I wouldn't go that far. I like Farcry's gameplay better. (since it's tactical but that's just my preference)
Printable View
I wouldn't go that far. I like Farcry's gameplay better. (since it's tactical but that's just my preference)
It's obviously all a matter or opinion. Personally I got about a third of the way through doom and found it so repetitive that I don't feel like playing it anymore. Honestly, I find Rome: Total War or Red Orchestra much more engrossing.
I don't find the concept of games frightening, but I'm an old geezer. Doom3 at times wowed me, but lacked any psychological buy-in.Quote:
Originally posted by PointlesS
I really loved quake 3...the dm was extremely fast paced and doom 3 just really scared the **** out of me and to me that's what really made it fun...I guess if you weren't really scared then it felt repetitive and boring...but for me I really enjoyed the game...
It's all a matter of immersion. A game environment which reacts in a plausable manner aids in suspension of disbelief, drawing the player into the game world.Quote:
but flushing a tiolet...answering a phone...opening a cabinet...etc...as a developer you ask if those features are really worth the time of implementing and how much it'll add to the game...woo I can flush a tiolet...big deal...
Like I say, Doom3 was so poorly done that at no time was there any question that this was just a video game with props on rails.
It's not a flushing toilet, but a tree that can be felld to bridge a gap, a light that can be shot to conceal yourself, a chair that can be moved to reach a high spot, a window that breaks like real glass to get through, etc.
Immersive, realistic environments.
Max Payne 2 and Far Cry pulled it off, Doom3 didn't even come close to the mark.
>>Comparing FarCry to Doom3 is like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrari. There is no comparison. D3 takes the cake.<<
More like comparing a running Yugo to a picture of a Ferrari in a magazine. D3 looked pretty in the character models, but it was only a picture with no substance behind it.
You can't honestly tell me that FarCry, HL, or any other FPS isn't just as repetitive.
Kill minions.
Do an objective.
Kill a boss.
Repeat.
You have to be kidding me.Quote:
Originally posted by AutomaticErik
You can't honestly tell me that FarCry, HL, or any other FPS isn't just as repetitive.
Kill minions.
Do an objective.
Kill a boss.
Repeat.
Did you play Deus Ex? There was *gasp* a plot! An interesting one! You got to interact, you could use different tactics on different enemies, you had to use cover and maneuver. Same with half life. In doom the enemies just run at you. In HL the three man squads would work together, two of them would supress you with mg fire while the third tossed a nade. You had to think to avoid traps. You never knew what to expect. Doom 3 you get hallway after hallway and while yes, it will scare the crap out of you, it just gets repetitive.
The main things that seperate games like HL, Deus Ex, and Far Cry are that they have plots, at least something resembling AI, interaction, and most importantly, variety.
I mean, can you play Max Payne and then Doom 3 and even remotely claim that there gameplay are on the same level!? (Ignore the fact that it's third person...)
Honestly, I've never played Deus Ex so I don't know about that. I have, however, played FarCry and HL and honestly can't say anything, aside from graphics, are different. Go into a room, kill, do it again. Of course, maybe thats what separates Doom3 people from others. I hated HL and FarCry but love Doom3. It seems like most either like one or the other.
Most games are still hit switch here, hit another there, go here, go there, retrieve whatever, etc. Dress the switches and keys up anyway you like... Oh yeah, you're shooting things along the way. And you duck and take cover in most games.Quote:
Originally posted by Harbinger
You have to be kidding me.
Did you play Deus Ex? There was *gasp* a plot! An interesting one! You got to interact, you could use different tactics on different enemies, you had to use cover and maneuver. Same with half life. In doom the enemies just run at you. In HL the three man squads would work together, two of them would supress you with mg fire while the third tossed a nade. You had to think to avoid traps. You never knew what to expect. Doom 3 you get hallway after hallway and while yes, it will scare the crap out of you, it just gets repetitive.
The main things that seperate games like HL, Deus Ex, and Far Cry are that they have plots, at least something resembling AI, interaction, and most importantly, variety.
