WhatsHisFace said:
Dying?
You can die in every game, including Silent Hill, Thief, and F.E.A.R., all games that also manage to be scary while you're alive. Oh no! I'm about to die!
Howabout you just quicksave, which is just a button press.
Yes you can die in all those games listed, how astute of you to notice.
Like I said however, Doom 3 created a very dark, suffocating and claustrophobic atmosphere,
to much greater effect than any of those games. Thus if the player was able to except the premise of the game and allow oneself to be drawn in, fear (in the context of how I have previously explained) was one of the prevailing elements.
WhatsHisFace said:
Games have been having things pop out at you for a while now, which you would have known if you actually did play those games.
I am fully aware of this as I have played those games.
Sorry it chafes you so much but, like I said none of them do it half as good as Doom3.
WhatsHisFace said:
I don't get what your whole underexposure to games is all about, but it's really apparent so you might want to get a bigger frame of reference before you talk about things.
I don’t get what your whole not being able to understand me telling you I have played the games you listed is about, but it’s
really apparent that you don’t seem to be able to except other peoples opinions or taste in games if they differ from yours.
WhatsHisFace said:
Then Doom 3 is neither a very ambitious game nor a success.
Wrong.
Better to set to accomplish a few goals based around a game theme, and pull it off w/ distinction, than to set out to try and craft a contrived or over complicated design brief, and not quite get it all.
What Doom3 did, it did very well and that is not disputable.
Go read an online review and see what the pros are.
If you are talking about financial success it was one of the biggest games of 04/05.
WhatsHisFace said:
I jumped once in Doom 3 - when you're looking at yourself in the mirror and you suddenly ignite and decay.
Shock horror is "horror" at it's lamest, by the way. All you need is a sudden loud noise.
Ok so Doom3 was not for you.
Maybe you went into in expecting something like the old games w/ hordes of enemies running at you constantly. Or maybe you wanted something more in the lines of an advancement of the FPS genre in the traditional sense. As a result you did not let yourself get drawn in.
Well, I think it is obvious you would have preferred something like that,- more meaningful NPC interaction, vehicles (hahahah) non linear levels etc etc.
Doom3 was not ‘shock horror’ as you put it, shocks were one element to the game but it was about creating a multi layered environment that typified foreboding, that before we even got to the hell spawn.
WhatsHisFace said:
Yeah, which is, as you said, an FPS at it's core. Much more so than Doom 3, which was basically a stripped-down Half-Life with fewer light sources.
Doom3 was as much an FPS as SS, just because it was not fought at the breakneck speed of Sam, does not mean it is not any less an FPS. I find such comments very immature and indicative of someone who does not really know what he is talking about in these matters. Even though he (w/ a few others noobs on this board) profess he does.
WhatsHisFace said:
Yes violence is defined as an act.
Upon clicking on that link I was greeted at the top of the page with-
*An act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one"
*Ferocity: the property of being wild or turbulent; "the storm's violence"
*A turbulent state resulting in injuries and destruction etc.
These were the top three.
-An act of aggression/a person who resists -Marine w/ guns killing everything? Doom3- Check,
-Ferocity, of being wild and turbulent -Marine running through corridors killing? Doom3- Check,
-A turbulent state resulting in Death and Destruction , see were this is headed?
Good one Brainiac!
WhatsHisFace said:
Doom 3's gore was planted there.
Yes we had already established the gore was mostly intrinsic to the level design.
WhatsHisFace said:
You can shoot things, but they vaporize without a trace in a Teen-esque manner. The game got the M rating for designer-planted props. There are far more violent games.
It got an M rating because of themes of the occult, and because it featured a marine running through caverns and space labs shooting the ***** outta anything that moves w/ an array of weapons.
WhatsHisFace said:
Only Doom 3 wasn't "back to basics", it was just outdated and horrendously pretentious. You can play the Doom 3 mods where it ACTUALLY goes back to basics, but a person with such perceptive problems as yourself probably wouldn't make the connection.
In your simple black and white mind, back to basics probably means one thing- a game in the style of Serious Sam, w/ hundreds of enemies running at you.
Doom 3 was not pretentious at all- it accomplished everything id said it would.
Why don’t you go and learn what the word means before you start using it?
Id were very clear throughout the development period of exactly what type of experience Doom3 was going to offer. They explained how the game was going to be solely about a themed stripped down single player experience, based around building fear through the environment (set pieces & isolation), and the raw violence that typed the old games.
They were also very explicit in saying it was not going to be anything like the old games and there would be no hordes coming at you.
WhatsHisFace said:
Actually, Halo is better than Doom 3. You can ask anyone. Including hundreds of game journalists and critics. Gamers if you want to.
Halo scored higher unanimously everywhere true.
Halo is one of the highest rated games ever.
Doom3 was doing something that no other FPS had really had a stab at before though, set piece horror as seen in games like Resident Evil. Halo on the other hand, was just an evolved version of the FPS genre heading in its most obvious direction capitalizing on ideas started w/ HL.
I know many people online who prefer Doom3 to Halo but that is just because they prefer that type of experience. Personally I would not say one is better than the other, as they are two very different games.
To say X is better than Y, when we are talking about two great games of a different sub genre, exhibits an immaturity that is a symptomatic of youth culture (teenagers) or persons who have not yet grown to understand the context of different games in a more meaningful way.
WhatsHisFace said:
Doom 3 was a massive letdown to id fans and people who remembered the Doom and Quake games of old, and was probably the biggest disappointment of 2004.
Wrong.
It was only a disappointment to people like you who did not understand what the product was going to be.
WhatsHisFace said:
You'd be right, except that Doom 3 is not respected in any way, especially not for being a high quality game. At best it was a glorified tech demo (though it launched after more technically impressive games), but as a game it falls behind even mediocre FPSs.
These type of comments really prove that you do not know what you are talking about and also validate my previous assessments of your understanding of Doom3. It is quite amusing.
WhatsHisFace said:
So when you go around calling a sub-par FPS your favorite, you come off sounding like you have infinitely bad taste, see?
No it just shows I have different taste in FPS’ than you and that in the case of Doom3 I prefer an original and less cannibalistic, (HL=Halo influence) less contrived experience.
Whereas you sound like some sort of 14 year old child who is unable to except that others may find a different game to you their favourite, or a more enjoyable and absorbing experience.
Deal w/ it.
