44 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
 |
| 44. |
Re: yuck... |
Jul 27, 2007, 22:30 |
booker |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 43. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 27, 2002, 19:40 |
Chance |
|
|
vacs, we're arguing semantics, which is generally a waste of time. I didn't say Valve didn't re-work the code and make major changes. I simply stated that they built on Id's code and, more importantly, ideas. They were obviously succesful with it. Although CS itself was a mod -- a lot of the best things come out of mod teams IMO. Revolutions are not a matter of popularity, but of innovation and importance -- and you could argue endlessly about what / who is "the most innovative" or "important". Personally my favorite Quake is Q2, although I have enjoyed them all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 42. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 27, 2002, 03:20 |
vacs |
|
|
the ignorance of some ID freaks here makes you wonder if they actually believe what they are saying...
going back listening to Eels, skipping this thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 41. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 26, 2002, 23:24 |
Black Manta |
|
|
#37, you are worried about something you shouldn't be. Why would any game company in their right mind model Doom 3 for a multiplayer game?! You speak as if this spells doom (haha) for all future games. As my subject of this thread suggests, doom 3 is a SINGLE PLAYER GAME. A game that focuses on multiplayer WILL NOT model the doom 3 engine for netcode. I mean look at D3 - it looks almost as good as CG, with the dynamic lighting and all. There is no reason for this in multiplayer right now - as a programmer, I can say that multiplayer needs to be fast so that the clients can communicate with each other efficiently. No multiplayer game will sacrifice the underlying model (client/server) so you can see shadows on a teammate. Yeah more single player games MAY have limited multiplayer, but isn't that expected? I'm glad actually because then developers can focus on single player while multiplayer developers can focus on multiplayer. Not every game uses id technology either (Unreal engine, anyone?). So calm down, this isn't the end of client/server. Doom doesn't care really about multiplayer as much this go-round, so they are leaving some stuff out. Its just that simple. Client/server will live on, unless there is a better way to play in the future. TFC/CounterStrike players will not abandon these games for Doom 3. As I said before, Doom will NOT revolutionize multiplayer this time, so stop acting like it will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 40. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 26, 2002, 21:09 |
CubeStar |
|
|
p2p
Maybe LAG is the real reason there is no client server model for multi-player! Lag may seriously get in the way of accurate timely calculations of lighting and shadows on 16 or more players with pings varying from 0 to 500+.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 39. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 26, 2002, 16:42 |
osmium |
|
|
33 - "Therefore I'm really questionning if doom3 is really that scalable?"
an engine being scalable doesn't rely on client speed right now. John carmack has mention in the past this gaming engine in one form or another will be around for years. With the current rate of gpu speed acceleration it wouldn't be hard for the engine to deal with that many characters on screen in a year or two. Afterall people questioned quake1's ability to throw more than a couple of bad guys around on screen at the same time.
35 - agreed. valve built technologies into the initial engine which enhanced network play, but these were generally available as mods, or seperate apps. If anything valve revolutionised single player with halflife
32 - yeah, point taken about the interface. Whilst it's only a relatively recent addition, or rather, enhanced in later editions.. it is possible to rescript the interface more than other games.. and as far as i'm aware the quake series of engines was the first game that really allowed you to do this. Again, it was probably a bad point i made about this being a revolution; i was trying to make the point that they did something with quake et al that other companies hadn't... and not just with graphics, or networking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 26, 2002, 08:02 |
anon@72.5 |
|
|
#32, you say iD have basically revolutionised everything "their game engines are all encompassing covering graphics, sound, interface"
I would disagree on the interface part though. Anyone remember UI enhanced? Basically writing something a little more useable than the code iD have not bothered to update in nearly a decade 
#34 Your last paragraph on current systems not being able to cope with so many players with dynamic lights and bump maps is spot on. Although that makes me think of their comment on "scaleability". Perhaps this means turning off dynamic lights and bump maps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 26, 2002, 04:32 |
BicycleRepairMan |
|
|
A lot of you are saying you want to join a server with 20 people, have some mad, adrenaline pumpig action, and get off the server when you want to. You can already do that, its called Quake/Wolfenstien, two very popular, very excellent games. Id is wisely not reinventing the wheel of multiplayer; they're multiplayer games are still going strong. I'm personally thrilled they are going back to a compelling single player. Unreal is in the exact same situation, but you aren't complaining about that. If you want the multiplayer, go play q3/wolf/TA/UT/UT2003.