I mean, can you play Max Payne and then Doom 3 and even remotely claim that there gameplay are on the same level!? (Ignore the fact that it's third person...)
Now, Deus Ex added something to the genre. (Modifiable character, and your mods affecting your path, etc). Story was great.
IMO, what Half-Life added was nicer scripted sequences. Perhaps the enemies were programmed to act like a squad, but in reality it didn't seem like they did anything special. Say the AI was bad, what would it do? The enemies would keep shooting (imagine this as suppression fire), and perhaps another enemy throws a grenade. Story was basically that of Doom 1.
Max Payne... Still the same thing. Hell, Max Payne 2 you had so much bullet time (use your bullet time, kill enemies while in bullet time to regain bullet time), it was too easy. Also, linear. Story was good.
Have not played Far Cry, so no comments on that, does look nice though. (I do think people hype up water too much though.)
Physics, they all have their quirks. Max Payne 2, I had a shotgun balance straight up on the nose of the barrel. Doom 3, almost the same thing. HL2, obviously, isn't out, but uses the same physics as Max Payne 2, so I expect some occasional wierdness. Ex. Coast gameplay, (the latest video I think) at the end when the giant magnet is dropped straight down and slams into the enemy, he bounces up?!? (Come to think of it, the enemy soldiers are dumb as rocks in the video also, but wait, one does throw a grenade, must have used the latest cutting edge AI techniques for that).
Can shoot some lights in Doom and move objects to stand on. You jump through at least one window, in a "realistic" manner.Quote:
Originally posted by Geforce255
[B]I don't find the concept of games frightening, but I'm an old geezer. Doom3 at times wowed me, but lacked any psychological buy-in.
It's all a matter of immersion. A game environment which reacts in a plausable manner aids in suspension of disbelief, drawing the player into the game world.
Like I say, Doom3 was so poorly done that at no time was there any question that this was just a video game with props on rails.
It's not a flushing toilet, but a tree that can be felld to bridge a gap, a light that can be shot to conceal yourself, a chair that can be moved to reach a high spot, a window that breaks like real glass to get through, etc.
Immersive, realistic environments.
Max Payne 2 and Far Cry pulled it off, Doom3 didn't even come close to the mark.
Max Payne 2 seriously immersive?!? A fair amount of destructible items (more than Doom 3 for sure), but it does not drag you into the world.
Also, the graphics of Doom 3, in particular, the lighting, go a long way for "immersive, realistic environments", you underrate this aspect. Look at the shadowing in HL2 vids, it just looks wrong in places... Again, the coast vid (latest), when you pick up the trailer with the magnet, the shadow is simply a circle added to a rectangle, the part where the magnet is over the trailer, is darker.
Different purposes for the shadowing and graphics in general. HL2 is more about urban combat or fighting in very open areas. Doom is all about the claustraphobic (sp?) effect. I will grant you that Doom's graphics are more impressive than HL2 in my opinion, but they serve very different gameplay styles.Quote:
Originally posted by EverlastingGod
Also, the graphics of Doom 3, in particular, the lighting, go a long way for "immersive, realistic environments", you underrate this aspect. Look at the shadowing in HL2 vids, it just looks wrong in places... Again, the coast vid (latest), when you pick up the trailer with the magnet, the shadow is simply a circle added to a rectangle, the part where the magnet is over the trailer, is darker.
The bottom line with my argument is that I look for something innovative and creative in a game nowadays. Max Payne (the original, ignore MP2, it was a mediocore version of the first) had bullet time and the graphic novel (which I LOVE), Half Life had innovative scripting, Deus Ex had some RPG elements, etc. Doom's innovative graphics still wow me, but the gameplay is Doom all over again (that's not a terrible thing, but I've been there and done that) just like Quake 3 was Quake with better graphics.
It's all a matter of immersion. A game environment which reacts in a plausable manner aids in suspension of disbelief, drawing the player into the game world.Quote:
Originally posted by Geforce255
And IMHO D3 did that much better than FC or MP2. In terms of suspension, immersion and such. When was far cry as creepy or as suspense as D3 is on most of the levels?
