|
|
 |
| [Oct 18, 2005, 2:30 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Activision, id, and Raven announce that Quake 4 is now available in the U.S.:
THE WAR BEGINS QUAKE 4 PC DEPLOYED TO STORES NATIONWIDE
Santa Monica, CA – October 18, 2005 – The Global Defense Force has been given
the green light to invade the Strogg home planet as id Software™ and Activision,
Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI) announced today that QUAKE 4™ for the PC has shipped. The
long-awaited sequel to QUAKE II®, QUAKE 4 enlists gamers in the role of Matthew
Kane, a member of the legendary Rhino Squad, to penetrate deep into the heart of
the Strogg war machine and engage in a series of heroic missions to destroy the
barbaric alien race. QUAKE 4 for the PC is available at retail outlets
nationwide for a suggested retail price of $49.99. Additionally, fans can
purchase the QUAKE 4 Special DVD Edition for a suggested retail price of $59.99,
which includes QUAKE II, the QUAKE II expansion packs, and exclusive
behind-the-scenes content. Both versions carry an “M” (Mature) rating by the
ESRB.
“Fans can now buy QUAKE 4 and jump right into the epic battle between mankind
and the Strogg,” said Todd Hollenshead, CEO, id Software. “The single-player
campaign has the excitement and feel of a blockbuster action movie, complimented
by an addicting multiplayer component featuring all the speed and excitement of
QUAKE III Arena®.”
Developed by Raven Software and executive produced by id Software, QUAKE 4
begins only moments after the events of QUAKE II, with the Earth’s fleet
launching a massive offensive to the planet Stroggos. As Matthew Kane, gamers
invade the alien stronghold, fighting alone, along side other Marines, and in
mechanized walkers and hover tanks as they encounter the Strogg and their
disturbing amalgamations of man and machine. Built on id Software’s
revolutionary DOOM 3® technology, QUAKE 4 also features fast-paced multiplayer
competition modeled after the speed, style, and feel of QUAKE III Arena®.
For more information on QUAKE 4, please visit
www.quake4game.com.
298 Replies. 15 pages. Viewing page 7.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Older >
 |
| 178. |
Re: AWESOME!!! |
Oct 19, 2005, 16:32 |
Celestial Toad |
|
|
Dan Morris from PC Gamer responded to my email letter today and said this:
Thanks for your well-considered letter, Michael. We were expecting a good deal of controversy over this review.
-DRM
I won't have time to read this thread until tonight. I'm already wondering what Computer Gaming World and Game Informer magazine will say about Quake 4...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 177. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 19, 2005, 16:30 |
MeatForce |
|
|
If you bought the Batman DVD yesterday, you probably spent about $17 on it. That's for roughly two and a half hours. Is that not enough entertainment? Is it too short? What if it is a STELLAR 2 hours, like I thought Batman Begins was? Pro-rating this time/money ratio out(10/2.5=4---> 4*17= etc,etc.), a ten-hour game could easily be worth $50 for great entertainment, no?
The problem I always have with this sort of equation is that most of the quantities are completely un.. erm.. quantifiable. Forgetting for a moment that every one of us will answer these questions differently:
What exactly is one unit of 'entertainment'?
What is the dollar value (in USD) of one unit of entertainment?
Can one unit of entertainment gleaned from the enjoyment of an FPS video game be compared to a unit of entertainment gleaned from a different medium such as a film or a live concert?
If yes, then how? What is the relationship? Is it a 1:1 ratio, or does one need to adjust for other factors?
If no, then do we need a taxonomic system with which to organise the different varieties?
Do other participants in the entertainment have any influence over the units of entertainment in any way? (ie: are co-op games more fun? Is comedy funnier in an audience? is it more entertaining to watch a horror film alone, or with your significant other grabbing at you for support?)
