I haven't dropped in to read his stuff in a while over at Gamesdomain; shame on me. His new column is pretty dead on as to what's wrong with RTCW and ID software both.

http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/gdrant/2-010/rant10.html

I think it's a good article too. However, I don't agree with Brett's opionion of the multiplayer. Especially this statement:

"Regardless, there isn't much in the multiplayer aspect to convert fans of established team-based online shooters like Counterstrike and innumerable Half-Life mods."

The implication is that RTCW is simply a mediocre Counterstrike clone, which is ridiculous. Other than the fact that Wolf multipayer is an excellent game that you might want to play *in addition* to other online games, here are some things it has over CS:

a) it's not 2 years old
b) better graphics
c) better sound
d) four clearly delineated classes, each one of which is necessary for winning
e) a well designed HUD that provides plenty of teammate information
f) a quick-chat request system that sets up waypoints on relevant team members' HUDs, making it easy for everyone to fulfill their class functions.
g) so far, no rampant cheating

Is it just an evolutionary step over Team Fortress, CS, and mods such as Day of Defeat? I guess, sure. But - like DAOC was to EQ - it's a solid, enjoyable game with enough notable enhancements to jack the genre's level of expected quality up a notch.

By far the best OOB multiplayer in any shipping game I'm aware of. That's worthy of recognition. And it's well designed, not some tossed off checklist item.

I still think Counter-Strike is ultimately a bit better, but it's had two years to evolve to this point (more maps, gameplay tweaks, etc). Not exactly a fair comparison.

There are a lot better FPS. NOLF, Deus Ex, ST:EF, and ofcourse HL. However, Return to Castle Wolfenstein is still fun. In the end, thats all that matters.

PS: If anyone is expecting NOLF mets Deus Ex when playing the next DOOM, you'll be dissappointed.

I'm expecting the next Doom to suck like no one's business. It'll probably have the boredom of Q2 single-player combined with the "fight a single monster at a time" facet of late.

"I'm expecting the next Doom to suck like no one's business. It'll probably have the boredom of Q2 single-player combined with the "fight a single monster at a time" facet of late."

id hasn't made a good game since... well, the Doom series. I personally hated Quake. I always have.

I should drive down to id's studio here in Dallas and beat the holy hell out of the Carmack's. Of course, that might hurt my chances of being hired as a beta-tester in the future, but it's not like I'd enjoy beta-testing any of their crap in the future anyways.

id's too infatuated with making cruddy graphics engines instead of gameplay, nowadays. That said, why do you think Unreal, UT, and Tribes are awesome? It's not cos of the graphics, I can guarantee you that.

Unreal and Tribes aren't awesome. Tribes was just ahead of its time, significantly so. Unreal was pretty but boring.

I will give this to Epic, though-- they outdid id at their own game with UT. I remember the reaction on ShugaShack when the demo was released.. the stunned collective silence of "My god, this doesn't suck. It's actually very good." I'd also argue that UT's engine feels a bit looser than Q3, but it's not a showstopper unless you're super-anal about that kind of stuff.

Also, I thought Quake 2 was by far id's best singleplayer game since Doom. Not as good as, but the closest they've come.

id's games aren't bad like so many "thinking-man's action gamers" would like you to believe. I think there are a lot of people that want this all-encompassing, absolutely fantastic story to go with their shooters. Then they want all this strategic depth with more to do than just shoot things dead.

If that's you, you're simply not id's target audience. Period. For what id does, they do it extremely well and far better than just about anyone else. Quake 3 Arena is about as tight as you can get with control in an internet action game. If that's not for you, then fine. But to say they haven't made a good game since DOOM, well, that's hyperbole of the first degree.

In fact, Quake 3 Arena is probably the most refined game they've ever done. It's just that...a set of excellent rules allowing people to blow each other up with a numerical score as the goal. Games don't get much more pure than that.

All that said, I have a feeling everyone is going to be surprised by the new DOOM.

--Dave

---

Quote:

All that said, I have a feeling everyone is going to be surprised by the new DOOM.

---

"That has been said about quite a few games
that failed miserably. "

Well, he didn't specify "pleasantly" surprised...
I mean, technically, I've been surprised by
stepping in a pile of cat upchuck.

This real time shadow stuff in Doom3 (and Kreed, if you've seen that video) is a BIG deal, guys. There's something about a world where light is actually calculated instead of generated with static, pre-built lightmaps. When the shadow of a rotating fan passes across the level, you, and your gun.. that kicks up the immersion level about fifteen notches.

