Will Doom 3 spur a revival in the computer hardware industry?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Smilin
I just wanted to chip in and mention that there is no way ANY console compares to my gaming rig. Period.
Next year and deep into 2005, the PC will rule gaming as consoles wait for their next iteration. By 2005 that 733 Mhz of the eXbox will look like a dreamcast in comparison.

The console supporters are going to be very quiet for at least another year or two. ;)

rolleye.gif


 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: Smilin
I just wanted to chip in and mention that there is no way ANY console compares to my gaming rig. Period.
I would've said the exact same thing 4 months ago. Then I got an XBox in late November. ;) Its easily the best sub-$200 hardware purchase I've made in the last 6 months, 'cept maybe my XP 2100+ T-bred B.

Originally posted by: apoppin
Next year and deep into 2005, the PC will rule gaming as consoles wait for their next iteration. By 2005 that 733 Mhz of the eXbox will look like a dreamcast in comparison.
Certainly not from a revenue or sales standpoint. The next generation consoles in 2005 (PS3-Cell, and XBox2) will put PC gaming rigs to shame; they'll cross-over even further into areas of functionality historically reserved for the PC. Of course there'll still be the same reasons for owning both (b/c of the different game genres), but if you're looking from a pure technology, visuals and features standpoint; it'll be no contest. In the meantime, console owners will just have to make-do with games that implement more advanced features consistently than current PC games. (how many DX8-only games have you seen on the PC?). :p

Chiz



 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: Smilin
I just wanted to chip in and mention that there is no way ANY console compares to my gaming rig. Period.
I would've said the exact same thing 4 months ago. Then I got an XBox in late November. ;) Its easily the best sub-$200 hardware purchase I've made in the last 6 months, 'cept maybe my XP 2100+ T-bred B.

Originally posted by: apoppin
Next year and deep into 2005, the PC will rule gaming as consoles wait for their next iteration. By 2005 that 733 Mhz of the eXbox will look like a dreamcast in comparison.
Certainly not from a revenue or sales standpoint. The next generation consoles in 2005 (PS3-Cell, and XBox2) will put PC gaming rigs to shame; they'll cross-over even further into areas of functionality historically reserved for the PC. Of course there'll still be the same reasons for owning both (b/c of the different game genres), but if you're looking from a pure technology, visuals and features standpoint; it'll be no contest. In the meantime, console owners will just have to make-do with games that implement more advanced features consistently than current PC games. (how many DX8-only games have you seen on the PC?). :p

Chiz
Of course not from a sales or revenue standpoint. Just Graphics superiority for the next TWO years.

Maybe in 2005, I'll even get a console . . . (nah) . . . until then, PC Graphics Rule.

rolleye.gif


 

BoomAM

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2001
4,546
0
0
Chiz, I dont see what your problem is with using a mouse and keyboard for SC. I dont know what sort of setup you have (Mouse/keyboard wise), but with mine, i find any game easyer to control than any controller, even my GC one. And the GC controller is the best bar none.
My MX700 and MS Internet Keyboard allows me to have everything but the forwards/backwards/left/right on my mouse.
 

BoomAM

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2001
4,546
0
0
The fact is, weather you Xbox/console nuts want to admit it, Consoles will never be as powerful on any front as a PC. Full Stop.
There might be points where for a fews month consoles have the upper hand, but the rate at which PC technologys advances means that within a short amount of time, consoles look like poorly speced ornaments in comparison.
Also, if you dont like the control system on a PC, you can choose from hundreds of other controllers. Where as on a console, your stuck with the basic pad, with a few variations on it, and the racing wheel.

On a note more relating to the thread topic, I can see Doom3 being ported to Xbox quite well. Carmack said that his target gfx card was a GF3/8500. The Xboxs gfx chip is roughly equivelent to this level.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: BoomAM
Chiz, I dont see what your problem is with using a mouse and keyboard for SC.
I don't have a problem with the PC's implementation of SC's controls, I just find a gamepad to be much more intuitive and flexible. Its the same problem any 3rd person game runs into on the PC that introduces more than 2-axis for control and movement, point-of-view and degree of speed. Look at any flight sim or mech sim. People prefer joysticks b/c they naturally provide 2-axis movement (X,Y) but also introduce a Z-axis (torso twist in MW or roll in a flight sim). Introduce another variable such as speed/throttle (1-0 on the keyboard or analog presses of a button compared to a throttle) and you quickly see the limitations of a mouse and keyboard set-up. Again, the XBox's implementation takes all of these factors into account using the analog sticks.

