 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Zero
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
As for the scariness effect. I typically don't find horror movies scary, I think they're boring more than anything else. I haven't played SS2, but I have played some other games/parts thereof that are supposed to be scary. I did several times appreciate the creepy setting, and I did of course on more than one occasion get surprised by a monster sneaking up from behind or something.
Doom3, so far, has had me jumping slightly repeatedly, and there were two BIG jumps for me, I actually dropped my mouse on one, scared me a lot. Some of the moments when there are no monsters around are scariest. The scare is absolutely Stephen King-standard  . |
Im a big horror movie buff, but most of them dont scare me at all. But when it comes to horro games, I love the fact that I control the character and that makes it much more interesting as when the monster sneaks up behind me, I care. Whereas when a retard in a movie walks into the dark saying hello? I get annoyed and laugh when he gets beheaded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
|
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
If they had several possible paths for levels, I'd no doubt get lost. Levels are great also in that that there's no "Quake 2 running back" syndrome, when you did something at one end of the map, and then spend time going back to the beggining through the entire map. Here, when you need to get back to start of the map, you'll either find a door that brings you straight there, or will take another path to it. |
Actually I liked the doom1/2's running back syndrome, because you would think you know exactly how many enemies are still there, or if u killed them all, you'd think you would be safe, but doom ALWAYS opens up a trap full of new enemies when theres running back to be done.... just that you never know when they are coming from.
when i hit the switch to lower the platform to get the card and come back to grab a card, and i see no new enemies being released... i'd get nervous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pg
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
Possible to make 8 players with a mod, but so far I hear 4-DM plays nice. I still can't understand who cares about MP, as to me deathmatch seems to be absolutely the same, graphics aside, in all games, Quake, Unreal or Doom 3. |
you need at least 8 player servers to get most of the standard quake dm modes(duel, 4v4 tdm/ctf, ffa). 16 would be passable but ideally 32+. when i play dm in id games i spend most of my time in 4v4 tdm.
i'm surprised you don't like multiplayer more as you seem a real fanatic for id's single player games. maybe you are just a sound/graphics whore? or suck online and don't like losing? any action in id's single player games is orders of magnitude more intense, and complex in dm. i just never understand people who go nuts for single player then show little interest in it's multiplayer counter part.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
My lack of love for multiplayer is two things. First, I love it when there's a specific goal, like in single player, not mindless fragging. Which is why I prefer CTF mode for this sort of games, or better yet, objective-based team shooters online. Second, I pretty much suck online... I never whine because I lose, but I played some Quake 2 DM last week... apparently against veterans who have practiced for hundreds on hours, and well, I am not anywhere on the level to compete with them. I love a challenge, but that's a bit too hard.
Another thing why I'm a bit skeptical about Doom3 MP specifically, I don't think it is any different from other DM games there, though I will reserve my judgement till I actually play it, but so far I can't imagine how DM in Doom3 would play differently from DM in Quake.
You may want to note that people who praise the game say 4 player MP works really well and is tactical. I hope.
Oh, and me being a graphics whore made me laugh. Of all the games, ones I play are usually with mediorce graphics, Morrowind aside.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
There are emails on PDAs?
That sounds like a verifiable rip-off of System Shock 2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pg
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
First, I love it when there's a specific goal, like in single player, not mindless fragging. |
it's not mindless fragging. how can you disparage multiplayer for being mindless yet praise single player?  you can just say you don't like multiplayer but compared to single player the gameplay is far, far superior.
basic gameplay in dm is you figure out routes to run while attemping to control the level. each item has a time when it respawns so you want to figure out how you can pick up the maximum items and deny them to your opponent. aim/tactical skills are secondary to item control but do play a part where as aim/tactics are the only thing that matter in single player.
quote:
Which is why I prefer CTF mode for this sort of games, or better yet, objective-based team shooters online. |
your objective is to win. sure ctf has flags but 90% of the time the team that's better at dm will win, so it's pretty much the same.
quote:
Second, I pretty much suck online... I never whine because I lose, but I played some Quake 2 DM last week... apparently against veterans who have practiced for hundreds on hours, and well, I am not anywhere on the level to compete with them. I love a challenge, but that's a bit too hard. |
you need to find a server where you can have fun. believe me there are still servers with people who can't even walk straight. find an ffa server and practice some. becoming competent at dm is like learning to ride a bike. once you put in the effort to get decent you won't lose it. it doesn't take hundreds of hours either. if i had you at a lan with me i could get you good in a few hours. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pg
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guynemer
That sounds like a verifiable rip-off of System Shock 2. |
actually isn't doom3 more a of a half life ripoff?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
|
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solver
My lack of love for multiplayer is two things. First, I love it when there's a specific goal like in single player, not mindless fragging. |
But every MP has a specific goal. To start of, winning would be a nice goal to saet for urself.... 
