Slashdot Mirror
DOOM 3 Final Video Trailer Released
Ant writes "A new Doom 3 Final Video Preview/Trailer is now out. It is about 42.5 MB big, 2.5 minutes long, and in Quicktime format. Download it from here (direct link and BitTorrent link), FilePlanet (an account required), or FileShack (an account required)."
I'm using Torrents to grab this trailer and I'm getting it at 76 KiB/s on my box standard cable connection here at home, a big improvement on the 404 Not Found I usually expect to see when more than 200 or so users want to see the same thing at once and the server melts.
The press makes out that Torrents is all about getting "free" software and porn. Maybe they should look at it from a different angle.
9 comments, and the site's already bogging down hard ... heck, we need a BitTorrent source just for the dang BitTorrent source for the movie!
Where's the MPEG version? I refuse to use Apple's nagware.
Actually, the tracker can get bogged down too. BT isn't completely decentralized.
So if the tracker crashes or just can't handle the traffic there goes the torrent for the most part.
The other aspect of DoomIII that disappoints is multiplayer. Half-Life 2 is pretty much guaranteed to be first-rate, whereas DoomIII will be lucky to be decent, in the long-run at least. Thats what makes it hard to buy this. Without great multiplayer you can only play a game for so long.
as I'm away on business for the first half of next week
You asshole. Obviously you're not working flipping burgers, and can afford a forty dollar piece of software. Buy the damn thing if you're gonna play it.
Oh man the flamebait you just made yourself.
Have you even seen the game? In the high res images? The game looks pretty amazing.
The fact it doesn't "need the latest hardware" is exactly why everyone loves ID so much. The fact the top of the line machines give a breathtaking experience while the game is still very playable on the weaker machines.
Do you find it BAD that the game isn't made by a company that doesn't care for people which aren't rich kids that can afford the latest and hottest hardware? You find it BAD that lower end users can finally have an amazing game without needing to pay 500$ for a graphic card?
No. The game certainly does push the limits for the high end machines, but also scales down for everyone else.
^_^
Fuckin' Jesus. Why does nearly every single video game "trailer" try to copy the "cool kids" in Hollywood?!
Ugh. The Doom trailer does the cliche "crescendo, pause, explode" thing THREE TIMES, one of which is the hackneyed "Final Scare" thing.
I guess I'm just pissy at the never-ending globule of mainstreamism infecting everything.
In my pants.
Actually i've been playing games before Doom1 even existed. My first system was a Dragon32 if you ever heard of such system.
So what if it CAN run on a console. It's not like Doom1 and 2 weren't released for consoles. Heck Doom1&2 were recently released for the GBA.
Moreover, the porting was so simple because Carmack and co. use portable technologies (OpenGL). That's why the game is so easily ported to console, linux AND mac.
Yes. I know stencil shadows existed for a while now and so did bump textures. However, the game still manages to look better than many other new games.
You would like to see a game so advanced no one but the selected few can play. Tough luck, this company prefers to allow more people to enjoy the game NOW and not force them to upgrade or wait a year or two until they can play it.
Does a game have to be cutting edge to be amazing and fun? CERTAINLY NOT. This game is near the cutting edge and surely looks better and funny than I believed it will be.
I must agree about the multiplayer part tho. Every ID game before D3 had multiple multiplayer modes out of the box and now only 4 player DM. I hope they release a patch that adds co-op mode as on the XBox (the ones who wrote the co-op code were the ones that ported it to the XBox, not ID themselves).
^_^
Making Doom III run on a console is tanamount to professional treason.
Yes, I imagine the entire industry is up in arms over id's decision to port their game to the platform where it will sell the most copies.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
"I doubt you were even around when Doom 1 came out. It's a real shame that you've even posted a reply to a long time gamer such as me. I've been around since the beginning."
You think you're a long time gamer because you were around when Doom 1 came out? That somehow invalidates the original posters points? Are you kidding?
No, "I" used to love id "so much" because they did things that "other" game companies wouldn't try. Making Doom III run on a console is tanamount to professional treason.
Two things. First of all, id is not directly doing the XBox port. Second of all, a company is not fucking treasonous if it wants to make its very much sought after game available where possible. This is good for gamers, not bad. "Treasonous" would be if a company alienated its fanbase by making the hardware requirements so ridiculous that NOONE could play it.
From all the graphics I've seen, Doom III certainly does not "push the limits" on modern hardware.
You either don't know what you're talking about despite your breathtaking amounts of experience, or you haven't seen the screenshots of the game running in high resolution ultra mode, in which case you're just ignorant. Perhaps you haven't seen the benchmarks which are showing that all of our modern hardware will only be able to run the game at around 1024*768, otherwise the framerate might be a bit sluggish.
In fact the game looks like a more adanced and rendered "Halo".
Since Halo looks pretty damn good in the first place, I don't see how this is a valid point. Doom 3 does look much more advanced, it's gorgeous. There's nothing wrong with that.