I know it doesn't sound like much, but the interplay of light and darkness is a big part of what makes the world around us feel "real", at least visually. It will be every bit a big a step, graphically, as lightmaps were in Quake. Half the fun of the game was the creepy levels with the static darkness. So it's gonna go from creepy to UBER-creepy when all that stuff is done realistically.

'id's games aren't bad like so many "thinking-man's action gamers" would like you to believe. I think there are a lot of people that want this all-encompassing, absolutely fantastic story to go with their shooters. Then they want all this strategic depth with more to do than just shoot things dead.'

You know, although I can't exactly quantify it, but I think there's a line separating "games" from "technology." Take strategy games, for example; unfun games with incredible engines are called "spreadsheets", instead of fun games; the same thing applies to action games.

Quake II was just a mediocre *game*, on merits as a game, but the technology used for multiplayer was so far beyond anything else out there that it wiped the field clean. Duke 3D, Jedi Knight, and other games of that period were more *fun*, but they stunk at the one thing everyone found they wanted to do: play shooters online. Does anyone know what the sales for Q1 and Q2 looked like before online play picked up?

Unfortunately, iD drew the wrong lessons from this, I think, and have since then focused on technology instead of fun. I think they would have made even more money if Q3 was actually a good game, instead of pretty lights. UT was a slighty worse engine with a much better game, and the entire Counterstrike phenomenon was Valve making an actually fun game out of the Q2 engine.

I don't know, maybe they'll completely reverse course and go back to the design ideas that made Doom so much fun. I'm not holding my breath, though, especially with John showing up at MacWorld in friggin' black jumpsuits.

So, lighting shgmiting, I just don't give a goddamn about playing another CS graduate degree project from ID.

'It will be every bit a big a step, graphically, as lightmaps were in Quake. Half the fun of the game was the creepy levels with the static darkness.'

Really? I don't think of the lighting in Quake II as fun at all; more annoying than anything else. By contrast, the shitty lighting in Doom was *great* at setting up button-pushing slaughter of monster killing. Now that I think about it, the chief reason I liked Doom so much more than Quake was the sheer volume of enemies. AI stinks, so it's not really interesting to fight anything less than 20 enemies at once.

I wish I could describe this more exactly. Argh.

When I played the original Quake with threewave CTF I was hooked harder than any game has ever hooked me. I never upgraded my quake to gl, it was faster the way it was and so damn much fun. I played that every single night for a year.

About a month ago i reinstalled it on a couple of pcs at home to play my nephews. When returning to some of those levels, I felt like I was returning to a city i had been to in the real world. It was a really creepy feeling.

I know wumpus must hate tribes, but I never connected with a game like that again until tribes. Once you got over the learning curve, it was perfect.

Chet

"AI stinks, so it's not really interesting to fight anything less than 20 enemies at once.

I wish I could describe this more exactly. Argh."

...gets the adrenaline pumping? don't know whether you'll make it through alive or not?

in Asheron's Call, there's a couple dungeons set up like that- you get swarmed by critters whose AI (if that's what it is) is questionable at best, but by god, do they swarm the hell out of you and get ya into some adrenaline-infused action.

- mike - ..and somehow, i don't like any id games.. -

"However, Return to Castle Wolfenstein is still fun. In the end, thats all that matters."

Maybe not if you played $55-60 for it...

Isn't id more about engines than games anyway? HL was made with the Quake (highly modified) engine, the Q3 engine has produced RTCW, Elite Force, the upcoming Medal of Honor, etc. I wasn't too impressed visually with Q3 (as opposed to UT) at first, but I do think RTCW is the best-looking FPS I've ever seen, and shows that the Q3 engine is indeed quite capable. Perhaps Unreal II will dethrone it in a couple of months.

I am not so much looking forward to Doom III for its gameplay, as for what its engine will do. I am hoping it will be the next level in 3D graphics. Really, I don't think that we have seen a revolutionary graphical step beyond, say, Unreal 3 1/2 years ago. True, the poly counts in Unreal are pretty low and it looks kinda blocky, and the character models in RTCW are way better... but I feel we're still waiting for a 3D engine/game that will really bring us to a new standard of realism. Maybe Doom3 will be it, but then you'll need a 3ghz processor and a Geforce 4 to run it with everything maxed out, probably...

Well, if ID is more about releasing engines than games maybe they should stop calling them games. ;0

Circut City is advertizing RtCW for $29.99 in their sunday circular...

Brad Grenz

---

Quote:

but I feel we're still waiting for a 3D engine/game that will really bring us to a new standard of realism.

