cireza
Member
If Doom on Saturn ended being the poop it was because of Carmack.
Last edited:
[MVG] Doom 3 on the Original Xbox is an incredible port. Here is why.
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
- Analysis Retro Game Dev
I was in my early 20s. No shame detected. I could make it an hour ish but had to take frequent brakes.
Corporal.Hicks
Member
I always wondered how they were able to port this extremely demanding PC game to the Xbox console, because Doom3 run like a slideshow on my PC (Athlon XP1600, Geforce3 128MB + 512MB RAM) even on low settings (everything turned off), yet xbox version run at solid 30fps and looked great (dynaminc lighting and bump mapping was there).
Now I know many clever compromises had to be made, but to be honest even when I finally upgraded my PC in 2006 (Intel Q6600 + 8800Ultra 768MB + 2GB RAM) and played PC version maxed out I still thought like playing the same game unlike splinter cell 3 on PS2, that looked like a totally different game compared to the PC / xbox versions.
BTW. I think the SD CRT helped a lot, because the low resolution and blurry image hid imperfections (low poly models, low resolution textures) extremely well on the Xbox version. I wonder if xbox emulators can finally run doom3, because it would be awesome to see high resolution screenshots from the xbox version.
Now I know many clever compromises had to be made, but to be honest even when I finally upgraded my PC in 2006 (Intel Q6600 + 8800Ultra 768MB + 2GB RAM) and played PC version maxed out I still thought like playing the same game unlike splinter cell 3 on PS2, that looked like a totally different game compared to the PC / xbox versions.
BTW. I think the SD CRT helped a lot, because the low resolution and blurry image hid imperfections (low poly models, low resolution textures) extremely well on the Xbox version. I wonder if xbox emulators can finally run doom3, because it would be awesome to see high resolution screenshots from the xbox version.
Last edited:
amigastar
Member
Dammit, that Screenshot, and to think Doom 3 was once the pinnacle of graphics who made your PC scream in pain.I always wondered how they were able to port this extremely demanding PC game to the Xbox console, because Doom3 run like a slideshow on my PC (Athlon XP1600, Geforce3 128MB + 512MB RAM) even on low settings (everything turned off), yet xbox version run at solid 30fps and looked great (dynaminc lighting and bump mapping was there).
Now I know many clever compromises had to be made, but to be honest even when I finally upgraded my PC in 2006 (Intel Q6600 + 8800Ultra 768MB + 2GB RAM) and played PC version maxed out I still thought like playing the same game unlike splinter cell 3 on PS2, that looked like a totally different game compared to the PC / xbox versions.
BTW. I think the SD CRT helped a lot, because the low resolution and blurry image hid imperfections (low poly models, low resolution textures) extremely well on the Xbox version. I wonder if xbox emulators can finally run doom3, because it would be awesome to see high resolution screenshots from the xbox version.
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Last edited:
fatmarco
Member
It's funny how little compromise there is.
There's even some odd situations where the Xbox version has better textures as well in some scenes (even if 95% of the time it's worse).
Romulus
Member
It also had OG Doom 1/2 included(at least mine did).
The whole package was just incredibly well done.
Last edited:
I wouldn't say little with a lot of the maps being cut down. the intro is also an FMV on Xbox while playable on PC.
Romulus
Member
They've shown what was cut from the levels and its pretty insignificant. The intro being playable as a bonus is pretty lame. Doom is about getting into the fight so I think those cuts are essentially worthless in the grand scheme.
Last edited:
Skifi28
Member
It was great proof what a developer could do when optimising for a single piece of hardware, but when compared to the PC version on a good machine it was very behind with some huge compromises like rendering resolution. Like someone said above, it was partly saved by CRTs at the time.
Magic Carpet
Gold Member
The PC Gamepass controls are really awkward as If it was designed for keyboard/mouse only. No controllers allowed. Is there a way to more modernize the controls and movement?
Hawk The Slayer
Member
That's where I played it and the graphics were amazing at the time. Has the most immersion and best level design out of any Doom. Also my favorite Doom game still.
KenaiPhoenix
Member
I would have killed to had an og Xbox and a copy of DooM 3 back in the day. I could run it at everything in the lowest setting and 25 fps at best.
It is a shame it is not backwards compatible (finding an original xbox at a decent price is already challenging enough here, but I also dont have space), I have seen some copies here and I would love to finish the original DooM 3 spooky campaign.
It is a shame it is not backwards compatible (finding an original xbox at a decent price is already challenging enough here, but I also dont have space), I have seen some copies here and I would love to finish the original DooM 3 spooky campaign.
Romulus
Member
The difference is Doom 3 actually looked really good on Xbox. Doom SNES worked but was absolutely hideous. Witcher 3 was a blurry mess on Switch.
