Enjay
ASK ME ABOUT FOOTBALL / STEAM / DEAD CELEBRITIES / THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT
Posts: 5536
Registered: 12-00 |
kristus said:
The press is always mostly interested in the visuals. But that doesn't make the players stay around for 10 years. If it really was just a tech demo a you so claim, then why would they still bother with it in 2009? I think you should check out some demos of people playing the game for real before you pass such nonsense judgement.
I have seen such demos and the points you make are fair ones. However, I'll stick to my opinion (based on memory) that the reception of the game - from the press and many players alike (myself included) was an appreciation of the tech in Q3 rather than the game itself. However, I will accept that some people love it and see it as a fantastic game. To me, however, the game has almost no substance and is just a game engine with some interesting capabilities. To call it (or any released game) merely a tech demo is, I suppose, unfair and unrealistic given that if it were merely a demo, there would be no need to hang a game on it - no matter how insubstantial.
Of course, I'm sure that you recognise that any sensible company would be also hoping that other potential business partners would see the engine in the context of a full game and appreciate what they could do with the engine as well. However, that is a long way from the sole purpose of a release being merely a tech demo. I accept that, even though my perception of the games in question being pretty poor still makes it feel like that.
kristus said:
Yeah, because it's not possible they made the engine and the game together during several years to make this game they had in mind? Ignoring to make things in the engine that they didn't think they need. Doom3 wasn't perfect. But saying the game engine just couldn't do it is pretty stupid since the games after it showed that it obviously could.
Which games after it? As you said, only Prey used the engine. I have seen people, pro Doom3 people, arguing that a number of things that could have made Doom3 more fun than it was were not there because of engine considerations. Either because the engine itself couldn't do it or, more often, because id had made an engine that could do it but not on the hardware available to most people at the time (which to an end user amounts to much the same thing - stuff not there because it can't be done with the provided tech).
kristus said:
And the engine was sold a early as 2001, long before people had got their panties in a twist about Doom3 not being the exact same game as Doom1.
For the record, I'm not saying that. I find Doom3 to be a mediocre, often bordering on dull, game. It's not because it isn't Doom1. I didn't care if it was like Doom1 or not. I wanted it to be a game that I found to be lots of fun to play. I wasn't. The reasons were not because it wasn't Doom1 but rather for a whole bunch of what I found to be poor, frustrating and boring game decisions.
kristus said:
That's a matter of personal opinion.
Of course. I was going to add IMO to that sentence but I didn't think it was necessary.
As for Doom3 providing around 20 hours+ of gameplay. I'll agree with people who said that. I don't know about my own personal actual game time with it, but Doom3 is quite a bit longer than many new games and games of Doom3's time too (I got a budget copy of Vegas2 at the weekend and finished it in just over 4 hours). However, with Doom3 being as dull and repetitive as I found it, its length was not necessarily a blessing.
Last edited by Enjay on 08-15-09 at 00:15
|
08-14-09 18:20 
