Whhyy!!!

[linkoln]

WHY, is Doom 3 only on Xbox anyway??*snub*

and PC??

[Harry]

What else could it be possibly out on? PS2 is too crap, Doom 3 is to old for Xbox360 and ps3, and it'd probably take too much work to be on the Wii (would be cool though).

[linkoln]

I think it would really work for Wii, it might be the best

[CrazedImp]

Regardless if it would or not, Doom3 is, as Harry said, too old now to port as a standalone game.

However, what could be done is ID made a game specifically for the Wii, and as a pre-order promotion if they get in early they will get a Wii version of Doom3 along with whatever the new game is. But I wouldn't get your hopes up either way. :p

[Sigma]

I tend to doubt that the Nintendo Wii could even handle Doom 3 (at least, to an extent worth porting over). The Nintendo Wii is not as powerful as the original Xbox (though the Xbox only exceeds it very slightly). I can almost guarantee the likeliness of a Nintendo Wii port of Doom 3 is practically zero percent.

[linkoln]

I mean they should put Doom 4 on it

[CrazedImp]

I tend to doubt that the Nintendo Wii could even handle Doom 3 (at least, to an extent worth porting over). The Nintendo Wii is not as powerful as the original Xbox (though the Xbox only exceeds it very slightly). I can almost guarantee the likeliness of a Nintendo Wii port of Doom 3 is practically zero percent.

By specs, the original Xbox is faster by only 10 mhz or some small number like that, so if anything the Wii is on par with the power of the original Xbox. But sometime in its lifecycle there will be games that will look better and perform better than the original Xbox. Metroid Prime 3 is example of that, looks better than Halo2 and runs at 60fps.

But I agree on your idea of porting, there would be no real advantage to porting to Wii. It wouldn't sell well and the Wii's control scheme wouldn't add any more depth or experience to a shooter like Doom3.

And linkoln... If they made a Doom4, I assure you it will NOT be on the Wii. It will be on PC, and the 360 and at some time PS3.

[rustyslacker]

But not in that order. It would likely be on xbox 360 first.

[Sigma]

By specs, the original Xbox is faster by only 10 mhz or some small number like that, so if anything the Wii is on par with the power of the original Xbox. But sometime in its lifecycle there will be games that will look better and perform better than the original Xbox. Metroid Prime 3 is example of that, looks better than Halo2 and runs at 60fps.

Very true. However, I would not expect much past that in terms of graphics, physics, et cetera. The Doom 3 port, as I said and you more or less agreed with, is a dream as far as I am concerned. Doom 3 did not do well enough to justify such a release, is not something that Nintendo or id Software really seem to care about and even if it were ported, it would not run any better than it did on the Xbox. While it wasn't bad on the Xbox, the difference is clear as day in comparison to the PC version.

I am still a bit "bummed out" by the lack of Nintendo 64 RareWare games on the Nintendo Wii and the relatively nonexistent chance of there being a Virtual Console release of Doom 64. I happen to dislike the Doom 64 TC's "improvements" considerably. Here is to wishing...

The Xbox 360 will be phasing out (if not completely phased out) by the time this hypothetical Doom 4 were to come out. We'd probably see it on PC first, possibly the PS3 (though doubtful) and the Xbox 1080 Vista. ;)

The only console that has a chance of seeing a Doom 3 port would have to be the PS3. John Carmack had even mentioned such a possibility, a "super" Doom 3 port-- although nothing has been stated since then.

[gary]

How many times more powerful is the Xbox360 compared to the Wii and how many times more powerful is the PS3 compared to the Xbox360? I'm very interested in hearing the answer. Do you know, CrazedImp?

[CrazedImp]

The Xbox360, by specs, is about 4 times more powerful than Wii, but if developers use its hardware correctly it can be seen as much higher than that (just take a look at any screenshot of Gears Of War).

To the PS3, it is capable of doing more with its CPU, like more advanced physics and advanced AI and such things, and its GPU is slightly more powerful than the Xbox360's, so you might see some games with a few crisper looking textures and some nice weather effects, but apart from that, the graphical power of PS3 and Xbox360 is roughly the same. It all comes down to how developers learn to use the hardware to its full advantage.

[Sigma]

The PS3 and Xbox 360 are roughly the same in terms of GPU specifications, but not in terms of CPU horse-power. Here are the GPU and CPU specifications for the Nintendo Wii, Xbox (for comparison to the Wii), Xbox 360 and PS3:

Nintendo Wii: CPU 729 MHz / GPU 243 MHz, N/A

Xbox: CPU 733 MHz / GPU 233 MHz, N/A

Xbox 360: CPU 3.2 GHz Tri-core / GPU 500 MHz, 48-pixel shaders

PS3: CPU 3.2 GHz 1 PPE, 7 SPE's / GPU 550 MHz, 24-pixel shaders

There are a considerable amount of considerations to be made, especially in terms of pixel-shaders, clock-speed this and clock-speed that, but basically it is as CrazedImp put it, aside from the CPU horse-power. The Xbox 360's maximum theoretical performance is clocked at 115.2 gigaflops whereas the PS3's is a bit over 2 teraflops-- approximately 17.5 times as powerful as the Xbox 360's. I would not state that is relative in the least.

However, whether or not this actually ever becomes realized is anyone's guess. Programming for multi-threaded or multiple CPU's is apparently tough business and programmers do not seem to care for it.

[Aliotroph?]

They care even less for the PS3 because the cores are asymmetric. Those seven usable SPEs on the Cell (there's an eighth one that's turned off), each have to run the same instruction on their own set of data and each only have access to 256KB of memory, whereas the PPE is basically something like a Power5 processor (if the naming works like the Power5 it would indicate that thing can work on 5 instructions at once).

XBox 360 uses a CPU made of three of those Power things with access to the same huge pile of memory the GPU uses. You still get the challenge of using the maximum potential of multiple cores but you get more freedom with that than with the PS3. Also appears MS has better develepment tools, which would make all this easier.

I don't know much at all about the insides of the Wii. One neat feature of the GameCube, which they probably kept in the Wii, was its use of static RAM. GameCube had very, very fast RAM. That probably had something to do with all the shiny graphics I saw come out of a console with only 24MB.

[Sigma]

I think you've been listening to John Carmack too much. ;)

Regardless, "STI" (Sony, Toshiba and IBM) are apparently extremely pleased with the Cell Broadband Engine. The processor may be difficult to program for, but the possibilities it provides are tremendous. In terms of gaming, never have I seen so many things happening at one time in a game as I had in Resistance: Fall of Man. In terms of specialized use, IBM's work in progress "Roadrunner," will supposedly annihilate the world's fastest current super-computer with an overall performance output estimated to be several petaflops.

In light of all of the research I have done regarding the three 7th generation consoles, I feel confident in stating that the PS3 is the most powerful, capable, future-orientated and amazing device of the three. Unfortunately, it seems that Sony has expected too much from programmers and is now paying for it.

[Jonathan Paskiewicz]

PC is best than any consoles (PS3, X360, Wii) 'cuz keyboard and mouse are great for FPS games. *thumbs* But any gamepads are too hard to looking and turning. *yuck* A mouse is perfect for lookin' and turnin'. *giddy*

But occasionally I play WWII FPS game for PS2... I alway play PC games.

I think most Wii has many Children Only to Teen +13 rated games. PC, PS3, and X360 have Everyone to Adult rated games.

We hope DOOM 3 for PS3! *rolleyes*

[Aliotroph?]

PS3 may be the most powerful and future-oriented but people need to buy them now for it to succeed.

I'm not surprised IBM is big on the Cell. It's perfect for the kind of things they usually build super computers for (which are not games). Simulations of climates, nuclear explosions and huge molecules tend to have lots of cases where you want the same instructions done to massively parallel loads of data. That works OK in graphics too, but figuring out how to load the data in quickly is the nasty bit for games because you don't know what should be happening next.

PS3 will have by far the shiniest graphics when it gets figured out fully. Meanwhile we get to wait and see how many people buy it.

[Sigma]

People will purchase them if developers make great games for the console and there is a price drop. Unfortunately, it seems as though most developers have already made up their minds. The funniest thing of all is how John Carmack even feels his opinion is worthwhile regarding how difficult programming for one of these devices is-- id Software has outsourced all of their console ports since the SNES Doom. Furthermore, it isn't like John Carmack doesn't make millions of dollars to compensate for such. Either way, the consumer gets the short end of the stick. Programmers make games for whatever system is the easiest and earns them the fastest profits-- the consumer who owns said system has the device break down on them within six months of owning it.