quote:
Which is why I prefer CTF mode for this sort of games, or better yet, objective-based team shooters online. |
Amen, brother.... I also think that CTF is the best form of FPS MP gaming...
quote:
Second, I pretty much suck online... I never whine because I lose, but I played some Quake 2 DM last week... apparently against veterans who have practiced for hundreds on hours, and well, I am not anywhere on the level to compete with them. I love a challenge, but that's a bit too hard. |
I see where your coming from. First, kudos for not *****ing and whining, but even if ur getting creamed by vets you can enjoy and make a learning experience out of it. Instead of being discouraged and saying "this sucks" if you just take a much humbler approach and make the best out of that experience by learning you can get better. The secret is, it doesnt take 100s of hours to get better. Most people have problems having warped and delusioned ideas on how to play the game. You just need to deconstruct that whole mindset and be willing to adopt a comepletely forign style of play... Aceepting that is often the hardest for people.
Or... you can just play with people at your own level.. ie ur friends, if you arent up to the challenge of getting better.
quote:
Another thing why I'm a bit skeptical about Doom3 MP specifically, I don't think it is any different from other DM games there, though I will reserve my judgement till I actually play it, but so far I can't imagine how DM in Doom3 would play differently from DM in Quake. |
Agreed, but as you said, judgement should be reserved. But to say Doom3's MP play is exactly going to be like doom2 or quake is a bit too much of a generalization dont u think.. after diffference in engine and bugs glitch and everything else will add up to difference in how players will play....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
I just upgraded my nvidia drivers from 44somethin to 61.77 and literally got a 30fps boost in all areas of the game. Granted my previous ones were very outdated, but 30fps? Now im getting 35-50fps, still looks ugly as **** like, but now its faster ugly as ****.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
it's not mindless fragging. how can you disparage multiplayer for being mindless yet praise single player? you can just say you don't like multiplayer but compared to single player the gameplay is far, far superior.
basic gameplay in dm is you figure out routes to run while attemping to control the level. each item has a time when it respawns so you want to figure out how you can pick up the maximum items and deny them to your opponent. aim/tactical skills are secondary to item control but do play a part where as aim/tactics are the only thing that matter in single player. |
I love multiplayer in games such as RTS or TBS because of the very nice challenge. In a standard FPS DM (and as you put it well, much of the time in CTF), the only objective is to get the most kills. For a pretty bad online player like me (or a new one, which is the same thing as I haven't played much DM), that objective isn't anywhere near realistic, on a 10-player server I'd get a frag in time that top players get 10. Sure, I could do better with practice, as that's what makes people good at games, but I don't have two extra hours each day to spend practicing my online skills.
You say there are servers for bad people, well, maybe you're right. I would no doubt enjoy DM on a server where I can at least compete on the same level as most other players. It surprises me BTW how I suck so much at DM, I've been playing FPS games since the original Doom, and can pull off some impressive things there, but guess this doesn't translate to DM skill. So yes, given a server with appropriate skills, as well as tactics playing a role, I guess I'd enjoy it. Looking forward to seeing you on a LAN  .
quote:
The secret is, it doesnt take 100s of hours to get better. |
I really gotta check that. Dunno, always thought so, and a few people whom I know who are super-fragger stars say that they spend quite some time on it, so that's what I figured . Oh well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vee4473
|
 |
New Jersey
Feb 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
I just bought it last night and , although i'm not blown away, it does seem to have potential. (I have only played a short time.
Anyway, i'd like to report something that I think someone lse mentioned..
The first time I played, it was on lowest graphic setting. It was ever so slightly choppy and I thopught "great even lowest isn't that smooth".
But, I don't know what happened, because I switched it up to high graphic setting and it looks better and runs smoother than at low...what's up with that?
It is almost as if my computer just had to get used to the game or something and now it runs great on high.
athlon xp2200+/geforce 4mx440/512 ram by the way.
Last edited by vee4473 on 05-08-2004 at 20:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vee4473
But, I don't know what happened, but I switched it up to high graphic setting and it looks better and runs smoother than at low...what's up with that?
It is almost as if my computer just had to get used to the game or something and now it runs great on high.
athlon xp2200+/geforce 4mx440/512 ram by the way. |
yikes, an mx440? 
You should upgrade that vid card. 
I'll try Doom 3 on one of my other PC's. I'm curious to see how it performs on a Pentium 2.00ghz, mx420, 256 meg ram. Probably not that good.
and for the record, Geforce > ATI... period. In DirectX, the performance is equal, for all intents and purposes. But Geforce plays much better on OpenGL... and Geforces usually cost less than their ATI equivalents.
ATI is like Intel... if you got the money, they aren't bad cards to have. But like Athlon, for value/performance... nVidia leads the way.
And I used to be insanely pro-Intel/ATI... but I've had bad experiences with both ATI and Intel. For that, I will never go back.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-08-2004 15:20
|