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!!??
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram