You havent played Doom 3? Ok how about this, most people I know havent play Halo, and that has a really indepth story that makes you question a lot about whats going on in the game, but they dont know this when you ask them.
WTF are you talking about? I have played D3. That's what this whole topic is about - impressions of playing the game!
The "PDA thing" allows you to get more back story to what has been going on.
And? Does this affect the game in any way? No. Nothing I learn will change the outcome of the game. Nothing I learn will change the routes I take to get to the next destination. Yes, they flesh-out the story a bit, but it's inconsequential to the game.
The PDA replaced the need to get keys or keycards as in the game it handles your security clearance.
Yah! Yellow and blue keys have ben replaced with "You need Joe Schmoe's PDA to update your security clearance." Big, innovative change.
If they re-made half-life with newer graphics it be the same story.
Uh, yeah. And if they said, "This game is nothing other than Half-Life with newer graphics," it wouldn't be hyped as much. Doom III was hyped all to hell and back as the greatest FPS to grace your hard drive. It was supposed to be innovative and ground-breaking. Unfortunately, all these apply to the graphics and nothing else.
I'll say it again: Doom III == Great engine, average game.
Well, I *did* play it. And yes, D3 *is* just killing monsters. Clickable computers? That's been around forever. Even SiN had computers that you could log into and get a dos prompt, from which you could run commands. Nothing new here. Read the emails of other people to get clues? Novel! They haven't given me anything important other than codes to open containers. Useful? Yes. Inventive or new? No. And nothing is more immersive than having to save, quit the game, fire up a browser, go to martianbuddy.com, get an access code, go back to game and load, then enter the pin (0508?) to open the container. Wow! Gripping! Having orders come in over the radio? Again, wow - never seen that before. Again, I *can* appreciate the simplicity of the game. Not having to memorize tons of keyboards shortcuts is great. The name of the game is move and shoot.
IMO, what could have made the game better (keep in mind I've only played a few hours, so some of this may show up later, in some form) would be to have things like:
1) Co-Op Mode! Is it technically difficult to implement with such a highly-scripted game? Yes. But not impossible. It could totally change the game. I'd much rather have this than a half-assed multiplayer mode.
2) NPCs that can help you out. Maybe there are some, but I haven't met them yet. I haven't reached Bravo team yet, so there is still a chance, I suppose. The little service droid that shot things for me was good, I'll give them that. But that was only 30 seconds' worth.
3) Alternate firing modes for the weapons. That seems to be pretty standard for a lot of shooters now. Some may say it's a gimic, but it does change/enhance gameplay a bit.
4) Things I can't even think of because I'm not a genius game developer! id has a *lot* of talent, but it was all dedicated to the engine, it appears. Nice work, but the game suffers.
Yes, it is a very polished and cohesive game. Yes, it is beautiful and scary at times. Is it a brilliant, great, fun game? Not by a long shot. But that's ok, someone will eventual licence the engine and make something fun with it. And for that, I thank you id.
Again, these are just my impressions with the game. Feel free to have your own opinions - I won't mind!
Most newer games at least attempt to do something different. Original HL has some nice scripted events and fancy "AI" enemy tactics. Plus it had an engaging story. Some games experiment with varying levels - huge outdoor levels mixed with cramped indoor ones. Some mix stealth tactics with pure run-n-gun. Jedi Knight II had cool transitions from FPS to 3rd-person saber battles. Call of Duty has you storming beaches, being a sniper, infiltrating buildings, driving a tank, etc.
Doom III is a straight up "creep from one monotonous room to the next, while shooting the monsters that spawn behind you" game, with some snazzy new graphics. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it is non anything revolutionary. It is what it is. The enemy AI is nonexistent - they run right at you while you blast them. The weapons are typical and uninspired. The plot is old. The whole "use your PDA to read other people's email and notes to get clues" has been done.
All in all, it's a very average game wrapped in a $20 million graphics engine. Nothing more.
Give it more than an hour, and you'll want your money back. I mean, the graphics are spiffy and sound is engrossing. I even jumped the first 8 or 9 times a monster jumped out at me. But after an hour and a half of the *exact* same thing, it begins to wear thin.
