Slashdot Mirror
Doom III Takes E3 Awards
Talinom writes "This has just simply gone too far. CNN has a story that tells how the video game Doom III by id Software has won the "Best Of Show" award at the E3 convention about one year before its release. Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is overdue for its "Game Of The Year" award?" The awards site is E3Awards.com. I don't see how they can give an award called "Best Action Game" to something that doesn't exist as a playable game, but then again looking at the past awards I see Neverwinter Nights won in 2000... in 2001... and in 2002.
Doom III? You mean there was a Doom II?!
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
>>Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is
>>overdue for its "Game Of The Year" award?"
Who cares, Never Winter Nights is now in stores!
"Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is overdue for its 'Game Of The Year' award?"
Since every game that so much as hits the shelves gives itself a "game of the year" award, the answer is yes. Next question.
Year after year, we've seen this happen. Games that either aren't released, or just don't live up to the hype. "Best of Show" at E3 seems to be no indication of whether or not a game will actually be much good. It shows that it's a game that's likely to push a few hardware envelopes, but what does it mean for actual gameplay?
I prefer getting my game news from sources that refuse to give a verdict on a game until they've had the final shipping version out of the box and played on it for a few days, at least.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
The award is "best in show" and that says to me that it's not the best game of the year or even best game but the best thing at the show... that which most people talked about and wanted to see, which it probably was.
to quote:
"The buzz generated by this early show made Doom III the indisputable 'must see' of E3 2002"
of course, the stupid statement then does call it the best 'game of show' dammit... just ignore that bit.
I am a leaf on the wind
Didn't they give an award to Metal Gear Solid 2 a couple of years ago over the demo they showed of that? E3 is all about hype, not playable games, and Doom 3 was definately all that anyone could talk about, so it was the leader in hype. The video was just amazing, and coworkers that went to E3 said the demo there was just amazing as well. If it was the best looking and most interesting thing that people saw at E3, even if it wasn't playable, why shouldn't it win?
Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is overdue for its "Game Of The Year" award?"
"Duke Nukem Forever" is not the actual name of the game. It's the expected date of release.
If you check it out, you'll notice they're not run by the IDSA (The happy people that bring us E3 yearly) or anyone of consequence...
It's just like every magazine having its own Best of E3 list. I mean come on, a game I made made it on one of the lists, so trust me it's not seen as a huge accomplishment.
At an expo, you expose products. E3's own website states that its intent is to showcase the bleeding-edge of interactive entertainment. And since the public can't attend, Joe Gamer isn't going to care that Game X isn't available for him to buy. Clearly, some game that made it through marketing, production, and shipping shouldn't win a "Best of Show" award at a developer's expo.
The buzz generated by this early show made Doom III the indisputable 'must see' of E3 2002.
Yeah, I see the logic here. Let's apply this to women.
The Olsen Twins are hot. Okay, they're 16, but hell, they're hot. Their buns might not yet be fully cooked, but they're due for release in two years, and I can already say that those puppies will be bouncy and full of fun.
So what if Doom isn't finished? It's like a barely underage girl. You just know they'll be even hotter in a year or two.
mogorific carpentry experiments
E3 exists to allow publishers to show off upcoming titles - E3 gives awards to the people who generated the most positive attention and hype for their product.
What exactly is the problem here? I would understand this story if it was about Doom3 being awarded 'Game of the Year', but it's not; it's being honoured as having the most impressive preview out of all the thousands of games out there, and I don't see how anyone could find fault with that.
I don't make my game purchasing decisions based on media awards, I decide on the basis of the game. Right now from what I've seen, Doom 3 will be sucking up disk space on my machine as soon as possible, but then the much much hyped Neverwinter Nights probably will not. I'm not into the click click clickity click dungeon crawl. It may be called Game of the century by every trade publication known to man, But I probably won't buy it. In order for this to be a less media controlled society, we need to stop letting our purchasing decisions influenced by tripe like this. But that of course would require common sense breaking out all over, and ain't gonna happen. Ignoring all that crap, this award basically is for the Best Demo. Not game. When it's finished, then we can call it game of the century, right now it's just a damn pretty demo.
Shift happens. Fire it up.
..... as to what E3 is? It is NOT a software store, where titles that have already been released are shown. It _IS_ an expo where new, bleeding-edge games that people will see IN THE FUTURE are shown (to varying degrees).
Here's a hint -- you WON'T see Neverwinter Nights again as a candidate for "Best of Show" next year. Next time, be sure to think before you post..........
DOOM II stole my early drinking days (early twenties)
10 Swig of beer
20 puff of cig
30 click click click click
40 goto 10
:)
I *hate* hype - it ruins the actual experience because the end result never lives up to the hype. That's why I don't follow E3 or pay attention to movie trailers or otherwise be like a raving fanboy (ie/ Star Wars Ep 3 is gonna rock nads dewd yeah!).
It's actually kind of cool - like when Resident Evil came out for Gamecube, I had no idea that it was in development. Once I found out, I read some reviews and bought the game and it blew me away. I suspect that if I had been caught up in the hype (assuming there was hype for the game) it may not have lived up to my expectations.
Even worst is when you do get caught up in the hype and the end result not only doesn't live up to the hype, but totally blows. Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor did that to me. That's why I never buy a game or watch a movie until I see a few reviews for it anymore.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
I'm seeing quite a few comments along to line of "What's the point of E3 any more? It's just hype."
Well, as a member of the gaming media (I'm an editor for RPGFan.com), I can tell you that E3 is and will continute to be a valuable assest for everyone in the business.
Really, "Best of Show" awards are just fluff. The real nitty-gritty of the show happens on the floor, when thousands of industry folks get to play and see every upcoming game for the next year (or three--depending on the publisher.)
Sure, people give awards as a way to highlight certain events, but that's NOT what E3 is about. I can assure you that people play more than the highlight titles, and it helps the gaming media--and industry as a whole--get better aquainted with upcoming product lineups and emerging publishers/developers.
As long as E3 continutes to be a place for the gaming trade to go and look at a pltehora of upcoming products, it serves its purpose well.
Just my 2 cents...
-Jayde
What's a sig?
Especially for OS X and Linux. Uh.. oh.. wait...never mind.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
ID was approached by some of the people giving the awards during E3 concerning the awards ceremony. They were told that the game could not qualify unless it was in playable form during the show. ID saw this as a really good PR opportunity and DID let the game be shown in playable form... behind closed doors and your entry was based on a lottery system. Look on Kazaa, there's about a 10 minute video that someone took when they smuggled a camcorder into the room (against ID's wishes)
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
yeah, it's a bit premature to be handing out ribbons, but it should be tight.
anyway, i'm holding off any video card purchases until this beast is released.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
However, it is my understanding that 'Best of Show' literally has to do with presentation at E3. meaning that I could go there with a proof of concept, a few screen captures and wireframe models but win if I displayed my booth in a fantastic way. At least that is the way I have seen it in the past. Sort of like how there is 'Best Picture' and 'Best Actor/Actress' awards.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
They gave it the best in show award. Not the best playable game award. They decided that their demonstration was the best. Its not that complicated. They didn't say it was the best playing game, they said it was in the best in show. As in a trade show, product DEMONSTRATION people.
That's about it. That's what E3 is for. Certaintly it has generated more buzz than any other game released at E3. There's more to games than buzz, of course.
Even so, Doom III is currently all about rendering. It looks really nice. The lighting and shadows are amazing. It's going to up the bar a couple of notches for everyone else. But is it a game? No one really knows yet. And we don't know if there's any innovation there besides the rendering engine. It takes a dozen or more people to make a modern game (50 or more for big titles), and there's usually one person writing the core rendering code. Everyone else works on the game side of things. So don't make the mistake of equating rendering with gameplay.
That's why UT2 will most likely be a much better game. Id hasn't had a fun game since the original Doom; every release is just a slightly better engine with the same tired old bad heavy metal album cover graphics.
And nobody start in on how Id does the engine, and leaves the games for other people. They DO release games, and if they're willing to put them on store shelves they (and you) damn well better be prepared to accept criticism.
"... [Neverwinter Nights] is destined to be the more-addictive-than-crack game of 2001. - Aaron John Loeb Chairman, Game Critics Awards"
I miss out on all the good games. Oh well, I should be able to find it in the bargin bin by now.
OK, here is my humble opinion on this whole mess. Firstly, from what the Id guys said, The E3 Doom III footage was a demonstration of actual gameplay, YES you heard correctly. If you don't believe me, here is the proof. (This is assuming that you consider Gamespy a believable news source, If not, that's cool and I have no other real proof, but I am sidetracking...) Secondly the Doom III Legacy video is NOT what was shown inside the booth. Most of you already know this, but just in case... I and some of my friends asked if we could get video of the closed demo but they were not allowing it, (hence the whole wait in line for 3 trillion hours. It looks like they wanted control of the viewers and what intellectual property they captured on film.) Yes, as far as I can tell it is nowhere near done, (the console said version 0.01) yes, the engine technology is amazing, yes, the gameplay seems to be much more focused on surviving and making slow, calculated, fear driven moves. I would liken the gameplay I saw more to a combination FPS/Silent Hill style game than the old school "shoot the 10,000 creatures and flip a switch" system of Doom II and Doom. It looks like you as the player will have to occasionally hide and run from the enemy rather than haul out the BFG and let all die. I saw demons break out of walls behind you and from pipes in front of you. The player seemed more able to interact with his/her environment in a realistic way. This does A LOT for improving suspension of disbelief within the game. The rules you have come to expect to hold true from all FPS games, (hiding in corners where nobody will attack you from behind, inanimate objects always face one direction and can NEVER tip over) may not always apply anymore. Simply put, hiding in a corner is not going to save your sorry a-- now marine! The lighting engine goes a LONG way to enhance your perspective of where everything is. If you see a large daemon shaped shadow on the ground, it is probably a good idea to hide at this point, especially if the demon has not seen you yet. (As evidenced by it eating your head. :)
:) Id, however, has consistently released stable, fun, modable, and groundbreaking CROSS PLATFORM products that I and several thousand people have consistently enjoyed. So why does everybody want a groundbreaking, reliable, fun, and modable cross platform game RIGHT NOW?! Please, give the Id people some time to breathe. Note, I did not say praise Id for they are infallible, just don't bash them with less than all the facts.
