[Tiara]

Originally posted by magatsu1
Tiara:
can't find any fault in your reasoning there, but inovation for inovation's sake seems to me like a waste of time.  You don't need to reinvent the wheel everytime. Taking the core appeal of a game and focusing on it, taking the same premise but with new bad guys in new combinations in more realisied worlds.

So, you are basically saying they can produce EXACTLY the same game over and over again only with better graphics and you're fine with it? That's what you get with a serious lack of innovations.

Taking the core appeal and building on it is indeed the cornerstone of any sequel. Note that I said 'building on it' instead of 'focusing on it' because if you just focus on it you'll have a copy of the previous part. you need to build on it. Actually improve the game. Not just copy it and making it look better like with the DOOM series.

Final Fantasy does take the core and buyilds on it. A new world, new character, new story, better graphics, etc. yet at the same time they keep the very core of the game intact. once again, games like DOOM only focus on the core of the game and improve only certain aspects. They don't innovate at all. They just lather and repeat.

the only problem with story driven games is they provide only limited play time. You haved to admit, there is limited play time in an RPG once you've seen everything. Games can be abstract, but the industry has become obcessed with making the game equivilant of books and movies. [/B]

Exactly what Kam said. 70+ hours, excellent replayability due to randomization in the world, etc. And i too reread books and rewatch movies.

Now, FPS games don't have 70+ hours of compelling story in them. More like 2 minutes of the intro and that's about it. They don't have detailed chgaracters with actual personalities besides the "KIIIIIIILLLLLLL!'-personality. They have actual bad guys that don't just have the 'zombie'-personality.

[Rictor]

I have no problem with so called "run and gun" FPS games, even those that don't bring anything new to the table. For example, everyone considered Unreal 2 to be a POS, but I found it entertaining. Nothing really new, but the story was OK and the gameplay was fun. I have the same expectations for Doom 3. I actually like shorter games (as in, not 200 hours like Baldur's Gate), becase if a game is too long, I loose interest before the end. Usually, games which everyone else slags for being too short (Max Payne 1+2, Splinter Cell etc) are just right for me. I would consider 30 hours to be optimal.

Sure, innovation is great, but its not a pre-requisite for a fun game. I love games that innovate, but I'm not going to pass up a game just because it doesn't.

[Scuddie]

Well, as for the FPSs without a story, there are plenty of them that really make you use your brain.  Well, maybe not , but there are enough.  Need I mention Infiltration for UT99?  Why, that game is so involved with tactics and stuff that it scares most people away, because it's not arcadey enough.  Oh, I remember when INF was a brainless reaction shooter, but it has evolved into being the most realistic shooter EVER, even more than OFP (IMO, ofcourse).  Speaking of which, OFP's story had so many plotholes and stupid ideas, etc, that it was a big turnoff.  However the gameplay definately made up for it.  My $0.02.  Check these games out if you havent heard of them.

[MicroPsycho]

IMO the first DOOMs were missing a very important feature:


The JUMP ability

I hope that's fixed in DOOM III.

[Rictor]

If I were the type of person to have a sig, that would be going in it.
Classic.

[Knight Templar]

Halo = Christ, reborn.

:thepimp:

[magatsu1]

Originally posted by Tiara

So, you are basically saying they can produce EXACTLY the same game over and over again only with better graphics and you're fine with it? That's what you get with a serious lack of innovations.

That's essentially what FS2 was to FS1, or to a degree, Halo to say, Doom. Not every game has to be full of gameplay innovations. Halo was essentially a standard FPS, it had some trickery like vehicles and two gun limits, but it was the quality of the enviroments and the AI smike 'n' mirrors that made it stand out. Ofcourse, games which strive to push the boundaries are just as important.

Taking Doom (or Quake2 perhaps) , but making it more atmospheric, the locations more realisied, the overall experience more intense is obviously the aim of D3 and that can be just as good as an innovative game such as Deus Ex.

Oh, and I usually skip intros anyway. How many hours ofrepeated gameplay does an RPG offer ? I still play Doom on ocassion, even now.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by magatsu1


That's essentially what FS2 was to FS1, or to a degree, Halo to say, Doom. Not every game has to be full of gameplay innovations. Halo was essentially a standard FPS, it had some trickery like vehicles and two gun limits, but it was the quality of the enviroments and the AI smike 'n' mirrors that made it stand out. Ofcourse, games which strive to push the boundaries are just as important.

FS2 had a new continueing story, Doom does not. Halo had a semi story, Doom had none. Bad analogies to start with.

A game needs innovation to be good enough to survive longer then a month. Every time a DOOM or UT comes out, you hear about it actively for a month but then, all of a sudden, it stops and all you hear from time to time; "Are ya up for an MP game?".

