But Doom 3 wasn´t " passable " it was one of the great games from 2004.
What I am seeing now in 2011 people making jokes in foruns of Doom 3, but back some years and people still respected the game.

Of course some Doomers hardcore didn´t like the D3 style, but the fact is that the game still has a good gameplay, solid action, and the grapichs represented a new era in FPS.

Indeed. At the time it reviewed very well, sold very well and everyone on my forums at the time was loving the game. I saw more screenshots and heard more excited tales of playing for Doom 3 than damn near any game since.

Years later people like to look at it as a failure but it was anything but.

I disagree, I played it late yes, but I hadn't played any FPS games that had been made in the interim and found it to be passable at best. Yes, the graphics were amazing, but iD can do better than that, they improved the graphics with each iteration, but this was one of the first games where it became obvious how clueless they were about level design. All the previous games I'd played, they had interesting level design, or as interesting as the technology of the day would allow.

Hell, as much as I disliked Return to Castle Wolfenstein, it was a much better game in most respects. And I probably wouldn't have disliked it if not for that stupid stealth sequence.

In the grand scheme of things Doom 3 was a mediocre game, I go back and play Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Doom 2, Quake and such and they still play a lot better than Doom 3.

Doom 3 most certainly was nothing more than "passable" I bought it back in 2005, and although the graphics wowed me at first and the game was quite entertaining for the first hour or so, it became clear that the game wasn't going to throw anything really new into the mix except bigger-assed monsters. That was acceptable in the early 1990s when the genre was growing teeth. In 2004, it had already established itself and Doom was looking very old indeed.

Even in 2005, I never liked the plastic look of the figures. The best things that the game had going for it were the interactive consoles and the graphics.

Of course, it sold like hot cakes, but as we know from the various cookie-cutter shooters out there, sales figures are not a sign of quality.

Reviews of the day here in Germany were also not too forgiving of Doom 3's gameplay.

What you're missing is that we're talking about iD, they've pretty much always set the bar higher than everybody else, and have generally achieved what they set out to do.

If the game had been released by somebody else, I probably wouldn't have thought too much about this, but the game didn't play as well as most of their other games, sure it looked pretty, but that's really not enough. And, considering their ability to hire whomever they want to do the maps, it's really not acceptable to have the sort of crap maps, especially early on in the game.
That's more or less my feeling about the game. You don't have to have played any other games from that year to see that iD was essentially phoning it in, I think apart from the work that John did on the engine, I didn't see any particular evidence that it was an iD game.

It was only one of the big games of 2004 because Id was making it, and because it looked freakin beautiful at the time. In hindsight, it wasn't that much more impressive than most of the games being released at the time, and was easily outshined by Far Cry, Halflife 2, Painkiller, etc. Is it a bad game? Not at all. But not anywhere near what you would expect from Id.

Ok now the game has a bad gameplay, bad level design, "plastic" grapchs, wasn´t scary and did nothing new...

Ok.

