Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Doom 3 - XBOX Vesion -Vhy The Delay ?

Tags:
  • Games
  • Xbox
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
December 8, 2004 4:59:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

I just heard about October 2004 for the Doom 3 XBOX version. - What happened?

Sorry if the answer is in the FAQ for alt.games.Doom (3), I just couldn't find it.

Rgds,
PC $:-)
_____________
X-BOX 4 X-MAS
-A GOOD idea!

More about : doom xbox vesion vhy delay

December 8, 2004 5:33:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

Must be having to repogram the engine for a console which lacks in the
graphics depo.

Gary.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:48:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

Gary wrote:
> Must be having to repogram the engine for a console which lacks in the
> graphics depo.
>
> Gary.
>
>

It's been up and running on the XBox's custom NV25A chipset for a while
now. Been showcased at E3 and all that jazz. Doom 3 runs sweet on any
midrange FX card, let alone high end GF6's and such, so I don't think
the graphics are the problem.

From observations in videos, it looks like the framebuffer only allows
the lower res textures (and the TV resolution), but there were still
normal maps, fully dynamic shadows and volumes, particle effects, and
per pixel lighting. Many of these things are common in XBox games
already (per pixel, vertex shaders, and normal mapping).

The NV25a was a special hybrid chipset, sort of like a GF4 with early FX
class shader units, but it was not compatible or similar to the GF3.

That said, I have run D3 on a 64MB GF3 TI200 and it will run ok at 640
with some settings down, but the most important ones (like shadows and
normals) on.

I think it has more to do with complications of getting it published and
reworking most of the retail maps for the XBox. It doesn't have as much
space to throw around, so it's all gotta fit on a single DVD and be
accessed in real time without exceesive loading. This means maps are
optimized for the absolute minimum visible detail, entire sections
removed and streamlined, models are pruned and similar ones dumped.

We've already seen the D3 engine running on XBox, so I'm not worried
about that; there's moreso the logistical concerns of will it even be
worth it to publish so late?
Related resources
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 4:26:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:48:37 -0600, deimos wrote:

> Gary wrote:
>> Must be having to repogram the engine for a console which lacks in the
>> graphics depo.
>>
>> Gary.
>>
>>
>>
> It's been up and running on the XBox's custom NV25A chipset for a while
> now. Been showcased at E3 and all that jazz. Doom 3 runs sweet on any
> midrange FX card, let alone high end GF6's and such, so I don't think the
> graphics are the problem.

If I recall correctly, the XBOX's graphics are basically a modified
version of the Geforce 3. Not to say that it'll look horrible, but it may
not look quite as good as say, a midrange FX card.

>
> From observations in videos, it looks like the framebuffer only allows
> the lower res textures (and the TV resolution), but there were still
> normal maps, fully dynamic shadows and volumes, particle effects, and per
> pixel lighting. Many of these things are common in XBox games already
> (per pixel, vertex shaders, and normal mapping).
>
> The NV25a was a special hybrid chipset, sort of like a GF4 with early FX
> class shader units, but it was not compatible or similar to the GF3.
>

hm. You may be right, but AFAIK, the GF4 hadn't even been introduced yet,
and I seem to recall reading in a magazine at the time that it was a
modified GF3.


> That said, I have run D3 on a 64MB GF3 TI200 and it will run ok at 640
> with some settings down, but the most important ones (like shadows and
> normals) on.
>
> I think it has more to do with complications of getting it published and
> reworking most of the retail maps for the XBox. It doesn't have as much
> space to throw around, so it's all gotta fit on a single DVD and be
> accessed in real time without exceesive loading. This means maps are
> optimized for the absolute minimum visible detail, entire sections removed
> and streamlined, models are pruned and similar ones dumped.
>
> We've already seen the D3 engine running on XBox, so I'm not worried about
> that; there's moreso the logistical concerns of will it even be worth it
> to publish so late?

It could also be that the console version has to be slightly different
from the PC version to take into account things like memory. It may not be
able to support certain combinations of monsters and scenery at the same
time. I noticed something similar to this when I played Quake 3 and Unreal
Tournament on the Dreamcast. The number of people in multiplayer was much
smaller than the PC version and although the Dreamcast graphics are still
very good (arguably better than a PS2, but I wont go into that argument
right now), you couldn't expect it to have everything that the pc version
had without a lot of performance hits.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 11:52:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

