http://quotes.fov120.com/?show=single&quote=1739

Willem you're missing the point. The point is that a LOT of people get Wiis and play them over the Wii's graphically superior counterpart. This indicates that graphics are not the main concern of games.

Having said that, yes, my comment about games boiling down to GAME PLAY is a bit of an oversimplification. But regardless, it's true. That's why they're video GAMES. If people just wanted pretty they would watch Transformers all day. But, since people need interaction and control, game play is what drives (should drive) design in games; graphics should follow design. (I'll admit that style has a lot to do with graphics, but I feel style is more important than having a super-high-poly post-apocalyptic super soldier-mutant guy. Different topic for a different debate.) 

hates blind people. Jerk! 

You barfed this nugget: "there may be an essential flaw in comparing a fast paced action game where you should people with rockets and rely on reactions to an ancient game of strategy and thought."

Where does speed chess come in on your trite dichotomy? And QW? There is no flaw in comparing them. 

Bees
#168 posted by RickyT23 [217.44.37.217] on 2008/07/16 18:02:10

Bees ?
#169 posted by JPL [82.234.167.238] on 2008/07/16 21:29:49
Where are the bees !!!???

is just saying he misses me because I have been on the run this week (the kid is not mine!) and I have had little time for the board. He knows bees and talk of bees is a garanteed way to make my knee jerk. Damn bees. 

the same as there are special-effectsy movies with no depth of character.

The fact that there are always more of one than the other is just proof that most people are more than content to "turn their brains off" as I'm always told I'm supposed to do before such movies and let their eyes do the drooling.

That's your problem, Frib. Stop expecting to actually be engaged, because only naive people have standards, and join the staring masses! 

...more whining too.

My point, BTW, isn't that DOom3 was amazing, nor that the gameplay was that great, just that the overall initial experience of playing was probably a lot better at the time than people, looking in retrospect, give it credit for.

And although I am bit of a graphics / look / atmosphere whore, I do think gameplay, particularly feel, is important. 

here's a little gem you might have missed (summary courtesy of Shacknews):

Though powered by the same id Tech 5 technology as id's open-world shooter Rage, Doom 4 will be so detailed that it appears to run on "a totally new game engine," according to id co-founder and software engineer John Carmack.

The jump in graphical fidelity comes about as Doom 4 is targeted to run at 30 frames per second, whereas Rage will run at 60 frames per second. Carmack claims this allows id to throw "three times as much horsepower" at Doom 4.

"[Doom 4 is] going to be a 30Hz game," he told Maximum PC. "It's going to look like a totally new game engine on there, even though it's going to be built on the four years of effort that we spent developing this generation of technology."

the article in question is here:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/e3_2008_the_john_carmack_interview_rage_id_tech_6_doom_4_details_and_more?page=0%2C0

Personally i'm more excited about Rage. id shooter + open-world = insta-spunk. If the art design and the atmosphere in the trailers alone isn't enough to make you empty your sack quicker than Father Christmas, then you should check your pulse. 

"empty your sack quicker than Father Christmas"

I'm not sure you're entirely familiar with how the male genitalia actually work... 

Saw the latest trailer, I did like the look of it. Not sure about racing but the style looked good.

Doom4, 30 FPS, hmmm. I always thought 30 FPS was the bare minimum for SP playability? 

with all the talk of "this game will run at 30hz".

From what I can gather, 30hz does not mean 30fps, but something to do with the frequency of updates done by the engine.

For example Carmack said that rage would run at 60hz as you need to extra control responsiveness for the car driving, where as a corridor shooter like doom you can get by with 30hz.

Please correctly if my arse has grown a mouth... 

I need less coffee... 

except he goes on to say that "this means we can throw 4 times as much detail at it", which suggests FPS. 

I think my brain kinda figured that with less updates per second you could cram more things into the scene before you start noticing the performance hit.

I dunno... NEED TECHIE HELP PLX! =) 

with consoles it's extremely important to be above either 30hz or 60hz at all times, as the tvs refresh at 60hz and with 59 and sync you're essentially only seeing 30fps?

so, with a game you aim at either 30 or 60 fps. 

fuck the consoles and develop for a proper gaming platform... 