I could go on and on (believe me).... just seems essentially meaningless to take the amount of time you spent being entertained, divide it by the amount of money you spent on it, and call that a figure suitable for making comparisons. Especially between two things as different as movies and video games..
(I'm also of the camp that believes that a game that holds my interest from beginning to end is usually preferable to one I need to push myself to finish)
*shrug* I can be really fucking anal about those sorts of things tho..
-----
GW: Tashen Boke [R/Me]; Rosti The Ninja [Mo/R]; Gort Grimley [W/Ne]
This comment was edited on Oct 19, 16:34. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-----
I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 176. |
Re: AWESOME!!! |
Oct 19, 2005, 16:18 |
Prez |
|
|
Creston-
No worries if you don't subscribe to the analogy, it's just the one I use. In my opinion, an awesome 10-hour game beats the snot out of a 30-hour mediocre game. And by all accounts, FEAR is awesome.
You are correct in saying that PC Games used to be much longer, but, for better or for worse, teams have been focusing their development budgets on eye candy and production values instead of length and extra levels. It's a fair trade-off I guess, but I too long for the days when a game took me full weekend of solid playing to complete.
But honestly, whenever someone says a game takes 10 hours, I find that it takes me at least 15. I guess I'm a slow player, but anyway, I get more perceived value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 175. |
Re: AWESOME!!! |
Oct 19, 2005, 15:55 |
Beamer |
|
|
tron - it was meant to imply that if Doom 3 took you 2 to 4 times the time it took the average gamer you might be a bit, well, simple.
Creston, forcefields and invisible walls are in no way the same. No way. HL2 had your path mostly sensible. I will never deny it was 100% linear, but you never had a door locked until you found the the armor in the next room over, then suddenly unlocked. Any time something like that happened they at least had the door become unlocked by a giant bug busting through, not just magic.
If this reviewer did HL2 maybe you can have the same. But the job of the reviewer is to tell you what he liked about the game, what he disliked about the game, and give it a number based on how much he enjoyed it. Isn't that what he did? You disagree with him, but all he did was tell you how much he enjoyed the game and why or why not.
-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 174. |
Re: AWESOME!!! |
Oct 19, 2005, 15:47 |
Creston |
|
|
Annoyingly linear, which they pointed out, is things like doors opening only after you accomplish an entirely unrelated goal
Half Life 2 featured quite a few of those doors, yet no review complained about them. 
Or the invisible walls in SS2
Force fields in Half Life 2?
I don't get the uproar over a review. It's an opinion, much like yours. Just because it is in print doesn't make it less the opinion of just one man
No, I don't agree. He's paid to give an objective view of what works and what doesn't work in the game. He's not paid to bash one game for doing something that his colleague praised another game for, a year ago. If he can't do that, then he has no business reviewing a game.
Yes, the game is (presumably) linear. So is every other FPS. So I fail to see why that is even mentioned in a review. You go through a level. Farcry should have gotten 30% bonus for NOT adhering to that "you're on a railroad" feeling.
I agree with CT that Half Life 2 has had forty million years of sunshine blown up its ass, when in fact, it does the same tired old shit that a lot of other shooters do as well. Railroading you, the door not opening until later gimmick etc. So if you're deducting points from Quake 4's score for that, you should really deduct points from Half Life 2 for that as well.
The fact that they didn't shows what an incredible bunch of tools they really are.
But that, ofcourse, is no surprise about PCGamer.
Creston
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 173. |
Re: Ray |
Oct 19, 2005, 15:42 |
tron |
|
|
You meant 4? If D3 actually took you 40, I'd suggest spending more time on basic skills, lead reading and writing.
very funny. yeah, it took me 40 hours. however, i spent time talking to every person, reading every PDA, finding and unlocking every cabinet, exploring everything, searching out every secret area, ect... i took my time playing, because i enjoyed it and i wanted i to last. i almost never used the "run" function.
it's also pretty funny that you say i need "basic skills, lead reading and writing". that doesn't even make any sense.
i hope it made you feel good about yourself to try and ridicule me. have a nice day!
