Quote:But the Capcom characters look more like real people. SSB characters just don't really look like that... it looks cartoonish in the violence, not that realistic. The only way I can see it working is if they used the mini-SF characters from Puzzle Fighter and Pocket Fighter...

A Black Falcon Wrote:If you look at just about any site's 'best PC games ever' lists, Doom and Quake almost always rank quite highly... but they haven't stood the test of time?

And if you want id games that aged well, I think Commander Keen is still good... :)

Quote:An Nvidia GeForce 3 graphics card or ATI Technologies 8500: Column author Dwight Silverman says that given the game's demanding visuals, serious gamers should splurge for a GPU from Nvidia's GeForce FX or 6800 line or ATI's Radeon 9800 or X800 series. He says more frugal PC owners can make do with a GeForce 5900XT or a Radeon 9600XT.

A 1.5-gigahertz Intel Pentium 4 chip or AMD Athlon 1500: Though these will run the game, Silverman suggests a 2GHz Pentium or equivalent, with the "ideal" processor being 3 GHz or over.

384MB of memory: Again, Silverman stresses that this is a minimum requirement, and he recommends 512MB at least, with 1GB preferred.

Two GB of hard drive space:. Four GB is suggested if your PC is running low on free space.

Quote:Pentagons? I think you mean pentagrams...

Quote:Here's one problem, OB1. ID has changed a lot over the years. Doom had a lot of people working on it who left not too long afterwards -- John Romero, Tom Hall (who I think is great for being the main guy behind Keen... he did Anachronox too, btw...), American McGee, etc... I don't think you can just lump all of their games together like you do. They aren't that similar. Sure, you run around and shoot stuff, but the environments and implementations are definitely different. And Doom is still entertaining. What's so wrong with running around and shooting things?

Quote:Artwork, that is more similar, since the two main artists on Doom are still with the company. And the lead programmer is of course the same. But game designers? Those are gone. Map designers? One person now at ID did one map for Ultimate Doom; all the others left years ago. It's a different group for many important parts...

Quote:So you never thought Doom had any atmosphere or anything? Not scary?

Quote:Because I hear that the other way in most of what I read about Doom... yes, part of why a lot of people still like it is because it was so great when it came out. But isn't that why you remember most games? Because they were great when they came out? Sure, there were games that did more than Doom before it -- see Ultima Underworld (though that's an RPG) -- or not that long after it -- like System Shock or Dark Forces -- that also deserve to be remembered well, but I don't think anyone who is thinking could say with much credibility that Doom doesn't also belong on a shortlist of great PC games.

Quote:That's not true at all, and if you've read any recent id software interviews you'll know that the remaining members of id have lost very little and still function in very much the same way as they did from the beginning. They just have more money and experience now.

Quote:It's simply not a great game, and never was. It was praised for its graphics, that's it. The gameplay is average at best. Sure there are some games that I look fondly at because of nostalgic reasons, but a good game will stand the test of time.

Quote:It is a fact that Tom Hall and John Romero did most of the design for Doom, and they left. It's also a fact that no one who made any maps for Doom or Doom 2 is still with ID, nor have any of those people been there at the beginning of the Doom 3 project. Yes, the ID people know FPSes. But the people there are ones who were working on the Quake games mainly, not Doom... except for the Carmacks of course. Which is why the art style is similar.

Quote:So universal acclaim, continual appearances on all of the the best PC games ever lists (that magazines or major sites do), etc, etc... look, it's perfectly fine to say you dislike it, but trying to deny that it belongs on ANY best games lists or halls of fame? Huh? It's not even remotely sensible.

Quote:There was a fairly recent interview up at ve3d where the id guys talked about how there was no major gap felt when Hall, McGee and Romero left and that id is still largely the same company as before. Tom Hall and John Romero did not do most of the design work for Doom, it was a group effort, and most of that group is still at id! Tom Hall wasn't even really a game designer, he was in charge of the business aspects of id. Romero did level design and a bit of programming, and McGee only made some levels. You greatly overestimate their contribution to id.

Quote:BTW that gamespy article is a complete farce.

Quote:Halo was lauded as the best game of 2002 even though it was one of the most rushed and flawed games of that year, so excuse me if I don't give top ten lists that much credence. Top 10 PC lists are usually laughable because of the criteria they use to rank games. It's usually not about gameplay, but rather technical feats and influence. Doom is certainly an influential game, but if it were a console game first and console gamers were making a best-of list, it probably wouldn't make it since it could never, ever compare to truly great and timeless masterpieces like Pacman, Super Mario Bros., Zelda, Tetris, etc. That is the PC way. The most-anticipated FPS's are rarely ever the ones with the great and unique gameplay, they're almost always the ones that do something really well on a technical and/or presentation level. Why that is I'm not quite certain, though I do have my theories. Doom is nowhere near as good as any of Blizzard's games (even the older, less popular ones), yet many people still call Doom the best PC game ever. They just don't think about it, and using the excuse of "most people think this, so it must be true" is pretty sad, Brian.

Quote:That wasn't me, that was from this article...
http://archive.gamespy.com/legacy/e...ls/doom3_a.shtm <http://archive.gamespy.com/legacy/editorials/doom3_a.shtm>

Quote:How about the IGN retro-review? I thought it was pretty good...

I couldn't find any of IGN's (frusterating because I know they did them... but where are they hiding...) and obviously can't post PC Gamers because those are from magazines... I always trusted PCG the most though. They called TIE Fighter best game ever in 1998 and Jedi Knight best game ever in '98 (Half-Life in '00, obviously; there wasn't a '99 awards), as well as Civilization II winning second all three of those years... pretty good choices.

Quote:When enough people say something, you need to consider why they do. It doesn't mean that it's something you will like as well obviously, but things like that don't usually happen randomly! And my point was that it isn't just a few reviewers or best-games lists, it's ALL of them... that definitely says something. You just as obviously don't agree with the message, but it says something and it's pretty dumb to pass it all off as just because of the graphics. It's pretty clear to me that there was more to it than that. You might not see the shooting action as especially fun or like the level designs, atmosphere, or characters, but so many people did that it's just incredibly stupid to try to say that they are all idiots.

Quote:As for great and unique gameplay, that is true everywhere. It's no more common on consoles for the games with the truly amazing gameplay to be fully recognized for it... so that 'point' of yours is badly flawed if you mean it to say that console gamers recognize quality better. That's just not true.

Quote:On an unrelated note, I prefer to call them ID than id, mostly because in the Keen games they called themselves ID.

Quote:...which you used to argue your point.

Quote:"Trust"? Don't you mean "agree with"?

Quote:I'm not calling them idiots, just lemmings and graphics whores. Doom is like a holy grail for PC gamers, and most of them probably don't even stop to think for a second if it deserves that praise. Doom is an average game that inspired dozens of great games, and apparently that is enough for most people.

Quote:The company name is pronounced like id as in "id and ego", not like I.D.

Quote:Here's my question. Why is Doom praised as such a genre starter when Wolfenstein 3D came first?

Quote:No, we just have a far better selection of quality titles, don't even try to deny that. But it's not the industry's fault, they don't have Nintendo, Sega, Konami, Namco, Square, etc.

Quote:Have you read the article, OB1? It's not even pro-Doom 3... just a worthwhile read...

Quote:I don't always agree with them. But I trust that most of the time I'll be able to get good information out of the review and the score that will tell me if I would like the game.

Quote:When it came out it was a massive, massive step forward in the genre. Probably revolutionary. Did you hate it back when it came out as well? Okay, so I didn't play it back then, but I've said plenty of times that I'm not the best person to be talking about FPSes... And I certainly heard about it and saw it. Games generally don't get buzz like that and legions of devoted hardcore fans without something there worth going back to again and again... and just graphics won't do that.

Quote:It changed to that around the time of the Doom release, yes, but in the first Keen trilogy it's capitalized and they say that it doesn't stand for anything... I recall one place where they say something about 'we like to think it stands for 'In Demand'' or something like that...

