Dslyecxi

It's the Cherub.

I can't believe that people would be inclined to even listen to rumors that talk about pay-to-play MP for games like HL2/D3. If you can be fooled into believing that kind of crap it only shows how little experience you have with either of those companies (Valve/id) and how they do things. HL-2 MP will not require a paid subscription. D3 MP will not require a paid subscription. Sheesh. By the same token, both D3 and HL2 can be pre-ordered for less than $55 (and certainly far below $80, unless perhaps you're trying to get a limited-edition special version of the game). PC games have not been 'gradually inflating' in price, the trend has actually been leading towards lower prices overall.

Here's a better colored version of that painting.

dsm, modifying enemies to take advantage of ragdoll physics is a bit different from going through every single level and changing material properties such that they can be destroyed/altered. Seeing as how HL2 doesn't have a unified lighting and shadowing renderer like D³, it's quite possible that they'll run into serious issues where they can only make a certain level of destructiveness in the environment without having everything start looking really funky when you blow too much up. In my experience, Valve has a tendency to exaggerate what they're doing and what they plan to accomplish, whereas I can't recall ever seeing id do the same thing. If id says it's going to be one way, that's how it ends up. Valve, on the other hand.. that's how they'd like it to end up, but that doesn't mean they'll actually be able to do it. Some of the most impressive stuff in the HL2 gameplay demos from E3 has turned out to be entirely scripted.. because Valve 'wants' the game to play like that eventually. They claimed that AI caused certain things to happen, and that's bogus.. I don't like to see a company go and mislead gamers like that. But in any case, HL2 should be a good game.. I just don't think everyone should be trusting Valve at their word over what it'll actually contain.

dsm, I'd say that this most recent picture is a bad one to judge the Hell Knight's feet off of. You can't see his front foot (which has his weight balanced on it, since he's stepping forward), and since the rear one is about to be lifted up, it's only natural that all the toes have come together immediately prior to his foot leaving the deck. Everything I've seen of the Hell Knight has shown that it has toed/clawed feet, not hooves. For an example of this, check out the E3 2003 trailer at 2:30.

The "Phobos Routing Station", assuming it's part of the game lore and not just something the web guy wrote up, is probably just an array of receivers/transmitters for Earth-to-Mars/Mars-to-Earth transmissions. They might be using them to bounce signals from M-t-E when there isn't a direct line of sight from the base to Earth (as in, Mars is rotated such that it cannot directly transmit to Earth). I doubt any part of the game will take place on either of the moons.

I'll definitely be buying it on release.. if they have a collector's edition that has some concept art or some other nice goodies, I'll probably go and nab that version. id hasn't let me down yet, and I'll be damned if I'm ever going to pirate something that so many people have poured their hearts & souls into.

I don't see how anyone who's played the alpha could honestly want to have an ever-present flashlight in the game. Most of the coolest moments I've had in that were related to being unsure of where exactly an enemy was, or only getting fleeting glances of it, due to the generally dark and flickery lighting situations. Hearing skittering behind you, whipping your pistol around and letting off a shot that illuminates an imp leaping towards you in an otherwise pitch-black area is something you have to see to believe.. I would hate to have situations like that not be allowed to happen because every player was running around with their flashlights blazing the whole game. I have faith that id's doing the right thing. I'm sure the full game will prove how well-placed said faith is.

Aux, here's where I'm losing you. You're sitting here bitching about how we can't seem to comprehend your gun/light at the same time setup, yet you don't seem to be able to grasp the simplicity of the decision id made? If you have your gun out, you can shoot an enemy instantly. If you have your flashlight out, you cannot shoot instantly but you might see the enemies coming from farther away. It's really, ridiculously simple. It's a gameplay decision. Realism doesn't even come into play here. id decided they wanted to keep a heavy emphasis on dark & scary locales (which is obviously what the engine is strong at), so they had to find a way to prevent the player from blazing through the game with his light on at all times. I'm glad they made the decision that they did. Having played the alpha extensively, I can see how quickly having an ever-present flashlight could ruin the scare factor of the game. edit: Is your life so devoid of meaning that the only way you can get your thrills is to hurl insults at people you don't even know via a text means? Jesus, man.. get a grip.

Auxois, do you understand what a civil discussion is? The more you bark at people over a simple element of an as-yet-unreleased game, the more juvenile you come across. Lay off with the personal insults. I don't know what you're going through in your life right now, but whatever it is, it'd be real nice for the rest of us if you'd not allow it to be vented via posts in this forum. Your incessant attacks on others do nothing to strengthen your arguments. If you think all of us here are idiots (as you've said many a time), please, do us all a favor and find yourself another forum to degrade. People who disagree with you have their own reasons. You have your own reasons for your stances. The difference is, we can come across and state our positions and reasonings without slamming you at every available opportunity. It's getting quite old to read "omg are u dumb?" "you idiots don't understand" etc etc ad infinum. This is a forum about a game. There's no reason to be anything but civil in here. If you can't.. I hope the mods do something about your tainting presence.

