Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Joel

Real Name Joel   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Psycho Suicider
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Aug 2, 2008, 18:02
Total Comments 8 (Suspect)
User ID 52241
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


News Comments > RAGE Trailer
39. Re: RAGE Trailer Jun 4, 2011, 21:36 Psycho Suicider
 
We've been electrocuting enemies in water since the lightning gun in the original Quake, so if we want to say it looks like Bioshock, well, yes, but Bioshock looked like Quake first

Zapping soaked enemies with 22 gigawatt's isn't a technological leap.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Portal 2 User Review Backlash
98. Re: Portal 2 User Review Backlash Apr 20, 2011, 16:12 Psycho Suicider
 
Now Valve knows what it's like to be id software. You do amazing things, get huge, get popular, and then the haters start to roll in. It's becoming apparent that being a "fanboy" has nothing to do with being a true fan, it has to do with liking/hating something for the sake of stroking one's own ego. They're the hipsters of the gaming industry.

Valve's mouse controls have never been quite as smooth as the competition - they've always felt "floaty" to me, so I'm not worried about that. Epic and id still take the cake on smoothness of control.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > RAGE Trailers
35. Re: RAGE Trailers Jun 17, 2010, 19:21 Psycho Suicider
 
I think there is definitely an id software bias. You can't find an FPS that doesn't have a B movie plot, including Half-Life. Doom 3's story was just as engaging, it was just a different story. You're not running around the world with a hot chick and a big robot, you're on a space station alone. It's like a Die Hard movie - Bruce Willis vs the world, right?

Also, DOOM 3 did not rip off the g-man. Give me a break. There wasn't a single character that sounded like, acted like, or resembled the g-man in any way.

And if you only played the game for 2 hours, you didn't play it long enough to get to the one point where a monster came out of a closet. That is, unless everything to you is a closet... teleporters are closets, ceiling tiles are closets, floor boards are closets, big rooms are closets, dusty Mars terrain = closet, monorail = closet...

I am perfectly fine with people not liking the game. Super cool, whatever. But don't come up with reasons for disliking it that are the same reasons you like every other game you play. Bioshock had a thousand closets, HL2 had a machine gun with a grenade launcher - zomg how original... but fun, right? It's all about application, as all these games have gimmicks that they depend on. HL2 especially is NOTORIOUS for beating a dead horse... the whole section where you drive the car from building to building finding the next switch that opens the next gate or lets down the next bridge. Can you say "find the red key"? But it was applied well, and that made it fun.

If you don't like id software's application of gaming mechanics, that's fine. But it's ok for you to just be quiet and leave those games to those who actually enjoy them. We're not talking Daikatana here, we're talking DOOM 3, which got an 87 on Metacritic. So stop trolling... it's ok for us to like it. The world won't melt because we do...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On id's Cancelled Game
88. Re: ... Aug 8, 2008, 05:14 Psycho Suicider
 
We're not arguing the logical ideas behind religions. I only know logical ideas behind one religion, but it's rather philosophical (philosophy is a form of logic). If you want to get into that, I guess we can. But my argument is merely against evolution.

When I said religion was natural, one of the examples I gave was atheism. As in, atheism is a religion, just as much as Christianity is. People preach atheism, try to convert people to atheism, read books regarding atheism. I'm merely removing the word religion from the debate, because we're all religious, just not in the traditional sense.

Believers of intelligent design believe that time was created by a being who lives outside of time. Impossible to comprehend? Yes. But absolutely necessary for anything to exist. That's why evolution trips on a beginning and intelligent design doesn't. If everything is 100% natural and there is no creator, how did everything fall into place? It's a very natural logical question with only one possible answer: creation. Discovering a fossil record (which will never happen) doesn't solve this problem. There's already religious (non-atheist) people who believe in controlled evolution. Many theologians believe that the book of Genesis is an allegory. So theories abound all over the map. But the question about the beginning? Only one plausible answer.

As far as theories are concerned? It takes a leap of faith to believe anything. That's why atheism is a religion as much as anything else. Nothing can be concretely proven, therefore you must have faith in something to believe that something is true. Scientists have faith in evolution. Politicians have faith in global warming. Christians have faith in God. So you say faith in something that isn't provable is stupid, yet you have faith in something that is just as improvable. Not only that, but the entire question about the beginning, according to the logic of this world, proves evolution wrong. There was no big bang that was not spawned by something else. There is a beginning of time: it was created. The human intellect cannot comprehend infinity, or draw a line that goes on for eternity. There is a beginning, and an end. Always.

