 Alyx Isn't Invulnerable..
#23 posted by rj on 2008/05/08 23:35:26
she died on me once in city 17. it was game over (as if the player had died). and i agree with zwiffle, i fucking loved that part =)
 View Feedback
#24 posted by Kinn on 2008/05/09 00:08:13
RE: excessive damage feedback.
Whats this stupid trend all about anyway?
Dunno, but on a related note, in addition to yanking your view around with every little movement, I hope they don't get onboard this recent obsession with fucking with your FOV every time you do something other than stand still.
Every time I see a trailer for the latest generic FPS, I see them trying to outdo each other by making your FOV fishbowl all over the place when you run, or shrink when you take damage or shoot your gun. The problem is that when you are moving at a constant speed but your FOV changes, you get this horrible car-sickness inducing "crazy-mirrors" effect where the natural effect of the scenery approaching clashes with the changing FOV and everything goes all sort of wibbly-wobbly. Can't stand it, and it is not realistic in any way, unlike say, viewbob - which I can tolerate.
 I Just Can't Help Getting Excited
#25 posted by starbuck on 2008/05/09 00:39:12
I just can't. Anytime id software announce anything I get giddy like a schoolgirl.
I thought doom 3 was pretty disappointing though. And I don't know how they could go in much of a different direction for this...
I'm not a fan of the demonic style. It worked in the original doom because it was a lot more cartoony, but in a realistic, serious game, no thanks. For me, Lovecraftyness in games = scary, general creepy weirdness a la Silent Hill = scary, demonic goats heads and fire and brimstone = not scary at all.
The atmosphere was great in Doom 3 despite that though, probably because of the lighting.
I'm guessing in Doom 4 they're going to do all the things they couldn't do technically at the time of doom 3, like having more than a few lights, more than a few monsters in a room, proper outdoor areas and all that. Hopefully they'll take it a bit further though.
 Kinn
#26 posted by gone on 2008/05/09 01:22:21
 ...true That
#27 posted by Kinn on 2008/05/09 01:48:49
Also, I just realised this is being developed "in-house". That really surprises me. I wonder for what reason they have decided to dredge up a stale franchise and do it in-house rather than sponge it off to some other developer like they always do with anything that's not their primary project....?
 Re: Id's Version Of Hell
#28 posted by Tronyn on 2008/05/09 02:19:48
I agree with starbuck's point.
Cheesy EVIL WITH LAVA AND SKULLS worked fine for the original Doom, and it worked fine in Quake3 (Temple of Retribution, for example). It's only when they tried to put that style in a "realistic" setting, like in Doom3, that it bogged down.
Some of the flesh parts were cool, but Doom3's hell was crap.
I think the whole problem with a hellish environment, is that it can never be as scary as areas with _hints_ of hell. Still, they should have had at least 10 maps in Hell, and just not tried to take it so seriously. Q3 style would have been fine.
It would have been kinda cool if they tried to do something based on Dante. It might be cheesy, but if done right all those tortures WOULD get disturbing.
 You Know
#29 posted by Kinn on 2008/05/09 02:36:47
Maybe that's the hook. Maybe they're getting excited about doing Doom 4 because it's going to be the anti-Doom3 - i.e. it mostly takes place in Hell, and the human environments are secondary this time.
One can only hope.
 Or...
#30 posted by metlslime on 2008/05/09 03:01:25
Doom 4: Hell on Earth
 I Think That Is Right
#31 posted by HeadThump on 2008/05/09 03:09:23
Maybe that's the hook. Maybe they're getting excited about doing Doom 4 because it's going to be the anti-Doom3
The Id crew knows that Doom3 was a let down, and it is probably a sore spot for them until a proper version of the game can be done.
Doom 3 has been analyzed to death by all of us but for me it comes down to factors: The first several hours of game play scared the living shit out of me, and after those first few hours, it became too repetitive to thrill. I spent at least the last half of playing it just trying to get though with the game.
I hope they do get rid of most of the story element, but not all of it. Get rid of the cartoon villains that snicker and fold their hands together menacingly. Keep that aspect ambiguous and hallucinogenic, and therefore more real like a really bad day at the office.
The way I would approach story line would be to make it not too relevant to actually solving the game, but at the same time, if the player is the exploring type who has to know and see everything, he can uncover the underlying threads that would remain hidden if he were to take an approach that was more action oriented. Doom meets Lost.
 Kinn
#32 posted by than on 2008/05/09 04:50:55
I vote you to lead Doom 4!
I just checked out that Beksinski guy and his work is amazing. If id made hell look more like that or Giger's Shaft cartoons I would fucking cum. Whatever though, they need more mature art direction this time around.
http://www.gnosis.art.pl/iluminatornia/sztuka_o_inspiracji/zdzislaw_beksinski/zdzislaw_beksinski.htm
http://www.beksinski.pl/
 Gimme Gameplay Like BioShock
#33 posted by RickyT33 on 2008/05/09 04:57:15
That was an immersive game. I dont think the narrative quite worked as well as it could have, but the gameplay was pretty scary. I think it would suit a doom style game. The RPG elements would help add an extra level of sophistication. Stalker is another example. The feeling of having to constantly maximise your resourcefullness adds to the tension.
I would also like Doom 4 to be a little faster. Faster enemies, faster movement for the player please. Just a little faster.
 You People Should Be
#34 posted by bambuz on 2008/05/09 11:11:14
game leads not level designers.