But if a game is innovative it will have new stuff, new story, new gameplay, etc. it'll keep the game alive a lot longer and a lot more fun in the long run.

Taking Doom (or Quake2 perhaps) , but making it more atmospheric, the locations more realisied, the overall experience more intense is obviously the aim of D3 and that can be just as good as an innovative game such as Deus Ex.

Again you talk about atmosphere and graphics alone. That isn't enough to make a sequel a classic. Again; it'll just be exactly the same only in a new package.

Oh, and I usually skip intros anyway. How many hours ofrepeated gameplay does an RPG offer ? I still play Doom on ocassion, even now.

Heh, I bought FF7 about 5 years ago and I still play it at times. RPGs get dull after time as well, but thats with ANY game. But before it gets dull you have entire worlds to explore, each time you start a new game you can do it differently, etc. I've spent more time playing  FF7 then I've spent FS1 + Fs2 + HW + HW:A + HW2 combined.

And then you have about 3 other newer FF games with entirely new worlds, characters, graphics, atmosphere, etc that do exactly the same (innovate the game each time around).

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Tiara

FS2 had a new continueing story, Doom does not. Halo had a semi story, Doom had none. Bad analogies to start with.

A game needs innovation to be good enough to survive longer then a month. Every time a DOOM or UT comes out, you hear about it actively for a month but then, all of a sudden, it stops and all you hear from time to time; "Are ya up for an MP game?".

But if a game is innovative it will have new stuff, new story, new gameplay, etc. it'll keep the game alive a lot longer and a lot more fun in the long run.


Again you talk about atmosphere and graphics alone. That isn't enough to make a sequel a classic. Again; it'll just be exactly the same only in a new package.


Heh, I bought FF7 about 5 years ago and I still play it at times. RPGs get dull after time as well, but thats with ANY game. But before it gets dull you have entire worlds to explore, each time you start a new game you can do it differently, etc. I've spent more time playing  FF7 then I've spent FS1 + Fs2 + HW + HW:A + HW2 combined.

And then you have about 3 other newer FF games with entirely new worlds, characters, graphics, atmosphere, etc that do exactly the same (innovate the game each time around).

Tiara has a point here, but what's being done about Doom 3, is that ID are taking the /setting/ twisting it, giving it a storyline, etc.. and attempting to make a game to make you wish you wore brown pants..

Doom 3, altho by name, is not necessarily like the previous Doom installments gameplay-wise..
it's like how Different Descent: Freespace was from its descent namesake.
It's not like the other doom(s), folks.. this one be claustraphobic.  so don't expect to nuke several hundred enemies in one go with a BFG, okay?

what makes games fun, is how much time you spend playing it.. y'know.. time flies on pass without you even realising it, and then you suddenly come to the disturbing realisation that it's dawn, and you've spent the past 8 hours playing a game almost obsessively.

[Tiara]

Hey, I am in no way claiming that Doom III is bad mostly because I haven't played it (duh). But the premise isn't that, and here is that word again, innovative. At all. Yes, it's improved over the older games. but at heart it remains the same game.

No matter how much you change graphics and atmophere, if you don't have a story to change like Doom and yopu don't radically change the gameplay, you might as well keep playing a previous sequel.

Well, i'll be sure to pick up a copy at my friend's house and I'll give you my review. :p

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Tiara
Hey, I am in no way claiming that Doom III is bad mostly because I haven't played it (duh). But the premise isn't that, and here is that word again, innovative. At all. Yes, it's improved over the older games. but at heart it remains the same game.

No matter how much you change graphics and atmophere, if you don't have a story to change like Doom and yopu don't radically change the gameplay, you might as well keep playing a previous sequel.

Well, i'll be sure to pick up a copy at my friend's house and I'll give you my review. :p

well there ya go..
that said, folks.. the graphics of doom 3, whilst cool and all, have been done already..
Far-cry and that Chronicles of Riddick game on the Xbox (which is quite fun, i'd must admit)
and some unreal tech games as well.
but, from what i saw of the trailer, the character animations, level design, and the way their faces move realistically are something to be reckoned with..

the fact is, that Doom3 is a different game at its core, and i can't wait to get my hands on it.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Turnsky

the fact is, that Doom3 is a different game at its core, and i can't wait to get my hands on it.

But you only described graphics and atmosphere. What has really changed that would make it such a great game and/or any better then UT?

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Tiara

But you only described graphics and atmosphere. What has really changed that would make it such a great game and/or any better then UT?

aside from the fact that it has a dedicated single-player element to it?
and, it's cramped level design is quite different from anything else i've seen with their huge outdoor enviroments, it's a different direction entierly for an FPS.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Turnsky


aside from the fact that it has a dedicated single-player element to it?