We are simply locked in a body with a brain that cannot comprehend these complexities.
This comment was edited on Aug 8, 05:18.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On id's Cancelled Game
85. Re: ... Aug 6, 2008, 15:25 Psycho Suicider
 
Evolution trips on some very fundamental mysteries. How did everything come to be? How does something as complex as time come into existence? Where is the beginning? Some creatures do evolve, yes. A frog from a tadpole, a butterfly from a caterpillar. You could even say that humans evolve in the womb. But there is no saying where these species came from, or how they "learned" to behave the way they do. They are, and they do. Science has no answer for these things.

We don't know what every chromosome does but we fill in the gaps as we go along, with assumptions made based upon the evidence available.

That is my point. Evolution is a guess. Science is about concrete, repeatable experiments that show results. There isn't even a fossil record to base evolution on, yet we teach it to our children like it's a duh-ralph fact. Doesn't that seem silly to you?

Religion is very natural, no matter what you believe. People manipulate and preach their own ideals in the hopes of gaining comrades, be it Christian, Islam, or Atheism. So, you say the Bible has been manipulated by people over the years, and that is certainly true for some translations (it's why some pastors read original texts in their original languages). But who's to say that science books have not been manipulated by scientists?

I was observing a debate one time between an evolutionist and a scientist who believes in intelligent design. The person on the side of intelligent design was giving real examples of evidence of design vs evolution. The only argument the evolutionist had was, "Well science doesn't even acknowledge that because we don't think it is scientific." Now, for the record, intelligent design speaks to any idea of creation, not just the traditional Genesis version. You could say we were placed here by any kind of strange superior being. But science has completely disavowed this idea. My question is, on what grounds? What has been observed and studied enough to bring about this conclusion?

What scientists need to be able to do is humble themselves enough to say, "We don't know."

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On id's Cancelled Game
82. No subject Aug 4, 2008, 18:28 Psycho Suicider
 
More like I'm the atheist trying to use science to demonstrate why you are wrong. There's no absolute proof that God doesn't exist but it's pretty damn obvious to most people.

In this case, I believe science to be your God, and atheism to be your religion.

First, lets explore your logical fallacy. It's called Appeal to Common Practice. Basically, how it works is, if more people do A than B, then A is better than B. Obviously, that does not follow, logically. Therefore, saying that most people don't believe in God therefor there is no God is not a logical statement. It's not even factual, honestly.

Now lets look at the "miracle" of evolution vs the "absurdity" of creationism. I've noticed a very interesting thing when watching animal documentaries on TV. Scientists speak about animals as if they were designed. They actually use that word: designed. How can something 100% natural and born of no matter be designed? Even scientists in their descriptions accept the idea of intelligent design because the truth is there is no other option. Evolution has so many holes and mathematical flaws it's frightening that it is taught as fact.

It's like that South Park episode where Cartman goes to the future to get a Nintendo Wii. Perfect satire around the science vs religion debate.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On id's Cancelled Game
59. Sam Fischer vs Space Marines Aug 2, 2008, 20:06 Psycho Suicider
 
I'm not sure how Sam Fischer's gadgets and spider-man-esque kung-fu capabilities are comparable to a Space Marine who is most likely at the level of say, today's average marine, and gets issues standard weaponry. And I think most marines RIGHT NOW carry an M16 assault rifle - a weapon that generally doesn't have a flashlight on it. And, for the record, how many mag-lites can be fixed to mounting brackets on a gun? If anything, have him go hunt through a drawer for duct tape. But enough of this argument - they made a design decision, and the least you can do is be open-minded enough to understand the idea behind the decision instead of just saying that they are stupid for making it.

You're arguing about the bow on the package here. Half-Life 2 was as linear as DOOM 3, it just looked like it wasn't. But even in the "wide open driving levels," what you did was follow a very explicit road along the ocean. It was one path. If you want to talk about a game that gives you freedom of motion, look at FarCry. But Half-Life 2 is just as heavily scripted and just as linear as DOOM 3, the hallway just looks bigger.

What does it matter how many imps were behind doors? It's like asking how many creepy little girls crawl around in games like Silent Hill. The idea behind it is to keep the tension up - make it so you don't want to open a door. Again, if it's not for you, that's fine, but you can't say it's crap, because it's a really good game. Have you seen me say Half-Life 2 was crap? No.

Now lets talk about Half-Life 2's script driven story. It is impressive, I agree. But some things belong more in a Disney cartoon, like the way Dog behaves. It's a little on the corny side. Or how the scientist keeps a pet head crap, and the head crap runs a muck and breaks the machine. It's something that would happen in a kids cartoon. Don't get me wrong, the game is great, but it definitely has its corny moments.

As far as experiencing the story in Half-Life 2 vs the PDA in DOOM 3, it's a different story scenario. DOOM 3 is an all-alone setting, which means you, as a person by yourself, need to slowly discover on your own what's been happening. Half-Life 2 is about a covert war, and has people to interact with. Again, you're complaining about the style of the bow on the present here.