I dont know what sort of setup you have (Mouse/keyboard wise), but with mine, i find any game easyer to control than any controller, even my GC one. And the GC controller is the best bar none.
It depends on what type of game and the level of precision required for controls. Look at a game like MechAssault. You'd never see it on the PC b/c of its fast-paced nature. You can play MW4:Mercs in 3rd person, but it only comes close if you use a 3-axis joystick with a throttle (I use a Sidewinder FF Pro2), and it still doesn't play as fast and frenetically as MechAssault.

As for the GC controller being the best bar none. You gotta be kidding me. Even die-hard GC fans acknowledge the short-comings of the GC controller. Its cheap plastic everywhere, with plastic analog sticks with what? 16 directional movements? XBox analog sticks are sturdy rubber, calibrated much tighter, and offer more accurate speed and directional control. Plus, they double as buttons. :D As for force feedback, total number and quality of buttons, tactile feel of the trigger button, voice chat, there's no contest either. Or were you referring to the size for those with small hands? There's the Controller-S for the tiny-hand crowd.

My MX700 and MS Internet Keyboard allows me to have everything but the forwards/backwards/left/right on my mouse.
I have an MX700 and a Logitech elite wireless keyboard. The fact you're mapping everything to your MX700 tells me your finger leaves the trigger or you're curling your hand up in awkward positions to access poorly placed buttons. My finger never leaves the trigger.......in any game. :D

The fact is, weather you Xbox/console nuts want to admit it, Consoles will never be as powerful on any front as a PC. Full Stop.
We'll see about that. :) I fully expect to see CGI-quality game graphics on a console before a PC. Hardware capabilities don't mean anything, you should know that. If you don't, there's no point in arguing further with you.

Chiz

 

BoomAM

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2001
4,546
0
0
Originally posted by: chizow
As for the GC controller being the best bar none. You gotta be kidding me. Even die-hard GC fans acknowledge the short-comings of the GC controller. Its cheap plastic everywhere, with plastic analog sticks with what? 16 directional movements? XBox analog sticks are sturdy rubber, calibrated much tighter, and offer more accurate speed and directional control. Plus, they double as buttons. :D As for force feedback, total number and quality of buttons, tactile feel of the trigger button, voice chat, there's no contest either. Or were you referring to the size for those with small hands? There's the Controller-S for the tiny-hand crowd.

I have an MX700 and a Logitech elite wireless keyboard. The fact you're mapping everything to your MX700 tells me your finger leaves the trigger or you're curling your hand up in awkward positions to access poorly placed buttons. My finger never leaves the trigger.......in any game. :D

We'll see about that. :) I fully expect to see CGI-quality game graphics on a console before a PC. Hardware capabilities don't mean anything, you should know that. If you don't, there's no point in arguing further with you.

Chiz
I dont want to start an arguement about controllers, but the GC controller is sheer brillience. Comfortable, easy to use, natural feel. Its not a cheap plastic thing. The GC aint for small hands either, its a halfway thing, so its good for small and large hands(like me).
Alot of people who have this opinion of the GC controller, or the GC itself, are people who still view Nintendo as a kiddy company, and dont want to admit quality design.

Theres more than one finger on your hand. I dont have to stretch and mess around trying to find the right button to press.

PCs already have near CGI quality gfx. Just look at the nVidia Dawn demo and the ATI chimp demo.
As for games, the pc hardware is fully capabile of CGI quality now, its just that developers cant implement the gfx cos of the wide range of system components. It`ll be easyer for developers to implement cgi quality on a console that has sufficiant power behind it.
Im fully aware that hardware capibilites dont determine the quality of the gfx. Look at the GC for example. It has radeon7500 level gfx core, with a bit more speed, but is already pushing far more polygons and detailed textures than the radeon7500 could ever handle. SF:A, Metroid, and Rogue Leader are prime examples of this. The gfx in these games put alot of the suposidily superior graphicaly Xbox games to shame.
 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
i must say that SC looks and sounds incredible on my friends X-Box with his 60" Projection TV and $10,000 Klipsch setup.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
i must say that SC looks and sounds incredible on my friends X-Box with his 60" Projection TV and $10,000 Klipsch setup.
:Q You guys'll be huddled in a corner crying if you play Doom3 on that set-up!!! :Q

;)

Chiz
 

BoomAM

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2001
4,546
0
0
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
i must say that SC looks and sounds incredible on my friends X-Box with his 60" Projection TV and $10,000 Klipsch setup.
Now thats an entertainment system.
I wonder what the HDTV output on the 9700pro would look like on that....
 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
Originally posted by: chizow
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
i must say that SC looks and sounds incredible on my friends X-Box with his 60" Projection TV and $10,000 Klipsch setup.
:Q You guys'll be huddled in a corner crying if you play Doom3 on that set-up!!! :Q

;)

Chiz

heh, one can only hope. the bastard just bought a Boxster-S earlier in the week, too. some people have all the cool toys. :)

 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
Originally posted by: BoomAM
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
i must say that SC looks and sounds incredible on my friends X-Box with his 60" Projection TV and $10,000 Klipsch setup.
Now thats an entertainment system.
I wonder what the HDTV output on the 9700pro would look like on that....

his particular TV (its a mitsubishi rear projection) supports VGA, so it can be plugged directly into a computer and used as a monitor. in fact, he does this as he has his mp3 server hooked up to it and his home theater system.
 

CurtCold

Golden Member
Aug 15, 2002
1,547
0
0
I've played on both X-Box and PC. Some games are just better suited for Consoles. eg. racing and such.

The one thing that annoys me about games like Halo on the PC, is the fact that in multi-player the other players can see where I am, because of split screen. Other than that I don't have any beef with consoles. Had a blast on my N64 w/Goldeneye.

Still when I was playing Halo, I swore up and down, that if I had a mouse and keyboard, I would have really owned my friends.

Will DOOM spark a revival in computer hardware? Oh yeah, because when ID sells the rights to that engine and other developers start to use it. That's when you'll really start to feel your gf3 scream. Just look at all the Q3 based games out today. None seem to run as well as Q3. That's other developers for you. Mohaa runs great, and looks good, but just not as smooth as Q3 imo.
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
I think Sim City 4 will spur many folks to upgrade, not sure about Doom 3. I may upgrade to play Doom III, if the game is worth playing.
 

ZimZum

Golden Member
Aug 2, 2001
1,281
0
76
Originally posted by: BoomAM
The fact is, weather you Xbox/console nuts want to admit it, Consoles will never be as powerful on any front as a PC. Full Stop.
There might be points where for a fews month consoles have the upper hand, but the rate at which PC technologys advances means that within a short amount of time, consoles look like poorly speced ornaments in comparison.
Also, if you dont like the control system on a PC, you can choose from hundreds of other controllers. Where as on a console, your stuck with the basic pad, with a few variations on it, and the racing wheel.

On a note more relating to the thread topic, I can see Doom3 being ported to Xbox quite well. Carmack said that his target gfx card was a GF3/8500. The Xboxs gfx chip is roughly equivelent to this level.

You really cant compare the hardware specs of consoles and PCs. Its like saying since a Ford Mustang has a larger engine and more horsepower than a Suzuki GSX R1000 the Mustang must be faster. When in fact the opposite is true. PC game developers have to contend with bloated OS's hundreds of drivers, motherboards and video card variations. They have to make sure games can run on everything from a crappy Emachine with onboard video to a top of the line gaming rig.

Obviously if you build an uber gaming machine and spend upwards of 3 or 4 grand the PCs graphics will be superior more often than not. But the average computer gamer doesnt play on anything near that. By the same token if you spend 3 grand on a home theater setup for your console the graphic superiority of the PC is far less evident if its there at all. And the home theater setup wont be obsolete in 2 years.

 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,005
126
That's a ridiculous statement, since the majority of PC users will be LUCKY to run Splinter Cell at that resolution.
Oh, and I suppose the majority of X-Box users will be running the game at 1024 x 768? Last time I checked standard TVs don't run at that resolution while 15" dime-a-dozen monitors most certainly do.

