Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
kristus

Rise of the triad is out

Recommended Posts

Belial said:

No 2048x1536, lame. Had to settle for 1080p.

Guess I've won the coinflip as well, though I've only played the first level so far. No performance issues whatsoever on ludicrous settings on a HD7870.

Music sounds really quiet regardless of what settings I try.

Yeah, no 2048x1152 bummed me out, too. I'll see if I can't force it via an INI file. But, like you, no performance issues with max settings on a GTX 660 + Core i7.

I fixed the mouse by using these settings, then setting my sensitivity to something like 18.

So far, overall, I'm loving it. Level design is decent, just needs some extra room and LOUDER enemies and music.

EDIT: Yep, you can force 2048x1152 via a change in the ROTTSystemSettings.ini file.

Share this post


Link to post

I normally do not listen to IGN but this time they are spot on, except the difficulty

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/06/rise-of-the-triad-review

As the reviewer said, the game is like remaking a silent movie with all the bells and whistles of new cinema (CGI, colors etc) but still making it silent.

This is NOT a good game and I REALLY hope devs won't take it as an example of what a modern shooter should be like. This game does NOT blend modern shooters and old school shooters well, it just feels weird. Not to mention that although the weapons are crazy, they don't have a lot of oopmh in them.Oh and it has tons of optimization problems even though the game looks very dated.

I hope this serves as a lesson to devs how NOT to make a classic modern shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
DooM_RO said:

I normally do not listen to IGN but this time they are spot on, except the difficulty

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/06/rise-of-the-triad-review

As the reviewer said, the game is like remaking a silent movie with all the bells and whistles of new cinema (CGI, colors etc) but still making it silent.

This is NOT a good game and I REALLY hope devs won't take it as an example of what a modern shooter should be like. This game does NOT blend modern shooters and old school shooters well, it just feels weird. Not to mention that although the weapons are crazy, they don't have a lot of oopmh in them.Oh and it has tons of optimization problems even though the game looks very dated.

I hope this serves as a lesson to devs how NOT to make a classic modern shooter.


IGN is is known for making terrible reviews so I don't give a damn what they have to say. Most other reviewers have also given the game a solid score anyways so its not like this will change everything.

Also, what matters the most are peoples OWN opinions, not the opinions of reviewers.

Share this post


Link to post

I quit playing halfway through the 3rd map.

SP is boring as hell.

Serious Sam, Bulletstorm, Hard Reset are all way better games that satisfy my "oldschool shooter" needs.

Share this post


Link to post

Welp, IGN said it sucks so now I have to hate the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Belial said:

I quit playing halfway through the 3rd map.

SP is boring as hell.

Serious Sam, Bulletstorm, Hard Reset are all way better games that satisfy my "oldschool shooter" needs.

I hardly consider Bulletstorm oldschool enough after my experience of it.

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, it's just marketing. There is nothing oldschool about it and there is nothing doom-like in Painkiller or Serious Sam aside from a few superficial similarities.

Share this post


Link to post

I personally stopped taking IGN seriously after their horrible review of StarDrive, where they called it "the fast food hamburger equivalent of 4X space games", and complained about ship designing taking too long even though ship design was like 90% of what StarDrive was about in the first place.

Simply put, IGN reviews are just a bunch of brainless whine or brainless praising depending on the game. Gamespot is sometimes (though not as often) little better.

I have personally started to trust the less mainstream review sites a lot more.

Share this post


Link to post

The only reviews I care about are the ones written by people I know that aren't getting paid for it. That's why I read these forum threads, generally. It helps a lot to know the background of the person doing the writing, to figure out why they would write about certain things, and how their previous experience would shape their experience with what they're reviewing.

Share this post


Link to post

I would personally give Rise of the Triad about a 7/10.

Its a nice solid and a simplistic shooter for 15 bucks. Can't really complain too much about that. I also hear that the first patch will address the technical problems (which I personally never found that terrible anyways).

Share this post


Link to post
Avoozl said:

I hardly consider Bulletstorm oldschool enough after my experience of it.

None of them are.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

I would personally give Rise of the Triad about a 7/10.

Its a nice solid and a simplistic shooter for 15 bucks. Can't really complain too much about that. I also hear that the first patch will address the technical problems (which I personally never found that terrible anyways).


That's not what bothers me, what REALLY bothers me is that a low quality game like this (along with Serious Sam and Painkiller) is considered to be a godsend for classic gamers. The return of classic shooters should be marked by a AAA company (like Id), not some indie dev that put up a game in barely an year. Finally, the game feels WEIRD. Yeah, sure it's very faithful and whatever but those traps and floating platforms are somehow very out of place in a modern game. The game is too servile up to the point that old-school and new-school violently clash

I am not saying that the game is bad, I'm merely saying that this shouldn't be the model for future FPS games with classic elements.

