Original message
| kain
doomisthebest@hotmail.com
|  "why not have a nuke?"
, posted Fri 6 Apr 17:26  
|
|
Replies:
|
| Speshul Eddy
tarbaby99@earthlink.net
| "Re(1):why not have a nuke?" , posted Tue 10 Apr 02:11
...cuz nukes are heavy =(
---------------------------------------
I'm only paranoid because they're out to get me dammit.
|
| sirgalahadwizar
sirgalahadwizard@hotmail.com
45229070
| "Re(1):why not have a nuke?" , posted Mon 9 Apr 08:21
I think the BFG is effectivly a nuke in it's own right.
If you are talking about a device that blows up if yuo dont disarm it, i dont agree - flynn can run away because this is somewhere else than earth and no collateral damage is to worry about.
Experiment a little with the logic center of your brain before a zombie eats it.
|
| Lengis
newonic@hotmail.com
| "Re(1):why not have a nuke?" , posted Sun 8 Apr 20:23
I agree, Nukes kick ass. Turok's nuke weapons looked great but they did shitty damage, I want REAL damage! Also the BFG should be in too.
----------------------------
"Where did you go you candy ass fagot?!"
-Vegita DBZ
"I Got It! You gota beat a fatso with a fatso!"
-Yamcha DBZ
|
| Zaldron
avengerz66@hotmail.com
18477495
| "Re(1):why not have a nuke?" , posted Fri 6 Apr 17:51
A nuke would put in evidence the lack of destructable enviroments. Thatīs a weapon more suited for games like Red Faction. Throwing one of those inside a locker, only to discover after the tremendous explosion that the thingīs just a little charred, well, makes the engine look so crap.
__________________________ _ _ _
"There are three kinds of death in this world. There's heart death there's brain death and there's being off the network."
|
| | Speshul Eddy
tarbaby99@earthlink.net
| "Re(2):why not have a nuke?" , posted Fri 6 Apr 22:31
yeah, I remember playing the Turok series and wondering why those incredibly destructive looking weapons caused so little...err, destruction(heck, the enemies didn't even gib).
Of course, asking for destructible environments in an N64 game would be kind of absurd.
---------------------------------------
I'm only paranoid because they're out to get me dammit.
|
| Windowpain
mseb@wwdb.org
| "Re(1):why not have a nuke?" , posted Fri 6 Apr 17:33
because the idea is to kill the demons without killing all of the people too.
I'm not anti newbie. I'm anti stupid newbie.
|
| | kain
doomisthebest@hotmail.com
| "Re(2):why not have a nuke?" , posted Fri 6 Apr 18:02
damn are you guys fucking mind readers? i was going to put that if you where going to die, that there would be a nuke and the whole complex would blow up with you in it since you are half deada and you would still complete your mission, but that would be no room for a part 4.
Hmmm Doom89 sounds good!!
|
| | Clone999
griffin_x24@hotmail.com
| "Re(3):why not have a nuke?" , posted Sun 8 Apr 19:31
There's always the idea of getting aniahlated in Doom3, then ending up back in hell in Doom4. That would be sweet. Besides, the good guy doesn't always have to win. I mean, you ARE fighting an immortal.
You don't wanna deathmatch me when I've got my Mega-Shotgun out./C999/
|
| | TheEternalVile
darkwolfentertainment_designer@yahoo.com
109293263
| "Why to Not have a nuke" , posted Mon 9 Apr 18:38
I haven't seen a decent Nuke in a game. Explosion is not good enough, no shockwave/emp, no radiation, etc.
Just Fuck it. forget what i said. forget about nukes
-------------------------------------------------
Flames all around......
No hope......
Get ready to DIE!!!!
|
|
|
