im durnk off vodka nad i decided to see whats up hree its looks fun but i cant stay sorry i have left gaming but annyway havea godo time cya

lol... inequality

And no, I doubt it has the largest posts of all time. The posts in 2000 do not seem to be archived. I remember having a strenuous debate between me and Shingen over a little misunderstanding. That thread had over 400 posts and was not listed here.

The thread was about the Columbine shooting.

"He's talking about Baldur's Gate 2, not Half Life."

I understand that. I never said I cheated through BG2. I used that game as an example of a game that is certainly long.

"You really are a moron, aren't you? Just running through the game, no side quests or nuffin', you could probably finish BG2 in 10 hours. I bet you're so determined not to have fun you rent movies to fast-forward through them..."

teh mane mahn's moronic rambling... ok, whatever. Ad Hom attacks show me that you have nothing more to say in your position.

The fact that there are no side quests and only linear design in HL tells me you haven't played it.

"Garbage. It means a world of diference. If you're invincible then there's no fear driving your actions, no caution as you approach new situations/environments. Godmode is the #1 way to ruin a gaming experience."

What does the chance of dying have to do with a long game? That's simple, it doesn't. There's not enough material to wade through in the non-monster version to make an adventure out of it so they'll make you die often (which is why it took so long for a lot of you).

Really, that must mean all games must be super-hard so they can be so long. If you want an example, play Morrowind or Baldur's Gate 2. Those games have a lot of material to explore, much more than HL.

Oh and the story bit. Really, it's the beginning sentence to a book. Where is the story? Ahh, it's in HL2! You fooled me! LOL

"Valve has demonstrated that they know pretty well what the gaming industry needs at the time to give it a nice solid kick."

Bullshit. Valve knows what to sell, not what's best for gamers at this point.

"Remember that Half Life is still one of the longest games ever made"

Really? I beat it in a day. I had godmode, but that doesn't mean anything. If there isn't a lot of material then it isn't long.

I'm wondering what story there is to Half-Life except for what had been ripped directly from Doom: a portal has been opened and monsters have flooded the surroundings. Time for you to survive!

I remember reading a while ago on these boards that people were defending Valve for keeping Half-Life 2 under wraps. It sounds like you've played the game.

Bold statements.

Are the issues you mentioned available at this time?

"id "deserves" nothing from me."

Bleh. Except for defining a genre, building a community and building the engines which support it... whatever.

Where are those articles you are asking me to read? I can't find them anywhere.


This comment was edited on May 5, 00:10.

“Ion Storm and Valve.”

With what? Valve did nothing that was not done before and did not do it correctly. It cannot even be identified correctly with what components it does and does not have. I’m not sure about Ion Storm. You’ll have to elaborate on that.

As far as help goes, id certainly deserves more credit than you or others give them.

“Actually, it is a large problem. Poor AI is common in FPS's, because designers commonly underestimate its importance. They don't consider that in a single player FPS, AI is needed 100% of the characters the player interacts with.”

Poor AI is not the problem as is a lack of material to have to AI to interact with. There is no need to have complex AI if the environment and the abilities of the AI is severely limited (in which there always have been).

“That's a very poor excuse. We DO have better games on the way, even before D3 comes out (HL2 and DX2) which will have much better AI than even id expects in D3.”

We’re not so sure of those games except what info has been released. We cannot judge any game until it is released. When I see bigger and better worlds to interact with then I will change my statement.

“Read about HL2 and DX2.”

We will also read about other AI which has not even been proven to the public yet.

“Even in horror, a stupid monster isn't scary.”

I wonder, then, how Doom was ever scary? It’s not the fact that you don’t know if they’ll act intelligently or break but the actual surprise from even unintelligent AI.

“No, I'm saying that it has a superior design.”

This is what you had stated:

"Once you go DX, you never go back."

That’s pretty self-explanatory to me unless there is some subliminal message.

“It quite simply trumps Doom 3 on every level except possibly in that it isn't a horror game.”

Or so you’ve read. There were no gameplay demos or interactive environments to explore but since I’ve seen the Doom 3/Quake 4 technology first-hand I do have the right to say that it honestly looks quite impressive.

“We're not journalists, we're nerds arguing on a message board.”

That cannot be your excuse for a lack of responsibility. Everyone, no matter who’s debating, must have a certain amount of responsibility towards what is objective or subjective.

“Wrong, it is currently possible, and Valve has done it. We'll see videos of it when E3 rolls around. Read the article in CGW for the gist of things.”

I’ll check the article out if I can. I’m also anxiously awaiting the E3 video as well. However, Valve has yet to show that it has been done. So for now we’ll leave speculation out of this discourse. That route goes in circles.

“It was seen at E3 last year.”

That was a video of an alpha build. It remains to be seen.

“What Valve and Ion Storm are doing will set a new standard.”

As so will unnamed team in an unspecified amount of time. Can you be any more uncertain?

It is correct for me to state that we are all uncertain of the outcomes of Doom 3, Deus Ex 2 and Half-Life 2. The videos show nothing.

Not at all. All Serious Sam did was compy the general concept of Doom. Everything else is different. And no, that is not the reason why it is not nearly as good as Doom.

I thought me and a few others had a good discussion going. I don't see where the rants start and rationality ends.

Current AI is good. It serves its purpose well. When you say problems there are not many to mention. Those that are mentioned can be fixed.

When you want a challenge give the AI the same abilities as the player then we'll see who's yapping.

You forgot a few...

Midnight:

“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.

Culture Shock:

“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.

Consistency argument:

"Whether people are still playing modded versions of doom as nothing to do with the quoted statement. Use your head and you could figure out the meaning point my post."

What you mean is exactly what nin has put into the summation of your quote.

"Doom had great gameplay because that was the only game in its field back then, so there was nothing to compare it to. Theres no way you can retain that by todays standards that type of shit is great gameplay."

This quote from post 141 will be used in comparison to your other statements to determine whether or not your beliefs remained consistent.

"If it wasn't for it being the first big fps It would have been nothing."

This statement is from post 135. It should be obvious as to what it reads. You seem to stumble on the historicity of your posts.

"It was fine at the time, but that shit won't satisfy todays gamer."

Here is more evidence that your view of older games including Doom will not compare to today's games.

"Even in the doom days, doom itself was nothing when the games like duke3d, even blood, came out and finally had believable environments."

While the premise of your argument is not clear, it remains the same as the others: Doom is worse than newer games.

I do not understand what you mean, then, when you write how nin did understand your statement.

Original argument:

“doom isn't dick now compared to modern games. I'm glad you still think its fun, and as nin said there are still those that still hold onto it through modded versions and whatnot, but that's the same for most once popular games, that doesn't mean if you packaged doom1 up with doom 3 graphics its going to be a success. “

I do understand your statement. However, this is universal for all games.

“Yea, just like I couldn't list all of the games that have dwarfed it since then in SP innovation.”

Now play nice children.

“My point got lost in this mess, and that is that ID isnt going to have as easy of a time making an overall successful game that they did with doom1.”

While I was not present during the entire debate, I felt as though the premise of your argument has changed. My stance, reading throughout my posts, is in response to your posts. Those posts stated things like:

- Newer games are better than older games
- Doom is not a better game because it is either old or is not a good game by my standards
- People do not know better when it comes to forming opinions

If I’ve left anything out then feel free to chasten me at your earliest convenience.

"That's why it's important to do a before and after comparison. In any case, history is a good judge of the future, and makes accuracy of historical analysis relevant to future prediction. One also has to consider the difference between a "professional" and "non-professional" observer. While interesting, your point does not, and cannot, override historical accuracy."

Historic accuracy does not prove your argument true. His statements are correct nonetheless, and a psychologist does not neet to state that for him. It is true that prejudices will ruin the view someone will have of the future. You should look at optimistic and pessimistic people for an exanple.

"A little background awareness would more than adequately prove that Id have done no more than commoditise existing technologies."

In what respect? Is this their overall goal or are you describing the advancement of their technologies?

"With other game developers matching Id's graphical fidelity, in the near future, I suspect they're going to find themselves king of a very small hill. Now graphics is largely a done deal, other game developers with a wider and deeper intellectual and creative base might come to the fore. Id have no place in that world."

Who is to reserve that statement other than the individual? What I find is an opposing view of their games. While it is true that an intellectually-thoughtout and story-driven game may control the masses you must not also forget the games on the other side of the spectrum. It is easily understood that some of the most simple games can have the largest impact. I do not find complexity to be a future ingredient in success. This would only be so if there were no new ideas to conceive.

"Doom had great gameplay because that was the only game in its field back then, so there was nothing to compare it to."

While this is at times a reasonable argument to use, in Doom's case it is different because the gameplay still surpasses games of today.

"Theres no way you can retain that by todays standards that type of shit is great gameplay. For every game/engine ID releases, theres a number of other developers have dwarfed them in gameplay using ID's engine technology."

You should try to stop imposing opinions on others. It will not win you any argument and will have you sound like an immature toddler. You should realise that people will like things different than you do.

"Thats fine though, its nice that theres a developer pushing the tech envelope as far as visuals is going. From a purely gameplay standpoint, their games just aren't anywhere near the best."

I do commend you on complimenting the games from a purely gameplay standpoint.

"Back then, its its day, doom was great. The same idea released today would be a serious sam clone."

And Half-Life in 10 years would look simply ridiculous. This argument is flawed in the respect that the same can be said of every game that exists today. Every game of today could not compare to games of the next generation and beyond. So to make Doom an exception is futile.

"The majority of gamers want there to be some sort of story, not just mindless killing."

I'm not so sure of this. Take a look at Serious Sam, Half-Life, The Sims, Myst, Doom and the racing genre. The entire racing genre of games have no story. And racing games by far sell well. That, and other games which are "mindless" that sell well. By the way, could you define for me the critique which denotes a game "mindless"?

"Though mindless killing is alot of fun in smaller doses."

I'm glad you at least understand that mindless killing can be fun.

"I'm glad ID is going the the route of a story this time, and suspense, and an involved SP campaign this time, they've been doing strictly MP type stuff for a long time, and their past SP games haven't been all that great."

I do agree. While the SP was good it was in no comparison to MP.

"Call it opinion or whatever, but it looks to me like your love of ID is getting in the way of your judgement of good gameplay."

This is a real headache. Why is your opinion better than mine? My love for id came from the games that they created not because they existed. Get your head out of your ass. This statement makes no sense and hurts your reputation in this debate.

"What was great then isn't dick now. Just as you said, incredible gameplay because it was new, and different."

Not entirely. I had read my previous posts and I had never said such a thing to lable all of id's success. What I did say was only in regard to Doom. And that was simply because you had stated that it was not of gameplay but because of it being new. Now that you admit to the game being great what shall you do now?

"Nowadays fps's practically grow from trees, and ID has their work cut out for them to try and impress todays gamer with anything other than visuals."

id has never impressed solely from visuals. What changes your mind? Unless this is yet enother one of your opinions you should note that many of id's games have high recognition in gameplay. Just people their games have good graphics does not mean that was the intention of the product nor was it the only result.

"Visuals only carry a game so far, look at the Unreal 2 failure."

An almost flawless example. I didn't like the game either. I wasn't able to play it because it didn't work. My opinion remains the same with Unreal as well.

"Gameplay is king, regardless of whether the visuals initially sell the game or not. I'm not trashing doom3, I have high hope for it.."

You do, however, state numerous times that you think the game will be bad.

"but there is valid concern among some people that ID will be able to pull off an engaging sp campaign in todays fps world."

I agree somewhat with what you say. The only game I didn't like from id so far was Quake 3. But things might change and they might not. However, from the Quake 3 screenshots the game didn't look so good. From the Doom 3 shots a different story is told.

So when will you decide to stop judging games on alpha builds and instead on finished products?

"When will id stop pretending to be a game company? It's 'games' are merely tech-demos. The real games are made by others."

I do hope you intend that to simply be an opinion, because my opininon is exactly the opposite. They've made some of the greatest games of our time and that will never change. From Commander Keen to Quake 2 there have been some of the most innovative changes in the modding community. This is simply the result of a spurt of human ingenuity. It wouldn't have advanced this far without id Software.

"If it wasn't for it being the first big fps It would have been nothing."

It's fame was not from the fact that it was "the first big fps," but rather from its incredible gameplay. It was alien to everyone at the time, how fun games could be (as this certainly impacted many people).

"The maps were basically random geometry, devoid of any resemblance of any real place, or even some fantasy place. They simply made no sense."

I don't see your argument here. While the game did proclaim specifics to the game's environments that did not hinder the gameplay at all. And that is what it boils down to: the gameplay.

"It was fine at the time, but that shit won't satisfy todays gamer."

Today's gamer is drastically different. I find today's gamer to be more lax than the past's gamer. Parhaps that's because people are quite desperate for quality material.

"Doom 2 and all the quakes were same shit. All of them were like the diablos of the fps genre, only meant to run around and kill shit."

That's all fine by me. As long as the game is fun it has served its ultimate purpose.

"None of them told a story further than what was written on the box about the space marine going to hell."

Were you actually expercting an epic adventure of story telling and decision making with immense responsibility? Don't make me laugh... no game has yet to satisfy my hunger for a good story in even the present day. Those stories are found in books and movies, bud.

"Alot of people make the assumptions that d3 will be similar, weak, if any, story, but HOPEFULLY will still be fun."

I hope it will be a fun game too. id's reputation certain weighs in favor of the assumption that it will be a fun game.

"Even in the doom days, doom itself was nothing when the games like duke3d, even blood, came out and finally had believable environments."

I'm not sure how you judge what others find in the significance of certain games, but Doom still has quite a community after all this time, after all those years.

"Just because doom started it all, doesn't mean it has been the best at it."

I'm not sure where you have heard this argument (and chances are, you've made it up) but I've never heard anyone use that logic to justify Doom's great gameplay.

"Looking past the graphics achievements they have made throughout their engines, ID Software has produced pretty weak games."

There are several factors you have forgotten to include when you decided to make such a statement. It certainly could not have failed due to sales nor influence. Perhaps it is due to your personal opinion?


This comment was edited on May 3, 17:38.