PDA

View Full Version : Funny article by Tom Chick


Toad
08-24-04, 04:58 PM
http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/columns/86/

There are no new opinions in it, but it's well-written and entertaining.

Edit: CONTAINS SPOILERS. I wasn't warned before reading it myself, so I didn't think to add a spoiler warning until I was in the shower.

Ninjaman09
08-24-04, 05:26 PM
That was awesome and hilarious! I especially liked the final line, "Yeah, let's do it. I call Princess Peach. Well, I think I've learned my lesson. I just wish Half-Life 2 would hurry up and come out." Heh heh.

Vanzagar
08-28-04, 02:57 AM
Good read, funny... what a bunch of geeks... waiting in line, never even thought of doing such a thing...

Funny how often I read his reviews and go "that game can't be that bad" this guy sucks. Then play the game and totally agree with him. Two games off the top of my head being Unreal 2 and Masters of Orion 3. Is there a site for just his reviews or his favorite games, I find he's the most honest down to earth reviewer out there. My favorite and accurate quote from this read being...

"...reminds us of id's triumph when it comes to technology and their abject failure when it comes to imagination."

That basically totally sums up id for me. This is definitely the last game I ever buy from them, I guess my expectations were too high or something :(

The great graphics really suck you in, but soon are left with a very boring and linear game. While playing the game I constantly was saying to myself, didn't Half Life 1 do that or from the read... monsters hiding in closets and not coming out until you walk buy... marines without night vision or even the ability to attach a light to their guns... yup pretty much sums it up. On the bright side, other developers have a nice engine to work with now...

Most dispappointing for me is how the first few reviews I saw were just so glowing about every aspect fo the game and never touched on the actual game play only the graphics. Kinda feel deceived a bit, or maybe it was just selective reading on my part...

Vanz

nVidi0t
08-28-04, 09:04 AM
Of course expectations were too high. They were completely unrealistic. It HAS delivered from a visual standpoint, which is what Doom 3 was about. ID stated years ago that the game would bring nothing new to the table in terms of gameplay, there would be no alternate fire modes, and the player would have minimal interaction with the environment. The game would be scary by producing a realistic, dynamically lit environment which would help to immerse player. Play Half-Life after playing Doom 3. It's like watching an episode of Teletubbies, but at the time it was the scariest game on the map.

It's DOOM. The original games were linear and were repetitive, if anyone says otherwise they are being an ignoramus.

My point is, Doom 3 is a sequel which is completely worthy of the Doom series. Night vision? Sheesh, that would destroy the atmosphere. The attachment of the light to the gun is a valid point but being vulnerable while using the flashlight does give you a feeling of constant paranoia.

Everyone was expecting things from this game which clearly weren't on ID's criteria.

Jas28
08-28-04, 12:03 PM
I agree with nVidi0t. Its DOOM! Makes me wonder how many ppl played Doom when it first came out. I love it. I think it fits the Doom series perfectly. I am not sure what everyone expected out it. Night vision would have ruined the whole game. You would have had it on the whole time...and that would have ruined the whole atmosphere of the game. But hey, thats just my personal opinion. :retard: :)

Skrot
08-28-04, 01:10 PM
"It is a bauble that reminds us of id's triumph when it comes to technology and their abject failure when it comes to imagination." --That Review

Lack of imagination? Pfft whatever. Where does that statement sit when Quake3 is still the best deathmatch available, and Doom 3 the best single player FPS I've played?

Of course, when you play a game thinking, "well it hasn't got *this* from that game, this from this other game, or this from that other one", you really aren't playing the game to have fun are you?

Oh and bad level design? WTF? I never once thought, "I've been here already". Every section has a different feel, and I can remember so many different sections from the game. Why? Because they're all different from eachother.

Ah, there's no point to comment about it, really. Although, I'm not going to delete what I've written ;).

Vanzagar
08-28-04, 05:05 PM
They were completely unrealistic. It HAS delivered from a visual standpoint, which is what Doom 3 was about. ID stated years ago that the game would bring nothing new to the table in terms of gameplay, there would be no alternate fire modes, and the player would have minimal interaction with the environment.

The thing is that some of us don't follow every detail of what a company says they are going to do, we play the game like it's a fresh new product and let it stand on it's own merits. We don't base the quality or fun of the game on whether the game met ID's press quotes or how well they delivered what they said they would deliver, this is all irrelevent. The game is simply a game and in the end it's played then needs to stand on it's own.

I have played the other Dooms and all the other quakes and unreal and a ton other. If I wanted the game to be just like the other Dooms I would play the other Dooms. This is a game that is competing in a completely different market, a market that desired innovation and imagination (a market thats saturated with clones), and in terms of game play Doom 3 falls flat. Was Doom 3 exactly what ID promised, was it in line with the other Dooms?, ya sure, so what. The game has some nice eye candy but other than that it is boring and repetitive, and that's just a shame...

We all saw the screen pics for years now and already knew the graphics would be great so the only unknown was how would the game play come out. On the game play my expectations were fairly low and these expectations weren't met (high expectations for the game as a whole)... You'd think once you had a great engine in hand you could do something with it. Don't get me wrong I think Carmack did a great job and the artisits did a good job but the rest of the design team had a lot to work with and fell horribly short. I mean do you want to pay $55 for a game or just watch the lastest 3d Mark benchmark demos...

Vanz

Skrot
08-28-04, 10:47 PM
The thing is that some of us don't follow every detail of what a company says they are going to do, we play the game like it's a fresh new product and let it stand on it's own merits.That's exactly why I loved (and still do) the game. Because I played it like it was a fresh game, and played it for what it was trying to be. It's very easy to understand what it was trying to be, and it has that in spades. Later on in the game, the fun changes to another level (not necessarily better or worse, just different) when there's big monsters around most corners and lots of ammo for the big guns to pick up. It's great!

OWA
08-29-04, 07:30 AM
The thing is that some of us don't follow every detail of what a company says they are going to do, we play the game like it's a fresh new product and let it stand on it's own merits. We don't base the quality or fun of the game on whether the game met ID's press quotes or how well they delivered what they said they would deliver, this is all irrelevent. The game is simply a game and in the end it's played then needs to stand on it's own.
Maybe that's why I enjoyed Doom 3 so much. It actually was a fresh and completely new experience for me since I never really played the earlier ones. I almost never finish games (the only ones I can recall finishing in recent years are Max Payne and LOTR: ROTK) so there wasn't much for me to compare it to really. No thinking...man, I've seen this before or geez, this is the same story as such and such game. It was all new. I was pretty excited about finishing it and I thought it was great. Makes me want to go back and finish some earlier games like Half-Life, Unreal, Far Cry, etc.