LOL 

Proper gaming platform... Nintendo DS? (which can be chipped with a flash card and... kekekeke)


But I'm assuming Carmack is talking about server refresh/tick rates here (the same way D3 was locked at 60hz server refresh rate regardless of frames per second (to avoid the Q3 72/90/125/etc fps/jump speed glitches)), but if that's the case then the designers can put enough detail in for the game to run at only 30 or so FPS and not cause any control responsiveness lag... 

but I assume he means Doom 4 will average 30fps on a 360/PS3.

Hello modern PC. Meet Doom 4. 

i'm pretty sure i've seen this type of thing before...

was it like project offset or something where they were (are?) planning to make the game run at 10 or 20 fps but use motion blur to hide the jerkiness... the game would only update at that speed too, sort of like how some physics engines run independently of game speed in most modern games.

i'm not sure i really get that, i mean, if you're firing a machine gun, for example, how then do you get the really fast light flicker from your gun if your engine is only refreshing and recalculating 10-20 times in a second. we're basically back at quake, where you fire the nailgun and the light can't flicker on and off because it's firing 10 times a second, and the game defaults to only updating 10 times a second. 

like a really shitty idea.

But muzzleflashes are rendering only, so it's not that difficult to do. 

I have a theory as to why so many people hate the gameplay, apart from some of ID's laziness in implementation (ie monster closets next to items, monsters spawning behind you, monsters behind doors).

You have to take damage in a fight.

That's the way the game is designed, you dont move that fast, some of the monsters move faster than you, where they dont you have restricted movement space.

That aspect seems to be compensated with a generous scattering of health and armour but if you dont like taking damage in a fight, that's hardly a consolation.

Now it could be that the higher difficulty levels have a lot more of the lazy gameplay ideas mentioned above, but ignoring that point, any thoughts? 

I have a theory as to why so many people hate the gameplay, apart from some of ID's laziness in implementation (ie monster closets next to items, monsters spawning behind you, monsters behind doors).

i think the monster closets triggered on item pickups (and more generally, any monster spawn tied to an obvious, but arbitrary trigger) are naff, because it is far too "mechanical" (i don't really know how else to describe it) - what i mean is that it's something that would only happen in a cheesy game, and doesn't exactly contribute to the immersion that id are trying achieve.

The other points - monsters behind doors, and monsters behind the player aren't too bad - they are the sort of things you would expect if you were a space marine fighting the xenomorphs on LV-426 - (the Alien series clearly being the primary influence with Doom). 

You have to take damage in a fight.

You are exactly right, that really seemed to be their one design focus. This goes back to my core complaint, about player ability versus player character ability. The game puts a slow character in fast situations, so the player himself can't ever really become 'good' at the combat, just lucky. So then designers can't challenge the player at all because the only clear strength he has left is that he can pick up items the designer gives him, so the design goal seemed to shift from 'put the player in danger from which he can survive and escape if he is good' to 'how can we fuck the player over?' 

Spawning powerful enemies close to the player is the cheapest trap possible, and it became boring and repetitive after a couple of maps, there wasn't enough variation.

Being immersed in the game, only to have that immersion disrupted by events 100% out of my control sucked too often (agree with Nitin here). Perhaps the resulting lack of satisfaction/accomplishment is a reason why the gameplay annoyed so many.

The game puts a slow character in fast situations, so the player himself can't ever really become 'good' at the combat, just lucky.

You could always accelerate for a limited time (stamina), which was nice for realism, but being 'good' in D3 isn't just about aim and movement like an old-skool fps; I got owned many times by Imps just because I couldn't see properly and I cannot say that it was always fun, it felt often tedious. 

I think you can definitely learn to become better at the game, I certainly did after a few maps, but the improvement plateaus a lot quicker than in other games where you can continuously improve as a player.

That, of course, leaves you with the situation where a bit of luck is definitely needed which does diminish satisfaction/accomplishment but concurrently increases a sense of danger. Perhaps they went too far with this tradeoff?

As for the darkness aspect, I have to say I had no real problems on my screen barring a few instances where it was meant to be pitch black. Most the other times the dark areas were nicely contrasted with well placed lights so you were never 'blind'.