Which is better: Doom 3 or Quake 4?

heh I turned on FEAR again with my new hardware (cpu and videocard). Sure I got a lot of framerate, but im already almost done with the game after 5-6 hours of play (on god mode). Quake 4 takes me ~15 hours to play on god mode (im also doing a rerun with my new hardware).

I'm also giving call of duty 2 a whirl, which doesn't seem as linear as I thought it would be.

One other problem with FEAR is that the Rocket Launcher, which shoots 3 rockets per shot, is pretty weak compared to the autoshotty. There was simply lack of variety of enemies, which isn't too bad of a thing but I'd really like maybe..more robots!!!

One more fun part about FEAR is that it's short enough to make a movie out of without bastardizing it.

Enjay said:

Steam gives the user nothing - nothing whatsoever - of benefit to them that could not be done in an easier, more friendly, more suitable, more optional way but it does have huge drawbacks in everyday use, let alone all the principle issues. It's certainly not for your benefit - so why does it exist? That's rhetorical by the way.

Okay... there aren't any drawbacks for ME anyway. I'm actually interested in the news they provide, and I can appreciate the fact that they'll be able to get releases like Lost Coast and Aftermath to the users much more quickly. As far as drawbacks, well.. I can't find anything wrong with Steam. As I said, I never notice it.

Aseph said:

I'm actually interested in the news they provide

First off, it's not really news but company bulletins - ie adverts telling you what great guys Valve are. Secondly, if you are interested, you could check their website without having to have Steam installed.

and I can appreciate the fact that they'll be able to get releases like Lost Coast and Aftermath to the users much more quickly.

One of the great myths about Steam. Why will they be able to get it to users more quickly? Why is Steam any quicker than just posting it as a download on their website? Why should I keep a little resource hog running in my system tray so that Valve can distibute games in the way they choose? I'm supposed to be the customer.

As I said, I never notice it.

Just because you didn't notice it, doesn't mean it wasn't interfering with stuff. People also don't notice certain viruses and worms, spyware, hi-jackers and all sorts of other little apps that one by one slowly degrade their machines.

Why should I keep a little resource hog running in my system tray so that Valve can distibute games in the way they choose?

Are you sure Steam wasn't updating any games cause when it does it hogs your cpu and bandwidth and doesn't tell you. You can cancel it though and tell it not to auto-update for each game. Other than the principle of spyware, I had no problems with Steam being a "resource hog." Then again I don't have Steam anymore so its been a while.

I use steam, I have no problems at all with it and my computer runs fine when it is running.

DeumReaper said:

Are you sure Steam wasn't updating any games cause when it does it hogs your cpu and bandwidth and doesn't tell you.

No it wasn't. When I describe it as a resource hog, I simply mean that it is sitting there running. I like to run a "clean ship" and have the minimal number of things sitting in the system tray. The fact that a game, that actually doesn't need it for any reason other than the company that produced the game wants you to have it running, is forcing an unnecessary applet to sit in my systray and which installs it to run at start-up by default is just plain wrong in my mind.

Imagine if every game company did the same thing. Imagine a little Steam sitting in your systray for every game you have. Each one of them DLing "important news" and "vital updates" unless you expressly forbid them. Now we're talking resource hogging.

Gibaholic said:

I use steam, I have no problems at all with it and my computer runs fine when it is running.

It would run better without it - albeit not especially noticeably. The question again has to be asked though. Why is it running? What benefit does it give you to have that program running on your computer in your house? None!

I just think people are really overreacting about Steam...

I don't think it's an over reaction to be upset that a company forces an unecessary piece of software on you that provides you with no benefit whatsoever just so you can play a copy of their game that you bought. All you are doing is using your computer to provide them with a sevice - not the other way round. When someone like Microsoft does something similar, half the geeks in the world go apoplectic. The reaction to Steam is muted in comparison.

Aseph said:

I just think people are really overreacting about Steam...