Inspirations:
Doom 4: Hell in Hell
Doom 4: Bad Day at the Office
Doom 4: Hell at the Bottom of an Ocean
Doom 4: Hell in a Temple at the Top of a Mountain
Doom 4: Hell on Venus (as opposed to Phobos, Earth and Maahs (tm) ) Think of city in the clouds...
#35 posted by nakasuhito on 2008/05/09 11:21:21
doom3 was ok. awesome tech, but meh gameplay (for me). what it needs/needed is/was more hell levels!!!
but is id now two teams? what bout rage? and why not a brand new game, instead of a brand new sequel?
#36 posted by gone on 2008/05/09 11:25:27
The Id crew knows that Doom3 was a let down, and it is probably a sore spot for them until a proper version of the game can be done.
lol what? best-selling game. They are fucking proud of it despite all the shortcomings (and what game doesnt have any?)
And if you watch Tim Willits vid, he even speaks positively about the Team Arena
than: ID has Nunuk. but I reckon he`s on Rage :P hence rage>d4 (stale franchise hahaha)
and bioshock is worse than doom3 (yeah flame on)
and frankly speaking nothing is scary when you have a gun. and quickload
<Friction> "in doom 2 the guy always wears a space helmet even though hes on earth"
"in doom 3 he never wears a space helmet even though hes on mars"
mind: blown
<Friction> Doom IV: Hell in Earth's Sewer System
Corporal Dean Portman: [looks down the sewer hole] I thought "being in the shit" was a figure of speech. (Doom movie)
#37 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/05/09 11:39:57
"bioshock is worse than doom3"
I'm trying to respect your opinions here but you're making it difficult.
#38 posted by gone on 2008/05/09 12:08:31
I didnt like how it looked, played and felt. wait 'didnt like' is not the right way to say it. I couldnt stand it! And nevermind that its a huge step back from systemshock
god knows I tried to like it. whole 3 times.
I couldnt drag myself past the second chapter (where you start to deal with the wee girls)
 It's OK Speeds
#39 posted by RickyT33 on 2008/05/09 15:05:31
I can respect your opinion.
I just think that the way that the actuall environment becomes incorporated into the plot is something which a modern shooter like Doom 4 should aspire to.
Like for example the part with the arty fella you have to kill, the one with the theatre. Rather that just being room-corridor -room-corridor, you have to carry out the tasks within the environment, with this guys unpredictable character controlling what happens.
Its pretty immersive.
I've never played System Shock so I cant comment on that :D
#40 posted by starbuck on 2008/05/09 15:47:05
"bioshock is worse than doom3"
I'm trying to respect your opinions here but you're making it difficult.
Well from what I've played of Bioshock, I easily prefer it to Doom 3, but they're very different games, so I can understand if you disagree.
Personally I thought the style of Bioshock was very impressive, and very unique. It's just very cool that they'd take the risk to make a game where the setting is Underwater + Art Deco + Future Colony, as opposed to the more safe, more boring route that Doom 3 took, which is Future Base + metal panels and pipes + Cheesy hell stuff.
#41 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/05/09 15:49:39
I can understand someone not liking Bioshock but to say that Doom3 was better ... dude, that's just crazy.
 Willem
#42 posted by Jago on 2008/05/09 16:07:11
Well, comparing Bioshock and Doom3 doesn't make much sense in the first place as they are rather different games, but I can easily see someone not liking Bioshock all that much, yet enjoying Doom3 a lot. Despite all it's faults and flaws, Doom3 is a very good game.
 I Like 'em Both !
#43 posted by RickyT33 on 2008/05/09 16:15:09
 Sells, Smales
#44 posted by HeadThump on 2008/05/09 16:51:19
The Id crew knows that Doom3 was a let down, and it is probably a sore spot for them until a proper version of the game can be done.
lol what? best-selling game. They are fucking proud of it despite all the shortcomings (and what game doesnt have any?)
And if you watch Tim Willits vid, he even speaks positively about the Team Arena
By that reckoning the folks who brought you those deer hunting games in the 90's should be beaming with pride too. Even the creators of Doom 3 have to know the difference between a cultural event that pushes their industry forward (Doom, Quake) versus a so-so game (Quake 2, Doom 3).
#45 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/05/09 17:03:00
"And if you watch Tim Willits vid, he even speaks positively about the Team Arena "
Not to state the obvious, but what did you expect him to do? Run down his own companies products?
 The Guys Who Brought You The Deer Hunter Games Probably Weren't Full
#46 posted by Lunaran on 2008/05/09 20:04:07
of themselves
#47 posted by gone on 2008/05/09 20:22:43
If you have watched those series of Warren Spector interviews with developers, they are all quite open to discussing their old games, admiting the flaws in design process, what they would change etc. Same thing Willits admits TA totally failed having sold like 100 copies, but he still thinks its a good and fun game.
Doom3 enjoyed good sales and good reviews, why would they think its a "so-so game"? Its quite polished - they did it the way they wanted (and didnt it take like 4 years). And they even started to do another horror game codenamed "Darkness" (sounds like a joke doesnt it).
Same for Quake 2 - its been the most successfull of quakes and has more coherent design than quake and q3a. Thats what ID guys including Willits said, not my guess. And he says q1 was a mess design-wise.
Can you find any kind of post-mortem or 'looking back' at doom3 from any of the devs? I cant
|