“As I said, id made the game engines and tools which enabled others to create some truly imaginitive games. A powerful engine does not equate to a good game, it needs something extra for that. In my opinion Doom and Quake are hailed because they allowed unprecedented freedom of movement in a 3D environment and that was a major innovation. But the sequels were just more of the same with better graphics.”
There is nothing wrong with improving on a previous game, which is exactly what Quake 2 did. As for Doom 2, I do agree with you. However, it is still a fun game and worthy of sale.
As far as innovation goes, you are correct in that respect. However, I would not let the engine licensing get in the way of your judgment of id’s games. I do think that a lot of people that are against id’s games will use that excuse. Don’t equate this statement to be directed at you, though, I’m just reminding you (which you probably already know) that people with user irrelevant information to further their argument.
“And gameplay is, of course, a very subjective thing. I like to use my brains as I play and Doom/Quake don't let me do that - it's a reflex action game which gives me the same experience as a shooting gallery.”
I with I could play RTS’s and RPG’s, but they require too much thought (and strangely enough, I am considered more of a thoughtful individual). It’s possible that it also includes a lack of patience. I like to get into the game and start playing immediately.
“Yes, i think the lack of quality material has lowered the expectations of the masses. It is the same problem (IMO) as what's going on in Hollywood - when people make it big with a winning formula they keep on repeating it to ensure financial success.”
Oh certainly. My father used to work as a union member, as a projectionist for a couple of decades, and had told me what they say of Hollywood, “They’ll pick your mind before they pick your pocket.” I think this also includes The Matrix and Blade 2. But it’s not just the movie industry either. Look at modern music for example. The same could probably be said for books too.
They seem to be attempting to appeal to the masses (as is apparent with the Matrix Blade 2 movies). While this may work for the masses, at the same time people don’t even know they’re watching. I fell they are being cheated because this generation certainly lacks ingenuity.
“We need huge improvements in AI, interactive story-telling and autonomous-world building. id seems to be doing little to address these matters.”
I do agree with you here. But then who is helping? AI depends on the game, interactive storytelling depends on the writer, and autonomous world building could be the result of Carmack’s ingenuity. It all depends on different variables. When it comes to FPS’s, AI is certainly not the problem. It is gameplay. AI is as good as it needs to be at the moment. When we build bigger and better worlds we will require bigger and better AI mechanics.
Storytelling is certainly not the fault of anyone other than the storyteller, and that won’t be any programmers, artists, musicians, or map designers at the moment. We need material to build on, and so it’s back to a lack of material.
“But I don't think we should give up on games.”
I never said I would give up on games, but certainly what ever I had tried certainly had either little to no story or is a poor story.
“Hence my belief that D3's main contribution to the industry will be it's engine, as a device allowing others to experiment with story telling, rather than it's gameplay. “
I agree only to a certain extent. I’m not sure if id ever stated that this game will have any innovative material other than its engine and its horror. I also agree that id does the job of creating engines, and that in the future if they do nothing to get them out of this hole they will end up dying (as I cannot see what they’re doing at the present other than building their own coffin).
What I think of id is what they have done in the past. Quake 3 was their first dud, to me, and I fell that while Doom 3 may be a great game it will mainly be a technology and human ingenuity demo. With human ingenuity, I mean to say that there are things to do with this technology that no one could have thought possible. Such things as level design and lighting are examples.
As much as I am a fan of id Software I fear for their future.
“No. But, it improves the likelihood of an argument being true, and as such is a reasonable guide to the quality of an opinion.”
I don’t want any misunderstandings which will end up turning this discussion into a heated debate, so I’m going to ask: do you agree with the idea that preconceived notions (premature judgments) end up tainting the final opinion of the finished product?
“Where I have a problem with Id are the people who overstate their contribution, and the arguable misdirection of game design focus that's resulted from the direction they've historically taken. “
I am unsure as to what you are stating. I wonder whether you are addressing the issue concerning people who work for id or people who talk about id.
“Beyond a certain point intellectual and emotional interest becomes more difficult to sustain without the added depth complexity can bring. Unless games are to forever hold onto a narrow and shallow potential, they must become as pervasive and enticing as a good book.”
Without new ideas complexity will have to be relied upon. And without ingenuity taking its place in development complexity can become repetitious. While it may seem that complexity is a good thing it, too, as flaws. One such is whether complexity is well-executed or is complicating. Whether or not the game will be broken is another problem.
However, even though I have not played Deus Ex, I do hear it handles complexity well. This may be a good example to use for your argument.
Midnight, yet again:
“Whereas id's games are unpedictable and there's a chance you won't be victorious? “
LOL, yeah. You never know if you’re going to die from the boss or not. That, and Doom’s quit messages.
“Don't take this personally, but if graphics quality is the only factor influencing your suspension of disbelief, then I think you have a very shallow appreciation of games.”
Ok now this is getting personal. I’m gonna get you and your little dog too.
Seriously, there are plenty of things wrong with more realistic games as well. Just to name a few, look at Counter-Strike. There’s no intensity if you can fire a Desert Eagle that fast or take many hits in the chest while bunny jumping and shooting an MP5.
I still recognize your argument. However, the main problem is lack of material, not such nuisances as listed in your post. There is no intensity as in movies, and that’s one step the gaming industry could use.
The possible pain, suffering and sacrifice of discovery are by no means an excuse to remain ignorant.
The bartering of things sought earned are by a means which only little men can abide by and hope to achieve.