3 has come given how long it has supposedly been in development, Doom3 is a huge let-down. I suspect ID were well aware of this, so they delayed the demo by a month and kicked a huge marketing machine into place behind the game to shift as many copies as humanly possible, banking on the fans of the previous versions (ie folks like me) to snap it up straight away.

Re:You mean (1)

th1ckasabr1ck (752151) | about 10 years ago | (#10291482)

Maybe, but why should it?

Id decided to go ahead and take care of the fans who have waited years for this game and get the full thing out there as quickly as possible. The people who aren't sure if they want to buy it or not can wait, I guess.

When I put it like that it sounds like bad business.

Re:You mean (2, Insightful)

Hi_2k (567317) | about 10 years ago | (#10291557)

Not for ID. Video games are becoming mainstream, but ID is still a "Hardcore" gamer's company. They know that their market is the kind of people who hang out in IRC and play 6-8 hours daily. Sure, some "Normal" people will buy it, but their fanboy base is huge.

Re:You mean (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291664)

You're apparantly not a fanboy, since you don't know it's "id".

Re:You mean (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 10 years ago | (#10291665)

Are you kidding? Id is probably the most mainstream FPS maker out there. Hell, it's probably the only FPS franchise that non-gamers have even heard of.

Re:You mean (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 10 years ago | (#10291486)

well, at least they're getting it out.

can't say that much for other companies which pretty much just drop everything on a game once it's out of the door.

Re:You mean (5, Insightful)

Jonny_eh (765306) | about 10 years ago | (#10291495)

They always said that the game would get released 'When it is done'. 'It' wasn't the demo, 'it' was the full game. The demo is a nice thing to have but if they waited till the demo was done, the game would only see a release now.
Now, only if they hired an extra person to work concurrently on the demo so it could've been ready in August...

Re:You mean (4, Funny)

Neophytus (642863) | about 10 years ago | (#10291736)

Or do what Epic Games (Unreal) do. For every main build of an in-house game their script creates a 1) Full game 2) Dedicated server and 3) Demo build. The latter two are cut down from the full game as specified. Typically, though, the second two are not released.

Re:You mean (4, Insightful)

sinergy (88242) | about 10 years ago | (#10291496)

Creating a demo before the final product just pushes back the final product's release date.

Re:You mean (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291563)

they're just *now* getting a demo out? Doesn't that usually come *before* the game is released?

No kidding. Don't waste your bandwidth, Doom 3 sucks royally. It's too dark and boring. You can't have your flashlight on while holding your gun so it's a pain in the ass to even see an enemy coming at you. Also, multiplayer is virtually non-existant! I think the most players you can have is 4. WTF is this, 1994?

Re:You mean (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 10 years ago | (#10291598)

What, you need the flashlight during combat? There are maybe two or three parts in the game where you need additional light to spot the enemies. Except for those I never had any problem spotting the monsters (is it just me or does the game get brighter the farther you get?).

Re:You mean (4, Funny)

mikael (484) | about 10 years ago | (#10291826)

Going by all the Hollywood movies I have seen, you never go into hand-to-tentacle combat in space space unless you have:

1. A spacesuit with a large illuminated helmet with headcam so the aliens know where to shoot.

2. A large rifle with infinite rounds of ammunition with and grenade thrower and flame thrower, and laser pointer that shows everyone where you are. Glow sticks are optional.

3. A dodgy radio communications system that will alway pack up when you go into a washroom or are within 5 metres of an large alien with sharp teeth.

4. A state-of-the-art alien detector that tells you how far away the aliens are to the nearest nanometer, but won't tell you if they are
above or below you.

5. An android with reflexes faster than a laser-rifle, and an IQ to match your PC's clock speed, but who has decided to contemplate the meaning of life and become a buddhist monk instead.

Re:You mean (2, Insightful)

Finkbug (789750) | about 10 years ago | (#10291648)

"they're just *now* getting a demo out? Doesn't that usually come *before* the game is released?"