This, I gotta see.

Ever played Voayager: Elite Force? if it's anything like that i might even like it

and, it's cramped level design is quite different from anything else i've seen with their huge outdoor enviroments, it's a different direction entierly for an FPS.

This basically goes into the graphics and atmosphere department But, i'll take a quick look-see once I get my copy off my friend.

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Tiara

This, I gotta see.

Ever played Voayager: Elite Force? if it's anything like that i might even like it

got both, even have the messenger bag that came with EF2

This basically goes into the graphics and atmosphere department But, i'll take a quick look-see once I get my copy off my friend. [/B]

yeah, tell us what you think of it..

i'm getting it, that's a certainity, but i'm gonna get the demo first, just to see if i can get this old heap to run it.

[magatsu1]

Originally posted by Tiara

But you only described graphics and atmosphere. What has really changed that would make it such a great game and/or any better then UT?

the point is the gameplay doesn't need to change. The gameplay can be improved with better level design, more cunning AI etc but the basic premise has been the same since Doom, or Wolfenstein (or whatever) and that's always worked.

Don't why you're pimping Elite Force, it was okay but not that good. You should try System Shock2, it's more First-Person-RPG than no brain Doom.

[ZylonBane]

Originally posted by Turnsky
and, it's cramped level design is quite different from anything else i've seen with their huge outdoor enviroments, it's a different direction entierly for an FPS.

If by "entirely different" you mean "System Shock with a fresh coat of paint", then I agree.

[magatsu1]

I wlways thought corridors were the norm untill fairly recently. Be interested to see how they do the transition from Marine Sci-fi to hell though. Anyone else think the original Doom's hell backgrounds (just a layer of fire) was really cool ? Simple, but cool.

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by ZylonBane
If by "entirely different" you mean "System Shock with a fresh coat of paint", then I agree.

Sssshhhhhh!.. shodan might hear you!

unlike the shock series. what you can't see, /can/ hurt you.

[CP5670]

This is one game I am really looking forward to. Doom was awesome back in 1995 for the graphics and sheer fun factor, although this game will have to do a lot more if it is going to live up to the hype. The map design is something I consider particularly important, as I tend to spend some time exploring maps in detail in singleplayer FPS games, and Doom 3 is supposed to very good with that, although they say the game is a bit short. The price is higher than average but I always get games from ebay anyway, where they are much cheaper and still unused.

I think FPS games have been getting steadily better over the years. The graphics have always improved, level design and sound started getting dramatically better in the post-doom years and very recently the physics has also begun advancing. Moddability has also always been great in these games. The storylines haven't really gotten better with time, but there have always been a mix of excellent and crappy stories in games of any genre except maybe adventure games. The AI has improved immensely, although this is the one area where FPSs (and all games, for that matter) still leave something to be desired. UT2004 probably has the best I have seen but it's still a long way from a good human player. The standards are especially low in FPS games where the AI has to do things other than fighting (e.g. the Thief and Deus Ex series), although on the flip side this can lead to some comic effects.

A game does not have to be revolutionary to be great though, and there are games that are very innovative but still not good. FS and FS2 were hardly revolutionary; it was the heavy polish to the little things everywhere rather than major new ideas that made these games so good.

Also, how exactly is a game supposed to be scary? I never quite understood this. Immersive, sure, but scary? FPSs sometimes throw sudden and unexpected things at you, but you get used to it after a while, and some games really tend to overdo it. I always play games in pitch dark (monitor contrasts look nicer) and with headphones on but still have never come across anything genuinely scary.

Some comments on particular games:

I found Halo to be decent by PC standards but nothing special. It had an okay story and balanced gameplay but the level design was atrociously repetitive. My brother bought it though, so I don't care. Half Life was a very good game but I personally didn't find it that great compared to other FPSs around its time, such as Unreal and System Shock 2.

Deus Ex is unique in a way and is probably one of my favorite games ever, not only for the things usually talked about but also for the sheer amount of unintentional wackiness that can occur within the game's otherwise serious and realistic setting. I have spent as much time fooling around in that game as actually playing it and I have played through it at least ten times.

Also, does anyone here have Thief 3/deadly shadows? Is it good? (I have thief 2 and enjoyed that a lot) I would have already gotten this game but I think it uses the same engine as Deus Ex 2 and my biggest gripe with that game was its horribly unoptimized engine. Was it also simultaneously made for PC and xbox? That is what really killed DX2 in my opinion, although it still had some strong points.

Ace: The D1/D2 imps usually came in big bunches but they were really easy since they invariably hit each other accidentally, got mad and killed each other off. Do these guys come in large hordes in D3 as well? I doubt they would get angry like that this time around, but it might be possible to get them to kill each other by mistake.