The only games I have faith in that could BLEND old school and new school are the new Wolfenstein and possibly Doom 4. Id and Bethesda have raised a lot in my eyes when they admitted the mistakes of Doom 4 and that good isn't good enough and Bethesda for giving Id another chance. It might be what we're looking for or it may not but games like ROTT, Painkiller and Serious Sam are surely not some godsend. They have 0 personality and atmosphere, It's like the only thing that should matter in a classic shooter is shoot moar demonz.

Share this post


Link to post
DooM_RO said:

The only games I have faith in that could BLEND old school and new school are the new Wolfenstein and possibly Doom 4. Id and Bethesda have raised a lot in my eyes when they admitted the mistakes of Doom 4 and that good isn't good enough and Bethesda for giving Id another chance. It might be what we're looking for or it may not but games like ROTT, Painkiller and Serious Sam are surely not some godsend. They have 0 personality and atmosphere, It's like the only thing that should matter in a classic shooter is shoot moar demonz.


Ok so basically what you're saying here is that you're an Id fanboy who hates any recent shooter not made by Id. Your criticisms are biased, subjective and invalid. How can you say that Painkiller and RoTT have 0 personality?

Painkiller had different level design and textures throughout it, with some of the most ingenious secrets and most creative weapon designs I've ever seen. Maybe they didn't do the enemies that well, but saying it has no personality is just wrong.

ROTT also has a lot of personality. The new soundtrack sounds great, the weapons feel and act great, the secrets are creative, the traps, platforming and puzzles are a great break from what would otherwise be endless shooting, and it actually has a lot of love put into it. The cool secrets, the boss dialogues. Heck, it even has "Repercussions of Evil as an easter-egg. How cool is that?! Now, I can agree it's full of bugs and the AI is really idiotic, but saying it lacks personality is stupid.
I won't comment on Serious Sam as I haven't played it.

I think expecting anything from Id at this point is admitting you leave in a fairy-tale. Id hasn't made anything good since 1998 (Quake 2), Doom 3 being a badly designed borefest and Rage just being a dumb, short mishmash of conflicting structural elements (though I still enjoyed it to some degree). If anything, I'd say that Id's recent games have 0 personality, and I highly doubt that's going to change unless they bring at least one of the old members on board again (depending on your tastes, hopes would be either for Romero's level design, Adrian's enemy designs or Hall's sorytelling), but I HIGHLY doubt that will happen (and after their last incident, I highly doubt Adrian would accept even if the offer was made to him). So yeah, in my opinion Id's upcoming games aren't something worth checking anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Da Werecat said:

You're both biased.


Saying that without providing any argument is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post

Every single person in the world is biased in some way, shape, or form. It's a fact of life. It's not worth getting into arguments about.

Share this post


Link to post

I actually really liked the game, when it would still run. However, in an effort to tidy up my graphics card driver going FUBAR, I had to do a Restore Install of Windows 7, and now ROTTLauncher.exe crashes the instant it loads. Redownloading it from Steam didn't help any.

Hoping that forthcoming patch fixes that. I made a fairly big stink about it in the NeoGAF thread, where I know for a fact an employee of Interceptor was actively posting, so I'm assuming it got noticed.

Share this post


Link to post

This game is fun and all, but the checkpoint system and poor performance is quite annoying. Also, I still can't seem to log in to my multiplayer account.

Share this post


Link to post
killer2 said:

How can you say that Painkiller and RoTT have 0 personality?

Lol, Painkiller has the personality of a 15 year old gothic metal fanboy, ie. not at all. The only thing possibly more thematically generic than Painkiller is WW2 games.

Share this post


Link to post

Nah, PK is cool. Don't h8. Doom itself is extremely derivative. So I hardly think that's reason enough to put down a game just because you personally don't enjoy it.

Can't really comment on RoTT since I haven't played much of it, though. This is the 'debate what is true "oldschool"' thread, right?

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say, of what I've played so far, I really like it. It actually feels like a ROTT game. It actually does feel old school, as opposed to all those games that claim to be old school but really just put you in an arena, make you fight off waves of enemies, and then let you move on to the next arena. Of course, it is buggy and that needs to be fixed, but so far, I'm satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Jodwin said:

Lol, Painkiller has the personality of a 15 year old gothic metal fanboy, ie. not at all.

Have you played it past the first few levels? Just asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Jodwin said:

Lol, Painkiller has the personality of a 15 year old gothic metal fanboy, ie. not at all. The only thing possibly more thematically generic than Painkiller is WW2 games.


Exactly, but what irritates me the most is that people think it should dictate what Doom 4 and other shooters with classic elements should be like.

