New Rage trailer

I remember playing 20 hours on my first god mode (yeah I'm lame) run on Doom 3, so yeah it's pretty long.

As for the trailer, I approve. Has id vibe all over it.

tech demo

Doom 3 took me 24 hours to beat. Had I failed, there would be a very large crater in the U.S.



Well, the playing for 24 hours part is true :P

I don't know exactly how long it took me to beat Doom 3, but I remember at one point thinking I was near the end but as it turned out the game just went on and on.

Despite all the bullshit and name-calling, I think both sides of the "tech-demo vs. game" have some relevant points. As for me, I think that calling D3 a tech demo is a little silly -- at the very least, it had a plot...

However, I do think that id's more recent games do not have same type of entertainment value that some earlier efforts did. For example, (like most people here) I still play Doom (duh), but I haven't played Q3 in YEARS, and honestly, I haven't even finished D3...for me, they just aren't that FUN (regardless of how good they look). Of course, id isn't the only developer that occasionally releases games I don't love -- I played Half-Life 2 and the episode packs to experience the nifty visuals and gravity gun, but I don't feel any particular desire to run through them again any time soon. (On the contrary, however, I originally played Halo to gawk at some awesome graphics, but still play that a LOT because it's remarkably entertaining.)

For me, the question boils down to, "Would I still play the game even if the rendering engine weren't as good?"
Doom: yes.
Doom III: no.
Twisted Metal 2: yes.
Unreal Touranment 2K3: no.

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.

Enjay said:

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).

Prey, Quake 4, E.T. Quake Wars and the just-launched Wolfenstein (although Raven seems to have failed to exploit the engine to its full extent, considering that it looks even less impressive than Doom 3).

Oh yes and a footnote: it appears that Splash Damage is developing a title using the id tech 4 engine.

Quake Wars, as far as I can tell, showed that it could do huge outdoor areas decently, though arguably not necessarily as decently as some other game engines that were designed specifically with outdoor areas in mind.

dsm said:

Prey, Quake 4, E.T. Quake Wars and the just-launched Wolfenstein (although Raven seems to have failed to exploit the engine to its full extent, considering that it looks even less impressive than Doom 3).

Thanks, I had forgotten about those. I was sure that there was more than just Prey using the engine but I couldn't remember what they were.

destx said:

Oh fuck off.

Every time a discussion about a new id game comes up some insipid cunt rolls out this dumbass comment. Often people say every single game id has made was just a tech demo. Quake 3 was a multiplayer masterpiece and Doom 3's downfalls had nothing to do with showing off the engine.

I really like the look of that trailer, the action looks good. Nice weapons and lots of monsters attacking at once. But I think it could go either way.

Now now, don't be such a delicate flower. Take a breather! Doom 3's downfalls were primarily in it's uninspired design -- a direct result of Carmack chopping the better bits of the design document in half.

Enjay said:

Interestingly, my son's friends sitting watching it beside me were all full of comments like "cool, that looks really detailed". :/

So. What if a completely awful game (story, gameplay, etc) came out with graphics superior to even Crysis? How many people would purchase it?

Abyssalstudios1 said...
So. What if a completely awful game (story, gameplay, etc) came out with graphics superior to even Crysis? How many people would purchase it?

Not I, but some of my friends would be all over it. I hate how they think graphics are the key selling point of a game.

I'm sure people said the exact same things about Doom and its clones, back when it was "realistic".

:D Look at 1:26 to see that the spider-sentry bots from Doom 3 are back!

Lord_Z said:

Not I, but some of my friends would be all over it. I hate how they think graphics are the key selling point of a game.

If they did that, they wouldn't have toned down the graphics so they could make it 60hz.

I got to try out Doom 2 XBLA in the QuakeCon vendor area and I'm kind of excited about the new levels being developed by Nerve. There were 2 new levels demoed and they had a very classic look and feel to them. I just hope I won't have to buy a 360 and an XBLA subscription to play them...

Zack said:

I just hope I won't have to buy a 360 and an XBLA subscription to play them...

You can buy the game without paying for a Gold subscription, you just can't play it online.

Abyssalstudios1 said:

So. What if a completely awful game (story, gameplay, etc) came out with graphics superior to even Crysis? How many people would purchase it?

Many. That, unfortunately, is how many games are sold these days. This is particularly true of the games aimed at the quick-buy, play for a short while, buy another one next week brigade. Most of them buy a "cool" game, play it for a very short while and only care about how it looks for the very short time that they play it.

Some other people might be expecting more of a game than they get but, hey, by the time they find out that it isn't what they wanted, they have already parted with their cash.

Abyssalstudios1 said:

So. What if a completely awful game (story, gameplay, etc) came out with graphics superior to even Crysis? How many people would purchase it?

Probably not that many, because i would like to point out that Crysis did not sell very well after it was released.

Naturally the developers blamed it on piracy.......

The fact that it was just an extremely pretty but a rather generic shooter could not possibly have had anything to do with it (rolls eyes).

Crysis sold 3 millions copies by june 2008. Warhead was a commercial success as well.

The advanced physics, nanosuit and weapon customisation on the fly opened up lots of gameplay options. If only that was generic ! Except for Portal, I can't think of any other FPS that had such innovative gameplay since 2005.

Phml said:

Crysis sold 3 millions copies by june 2008. Warhead was a commercial success as well.

Well the numbers i was thinking of were very old. I was talking about how few copy's the game sold soon after it's release compared to other games released around the same time. But point taken!