There are plenty of games like NWN or Morrowind that are visually stunning that run the way they are supposed to at 40fps (that's the max on current hardware), simply b/c they don't run at breakneck speeds.
That may be partially true but not for refresh rates. A low refresh rate blows, no matter what the situation.

Because it looks like @ss on the PC unless I turn up the resolution, AA and AF.
It looks like ass on the console too and in fact it's worse because in addition you have a low refresh rate to deal with.

The PCs ability to run at high resolutions is both a blessing and a curse. Imperfections on a texture are exacerbated on a PC monitor b/c of the high definition, dot-pitch and higher resolutions. If you've got an ugly texture or jaggies, it only looks worse at lower resolutions b/c you're essentially magnifying it.
rolleye.gif


So by your logic a HDTV also looks worse than a standard TV?

You can get a 36'' Sony Wega that does 1080i (1920x1080@100Hz) for a very conservative price of $2000 (quoted retail from Best Buy).
Is that supposed to impress me? You can get a 21" Sony CPD-G520 that does 2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz with 0.24mm dot pitch for ~$600 on pricewatch.

There's only a few games that run natively at 1080i
That doesn't help your cause at all.

but there are quite a few titles under development that will support 720p. Most current XBox games support 480p natively,
So 1024 x 768 is the emerging standard resolution on consoles? Welcome to the year 1999 on the PC.

Throw in the cost of an XBox and you've got your gaming rig for $2200 + Tax.
I could build a superior gaming rig with absolutely no problems at all using a budget like that, with a 21" monitor to boot.

How much would it cost to put together a similar gaming rig for the PC?
A lot less.

How many games support 2048 x 1536?
Almost all of them.

How many GPUs would be able to run new titles at that resolution?
And how many new games can the X-Box run at that resolution? For a start your HDTV doesn't even support such a resolution. Secondly I don't buy the comments about the X-Box already running all games at such a resolution and simply scaling everything down for lower class TVs. Performance like that doesn't come for free on any system, especially not on the X-Box's GPU which is inferior in terms of performance to a lot of current PC GPUs available. I'll put my Radeon 9700 Pro against the X-Box's GPU any day of the week.

The difference is, the PC has to actual render at that resolution. TVs will convert the signal by interpolating. There's less valid pixels, but the end result is similar.
It's equal but the console is actually rendering less pixels? Riiiiight.

Believe it.
So it looks like another half-assed port. Again that doesn't constitute console superiority.

Heh, you can't look at the XBox's hardware specs and compare it to a similar PC system;
To some certain extent you can't but for the most part you can. Yes it's streamlined but standard PC architecture isn't as crippled as you make it out to be. In fact, it's quite superior, especially after you factor in clock speed, memory bandwidth and GPU advantage. An X-Box's CPU might be faster than a standard P3 @ 733 MHz but it is not faster than a 3.06/3000+ GHz.

The fastest gaming rigs on the fastest platforms (from various reviews) yield a spectacular ~30fps at 1600x1200 no AA/AF.
And what do the same reviews say about the X-Box's performance?

but a high-end PC clearly doesn't perform on par with the XBox, even at 1024.
See above; I'd like to see where you got your information from. Are you even able to bring up a framerate counter on the X-Box? If not how the hell do you even know how fast it's running?

Nope, it came with my XBox.
No, what I mean is that you're proclaiming console controller superiority by using one game as your example whereas I gave you entire genres that are better using standard mouse/keyboard/joystick options on the PC.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
That may be partially true but not for refresh rates. A low refresh rate blows, no matter what the situation.

That's not entirely true. The fade rate on TVs is significantly lower then that on a CRT monitor. 60Hz on a LCD is a hell of a lot better then 60Hz on a monitor CRT.

So by your logic a HDTV also looks worse than a standard TV?

If you aren't running HDTV capable systems then hell yes it looks a lot worse. Hook up a PS2 to a HDTV using component connections and it amplifies the aliasing signficantly, particularly for the early PS2 games that don't use mip mapping.

Is that supposed to impress me? You can get a 21" Sony CPD-G520 that does 2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz with 0.24mm dot pitch for ~$600 on pricewatch.