Again, ROTT just feels so...off. Everything old-school about it is distracting and sticks out. And lol @killer2 for saying it's better than D3. I think it's that indie game bias speaking here. If it's indie it's automatically better than a AAA game because well...it's indie! People love to see the small guy own big companies. The graphics are pitiful and the performance is awful. Do you honestly want every shooter to be like this? A violent clash of old school and new school? If everyone had this mentality, we'd still be playing Wolf3D clones. Games HAVE to evolve and D3 (and maybe the original Bioshock) is the only game that almost succeeded in evolving classic shooters but since it was underdeveloped it never really accomplished this so D4 should be a much improved D3.

Share this post


Link to post
DooM_RO said:

(and maybe the original Bioshock)

Ah, the game that don't even let the player die in fear that he would throw the gamepad out the window. Or have they fixed that in a patch? I don't remember.

Share this post


Link to post
DooM_RO said:

And lol @killer2 for saying it's better than D3. I think it's that indie game bias speaking here. If it's indie it's automatically better than a AAA game because well...it's indie! People love to see the small guy own big companies. The graphics are pitiful and the performance is awful.


It is objectively better than Doom3. If we were to base games on graphics and performance then the best game ever would probably be Metro:Last Light. Fact is, graphics don't mean too much for a game (and if you think they do, I must ask you what the hell are you doing on this forum). Performance is actually fine for a lot of users, and they're actively WORKING on getting it to get better, they are listening to player feedback and wanting to improve. Id did that, when? Remember the Rage graphic problems for some users and how they never got any better? Remember the retardedly small graphics menu options and the consolized bullshit?

As for ROTT/PK being better than Doom3, let's analize it from an attempted objective perspective. What weapons did Doom3 have? The same weapons that Doom and Quake had, and the same weapons a shitload of games have had throughout the years. Innovation? No. And don't tell me about the soulcube, that's a broken insta-heal insta-kill homing missile. Imagine playing a doom wad where you could type "MDK" and "give health" in console every 5 kills. Fun? No.
On the other hand, PK had weapons that were genuinely interesting and fun to use, while being innovative, and ROTT managed to bring back the original ROTT weapons and modernize them without destroying them. Not to mention the weapons in both games sounded like actual WEAPONS and not like things you would probably hear in a modernized kitchen.

Let's consider the levels for a bit. ROTT has highly creative levels with interestingly placed secrets and decently non-linear design.
Doom3 had boring levels that repeated the same textures (that is, when you could see them), the same predictable monster closets. Since the monsters always appeared directly in front of you, there was little variety to how yo could aproach a fight. Secrets and easter-eggs were also nonexistent.
PK also had linear levels, but it benefitted the arena-style fights that were going on. The player was a lot more dynamic and agile, and you actually had a lot of instances where you were taking on more than 4 monsters at a time. Not to mention that even though it was a linear game, the developers actually took the time to put secrets in it and make most of the levels feel different from one another

Another mistake that Doom3 did that the others didn't, is that it tried to include an intricate story into what they probably meant to be a fast paced shooter (and if they didn't, they shouldn't have called it Doom). Not only that, but you are actually forcefed the story in order to find codes to lockers, which is a terrible design decision. Skyrim also had a great deal of story books and notes, but it actually let you get immersed how much you wanted, instead of forcing the story elements down your throat.


Ok, I hope this clears things up regarding why I consider Doom 3 to be an inferior game to PK and ROTT and disproves the "Indie bias". Hell, Id was my hope not long ago, even after Doom 3 it still was. But after the Rage crap and the Doom 4 "CoD corridor shooter" leak, I don't see how they will be able to produce anything of triple A quality ever again.

Share this post


Link to post

ROTT is a total trainwreck on so many levels. Still, I do enjoy it for whatever reason, wrapping up my second playthrough.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not talking necessarily about graphical FIDELITY, which is VERY important BTW, it's like saying looks don't matter in real life, you know it's bullshit. I am talking about visuals and how interesting the game looks and the original Doom has a very unique atmosphere and the visuals are not ugly. I don't think it's an ugly game at all. You are very right about texture repetition though, it's something I repeatedly criticize D3 for but what you see is significantly better than ROTT. You wanna know WHY Doom is still so popular? It's because it doesn't pretend to be something it's not like "look at how classic we are" or "look at all the demonz"

As for the weapons, they were the weakest part in D3 but they were significantly better in RAGE, especially the DLC weapon which changes its appearance with each ammo type. They sound amazing and it's great fun shooting stuff with them. Sure PK had fun weapons but the ones in RAGE are better.

Again, the levels in ROTT are feel WEIRD and not in a good way, I don't care that they are non-linear and have lots of secrets, D3 had these as well, although not as developed as in previous games. For instance, you could get every weapon in the game faster than you are "officially" supposed to, sometimes by a good few levels. It had interesting secrets too. Like in Mars City where you could enter a valve code which stopped a fire containg goodies. Right next to this button was another which opened a small passage to another secret. Like it or not, D3 is a lot better than what we get today from shooters. Secrets are very much existent and no, they are not limited to the first levels, you just have to look.

While D3 failed to deliver on many fronts at least it tried to be something other than a Quake clone.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×