Let's see. I've got a game that millions pre-ordered years in advance. It's arguably the most anticipated computer game ever. It will sell out on the first day.

What exactly do I gain with a pre-release demo?

Seriously folks: why on earth would they demo DOOM 3 before the release? People were going to buy it anyway. Heck, a demo might well have decreased early sales as some (such as me) found it maybe the third best FPS released so far this year. An early demo would have gained them *nothing*. Releasing one now will help pick up a second wave or purchasers.

Demos are essential for selling WidgetMaster: The Velvet Antenna of Dragondom. DOOM 3 didn't need one.

isnt this already out? (0, Redundant)

Alkivar (25833) | about 10 years ago | (#10291451)

i thought this was already available in stores?

now a Quake 4 demo i'd love to see ;)

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291452)

Hi mom!

Demo? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291456)

Isn't the game already out? Or is this just for us to cheap to buy a game which no hardware can support?

That's good of them - a demo of the beginning (2, Interesting)

Enlarge Your Penis (781779) | about 10 years ago | (#10291465)

Hasn't the main complaint with Doom 3 been that it gets crap in the middle? Publishers releasing demos highlighting only their showcase early levels are the reason people pirate games to try them out.

Getting your hopes up. (5, Funny)

Bullseye_blam (589856) | about 10 years ago | (#10291473)

"Time to see what my FX5200 can do..."

Please don't.

[and please don't buy an iMac for the purpose of playing Doom 3 acceptably - the 'Ultra' tacked onto the end doesn't change much].

On second thought, if you just run around the game without ever using the flashlight, you won't be able to see anything anyway, so you won't realize that you're only getting 13 frames per second!


Re:Getting your hopes up. (4, Informative)

grumbel (592662) | about 10 years ago | (#10291531)

Depends, for god-mode and just looking at the graphics a FX5200 + 1Ghz is enough, as long as no enemies are on the screen it also runs quite well or at least not much worse then the original Doom did on a 386er. Sure, as soon as monsters apear and the action starts the fps will drop down and the game will be almost unplayable, god-mode will help here.

So yes, a FX5200 isn't enough to play the game, but its enough to look at the graphics and walk around a bit.

Re:Getting your hopes up. (5, Funny)

Bullseye_blam (589856) | about 10 years ago | (#10291658)

Oh, that's right... this game wasn't meant to be played anyway, just looked at.

I forgot!


Re:Getting your hopes up. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291697)

Uhhmm. I've been playing the game in my GeForce MX400 and it plays well.
Let me explain: This is with all graphic settings at minimum, and then some, lowest resolution and whatever else I could lower in the options screen.
This computer also sports a fast CPU (athlon 2000+).

The game runs ok, rarelly do I notice low framerate, and I get hickups when I open most doors (loading the levels, I believe).

As usual, YMMV, but don't discard the game without trying just because you have a crappy GPU.

Re:Getting your hopes up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291717)

I never realized how much a 5200 FX card sucks until I got doom 3. AMD XP 3000+, 512 mb ram, and the freaking fx card is slowing it down. I get around 20 FPS when fighting monsters and a steady 30 when enjoying the scenery its playable but not the kind of quality you come to expect from a new upgrade. I didnt realize till yesterday when I was researching a new card that the 5200 FX card is about 1/2 as fast as the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 which is sad cause that card is a little over a year older. Thats what I get for buying a $100 video card. ATI X800 XT here I come.

Re:Getting your hopes up. (1)

sanderb (9539) | about 10 years ago | (#10291535)

Too late :-)

Short performance review: Pentium 4 2.8 GHz with FX 5200 does not really cut it. What is nice is that the 'heated air' effects work really nice because it's a DirectX 9.0 card (I also see no real slowdown there), but even at the lowest of all graphics configurations it's realllyyy slow. I wish I would get 13 frames when one of these goblin type creatures enters the picture, feels more like 2 frames a second then.