How much does the 36" Sony model run? A tiny little 21" monitor isn't comparable.

I could build a superior gaming rig with absolutely no problems at all using a budget like that, with a 21" monitor to boot.

Do so with a 36" monitor.

Secondly I don't buy the comments about the X-Box already running all games at such a resolution and simply scaling everything down for lower class TVs. Performance like that doesn't come for free on any system, especially not on the X-Box's GPU which is inferior in terms of performance to a lot of current PC GPUs available. I'll put my Radeon 9700 Pro against the X-Box's GPU any day of the week.

The XBox, PS2 and GameCube all run at the highest resolution supported for a particular game and then downsample for output. This is not speculation, it is actually common knowledge and a bit telling to how closely you follow the console scene. Go over to Beyond3D's console forums, there are numerous developers there and they can attest that that is how consoles work. It's not just the XBox, all the current gen consoles do this.

Your R9700Pro certainly is more powerful then the XBox chip, but do you think it's twice as fast?-

The X-Box GPU is more of a GF4 than a GF3, but a modern PC is generally much higher end than an X-Box.

However, you can usually count on getting twice the performance out of an absolutely fixed platform if you put a little work into it. There are lots of tradeoffs that need to balance between the different cards on a general purpose platform -- things that I don't do with vertex programs because it would make the older cards even slower, avoiding special casing that would be too difficult to test across all platforms (and driver revs), and double buffering of vertex data to abstract across VAR and vertex objects, for instance. We might cut the "core tick" of Doom from 60hz to 30hz on X-Box if we need the extra performance, because it has no chance of holding 60hz, but the PC version will eventually scale to that with the faster CPUs and graphics cards.

Carmack's words on Slashdot.

He says the XBox won't be able to hold 60Hz on DooM3 but PCs will 'eventually' scale to that.

To some certain extent you can't but for the most part you can. Yes it's streamlined but standard PC architecture isn't as crippled as you make it out to be. In fact, it's quite superior, especially after you factor in clock speed, memory bandwidth and GPU advantage. An X-Box's CPU might be faster than a standard P3 @ 733 MHz but it is not faster than a 3.06/3000+ GHz.

See the above quote, another aspect is that like DooM3 most XBox and GameCube games are quite GPU centric(although the PS2 is extremely CPU centric), they are not developed with the same mindset of PC developers making titles that will run on DX7 level hardware, there is absolutely no need in the world to consider in the slightest boards like the original Radeon or GeForce.

See above; I'd like to see where you got your information from. Are you even able to bring up a framerate counter on the X-Box? If not how the hell do you even know how fast it's running?

On consoles you always have VSync on. You are running at 1/60th or 1/30th of a second per frame, it's not hard to tell the difference.

Boom-

There might be points where for a fews month consoles have the upper hand, but the rate at which PC technologys advances means that within a short amount of time, consoles look like poorly speced ornaments in comparison.

And you need only wait a couple more years before the PC actually starts to use that power. It took UnrealII to one up DOA3 in the visual department, DOA3 came out back in '01 though.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,809
6,364
126
The Single Player FPS is dead! I suspect that Doom3 will end up like Unreal 2, collecting dust on a lot of peoples shelves, it's a genre that has been done to death.

Like others have stated, Doom 3 probably won't cause enough of a stir to get people to upgrade, but games based on the D3 engine likely will. iD doesn't have a reputation for good storylines.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
How about outputting SC from PC to a TV (use TV out) and run side by side to an XBox, see what they look like then?

one of the fanciest and smoothest graphics engines ever (modified from the UT engine)
The engine base for UT2k3, U2, SC and Deus Ex 2? 4 games all out on PC, 2 mainly out on PC. SC made for the XBox? (I think someone talked about it being "made" for XBox, just saying the engine isn't really an XBox engine)

And, if you need to lower health on PC because the controller makes it easier, surely that tells you the PC controls are better, since they make the game easier, and normally the better something is, the easier/faster it makes a task?

Doom 3 will not change the hardware industry because it's one game, the hardware industry has made the game, not the other way round.
 

BoomAM

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2001
4,546
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
The Single Player FPS is dead! I suspect that Doom3 will end up like Unreal 2, collecting dust on a lot of peoples shelves, it's a genre that has been done to death.