You are missing the problem, Carmack &co will ONce againg set the new standard for 3d engines out there, which means future games beyond DOOM3 will either use D3 engine or engines in the same lane (ie, the unreal engine will probably follow) so the big Q is; Will client/server engines die after a few years?, i mean AFTER people have stopped playing HL/CS/UT2003/Q3/RtcW/SOF2? I see this as a matter of time, its not as if you can find alot of Q1 servers out the there is it?, even though it completely rocks in MP.
Is p2p going to be the future?
"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively , there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather." -Bill Hicks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 36. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 26, 2002, 03:47 |
vacs |
|
|
Valve built on the revolutionary efforts of Id.
Your comment would be true if the statement above was true, but it isn't. Yes, Valve did licence the quake1 engine from id, but as they said in many interviews, not much was left in Half-Life of the original source code. The netcode was completely rewritten, so I don't see here any efforts of ID!
Gabe Newell stated that only 5-10% of the original q1 code remained heavily tweaked in Half-Life... still calling the success of HL and CS an effort of Id? CS popularized and revolutionarized mp because it's so easy to buy the game and enjoy the game even for newbies who don't have a clue about PCs and MP gaming. You feel right at home when playing CS. Hardcore as also casual gamers.
Where's the revolution in Q3A? Graphics? Easy accessible for the general public it isn't; but that is the HL-CS revolution I was talking about. Selling many hundreds copies each day even after 4 years after being released!
BTW, I also play a lot Q3a and some UT, but I like q2 and q1 better. As you can see this is not about opinions but about facts which every id fan has to accept, even me 
This comment was edited on Aug 26, 03:49. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 35. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 26, 2002, 03:18 |
Chance |
|
|
Well, if "Id started it all" and "laid the basis" you might call that "revolutionary". Valve built on the revolutionary efforts of Id. That's why they licensed the engine. HL/CS popularized online mp, not revolutionized it (yes, I know it's semantics, but oh well). As far as popularity goes, HL/CS has that hands down, partly it's a matter of gameplay and, IMO, partly it's the fact that just about everbody's computer can run it. Q3 was for high end machines when it was released. As for UT outselling Q3, UT had a software mode for rendering (making it more accesible), generally lower system requirements and was definitely more user friendly and a better offline experience (good AI...). Personally I play both Q3 and UT as well as many of their mods. HL was a good sp game, but CS I could miss. To each, their own I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 34. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 26, 2002, 03:00 |
vacs |
|
|
id software has never "revolutionized multiplayer".
jup, that's unfortunately the truth. Id started it all and laid as osmium said the basis out for the multiplayer revolution but Half-Life (or for the matter Counter-Strike) revolutionized multiplayer. There is no arguing possible about this, the numbers speak for themselves.
Contrary to what most people are thinking, Q3A did not sell that well as they expected (UT sold a lot more). Even though Q3A did make a lot of money, many Q3A MOD makers are just anxious about the fact they are not programming for the majority of the online players.
Q3A is for the hardcore gamer but Counter-Strike is for everyone. You never expected that a person who had no idea about multiplayer would go to a store an buy an mp game, just to find out how online playing works. Well this did happen with CS many thousand times; something you could never say about Q3A or any other MP game out on the market. Therefore CS revolutionized online gaming in a way noone ever though it would be possible. People were buying it because friends told them it was that amazing to play online and not because the name "valve software" was written on the cover!
Speaking of netcode, I know only one game which enables player to play smmoth with an analog 56k modem and this is CS. Not any ID game (except maybe the original doom) managed to achieve this, including quakeworld.
Doom3 may be scalable, but how does a 32 or 64 player peer-to-peer network game cope with all that traffic?
You're only speaking about network issues. I personally would doubt that any PC below 3 Ghz PC without a R300 could compute the lighting and shadows of 12-16 players fighting themselves in the same room. Not speaking about 32 or 64 players... Therefore I'm really questionning if doom3 is really that scalable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 33. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 25, 2002, 23:10 |
Black Manta |
|
|
32 is on the ball.
