And?
Edipis: Try lan gaming with a few friends, if you haven't already (and if you have, try again with different friends). And thanks for the complement. I will never be corrupted!
And?Meh, Doom 3... HL2 is going to be better...
Absolutely.Didn't both UT and Quake take this route a couple of times?
Very correct once again.As far as FPS's go, when you are fragging people at a clip of one every 20 seconds in a furious fragfest, do you really care how intricately detailed the characters and environment are? That might have something to do with a deemphasis on multiplay for Doom 3
DOOM 3 IS NOT MULTIPLAYER!!!
Scared yet? DOOM 3 is a far cry from the original DOOM, with its hordes of monsters and blazing fast action, and that shift in design priorities was one of the topics that anchored John's talk.
When Carmack started drawing up his plans for the DOOM 3 engine, he wanted it to break new ground graphically -- and then he wanted to design a game around it. It was about getting what he called "a real 'WOW' impact," and it meant sacrifices elsewhere. "You have to make compromises," he explained. A complex lighting renderer meant that players wouldn't be able to enter a room full of a hundred monsters and mow them down like grass. It defines a different experience; one where the player progresses from elaborate set piece to elaborate set piece engaged in brutal up-close combat with small groups of extremely detailed monsters.
The result is the tightness of DOOM's world, where light plays off of every surface and shadows move with the same fluidity as the creatures that cast them. This, too, leads to different design decisions. Quake 3 was a game about action and movement; richer graphics would be wasted on a game like Quake 3, where nobody has time to look at stuff. But DOOM 3 is about being rooted in an environment, being trapped in a far away place where each room is a custom crafted set piece. You're meant to linger.
So why did Carmack and id Software, known for their love of furious competitive deathmatch, switch gears to what Carmack described as simply "a really really good linear single-player experience?"
The answer lies partially in the direction the market is moving. Team-based games are dominating the online action scene, for a number of reasons. The variety of gameplay is part of it, as well as the variety of play styles a team game can support. Carmack also figures that, in team games, half the players always win (as opposed to one player in deathmatch.) But this, personally, never interested Carmack. "I never really appreciated team activities ... in real life or in computer games," he said, to the amusement of the audience. Instead, id Software moved in another direction.
Originally posted by: Dug
DOOM 3 IS NOT MULTIPLAYER!!!
Thank God, maybe it'll be released sooner.
I hate multiplayer fps. get up, shoot, die, get up, shoot, die......
DoomIII has atmosphere, cool music, storyline, etc that would be all lost in mp. Just play Q3 if you want mp.
TW: Our focus hasn't changed--we're putting all our resources into developing an unbelievable single-player experience. We will, however, include a multiplayer component that includes game types like deathmatch and last man standing. There is nothing more visceral than competing against another human player, particularly in a first-person game. However, this experience is going to be very different from something like Quake III Arena. Doom III multiplayer is incredibly intense, and the light and shadows play a much bigger role in the gameplay. Never before in a multiplayer game have players had to worry about their shadow and whether or not it has revealed their position, or been able to shoot out lights so they can hide in the darkness. This alone adds a level of reality, depth, and atmosphere that is again going to redefine expectations about how a multiplayer game should look and feel.
Been there, done that.
who cares? at least you don't have to deal with a bunch of cheating 13 yearolds