You know, with Doom 3 and its engine, the 3 enemies onscreen idea will only get worse. You get to fight one enemy at once! In a tight corridor! Hooray!

quote: Original post by Kylotan
Variation in power and quantity. Doom had human grunts who might come at you 10 at a time, and at the other end of the scale, a cyberdemon who was theoretically far, far, harder than you were. The difference between the two extremes would sometimes lull you into complacency, and also emphasise just how big and powerful a cyberdemon was.

Sadly, most FPS games after Doom moved towards higher-poly characters and ended up grinding to a halt if they had more than 3 enemies onscreen at once, so you'd just get a load of enemies varying from 'tough' to 'super-tough'. The reduction in contrast bored me.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

[edited by - beantas on October 7, 2002 12:17:35 AM]

quote: Original post by beantas
You know, with Doom 3 and its engine, the 3 enemies onscreen idea will only get worse. You get to fight one enemy at once! In a tight corridor! Hooray!

Yeah... that''s why I''m not looking forward to it at all, sadly. A real shame.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

quote: Original post by Gaping Head Wound
i want an fps that really simultes shooting people. because you can''t just do that in real life. you cant just gather up a bunch of friends, hand them guns, kick one of em and say tag you''re it. i''d love to have a game with no story, no missions, nothing but a couple people running around with guns. uber realistic and all that stuff.

there''s actually a film out in japan which is exactly like that. a bunch of teenage kids are put on an island, given guns, and the last one alive is the winner. i think it''s gotten banned in nearly every country worldwide .

personally, i want an fps that responds to my every action. enemies should be able to call others when i''m spotted, security cameras pick me up, etc. I hate it when i walk into a room, let off a bazillion grenades and rockets, and the guys in the next room dont even flinch until i walk in there.

SoF2 would have been the perfect game if all the enemies were placed on the map and not loaded as you go through the level. it''s very annoying when you use say the sniper scope to look up at a lookout tower from long range and see nothing there, only to be killed when a sniper is loaded into it when you get close enough. oh, and it cant have invisible walls. another irritating thing of SoF2. And, if i shoot someone with the sniper rifle, he should react immediatly, not just stand there until i get close enough for his AI script to be activated. The only time this doesnt happen is if you kill them, but if you just injure them they stand perfectly still until you get close, and then they start hobbling about.

Doom3 is meant to scare the shit out of you. it isn''t meant to be serious sam. btw, try creating a quake 1 level with 100 monsters in the room and run it on modern computers. not a single bit of slowdown. now THAT''s action! (it''s also the only time you should use the godmode cheat )

quote: Original post by MENTAL
Doom3 is meant to scare the shit out of you. it isn''t meant to be serious sam.

That''s exactly what I find disappointing. Many FPS games are becoming interactive movies, and fewer are implementing new forms of gameplay. Don''t get me wrong. I will play Doom3 and enjoy it.

But where is all the creativity? I was playing Total Carnage and Smash TV, and realized that all the neat little gameplay ideas that were created in the 2D era haven''t been carried over to the 3D era.

Constant action, and very difficult.

The way they''re doing Doom III will make it a lot scarier than if you went up against 200 guys at a time. The gameplay won''t be radically different, but it should have a different pace than most first person shooters. The presentation, atmosphere, etc. will blow everything else out of the water. Halo didn''t vary gameplay that much, but that didn''t keep it from being a damn good game. Halflife didn''t innovate gameplay wise (much) but it was the most immersive fps created at the time it was released. Just because a game doesn''t innovate doesn''t mean it will be bad.

one word = my ideal fps

Mafia

I''m not saying that Doom3 will be a bad game. I''m not saying a game needs to have innovative gameplay to be good. But eventually, I hope that people will get tired of this formula of making a story-based FPS. There is potential in the FPS genre that people aren''t taking advantage of.