 Oh...
#9973 posted by metlslime on 2006/03/26 21:56:41
I read that as "trilogy" the first two times.
That would have probably been more exciting.
 Fov120.com
#9974 posted by negke on 2006/03/27 01:28:00
what's wrong with the main site btw.? it always displays some site called beich.de. the subdomains work, though.
 Except For Pipeline
#9975 posted by Fern on 2006/03/27 12:25:57
nt
 Boardgame
#9976 posted by lth on 2006/03/28 02:41:33
 Fov
front page is gone due to lazyness on my part. anyone need pipeline back?
 Well I Assume
#9978 posted by Fern on 2006/03/28 05:33:21
there will always be SOMEBODY who could make good use of pipeline :)
 Lth
#9979 posted by R.P.G. on 2006/03/28 09:57:39
ha. Nice one. :) Wanna come over and play a few practice rounds with me?
 Sure
#9980 posted by lth on 2006/03/28 13:34:43
Yeah, sure, whereabouts are you?
 Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
#9981 posted by R.P.G. on 2006/03/28 19:38:35
But if you come around for a game, I'll buy you a beer or two! :)
 Okay
#9982 posted by lth on 2006/03/29 01:34:15
I might be the US this summer =)
 Oh For Real?
#9983 posted by R.P.G. on 2006/03/29 10:16:39
I'll be sure to keep some beer on hand. Mind you, I do that anyway.
 Wait . . . Did They Really Say That?
#9984 posted by R.P.G. on 2006/03/29 19:19:56
Didn't Tim Willits or someone at id software justify the slow movement speed in Doom 3 by saying that they wanted the player not to speed by the art and architecture they had made, but instead slowly take it in?
It seems to me like that's the biggest bit of bogus balderdash bade by id software ever. I mean, shouldn't the inverse be true? If the player isn't forced to see or experience everything on the first run through, there will be a greater sense of depth, more to experience on each subsequent pass through, and therefore more reason to reply the game.
Thoughts?
#9985 posted by Zwiffle on 2006/03/29 19:59:53
I think that's a load of crap. It would've been more plausible to say "it added tension and suspense to the game." But, I think I read that quote in PCG, and IIRC it was a comment to D3DM (why it was slower paced and only had like 1.5 players allowed per server.) But either way, that's a crappy reason to make a player move slowly.
 RPG:
#9986 posted by metlslime on 2006/03/29 20:11:57
While that does sound sort of like B.S, I think doom3 the game benefited from the slower movement simply becuase it suited the style of gameplay. What they hopefully did (this is unlikely) is said "here's the movement speed that benefits gameplay" and then "here's how much detail we should put in our levels based on the already-designed movement speed.
 Well,
#9987 posted by necros on 2006/03/30 06:32:18
i still don't know how to do basic things, so i have the 'v' key bound to the command for movement speed, which i have upped to about 240 which i press every time i play d3 these days. (a little faster than 'sprint' speed)
i don't find i miss anything at all, and i still spend time to appreciate a nice area of a map. (and i've played the game through a half dozen times now)
i think the slower movement speed had more to do with making the game harder. i've noticed which 'quake style' movement speed, the monsters are easy to dodge. it was the sluggish movement which made them dangerous.
 Oh, Absolutely
#9988 posted by R.P.G. on 2006/03/30 07:03:00
There's no question that the movement speed suited the gameplay they were going for, but that justification, even if not a main one, is absolute rubbish.
Also I was wondering if someone might have comments regarding a correlation of movement speed and perceived depth of an environment, since a player may be less likely to notice certain details; or at the very least, then the player gets to choose which set pieces to stop and look at.
 RPG
#9989 posted by Lunaran on 2006/03/30 10:07:10
The amount of things willits says that are absolute rubbish cannot be measured by any instrument yet constructed by modern man.
#9990 posted by Kell on 2006/03/30 11:36:04
The amount of things willits says that are absolute rubbish cannot be measured by any instrument yet constructed by modern man.
Amen, brother.
 I'm Not Sure If I Fallow The Argument,
#9991 posted by HeadThump on 2006/03/30 13:57:03
do you mean that Willits is being dishonest in his statement of the purpose of having the player move slowly in game, or do you mean the idea in its self is poorly conceived?
 Hmmm, Am I Late?
#9992 posted by Zwiffle on 2006/03/30 14:01:53
How long have those "Previous 25" buttons been there?
 Since ~11 Hours Ago
#9993 posted by czg on 2006/03/30 15:09:05
#9994 posted by R.P.G. on 2006/03/30 19:10:07
Whoa! I coaxed Lunaran to make a post!
HeadThump: I mean that's the dumbest reason ever to make the player slow. It also seems narcissistic. Furthermore, it seems (to me) to be a rather short-sighted and non-linear approach to the gamer's experience.
 Thanks,
#9995 posted by HeadThump on 2006/03/30 20:26:55
those are valid points. I find the nobby kneed feel of the movement to be clunky, and not visceral and immediate the way Quake controls feel.
BTW, you are getting closer and closer every year. Raleigh to Durham to Greensboro. Next step is my back yard.
 Oh?
#9996 posted by R.P.G. on 2006/03/30 20:40:24
Winstom-Salem is your backyard?
 Boy Howdy!
#9997 posted by R.P.G. on 2006/03/30 20:43:04
I've been making typos all night and I haven't even been drinking. meh.
|