orison wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:48:37 -0600, deimos wrote:
>
>
>>Gary wrote:
>>
>>>Must be having to repogram the engine for a console which lacks in the
>>>graphics depo.
>>>
>>>Gary.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It's been up and running on the XBox's custom NV25A chipset for a while
>>now. Been showcased at E3 and all that jazz. Doom 3 runs sweet on any
>>midrange FX card, let alone high end GF6's and such, so I don't think the
>>graphics are the problem.
>
>
> If I recall correctly, the XBOX's graphics are basically a modified
> version of the Geforce 3. Not to say that it'll look horrible, but it may
> not look quite as good as say, a midrange FX card.
>
>
>> From observations in videos, it looks like the framebuffer only allows
>>the lower res textures (and the TV resolution), but there were still
>>normal maps, fully dynamic shadows and volumes, particle effects, and per
>>pixel lighting. Many of these things are common in XBox games already
>>(per pixel, vertex shaders, and normal mapping).
>>
>>The NV25a was a special hybrid chipset, sort of like a GF4 with early FX
>>class shader units, but it was not compatible or similar to the GF3.
>>
>
>
> hm. You may be right, but AFAIK, the GF4 hadn't even been introduced yet,
> and I seem to recall reading in a magazine at the time that it was a
> modified GF3.
>
>
>
>>That said, I have run D3 on a 64MB GF3 TI200 and it will run ok at 640
>>with some settings down, but the most important ones (like shadows and
>>normals) on.
>>
>>I think it has more to do with complications of getting it published and
>>reworking most of the retail maps for the XBox. It doesn't have as much
>>space to throw around, so it's all gotta fit on a single DVD and be
>>accessed in real time without exceesive loading. This means maps are
>>optimized for the absolute minimum visible detail, entire sections removed
>>and streamlined, models are pruned and similar ones dumped.
>>
>>We've already seen the D3 engine running on XBox, so I'm not worried about
>>that; there's moreso the logistical concerns of will it even be worth it
>>to publish so late?
>
>
> It could also be that the console version has to be slightly different
> from the PC version to take into account things like memory. It may not be
> able to support certain combinations of monsters and scenery at the same
> time. I noticed something similar to this when I played Quake 3 and Unreal
> Tournament on the Dreamcast. The number of people in multiplayer was much
> smaller than the PC version and although the Dreamcast graphics are still
> very good (arguably better than a PS2, but I wont go into that argument
> right now), you couldn't expect it to have everything that the pc version
> had without a lot of performance hits.
>

And don't forget the problem that the PC version was lame regarding play
and enjoyment. Perhaps they're doing more than just adjusting for the
different hardware platform. Maybe they want to make at least one
version of the game fun!!??
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 9:27:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

"Gary" <gary@garywhittle.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cp73ap$8pj$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Must be having to repogram the engine for a console which lacks in the
> graphics depo.

Pfft, why wait? Besides, I'm playing it in 1280X1024 at a rock solid 60 fps
with everythign on. Xbox just wont' be able to do that, with a joystick no
less? I just don't get why people are waiting.

Steve
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 9:06:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.doom (More info?)

Steve McDevitt wasted my time with the following on 12/18/2004 1:27 AM:

> Pfft, why wait? Besides, I'm playing it in 1280X1024 at a rock solid 60 fps
> with everythign on. Xbox just wont' be able to do that, with a joystick no
> less? I just don't get why people are waiting.
>
> Steve
>

I don't know, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it's a
hell of a lot less hassle-free?

Think about it.

On PC...

You go out, buy Doom 3, install it, and then maybe have to tweak.

Update this driver, adjust this setting, install this program.

Maybe buy new parts, etc. etc.

If you're on linux? Luck to ya.

Play the game.

Now, On Xbox...

You go out, buy Doom 3, pop it in your xbox.

Play.

Not everybody has the time/money to mess with their settings or upgrade
their computer.

However, i do =)))

And xbox is like having *two* joysticks at once. 2x precision. I've
considered buying an xbox-based controller quite a few times, but always
stuck to the ole MX700 and junky keyboard.

As far as quality goes...if you get a copy of halo on xbox, grab a
sniper weapon, and zoom in on a grass texture, say...you'll see
super-high quality.

Buy the PC copy, run it on a 2.8ghz machine, 1gb ram, 128mb AGP gfx
card, and all the bells and whistles and give it the same test, you'll
just look at a mess.

An xbox is a 733mhz processor, 250mhz GPU, 64mb of DDR (200mhz), and all
the other garbage they throw in there.

So comparing the performance on xbox to PC is not exactly a 1:1 comparison.

IMHO, I think the xbox version of Doom 3 will fare quite well.

(xbox has a max res of 1920x1080 btw)

--
Noob - "do you hack?"
Justin - "i hack like a maniac!"
Noob - "do you have digital cable?"
Justin - "i have *ALL* the cables!"