Author Topic: Doom 3  (Read 12183 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline manunited4eva22

  • Got 1337?
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Doom 3
« Reply #50 on: September 08, 2004, 02:12:15 PM »
So because they have a history of letting the burden of making a good multiplayer setup fall to the mod community, they must continue to do so?  What would be so wrong with relelasing mod tools and a complete multiplayer? Or are we still playing id can do no wrong?

Offline joeamis

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Doom 3
« Reply #51 on: September 09, 2004, 05:53:58 PM »
That shows you don't know their history.  They want the player to have more input into the game than just playing it, they want the player to be able to design too.  Their last game was multiplayer as I've said before, and this time they focused on making a good single player game, adding multiplayer at all, was a bonus.  You ask too much of companies I guess.
.

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: Doom 3
« Reply #52 on: September 10, 2004, 10:14:15 AM »
Well, what would have made that MP mode into a "complete" MP mode? Additional game modes? D3 shipped with more modes than Half-Life did. More maps? Come on, it has ONE map less than Quake and I don't think people complained about THAT.

Offline manunited4eva22

  • Got 1337?
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Doom 3
« Reply #53 on: September 11, 2004, 09:30:45 AM »
Cheat protection for starters.  More than 4 players without having to hack up stock MP would have been nice as well... But I'm asking too much, your right, if they aren't going to charge me 50 dollars to buy the multiplayer independently from the single player, I am asking far too much.
I'm tired of playing around with ID CAN DO NO WRONG arguements.

Offline joeamis

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Doom 3
« Reply #54 on: September 11, 2004, 07:10:06 PM »
It's 4 players because it's a throwback to the mp from the other Dooms.  Having 4 players only is a unique thing, and adding more players changes the whole atmosphere and gameplay of the game.  If you want a game with 16 or even 100 player multiplayer online, there are already many out there.  Because it doesn't fit your personal status quo, doesn't mean it's half-assed crap.  You seem to ignore the fact that companies either make a primarily single player game or primarily multi player game.  There are so many instances of games that are only single player and people say it would've been cool to have some sort of multiplayer feature...  (Pikmin/Pikmin 2 comes to mind).  And theres always the possibility that an expansion pack may come out, and make the game as good as you personally want it.  The argument isn't ID can do no wrong, it's more like from your point of view: "ID can do nothing but all wrong."  
.

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: Doom 3
« Reply #55 on: September 11, 2004, 09:37:25 PM »
Carmack stated that the reason for the four player limit was because there was no consumer-grade computer available that could handle serving an MP game with that many people. It'll probably be lifted in later versions, but those maps weren't designed for more players, either.

Offline manunited4eva22

  • Got 1337?
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Doom 3
« Reply #56 on: September 12, 2004, 03:25:38 PM »
Carmack is probably right, but gee not many people actually host off of their pcs.  Heck BFV servers do fine on Dual Xeon 2.4s with 2GB of memory.  Now lets compare:

Game with vehicles and 32 people, massive maps, etc.  A game with highly detailed models and up to 4 people.  I really see his point.  Carmack is a genius, not just for the doom franchise, but for the rocket stuff as well, but he is still allowed to make excuses.

I think Doom 3 is a great singple player game, I just think it could be a better game if they had gone ahead and done a complete multiplayer.

I have a solution to making the 4 player thing work.  Make an option to have 4 players max on some maps.  Add a few features, BAM you have your super throwback mode.

Yes a lot of companies do that, but is there some kind of law written in stone that says; thou must not make a good multiplayer if thy maketh a good single player?  Call of Duty has  a more than decent multiplayer, and a great single player to work.  But they are a massive minority, as you will explain.

Offline joeamis

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Doom 3
« Reply #57 on: September 12, 2004, 07:28:30 PM »
One thing I originally said, or I think I had said was that I doubt the game could handle more than 4 players on peoples PC's.  So they hacked in and managed to get 16 players.  In any case the game was designed for single player, and only 4 is a throwback as I said.  If the game wasn't to be the best single player experience they could make to begin with then it would be easy to have a full fledged multiplayer mode, but that was not the case.  That's the huge factor here...  If you wanted full fledged multiplayer then they would've had to made sacrifices for the single player game, and why the h3ll would they do that, when the plan from the get-go was for the best single player game they could make??  BFV was not designed as the best single player game they could make, infact it was designed specifically for multiplayer, so that point is mute.  There is no law that one must not make a good multiplayer if they do a good single player, and there is no law that if someone makes a single player game it must be multiplayer as well...  Some games are designed from the beginning for both single player and multi, CoD being one of them.  That also means the game could've been better, atleast looked alot better if it was designed just for single player.  As for those games being the massive minority, games like CoD, well they are...  Look at all the games released in the past year, and you will see that there's a load of single player only titles, a small amount of great single player+small multiplayer games, an even smaller amount of full fledged single+multi games, and a smaller amount of multi only games.  It's funny how you bring the rocket thing into this, the guy's worked on game engines for what 15 years? give or take some years, and because he's not successful launching a rocket (how many have been, outside National Governments?) so he's full of excuses...