Phml said:

The advanced physics, nanosuit and weapon customisation on the fly opened up lots of gameplay options. If only that was generic ! Except for Portal, I can't think of any other FPS that had such innovative gameplay since 2005.

Being able to jump high into the air and making your self invisible did not impact the gameplay to much for me. Most of the time i just used the armor mode that increases the amount of damage i could take and then shot the enemy's dead like i would do in any other game. There were times were i did try to be clever by going invisible and stuff but the amount of time i could stay invisible was so short that i never really got anything done in time for it to make that much of a difference. So i just went all Rambo on them instead and it worked fine.

And then there is also the why gameplay progressed, considering how vast the place was i just don't get it why the game only allowed me to stay on certain paths instead of allowing me to explore the world on my own.

Plus the game was full of bugs when it was released, though to be fair they might be fixed by now via patches.

Sure that's how YOU might have done it. I, for one, had fun with my nanosuit. Nothing like speeding up into someone's face, switching to strength and punching them across the room.

That's what I hate about most new FPS games I've played recently, you have to come up with ways of having fun in the game on your own because the basic gameplay itself is as generic as they come.

I sure as hell would use Crysis as an example for that statement.

Edit: Come to think of it, I guess that might've been the reason why most of the gameplay videos of Crysis I've seen on the only Polish TV channel that covers gaming were of people throwing barrels around, smashing walls and choking enemies instead of what I'd consider footage showcasing the games more unique moments, like that terrible alien ship map or the frozen wastelands.

You don't use the nanosuit to have fun - you use it because it's more effective. It also happens to be fun.

You can play Crysis without using the nanosuit, just like you can play Doom without straferunning, wallrunning, rocketjumping, using the BFG properly. I'd argue in both cases, you're missing an important part of the experience ; the difference between being a generic grunt like in any other shooter or some kind of superpowered killing machine.

Yes, there's tons of videos with barrel physics or pretty graphics, because that's what sells to most players. The average gamer is a casual player and doesn't care about gameplay depth. That shouldn't be news to anyone who's been playing video games for a while, in 2009.

I'm not getting excited when watching that trailer, its the same shit again. There is nothing that makes me decide that I want to check it out. So they combine racing with fps, is that all. ID fails to deliver fun games, it seems its all about showing off.

dutch devil said:

I'm not getting excited when watching that trailer, its the same shit again. There is nothing that makes me decide that I want to check it out. So they combine racing with fps, is that all. ID fails to deliver fun games, it seems its all about showing off.

Are there any high profile modern games you actually like? Because after reading your comments for some time you always appear to dislike everything that's high profile and praised by lots of other people.

Some gamer: Hey! That game looks good!
dutch devil: It's crap.
Some gamer: Well that game sure looks promising!
dutch devil: It's crap!
Some gamer: Oh boy! That looks interesting!
dutch devil: It's crap!

I know allot of modern games are overrated and not really as good as allot people claim, but i have seen you shit all over games that where not really awesome or anything but still perfectly playable.

If your waiting for the gaming industry to create some revolutionary new shooter/action game that is going to change everything then you can stop waiting, because anything you can think of has been done before and the only thing future games will give us are old ideas dressed up differently. But as long as those old ideas are put together properly and the game is fun i don't care.

Phml said:

You don't use the nanosuit to have fun - you use it because it's more effective.

No shit.

It also happens to be fun.

What's fun about a generic gameplay gimmick? Using armor for multiple enemies, cloak for some places that let you pick some of them off beforehand is common sense. The other modes that I found useless are there for screwing around with the physics and 'having fun'.

A blue armor, partial invisibility and berserk pack aren't fun just because they're there.

If you can't find any use for strength or speed you obviously didn't get the gameplay, as these two are by far the most effective modes. Strength or cloak uncloak are much better than armor for crowds as well, armor is best used as a health and energy regen or to survive falls after speed+strength jumps over buildings or tall cliffs. Really, armor should be the least used mode if you're playing aggressively, as it does nothing to boost your killing speed.

I can definitely see how the game would seem rather generic using armor most of the time (that's what I meant by "not using the nanosuit", by the way).

Phml said:

you obviously didn't get the gameplay

I think I'm going to start using that wonderful argument against people who don't enjoy Doom slaughter maps.

What you said just proves what I've said about having to go through the effort of finding ways of having fun while playing games like Crysis.

I'm not going to bother trying to play a game that feels like a cross between Far Cry and Chrome any different than I've played those two. If it fails to be interesting, I'll call it crap and be done with it.

There were also other things besides the nano suit that i did not like, such as the level design.

Like i said above, the game does not allow me decide where i want to go. I assumed that Crysis would allow me to explore the jungle and have fun on my own, but instead i am sent on a linear path and it gave me the impression that the game was not taking proper advantage of the engine.

Enemy's were also rather stupid. It's not something i would complain about most of the time but i think i remembered the developers brag about how good the AI was before the game was released and then the AI turned out to be rather generic/simple.

Yeah, the major AI downgrade when compared to Far Cry was my biggest gripe. Not having a single map as open as Far Crys 'Boat' level didn't help either. Not being able to use a vehicles turret guns while driving was another unnecessary pain in the ass.

The one thing I liked, the on-the-fly weapon mod system, got swamped by multiple poor design choices in other areas. What the hell were they thinking with that alien ship map? "-Hey lets turn gravity off and let the texture artists go wild! -But it's a linear rollercoaster that's boring as hell. -Fuck that, it looks great!"