Just to remember

Doom 3 Reviews
IGN ** 8.9 / 10 Aug 5, 2004
Thunderbolt ** 10 / 10 Sep 19, 2004
Game Rankings ** 80 / 100 Sep 7, 2004
Gaming Age ** B- Sep 1, 2004
Game Chronicles ** 9.1 / 10 Aug 30, 2004
GameZone ** 9.2 / 10 Aug 13, 2004
Worth Playing ** 8.1 / 10 Aug 12, 2004
Eurogamer ** 9 / 10 Aug 6, 2004
HonestGamers ** 3 / 10 Sep 3, 2008
RealGamer ** 8.6 / 10 Jan 1, 2008
Cheat Code Central ** 4 / 5 Aug 16, 2005
Gamer Within ** 9 / 10 Aug 2, 2005
Final-Level ** 4 / 5 May 3, 2005
VG-Force ** 9 / 10 May 2, 2005
PopCultureShock ** A- Apr 9, 2005
The Laser ** A Jan 6, 2005
Game Power AU ** 8.5 / 10 Nov 20, 2004
AceGamez ** 9 / 10 Oct 20, 2004
Computer & Video Games UK ** 90 / 100 Oct 1, 2004
DarkZero ** 8.2 / 10 Sep 27, 2004
GamersMark ** 9.2 / 10 Sep 23, 2004
Video Game Talk ** 4 / 5 Sep 15, 2004
Game XC ** 9 / 10 Sep 12, 2004
Just Adventure ** B- Sep 9, 2004
Cyber Gaming Net ** 4.5 / 5 Aug 31, 2004
GamePlasma ** 9.4 / 10 Aug 31, 2004
Fragland ** 92.7 / 100 Aug 31, 2004
Contact Music ** 8.5 / 10 Aug 30, 2004
Loaded Inc ** 9.5 / 10 Aug 28, 2004
Club Skill ** 8.4 / 10 Aug 27, 2004
Game Vortex ** 96 / 100 Aug 25, 2004
The Gamers Temple ** 85 / 100 Aug 24, 2004
JIVEMagazine ** 4 / 5 Aug 24, 2004
Game Raiders ** 96 / 100 Aug 23, 2004
Just RPG ** 81 / 100 Aug 22, 2004
DailyGame ** 9 / 10 Aug 22, 2004
Gamecell ** 7 / 10 Aug 19, 2004
Next Level Gaming ** 97 / 100 Aug 19, 2004
PC Gameworld ** 90 / 100 Aug 17, 2004
Gaming Illustrated ** 88 / 100 Aug 17, 2004
Armchair Empire ** 9 / 10 Aug 15, 2004
VGPub ** 9.3 / 10 Aug 15, 2004
Videogameslife ** 5 / 5 Aug 15, 2004
Boomtown ** 9 / 10 Aug 13, 2004
GameShark ** 4 / 5 Aug 13, 2004
Game Revolution ** B+ Aug 13, 2004
Total Video Games ** 9 / 10 Aug 13, 2004
Gaming Horizon ** 9.4 / 10 Aug 13, 2004
Netjak ** 8.4 / 10 Aug 12, 2004
Cinescape Online ** A- Aug 12, 2004
NZGamer ** 8 / 10 Aug 12, 2004
Globe Technology ** 4 / 5 Aug 11, 2004
The Entertainment Depot ** 9 / 10 Aug 11, 2004
Lawrence ** 78 / 100 Aug 11, 2004
Game Axis ** 9.6 / 10 Aug 11, 2004
Games First! ** 3 / 5 Aug 10, 2004
ESC Magazine ** 9 / 10 Aug 10, 2004
DreamStation.cc ** 7 / 10 Aug 9, 2004
Gameguru Mania ** 91 / 100 Aug 8, 2004
Game Over Online ** 89 / 100 Aug 8, 2004
3D Avenue ** 92 / 100 Aug 8, 2004
CPUGamer ** 9.8 / 10 Aug 7, 2004
Mygamer ** 9.2 / 10 Aug 6, 2004
Gameplanet ** 4.5 / 5 Aug 6, 2004
GameSpy ** 4.5 / 5 Aug 6, 2004
Game Industry News ** 5 / 5 Aug 6, 2004
IC-Games ** 94 / 100 Aug 5, 2004
Firing Squad ** 85 / 100 Aug 5, 2004
Gaming Nexus ** 9 / 10 Aug 5, 2004
XGP Gaming ** 9.5 / 10 Aug 4, 2004
ActionTrip ** 90 / 100 Aug 4, 2004
Computer Games RO ** 89 / 100 Aug 4, 2004
GamersHell ** 9.4 / 10 Aug 3, 2004
UGO ** A Aug 3, 2004
AtomicGamer ** 93 / 100 Aug 2, 2004
play.tm ** 93 / 100 Aug 1, 2004
InsidePulse 6 / 10 Aug 27, 2004
GamerFeed 4 / 5 Aug 9, 2004
Gamers Europe 8.5 / 10 Aug 19, 2004
Cincinnati Enquirer 4 / 5 Aug 19, 2004
Game Blitz 95 / 100 Aug 17, 2004
PGNx Media 9.4 / 10 Aug 3, 2004
GameDaily 8 / 10 Aug 1, 2004
Computer Gaming World ** 5 / 5 Oct 1, 2004
Electronic Gaming Monthly ** 9 / 10 Oct 1, 2004
GMR Magazine ** 8 / 10 Oct 1, 2004
PC Gamer ** 94 / 100 Sep 1, 2004
Computer Games Mag ** 3.5 / 5 Nov 1, 2004
PC Gamer UK ** 90 / 100 Sep 1, 2004
GamePro ** 4 / 5 Aug 5, 2004
gamesTM 7 / 10 May 1, 2006
PC Zone UK 90 / 100 Oct 1, 2004
Edge Magazine UK 7 / 10 Oct 1, 2004
Games Master UK 90 / 100 Oct 1, 2004