Like I say, Doom3 was so poorly done that at no time was there any question that this was just a video game with props on rails.
Out of curiosity, which part of D3 was so bad that made you write the above?
It's not a flushing toilet, but a tree that can be felld to bridge a gap
I don't remember being able to fell the tree in Far Cry. And in D3 pardon, no trees on Mars due to env.
a light that can be shot to conceal yourself
And you could do that in FC?
a chair that can be moved to reach a high spot, a window that breaks like real glass to get through, etc.
In D3 you could move boxes around to get to high spot. So, if U can move charis in FC that makes is so much better?
Immersive, realistic environments.
Well, outdoor envs. in Doom3 are rather surrealistic, because it's Mars and because it's future. Unlike FC where you have earth :) But indoors. Weren't graphics were much better in D3?
Max Payne 2 and Far Cry pulled it off, Doom3 didn't even come close to the mark.
Speaking of realism, if you played FC on "realistic" level that was soo "realistic"... Every other monster can take direct hits to the head from grenade launcher. If the rolling barrels are all that's needed to be "realistic" then FC wins of course.
Repetitive isn't the issue at hand. I was speaking of environment.Quote:
Originally posted by AutomaticErik
You can't honestly tell me that FarCry, HL, or any other FPS isn't just as repetitive.
Kill minions.
Do an objective.
Kill a boss.
Repeat.
Though FarCry is less repetitive since you can hang-glide, drive vehicles, boats, etc.
And IMHO D3 did that much better than FC or MP2. In terms of suspension, immersion and such. When was far cry as creepy or as suspense as D3 is on most of the levels?
We all have our opinions.
FarCry wasn't "creepy," it wasn't meant to be. It was meant to be fun, where everything acted the way it's supposed to.
Out of curiosity, which part of D3 was so bad that made you write the above?
Most of it. From the first girter that falls when you walk past the trigger to the way the Cacodemos fly on their strings.
I don't remember being able to fell the tree in Far Cry. And in D3 pardon, no trees on Mars due to env.
The point was that nothing in the environment reacts in D3. It's a very nice looking painted backdrop, but a backdrop nonetheless.
And you could do that in FC?
Absolutely, in fact to survive the patrol boats at night shooting out the spotlights was vital.
Also Splinter Cell did this.
Weren't graphics were much better in D3?
Not really.
The human character models were better, but the indoor environments were about the same in both games. Both did a good job with bump-maps and specular lighting.
As for large outdoors areas, FarCry does it well, and we'll have to wait for other developers to see what the D3 engine can do.
Speaking of realism, if you played FC on "realistic" level that was soo "realistic"...
Like D3 on "Nighmare?"
And again, that isn't the type of realism I was speaking of.
FryCry moved a lot closer to a fully interactive and destructable environment. D3 was a huge step back.
In doom I find the AI rather umm stupid and simplicly coded. For most of the monster I have seen so far in it.
The monsters are not free romaming as they are in far cry
The monsters script simplest. It is head to player. thow fireballs (or another project tiles) get closer to to slashing distances. I hate ot say it but the AI in the game is really really lame and stupied. The Fry cry AI got on my nevers and required thinking to figureo ut how to deal with them. Doom it just take the art of shooting down.
Far cry Physic enginee was really good. From what I heard HL2 uses the same enginee so it going to be really pretty good. The Doom3 physics has more glitchs in it and odd things happen in it but it not bad.
My guess is Doom was a huge display for iD new graphic enginee which they are going to make a killing off of
Well I'm replaying some of the best parts of Doom3 and again I find myself in Hell looking for snow to start falling. I know when it turns cold it will only mean one thing...HL2 will soon be in the stores. Will I be stuck here past November?
I think I'd rather be on a tropical island with beautiful scenery, exploring caves or taking a cool dip in the ocean. Maybe even taking a boat out for the afternoon and check out the other islands. I'm sure there would be far more intelligent people to meet if I were to stroll in any direction.
Maybe I'll just take a subway and visit my Deus Ex's back in the city.