I must reiterate the fact that if they were going to make a full fledged mp, the single player game would've had to been sacrificed...  And just because ID is the type of company that likes to make either a 1)primary single player title, or 2)primary multiplayer title, doesn't mean they're lazy or whatever you like to say, excuseful, etc.  Most game companies follow the same philosophy, primarily single or primarily multiplayer.  Only in the last year or two has there begun to have a conversion of the two (mp online).  
.

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: Doom 3
« Reply #58 on: September 12, 2004, 11:27:57 PM »
In BFV you have to calculate up to 32 cylinders and a few lines when combat happens. In Doom 3 you're calculating animations, lighting and almost all polygons to get the server's state. The lighting is serverside, the animations have to be handled serverside, etc. Why? Doom 3 uses per polygon collisions. Whereas previously a player was a cylinder or a bunch of cylinders they're now exactly what they look like. That's no problem in singleplayer, but once you add netcode to that it's a disaster. shots are no longer lines intersecting cylinders, they're prisms intersecting complex geometry. In Doom 3 you won't accidentally hit your teammate when shooting over his shoulder.
Doom 3 isn't just gaphics, it has a full-fledged physics engine and the most accurate collision model ever used by an FPS.

Offline manunited4eva22

  • Got 1337?
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Doom 3
« Reply #59 on: September 13, 2004, 03:04:44 PM »
If that is the case, damn you got me Nice one KDR.  I thought that basically every FPS was based on the idea that if the person was in a sector and the shot was calculated to go above that sector, it was scored as a hit, else it continued until it hit something, be it boundary or wall.  Guess I was wrong on that one, but then again, I don't do too much programming.

As for talking about how doom 3 is the greatest game ever, have you actually played it?  It's fun, but it's got a bland story, and the gameplay could use some work.

Offline MaleficentOgre

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Doom 3
« Reply #60 on: September 13, 2004, 06:46:30 PM »
If doom 3 wasn't so damn pretty it wouldn't get as much love as its getting.  I have doom 3 and I love it.  But honestly there are only so many different metallic walls in hell that one can run into, I'm sure that hell and mars have some more intereseting enviroments.  and once you get down to it, the entire game is walk and shoot, walk and shoot, walk and shoot, pee your pants, walk and shoot.  The physics engine is amazing, and that's where most of the fun in the game lies.  

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: Doom 3
« Reply #61 on: September 13, 2004, 09:23:15 PM »
It's an FPS, what do you expect? Besides, I never claimed that Doom 3 is the best game ever. The best FPS ever is very likely Deus Ex, no matter what any number of Halo or Half-Life 2 fanboys want you to believe.

Offline MaleficentOgre

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Doom 3
« Reply #62 on: September 14, 2004, 03:58:19 AM »
Deus Ex 1 is one of the most underrated shooters out there.  But best ever is kind of a stretch.  I'm not sure which FPS is but I'm pretty sure that its not deux ex.

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
RE: Doom 3
« Reply #63 on: September 14, 2004, 06:09:35 AM »
Well, most people would say if it's not Deus Ex it's either Half-Life or Halo (some retro heads would throw in Quake, which I'd rate better than the two others mentioned but still not Best Game material), which aren't too hot, either. Guess that comes with the genre, I can't think of an FPS that really stands out. That might just be my apathy towards the genre lately, though. I got tired of FPS games, got Doom 3 only because all the mods will be going teither there or to Half-Life 2 (I wonder how those people who have started HL2 mods feel about the constant delays...).

Offline Renny

  • Satin
    666
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Doom 3
« Reply #64 on: September 14, 2004, 11:43:37 AM »
NOLF. Ha. :¬]
"... i only see pS2s at the halfway house so its those crazy druggies playing them." - animecyberrat

Offline joeamis

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Doom 3
« Reply #65 on: September 14, 2004, 09:35:35 PM »
I don't think Doom 3 is the best game, I just think ID did everything they could to make it the best single player fps they could.  Some people say Farcry is better than Doom 3.  As far as what notable fps I think of lately, well I haven't played alot lately, and easily enjoy most though.  I liked Red Faction way back and RF 2.  TS2 was great, wish the story single player mode was better unfortunately I never got to play it alot in the multi modes, loved the arcade modes though.  I enjoyed Night Fire alot more than I thought it would, especially more than my opinion of the game before I rented it.  I look forward to Killzone, Geist, TS3, GERA, and I forget the rest.  Doom 64 was actually a blast, I played it two weeks ago to the end.  I've never played Halo, would like to try it atleast.  One game I like better than them all, even GE and PD, is Quake 3 Arena.  It's only Quake I've played, just picked up Quake 64, but Q3A has some excellent levels, cool mods, and is just plain fun.
.