---

"id's games aren't bad like so many "thinking-man's action gamers" would like you to believe."

I agree. I mean, I like a good "thinking man's action game" as much as the next person. Hell, Thief is probably my favorite game, ever. But even if id's games aren't particularly ambitious in terms of game mechanics, they do tend to be slick and well implemented and generally fun to play. I'd put RtCW in that category (and as Erik says, the multiplayer gives it a pretty hefty boost).

"something about a world where light is actually calculated instead of generated with static, pre-built lightmaps."

Yeah, there really is. Even Nocturne's relatively crude dynamic shadows created worlds of atmosphere. Of course the technology alone doesn't make a good game, but it's not irrelevant, either. The key for DOOM 3 is going to be how they use that tech in the game. If they want to make the game scary (and apparently they do), dynamic lights and shadows will come in handy.

I think everyone here who is talking about lights and fancy technology NEVER PLAYED DOOM AT A QUARTER TO THREE WITH ALL THE LIGHTS IN THERE HOUSE OFF AND THE SOUND WAY THE HELL UP!

Same goes for Diablo. The only reason people liked the game was the ability to play it late at night, in the dark, with the sound way up, and to hear a million and a half monsters getting their ass blown to a crisp. Period.

The same goes for the Grand Theft Auto series. It's fast, it's brutal, it's loud, and up until 3, there was nothing graphically amazing about it. The reason 3 rocks is because they took all the fun gameplay and made an amazing engine. But it's still FAST, LOUD, BRUTAL, AND HARDCORE.

Doom/Doom II/Ultimate Doom are the _best_ at what they do. They're the best at delivering a dozen and thirty monsters at me at once; all screaming, imping, and making slushing sounds; all throwing fireballs at me and eye-brain shit at me; all wanting ME to be dead. And what do I do about it?

I pull out my shotgun, machine gun, or even my damn chainsaw, and I mow them the hell down. Blood, guts, and wails of pain all the way.

That's what made Doom fun. That's what made Tribes fun. That's would made UT fun. That's what made Voyager: Elite Force fun. That's what made GTA fun. That's what made Diablo fun.

Unadulterated, no holdsbarred, murderous-clown fun. Technology is not fun, lighting is not fun. Would you have fun walking around Quake III with no monsters or people, just lights? No. Would you have fun walking around Quake III with shitty lighting, but lots of people and monsters, yes?

That's what makes the game:
Just you, a gun, a shitload of monsters, and the undying happy trigger finger that pulls it all together.

Now tell me, is that not what makes a game fun?

Well that was the "Serious Sam" theory. And it is fun. But games like Half-Life, Thief, and System Shock II are fun for other reasons. And graphics always need to get better. Doom wasn't the first game where you could unload on hordes of monsters. Hell no! Ever play Robotron? Or Contra? A big part of the reason Doom was such a success is because its graphics were eye-poppingly good at the time, let's not forget that. And part of the reason Serious Sam is popular, IMHO, is because it recreates a Doom-esque "pure carnage" experience WITH fancy new graphics.

BUT, you got what I'm trying to say.

You can't have an eye-poppingly amazing game with no gameplay, it just won't float.

I assumed that, like you mentioned, people would take the graphics thing hand in hand. ;)

System Shock II and Thief are amazingly fun, as well as Half-Life, but that theory in itself, defeats itself. Half-Life wasn't all that great until CS came along. I didn't think so at least. SS II should've been a smash hit, but it wasn't. Thief, I personally think, got lucky.

But, yes, graphics and gameplay go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

Well, unless you're a 12 year old playing Pokemon on the Game Boy, in which case you have neither.

Well I think Half-Life *was* all that great before CS came along -- in fact I have never played multiplayer HL in my life, but I still think it's one of the all time best FPS's.

Why is this? A combination of factors. Lots of monster-blasting fun, but also a great atmosphere, nice shifts in pacing, good grunt AI, slick presentation (greatest opening ever), etc. I really think atmosphere is a less-than-trivial factor in an FPS, by the way. I think it elevated Unreal from a bad game to a moderately good game (the lame gameplay prevented it from being more than that).

But, of course, one wants good graphics AND good gameplay. We have always demanded both, and we always should, as there is no reason to settle for less. But yes, if it comes down to it, gameplay is more important.

"I know wumpus must hate tribes, but I never connected with a game like that again until tribes. Once you got over the learning curve, it was perfect."