It looks like the character maps and 3D engine were created two years ago and nothing but story line and graphics were added since then.
So what you're implying is that there was a FPS game out two years ago that looked as good or better than Doom 3 or had an engine as advanced? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
And for your information, "rich kids" were all that could afford PCs in the early days. You should pay a penalty for getting the best, that's the way the world works.
So a good developer is going to cut off the vast, vast majority of its potential fanbase for the elitest dudes with the top 2% hardware? Color me crazy, but isn't being able to create a game with a top-of-the-line engine that can barely be played on the highest end hardware today at the highest settings, yet still be able to be played on systems half as good PROGRESS?
If everyone catered to the lowest common denominator we'd end up buying everything at the dollar store.
Once again, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Go check out the minimum specs on the game then take a look at how fast the average desktop computer is. I wouldn't be mad at id just because you don't understand the concept of having the largest target market possible. id is a business, making a very good business decision that their market wants.
I would like to see a game so advanced that only the few can play it.
Then perhaps you very obviously shouldn't be seeking this from a mainstream developer?
That's the way it worked for Doom 1
Uh no, most people could play Doom 1, and PC gaming wasn't exactly a huge market at the time anyhow, it was more of a niche market. The times have changed slightly, have you noticed?
drives the industry, that moves things forward. It gives people something to look forward to. If you don't have any forward vision, then why are you here?
Remember Macworld, four years ago, when you could practically smell every non-id developer shit their pants? What we saw was the vision that gave us something to look forward to and set a standard for what other developers needed to get at to keep graphically relevant.
This tripe sounds like the elitest music fan who's pissed off because Linkin Park were so much kewler when they were underground...
That's idiotic, why should they limit their engine to run only on top-of-the-line PCs when they can make it scalable enough to both run on low-end machines AND max out hi-end machines, depending on the user's preference? What was suggested was deliberately breaking compatibility, which in my book is a capital sin. Hell, why not make it Windows XP exclusive or demand a 2.6 Kernel? Why not go as far as to only offer 64bit builds? Because there is no POINT in doing that! If they can make it run well on an XBox, why shouldn't they?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Adding a raytracer would just be silly. Raytracing is for shadows and/or reflections/refractions; both of those grounds are already covered by better algorithms.
The reason the technology is 2 years old is because a game programmer today has more layers to work though (not to mention a lot larger engine to manage). If you add something you have to consult with ATI/Nvidia, OpenGL/DirectX (whichever you are using), and then check Mac/PC/Linux. That's a lot more than when Doom1 came out. Your problem is you are watching tech demos of upcoming technology and expecting that in today's games. You're just going to be continually disappointed. The leak of Doom3 (which was 2 years go) was horrible to play, nowhere near ready for release.
The reason that Halo sucked for PC was because it was originally designed to be an amazing, innovative FPS. When Mircorosoft bought them to use as their flagship game for Xbox, they stripped out most all of the innovation so it would work for Xbox. Then, years later, when porting to the PC, they kept most everything that optimized it for console (the controls, texture size, etc). That is the reason it looked like butt for PC. Halo is a horrible comparison.
You can do that with an XBOX too, just requires a bit more effort to get linux on it. For the price, its a pretty cheap fileserver.
I'm well past my prime as a gamer.
That much is certain.
I've got seniority on your ass
Which may be the case, but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about how long I've played COMPUTER GAMES when your logic is so obviously and fundamentally flawed. It's not necessary and proves nothing.
I'm here to tell you that advanced gaming is disappearing at the same rate as good music
No, you just need to know where to look. The mainstream is not it, old man.
The fact that you mention "Linkin Park" and not "Genesis" or "Rush" just shows your age in so many of its adolescent colors!
Oh, please. I thought it was very apparent I was using an exhaggerated simile. I didn't think I'd have to name two mainstream bands from back-in-the-day to get the basic idea across. Sorry you didn't catch it, I guess.
I don't want to limit id software's advanced games to 2%. I just wish they would limited it to less than 30 percent of the installed base of machines. That's a big difference. You've definitely got me all wrong here.
You're implying that a mainstream company's goal should be to limit its potential user base by making system requirements extremely high. My point is that mainstream developers sort of, ya know, want to sell to as many people as possible, and thus would put time and effort into making the game playable on lower level hardware. Businesses like money. id is a business. Where is the confusion?
And if the game id had showed us at Macworld had actually came out four years ago (or even two years ago), then I would have "shit in my pants".
You'd have to be able to play it first to do that though. Part of what is going to make Doom 3 so great is it's going to be played by a lot of people while still having bleeding edge graphics. You're looking for something else, but you're simply not going to find it from a mainstream developer. It's quite simple, really. I can understand your desire for absolute no holds barred bleeding edge, but you're speaking badly about a company that is obviously not about that and would prefer to get its product into as many hands as possible. Your dismay seems a bit misguided when you take common business sense into account.
No, that was Tim Willits who said that, and he said that all the weapons from the original Doom, not Doom 2, were in the game.
Eat the rich.