That's pretty much what I meant when I said revolutionize multiplayer. I knew someone would say "but! but! id hasn't done jack to revolutionize multiplayer!!" Doom introduced deathmatch, Quake had first client server, and the first real mods came from these two games. Quake II was more single player, but SO many people played Q2 for its network code and built in varients. Then Q3 came out, which we all know really boosted the online community (whether you liked the q3 gameplay, thats another issue). Now I'm not saying that id has single handedly is responsible for what multiplayer first person shooters are today (TFC, Counterstrike and UT come to mind), but id certainly has revoultionized it on more than one occasion. Doom III will not be one of those times; they are revolutionizing much more - the entire gaming atmosphere and 3D world.
So many people are so quick to jump on id's back about this or that. They really are the true professionals and industry leaders. This "controversy" is nothing new, it comes with the job of being the trend setter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 32. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 25, 2002, 20:20 |
osmium |
|
|
31. id software has never "revolutionized multiplayer".
i'd disagree. their game engines are all encompassing covering graphics, sound, interface, and networking (client server). Without that basis for a game you have no game, and without the great work the boys at id have put in to their networking code online gaming would not be the same as it is today. They have helped revolutionise online play as much if not more than they have graphics. 3d games were always going to happen, not necessarily online.
i don't remember many multi-player games before doom that used more than one computer other than link up games on systems like GB, AtariST, Amiga, etc etc. But doom used a peer to peer networking model in much the same way doom3 will, and i can only assume the guys at id are hankering after those 'good ol days' when things were much simpler.
I vaguely remember reading in some quake1 documentation, plans, or hype from the guys at id how everything was changed for quake, and it used something unheard of in gaming; a client server model, and it was great. In fact it was so great the single player game used it too.Oh, and the benefits of allowing people to hop in and out of games, and tcp/ip games online with quakeworld... wow this new network model was great! Wasn't it? Obviously not.
Peer-to-Peer has some advantages, in that it cuts out the middle man gsp guys that make money out of selling server usage. But that could be its downfall aswell. Doom3 may be scalable, but how does a 32 or 64 player peer-to-peer network game cope with all that traffic? even for broadband users it's gonna create some serious bandwidth, certainly a lot more than 10,000 rate i use in game anyway.
However, these guys make the games, and we play them. So far they've made some pretty astounding choices and directions based on their beliefs of where online and offline gaming is going. I find it hard to believe they haven't had some discussion on this, and thrashed out the advantages and disadvantages. They'll come good.
This comment was edited on Aug 25, 20:24. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 31. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 25, 2002, 19:18 |
DrEvil |
|
|
id software has never "revolutionized multiplayer". they have made awesome engines, and beautiful graphics, which others use to provide us with good game content and gameplay. they plan to build doom 3 so that there arent swarms of enemies like the original doom, and instead focus on the intelligence of the enemies to do unpredictable and "smarter" things. lets hope they put more effort into the AI than they did for q3. im anxious for the game, and I like idsoftwares engines, but their gameplay has never been top of the list. and they need to give us co-op mode back dammit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 30. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 25, 2002, 18:35 |
Black Manta |
|
|
Notice he said obsessively. He didn't say you would finish it it two days if you played it like you do most games (unless you play most games obsessively). Also, Half Life took me 3 days, Jedi Knight II 2 days, GTA III 4 days.... And all of these games are among the best single player games, most would agree. And he said doom 3 would be longer than most new games that have been coming out. I really really doubt that you will finish the game in 2 days unless you play it all day both days. Plus, id has a reputation for serving up great replay value. Heck I watch the legacy and ingame footage vidoes over and over and cna't get enough!
Also, EVERY id game is controversial with hardcore gamers. I remember with Q2 it was system requirements. Q3 it was still requirements and multiplayer only. People thought it was going to suck, but (as MOST would agree) it didn't suck, it did very well. id is among the most professional game developers, have faith in them; they are not out to make gamers mad. They've been right about every prediction and game they've had out thus far and continue to raise the bar for gaming. Look how long the Q3 engine has lasted and new games are STILL using it! And look what those games have done to it. I am 100% positive that client/server with the Doom style graphics will be done. And about Quake 4 and other games using limitations - don't blame id; they are making this engine for THEIR game. If an engine does not match a designer's design they won't use it. So if Quake IV is supposed to have this marvelous multiplayer design they won't scrap it for better graphics. My prediction is that Quake IV will be like DOOM, a new single player experience, which is fine by me.
Oh, and I think its perfectly acceptable for id to say go play another game if you want better multiplayer. Are you really expecting them to revolutionize multiplayer AGAIN with this game (on top of promising this amazing single player)? I dont think so. Thats why they made Quake 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 29. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 25, 2002, 15:35 |
LFace |
|
|
So being primarily a single player game, doesnt it make sense to at least make the game length more than 2 days to complete ? It would piss me off something chronic to splash out 35 quid for a game which has the life span of a single weekend.
As I said, its a tech demo that theyre sticking a price tag on purely because its offering flashy visuals. Give me gameplay over visuals anyday. Thats what games are for - if you want to look at something pretty, buy a picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28. |
Re: Its a single player game |
Aug 25, 2002, 13:58 |
DrEvil |
|
|
I agree what you say about doom 3 # 27 but carmack even said in one of his posts that the same limitations is going to apply to quake 4. Does that mean they are turning quake 4 into a single player game too, of which you cant join games in progress? I doubt they would change the focus of a title (Quake) to a single player game after the multiplayer following it has developed. Can someone explain the benefit of peer to peer multiplayer over client server, cuz I can't think of anything. I would at least like to know what the benefit is that is important enough to pursue and leave behind the ability to join servers at will. Telling someone to go play another game is a pretty lame response. "If you dont like it go play another game" Thats not the answer. This is a game with multiplayer support and from what it sounds its almost not going to be worth it. Whats the benefit of starting all players at once, especially when theres no plans for Co-op. I understand the focus on single player but that doesnt mean they should cripple the multiplayer they are putting in anyway, and the concern extends to quake 4 since carmack himself said in a post that these design elements "flaws?" would extend to it as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 27. |
Its a single player game |
Aug 25, 2002, 12:50 |
Black Manta |
|
|
Here is what id is saying. DOOM III is a primarily single player game; its not made for multiplayer. I mean they haven't even begun multiplayer yet! I think what they are saying is that their last 3 games were Quake III, Quake III TA, and Wolfenstien, which are all incredible online games. Then there is UT2003 coming out. Basically we are witnessing what I've predicted would happen - games are beginning to get way too complex to do a compelling single player while having an inovative multiplayer. As a result many games now are going one direction not both (even wolfenstien had two different companies working on the two parts). They've said all along that Doom III is a single player game, so I do not know why this stripped down multiplayer issue is suprising to you. People are already liscencing the Doom III engine, so its only a matter of time before you get your online treat. I just don't see why you are all complaining when they've said all along the game's focus is 99% single player. Multiplayer is just an add-on.
A lot of you are saying you want to join a server with 20 people, have some mad, adrenaline pumpig action, and get off the server when you want to. You can already do that, its called Quake/Wolfenstien, two very popular, very excellent games. Id is wisely not reinventing the wheel of multiplayer; they're multiplayer games are still going strong. I'm personally thrilled they are going back to a compelling single player. Unreal is in the exact same situation, but you aren't complaining about that. If you want the multiplayer, go play q3/wolf/TA/UT/UT2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 26. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 25, 2002, 12:16 |
PlayfulPuppy |
|
|
You're probably correct, but it's going to sell like hotcakes no matter what the hell they put out... the online talkative community (IE: "The people who bitch") are a tiny slice of the sales pie.
There are still millions of people out there that will buy it simply because it is DOOM.
Personally, I'm going to get it for the artistic value... I love the HR-Giger flare they've given it, and the bumpmapping increase the graphics fidelity fuckloads.
Yeah, you can tell I'm one of the people that actually enjoyed Alice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 25. |
No subject |
Aug 25, 2002, 11:56 |
LFace |
|
|
Now I'll probably get flamed for this, but I couldnt give a monkeys so im gonna write it anyway. This is all speculation too btw..
Doom 3 is going to be one shite game with superb visuals. Its a tech demo, even more so than Quake 3 was. Its to show what the engine can do hence the poor single player (2 days to complete = shite) and possibly basic tagged on multiplayer. If this isnt a bargain priced game then id have got their beer goggles on and arent thinking straight.
Why would anyone pay full price for a very short single player game, which has pretty bog standard poor multiplayer aspects. Face facts, if quake 3 didnt have the online serial code (a la half-life wonID) it wouldnt have sold anywhere near as many as it has done, so I reckon that doom 3 will not do too well at the shops because there is probably no reason to buy it.
I'll get off ye olde soap box now and let the flames come in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
44 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
