23rd July 2004, 8:10 PM
Quote:...which you used to argue your point.
Have you read the article, OB1? It's not even pro-Doom 3... just a worthwhile read...
Quote:"Trust"? Don't you mean "agree with"?
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: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.
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:The company name is pronounced like id as in "id and ego", not like I.D.
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:Here's my question. Why is Doom praised as such a genre starter when Wolfenstein 3D came first?
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: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.
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...