I just think that some people are completely ignorant about the dangers mankind has to face in a modern world. Steam is just the beginning and if it isn't fought now you can kiss free use of your computer goodbye rather sooner than later.

Aseph wins. Steam isnt the devil, it isnt taking over your computer, and it wont cause World fucking War 3. Or anything else like it.

If the worst happened and, say, Microsoft adopted such software, people would rebel, start using other Operating Systems, or not use the internet (the idea of forcing someone to pay a monthly fee for such a service as the internet would never pass in most countries, and the whole idea of Steam is internet dependant). Then Microsoft would crumble, and the software wouldnt exist. The end.

Such an idea may work for some people (and they may be willing to use it) but it will never become a part of computing as we know it. Thats just bullshit superstitious fear.

Graf Zahl said:

I just think that some people are completely ignorant about the dangers mankind has to face in a modern world. Steam is just the beginning and if it isn't fought now you can kiss free use of your computer goodbye rather sooner than later.

steam isn't that bad, jesus. yes, i would rather have a simple game .exe, but i fail to see how steam is intrusive by any account. it only runs when you want it to, and dosn't take much resources (unless updating, of course) (oh and it does tell you when it updates, don't let anybody tell you different just cause they are blind and/or stupid).

in fact, steam has a few benefits. it keeps everybody's game the same version, so you never run into any sort of "different game version" error while connecting to servers. it provides great protection against piracy and game hacking, and although the pirates among us (i'm not innocent of course) might not like it and try to play 'freedom-fighter', really, thats importantant! i don't want anybody stealling my CD-Key! and, i like this part, you can log into steam with your account from any computer, download, and play the steam games you own from anywhere.

so please, explain why you think steam is the precursor of a computer game oppression machine?

how about when the decide to automaticaly update to a version that dosn't like your hardware?

you see, I might get a warning about that with an old fasion download. but steam just decieds to plonk the bastared on to my computer and rells me to deal with it.

or when some ARSEHOLE decides to hack your account?

I now have five shiny frisees because of vales "anti-piracy" bullshit. that's right, ME the PAYING CUSTERMER got fucked over and someware a parite is enjoying MY copy.

bith of these things happened to me.
Steam is bullshit.

You dont need steam to play Half Life2 C'mon guys amirite!?

Doom3 is better than Quake4 im my book. it's too consol-ish with that hand holding script. they just get in the way. if i could shoot them they'd be dead. (like the crew in Half Life 2..)

I liked both. Sure they were no ware near Quake for or Doom. But, they are solid games. I cant deside wich game I liked more. So I'll just say Doom 3 simply becouse Dr. Betruger kicks ass.

Opulent said:

I wasn't impressed with either.

Doom3:ROE was better than Doom3.
Doom3 multiplayer sucks.
Quake4 is a poor man's Quake3/Quake2 conversion... and it's multiplayer seems to be severely worse than Q3/Q2's.
HL2 was so heavily scripted and plain.. and was a team-game, not a single-player game, that is also blew, IMHO.
(although CSS and other add-ons might make this worth playing)

Quake4 is the best of those 3... but they are all just another game, instead of being a game that you invest your time in.(like DOOM or Quake)
btw, none of those three are scary at all. Q4 has the best storyline.
It does seem that a great game could be developed with either gaming engine though... we'll have to wait and see...

Excactly waht he said^^^


Games are too linear nowadays

Neither game was too extraordinary--

Doom 3 was limited to confining, dim settings in a linear environment and had very basic gameplay. There weren't any new achievements with the AI, and the weapons seemed underpowered. The multiplayer was disappointing and the netcode sucked.

Quake 4 was better, however it was upsetting to see how enemies still disintegrated when they were killed. The weapons are far better, being more intricate and fun to use. Too many areas in Quake 4 are reminiscient of Doom 3 and the enemies' AI is still overall the same. Multiplayer plays much better and with larger maps and different maps can be more interesting; however I wasn't expecting Quake 3 Arena running on the Doom 3 engine prior to playing.