There are two main problem with Tribes. The first is excise: too much tedium per hour of gameplay. Waiting in line to get your equipment, getting from point A to point B, etc. The second problem is that the whole jetpack mechanic fucking sucks. Combat degenerates into rocket-powered bunnyhopping, which is the worst. It sucked in Duke Nukem 3D, and it still sucked in Tribes 2.

Also, a sniper rifle that doesn't kill anything in one headshot? Uhh.. no. That's more of a personal pet peeve, but I think it's utterly ridiculous to call a weapon a sniper rifle if a headshot is not an instant kill.

However, Tribes definitely had the right idea way, way ahead of everyone else. 32-player FPS teamplay games are a dime a dozen on the internet now, but back in 1999.. that was a BIG deal. And there were new ideas like vehicles, deployable turrets, etcetera. Big points for innovation, and if not for major problems #1 and #2 listed above, I probably would have been into the game much more. To me, Tribes is more interesting as part of the historical record of gaming than as an actual game..

"Well I think Half-Life *was* all that great before CS came along -- in fact I have never played multiplayer HL in my life, but I still think it's one of the all time best FPS's."

Half-Life had DAMN good multiplayer out of the box. Quite an interesting variety of innovative weapons unlike any seen before in a modern FPS (trip mines, alt-fire modes, the rocket launcher, the gauss gun). In particular I loved the gauss gun-- the way you could actually bounce shots off walls (depending on the angle), launch yourself into the air with it, and detonate behind wall surfaces .. incredible depth. Using that gun to gib people behind walls was hilarious! Tough to hide from that. And that's just ONE weapon. Also, much lower run speeds than we had previously seen. Perhaps a precursor of the trend towards realism?

The netcode was not as solid as Quake 2 for modems, but it was quite playable on broadband or LAN. And of course they kept improving it..

'Well I think Half-Life *was* all that great before CS came along -- in fact I have never played multiplayer HL in my life, but I still think it's one of the all time best FPS's.'

I've never been able to figure out what was so great about Half-Life, but if I concede the point that doesn't change Met & I's argument here: that ID now produces no-fun tech demos, like Quake II and III, that have nothing to do with the Doom series. Half-Life, System Shock II, and Serious Sam cover the immersiveness, thinking, and twitch fun bases for FPSes; what the hell was Quake II fun for? Is Opengl acceleration fun in of itself? Maybe the default Opengl screensavers in windows are "fun."

That's for single player. On strictly multiplayer, Q3 is a slightly better looking, less fun mindless online tech demo than UT; Counterstrike, however, blows them both out of the water on fun.

Someone needs to make a movie titled "Strictly Multiplayer."

What was so great about Half-Life?
Pacing and plotting (which are often mistakenly referred to as "story"). There isn't a shooter that's matched it thus far.

-Andrew

I know, that and immersiveness are the standard answers. I just don't get it; I was bored while playing it, pissed off by the design element of "teleporting monsters in on top of you," and thought the plot was silly.

Maybe this is how Tom feels about Deus Ex.

Deus Ex was a house with clearly visible cracks in the foundation. But Half-Life was damn near perfect. Of course, there's no accounting for tastes..

I think the variety of levels and suspense really helped HalfLife. The same reason I love NOLF.

The amount of time I've spent with Half-Live are so minimal that they don't really qualify me to comment.

But, in spite of the "great" opening, I REALLY, REALLY wish I could skip it. I've seen it once, I don't need it again. I'm standing on the freakin' trolley, and I just wanna shoot something. Then, I FINALLY (after, what -- has anyone timed it? -- a full five minutes?) get off that freakin' trolley, and walk around, and walk around, and talk to scientists, and hear a security guard say "You don't have clearance to go through that door," and I just wanna shoot something.

While I'm not saying a little pacing and "story" aren't a good thing, sometimes, you just wanna shoot something, and that's not a good frame of mind to have when you're STARTING a game of Half-Life, 'cause it takes too friggin' long before you actually DO get to shoot something.

Funny Murph... I have replayed HL about 6 times, and I always love the opening.

"While I'm not saying a little pacing and "story" aren't a good thing, sometimes, you just wanna shoot something, and that's not a good frame of mind to have when you're STARTING a game of Half-Life, 'cause it takes too friggin' long before you actually DO get to shoot something."


Ohh jeeeeze heaven forbid a FPS should try something diffrent. They should have started the game like every other boring FPS clone...not.

"Ohh jeeeeze heaven forbid a FPS should try something diffrent. They should have started the game like every other boring FPS clone...not."

hey... Hey... HEY!!!

If you've _ever_ played Black & White, then you *do* wish that every game have the same, short, lame intro. Ok? OK!

