http://www.kcconfidential.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Crying+Baby+Natural+High+for+Some+Moms.jpg

They're going to take us less seriously because of your constant, unconstructive whining. Be quiet.

All OP does is cry cry cry. They just announced the patch like what? A week, two weeks ago?

^this

Eh, we're consumers. We can do what the hell we want (within forum rules) if we have a broken product.

Yes, patience is running thin for some, that's gonna happen so stop defending the developers like this. Jeez.

It's not about the money. It's about them promising a pc perfect port of the games and delivering below par of the 2004 original.

So it's "Waaaahhhh!!! They pwomised!!!!" now, is it?

They did not promise a PC perfect port. The game was marketed as "Remasted for XBox 360 and PS3" from day ONE. It's right there in the first trailer, roundabout the 20 second mark - go check it out. If you read something different into that then it hardly seems their fault, does it?

Yawn, is it out yet?

its not broken at all.

It's nowhere near as good or polished as the 2004 edition. Think about that, it's worse than an 8 year old product.

They're just busy with the RAGE mod tools :trollface:

Yeah, that was something, that just goes without saying.

Ok maybe not broken but it sure is unpolished! Bethesda is notorious for initial releases to have some moderate glitches in their products (esp. Oblivion).

bethesda didnt make doom3 and , the game is very polished.

How is it polished when its worse than an 8 year old product?

Until they got their hands on it, it was

It actually is broken. There are a lot of things wrong with it, and a lot of ways in which it is vastly inferior to the original.

Claiming that it's not broken is just as bad as the "they pwomised" stuff. Both perspectives are false.

There is no point in telling him that. If he wants his trashy games then he is within his right to buy them. Convincing him is futile, you know the truth so the best way you can deal with this situation is simply to opt out entirely. Buy no more games from Bethesda and ID, they are not worth the money. End of story

Exactly. The only way you can really get them is by hurting their pockets. Consumers catch on and usually the developers will have to learn or ship out.

In some points it is worse, in other points it's definitely better.
The renderer is way faster performing than the original one in 2004.
Microstuttering is completely gone. The 2004 original had some serious vsync problems leading to stuttering despite always hitting the 60 fps.

Some textures have been otpimized, texture distortion is less noticable (even compared to the uncompressed textures of the original), some sounds have been replaced with better ones and gameplay elements have been changed in a way almost everbody wanted this in 2004.

The flashlight or weapon concept was changed as almost everybody complained about this after Doom3's first release.

And last but not least: added 3D / VR support and a whole new episode.

The cuts made from the original release to the bfg edition are debatable but pretending the bfg is worse in every respect is just wrong.

Btw.: If your PS3 version suffers from long load times, jerky framerate and tearing problems, i suppose you change your primary gaming platform.
Mentioned problems are absent on 360 due to a hardware concept that is better suited for games like Doom3.

Those graphic changes are minor and not even something you can perceive during gameplay, however the graphical effects that are cut or glitched out you CAN perceive. I don't remember any microstuttering in my 2004 Doom 3.

The gameplay changes in BFG edition (apart from the shoulder mounted flashlight) are bad, having too much ammo makes the game too easy. The shotgun becomes completely useless when you have 500 plasma cells at all time. Also I hate how they cut out a level in RoE and pussified the toxic tunnel part. I want my Doom games HARD! Not noobified.

The new episode is cool to have but the reskinned boss in it just screams laziness.

So yes the BFG Edition is worse in many ways.

Also your comment about how people should switch platforms because of the long loads on the PS3 Doom 3 is stupid. Maybe if Id Software could properly utilize the PS3 hardware and allow for HDD install option so the loads weren't terrible. But no, they gave it to us running off the disc and 45-50 second load times.

PSN version loads in 15-20 seconds. So that is definitely not a PS3 problem. Just a bluray problem. Id Software should've been smart enough to offer an install option.

I'm thinking with a bit more work they could've cleaned up the screen tearing as well, but then again this whole release seems rushed.

.

Dont forget, id Software wasnt making this game for the last decade. They were working on Rage, after its release, they went on to Doom 4 and 1/3 of the team went on and did some work on ressurecting Doom 3. So if there isnt a patch yet, its not because id is on holidays or something, they have a major project in the works and this patch (which will just fix cosmetical issues) isnt their #1 priority at the moment.

I mean, im pretty sure none of those glitches/bug break the game or crash it, do they?

There is actually two game breaking glitches that don't allow you to proceed in both Doom 3 and RoE

You mean you noticed the missing blood splatters in the BFG edition immediately but not the texture and soundchanges? C'mon...
And that you don't remember the microstuttering in the original pc release doesn't mean it isn't there.


I'm playing through the BFG edition on veteran now and i don't have the impression that this game got easier. It's the opposite. The increased amount of enemies and slightly faster gameplay even makes it a little more difficult than before.

The increased ammo gives you the choice to use almost whatever weapon you want now.
In the beginning i thought the same way as you do, but after playing for a while now i'd just say the gameplay shifted from survival horror to more action.
In fact, it's a little closer to Doom1/2 now and that's what everybody wanted in 2004.


I totally agree on the missing content. But i doubt that the cut version is easier.


Reusage of bosses is common in all Doom games.


If you're not into VR or 3D you might be right.
The only things i really criticize is the reduced shadowing and the cut content.
The existence of bugs is normal in modern games as the complexity of gamecode increased tremendously over the years.
Ever thought about why Windows get's so many updates?
The more complicated a software the more bugs you'll find.
This is a natural law and there is no way to circumvent this.


It's not nearly as stupid as you put it.
The internal composition buffer of the 360's gpu and it's extreme bandwidth in conjunction with the unified memory architecture makes the 360 way superior over the PS3 Nvidia chip when it comes to fillrate.
360 games usually have better texture quality, higher and more stable framerates and sometimes even higher screen resolution due to this technical advantage.


It's Sony that permits or prohibits HDD install for games.
On 360, you can install every full release as the 360 OS always supports this. No matter which game disc you put in there.


The Blu Ray drive is a part of the PS3 so it IS a PS3 problem.
Again about the install option: Sony prohibited a full install for Rage although the complete games is 21 GB large. This was Sony's choice and not id's.
I guess it's not that different with Doom3.
I'd like to hear a statement by some Sony official why they do not allow a complete install with all games.


The screen tearing is a result of
1.: probably insufficient fillrate due to one data channel for two gpus on one die.
2.: definitely sync problems between Nvidia's dual gpu and Sony's horrible Cell cpu which is a pain in the ass when it comes to optimizing.

The 360 version doesn't have any screen tearing at all.
And it was Sony's decision to implement one of the most unusual chip designs in history into their Cell cpu.
A design that should prevent developers from porting their PS3 games to other consoles.
This would have worked if the PS3 would have been the expected market leader like the PS2 was but now after this didn't work out, it falls back onto themselves.
Programmers prefer easy to handle hardware and since the PS3 is not that succesful, there's no real interest in pushing the limits of this quirky hardware.

But to make things perfectly clear:
I don't work for Microsoft nor do i promote buying their products nor do i have the intention to start a platform war.
I just anolyze the respective pros and cons of different hardware layouts.
The PS3 is in many ways inferior to the 360 despite having more gigaflops on paper.
The mentioned differences between the PS3 and the 360 version of Doom3 are not just limited to this game but are a common phenomenon affecting lots of other multiplatform releases.

The PS3 is more suited for arcade games like Tekken &co which have a high polycount and few data copying and streaming operations.
The 360 is the choice for games which utilize large amounts of data.

There's no argument against owning both consoles at the same time and choosing the better game version for the more suitable hardware.

I believe the 360 uses an ATI chip, are you suggesting that ATI is somehow better than Nvidia? That will get shot down real fast around these parts