Q3 was a dud?

Yes, it was - not only was game a step back from Q2 in everything except graphics, id completely forgot how to write co-operative play code between Q2 and Q3. Yes, I know that Q3 had no need of it, but every game based on the engine failed to have co-op play too. Since I only play first person shooters co-operatively, Q3 was a dud for me, as was D3. I have yet to see if Q4 has co-op available - I am betting that the answer is "no".

There was a time when I was excited about every upcoming id title. That died long ago with my expectations of titles from id that I am interested in investing my hard-earned $50+ in...

Am I the only one who is troubled by this trend of games having differing features for different platforms? Halo is not coming home because they left out the co-op mode (I only do PC games - I have no interest in consoles, frankly), and XIII may suffer the same fate... It just strikes me as very odd that the PC is the most versatile of the platforms and has the version with the least features (except for the map editor...)

>I dont suppose anyone else has noticed the treds in pc >games?

>Quake era - good single and multiplayer, with the >begginings of true 3d acceleration

Included co-op

>Quake 2 - Large number of companys switch to single player >sweetness (Q2, unreal, sin etc)

Included co-op that was awesome. Best aspect of the game.

>Quake 3 - From the outcry of too much single player comes >the tournament style games Q3, UT etc

Ultimately, the weakness of these games - no story, no co-op, unless you count slagging 'bots... it got old quickly for many of us. The best thing about UT was Assault, which got left out of UT2K3.

>Wolfenstein - multiplayer seems to be the push, so companys >go into the team aspect, moving away from the single player >man of destruction, to solid team play that relies on >others.

but no co-op gameplay. This is the critical flaw of most modern first person shooters. No top of the line game (apart from Red Storm's titles) has had it since Half-Life. I have discovered that I just don't enjoy FPS games without co-op play, and I'm just throwing my money away if I buy a FPS game without it. Hell, I would not have given Serious Sam a look if Half-Life, Wolfenstein, Medal of Honor, Jedi Knight, etc. would have co-op play.

>Doom 3 - and now we seem to have come back round to a >strong single player experiance that push the envelope both >graphically and imaginativly (Doom 3, HL 2, Max payne 2 >etc)

but no co-op! I know that I am not the only one out here who misses this and is passing up on new titles because of this.

>The above i might have games maybe in the wrong time soon, >but generally i think i have the trends in the right order.

>So, where does UT2K4 fit into the above? if you ask me, and >this is the main reason i think it draws criticism is that >people have moved on from the competition style play, and >prefer team games or solid single player games. UT2K4 im >sure is fun to play for a few hours, but i think people >prefer to have combat evolve with the push of wither team, >to realise that youve just lost ground and that your team >has to make it up or u doomed.

The fact that it has Assault back will make me take a look at it. After all, none of the other top new titles is going to have the co-op gameplay I'm looking for. In fact, the past few LAN parties I've attended have played only one title - NeverWinter Nights... it has a great co-op mode and works if everyone does not want to spend their time shooting each other.

According to a posting by Darcy Pajak on BioWare's new forums for Hordes of the Underdark, there will be over 200 new feats...

Check out the pertinent forum posting http://nwn.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=246353&forum=77&sp=0

(2nd message).

Nessus