I always planned on upgrading the videocard after the new generation of games came out, I now know I can be sure of a visible difference.

Re:Getting your hopes up. (2, Informative)

phoxix (161744) | about 10 years ago | (#10291786)

What is nice is that the 'heated air' effects work really nice because it's a DirectX 9.0 card (I also see no real slowdown there),

Doom3 is based on OpenGL, not DirectX-Anything. Actually, all of Carmack's work is OpenGL based. Hence why Mac and Linux love his games, and there is always a linux/mac port of his games eventually

Sunny Dubey

Re:Getting your hopes up. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291832)

Being a DirectX 9.0 card refers to its capabilities. Whether or not the game uses OpenGL doesn't come into it.

actually with a 5200 (4, Informative)

imr (106517) | about 10 years ago | (#10291555)

It's possible to have a much better framerate if you decompress the whole paks file and remove the shadows option. You wont be able to join multiplayer games with that, but anyway the mp mode isnt worth much.
And I'm talking a X2 improvement here, from ~15 to ~30 on my machine.
Try to find all the other available tips that are on every d3 forum and put them in a separate cfg file. Some of them DO work.

All in all, i found i got much more for the same money with ut2004 (2 dvds, a great editor, mapping and modeling video tutorials, mods, mods and mods) but still, d3 is a very good and very intense solo game. They did manage to keep the stress level up. Usually it really slows down after a few levels, here it keeps on being tense.

Mac version??? (0)

Cybrex (156654) | about 10 years ago | (#10291655)

[and please don't buy an iMac for the purpose of playing Doom 3 acceptably - the 'Ultra' tacked onto the end doesn't change much].

Huh? Doom 3 isn't available for the Mac. Surely you're not implying that he'd run it in Virtual PC!

That's really my only complaint about Doom 3. Outside of work I use Macs almost exclusively, and Doom 3 forced me to dust off my PC (and buy a new video card). It's worth it, 'cause the game totally rocks, but I do wish that more game manufacturers would follow the example of games like UT 2004.


Yay (5, Funny)

MrP- (45616) | about 10 years ago | (#10291480)

Now I can see if my 32mb TNT2 will work!

Re:Yay (-1, Redundant)

bhtooefr (649901) | about 10 years ago | (#10291553)

Let's try this:

233MHz Pentium MMX
32MB TNT2 M64
AND, it'd have to run under Wine (maybe WineX?)

I can tell you what happens: (1, Redundant)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 10 years ago | (#10291623)

Nothing. Doom 3 requires a card that supports the "Pure device" option, you only get that with a GeForce 2 or better.

Oh great... (1, Funny)

floridagators1 (726469) | about 10 years ago | (#10291481)

If I even run this thing, the video card (or lack thereof) on my laptop would probably liquidate..

Short review of the game (5, Insightful)

Reducer2001 (197985) | about 10 years ago | (#10291489)

Bought it, played it, didn't like it. It tries to be too much like Doom2, but doesn't make all.

I played Doom 1 & 2 for many hours when they came out, both solo, co-op and deathmatch. I played Doom 3 through once and had no desire to play it again.

Once you realized that when you picked up that 'too good to be true' item, you'd be blitzed by ten monsters suddenly spawning, it got old REAL quick. And yes, it does look pretty. But so did Matrix Revolutions.

Re:Short review of the game (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | about 10 years ago | (#10291573)

Did you really play Doom3? I can't remember any time when you get "blitzed by 10 monsters" --usually they come at you 1 and 2 at a time (probably to keep framerates up).

The game is great if you like fighting demons jumping out at you in a dark space station. If you'd rather play online war games, you won't like it. My only real complaint is that it was too long -- beginning and end are good. The middle was trudging through a dozen identical levels fighting the same guys over and over.

Re:Short review of the game (5, Insightful)

EpsCylonB (307640) | about 10 years ago | (#10291601)

I was dissapointed as well, fanboys will tell you that you have no right to criticise as this is "the original Doom updated, you knew exactly what you were going to get".