Quote:Oh, Wolfenstein is certainly remembered as well. First great first-person shooter. But Doom went way beyond it... multiplayer, more weapons, enemies, more realistic looking, multiple height levels, etc, etc... Doom blew away Wolf and made the FPS super popular in a way that Wolf only hinted at. That's why it's so well known and remembered.

Quote:I'd deny it if you tried to say that there isn't enough good games for someone to play on PC. Because that's absurdly false. PC has, if you like the genres, many more games than consoles that you can sink untold hours into... and it has genres that consoles simply cannot do well, like military simulations (mostly planes, but there are some of tanks, submarines, etc), strategy games, graphic adventures, etc...

Consoles might get more releases on the shelves. But when you factor in the fact that there is so much stuff available on the web (and I mean legally) for PC that advantage gets smaller all the time...

Quote:I've only ever heard them say "id", and that's how it's called today so that's the name.

Quote:Doom didn't play very differently from Wolfenstein 3D, it just looked better and was a bit faster. Go back and play both games.

Quote:PC Gamer gives just about every half-decent shooter an 80% or higher. They score that genre way too high.

Quote:There aren't nearly as many incredibly good PC titles as there are console ones. Unless you really love flight sims.

Quote:Then you never played a Keen game. It's uppercase in all of them (well, uppercase or with a capital I and lowercase d... and Keen 1-3 aren't a good example because the ingame font is all caps... but the logo is caps too. ). And in the 'About ID' page in Keen 1/2/3 (their first game), it says ID Software and under it 'We're In Demand''...

Quote:Similar gameplay, sure, but with much better graphics, more varied weapons, environments, enemies, etc., multiplayer (that's a big gameplay change!), etc...

Quote:Or maybe a lot of them are decent?

Quote:The difference is slight and, as I said, PC games generally take longer to play or have more options for extending their life than console games, so that difference is irrelevant.

Quote:Of course I've played the Keen games, but I didn't pay attention to the logo. It's id now, and has been that way longer than ID.

Quote:So Sonic 2 was a revolutionary change over Sonic 1 because it had multiplayer?? And I never knew that adding new enemies, levels, and weapons made a game revolutionary. Wow, I guess every game ever made is revolutionary then!

Quote:Decent is 60%, maybe 70%. Really it should be 50%, which is neither great nor bad, but reviewers never use scores correctly. I mean come on, do you really think that Medieval: Total War is only as good as Serious Sam The Second Encounter? Because they got about the same score from PC Gamer.

Quote:Oh so I guess that means that Morrowind is better than Super Mario Bros. because it takes 100 times as long to beat it.

Don't tell me you really believe that there are anywhere near as many superb PC games as there are console games.

Quote:The most revolutionary thing was the graphics. At that point in time such a change really was huge... bigger than a new graphics engine is now, for sure. And you know as well as I do that Doom multiplayer is on a slightly different level than Sonic... what a stupid example...

Quote:If you think that, then why do you dislike Gamespot? They're the closest to saying that of the game review publications I know of, after all...

Quote:Of course I think that Medieval is a much better game than Serious Sam. Serious Sam isn't bad though, it's good, so it also deserves a good score... just not quite that good. Medieval is a fantastic game. ... okay, so I haven't played it nearly as much as I should. I'd rather play Warcraft III... But Medieval is really, really good and I can understand why Gamespot ranked it above WC3 in the 2001 awards. I don't agree, but I certainly understand how they could do it.

I also understand how they could rank Serious Sam game of the year, of course. Some people appreciate simplistic shooters a lot more than you do...

Quote:As I said on MSN, I don't see why this is a point. So there are some more console games. So? Who cares? There are a huge number of great PC games. Far more than anyone could ever play, in just about every genre consoles have (excepting, probably, fighting games). And they have more replay value than most console titles due to such things as: 1) online multiplayer 2) map / level / game editors 3) longer games (or more optional things that extend the game, like quickmissions or stuff like that) 4) more configurable options (similar to editors point). Yes, some console games have each of those things. But far, far more PC games have more of them than console games. By a big factor. Yes, length doesn't mean that they are better but my point is not many people are exactly hurting for games to play on PC. Your 'point' is pretty much meaningless.