Maybe it is not anymore, but the fact, is that back when it went out, was at least a great game. God know why people starting bullying all the aspects of the game years later.
Maybe Modern Warface, FEAR, and others that came after changed the players heads
But it only my opinion and I respect yours

Then how do you explain folks like me that have never played any of those games hating Doom 3?

It was a fine game, but even without playing those other games it hasn't held up well, and I'd be really curious to learn how many of those reviewers factored in the graphics as a significant factor.

Any game that is truly good remains good even after its initial "new-ness"wears off. In fact, I would argue that the best time to judge a game is AFTER it's no longer cutting-edge, and trendiness and flashy graphics can't cloud your judgement. This is one of the reasons that I find mainsteam reviews to be far less trustworthy than a consensus of the "word on the street." Some games have been innovative for their time, but have not aged well (Wolfenstein 3d is a good example). Other games have been innovative for their time, and have aged marvelously (Doom 1 + 2 being good examples). A few were derivative or outdated on release, but end up being quite good when their design has gone from passe to retro. Basically, if Doom 3 is boring now, well, maybe it wasn't actually all that great to being with.

It being boring now is an OPINION that SOME people have.

I'm not saying Doom 3 IS boring (I actually happen to like the game). I was explaining that truly good games aren't exciting and amazing when they come out, but dull and uninteresting a few years later.

Just a personal pet peeve of mine.

Indeed, and I suspect that those same people found it to be boring at the time, well the ones that played it when it was new. There's a tendency for positive press and marketing to overwhelm the folks that didn't like it at first. And it's not until later that the folks who didn't like it aren't being drowned out.

At least in many cases. I know there are still people who have a hard time believing that Halo wasn't the end all be all of FPS games. Those people in my experience tend not to have played FPS games on PC.

Or the only people still talking about Doom 3 at length are the people that were disappointed by it? Forum conversation 5 years later isn't really evidence of much if we're honest with each other.

History can be funny. Deus Ex didn't sell well and most people I knew at the time hated it, but now in 2011 it's the best PC game ever made. Doom 3 sold gangbusters and everyone I knew at the time loved it, but now it's a piece of shit. I think the fact of the matter is that the passionate few shape history.

Halo was amazingly popular on Xbox for good reason, it basically brought an entire new genre to consoles, and one that rapidly took over. That's a pretty big deal whether the game itself was good or not.

And for the record I liked the first Halo, as did a lot of other PC gamers I talked to at the time. Mostly for the enemy AI and larger open levels.

I personally hated it largely because FPS games with console controls is really, really stupid. And I've yet to play a single FPS that actually works in a sane way on console. It's been like a decade or so and they still haven't gotten the controls right. I don't mind FO3 or FO:NV so much because they have VATS to make up for the fact that console FPS games blow.

Certain genres just don't work on console controls and FPS is probably the best example. Others like RTS games are awkward, but workable, FPS games require a significant amount of dumbing down before it functions.