That just isn't true, there was more variation between the different levels in the original game than in Doom 3. The dark corridors do their job, this is an incredibly scary game, but gameplay wise it becomes boring and repetitive very quickly.

Graphically it is astounding and no doubt some great games will be made with the engine. But ID is now just a tech house if the lack of gameplay innovation in Doom 3 is anything to go by. We have all laughed at Romero's failings since leaving ID but they need more really creative people like him.

Doom3 isn't a awful game, just not a trailblazer like Doom and Quake were.

Re:Short review of the game (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 10 years ago | (#10291675)

I've never understood people's awe over Id. They don't make very good games. I mean, Doom was very, very good, but every game they've made so far has been a retread of it. And before anyone starts whining about how they make great engines, and let other people use them to make great games, shut the hell up. They made the game, they marketed it, they released it, they sure as hell can be judged on it.

Re:Short review of the game (3, Insightful)

EpsCylonB (307640) | about 10 years ago | (#10291734)

Both Doom and Quake 1 had fantastic level design that really broke new ground. ID also are responsible for basically creating the online multiplayer FPS genre (usually credited to Quake 2, it was present earlier but Q2 was the breakthrough).

But creatively they haven't done anything interesting since Quake 1.

Re:Short review of the game (4, Insightful)

Osmosis_Garett (712648) | about 10 years ago | (#10291615)

So in other words, you had preconceptions about this game which weren't met and therefor you set it aside. Personally, I found the element of surprise to be the main attraction. This is a horror game, along the lines of the original Resident Evil games and the like. Doom and Doom2 were full on FPS games with no 'terror moments', but Doom3 is full of them. The spawning monsters are anything but surprising; the teleportation process takes a second or 2 and by then you should be in a good vantage point to mow them down with whatever weapon you choose. The real fear comes from the creatures that are already there, lurking in shadows and not making BAMPH noises when they attack.

Try playing it when you're in the mood, and with a bit of effort put into getting absorbed in the game such as a darkened room, headphones, etc. Also, try not to make broad generalizations such as saying "when you pick up that 'too good to be true' item you get blitzed by 10 monsters". This game is anything but a one trick pony and if that is all you saw I really wonder if you spent any time at all examining the game. Doom3 is rich with backstory, interwoven into the game System Shock2 style with logfiles and email communications, not to mention the videos explaining the whole purpose of the lab installation.

Its too bad you couldn't look at the game carefully enough to notice these things. Doom3 is a work of art.

Re:Short review of the game (2, Interesting)

Zorilla (791636) | about 10 years ago | (#10291662)

Once you realized that when you picked up that 'too good to be true' item, you'd be blitzed by ten monsters suddenly spawning, it got old REAL quick.

I didn't really witness too much of that. If you want to see a real pain in the ass, try Serious Sam. A mere +2 health vial will cause about 300 monsters to spawn and attack you.

As for trying to be too much like Doom 2, I wish it actually was more like Doom 1 or 2, but instead you get closed, dark areas, overly difficult monsters, and few scenery changes.

Re:Short review of the game (1)

Rew190 (138940) | about 10 years ago | (#10291765)

I agree with parent poster (I don't remember encountering ten baddies at once, though?). The game never really feels like the original Doom games if not just because it's very rare to get more than 5 monsters thrown at you. D3 is really just a simple shooter with awesome graphics.

I would have to add that Doom 3 just isn't about innovative gameplay. If that's what you want, look elsewhere (HL 2?). This game is just a straight-up FPS game, nothing more, besides the awesome engine.

Re:Short review of the game (1)

jchap (628091) | about 10 years ago | (#10291802)

Yep. Too much spawning pretty soon feels like a delaying tactic and gets tedious.

The trouble is that D^3 is just too much like DOOM2. Having replayed the latter and various old WADs in anticipation of No.3 I realised that lots of levels in D2 were tedious in the same way too.