Auxois, have you ever played System Shock 2? If so, think about the cargo bay area.. imagine for a moment that you'd had a powerful gun-mounted flashlight at that point in the game. Would it have been even a quarter as scary if you had? No, it wouldn't have. That's why they're doing what they're doing in Doom III. If you don't like it, fine. Having heard you reasons for it, and seeing you basically ignore that GAMEPLAY is important in a GAME, there's little point in continuining to argue about it. That's the last I'll say on the subject to you. Really, considering how much of an ass you come across as in your posts, I'm surprised someone hasn't banned you from here already..

It's just you, Shapeless. The full-res version of that screen (4000x3000 pixels) has enough detail for you to see that the legs are still mechanical.

Auxois, it's not some arbitrary decision. If you'd read any of the previews that came out today, you'd know that the reason they're doing that is so the players have to make a conscious decision as to whether or not they'll go through a given area with their light on (which could help them spot things they might otherwise miss, or see enemies at longer ranges, but on the flip side leaves them vulnerable to near ambushes) or weapon out (which, while the player may not be able to see perfectly at any given time, they can always retaliate by fire at a moment's notice). It may not be 100% "realistic" in your eyes, but these guys are the ones who are play balancing and creating this game, and I'd trust their judgement in dealing with their own works. They're going for the fear factor, right? It's not too scary to run around with an uber-powerful Maglite attached to your gun at all times. Myself, I don't plan on using the flashlight much at all unless I don't think there's any other way. Also.. think about the MP possibilities. If every player always had a light on at all times, what the hell would be the point of dynamic shadowing like the engine is capable of anyway? They'd like to show off the shadowing in interesting and unique situations, both MP and SP, and I don't see how anyone who's looked at the issues can find fault in the choice they've made here. In summation.. I'll take gameplay over realism ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. In real life, I'm a Marine. And let me just say, fuck realism. It's highly overrated.

Rev, the weapon he's holding in that picture is *probably* an M-16A2. I say probably only because there's not enough of it in the picture to be sure, and I can't discern between the two with what little you see there. The handguards on it appear to be the same ones used to mount an M203.. it's been awhile since I've seen that movie, and I can't remember whether or not he had a 203 mounted to that gun, but in any case that's what those kinds of handguards (on an M-16A2) are for. As to the M-16A4, I've been under the impression that we (USMC) as of yet haven't issued any to any infantry units. I'm not a grunt myself, so I don't have the absolute first-hand intel that they would, but I know that we're still doing our range qualifications with M-16A2's. Edit: A bit of searching has led me to believe that select FMF units have in fact been issued the A4's.. I haven't personally seen any pictures from Iraq that reflect this, however. For your "shortened weapon" question.. yes, you can basically get a shorter version of the M-16A2: It's called an M4A1. The M4A1/M-16A2 share ~80% of their parts, IIRC. The only real differences between the weapons, performance wise, are the muzzle velocities (M-16A2 is a few hundred m/s higher). I haven't had any personal live-fire experience with a straight-up M4A1, but I have been fortunate enough to use the upper-reciever of an M4 attached to the lower reciever of an M-16A2 for MOUT (Military Operations, Urban Terrain) training out here at Camp Lejeune. From that experience, I'd never want to have an M-16A2 when I could instead be using an M4A1. http://www.colt.com/mil/M4.asp (M4) http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp (M16A4)

Wrong. The 'modern model' of the M-16 is the M-16A4. The OICW is huge, bulky, bloated attempt at replacing the M-16A2/M203 combination. What are you talking about here? The M-16A2 has always been issued with the ported handguards. I'm assuming that's what you mean by "holes in the barrel". The M-16A1, in comparison, had triangle-crosssectioned handguards that weren't ported in any way. The M-16A1 has been out of service since the late-80's IIRC. For those that are curious, the M-16A4 is basically an M-16A2 with the M4A1's sight assembly (which is to say, the 'handle grip sight rail' of the M-16A2 is gone and in its place is an assembly that allows for sights like the M68 Reflex and such to be mounted). Now, as to whether or not the M-16A2 should be in Doom 3, I'd have to say it'd be a piss poor weapon to put in the game. From an originality standpoint it'd be dissapointing, from a visual standpoint it'd look pretty blech (compared to the other futuristic weapon designs, that is), and from a believability standpoint it'd be unacceptable. I can guarandamntee that the Marine Corps will *not* be using the M-16A2/A4 in twenty years, let alone 150. Perhaps they'll use a variant of the M4.. certainly not an M-16A2/A4 tho. From a realism viewpoint, I'd hate to be stuck in a claustrophobia-inducing base like that with an M-16A2 as my rifle. Meter-long weapons don't really lend themselves to manueverability. The M-16A2 is incredibly unwieldy in urban/close-quarters battle.. anyone I know (who's had experience in such matters) would much rather have an M4A1 in a scenario like that. Regarding the comment about nobody complaining when Cpl. Hicks had a shotgun in Aliens: It's established that the weapon was a family heirloom in the script. Whether or not that worked its way into the final movie or not, I can't recall. A cameo weapon appearance like that in Doom 3 wouldn't be too bad, but I'd hope that they'd choose something a bit more interesting than an M-16A2 to do it with. Anyhow.. that's all I have to say about that for now.