Calverz
Member
I'd also add Deus Ex invisible War in that category. Although PS2 had a bespoke Deus Ex 1 which is better.
fatmarco
Member
If there weren't other games that looked like Doom 3 on the Xbox, then maybe, but the console is full of stencil shaded, bump/normal mapped games.
Chronicles of Riddick, Thief Deadly Shadows, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory to name a few.
Vaquilla
Member
I'd disagree, I actually had a good time with Witcher 3 on Switch. For a portable device it was a fine rendition considering it pushed PS4/XBO quite hard.
Vaquilla
Member
It had other games with similar techniques, but Doom 3 was a PC-melting behemoth to an extent that Riddick or Thief or Splinter Cell were not, at least as I recall.
Romulus
Member
Pushing the PS4 version has nothing to do with the switch. Those were different challenges because they were pushing for something that actually resembled a low spec PC experience. The Switch version looks exactly like what it is, a mobile game. It did the job, but you having a good time with it is a different matter completely. But it will never be to the mind blowing level of Doom 3 on Xbox because that Switch port had crazy sacrifices to get it running. The side by sides are night and day, even against the lackluster PS4 version. Again, the Xbox port was pushing to be low spec PC experience. There were some downgrades, but mobile downgrades are on a different level of ugly altogether.
Last edited:
Vaquilla
Member
Doom 3 on Xbox was massively downgraded too relative to the full fat PC release. They even had to break the levels into smaller separate chunks on Xbox, whereas Witcher 3 on Switch keeps the core game design and open world intact.
At the end of the day, both are commendable examples of getting a game running on hardware way below the minimum specs it was designed for.
Romulus
Member
We've discussed that and the changes they made to the levels were very small and insignificant. There was nothing massively downgraded like all the blurry textures on Witcher 3 and mobile assets. That was a mess. No one would ever describe the Xbox port as such.
Last edited:
Vaquilla
Member
Witcher 3 wasn't a mess at all, and the Xbox port of Doom 3 also had a lot of lower res textures. Dividing and even sometimes removing whole sections isn't insignificant at all.
kevboard
Member
the original Farcry never really released on Xbox, or any console for that matter. only the Instincts spinoffs and eventually the remaster.
the Instincts games that did release on console were weird. shrunken down, special abilities... and the second game felt like a standalone add-on rather than a full second game.
Romulus
Member
But the sections that were cut very small didn't affect the overarching story or gameplay. Like 98% of the game is intact when considering the DLC, and what they cut was mostly an improvement in my opinion. They also added things like the chainsaw monsters.
The low resolution textures are nothing compared to the Witcher 3 on switch. It's known first for that. The vistas are ugly and blurry whereas on a crappy ps4 you could at least see them as they were intended.
Doom 3 just looked like a lower spec pc game on console. It was known to be a port that looked serviceable next to PC. Switch Witcher doesn't even look good next to the ps4 version, much less a high end pc like doom xbox is compared to.
It's cool that got it running on mobile, but in no way was it a visual showpiece like doom was, even for xbox. You will never see threads like this raving about switch Witcher visuals lol. That's exactly what people are talking about in this thread and countless others. The game looked damn good. That's the difference.
fatmarco
Member
I think another thing with impossible ports is that, generally they're called that because the device doesn't have the rendering functions to even attempt to render a game. Say for example you tried to port Doom 3 to the Playstation 2 and got a version running somehow, that would be an impossible port because the PS2 is missing the hardware required to render Doom 3. The Xbox had the exact type of hardware Doom 3 was built for on PC (a Geforce 3 based GPU with some Geforce 4 features), just with it being a smaller, cheaper version.
Witcher 3 to the Switch is the same story. It's capable of rendering the game because it has roughly the complete hardware suite that the Witcher 3 was originally built for, and there isn't a need to do a complete rebuild of the engine to circumvent missing pieces of the hardware, it's just going to run terribly without optimisations.
There should be a line drawn between "impossible port" and "heavily optimised port". Managing a smaller RAM pool by cutting levels into smaller segments or lowering texture quality isn't equivalent to rebuilding an engine.
Witcher 3 to the Switch is the same story. It's capable of rendering the game because it has roughly the complete hardware suite that the Witcher 3 was originally built for, and there isn't a need to do a complete rebuild of the engine to circumvent missing pieces of the hardware, it's just going to run terribly without optimisations.
There should be a line drawn between "impossible port" and "heavily optimised port". Managing a smaller RAM pool by cutting levels into smaller segments or lowering texture quality isn't equivalent to rebuilding an engine.
kevboard
Member
back in the day of completed customised ports, no port was actually impossible.
there was a PS2 port of Chaos Theory after all. and to make it work they basically changed the entire rendering pipeline.
this wasn't uncommon up until Gen6.
Wreckless was another port like that. nearly a completely different game on PS2, but was considered a port
thismeinteil
Member
OG Xbox was definitely a beast. Back when they actually had employees who were passionate about gaming.