Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How id Lost Its Crown

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the doom-3-suqs dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 164

The Next Generation site has an editorial up by veteran animator Steve Bowler discussing the loss of prestige id has suffered, at least in his eyes, as a result of the latest incarnation of Doom. From the article: "But one day, the industry changed. The consumer changed. It's hard to put one's finger on it. Maybe it was Counter-Strike. Maybe Unreal Tournament. Something happened to the genre between Quake III and Doom 3, and Id somehow didn't take it into account. Call it braggadocio, or hubris, but Doom 3 is no longer the top dog in the FPS market. Yes, it's upsetting. I tried not to admit it either. But it's undeniably true."

cancel ×

164 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Doom 3.. (1, Funny)

rylin (688457) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016651)

Doom III was a very dark game, not something the bright people in Capitalist America would find entertaining.

Re:Doom 3.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13016661)

Or perhaps there really IS more to a game than just how good it looks.

Re:Doom 3.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13016662)

Doom III was a very dark game

lol flashlight joke

Re:Doom 3.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017481)

In Soviet Russia, Doom finds YOU entertaining.

Re:Doom 3.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13019542)

That's Doctor Doom to you!

Re:Doom 3.. (1)

BinLadenMyHero (688544) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018752)

So id lost its crown on that darkness?

Re:Doom 3.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13018857)

Uh, hello? Its about the engine. Doom and UT, and the such, are basically demos of what the engine can do. Havent looked lately, but a license of the UT engine a few years back was something close to a $million. Actually, just googled it: "A non-refundable, non-recoupable license fee paid on execution of agreement: US $750,000 for one of the available platforms, plus US $100,000 for each additional platform. No royalty is due on any revenue from the product." You can fill in the rest.

Top dog? (5, Insightful)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016717)

"Doom 3 is no longer the top dog in the FPS market."

I never realized it was ever top dog. It came out, I played it, then it went on the shelf. It wasn't really that impressive and it certainly wasn't good enough to be called top dog. My kids watched me play it for about a half hour and that was enough for them. They never felt the desire to play it. Yeah it was pretty and it had some nice eye candy, but what's that got to do with the value and quality of a game? If you don't have the desire to play it more than once then it can't even be considered top-10.

I'm lost on the point of this article.

Re:Top dog? (1)

LKM (227954) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017004)

I'm lost on the point of this article.

I think that was the point of the article.

Re:Top dog? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017099)

Well, the point is that iD is no longer top dog, not Doom 3. I'd marvel at the spectacle of the Slashdot submitter getting the point across better than the original author and editor did, but he just ripped the submission title from the original article.

Re:Top dog? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017154)

They meant that prior to Doom 3, every time id brought out a new game, it was king of the market for a while, and that did not happen with Doom 3.

Definite loss of steam (4, Interesting)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016726)

The problem with id, and even valve, is that they take way to freaking long to come out with their next game, and then what is it? Its a sequel to an eixsting game.

While I am not knocking their capabilities of offering state-of-the-art 3D gaming engines, do we really NEED a Quake 4?

While games like HL2 definitly has improved the gameplay over the original HL, by the time you get to the 3rd or 4th iteration of the same concept, how original is it?

I think id should stick to making game engines, and let other, more creative companies designe the game content, and STOP making sequels in general. Develop some new story ideas, and heck, some new gameplay features instead of just offering an new improve clone of the same ol' game

Also, don't hype about a game 4 years before releasing it, then push back the game release for another 8 - 12 months. The game doesn't have to be perfect, just playable. It makes more sence to get a large audience of players running the game, and finding bugs, then fixing them quickly, rather then waiting while a smaller team of people Q/A the product and take years to clear all of the bugs

Re:Definite loss of steam (2, Informative)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016787)

While I am not knocking their capabilities of offering state-of-the-art 3D gaming engines, do we really NEED a Quake 4? ...
I think id should stick to making game engines, and let other, more creative companies designe the game content


Interestingly enough, that's what id is doing with Quake 4. The game design responsibilities are being handled by Raven Software, the guys who did Jedi Knight 2 and Elite Force.

Rob

Re:Definite loss of steam (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13016790)

"do we really NEED a Quake 4?"

Did we really need a Final Fantasy TEN?

Re:Definite loss of steam (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017973)

No. Or even any of them past 6. There's just no way they could make something as good ever again. Unless they redid 6.

Re:Definite loss of steam (4, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016959)

I think what the article was getting at is that Doom 3 wasn't really a sequel in a lot of ways. It wasn't a prettier and improved version of Doom and Doom II. It was a poorly designed game with impressive graphics.

If it was a true Doom clone, it'd have the same sense of chaos and the rooms full of big swarms of enemies for you to fight. Not one on one battles in a dark corridor. He mentioned the 'Run and Gun' style of play. That's what iD did well, and what they didn't try to do in Doom 3.

He should go play a game from the Serious Sam series. Lots of bad guys, lots of fast paced and constant shooting. It's too bad their engine was mostly overlooked. It's done those huge environments for a long time, and there's lots of fun co-op games going all the time. Wheee!

Re:Definite loss of steam (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017345)

All good points, but then why CALL it DOOM3, or QUAKE 4, why even commission another company to develop another game in the series? Let other companies have a run with their game engine, and develop some fresh new titles, a new franchise they can milk for a few years, rather then offering high quality clones of exsiting games. ID isn't being seen as an innovator which is why they are losing their luster. I think most companies try to bank off the success of previous games, but fail to realize that what this industry needs is fresh meat!

