Doom 3 Review

Watch this item
Doom 3
3.7 stars
Average rating for this product is: 3.7 out of 5

From 3 ratings and 17 reviews

Thumb up 53% of users recommend this product

Rate it Now:

Click on the stars above to rate this product:

Tweet This Item


fx5900's Review of Doom 3 for PC

10th Aug 2004

Overall Rating

1.5 stars
  • Value for money
    0.5 stars
  • Graphics
    5 stars
  • Addiction Level
    1 stars
  • Multi-player
    No
Good Points

Graphics are very nice


Bad Points

Waste of $$$$


General Comments

The graphics on Doom 3 are super good. Way too good compared to those other games. Seriously, I think the game is terrible. It's just another version of the old typical Doom game, but with better graphics. The graphics mean nothing if the game play is no good. I'll stick with UT2004. Man, I can't even imagine how horrible the multi player will be for Doom 3. UT2004 still rules as far as game play and it's way more enjoyable. Anyone wanna buy my Doom 3? It's a piece of junk with good graphics that's all. Nothing more...

Remember - all reviews on Review Centre express the reviewer's opinion, not necessarily ours.
If you disagree with a review then please let us know by writing a review of your own or adding a comment.

Tweet This Review

On average, people found this review not helpful

How helpful did you find this review?


Members' Comments onfx5900's Review

  • Jackalite Rank: 2nd Lieutenant on 18th Aug 2004

    I agree that the graphics are great but didn't you expect the game to be dark and samely as Doom 1? Having this in mind, I purchased Doom 3 and feel it's brilliant. The sound is as good as the graphics and why have you put no multiplayer? There's a basic multiplayer here, but the single player game is the main focus. The single player game, compared to UT2004 (a multiplayer game) is amazing. If you are a multiplayer fan this won't equal that of UT2004 but otherwise Doom 3 is bloody ace. (very bloody at that!)

  • Jimscreechy Rank: Corporal on 23rd Aug 2004

    Sorry, I have to agree with fx5900 here. Gameplay (at least for me) is far more important than graphics, which is not to say graphics don't play a significant role in game enjoyment. Typical examples where later games with improved graphics don't measure up to their 'New Improved' counterparts include, Comanche Gold - the earlier version with better gameplay proved far more popular and better to play than Comanche4 and, Colin Mcrae original which is arguably better than all its souped up bigger brothers.

    Incidentally, FX, I think the new unreal isn't all that!

    'See it and shoot it' was fine years ago when Doom led the way in the FPS genre, but now we have come to expect so much more. As titles improve and outstrip the achievements of ancient releases, developers must move forward not just in order to keep us interested, but to realistically stay competitive. Doom3 was released less than a week ago and already I am seeing it on the second hand shelf of 'Computer Exchange' If the developers haven't moved forward with our expectations, and simply repacked an original work of art expecting it to impress because of nostalgia, then let their shortsitedness be their demise.