I can see where your coming from here, but the single player fps is far from dead. For one thing Developers realise that not everyone plays games online, and so caters for a large market of single player fps players.
Personally, i belive that there is alot of ideas for fps still to do.
Games with the same dynamics as Deus Ex will propel fps games forward and will merge the two genres of fps and rpg together.
If DNF gets released, i can see it being a game that re-invents the fps game. But the question is, have the wasted their development time, and "overdeveloped" it.
 

BoomAM

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2001
4,546
0
0
Originally posted by: Lonyo
How about outputting SC from PC to a TV (use TV out) and run side by side to an XBox, see what they look like then?

one of the fanciest and smoothest graphics engines ever (modified from the UT engine)
The engine base for UT2k3, U2, SC and Deus Ex 2? 4 games all out on PC, 2 mainly out on PC. SC made for the XBox? (I think someone talked about it being "made" for XBox, just saying the engine isn't really an XBox engine)

And, if you need to lower health on PC because the controller makes it easier, surely that tells you the PC controls are better, since they make the game easier, and normally the better something is, the easier/faster it makes a task?

Doom 3 will not change the hardware industry because it's one game, the hardware industry has made the game, not the other way round.

Good points there.
But despite many people beliefs about Deus Ex 2, it does not actually use the Unreal gfx engine. The basic engine (such as control, sound, ect;)still exist, but the graphics engine has been completly re-written to cater for Deus Ex2, as has the physics engine(now integrates the havok physics engine.)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,809
6,364
126
Originally posted by: BoomAM
Originally posted by: sandorski
The Single Player FPS is dead! I suspect that Doom3 will end up like Unreal 2, collecting dust on a lot of peoples shelves, it's a genre that has been done to death.

I can see where your coming from here, but the single player fps is far from dead. For one thing Developers realise that not everyone plays games online, and so caters for a large market of single player fps players.
Personally, i belive that there is alot of ideas for fps still to do.
Games with the same dynamics as Deus Ex will propel fps games forward and will merge the two genres of fps and rpg together.
If DNF gets released, i can see it being a game that re-invents the fps game. But the question is, have the wasted their development time, and "overdeveloped" it.

I'll somewhat agree. What I mean by "dead" is that games like Unreal/Quake/Doom have been done too many times. At one time they were great, but compared to MOHAA and Half Life they seem to be more of the same. Perhaps I'm just tired of "shoot anything that moves" game types. I certainly am waiting for DNF, it'll be nice to get some humour again. :)
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: BoomAM
Originally posted by: sandorski
The Single Player FPS is dead! I suspect that Doom3 will end up like Unreal 2, collecting dust on a lot of peoples shelves, it's a genre that has been done to death.

I can see where your coming from here, but the single player fps is far from dead. For one thing Developers realise that not everyone plays games online, and so caters for a large market of single player fps players.
Personally, i belive that there is alot of ideas for fps still to do.
Games with the same dynamics as Deus Ex will propel fps games forward and will merge the two genres of fps and rpg together.
If DNF gets released, i can see it being a game that re-invents the fps game. But the question is, have the wasted their development time, and "overdeveloped" it.

I'll somewhat agree. What I mean by "dead" is that games like Unreal/Quake/Doom have been done too many times. At one time they were great, but compared to MOHAA and Half Life they seem to be more of the same. Perhaps I'm just tired of "shoot anything that moves" game types. I certainly am waiting for DNF, it'll be nice to get some humour again. :)
HOWEVER there if a PLACE for completely MINDLESS shooter fun - pure reflex action like Serious Sam . . . I am kind of looking forward to SS, Final Edition (for $19.95, no more) and see what tweaks Croateam has made to their game's engine.

Undoubtedly Doom III will be successful - however, I think 90% of the posters here will finally feel it did NOT live up to their (unreal) expectations. ;)

 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
i thought medal of honor sucked, myself. i'm just not a fan of shooting everything that moves from the back of a jeep.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,809
6,364
126
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
i thought medal of honor sucked, myself. i'm just not a fan of shooting everything that moves from the back of a jeep.

Hehe, I disagree, but that was a funny description nonetheless. :D