omfg u r right cia! rofl rofl lol!!

Doom 3 seems to be a game which sells well, and Carmack is laughing all the way to the bank

i[When the hell has a sequel ever been revolutionary?]

GTA3?

I agree with your Doom3 is a big pile of stinking shit lacking gameplay comments, but what a stretch to say that Carmack is the best at coding!

Give me a break!

HAHAH I knew these guys couldn't pull off a decent single player game and I was right all along!! HAHA!!

Doom3 may be a nice tech demo, but it aint a game.

It's a good engine for small, tiny indoor levels, but those are so 1990's it isn't even funny!

Well, hopefully Carmack will retire to his rockets and leave compelling single player games to the developers.

Can anyone say what maps were in the demo?

Tribes 3 to me was painful. It felt so UTish. Fats paced. I actually had more fun playing UT2004 Onslaught. It felt like what tribes was...as for tribes 3 bleh.

Serius Sam was more fun then Doom3 IMHO.

They both had jetpacks & some of the same weapons. Other than that, not many similarities as far as the actual gameplay went. Tribes is more like Team Deathmatch with a flag thrown in, whereas Tribes 2 is (or was) more along the lines of squad based battle/CTF. Teamwork is much more important in the sequel. I feel like Tribes 2 was more along the lines of what Dynamix had in mind for a Tribes game and Tribes 1 was just a stepping stone to get there. I can hear T1 fans fuming about that statement, lol

Still, both revolutionary titles.

No, not nearly revolutionary...but it is a good game. It's a good mix between the other two Tribes games, but I feel it falls short in the gameplay department compared to...well really both of them...but moreso Tribes 2. Even still, I think it will have the best gameplay of any 2004 FPS.

wasn't tribes 2 very similar to tribes 1?

------------
Love,
Mayor Dan:
The mayor of your hearts <3<3<3<3<3

When the hell has a sequel ever been revolutionary?

Tribes 2

let's discuss terminal velocity more

i'm thinking... i think i played terminal velocity a lot more than doom 3... it was more fun too

------------
Love,
Mayor Dan:
The mayor of your hearts <3<3<3<3<3
This comment was edited on Sep 19, 20:19.

When the hell has a sequel ever been revolutionary?

Ask the Tribes Vengeance fanboys

Nothing, as far as I know.. People tried it a bunch, but no one ever found anything with it.

This comment was edited on Oct 19, 2024, 06:08.

Looking at Doom 3, I just see so much wasted potential.. This was supposed to the game that was going to bring Doom into the 21st century, not open a portal to the 20th century so we can play Doom 1 with better gfx.

It's funny, I agree with your assessment of D3 completely (your quote above is perfect), yet I still loved the game...

Speaking of which, what did the "give doom95" code ever do? It acted like it added something to the inventory, but I could never fine it...





http://www.johnwaitethehardway.com/index2.htm
This comment was edited on Sep 19, 20:01.

Oh guess then I misread the quotes of JC a few dozen times that Doom 3 is actually a remake, not a sequel or a prequel.

________
I don't like arguing. Why can't we all just get along instead of fighting and arguing?

A game doesn't have to be revolutionary to be good.. Doom 3 ended up being not good and far behind the bar. That's where my problem is. Games released years ago had better gameplay ideals, leaving Doom 3 being not even up to par with modern games.

It may say Doom in the title, but the game we got was not worthy to bear that crown. At least Doom was fun.

This comment was edited on Oct 19, 2024, 06:07.

When the hell has a sequel ever been revolutionary? These days you're lucky to get new tech. People expecting something entirely new from Doom 3 were fooling themselves. It says it right in the title.

Monsters spawning behind you is just cheap, lame and lazy. Don't get me started on the darkness.

Then there's the weapons: shotgun; wow, rocket launcher; wow, chaingun; wow, machine gun; wow, grenades; wow, BFG; wow. deja vu anyone?

I'll say this, id soft. didn't have to spend a hell of a lot of time thinking up weapons lol.

"Hey John, I've got another one: CHAINGUN!"

"Brilliant Tim! How did you come up with that?"

"Um, the last 6 games we've made?"


I've said before that Carmack is a genius, no one is better at coding, but he just does not care about gameplay.

Halo's gameplay is worse. Its AI enemies are moronic and are glued to a small area of movement. Run past them and they simply don't pursue. Stand out in the open in plain sight, and they won't approach or even shoot at the player if beyond the spot to which they are glued. After all of the hype about Halo's supposedly great AI, I was shocked at just how poor it was even on the highest difficulty setting. Play the game how it's not supposed to be played by simply running past and avoiding enemies, and you can waltz through the levels (at least in the few levels I played before the game became such an excruciating bore that I stopped playing).

Thats great and all but my statement addressed Halo's repetitious levels vs. Doom 3's. If you've played both games don't insult what little intellgence I have by telling me Halo was MORE repetitious.

if you want to talk about AI features then....

Halo's AI would duck, use cover, fire, show fear, spout one-liners and overall be quite beleivable in the context of the game. Halo also had a far more interesting storyline (though i may be a bit biased as I'm a sci-fi freak). If the worst that can be said is that the AI in Halo stuck by their spawn/trigger area then fine.

Again, why anyone would compare these two games dosen't make sense as PK is more comparable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
What Would Fred Do?