OMG DOOM 3 April 15th!!!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
all you guys bad mouthing the game are going to jump right on the bandwagon when this comes out....it is beautiful beyond belief....ask anyone who saw it at Quakecon...

I'd expect a Doom3 "test" soon

UT2004, Painkiller, BF Vietnam, Doom3, Far Cry - where to start!?
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
48
91
Originally posted by: kuk
Meh ...

Battlefield Vietnam on March 16th. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

That's what I'm talking about mofo! ;) Infinitely more playable than Doom sh!t :D
 

geno

Lifer
Dec 26, 1999
25,074
4
0
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: kuk
Meh ...

Battlefield Vietnam on March 16th. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

That's what I'm talking about mofo! ;) Infinitely more playable than Doom sh!t :D

Yeah because what the industry needs is yet another war based FPS :p God there's already a slew of WWII FPS shooters, at first glance it's hard to tell one from the other
 

Wingznut

Elite Member
Dec 28, 1999
16,968
2
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
all you guys bad mouthing the game are going to jump right on the bandwagon when this comes out....it is beautiful beyond belief....ask anyone who saw it at Quakecon...
"beautiful" is effective for an hour. After that, I'm sure it will be overwhelmingly "been there, done that."

 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
all you guys bad mouthing the game are going to jump right on the bandwagon when this comes out....it is beautiful beyond belief....ask anyone who saw it at Quakecon...

So was Unreal II.
 

dfi

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2001
1,213
0
0
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: dfi
That means absolutely nothing coming from Activision. If ID themselves actually said April 15, then I would believe a May release date.

Won't know until the demo, but from what I've heard of the game it sounds pretty crappy from a deathmatch pov.

dfi

Its not a death match type of game. Its a single player game, with some multiplay capabilites. I can see people making mods for it like they did for Half Life, etc. And yes it does mean something coming from Activision. They are the publisher, if they are thinking of a April 15 release date, they will soon be gearing up to start the pressing of the CDs. If true you can expect a gone gold announcement within two weeks.

I realize it's suppose to be a single player game. And single player games are fun until you've beaten it once, which takes usually less than a week. After that you'll want to deathmatch. Besides, for me, the main draw of these type of games is the deathmatch play. So, from a deathmatch pov, it sounds pretty crappy.

It doesn't mean anything coming from the publisher because they look to the developers for a release date. It's also the publisher's job to drum up publicity and hype. And the game industry is now notorious for repeatedly delaying release dates. Developers push back their release dates all the time. And the fact that Carmack has not posted a date, and we have not heard anything coming from Id themselves seems pretty suspicious to me. Besides, from what I've seen it only takes a week or two for the game to ship once it's gone gold. If we see a "gone gold" announcement in two weeks then I would expect the game to ship mid to late March. So I'll believe the release date when I hear the words "gone gold" from Id.

dfi

edit:

To add to my suspicions, Carmack said at the last quakecon there would be a test for doom 3, similar to q3test. No test, no word from Carmack about no test, no word from Id at all whatsoever. Really looks like Activision trying to hype up interest.

dfi
 

CubicZirconia

Diamond Member
Nov 24, 2001
5,193
0
71
Originally posted by: kuk
Meh ...

Battlefield Vietnam on March 16th. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D


Meh...

Battlefield Vietnam is going to be a dressed up version of BF1942. More of the same crappy ass person to person combat, this time with helicopters. Soldner is the game to watch.
 

Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Battlefield Vietnam is going to be a dressed up version of BF1942. More of the same crappy ass person to person combat, this time with helicopters. Soldner is the game to watch.
Word. Mars > Vietnam
 

AnyMal

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
15,780
0
76
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: kuk
Meh ...

Battlefield Vietnam on March 16th. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D


Meh...

Battlefield Vietnam is going to be a dressed up version of BF1942. More of the same crappy ass person to person combat, this time with helicopters. Soldner is the game to watch.

Meh....

This is the game to watch.
 

CubicZirconia

Diamond Member
Nov 24, 2001
5,193
0
71
Originally posted by: AnyMal
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: kuk
Meh ...

Battlefield Vietnam on March 16th. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D


Meh...

Battlefield Vietnam is going to be a dressed up version of BF1942. More of the same crappy ass person to person combat, this time with helicopters. Soldner is the game to watch.

Meh....

This is the game to watch.

That game is nothing like Soldner or BF: Vietnam. You're comparing apples to oranges. I'm sure Stalker will be great and I'm looking forward to it coming out. My point was that in the realm of upcoming large-scale vehicular combat/war games, Soldner looks 85 times more impressive than BF: Vietnam. Unfortunately due to the scale of BF1942's success, most people are overlooking Soldner. Check out the website, I'm betting it will be twice the game that BF:V will be.

 

Confused

Elite Member
Nov 13, 2000
14,166
0
0
I'll be happy when it's actually out.

Until then, please return to your scheduled neffing :)


Confused
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: geno
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: kuk
Meh ...

