I thought the game looked good, but it was a little rough to play. In order to get through SP mode I had to pretty much fly through super fast and ignore a lot, because otherwise I'd end up going slow/cautious and get scared at some point. 
Going through Rambo style deadens the mood though.
I don't consider it a flop, but I had more fun in HL2/Farcry.
Going through Rambo style deadens the mood though.I don't consider it a flop, but I had more fun in HL2/Farcry.
yukichigai
Diamond Member
- Apr 23, 2003
- 6,404
- 0
- 76
Doom3 was bizzare. I couldn't quite understand how they did what they did.
Monsters: good. True to the original, yet updated. Sometimes genuinely scary
Weapons: good. Though the chaingun should have run on pistol ammo
Plot: good. Simple, vaguely spooky, Satan here, Hell there, yadda yadda yadda. Boilerplate stuff
Interface: potentially amazing. The attention to detail, little things like how you have to navigate menus on screens you're looking at to do stuff, that was nice. I would have liked to see more
Levels: good. Nice layout, felt like a mars base. Portions of the "converted" base felt damn creepy, but Hell wasn't scary enough.
Gameplay: booo. BOOOO!
How exactly do you take great elements and turn them into feces? I'll tell you: make generic, predictable scares everywhere, make sure that picking up any type of medkit, ammo box or keycard spawns a thousand legions of doom, and rely on guns without flashlights built in to set the "spooky" mood. Not good.
If game developers would take the proper amount of time required to make games anymore, and if they developed them to something beyond knee-jerk reactionfests, (excepting games like Painkiller and Serious Sam) then we might actually have something decent to play. As it is I think gaming has taken a serious dive since Deus Ex and may never recover.
Monsters: good. True to the original, yet updated. Sometimes genuinely scary
Weapons: good. Though the chaingun should have run on pistol ammo
Plot: good. Simple, vaguely spooky, Satan here, Hell there, yadda yadda yadda. Boilerplate stuff
Interface: potentially amazing. The attention to detail, little things like how you have to navigate menus on screens you're looking at to do stuff, that was nice. I would have liked to see more
Levels: good. Nice layout, felt like a mars base. Portions of the "converted" base felt damn creepy, but Hell wasn't scary enough.
Gameplay: booo. BOOOO!
How exactly do you take great elements and turn them into feces? I'll tell you: make generic, predictable scares everywhere, make sure that picking up any type of medkit, ammo box or keycard spawns a thousand legions of doom, and rely on guns without flashlights built in to set the "spooky" mood. Not good.
If game developers would take the proper amount of time required to make games anymore, and if they developed them to something beyond knee-jerk reactionfests, (excepting games like Painkiller and Serious Sam) then we might actually have something decent to play. As it is I think gaming has taken a serious dive since Deus Ex and may never recover.
Your cat has the bluest eyes I've ever seen.... er um I mean..
Yeah I agree, most of the scares were predictable, and there was too many I thought... couldn't go 5 steps without something slapping you in the back from out of nowhere.
Id lost a great asset when they lost Romero. He was the reason the games were fun, while Carmack was the reason they looked/ran so damn good.
Doom 3 was a decent-to-good game, all things considered. It was done in by its own hype though, and shame on reviewers who did the hyping instead of judging the game on its actual merits. Expecting something fantaburiffic, gamers were more let down than if they'd just bought the game without any preconceptions but their own.
Of course by then, the blood was already in the water. Now it's a way for n00bs to pose that they're "in the know" and "have excellent taste" by exaggerating how bad Doom 3 is supposed to be and seeing who can one-up the other in their bashing.
Of course by then, the blood was already in the water. Now it's a way for n00bs to pose that they're "in the know" and "have excellent taste" by exaggerating how bad Doom 3 is supposed to be and seeing who can one-up the other in their bashing.
Romero was the reason Id games were fun? Wow. Wrong. Show us a 'fun' game that Romero has been involved in since?
Doom 3 was graphically amazing - the sound was amazing - the gameplay was average - I agree with the people that said they tired of monsters coming out of no where every time they picked up ammo or armor.
Far Cry was very nice, but I'd have to say HL2 is the best single player FPS of all time - if you blew through HL2, then you should try playing it on a harder skill level.
Don't knock Painkiller too much - although it's easy to compare it to Serious Sam, it's actually much deeper than that, and it's graphics engine is right up at the top with the other FPS titles discussed in this thread.
Doom 3 was graphically amazing - the sound was amazing - the gameplay was average - I agree with the people that said they tired of monsters coming out of no where every time they picked up ammo or armor.
Far Cry was very nice, but I'd have to say HL2 is the best single player FPS of all time - if you blew through HL2, then you should try playing it on a harder skill level.
Don't knock Painkiller too much - although it's easy to compare it to Serious Sam, it's actually much deeper than that, and it's graphics engine is right up at the top with the other FPS titles discussed in this thread.
I haven't played D3, but I can state that I feel HL2 was a over-hyped, overly halo-esque disapointment.
