More DOOM 3 [Aug 14, 2003, 11:01 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
Luckily Texas seems just a hair southwest of the blackout, so there's another couple of DOOM
3 multiplayer previews on GameSpot, IGN
and Computer and Video Games
based on what they've gotten to see of the shooter at QuakeCon (there are also
some QuakeCon Pics on
HomeLAN Fed). Here's a bit from IGN:
You'll find it's much harder to hit your enemies in this game than in the previous ones. No longer does a single hit box surround your opponents. Now all hits have to be scored on the actual polygons of the character models. Todd explains that this is a natural evolution for action games given the increasing skill of players. As they get better, targets have to get smaller to compensate. While fighting you'll find that bullets can pass in between a character's legs or the space between their torso and arms without damaging them. You'll need to be much more accurate now with each of your shots. Still, it's not too hard to score kills, particularly if you're playing against a bunch of journalists operating on two hours of sleep and a three-whiskey breakfast.
hebrew_national,
"but that MAGICALLY, since its called DOOM 3 and its by ID SOFTWARE, it is all of a sudden no good?"
Just because it's by ID SOFTWARE does not mean it's MAGICALLY going to be a good game either. :}
Seriously thou, I agree in the fact of waiting until it's on the shelf before making a final judgement of the product.
However, I am just as tired of people saying game "X" is the greatest thing "3V3R" as you are of people saying a game will "Su><0rS". I'm not saying DooM3 will suck.
I do think having your vision distorted during DM gameplay is not a good idea. Level control and aim are the two main factors in being able to win over an opponent in DM. Take one of them away (the more important of the two if you ask me) and you have hurt the gameplay.
As for people posting negative comments being "whiners"...well, if people never complained, game companies would never be able to tell what their customers (or potential customers) wanted. Besides, they have just as much right to comment negatively as anyone else has to post postively about aspects of a game they have never played.
I think back to the way UT2003 was done. A demo was released (with mention of possible multiple demo releases, addressing issues/feedback) and an official feedback forum was opened. One week later the game went gold (not enuff time to address issues raised in the feedback forum).
Now, one year later, UT2004 is being worked on to include many of the things gamers said they wanted back when the UT2003 demo was released (Assault for example). Many gamers that played UT2003 have either gone back to what they were playing before, or moved onto other games. Some of them may not even give UT2004 a chance due to the way things were done with UT2003.
So, what is the moral of the story?
Game companies should listen to their customers (or potential customers).
This includes both the cheers as well as the jeers.
"but that MAGICALLY, since its called DOOM 3 and its by ID SOFTWARE, it is all of a sudden no good?"
Just because it's by ID SOFTWARE does not mean it's MAGICALLY going to be a good game either. :}
Seriously thou, I agree in the fact of waiting until it's on the shelf before making a final judgement of the product.
However, I am just as tired of people saying game "X" is the greatest thing "3V3R" as you are of people saying a game will "Su><0rS". I'm not saying DooM3 will suck.
I do think having your vision distorted during DM gameplay is not a good idea. Level control and aim are the two main factors in being able to win over an opponent in DM. Take one of them away (the more important of the two if you ask me) and you have hurt the gameplay.
As for people posting negative comments being "whiners"...well, if people never complained, game companies would never be able to tell what their customers (or potential customers) wanted. Besides, they have just as much right to comment negatively as anyone else has to post postively about aspects of a game they have never played.
I think back to the way UT2003 was done. A demo was released (with mention of possible multiple demo releases, addressing issues/feedback) and an official feedback forum was opened. One week later the game went gold (not enuff time to address issues raised in the feedback forum).
Now, one year later, UT2004 is being worked on to include many of the things gamers said they wanted back when the UT2003 demo was released (Assault for example). Many gamers that played UT2003 have either gone back to what they were playing before, or moved onto other games. Some of them may not even give UT2004 a chance due to the way things were done with UT2003.
So, what is the moral of the story?
Game companies should listen to their customers (or potential customers).
This includes both the cheers as well as the jeers.
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2025 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2025 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 25 June 2025, 03:36.