My concern is simply this, I have seen A LOT of Id bashing these past few weeks since E3. Frankly, the PA guys aren't helping much with the whole "I wish they would make a game out of the engine sometime" attitude. They have that opinion, and although I tend to disagree with it, they are entitled to it. I am more concerned with the HORDES of end users who take this idea and treat it as biblical law rather than thinking on their own. I agree Id does not have a truly working full game out yet. H-ll, I am sure they are nowhere near done, but just because the graphics are amazing and it is an Id release, does not necessarily mean that this game will be plotless. Doom III is the first Id game I can think of where a WRITER (from 7th Guest and 11th Hour) was hired for the team.
I have a theory regarding successful companies and end users opinions regarding them. It seems fashionable to hold successful, established companies in low regard. While us readers of Slashdot bash Micro$oft, we at least have A LOT of material to work with. (I think of the hundreds of security loopholes, system crashes, and restarts over the past few years I had to deal with.
In closing, I would say that this demo deserved the award it got, does this mean the game will rule all when it is released? Not necessarily, I only saw less than 7 minutes of gameplay. When comparing this to the 29 hours I spent on RTCW, this seems trite indeed. However, this demo did give me a glimpse into the future of gaming technologies, something I hold dear to my heart. I want to know that through this recession, through this war on terrorism, through the Colombine tragedy, and in this post dot com world, that somebody has the ability to be creative, talented, and gutsy enough to push the envelope and change the industry for the better. Did Id give me a great game? We will find out when it is released. Did Id give me hope for a bright future for games? I would say a resounding yes.
I'm not sure I'd grab a Parhelia. While I think it will do well with current games, Matrox refused to send a Parhelia to [H]ard|OCP for review. Their reason was (and I quote, from the [H]orse's mouth): "Matrox stated that due to the nature of our testing that they were not "comfortable" with sending us a Parhelia card. They seemed to think that we would be a bit too rough on the Parhelia and possibly show some issues that the "enthusiast" might identify as weaknesses."
;])
Those "issues" Matrox is afraid of [H]ard|OCP revealing might be something like lack of vertex and/or pixel shaders... which are currently the only efficient way to do bumpmapping.
However, this is only speculation, since, after all, no one has seen a Parhelia for themselves though and gotten a chance to play with it extensively. Who knows? The Parhelia could be a GF4Ti-killer (not likely, but it's nice to hope
Just a sec.
Did you ever play doom?
now, second point.
Do you code? If so, and the technological achievement of that engine doesn't impress you?
E3 is noisy, E3 is loud, E3 is hype. But this is doom3.
and you my friend, are no carmack.
These awards are for the best things at the E3 trade show.
And Doom III was demoed at the show.
And, one might presume, the most interesting PC game there.
So how exactly is it odd for it to win? The award isn't for best thing you can buy in the shops, it's for best thing exhibited at the show.
I'd guess at least 60% of the stuff at E3 isn't out yet. That would be rather the point of E3, wouldn't it?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
The sounds really made that game. The hoofed deamon really scared me, even though it was behind a wall in another room. If Doom III will be like people are saying, more creeping around scared shitless rather that running like mad around with a rocket launcher, well then I will be first in line for it!
Agreed.
According to the information circling the net about the Parhelion, it should have vertex and pixel shaders. Vertex shader should be a DirectX 9.0 version, and the pixel shader should be 8.1 or a little better.
My guess is that they didn't want, or weren't authorized, to give Hard-OCP a copy of the board with DirectX 9.0, so they wouldn't be able to see all the neat things like displacement maps anyways. And I doubt they're writing any DirectX 8.0/8.1 drivers... so it wouldn't be useful to Hard-OCP anyways. I wouldn't sweat it.
If Matrox somehow does manage to get 3d performance on par with thier 2d performace, I will gladly turn around and piss on nvidia. Worst case? I can still get an amazingly cheap dual out G550 for my workstation and continue to pay Nvidia to feed my gaming habit.
Hey dudes! The parent post got modded down as flamebait!
Isn't it amusing that some dumbfuck moderator thought that explaining what the slang term 'burn' means is hateful?
"Oh no!! People will get heated up over the turm 'burn'!! That's as bad as saying Microsoft 0WnZ!
Heh that cost me a karma point or two, but it was funny!
"Derp de derp."