This comment was edited on Oct 19, 15:45. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- tron -
---
"tron is big and tron is full of action... it's a hell of a ride!"
-from the Tron 2.0 box |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 172. |
Re: AWESOME!!! |
Oct 19, 2005, 15:10 |
Beamer |
|
|
There's a difference between linear (almost all games) and annoyingly linear. Annoyingly linear, which they pointed out, is things like doors opening only after you accomplish an entirely unrelated goal. Why make you backtrack like that? It feels terribly artificial. Or that Sega gamae for the 360 with great physics, yet some doorways are blocked with immobile debris that, anywhere else, you can push aside. Or the invisible walls in SS2.
I don't get the uproar over a review. It's an opinion, much like yours. Just because it is in print doesn't make it less the opinion of just one man. And just because it's negative and yours is positive doesn't make it less valid. Opinions that are negative and contrary to yours are in no way less valid than yours.
However, all opinions are less valid than mine.
-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 171. |
Re: AWESOME!!! |
Oct 19, 2005, 15:01 |
SirKnight |
|
|
CT's letter to PC Gamer is the most sensible thing I've read so far.
I really get sick of all these people saying how when a new FPS comes out that it's linear and it sucks b/c of that. What a load of s**t! Every FPS I have played so far is linear. Some did a good job at trying to hide it a little, but it was still obviously linear. If you want a game that's not linear, DON'T PLAY A FPS! Duh! Play an RPG like Elder Scrolls or something. It's called a first person SHOOTER for a reason. You go around SHOOTING things in the first person, that's how this genre is defined. Why is that so hard to understand? It's not rocket science. Once you stray from this formula, it's no longer a FPS. Are they calling Elder Scrolls: Oblivion a FPS? NO! Sure you play in the first person (or 3rd if you like) and shoot weapons (or swing swords) at enemies, but the game is much more than that. It's that much more part that takes it from the FPS genre and into the RPG genre.
And for the last time, it's QUAKE. What more do you expect than typical quake style gameplay? If someone made a quake sequel that did not use the "quake formula" then all is lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 170. |
Re: AWESOME!!! |
Oct 19, 2005, 14:45 |
Grounded |
|
|
yeah Creston, I ended up getting both today
Screw it, im in for the long haul
Was gonna get AOE 3 but decided to get two FPS games. I rarely do that but oh well, its that time of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 169. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 19, 2005, 14:37 |
Beamer |
|
|
Atmosphere was the only thing I thought Doom 3 did well. I only played 4 or 6 hours myself, but was about halfway through. I had all weapons other than the soulcube, and had them for quite some time. Every hour felt identical to the last, so I quit. My roommate lasted about as long and got about as far.
Far Cry... I thought that was about 15-18. Which, to me, is long for a FPS. I think 12 is fair.
The problem with comparing the value of movies to the value of games is price stability. A movie comes out at $15 and mostly stays at $15. A game comes out at $50 and is $40 a month later, $30 six months later, $20 eight months later. So you can get the game today for $50 or simply wait a bit and get it for considerably less.
I rarely see a reason to run out and get a game on launch for that reason. I don't have the time, anyway, so I never miss out waiting a bit.
-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 168. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 19, 2005, 14:30 |
Creston |
|
|
Not trying to bash your point of view, but this stance always surprises me. If you bought the Batman DVD yesterday, you probably spent about $17 on it. That's for roughly two and a half hours. Is that not enough entertainment? Is it too short? What if it is a STELLAR 2 hours, like I thought Batman Begins was? Pro-rating this time/money ratio out(10/2.5=4---> 4*17= etc,etc.), a ten-hour game could easily be worth $50 for great entertainment, no?
I think the biggest flaw in that analogy is that movies have always been the same length, ever since the very first one you saw. They're always somewhere between 90 and 150 minutes, a few notable exceptions not counted.
PC Games used to last you 30+ hours. In fact, if a game was shorter than 30 hours, reviews specifically mentioned that they were SHORT. Deus Ex lasted me 33 hours on my first go through.
Yes, there were exceptions (Shogo REALLY irritated me in that respect...)
We're a scant 5 years later, and games are now 10 hours long, and reviewers yap about it like we should fall to our knees and worship the glorious dev who saw fit to bestow us with an almighty TEN WHOLE HOURS of game.
I agree that games are starting to become way too expensive for what they offer. Baldur's Gate 2 was sold for 50 bucks, and it offered a completely RIDICULOUS amount of gametime. I'm talking 200+ hours. Old shooters, commonly, were 30+ hours, some 20+ hours, and a few were ridiculously short.
Remember when the first Elite Force came out, and how everyone BITCHED at it, because it was so stupidly fucking short?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2000-09-25&res=l
But now, ten hours seems to be this thing worth getting all horny and happy over.
I agree with Warhawk that 50 bucks for a ten hour game just seems ridiculous.
And yes, I know that better graphics, more complicated levels blablablabla "mean" that games become shorter, but I personally say fuck that. I don't care if that roof in the building I'm walking through has 800.000 polygons. Fuck, make that damn roof with 50 polygons, and build another damn level for me to play.
And, all the big damn publishers are already talking about how games are going to get even shorter than they are now. So what are we talking about then. Six hours? Five?
If games ever get even shorter than they are now, I'm simply no longer buying them.
I preordered Fear because I was anxious for a good shooter, and I will grudgingly accept the mere ten hours of gameplay (and the apparently samey samey level design). But I'm not putting up with it beyond this mark. Any game that offers less than ten hours of gameplay simply won't get bought by me.
Which, obviously, won't make a shit of difference anywhere, but hey.
Creston
You meant 4? If D3 actually took you 40, I'd suggest spending more time on basic skills, lead reading and writing.
I can see how it took him that long. It probably took me about thirty from start to finish. I explored pretty slowly and continuously had the shit scared out of me by some of the levels.
But if the whole atmosphere thing didn't do it for you in Doom 3, I can see how you can just run through and blast everything with the shotgun.
Even then, though, I don't see how you can possibly finish it in less than ten hours?
I thought Doom 3 offered a very good length for its money. I was pleased with Half Life 2's length, even though I would have liked to have seen it longer.
Farcry had decent length as well, would REALLY have wanted to see more levels there, but it still took me around 20 hours to finish.
This comment was edited on Oct 19, 14:33. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 167. |
Re: Ray |
Oct 19, 2005, 14:26 |
Beamer |
|
|
D3 took 40 hours for me to play through.
That's a typo, right?
You meant 4? If D3 actually took you 40, I'd suggest spending more time on basic skills, lead reading and writing.
-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 166. |
Re: Ray |
Oct 19, 2005, 14:21 |
sc4r4b |
|
|
You missed my point... You know, the part where I wrote about gameplay and atmosphere.
I knew that I should have made bullet points outlining all of the differences... but I assumed people would understand me when I said that the atmosphere and gameplay between Doom 3 and Quake 4 are different. That's my fault for assuming. 
I'm not trying to convince you that it's a good game by comparing it to CoD. I'm simply trying to convey how the gameplay and atmosphere in Quake 4 are more comparable and applicable to CoD.
Both Doom and Quake are futuristic Sci-Fi games... I think that it is understandable that they would have similar looking environments. That said, so far I think the Strogg environments in Quake4 remind me more of Quake2 than they do Doom3.
I don't play video games... I play murder simulators.
http://bf2tracker.com/bf2_userprofile.php?bf2id=43526450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 165. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 19, 2005, 14:09 |
tron |
|
|
it screams out Doom 3 to me.
but it isn't. it's not even close. and lets be honest, ray, you haven't even played the game so how can you know?
like i said earlier, this game plays like Q2 with CoD and D3 mixed in - but even so it is still its own distinct entity.
but, i had better get more than 10 hours out of it, or i'll be a bit pissed. D3 took 40 hours for me to play through. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- tron -
---
"tron is big and tron is full of action... it's a hell of a ride!"
-from the Tron 2.0 box |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 164. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 19, 2005, 13:49 |
Ray Marden |
|
|
Probably because it looks a lot like it and even a number of the reviews make comparisons between it and D3?
I look at Prey and, though I can see some familiar lighting techniques, I see a wildly different game.
I look at Quake 4 and, though slightly more colorful and some larger environments, it screams out Doom 3 to me.
Honestly, being compared to D3, even with my dislike of the game, would do more for me than comparing it to CoD, another WWII shooter.
The newest version of which is more pretty than it is smart.
I have not played the game, but I have seen numerous screenshots and read a number of previews/reviews and feel that I have a fairly substatial (negative) opinion of the game. Of course, for all my complaints or concerns, hoping I am wrong or there is much more to the game, I have asked for a demo just as much.
Which....................does not currently exist.
Not feeling a need to refer to people talking out their asses,
Ray
-----
http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMarden
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=ray_marden
http://www.livejournal.com/users/raymarden/
I love you, mom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 163. |
Re: Warhawk |
Oct 19, 2005, 13:43 |
xXBatmanXx |
|
|
Then I'd hold off on it if I were you... wait for a sale or bargin bin Quake 4 later.
Warhawk, great comments, and I agree with sc4r4b. IMO there are so many MP games that have great gameplay right now, I don't think I want to clutter it with another Q title. I would mostly be purchasing for the SP also.
Batman... Batman... Can somebody tell me what kind of a world we live in, where a man dressed up as a BAT gets all of my press? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: RL |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 162. |
Re: Warhawk |
Oct 19, 2005, 13:26 |
sc4r4b |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 161. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 19, 2005, 13:25 |
Prez |
|
|
I just don't know if I should spend a whole lot of $$$ for a game I might only get 10 hours out of....
Not trying to bash your point of view, but this stance always surprises me. If you bought the Batman DVD yesterday, you probably spent about $17 on it. That's for roughly two and a half hours. Is that not enough entertainment? Is it too short? What if it is a STELLAR 2 hours, like I thought Batman Begins was? Pro-rating this time/money ratio out(10/2.5=4---> 4*17= etc,etc.), a ten-hour game could easily be worth $50 for great entertainment, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 160. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 19, 2005, 13:19 |
Prez |
|
|
Anyone know if the PC Gamer review of Q4 was an exclusive? I would be surprised to hear that it was, seeing as how the exclusives almost always score an 'Editor's Choice' (89% or above, I think). I haven't gotten my Decmber issue yet, so I don't know.
As far as their HL2 review goes, I thought the game was amazing in every respect (except for Steam), and was deserving of a high score. But the "exclusivity" of the review didn't hurt, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 159. |
Re: No subject |
Oct 19, 2005, 13:15 |
Warhawk |
|
|
I am not sure if I will buy it for the following reasons:
1. No bots out of the box. I don't play MP online, just quickie bot matches when I have a few minutes. I still have a blast with UT2004 instant action.
2. Relatively short SP game and relatively high price. I know this was discussed a while back, but if there are no bots, I am basically paying for the SP game. If I find a good sale I might get it. So far, I haven't, and it isn't worth it for me to pick it up at $45-50.
I do want to play it, and enjoyed Doom3 and the Quake games. I just don't know if I should spend a whole lot of $$$ for a game I might only get 10 hours out of....
*** Warhawk ***
I made the armor myself. It's not magic, it's just shiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS
Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? - Ripley
|
|
|
|
|
| |
298 Replies. 15 pages. Viewing page 7.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Older >
|
|
|
Twitter 