The joy of the orginal DOOM was that they actually bothered to hide the monsters in the walls - two imps appearing from a secret room is far more exciting than creature after creature appearing from nowhere.

D^3 does have some really nicely placed zombies but these can often feel like set pieces - once you've seen the trick you're never fooled by it again. DOOM1 managed on occasion to present variations to the game play whether it be the unexpected reappearance round a corner of a monster you'd missed before or finding yourself getting really bogged down in a section that you're previously breezed through.

I won't replay D^3 for a while because I expect it'll be exactly the same game the second time around.

Re:Short review of the game (4, Interesting)

DrXym (126579) | about 10 years ago | (#10291815)

I'm not sure what all the hype is about. I own Doom 3 and I also own Far Cry. I've completed both too. Far Cry, is a much, much, much better game.

It is better for a multitude of technical reasons, but I'll first mention why Doom is worse - the whole thing is flashlights, scripts and triggers. It might have been acceptable to use triggers in the original, but not in this day and age.

Progress through the game consists of a Quick Save, edge forward with the flashlight, Quick Save, step on trigger, look for baddies, fumble for gun, shoot baddies. If successfull repeat. It's just boring and shows little imagination. The baddies simply appear for the most part from nowhere so there is no anticipation, planning or strategy - just step on the trigger and shoot. There is little AI to speak of except for zombie troopers who at least duck behind cover. It's a shame because some of the levels are fantastically designed.

Now compare to Far Cry. First off this has outdoor zones that are truly massive, leading to some interesting play (e.g. you can snipe, attack in a vehicle, from the sea etc.) It also has drivable vehicles. It has a great physics model. The baddies are also fairly intelligent (they do some dumb things but they not are not completely stupid). There is a lot of randomness to the play so the game plays differently each time. Finally, the level design is better again than Doom. It also got there first with the "evil doctor" plot.

On the bad side, Far Cry has few save points but there is a console command to work around that. It also has much higher system requirements but looks gorgeous if you turn the quality up the full way.

Neither has much in the way of network play (capture the flag etc.) but at least Far Cry sets you up with a server list making it easy to join a game.

To me Doom feels a year out of date. And for my money Doom was something of a let down. If you haven't bought it already, play the demo and make up your own minds, but my advice would be to skip it.

I never played the original Half Life, so I'm keen to see what the fuss is about for the sequel, but that would the one I am interested in a demo for.

so hey guys?... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291494)

...Will there be a GNU/Linux version of the demo out?

The real 'demo' (-1, Troll)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | about 10 years ago | (#10291499)

Was out a week before the actual game :)

What's the point of this when I can just go to Suprnova [] and get it in an hour or so?

Re:The real 'demo' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291542)

STFU man. Good god. Act like you have some sense.

Re:The real 'demo' (0, Troll)

Eric(b0mb)Dennis (629047) | about 10 years ago | (#10291570)

Eh? I have plenty of sense.

I'm just glad i'm not one of the poor saps who shelled out $50 for the game when I thought it would be good.

Now that I know it's crap, who cares?

Carmack, stick with rockets!

Buying the demo (1)

SimonShine (795915) | about 10 years ago | (#10291589)

Assuming the question is not rhetorical, the demo can tell people if they're at all impressed with the next generation 3D engines that Doom 3 is claimed to be one of and whether their hardware can even pull it at a decent quality rendering. I borrowed the CDs from a friend and will definitely buy the game! id is one of the few companies that I've supported for a very long time; somehow I don't feel alone. :) Have /.ers begun map editing yet? The Radiant editor is as always a kick!

Re:The real 'demo' (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291604)

Sorry, this is for the *non*-criminals. Nothing for you to see here.

Re:The real 'demo' (1)

rpdillon (715137) | about 10 years ago | (#10291622)

Mod parent up. There is really no point in posting comments in a "demo released" thread about how l33t you are because you warezed a game...

This isn't gonna increase sales (5, Insightful)

goneutt (694223) | about 10 years ago | (#10291506)

If you put out a preview that lets people discover their computer doesn't have the power to keep up they deffinatly don't buy the box.(I know, thats what those software nutrition labels are for, but they can get vague.)
Those that buy the software, install and discover their computer needs $300+ worth of upgrades are stuck with the software due to the no open returns policies. Thus hype sells more games if you don't put out a preview.

Re:This isn't gonna increase sales (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 10 years ago | (#10291663)

If you have a reasonable CPU (if you haven't you'd have noticed with games much older than Doom 3) you can get a graphics card that can play the game for 60-80 bucks (Radeon 9550, I played it on a 8500 without much of a problem), which isn't much more than you pay for a game.
Seriously, Doom 3 isn't that demanding, a system that cannot keep up with Doom 3 likely has problems with other current games as well.

Quote^2 (4, Funny)

Amorpheus_MMS (653095) | about 10 years ago | (#10291513)

Time to see what my FX5200 can do...

"Get used to disappointment." ;)

Although I have to say that so much of the game is black, one could almost expect it to run on a RivaTNT.

at least (1)

waspleg (316038) | about 10 years ago | (#10291827)

if weren't drawing all the polygons you can't see with your crap-light, seriously there isn't a light switch? anywhere? i see computers and handhelds but no nightvision? this is what halflife was supposed to look like, it will be interesting to see how badly d3 gets stomped

and its too bad too cause they may well take the "piracy fukced us"

i for exmaple pay for the games i pirate if they're any good (like neverwinter nights, which i played all the way through before i ever bought it and which subsequently also sold me on the two expansions all of which i own)

most of what comes out is cookie cutter shit these days, same as the RIAA puts out, anywhere there is mass manufacture of anything the resulting quality suffers. I'm guessing that carmack doesn't give a fuck, the money is in the licensing of the engine anyway, the rest is basically just to demo the engine and get it a little credence, so yes the game sucks butlooking pretty is all they ever cared about; its about investors not gamers ;P

Pretty Crappy Demo (4, Funny)

davidoff404 (764733) | about 10 years ago | (#10291517)

I got my demo ages ago thanks to BitTorrent. It was a lot bigger than this one too...

demo after release (3, Insightful)

Paralizer (792155) | about 10 years ago | (#10291518)

I suspect they are doing this so that those who are/were skeptical about the performance of the game on their machines will have a chance to test it out before purchasing the full version.

Playable on GeForce4 (1)

CharAznable (702598) | about 10 years ago | (#10291530)

Looks decent, although it gets a bit choppy when there are a lot of monsters on the same scene. Now on to my ATI Rage tests...

This is where being crap a games helps... (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | about 10 years ago | (#10291532)

I've never actually completed the first level of any of these so downloading the demo is as good as buying it, but cheaper!

All the servers are slashdotted at the moment though (Torrent is no use as I'm behind NAT). Need to wait a few days.

Re:This is where being crap a games helps... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 10 years ago | (#10291674)

Well, the first level of Doom 3 consists of running around and talking with people, the first monster appears somehwhere in the second level...

Re:This is where being crap a games helps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291691)

Just forward the proper ports to the machine running BitTorrent, and it'll work just fine. I run BitTorrent on my BeOS Box, and it's behind a nat/firewall machine. Easy as can be.

Re:This is where being crap a games helps... (2, Informative)

cgadd (65348) | about 10 years ago | (#10291746)

You can still leech the file behind nat. Others won't be able to download from you directly, but if you are downloading a chunk from someone, they can download a chunk from you too....

Linux Version (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291538)

Grumble. My Doom3 box is sitting on my shelf until the Linux binaries come out. As much as I love ID I feel ripped off right now.

Re:Linux Version (0, Redundant)

Izaak (31329) | about 10 years ago | (#10291624)

Grumble. My Doom3 box is sitting on my shelf until the Linux binaries come out. As much as I love ID I feel ripped off right now.

I won't buy Doom III until the Linux version is available for download. I am looking forward to seeing how it runs on my 2.8Ghz hyperthreaded P4 system with 1GB RAM, GeForce FX 5200 video, and high end Audigy sound card. I'm getting tired of Tux Racer. :)

Re:Linux Version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291666)

why would you stick such a crappy video card into an otherwise decent box?

Re:Linux Version (1)

The Wannabe King (745989) | about 10 years ago | (#10291749)

Try Enemy Territory [] while you wait, certainly better than Tux Racer.

Re:Linux Version (4, Informative)

Vengeance (46019) | about 10 years ago | (#10291759)

May I recommend a couple of things?

First, if you haven't used a joystick with Tux racer, you're missing out.

Next, check out Unreal Tournament 2004. The Linux binaries are included on the game DVD (or CDs, if you prefer), and the feel of the Unreal games has improved dramatically (in this ID fanboi's opinion). There is classic deathmatch available, but there are also a whole host of other game types, some including vehicles.

Finally, check out freely downloadable 'Enemy Territory', which is based on Return to Castle Wolfenstein. But this one is strictly multiplayer.

Oh, and of course, I played around with Cedega/Doom3 already, and found it to be a less than satisfactory experience on the one machine where I got the game binary to function, that being a 1.5 Ghz P4. For some reason I haven't yet gotten my Athlon 3000+ XP to give me anything other than an 'Error 21' when launching the game. This despite running a vanilla kernel on this box, but a Fedora Core 2 kernel on the P4. *shrug*

Re:Linux Version (1)

Neophytus (642863) | about 10 years ago | (#10291812)

Only on an OS with few supporting 3D games (ie: not windows) would one not notice the atrocity that is the GFFX 5200.

Linux? (4, Insightful)

isNaN (45985) | about 10 years ago | (#10291554)

But where are the linux binaries? Aren't ID supposed to be the big linux supporters?

When they release them I will probably buy the game just for supporting them back but are they comming anytime soon??

Re:Linux? (1)

colmore (56499) | about 10 years ago | (#10291695)

I don't think the linux binaries they put out for Quake 3 ever made enough to recoup the expense of doing the port. Expect them to take their time on this...

Re:Linux? (3, Informative)

kerrle (810808) | about 10 years ago | (#10291755)

Actually, it's not the economics. It's been mentioned by Carmack that it's basically driver issues that are holding back the release. NVidia's are fine, but ATI's drivers have no chance in hell of running Doom III under linux right now. Similarly, the OSX port is basically done, but the performance just isn't good on most macs.

Demo later than release -- seems normal to me (5, Insightful)

IronChefMorimoto (691038) | about 10 years ago | (#10291567)

Releasing the demo nowadays AFTER the release seems, to me, like a great way to find out if you want to buy the game, without the majority of bugs that might plague a BETA-quality demo.

In my mind, a game software manufacturer will release a demo POST-release to entice those who haven't decided yet to purchase the game. Someone who downloads, say, the Doom3 demo, can decide if the software will work on his/her machine without some of the pre-release bugs that might plague the product. ATI vs. Nvidia compatibility immediately comes to mind.

On the other hand, if you're releasing something that's entirely new (in terms of a game/concept), then you could potentially risk lack of interest by releasing the demo AFTER the game itself. A new product can benefit greatly from a demo, I think, and in this regard, it would be wise to release it with some bugs.

In the case of Doom3, I must admit, though, that making people wait another month or two for a demo for a game that took 4-5 years to develop is a little dumb. Reviewers and gamers alike have been mediocre about the game -- for it being more of a technology demo (the Carmack engine -- hehehehe) than a good game with a good story. This sort of reviews, I think, would make a buyer think twice about getting the game at initial release prices.

If the demo had been out beforehand, perhaps potential buyers would not have pre-conceived notions of what to expect of the game overall because they would only play a small portion of it in the demo. The graphics would ooh and ahh and really get the idea of buying such a terrific looking game in the minds of potential buyers. It would be a buyer's remorse thing (after iD has pocketed the sale) if the buyer then decided that, "Yeah, the graphics rock, but it was kind of bland and the story was OK."

I am one who read the Doom3 reviews, waited until a friend bought a copy and got tired of trying to finish the bland story, and played it for him. I enjoyed the experience, but given my expectations after reading reviews, I am still glad my friend shelled out the $55 for the game. He has the discs back now, and I will most likely wait until the game drops to $30 or something to buy it. There are other things to play right now.

My two cents.


Re:Demo later than release -- seems normal to me (2, Insightful)

IntergalacticWalrus (720648) | about 10 years ago | (#10291824)

Yeah, in a perfect world, releasing a polished demo after the game instead of some unfinished product is a great idea, unfortunately in reality this practice hurts even more, because it encourages more people to pirate the game so they can get their "demo" early. And then a good part of those people might not buy the game, and therefore have just pirated it.

Hmm... (1)

nightgrave (786582) | about 10 years ago | (#10291576)

Now maybe when the Linux client is released, it will increase the sales.

Mac version (2, Interesting)

thedogcow (694111) | about 10 years ago | (#10291583)

I really wish they should give more specifics on a mac version. They used a mac to demo Doom 3 way back when for E3, they acknowledged they had a mac version a couple weeks ago that runs... what is the big deal?
I really want to see how Doom 3 performs on my new DP 2.5GHz G5, particularly when I get my Nvidia 6800 Ultra DDL card.

Time to see what my FX5200 can do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291620)

I'm sure Doom III won't have been your first disappointment.

A faster Doom 3 download... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291633)

Just turn off your monitor and move your mouse around frantically. That pretty much will capture the essence of Doom 3 and saves yourself the download. ;)

Re:A faster Doom 3 download... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291773)

This way you'll lose out on the best bit; the sound! - Luckily you can get around that by poping any of the evil dead dvds on and cranking up that surround :)

weird !! (0, Redundant)

phreakv6 (760152) | about 10 years ago | (#10291636)

been there... done that... finito with tha game.. and guess wat ???... they now gotta demo of the game available for download... isnt that grrrrrrrr8 ?

Anyone tried it... (2, Interesting)

Trikenstein (571493) | about 10 years ago | (#10291652)

With a Radeon 8500?
All the reviews I've seen are running it on pretty current hardware.
Radeon 9800 pros and newer.
And the nVidia equivalents.

Re:Anyone tried it... (1)

BeeRockxs (782462) | about 10 years ago | (#10291814)

I'm running it on a Radeon 8500 LE with 128MB Video ram, an Athlon XP 2000+ and 512 MB DDR RAM.
It's playable at 640x480 with all details, no AA and no AF.

Yay? (0, Redundant)

St. Arbirix (218306) | about 10 years ago | (#10291716)

I use linux.

Wake me when it's out in a form I can use.

Re:Yay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10291772)

That and the rest of the gaming industry right?

Keep dreaming.....

Re:Yay? (1)

nrc (112633) | about 10 years ago | (#10291830)

Me too. D3 runs great on Cedega. Glad I didn't wait for the "real soon now" Linux binaries.

post demo (1)

AssProphet (757870) | about 10 years ago | (#10291751)

One thing good about a post demo, is that you don't have a demo ruining the mysterious anticipation of the full game. Personally I enjoyed turning it on and runing it for the first time, having no idea what it was going to be like.

I also don't like watching trailers for movies, I'd rather just read reviews on

I have a TNT2 (3, Funny)

sahonen (680948) | about 10 years ago | (#10291764)

Nto realyl being a hardcore gamer and all that. It'll be interesting to see how well it runs. Deus Ex 2 ran okay when I cranked the detail levels down.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?