Re:Definite loss of steam (1)

Leiterfluid (876193) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018044)

Because brand names sell. Franchises like Doom, Quake, and Half-Life rely on the reputation of the original to market the product. Both id and Valve are one-trick ponies, and I'm saying this as a fan of both developers. In my opinion, Half-Life was the best game evar, because it was both style and substance. But the reason we have Doom 3, Half-Life 2, and Quake 4 is for the same reason we have seven Nightmare on Elm Street films, ten Friday the Thirteenth films, and god knows how many Batman movies. Name recognition sells. It's also the same reason criminal thugs like Ted Kennedy and Jim McDermott get re-elected. :P

Re Quake 4 (1)

ReKleSS (749007) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017477)

It's not being done by id. Quake 4 it primarily being done by Raven, with id mostly providing the engine (doom 3). I'd say that Raven probably qualify as one of those more creative companies you mentioned.
-ReK

This is silly (4, Interesting)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016740)

Doom 3 is a tech demo for Carmack's engine just like most of his games are. Nothing's changed to make id's prestige go any higher or lower than it always has been.

Rob

Re:This is silly (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016926)

Exactly. I'm wondering how much of their income actually comes from their games as oppose to licensing the game engines? I have a feeling Id makes most of thier cash from the engines.

Re:This is silly (2, Interesting)

slittle (4150) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016990)


Demoing it for what? So Carmack can show everyone how leet he is? Quote article:
It used to be all about selling the engine, and now even that seems fated to despair as the Unreal 3 engine is winning awards and accolades for its ease of use, and is dominating the press as far as who's using it for their next-gen titles.

Re:This is silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017904)

People have been saying that since Unreal came out. Remember Monolith and the LithTec engine (or however that was spelled)?

Doom 3 is the most graphically impressive engine for indoor shooters... maybe even for outdoor shooters once the hardware catches up.

Re:This is silly (1)

Tink2000 (524407) | more than 9 years ago | (#13019098)

Personally, I really enjoyed Monolith's Lithtech games (Blood2, No One Lives Forever & NOLF2). They actually are the three games that hooked me into playing FPS games... well, until GTA3 came along, then I decided I wanted more than just "if it moves, kill it; if it doesn't move, push it" games. I wanted to explore and not feel like I was playing a platform game. I digress though.

I really think Blood2 was (and still is) an awesome game. It was overlooked at the time because HalfLife came out at the same time (and was prettier, with a slicker engine, and ran better on the majority of machines of the time). But really, the dialogue of Blood2 was funny, NOLF was wacky and pretty, but admittedly I felt a little ripped off by NOLF2 (too short, for starters).

Another overlooked game but using the Quake engine (iirc) is Clive Barker's Undying. Honestly, this was a little more what I was expecting from Doom3 with regards to storyline and general creepiness.

Back OT: I also liked D3, not because it was pretty, but because the whole time I kept thinking "ooh, someone's going to have fun with this engine". And that ends back up relevant to the thread - its all about the engine.

Re:This is silly (2, Insightful)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017113)

Doom 3 is a tech demo for Carmack's engine just like most of his games are. Nothing's changed to make id's prestige go any higher or lower than it always has been

A $55USD technology demo marketed as a highly anticipated video game. The $15-20 you can buy it for today is closer to what it should have been sold for. Better - he should have skipped the game and just released it as a benchmarking tool for those wanting to focus on the engine.
I know I feel robbed.

Re:This is silly (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017266)

"A $55USD technology demo marketed as a highly anticipated video game. The $15-20 you can buy it for today is closer to what it should have been sold for. Better - he should have skipped the game and just released it as a benchmarking tool for those wanting to focus on the engine.
I know I feel robbed.
"

I agree with you completely, but in the past IDs games have been mainly a way to showcase their engines. And the better the games sell, the better they can sell their engines.

Doom3 probably wasn't a complete failure, as it did sell a lot of copies initially ... but the Unreal3 engine is beating them out so I hear.

Obviously ID needs to focus on competiting with other game companies now. For too long they kind of held a "virtual monopoly" on the high end 3d game engine realm. I say virtual because it wasn't really a monopoly, they were just by far the most successful. Around the time that QuakeIII came out we started seeing a lot of other great 3d games like Soldier of Fortune, Half Life, Unreal Tournament etc. and ever since then ID's stake in the market has been diminishing.

The big difference is, Quake3 was extremely fun. Doom3 just wasn't. And they really don't have that big a foundation to rest on anyway. Their "virtual monopoly" only really lasted 5-7 years.. and only included like 3 titles (Wolfenstein, Doom and Quake) and their sequels. They desperately need to come out with something completely new.

Of course if they want to stay in the engine market they could also just start making engines alone and focus on easy to use and expandable APIs and forget making games all together.

Re:This is silly (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018019)

One of the problems with the id's games (as games, not as engines) is that they seem entirely too focused on deathmatch style games. They also seem to have very little taste in weapon design (real or fantastic) as far as FPS games go.

All in all, they seem to have one game formula and they just keep reskinning it.

Re:This is silly (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018781)

There may be some truth in that but he has made it popssible to create some very cool levels.

I have over a thousand doom and doom2 wads.Levels made by every crazy fool who wanted to. They are wonderful. Some suck wildy and many are great but what I want is doom3 to have the same possibility. Then we will see some wild mini games pretty soon and some great full games in a year or so.

There seems to be some out there already, guess I'll go buy the game ;).

PenGun
Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Doom 3 was good, but... (5, Interesting)

Evro (18923) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016745)

Doom 3 was a great game, imo, however people's complaints about the whole flashlight mechanism were justified, and I can see how it would detract from the entertainment value. Id's goal was to make a scary game, and if you played the game with the swapped-in flashlight as they intended, it was indeed scary. The lighting was better than in any game I'd played at that point and created an unparalleled atmosphere of creepiness.

That being said, the idea that in "the mysterious future" you wouldn't be able to hold both a flashlight and a gun hurt the game's credibility. And going for the cheap scare so many times did tend to get old.

They were also determined to make D3 a single-player game in a field now dominated by multiplayer and massively-multiplayer games. I would have thought that they'd have realized this better than anyone, given that they practically created the market for multiplayer FPS gaming, but they chose to make Doom 3 a single player game, and between that and the whole flashlight deal, many people decided the game was a dud, and thus its fate was sealed.

I still thought it was a great game though!

Re:Doom 3 was good, but... (1)

dubious9 (580994) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017616)

Yeah, well a little of both.

I believe the best solution would have fallen between the "duct-tape" mod and the real release. I can see, with the leagons of doom coming toward you, you might forget to look for duct tape. However, if you could pull out the flash light for use with the one handed weapons, and maybe a couple of the two handed weapons but make the accuracy suck would have been a great comprimise.

Re:Doom 3 was good, but... (1)

FortranDragon (98478) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018305)

Doom 3 was a great game, imo, however people's complaints about the whole flashlight mechanism were justified, and I can see how it would detract from the entertainment value. Id's goal was to make a scary game, and if you played the game with the swapped-in flashlight as they intended, it was indeed scary. The lighting was better than in any game I'd played at that point and created an unparalleled atmosphere of creepiness.


My problem is that if you played the game the way id intended the scenarios became obnoxious. It was also insulting to the player. I mean, if I'm playing a Marine capable of wading through hell why am I such a stupid mouth-breather as to be unable to hold a pistol in one hand and a flashlight in the other?

Making a game design decision that forces the player to do stupid things isn't scary, it is irritating. Let me play as smart as I can and then surprise me. That's scary. (A good example, for me, of a scary and atmospheric game is System Shock 2.)

But in my view (4, Interesting)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016759)

The FPS market dried up in about 2000 ,well atleast in inovation (perhaps 99).
Doom 3 was fun and so was Half life 2 , but neither compared to their previous incarnations , they were better only due to the fact they were released several years after the origionals .
ID no longer has the crown as there is no real crown to have.

Re:But in my view (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017065)

Play Halo 2, then come back and tell me that with a straight face.

Re:But in my view (2, Insightful)

syrinx (106469) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017778)

Oh please. Halo is one of the best examples for the lack of creativity in FPS games. The only people who actually enjoyed Halo were those who never played FPSs before on the PC (mainly because they were too young before), and thought what they were playing was innovative because it didn't suck quite as bad as previous console FPSs.

Re:But in my view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017869)

Really? I thought that all the people who disliked Halo were jaded PC gamer grognards who never gave it a chance. As a rule of thumb, if someone (mistakenly) thinks Halo's plasma pistol is a lousy weapon, they haven't played the game enough to understand what's good about it.

Re:But in my view (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13018088)

Uh no, it's just a mediocre game.

The fact that it is basically the only game worth buying on a console you bought doesn't change the games worth for anyone but you and others who bought the console. It's actually a common phenonenon for people who buy failed consoles. They tend to latch on to the one or two games worthwhile for the system with a religous sort of fevor in some hope that others will see the light or at the very least make them feel less like idiots for buying a console no one else wanted.

Sorry, great games don't need to be 'given a chance' or need to have someone 'understand' some deeper aspect that the masses are missing.

Bugie might have had grand plans before they sold out to MS, but so does every company making games. In the end, Halo is a bit player in the hugely competitive first person shooter market. About the only thing that will be remembered about it is it was very shiny.

Re:But in my view (1)

dhakbar (783117) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018122)

The post you replied to is certainly childish in its praise for Halo 2 (that game really is mediocre), but your own post is ludicrous... did you actually refer to the X-Box as a failed console?

Damn, dude, what does it take for a console to be considered successful?

Re:But in my view (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13018156)

Um, can you name a bigger console flop ever than the xbox?

Let me guess you were one of the poor sods who bought one...

Re:But in my view (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018372)

Gamecube.

The xbox outsold the gamecube in Europe and U.S.

The gamecube's lead in Asia was not enough to compensate.

Therefore, Gamecube was a bigger flop.

WTF are you talking about, man? All of 3 of the latest generation consoles have been doing well. If the Xbox is a flop, the gamecube is a flop, leaving....one console!

Re:But in my view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13018427)

Oh god, it really must burn the twenty-something with disposable income, Limp Blitzkrieg/radioactive green X speaks to me xbox crowd that drives them nuts with humiliation that a console they have spent the last four years bad mouthing as a kiddie console is making a fat chunk of change for Nintendo while their 'teh most powerful' console/pc in a big ugly box has only been able to pull slightly ahead in worldwide sales by buring through four billion in monopoly funded cash.

The xbox marketplace failure looks like it is going to leave a emotional scar significantly worse than the one left on the poor fucks who bought Dreamcasts.

Re:But in my view (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13018168)

Damn, dude, what does it take for a console to be considered successful?

It has to make a profit.

Re:But in my view (1)

dhakbar (783117) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018578)

Tell that to Microsoft after the X-Box 360 makes them a veritable shitload.

They're a player in one of the biggest entertainment markets now. They weren't before. That's a massive success.

Re:But in my view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13018622)

What a sad, delusional fuck.

Player? You poor little xbox clowns keep coming up with new ways of saying "Biggest Console Disaster Ever"

Re:But in my view (1)

dhakbar (783117) | more than 9 years ago | (#13019353)

FYI, I don't even own an X-Box, you puerile buffoon.

Re:But in my view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13018090)

Hahahah!

You must have some serious wrinkles, because I know you can't tell zingers like that one with a straight face!

Re:But in my view (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017520)

FPS inovation dried up after Wolfenstein. All any FPS is is just a prettier version of the last with better physics. The number of actual gameplay improvements is minimal.

Re:But in my view (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017793)

Nah... Quake was a *real* innovation over previous games... true 3D and all. I would say Wolf3d -> Doom -> Quake, and everything since then is just prettier Quake.

Halt! Kommen sie! (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018063)

He didn't say Wolf3D, he said Wolfenstein. Presumably he was talking about Escape from Castle Wolfenstein from the 80's...now that was a great game although technically it was a 3rd person shooter.

Re:But in my view (2, Interesting)

jackbird (721605) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018544)

From a technical standpoint, sure, but why evaluate video games solely on the technology used?

Half Life was more than prettier Quake. It was prettier Quake with Screenwriting, which made a profound difference in the single player experience (at least up until that abortion of an ending).

You gotta give some credit to the Quake CTF / Team Fortress / Counterstrike creators for making something out of multiplayer beyond simple deathmatch as well.

Re:But in my view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13018580)

"You gotta give some credit to the Quake CTF / Team Fortress / Counterstrike creators for making something out of multiplayer beyond simple deathmatch as well."

What the fuck?

Talk about a wildy ignorant Doom/Quake fanboy. Mulitplayer gameplay was extremely advanced and varied long before the first amazingly shitty version of Doom with 'everyone has to join at the same time' networking was crapped out of Id.

Not everyone was stuck on piece of shit x86 boxes all our lives...

Re:But in my view (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018698)

Well I played Doom over the phone and it rocked pretty hard. Then Quake came out and I hacked up a boosted TCP/IP stack in DOS and that was a real blast. Prolly only a couple of thousand people playing for the first six months or so. Zoid must remember this golden time. Then he hacked up Capture The Flag while at threewave and the modern online game experience began.

Maybe you explain what advanced and varied game you were playing long before this occured. Perhaps text based D&D on your Ultra?

PenGun
Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:But in my view (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018599)

Half Life was more than prettier Quake. It was prettier Quake with Screenwriting

Hm.. good point. Also the CS/multiplayer bit.

Okay, maybe saying things haven't changed since Quake is a bit of an exaggeration then. Still, nothing new has been done very recently.

Re:But in my view (2, Insightful)

jensen404 (717086) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018686)

Are Deus Ex and System Shock not innovative? Or does their innovation automatically put them into a new category or genre?

Competition Is Good Do Something New (3, Interesting)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016766)

All is not lost for id. This just means that the competition has caught up to and surpassed the ones who'd set the bar for so many years. Now it's time to bring something new to the table. In the end it's all good for gamers. One place to start might be to start focusing more on consoles since like it or not that's where the great mass of the market is going. There must be something to this Halo thing. I still prefer mouse and keyboard, but kids today, well you get the picture... Anyway, the console would be a good place to bring something new to the FPS genre that people would sit up and notice via a new peripheral like the eye toy or something else. Pushing more and more polygons or turning out the lights is not the answer.

ppl want to practice before doing the real thing (1)

aneroid (856995) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016777)

maybe people have started taking an extreme liking to more life-like* FPS. factors like recoil, spray, real-world guns...

i have no preference in this coz either type can be as entertaining. for multi-player, it depends entirely on the kind of ppl u play with**. interesting story lines help (though not for repetitive gameplay).

* i don't mean ppl actually going around killing each other...like they do in real life.
** (for the really anal) ...the kind of ppl with whom u play.

Re:ppl want to practice before doing the real thin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017505)

I can't believe you went to the trouble to type out a proper English version of your comment, but you couldn't take the time to spell out the word "people."

Re:ppl want to practice before doing the real thin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13019685)

This isn't GameFAQs, try writing English instead of Fuckwadish

Quake II (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016806)

Id arguably peaked with Quake II in terms of pure enjoyment to play, especially multiplayer.

Quake III was prettier but nowhere near as responsive. It was good, but not the same, and not better really despite the major engine overhaul and drastic change in focus. Pretty much all just stand alone arenas. Yes, I know that was the point, but for me this is where they started to miss the point.

Doom III took everything they did wrong with Quake III and then some and forced it onto a single player game. It was certainly NOT like anything tried and true Id had produced before. It wasn't Doomlike in how it played. It also wasn't like most other current FPS'. It's just not that good, that's all.

Somewhere the shift went from making greatly enjoyable games to making candy filled games.

Unreal Tournament 3 (4, Interesting)

Time Doctor (79352) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016817)

From TFA:
"...and the upcoming Unreal Tournament 3"
So if he is talking about Unreal Tournament 2007, that would be Unreal Tournament 4 in the numbering scheme of how many Unreal Tournaments there have been. 1 would be Unreal Tournament (1999) 2 is Unreal Tournament 2003, 3 is Unreal Tournament 2004. Finally 4 is Unreal Tournament 2007.

Steve Bowler is certainly entitled to voice his opinion on whatever forum he likes; but I know I enjoyed Doom 3 and the expansion pack. If he didn't, well, too bad. The game isn't going to appeal to the kid who plays counter-strike solely (not that CS and CS:S are bad, they just aren't the only type of game), and it isn't going to appeal to the most jaded gamers. Monster closets are obviously a problem with Doom 3, but that is about it. It does something modern new games like Battlefield 2, and all of the Unreal Tournaments don't do; deliver a single player experience with a good modern engine. BF2 has bots, and UT2004 has better bots, but they don't have any kind of good linear single player experience. Far Cry might, I haven't played it beyond the demo. HL2 certainly does deliver on that. Show me another modern engine that runs on your computer and delivers a reasonably good single player FPS experience right now, I'd certainly point to HL2 and Doom 3.

Re:Unreal Tournament 3 (2, Informative)

The boojum (70419) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017161)

"...and the upcoming Unreal Tournament 3" So if he is talking about Unreal Tournament 2007, that would be Unreal Tournament 4 in the numbering scheme of how many Unreal Tournaments there have been. 1 would be Unreal Tournament (1999) 2 is Unreal Tournament 2003, 3 is Unreal Tournament 2004. Finally 4 is Unreal Tournament 2007.

I suspect he meant the upcoming Unreal Engine 3. Unreal and UT99 used the Unreal Engine 1. UT2k3 and UT2k4 both used the same basic Unreal Engine 2. UT2k7 will be based on the new Unreal Engine 3. Epic's Unreal Technology Roadmap [epicgames.com] has the details.

Re:Unreal Tournament 3 (1)

Time Doctor (79352) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017460)

I'm already aware of Unreal Engine 3, but that isn't a game alone.

Re:Unreal Tournament 3 (1)

tootbrush (878155) | more than 9 years ago | (#13019573)

No, he's got it right.

The Unreal/UT community tends to:
1) ignore UT2003 (what a failure that was);
2) take UT2003 and UT2004 as one game (they basically are one game).

Re:Unreal Tournament 3 (1)

Time Doctor (79352) | more than 9 years ago | (#13019608)

While this may be implied, it sure isn't clear that this was his intention. It was also irrelevent to the discussion at hand, which is Doom 3. Doom 3 is a single player game. It is like comparing Katamary Damacy to Algebra Blaster.

Re:Unreal Tournament 3 (1)

thelost (808451) | more than 9 years ago | (#13019681)

you mentioned it in the first place; farcry. I had the luck to be given an old copy by a friend who couldn't run it on his computer, I installed it on mine, which was a bit beefier and fired it up. From the moment I started playing I realised that Farcry was a very different beast from anything else I had ever played, and this is coming from someone who's been a quake fanboy since Quakeworld days. I've since then played D3 and HL2 through and they just truly cannot compare to what Farcry brought back to the genre for me, and that's FEAR. The last game to make me as tense, and as scared as that was thief, but with farcrys stunning outdoor jungles and heartstopping tenseness I was hooked in a way I havn't been to a game in a long time. I always know when I really like a game or not, based on whether I get so bored I bring down the console and /godmode it just to get to the end. With Farcry though its replay value was so great, I kept on coming back. I especially liked the bit near the beginning where you had to sneak through the jungle sneaking up on mercs cutting their throats. Hmmm I need to get that psychotic streak seen to, but it makes playing games sooo much more fun!

ye gots id wrong (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13016827)

Fist of all- what a tool, this author. The core of what makes Id important (very different from popular, i might add) is STILL there.

Carmack and Id have always seemed, to me, to be interested in pushing themselves and the technology first, and at one point that made them very popular.

Ok, they're not on the tip of the tonge of every teenager from here to Tacoma, like, say, Rockstar. But does anyone TRULY into games give a shit?

The advances in engine tech from Quake 3 to Doom 3 are probably going to be unnoticed by the unwashed masses. As Call of Duty [gamespot.com] running on the Quake engine showed us- it's really hard to gauge the full potential of an engine at the start. Methinks the same will be true of the Doom engine.

Re:ye gots id wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13018630)

didn't CoD use the Return to Castle Wolfenstien engine?

Bad Engine (3, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016838)

IMHO the problem with Doom3 is the engine. The graphics where ok, but if all it can render are five foot long corridors its just isn't much impressive in the long run. In UT, Farcry, Battlefield and a bunch of other games you have huge outdoor scenarios, in Doom3 you don't have any of that, even so it would have fit the scenario quite well. Beside from that the graphics also where not that impressive, they were good, but not really much better then other games that released around the same time. Doom3 ended up being one of many games out there, neither the graphics nor the gameplay set it much apart from the rest.

The problem is simply that basically all games today look great, full 3d, shaders, bloom and stuff, so it gets a lot harder then in the old days to look special.

Re:Bad Engine (1)

slittle (4150) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016948)

IMHO the problem with Doom3 is the engine. The graphics where ok, but if all it can render are five foot long corridors its just isn't much impressive in the long run.

Is it really the engine, or the need for it to run on a console with 1/10th of the resources?

Re:Bad Engine (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018526)

I doubt it, the processing power eating stuff in Doom is mostly just shaders, shadows and the like, each of which can simply be switched of when porting to XBox (flashlight doesn't create shadows in the XBox version as far as I know). Outdoor wouldn't be much different, the XBox is well capable of handling huge outdoor scenarios, just not with all the bells and whistles like a PC with a good graphics card. So it would be again just a matter of switching some stuff off when porting Doom.

Re:Bad Engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017629)

You've gotta be kidding me... bad engine? Do you actually know anything about the Doom3 engine? I seriously doubt you'd be saying that if you did. You may not have liked the GAME, but that's different then the ENGINE... yesh.

Re:Bad Engine (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018543)

### Do you actually know anything about the Doom3 engine?

Only what I have seen in the game and that really wasn't much impressive at all, ie. complete lack of any larger rooms or outdoor stuff.

The actually game content is a whole different matter of course, but thats not what I am arguing about.

### You've gotta be kidding me... bad engine?

Well, maybe not bad, but not that great either. Havn't yet seen many games that use the Doom3 engine, actually none at all beside Quake4. UT engine on the other side gets used quite a lot.

Re:Bad Engine (1)

jensen404 (717086) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018736)

It isn't a bad engine... it's just too specialized.
The only reason the Source engine and the Unreal engine don't have 100% dynamic lighting and shadows is that it severely limits the scope of the environment and other graphics features.

The Doom3 engine traded many of the abilities of current generation engines for one next generation feature.

Re:Bad Engine (1)

phatsharpie (674132) | more than 9 years ago | (#13019437)

The engine is quite good at rendering large outdoor scenarios. Take a look at Enemy Territory: Quake Wars

http://pc.ign.com/objects/748/748377.html [ign.com]

-B

Doom3 wasn't an arcade game (5, Interesting)

Zoid (8837) | more than 9 years ago | (#13016891)

I left id Software in early 2000 about six months after Quake3 came out. Counterstrike was starting to really catch on and I personally don't enjoy "realistic" weapon based first person games. I really like playing with completely unrealistic rocket launchers, laser guns, etc. Counterstrike never appealed to me as there's only so many variations on hit scan weapons (such as glocks, rifles, etc). With Quake3 done, the next game was Castle Wolfenstein with the Quake3 engine. The entire industry was headed for war simulation games, mostly fueled on the popularity of Counterstrike. I didn't want to work on these games--they weren't something I was interested in. I like an arcade game like feel to the game, not a slow tactical game. I'm not saying these were bad games, just not the type of games I enjoy playing or making.

id excelled at making amazing technology and simple addictive arcade like gameplay with that technology. The original DOOM is an arcade game--its incredibly fast with dozens of monsters on the screen. Quake and its sequels were also arcade games, except you can play over the internet against other people.

Doom3 wasn't an arcade game. id attemped something different by building a game that followed a story and because of limitations of the engine, could only allow interaction with a few creatures at once. They tired to do this with some the mechanics from the older single player games (such as monster closets) and while the game is both incredible from a visual and technological standpoint, the gameplay to match this just isn't there. Much of what Steve says is right, when the level of graphics and presentation presented called for realism, old models of spawning monsters behind you when you pick up something doesn't work anymore. That worked in an arcade game, but not in a story driven game focusing on realism.

I hope id realizes their strengths and return to focusing on games with great visuals and technology with simple and addictive arcade like gameplay. That's the id I know and want to play.

Re:Doom3 wasn't an arcade game (2, Insightful)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017567)

I agree 100% with everything you said. I have always made the point that I would rather a game be fun than realistic. I played Counterstrike for only a few days before I tired of the sneeking/creeping slow gameplay.

Thanks for all the stuff you have done for us that like the truely fun type of games!

Re:Doom3 wasn't an arcade game (1)

DoctorBit (891714) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017948)

In the original Doom game, I enjoyed the complex level design and automap feature, combined with lots of secret areas and lots of monsters to battle at once. I just don't much enjoy battling one or two monsters at a time, and I'm bored by the linear architecture of modern fps games.

For single player gaming, I like the complex architecture, automapping, and multiple monster battles in modern 3rd-party remakes of the original Doom game (jdoom [doomsdayhq.com] ) .

While some modern fps games have realistic graphics of gritty inner-city environments, I don't care. If I wanted to spend my time in a realistic gritty inner-city environment, I'd go to a gritty inner-city environment in real life! Not interested. /end rant

Re:Doom3 wasn't an arcade game (3, Interesting)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018086)

old models of spawning monsters behind you when you pick up something doesn't work anymore. That worked in an arcade game, but not in a story driven game focusing on realism

I disagree. There are multiple points where that happens in Unreal (the old original one).

Probably the most memorable one is the Stone Titan battle. You see him on his throne, but he doesn't move. You can walk up to him, walk on him, shoot him, make noise, fight the other enemies in the area, whatever. But the moment you steal his treasure, he's gonna try to whoop your ass! It was CLASSIC pick-up-the-item-and-get-ambushed. And it was good.

Why was it good? Because they did it right. They didn't make enemies suddenly appear all around you. They had an enemy that was inactive become active when you stole his stuff. It's something that would be believable in real life (if real life included crash-landing on a planet full of reptile warriors and being the one and only human to whoop ass and live through the ordeal).

This illustrates the difference between "arcade" gamers (as you claim to be), and "realism" gamers (which I seem to share more traits with).

"Arcade" gamers play games for the sake of games. They understand how games work, and therefore, couldn't care less how the enemies got there. They already know how the enemies got there. They understand that The Game deposits enemies into the playing field when it's supposed to, and it's your "job" to kill them.

"Realism" gamers play games to be immersed in a world. They may or may not know how games work, and their pickiness about just how real a game has to be varies from player to player. They see enemies dropping in as a story element rather than a command to blast things to smithereens. They want enemies that appear to be accompanied by dropships or the sparky fizzle of a transporter beam or at least fall through holes in the roof (Unreal did this a lot). But the enemies have to come from somewhere. They can't just randomly appear. (There are exceptions - like random battles in Final Fantasy games, which happen in areas where your zoomed-out view wouldn't allow you to see the enemies anyway.)

I hate to admit it, but I've actually bought a few id games. Quake 3, which people swore was better than Unreal Tournament (damn liars...), Return to Castle Wolfenstein (good, but somehow felt too stiff), and... well... no, that's it. I guess I really don't care if id makes a comeback, and perhaps you can see why. I don't begrudge anyone their favorites, though, so good luck to them and you.

Doom 3 and HL2 were so not worth the money... (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017006)

Both of the 'flagship' games out - Half Life 2 and Doom 3 - had a couple things in common. Both had absolutely stunning graphics and the potential to interact with the environment. Both games were about as linear as a ride at Disney land... Both wanting stupid ($60ish) amounts of cash.

At first, Doom was a bit scary - but there were just not that many different monsters about. Did not take long for things to get old. Even worse - the step forward, closet open behind you, and random monster jump out at you got very old. No multi-player? Come on! Talk about zero replay value there... Skipping whatever expansion gets put on the shelves as well.

With HL2, I heard the same 'linear' complaints and they were right. Could they make fewer options for how to make an objective? I eventually picked it up for $30, and that was largely due to CS: Source rather than the HL game itself as the driver.

With all the millions of dollars spend on the technology, HOW BLOODY HARD is it to find a decent story writer. Really? When they say games are becoming the next Hollywood, guess that applies to budget for scripting as well.

Anyhow, ended up getting small pile of games that were bundled with hardware and one of the more pleasant surprises is FarCry. Graphics and physics seemed comparable to the games going for three times the amount. The gameplay is fairly unrestricted - lots of different ways to go about meeting the objectives. Don't know why it missed out on the press.

Looks like I'm standing on a soap box here... The Doom 3 was the last game I will ever spend $50 on without 'stars shooting out of it's ass' positive reviews by people who actually parted cash for the game.

Re:Doom 3 and HL2 were so not worth the money... (2, Funny)

Tanmi-Daiow (802793) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018382)

what do you mean FarCry 'missed out on the press."? All i heard about for awhile was FarCry. Frankly, i was getting sick of how good a game it was. I played it. I didnt like it.

What spoiled Doom 3 for me (4, Interesting)

extrarice (212683) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017062)

Doom 3 was looking good, as was Halo 2. Then I saw the physics demo for Half-Life 2, and promptly stopped paying attention to anything else.

Computer (more specifically, GPU) processing power has increased so much in the past few years that game companies can no longer simply rely on "Uber-realistic graphics!!!" to sell their games. Everyone can do that now. It's old news.

That was id's mistake. I think that Valve properly recognized the "Uber-Graphics" wall in the industry and instead focused on game physics and AI. The result was Half-Life 2, and one of the first (if not the first) FPS games that you could really interact with any aspect of the environment, beyond scripted "push this crate here to open the door" elements. Don't get me wrong, Doom 3 is pretty. But gamers are bored of "just pretty graphics". Doom 3 didn't bring anything new to the party; Half-Life 2 did.

Re:What spoiled Doom 3 for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017987)

Ever played Trespasser? That game had incredible physics. Highly recommended!

Re:What spoiled Doom 3 for me (1)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018052)

While I agree on your point of Valve's focus on AI and physics, to id's credit, they also used non-static props in Doom 3.
While not as impressive as HL2, they had their place in D3.

Single Player FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017216)

I don't know, maybe I'm the only one who thinks this way, but what really annoys me about single player first person shooters lately is this:

They all try to be the original Half-Life, showing off some 'big expansive' world or story line and delay any satisfaction in the game; this may work in games like Halo, which had a surprising number of newbie gamers claim that it was the 'Best game Ever', but for more experianced gamers it tends to bore or frustrate them. Lets face it, someone has to (HAS TO) come up with new 'Tutorial Mode' ideas to ease gamers into the gameplay without using the same boring walk through halway, talk to someone, shoot at target range, walk through hallways, talk to someone, get uber-armor, etc. storyline.

In my opinion I was pretty fed up with Doom 3 by the time a monster apeard on screen to shoot it; I played for a couple more hours but when the same ear-hole tactic is used over and over again by the level designers it gets old fast. Doom 3 offered nothing in the way of new or interesting gameplay and that is why it fails.

Wolfenstein, Doom I, II, & III, Quake I, II &a (3, Insightful)

Time_Ngler (564671) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017442)

You can't make the same game 7 times in a row without it getting boring after awhile.

Re:Wolfenstein, Doom I, II, & III, Quake I, II (2, Funny)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018078)

Can you please tell that to the guys who are making those Police Academy movies ?

Re:Wolfenstein, Doom I, II, & III, Quake I, II (1)

skreeech (221390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018132)

Doom III wasn't the same game at all. It left the arcade/multiplayer focus and went for a survival horror single player feeling.

Quake 4 is what should be actually looked at as next in the line of ID games even though Raven is making it.

Doom 3 wasn't that bad. Honestly. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017532)

I liked Doom 3 actually. Of course it did not have the brains and braun of a Half-Life or mulitplayer of Halo 2, but I really dug the game. I own it on the Xbox and I enjoy playing it in casual spurts. Maybe its just me, but I like shooting games every once in a while to NOT require solving puzzles or having some fleshed out story. When I just want to shoot stuff, that is where Doom 3 fits the bill.

I love the online co-op via Xbox Live and even the so so deathmatch is good once in a while. What makes the game best for me is a surround sound system and sufficent TV.

Are you all fucking retarded? (1)

ftgow (791708) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017626)

Author of this article be damned as well; they aren't making Quake IV, and it's not called Unreal Tournament 3! If they followed that convention it would be 4... Regardless, I've no idea why people think Half Life 2 comes close to Doom 3. 1. "Gordon you're back from a ten year sleep! You caused all this! No Time to explain! Go on a 4 level boat ride down a river!" There's no story in this game; I quess the assumed everyone would have read the numerous rumor pages relating to the story, considering they didn't have the time to implement that story. 2. Half Life doesn't have good physics, Havok does. "Focus on Physics?"; They paid a licensing fee. If you've played say, Deux Ex 2, you'd have fount that if you pick of a trash bin, you can (without the help of some 'gun') hurl it at a NPC, and kill them. 3. Half Life 2's graphics come no were near Doom's , hell it's still got Quake I code inside, with half a dozen DirectX surface effects thrown on to antiquated uses of BSP geometry. UT2003/4 and quake 3 can render the same pictures, if you implement pixel shaders. Etc. Why people deal with Windows, STEAM, and everything else dealing with Microsoft, and some fat ex Microsoft employee is beyond me.

Carmack got 0wn3d!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017711)

Ok just never forget that John Romero left ID, for me that was tragical, ID games were entertaining, and with all the secret passages you could spend a whole afternoon just palying the game, DOOM 3 was more like a corporate release where wackiness or entertaiment was banned.

ID failed for trying to push people to upgrade to high end graphics cards and Mc Jobs simply don't make the ends meet, nice try though.

At the end ID will be a thing of the past, Carmack got his money and he really doesn't need to work anymore, that lack of passion fo the games will finally kill their business.

BTW wasn't Carmack the one that said that Java games on mobile devices were crappy, sure he didn't test Doom 3.

0wn3d by UT period.

Re:Carmack got 0wn3d!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13017968)

ID failed for trying to push people to upgrade to high end graphics cards and Mc Jobs simply don't make the ends meet, nice try though.

Excuse me, name ONE truly competitive FPS where those who want to stay on top don't feel the pressure to upgrade. Anyone who plays shooters seriously ALWAYS wants to have the fastest and most solid experience. And that's for ANY fps, not just Doom.

Graphics a game make not (1)

ActionJesus (803475) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017759)

It may shock some of the people in the industy today, but making a crap game then spending £6billion on making it look really, really pretty doesnt make the game any better.

How about instead of all the stupid gfx, they make something thats fun? Or, even better, something that runs on peoples computers?

definitely agree with the article 100% (1)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017762)

I've bought every single ID game since Doom (which I got direct from Id way back when, probably one of the few Italian orders they ever received, I'm sure) but I decided to skip Doom3, it took me only an hour or so looking at it over the shoulder of a friend to decide that yes, the engine was cool but the gameplay just wasn't there.

Monster spawning behind you are not believable anymore, as it's not believable to have the whole game in the dark, as it's not believable to have every room look pretty much exactly the same.

I also didn't find doom3 scary at all, it looked quite boring as the endless variations of 'step over this and a monster appears behind you' were played out.

Ravenholm in HL2 *was* scary OTOH, and really, after finishing HL2 and Far Cry, Doom3 looked pointless: if at least it had the 'tons of monsters, varied environments, open spaces' formula of the original it would've been fun, but the way it is it's going to be the first Id game I won't be spending money on: I'd rather still play System Shock 1 (2 sucked in comparison) for a 'survival/horror' creepy slow paced game with an actual reasonable plot and great voice acting.

You keep using that word, "Demon..." (1)

DrunkenTerror (561616) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017860)

FTA: "Who knew demons were capable of such stealth and chicanery?"
I did. I don't think the author has much experience with real demons. Wouldn't one expect a little stealth and chicanery from an extra-dimensional being? I mean, the fangs and claws are just the parts of it that happen to land in the easily-perceptible parts of the EM spectrum. Demons fuck with you. It's what they are. Extradimensional beings that fuck with us.

I wonder what could cause a person to suddenly flip out for no reason and kill a bunch of people they have loved their entire life.

Re:You keep using that word, "Demon..." (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018357)

You have experience with real demons?!

"Horatio! Get this man his medication...now!"

Snore (2, Insightful)

trawg (308495) | more than 9 years ago | (#13017883)

Reading the summary and seeing a comment like "Maybe it was Counter-Strike. Maybe Unreal Tournament. Something happened to the genre between Quake III and Doom 3, and Id somehow didn't take it into account" made my eyes glaze over and almost started moving to the next article. I got sick of defending Doom 3 from people who didn't "get it" before the game had even come out.

First of all, the comment above is ridiculous - saying Doom 3 is anything like Quake 3, CS, or UT is just an inherently flawed statement. The only thing they have in common is that they're first person shooters. Doom 3 is clearly exclusively a single player game, and ALL those other games are (for all intents and purposes) multiplayer games.

The rest of the article was just about the fact that he got bored fighting zombies. Zoid pointed out the same thing in his comment. Sure, I can see that. But Doom 3 was always a horror game. Everything id said on the way to release was that it was a horror game. It was about being scared. I don't really have much sympathy for those that bought it expecting anything else, just like I have no sympathy for every other gamer that buys a game without excercising any critical judgement about it (ie, the majority) - Battlefield 2 is another example of this, a horribly busted game that people have bought by the hundreds of thousands.

Anyway, these articles are everywhere and (imo) they're always the same - they're all people complaining because they didn't appreciate the game for what it was - a pure horror game. I played the whole thing with the lights out in a small room with surround sound set up (fortunately my sister had just moved out so I was able to steal her room and use it exclusively for a Doom room the entire game). I spent the whole time jumping out of my chair. Sure, I've killed enough zombies in my time as well, but it was about BEING SCARED.

Re:Snore (1)

houseofzeus (836938) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018197)

The problem with the Battlefield 2 example is while it has a lot of bugs (most of which EA haven't bothered to fix in the first patch) damn it's fun.

Um.. (1)

mZam (789803) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018089)

Didn't Doom 3 come out like a year ago? Did the author of TFA just finally manage to get a "next generation" PC that's powerfull enough to play the game and enjoy it to its' fullest?

id's main problem (5, Insightful)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018295)

id's problem has always been that they were a one-trick pony...i.e., graphics. John Carmack took what was at the time a largely theoretical specification, (BSP) first built two genre-defining games out of it, (Doom and Doom 2) and then went on to display an increasing level of technical mastery with it by adding full three-dimensionality. (Quake) As far as pure graphics are concerned, the man is without peer...he occupies a place fairly close to Einstein in my own head. (And he's a Texan, no less! ;-))

However, problems eventually arose from the fact that graphics alone are not what make a truly engaging FPS. It might have been the first engine to utilise OpenGL, but from a *gameplay* perspective Quake 2 especially was complete crap in my book. The situation got markedly worse with Quake 3 as well, from the point of view that the base engine was the only part of it which id actually produced themselves. Everything else (the AI, the cutscenes) had to be outsourced. Q3's credits list is very long...and id's own staff do not occupy a very large part of it.

Q1 was id's finest hour in my mind...I still don't think I've ever had a more immersive or atmospheric multiplayer experience since then. (and I've played my share of Q3 and UT 2003 online) I realise however that such is a completely subjective statement...but I've long tended to believe that the development of any technology follows a bell pattern, where it hits a peak of development/refinement, and then actually starts to come back down somewhat. (I don't include visual photo-realism as a criteria here either; quite the opposite, actually) For me, (purely in terms of multiplayer) the original Quake was the proverbial summit of the mountain.

The release of Unreal and Unreal Tournament certainly didn't help matters for id though, either...because not only were they beautiful graphically, (the original UT is still a completely acceptable visual experience in my book) but they also included all sorts of innovations where AI and gameplay were concerned...not to mention an extremely discoverable and user-friendly editor, which made it easy for any net-dwelling 14 year old to create their own scenarios as well. Epic might have been ardent worshippers of id, but they were probably more responsible for their idols' demise than any other single factor from what I saw.

So, yeah...that to me is the main issue. Carmack is/was a graphical genius...but they were only able to get away with graphics alone for maybe three releases. (Doom/2, Quake) These days, graphics alone aren't what sell a game...You need good level design, decent AI, and people generally like a strong storyline with a high immersion factor as well.

id were the first, and they will always have that distinction...but they were not able to reinvent themselves...and the world has moved on.

Re:id's main problem (1)

skreeech (221390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018672)

For me I started online gaming with quake 2. For me rocket arena 2 was a great competition game. I'm sure there are many more like me where this is what we want and ID might always be able to deliver that.

A game with a good weapon set, some decent built in maps and tools to spawn a huge modding community. A lot of us don't need complex ai, storyline, or any immersion. We just want to shoot each other.

No John Romero (2, Interesting)

Mingco (883841) | more than 9 years ago | (#13018747)

No John Romero means iD has lost the main guy who pushes for gameplay innovation. Romero + Carmack = a balance between gameplay and technology. One without the other just isn't as good.

Read the book Masters of Doom for insight into their dynamic, and how much Romero brought to the table at iD.

I didn't have much respect for him after the Daikatana debacle, but gained it back after reading that book.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?