Battlefield Vietnam on March 16th. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

That's what I'm talking about mofo! ;) Infinitely more playable than Doom sh!t :D

Yeah because what the industry needs is yet another war based FPS :p God there's already a slew of WWII FPS shooters, at first glance it's hard to tell one from the other

Have you played any of them?
BF is NOTHING like any of the other war based shooters (MOH, CoD, etc.)
BF is far better than any previous or current shooter.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: dfi
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: dfi
That means absolutely nothing coming from Activision. If ID themselves actually said April 15, then I would believe a May release date.

Won't know until the demo, but from what I've heard of the game it sounds pretty crappy from a deathmatch pov.

dfi

Its not a death match type of game. Its a single player game, with some multiplay capabilites. I can see people making mods for it like they did for Half Life, etc. And yes it does mean something coming from Activision. They are the publisher, if they are thinking of a April 15 release date, they will soon be gearing up to start the pressing of the CDs. If true you can expect a gone gold announcement within two weeks.

I realize it's suppose to be a single player game. And single player games are fun until you've beaten it once, which takes usually less than a week. After that you'll want to deathmatch. Besides, for me, the main draw of these type of games is the deathmatch play. So, from a deathmatch pov, it sounds pretty crappy.

It doesn't mean anything coming from the publisher because they look to the developers for a release date. It's also the publisher's job to drum up publicity and hype. And the game industry is now notorious for repeatedly delaying release dates. Developers push back their release dates all the time. And the fact that Carmack has not posted a date, and we have not heard anything coming from Id themselves seems pretty suspicious to me. Besides, from what I've seen it only takes a week or two for the game to ship once it's gone gold. If we see a "gone gold" announcement in two weeks then I would expect the game to ship mid to late March. So I'll believe the release date when I hear the words "gone gold" from Id.

dfi

edit:

To add to my suspicions, Carmack said at the last quakecon there would be a test for doom 3, similar to q3test. No test, no word from Carmack about no test, no word from Id at all whatsoever. Really looks like Activision trying to hype up interest.

dfi


If it goes gold around/before March 15, it will go on sale around April 15.

And not hearing anything from Carmack and id is a good thing. It means they are likely in or near crunch time. Doom III will ship between April 15 and May 15...
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: kuk
Meh ...

Battlefield Vietnam on March 16th. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D


Meh...

Battlefield Vietnam is going to be a dressed up version of BF1942. More of the same crappy ass person to person combat, this time with helicopters. Soldner is the game to watch.

What exactly is crappy about it?

Oh, are you one of those CS kiddies who can't understand the concept of leading your target?
Are you frustrated that your aimbots don't work in BF?
Do you hate having to use your brain and use strategy instead of bunny-hopping around?
:D
 

CubicZirconia

Diamond Member
Nov 24, 2001
5,193
0
71
BF is far better than any previous or current shooter.

I'd hesitate to call BF a shooter at all. As far as the actual shooting goes, the game sucks. The person to person combat is just terrible. If they wouldn't have included vehicles, BF would have bombed horribly.
 

CubicZirconia

Diamond Member
Nov 24, 2001
5,193
0
71
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia
Originally posted by: kuk
Meh ...

Battlefield Vietnam on March 16th. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D


Meh...

Battlefield Vietnam is going to be a dressed up version of BF1942. More of the same crappy ass person to person combat, this time with helicopters. Soldner is the game to watch.

What exactly is crappy about it?

Oh, are you one of those CS kiddies who can't understand the concept of leading your target?
Are you frustrated that your aimbots don't work in BF?
Do you hate having to use your brain and use strategy instead of bunny-hopping around?
:D

Wow... where to start. First of all, if you've ever read my posts in the past, you would know that I have long advocated wiping CS of the face of the planet. It has been surpassed and resurpassed in quality many times over. The world of gaming would be a much better place if everyone stopped playing CS and starting playing something else.

Second of all, I've never used a cheat in any game. I didn't even know they existed in BF1942. Not only do cheats destroy online games, but I don't see the point. How the hell can a game be fun if you are using cheats?

Lastly, I don't even know what to say to the bunny hopping comment. I suppose if I played CS or CoD it might apply to me (although I thought they tried to eliminate bunny hopping in CS, not sure- don't really care), but I don't. I do, however, love when people role out the strategy and "using your brain" arguments with various games. In fact, I just had this discussion not long ago. I could go on and on about this, but I'll try to keep it brief. Just because a game is slower paced, it is not necessarily more strategic. Nor does it necessarily require more "brainpower." I could even erroneous imply the exact opposite if I wanted to. I could say that if a game is faster paced, it requires faster reactions, and therefore you need to "use your brain" more. But saying that would be a stupid generalization and a sign that I wasn't in fact using my brain, so I'm not going to do that.

And it's mostly a personal opinion, but I'm definitely not a fan of the man on man combat in battlefield. There just isn't enough sign that you've hit somebody. It's kind of a weird thing, but it needs to feel more "solid." I'm sure some people know what I'm talking about. Sluggish is a good word for it, and it has nothing to do with the speed of my pc. At any rate, Soldner looks promising, and it looks like it could beat out BF: V as far as quality goes. It will certainly have it beat in content.

Edit: and I saw the smily thing, but I still felt the need to reply
 

AgaBoogaBoo

Lifer
Feb 16, 2003
26,108
5
81
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Originally posted by: NeoV
all you guys bad mouthing the game are going to jump right on the bandwagon when this comes out....it is beautiful beyond belief....ask anyone who saw it at Quakecon...
"beautiful" is effective for an hour. After that, I'm sure it will be overwhelmingly "been there, done that."

That's what I'm expecting, but this is a big chance for the company, if they can pull off something nice other than an engine, I'm sure it'll be great. I'm hoping for a nice storyline or something, not just run around and shoot everything in sight that isn't a human
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: CubicZirconia

Wow... where to start. First of all, if you've ever read my posts in the past, you would know that I have long advocated wiping CS of the face of the planet. It has been surpassed and resurpassed in quality many times over. The world of gaming would be a much better place if everyone stopped playing CS and starting playing something else.

Second of all, I've never used a cheat in any game. I didn't even know they existed in BF1942. Not only do cheats destroy online games, but I don't see the point. How the hell can a game be fun if you are using cheats?

Lastly, I don't even know what to say to the bunny hopping comment. I suppose if I played CS or CoD it might apply to me (although I thought they tried to eliminate bunny hopping in CS, not sure- don't really care), but I don't. I do, however, love when people role out the strategy and "using your brain" arguments with various games. In fact, I just had this discussion not long ago. I could go on and on about this, but I'll try to keep it brief. Just because a game is slower paced, it is not necessarily more strategic. Nor does it necessarily require more "brainpower." I could even erroneous imply the exact opposite if I wanted to. I could say that if a game is faster paced, it requires faster reactions, and therefore you need to "use your brain" more. But saying that would be a stupid generalization and a sign that I wasn't in fact using my brain, so I'm not going to do that.

And it's mostly a personal opinion, but I'm definitely not a fan of the man on man combat in battlefield. There just isn't enough sign that you've hit somebody. It's kind of a weird thing, but it needs to feel more "solid." I'm sure some people know what I'm talking about. Sluggish is a good word for it, and it has nothing to do with the speed of my pc. At any rate, Soldner looks promising, and it looks like it could beat out BF: V as far as quality goes. It will certainly have it beat in content.

Edit: and I saw the smily thing, but I still felt the need to reply

What is the last version of BF 1942 that you played?
I ask because I would agree that the infantry combat in BF was the biggest weakness in the initial release and the first patch. You are right that without vehicles, the game would have bombed. The massive fun of planes, tanks, ships, jeeps, etc. is what kept everyone playing while they worked out the bugs in the infantry combat.

It is at the point now where I think the infantry combat is just as good or better than any other shooter I've played.

Does your crosshair flashing when you hit something give you enough of a "sign that you've hit somebody"?

I agree that slower paced doesn't always mean more strategic. Medal of Honor is slower paced than games like UT and Quake, but I would not say it requires any more strategy.
BF on the other hand, definitely requires more strategy than a deathmatch type game. There are so many different roles to play and so many different ways to defeat the opponent.

I just don't think you can compare BF to any other WW2 shooter. The sheer variety in gameplay when you mix infantry combat, land vehicles, air vehicles, healing and repairing things, setting traps with mines, explosives, calling in artillery with scouts, etc. just can't be compared to glorified Quake style WW2 games like MOH and CoD.

And yeah, the smiley was intended to make it clear that I wasn't really accusing you of that. I was being overly generalistic and making fun of those people who bitch and moan about having to lead their targets in BF rather than getting instant kills while bunny hopping with a sniper rifle. Those people who say things like, "THIS GAME SUCKS A$$. I put my crosshair on the guy and clicked the fire button and he's still alive, WTF???, This game is stupid"

EDIT: Back on topic,
I'm really not that excited for Doom 3. I admit I haven't played Doom 1 or 2. It's just that from what I see, it looks like just another graphically improved Quake, HL, or UT. Just run around and shoot things. Ever since playing a more team oriented game like BF, I just can't get that excited about run and gun style shooters.
 

CubicZirconia

Diamond Member
Nov 24, 2001
5,193
0
71
I just don't think you can compare BF to any other WW2 shooter. The sheer variety in gameplay when you mix infantry combat, land vehicles, air vehicles, healing and repairing things, setting traps with mines, explosives, calling in artillery with scouts, etc. just can't be compared to glorified Quake style WW2 games like MOH and CoD.

I would agree, they're totally different games. To be honest, I didn't even like CoD that much. It has a lot of intensity, but at the end of the day it's more of the same. That said, the person to person combat in CoD is much better than in BF. To me, BF is a vehicular game with personal combat thrown in because it's necessary. Even after all the patches the combat still feels sluggish and unresponsive. And it's not just a matter of having a flashing crosshair to tell you that you're hitting something. It has to feel like you're hitting them. It just doesn't have that feel in BF.

The last version of BF that I played was 1.6 something or another.