Doom 3 Demo Available

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 Shacknews.com.

Comments

Re:Uh...the game is out

[Syzar]

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

Short review of the game

[Reducer2001]

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

[EpsCylonB]

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:You mean

[Jonny_eh]

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...

This isn't gonna increase sales

[goneutt]

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.

Demo later than release -- seems normal to me

[IronChefMorimoto]

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.

IronChefMorimoto

Re:You mean

[C0rinthian]

Not being able to use the flashlight with guns is INTENTIONAL. Wishing desperately that you could use both is the intended effect. You are not supposed to be comfortable. Honestly, if you could use both at the same time, you'd never turn the flashlight off!

As for multiplayer, I have 2 points. First: DOOM3 is primarily a SINGLE PLAYER game. They added multiplayer as an extra. If you bought it for multiplayer, you're stupid. Second point: Check out the maps. They're small, dark, and close quarters. (much like the single player game) 4 players is a good limit for the maps that shipped with the game. I know that limit is not hard coded, and player made stuff has already upped that player limit.