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.
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
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?
How do you not Remember DooM 2?
With sarcasm.
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
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.
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
..... 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..........
"So does that mean that a better name for Doom III would be Doom 1.11, or maybe Doom 11.1? "
I was implying that Doom 2 wasn't much more than Doom 1 with extra levels. It's the type of thing that comes to mind when you add more processing cycles to your cognative process.
"Derp de derp."
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
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.
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.