I believe gamma correction in DOOM was considered a cheat.

How does id tech 4 have anything to do with the artwork of the game? I'm talking about quality of texture, model design, and the like. They don't half-ass it when they make this stuff. It's all very high quality.

What it comes down to is this: the people here who liked DOOM 3 got my post very well, and the people who don't say that I'm stupid. Why don't you just say you didn't like DOOM 3 very much? Or you liked Half-Life 2 better? Why not just simplify your stance to something less, well, obnoxious?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On id's Cancelled Game
40. The truth of DOOM and DOOM 3 Aug 2, 2008, 14:33 Psycho Suicider
 
I don't think anyone here is looking at these issues the right way, so I'm going to take the time to point them out to you.

Serious Sam and Painkiller did not capture the original DOOM gameplay. Not even close. Those games were about lots of ammo, contrived weapons, and giant rooms with 50 million monsters. DOOM was not a giant room 50 million monster game. It had corridors, traps, secrets, situations where you had very little ammo. Did it have points with lots of monsters? Yes. But it was more tactical than those other two games. You could get the monsters to fight each other, you could run to other areas a lot of the time (think Suburbs in DOOM 2). The interesting thing about the original DOOM is that you could get a fight started with all the monsters, run away to get the red key, and come back to them all being dead. You guys have no idea what the original DOOM gameplay consisted of. Your comparisons are weak. Think about maps like Barrels O' Fun - possibly the hardest map in DOOM 2, and not a lot of monsters in it (compared to other maps). Also not a lot of health or ammo. DOOM was a very carefully designed game. Serious Sam and Painkiller are arcade shooters.

Now, lets look at DOOM 3 and the idea of creating an engine to sell it. What is easier - make a single player game? Or make a simple deathmatch game like the Unreal Tournament series? If id software wanted to simply sell licenses of the DOOM 3 engine, they would have wrapped a very simple game around it. But they obviously put a lot of work into it.

As far as the graphics go, I think most people would agree that id's graphics and art is some of the best in the business.

Onto gimmicks: what is a gimmick in a game? Is it HL2's piles of crates that you feel compelled to break just to see if there are goodies inside? Is it DOOM 3's interactive computer screens or PDA? Is it Duke Nukem's miriad of over-the-top weaponry? The truth is that these are important parts of the game. You call them gimmicks, but the designer sees them as a way to immerse you in the make believe world they're trying to create.

SO here is DOOM 3's "world." You're a marine stationed at a base on Mars - a planet that isn't survivable by human standards. Someone opens a gateway to hell, and monsters are let loose on the base. As one of the few surviving people, your job is to save the world before the hellspawn get to earth. Pretty simple story idea.

Now lets look at Half-Life 2. You wake up from some form of dream-sleep, get introduced to freedom fighters who are up against an oppressive government, and fight with them to save the people from the evil combine.

It's all B-movie stuff. It's video game plots.

So what makes DOOM 3 more interesting than that? There's mystery involved, which is revealed through extremely well acted sound clips you can listen to in your PDA. They had a story involving characters that did stuff throughout to make you intrigued. Interactive computer screens made the world seem more alive and immersive. They built tension, atmosphere, and used the tools they had to make the game as scary as possible.

The flashlight - they want to scare you, so they don't have a flashlight mount on their guns - and I hate to break it to you, but if every gun in the game had a flashlight mounted on it, that would be contrived and hokey. id was going for a survival feel, which means scrape by as best as you can with the tools you have. The flashlight certainly wasn't a gimmick created to show off the lighting engine - it's the same effect weather it's on all the time or not. They showed off the lighting engine in 50 billion ways that did not involve the flashlight at all. What the flashlight did was make the game scarier to play because you couldn't have your weapon at the ready all the time. The flashlight makes certain situations in the game tactical.

What about the sound effects of the game? The scary noises? Forget the monsters in the closet. Lets look at the 10 minute segments of gameplay where there were no monsters at all. If you took the time to read the emails, listen to the sound clips, and let yourself get immersed in a story that was just as deep as Half-Life 2's, you would've found that DOOM 3 accomplishes what it set out to do very well, which is make you nervous every time you walk around a corner, crawl through an air duct, open a closet (most of them didn't have monsters, by the way), or move at all.

All you naysayers - the sad state of Bluesnews posters - don't even know what the game is about. You don't even know what the original DOOM was about. Your descriptions only show that it completely escapes you. Now, you can say, "gee, that game just wasn't for me." But your closed-minded spit bubbles that you call posts are, honestly, trash.

Go ahead, hate the game. But don't make it into something it wasn't. Don't lie about it. Don't contrive ideas for how stupid it was. It's just silly.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo