More DOOM 3

With QuakeCon getting underway, there are some QuakeCon Doom 3 Multiplayer Impressions on HomeLAN Fed describing the multiplayer action on tap at the show. Since some of the first comments on the story below concern physics, here is what this update has to say on the subject: "Rag doll physics was in evidence during the Doom III multiplayer demo, including objects like boxes and barrels that could be moved by weapons fire and a dead body hanging from the ceiling during one portion of the level that could also be moved by weapons fire. Some glass windows could also be smash but unlike most glass in games the window didn’t shatter all at once but rather in pieces."
View : : :
35.
 
Re: hmmm
Aug 14, 2003, 15:17
35.
Re: hmmm Aug 14, 2003, 15:17
Aug 14, 2003, 15:17
 
"Valve proved to us that Plot is king.. graphics merely enhance this"
uh... nooo they didn't prove graphics just enhance, and can't make games; they were using an old engine so they couldn't, at all, concentrate on graphics. All that was left was plot, and they took the unique (fps wise, anyway; rpgs have done this for years) approach of telling the story as you played via NPCs, radios, or whatever. They proved that without good graphics, one could put one hell of a copied, cliche, all too boring story in, tell the story through events you participate in (no matter how scripted), and draw a player emotionally into the game. That's what made Half-Life for everybody, was the emotional attachment/interpertation of the story. A good example is how much fun I/we/everyone had dealing with the military in Half-Life... those guys were (due to x-files-type stigma) not just mindless enemies, they had the emotional connotation of evil, and thus we all loved killing their hapless asses. Doom, for me, utilised fear to get you into the game, and the simple aspect of survival made that an engrossing game, too.
If you take a look at the doom 3 alpha, simply because of the lights/dark spaces, shadows, glares, blood effects when you get hit which match the attacks, and especially the convincing sounds and realistic animation (feet stick to floor = good), it, even with no story and not one complete level, draws you into the experience emotionally. For that fact alone, doom 3 in my opinion will be good. If they include a story told by the events of the game; events YOU are a part of, doom 3 will show you the power of rock and roll.
So, Half Life, despite it's shit graphics, shitty story, and fairly ho-hum gameplay, kicked ass due to the emotional grip it got on you. Where that emotional grip comes from is irrelevant, and the graphics/sound in doom 3 will certainly provide that grip. Even with no story, you will want to keep playing, just because it invokes an emotional response. Plot isn't king, it is an enhancing factor in a game, but if it can grab your emotions, it can appear to be the most important thing. It seems like it is the "king" because we have never been offered a game which visually evoked a real emotional response; that will soon change.

STAY RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE, GET OUT OF THAT BED AND GET DOWN ON THE FLOOR, GET OUTSIDE RIGHT NOW, RIGHT HERE: GET DOWN ON THE CEMENT, I DONT CARE IF YOU'RE NUDE, GET DOWN ON THE CEMENT, I DON'T CARE IF ITS FREEZING! WHERES THE DRUGS, WE KNOW YOU GOT THE DRU
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
2.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
4.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
89.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
6.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
8.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
9.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
10.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
11.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
   Re: hmmm
12.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
    Re: hmmm
13.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: hmmm
14.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: hmmm
15.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: hmmm
 35.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: hmmm
36.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: hmmm
37.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
        Re: hmmm
39.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
         Re: hmmm
38.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
        Re: hmmm
40.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
         Re: hmmm
42.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
          Re: hmmm
41.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
         Re: hmmm
47.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
          Re: hmmm
62.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
         Re: hmmm
43.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: hmmm
44.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: hmmm
45.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: hmmm
46.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: hmmm
48.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
        Re: hmmm
49.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
         I don't get it...
52.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
          Re: I don't get it...
56.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: hmmm
57.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
        Re: hmmm
16.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: hmmm
67.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
69.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
72.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
117.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
119.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
3.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
5.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
7.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
17.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
18.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
21.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
23.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
   Re: Gibs?
24.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
    Re: Gibs?
25.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
    Re: Gibs?
26.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     HL1
27.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: HL1
30.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: HL1
34.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: HL1
31.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Pulled?
32.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
       Re: Pulled?
28.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: Gibs?
29.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: Gibs?
33.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: Gibs?
82.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: Gibs?
83.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
      Re: Gibs?
84.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
       Re: Gibs?
93.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
        Re: Gibs?
98.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
         Re: Gibs?
19.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
20.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
22.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
50.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
51.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
53.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
54.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
55.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
58.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
59.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
   Re: hmmm
60.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
    Re: hmmm
61.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
     Re: hmmm
65.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
      Re: hmmm
73.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
    Re: hmmm
63.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
64.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
66.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
68.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
70.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
71.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
74.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
75.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
76.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
77.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
78.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
79.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
85.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
86.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
95.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
99.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
100.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
          Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
101.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
           Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
102.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
           Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
103.
Aug 16, 2003Aug 16 2003
            Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
104.
Aug 16, 2003Aug 16 2003
             Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
105.
Aug 16, 2003Aug 16 2003
              Re: Who crapped in your shoes?
80.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
88.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
81.
Aug 14, 2003Aug 14 2003
87.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
90.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
91.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
94.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
92.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
96.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
97.
Aug 15, 2003Aug 15 2003
106.
Aug 17, 2003Aug 17 2003
107.
Aug 17, 2003Aug 17 2003
108.
Aug 17, 2003Aug 17 2003
109.
Aug 17, 2003Aug 17 2003
110.
Aug 17, 2003Aug 17 2003
111.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
112.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
113.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
114.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
115.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
116.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
118.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
120.
Aug 18, 2003Aug 18 2003
121.
Aug 19, 2003Aug 19 2003
122.
Aug 19, 2003Aug 19 2003
     Re: No subject
123.
Aug 20, 2003Aug 20 2003