From my understanding, a lot of people have a very harsh criticism of D3 for being to hard on hardware. Could this possible play a little on ones opinion of the actual gameplay? Just my $.02
From my understanding, a lot of people have a very harsh criticism of D3 for being to hard on hardware. Could this possible play a little on ones opinion of the actual gameplay? Just my $.02
I beat both, and was satisfied with them - to me, both delivered as advertised. In my experience you're right about the hardware - HL2 scaled better on my low-end system than D3 did.
I played Doom3 for a little bit, got bored and went back to Far Cry.
When the Doom3 Gold comes out, I'll definately give it another try, since my video card has been upgraded since then.
and as far as VIAN's claim:
"at least Doom3 included all the features it said it was gonna have unlike HL2 which pretty much changed it's entire identity between the hype and the actual release"
Wasn't Doom3 supposed to sport a completely destructable environment? (shoot through walls, etc.?)
I'll readily admit that HL2 won me over, especially with the widescreen beauty, but calling Doom3 a flop is just wishful thinking by haters.
When the Doom3 Gold comes out, I'll definately give it another try, since my video card has been upgraded since then.
and as far as VIAN's claim:
"at least Doom3 included all the features it said it was gonna have unlike HL2 which pretty much changed it's entire identity between the hype and the actual release"
Wasn't Doom3 supposed to sport a completely destructable environment? (shoot through walls, etc.?)
I'll readily admit that HL2 won me over, especially with the widescreen beauty, but calling Doom3 a flop is just wishful thinking by haters.
Awesome, another D3 vs HL2 vs FarCry thread...
Well, here's my 2 cents..
Farcry blew me away. The game came out of nowhere, and the graphics/gameplay were fantastic. I loved that you could approach each level from different angles, thanks to the enormous landscapes. Its low point was the so-so storyline and cheesy cut scenes. The game had great replay value. The multiplayer was awesome. The engineer class interacting with the environment (build walls/weapons/bridges) was great fun, for the engineers and the snipers .
Doom 3 was a game I waited a couple of years for (remember the leaked screen shots of the "Pinky Demon" a few years ago). I bought it on the day it came out, and raced home to play it. 3 levels later, I was bored. The graphics/PDA/little details were great but the game was just boring. After the 50th monster closet in yet another dark cramped hallway I just gave up. I ended up using CVAR cheats to skip ahead to the final levels, and they were better (the mine/ruins and hell levels in particular) but then I came to loath the stupid weapons in the game (the pistol and the machine gun. Useless). Other than running the timedemo to bench my system, the game had no replay value for me.
HL2 was great for different reasons. The graphics weren't on the same level as Far Cry or Doom 3, but the environments and weapons were awesome. The game was linear, but it had a great combination of outdoor/indoor environments. Like Doom3, it had its dark and scary elements too (Ravenholm). I ended up playing the game a few times, trying out squad tactics (so so) and the Ant Bait (super fun prison action). The downsides were Steam and the ending. I think the best surprise of HL2 was when they added the multiplayer a month after release. Toilet frags made my day for a month or so.
As for Doom3 being a flop, it wasn't. Sales were huge (PC/Xbox plus the expansion), and people are still talking about the game today.
Well, here's my 2 cents..
Farcry blew me away. The game came out of nowhere, and the graphics/gameplay were fantastic. I loved that you could approach each level from different angles, thanks to the enormous landscapes. Its low point was the so-so storyline and cheesy cut scenes. The game had great replay value. The multiplayer was awesome. The engineer class interacting with the environment (build walls/weapons/bridges) was great fun, for the engineers and the snipers
.Doom 3 was a game I waited a couple of years for (remember the leaked screen shots of the "Pinky Demon" a few years ago). I bought it on the day it came out, and raced home to play it. 3 levels later, I was bored. The graphics/PDA/little details were great but the game was just boring. After the 50th monster closet in yet another dark cramped hallway I just gave up. I ended up using CVAR cheats to skip ahead to the final levels, and they were better (the mine/ruins and hell levels in particular) but then I came to loath the stupid weapons in the game (the pistol and the machine gun. Useless). Other than running the timedemo to bench my system, the game had no replay value for me.
HL2 was great for different reasons. The graphics weren't on the same level as Far Cry or Doom 3, but the environments and weapons were awesome. The game was linear, but it had a great combination of outdoor/indoor environments. Like Doom3, it had its dark and scary elements too (Ravenholm). I ended up playing the game a few times, trying out squad tactics (so so) and the Ant Bait (super fun prison action). The downsides were Steam and the ending. I think the best surprise of HL2 was when they added the multiplayer a month after release. Toilet frags made my day for a month or so.
As for Doom3 being a flop, it wasn't. Sales were huge (PC/Xbox plus the expansion), and people are still talking about the game today.
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 60,130
- 10,601
- 126
HL1 is a contender for best fps of all time, HL2 didn't come close to what the original had. Also it loses many points for using Steam. I doubt I'll buy anymore games from Valve that require Steam. I don't need that kind of frustration in my leisure time.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter