Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
I'm sick of this comparison..
Doom 3 is the second follow-up to the 1994 first-person shooting classic. It is one of the big titles of the year, the gaming equivalent of the release of the third film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Only if they'd made the first two movies in the 1990s, which worked perfectly well on their own, then came back a decade later and filmed a third with a different cast, a different set of effects, and just gave it the same name...

  • 1
A better comparison would be to say that Doom 3 is to the original games what The Phantom Menace is to the original Star Wars films.

If you were a complete moron. Yes.

Damn, I got told! So you're saying that one would be more correct in thinking that Doom 3 is an essential sequel to two previous inconclusive games than they would be in thinking that it is an unnecessary addition to a series in a genre that has long been stale? Don't get me wrong, I like The Phantom Menace more than most, but that doesn't change the fact that my comparison was indeed better than the one James posted. I never said it was perfect, but if people want to liken Doom 3 to a film...

Actually I'd say it was as essential as the original two, simply for it's engine.

The genre is well past it, but at the same time, still a whole lot of fun, and I'd actually more class doom3 as survival horror than a straight out fps.

A better comparison yes, but not entirely accurate.

(Though saying that, ironicly I also thing The Phantom Menace was required for it's "engine".. but there we go.)

Actually I'd say it was as essential as the original two, simply for it's engine.

And you would be wrong :o)

Within the confines of FPS, perhaps it's a neat piece of code. But the original Doom games invented the first person multiplayer experience. The games are directly responsible for the way in which the genre has evolved.

On the other hand, Doom 3 is just one of several new first person games, all with their own engines, all of which claim to do neat little things. Not a single one is going to re-invent the genre - they're just evolutions on an existing type of game, and will be forgotten when the next new thing comes out.

Unless you're specifically interested in the way in which a physics engine works, Doom 3 offers no astounding inspiration or lasting contribution.

If you really want detail on it's graphics techniques I can give them to you, but I really can't be bothered otherwise :oP

But it DOES have it's points. Though I'll conceed that I think the next gen unreal engine is "where it's at".

And doom didn't invent the genre, wolf3d did. They were copying their OLD trick :oP

But you see, nobody cares about the graphics techniques, except for a few geeks (i.e. you ;o)

What's important is the impact on the genre itself - it's just another game with a nicer engine than the last, but is still just another progression along a predictable line, rather than a complete innovation.

When last I checked, Wolf 3D wasn't multiplayer, which is why Doom is considered the original FPS - it allowed you to kill other people. This was new, and it was exciting, and the only other really significant landmark in the same way is Internet multiplayer, and even then it's to a far lesser extent.

Otherwise, the games are fairly obvious - you know now that in a couple of years there'll be a game with X% more realism, and Y% more atmosphere, etc., it's not innovation, it's just improving an existing product in a predictable way.

I always laugh at that you know, 1998, a game called Faceball2000 on the Gameboy offered 4 player multitap "deathmatch" (my 3d floating head shoots yours...) yet doom always gets all the credit...

I actually think doom3 has pulled horror games into a new direction, it's not so much fps but more horror. Played it yet?

Do you mean 1988? :o)

And of course I haven't played it - that's how I know my opinion is correct ;o)

We shall just have to wait and see whether the next Resident Evil type game goes in a more FPS direction, or whether the horror genre sticks to the more "interactive movie" feel, I guess...

Just like Dune 2000 (1998) is credited with being the first RTS, where there's a long history of prior art such as Nether Earth (1987) or Stonkers (1983!)

Apparently all computer history before the IBM PC is ignored. Tch. Kids today!

Um.. no..

Dune 2 (1993) is credited with being the first RTS. Dune 2000 came after C&C, Red Alert, etc., and was nothing.

*watches DMZ back-pedalling*

If I wanted to back pedal, I'd have deleted the post. I own most of the C&C series, and, apparently also you. :)

and the same story as the first one

Have you tried for those boots you were after, incidentally? Meanwhile, I'll consider alt.non-sequitur...

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account