I am beginning to hate the gaming industry. Besides, if anything id Software has it all wrong. The success of the Nintendo Wii and the generally apparent mind-frame that Doom and Quake were better games than their technologically superior counter-parts states (to me anyway) that id Software needs to re-analyze their entire system.

[Aliotroph?]

The expensive consoles break in six months too. At least the first couple of production runs do. Consoles are stupid anyway. Why would I want to buy an expensive computer only to have something that nobody can develop for without a license from its maker? They're good for party games at least.

I find it odd that there isn't something to motivate more Japanese people to buy the PS3. I figured companies like Square woul be all over that thing to render their 10-disc cinematics with lifeless animation.

You're right about Carmack and game design though. He seems to invent a lot of boring stuff lately. *waits for Supreme Commander*

[Sigma]

True. I suppose I've simply been disgusted with the alternatives to the PS3-- and in due consideration to what you are getting for the price, the $500-$600 price tag is quite good (Xbox 360 w/ hard-drive and HD-DVD extension costs the same for a completely inferior product). The success of the system depends entirely on the games developed for it.

The biggest reason I support the PS3 is because of the above point, the rather simple (in comparison to the Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii) backward compatibility and the games.

The PS3 and even Xbox 360 ([Xbox 360] to a very limited extent) allow 3rd party development. You can install Linux on the PS3 and mod games freely (similar to the PSP, however this time around Sony is releasing 3rd party SDK's free of charge).

[The Undertaker]

Seems like exclusives are on the way out so it doesn't too many developers will programing to the PS3s strengths. Instead they'll try shoehorn their game to work within its limitations (256MB RAM and the RSX being the biggest) leaving no time for any exclusive extras. And for console fanboys that use theirs no bloated OS arguement, the PS3s OS is plenty bloated(64mb of the 256mb of available XDR memory off the Cell CPU,32mb of the 256mb of available GDDR3 memory off the RSX chip,1 SPE of 7 constantly reserved). Add that the RSX needs about 2 SPUs to keep with Xenons their isn't much CPU left fancy physics and whatnot.

[Sigma]

The Xbox 360's Xenos and Xenon share 512MB of DDR3 RAM. The GPU also has access to 10 MB of eDRAM. The PS3 has 256MB of XDR RAM and an additional 256MB of DDR3 VRAM. Technically, both systems have the same amount of RAM. XDR RAM is much faster than DDR3 RAM.

The PS3 does indeed only have six available SPE's, but this is, more or less, double what the Xbox 360 offers per six strings (3 PPE's, divided into two strings each).

The PS3's architecture also allows it to perform Ray-Tracing, something that the Xbox 360's architecture is not capable of. While a "problem" to program for, the PS3 is quite superior. Given more time and assuming the PS3 doesn't collapse underneath all of the pressure of it's price tag and misinformation, you'll see some amazing things come from the console.

Even besides this, there is still the BLU-Ray drive, additional hard-drive space, seven USB ports, simple backward compatibility, et cetera to compare against the Xbox 360. The winner is obvious-- well almost. The only thing going for the Xbox 360 is the custom ATi video card. I don't think it is that much better than the PS3's setup however. Especially considering that the Cell Broadband Engine can assist the GPU since their architecture is similar. Per RSX versus Xenon specifications, the Xenon wins, but with further consideration to the above point, that line is blurred beyond recognition.

[Aliotroph?]

I'm 100% sure you can do ray tracing on an XBox 360. You can do it on my old 486 too. Just doesn't go fast if you wanna trace a lot of rays. :p

[Sigma]

Rendering something unplayable in the form of various artifacts or penalties such as serious frame-rate issues does not substitute as "capable" as far as I am concerned. Or in other words, just because you can view the Doom3 menu screen on a PC with a 1 GHz CPU, 256 MB of RAM and a nVidia GeForce 3 series card running Windows XP does not mean the PC is "capable" of playing it.

At what extent is the capability negated?