No, really, tho. Games with long intro's should have a skip button, at the very least. Or only make you view it once. Period.

It was a great intro. Props to the team. But I don't wanna watch it every time I start it up. It's like those little intro videos at the beginning of every RPG and a lot of RTSs -- I watch them once, then GIMME THE GAME!!

Not dogging the team for doing something different -- dogging them for not giving me the option -- no matter how many buttons I hit -- to skip it.

Let me kill stuff, for cryin' out loud!

The NOLF way of cutscenes is best. Hit the spacebar and bingo...you're in the mission. No exposition necessary if you don't want it.

I don't remember anymore if that was added in the patch or if it was that way from the start?

--Dave

Michael,
go through the intro one more time and then save your game when the "killing stuff" part starts! It's easy! By using this trick you can just reload your "skip the intro" save and never have to watch the intro again!

This is sort of an Easter Egg the game has.
;>
-Andrew

That doesn't work if you want to change skill levels, though.

It is not fair to compare the length of the B&W intro and Half-Life's intro, though. B&W is about 10 times longer! It's painful and absolutely should have a skip button.

Half-Life's tram ride really isn't that long.. what, maybe 4 minutes? And it's incredibly detailed. One of the many little details I love about half-life-- that intricate robot loader model shown during the tram ride is only used in the intro. You never once see it in the rest of the game.

Another piece of tram ride trivia for you. The cop banging on the door? That is you in Blue Shift.

Plus the whole foreshadowing aspect of the radio announcer.. "Black Mesa classified competition events".. recruitment, etcetera.

Dunno, I really dig the tram ride. It works for me on a number of levels, but I agree-- it's not exactly interactive.

If you think the tram ride is long now, you obviously didn't ride it in the OEM Half-Life: Day One demo. That was something to complain about. They shortened it based on user complaints. It's fine as it is now, IMO.

--Dave

I thought the B&W patch let you skip the intro. I don't remember, not having touched the game in awhile. Mandatory cutscenes is one of my gaming peeves. It's stealing control from the player. The Half-Life tram ride was sort of borderline for me. I guess it didn't bother me, but then again I haven't had to sit through it more than a couple of times.

- Alan

>. It's like those little intro videos at the beginning of every RPG and a lot of RTSs -- I watch them once, then GIMME THE GAME!!

I think the reason I liked Half-life so much was, in part, due to the fact that its storyline -wasn't- unveiled using videos. Everything occurred from the same perspective, and you were never immobile and just forced to watch. You were always "in" the storyline. No load screens, etc. helped too.

As Dave indicated, the Day One demo had a lot lengthier introduction, which was appropriately pared down.

Stefan

Just start the tram ride, go have a beer, come back and it's over. Of course now Murph is pissed cause he has to go to the locker room, put on his suit, and listen to the scientists yammer about resonance cascades before he can start gibbing headcrabs.

>I think the reason I liked Half-life so much was, in part, due to the fact that its storyline -wasn't- unveiled using videos. Everything occurred from the same perspective, and you were never immobile and just forced to watch. You were always "in" the storyline. No load screens, etc. helped too.

I agree. How come no other FPS's (that I can think of anyway) have followed up on this seamless, no-cut-scene approach, I wonder?

Because they're retarded?

Actually that's not fair. A few FPS games have tried, but none have done it as well. RTCW had a bunch of seamless cutscenes, and those "hey ma I can do standup comedy" conversations in NOLF are a good example. But there were regular-style cutscenes in both games as well.

AVP2 now that I think about it. I guess it is rather unique to use NO cut-scenes, but plenty of games have used the in-game stuff.

The loader in the Half Life intro was originally part of the game. There was a sequence when it busts through a wall and saves you, but it was cut. As was a whole subplot with Gordon trying to rescue his wife (anyone know if the extra stuff in the PS2 version restores any of this?).

Leaving the loader in the intro violates Chekov's rule that if you show a gun in the first act, you have to fire it in the second act. Hell, even Aliens got this right: show the loader in the first act, use it in the second.

Of course, Half-Life ain't Chekov. :)

-Tom

"Plant and payoff," as screenwriters call it.

"How come no other FPS's (that I can think of anyway) have followed up on this seamless, no-cut-scene approach, I wonder?"

While they are not pure FPSs, System Shock 1+2 told much of the story through audio logs that you could listen to while continuing to play the game. I always liked that.

True. And now that I think of it, Unreal, which actually predated Half-Life by several months, also eschewed cut-scenes and told the story via translated messages, etc. I think it was helped by the fact that there was practically no story to tell.