The description of this game was right, a remake of the original Doom, with new graphics. That's it. Nothing new in terms of gameplay. Sneak around. Get spooked. Empty your clip into a zombie. Move on to the next room. Ho-hum.
Glad I "tried it before I bought it." I'll be deleting it soon enough.
While I also believe that is is worthless to distinguish "hate crimes" from "ordinary crimes," we still prosecute based on "thoughts." Pre-meditated murder is an example. The *intent* of a criminal is nothing more than what they were thinking. And that plays a major role in the punishment.
I'm rather certain the "Patriot Act" dictates that you may lose the right to a phone call or access to a lawyer is you are arrested. Or the right to see a court-approved search warrent from the the FBI, before they raid your house.
Right... and how does this apply to the article that says the "sale, advertisement, possession for commercial purposes and use of PlayStation 2 modification chips is illegal in this country."
So I can paint my house, but I can't add a new room or do anything substantial.
No.. you can add a new room. And I suppose you could.. add.. a new.. room to your.. PS2? (I must admit I don't see where you are going with this..)
The article wasn't about making it illegal to "modify you PS2 in any way, whatsoever." If so, THEN the submitter's whine at the end of the blurb would be justified as well as logical. If they try to oulaw putting stickers on your PS2, then yeah, I'll protest that, even if I think it's a dumb thing to do.
You seem to miss the point of the article that says "MOD chips (and their sale and usage) are illegal." Just like crack and missle launchers. And weapons-grade plutonium and child pr0n. I'm not sure what your argument is. You can do lots of stuff to your house, as long as it's within the law. The exact same thing now applies to your PS2 (if you live in the UK.) So yes. Paint your house! Add a new room to your house! But don't tap into the neighborhood cable box and get free HBO in your house!
I realize this, and was being more than just a bit facetious with my original post, as with this one. =P
There are probably perfectly "moral" uses for a dozen 55-gallon drums of toxic nerve gas in your garage, but that doesn't mean that the sale, advertisement, possession for commercial purposes and use of it should be perfectly legal.
It's like saying you can't modify your car or your house or your clothes!
No it's not! You can still paint your car, add a garage to your house, and rip holes your clothes. But you can't put missle launchers on your car, coat your house with crack cocaine, or staple dead babies to your shirt.
Similarly, you can paint your PS2, add NO2 stickers, and attach a bobble-head doll on it. But you can't purchase MOD chips. See? =P
Anyway, I was just pointing out that the submitter got a little carried away with his/her outrage and over-generalization...
I agree with you, but feel the need to play the devil's advocate.
I bet there *would* be a large and money-laden rush to *get* laws passed to curb that behaviour, no? I'm sure these '3D copying machines' would become heavily regulated, much like handguns. (And similarly, mainly the law-abiding citizens are the ones who are pushed, as criminal typically don't care.)
And what about the car's designers/engineers? Aren't they hurt? Or do you make the same arguments about them as you do recording artists? That they should not be so greedy and should just design safe and elegant cars for the 'love of the art' and not financial gain? Do you also support software piracy? Should all developers be OSS developers?
Does anyone deserve death for eating your food? No. Does anyone deserve death for breaking into your house? No. Doed anyone deserve death for stealing your jewelry? No. Does anyone deserve death for waving a knife around threateningly? No. Does anyone deserve death for fantasizing about raping and killing your wife? No. For actually doing it? Yes.
The point is, you don't know what their intentions are. I'd much rather have these kinds of laws than not. Yes, there will be some accidents. Do you have any idea how many people are killed in car accidents each year? Yet we as a society have determined that the benefits of being able to get from point A to point B in a short amount of time and in style and comfort far outweigh the risks associated with vehicular usage. If we can be that seemingly callous (when you consider the number of gruesome infant/children deaths), why should we be too worried about accidently killing a home intruder that was only going to steal most of our possessions and threaten to kill us, but not actually do it?
I feel sorry for you.
PS: And what makes you think he needed to steal you food in order to live. It's possible that he just wanted to grab something for the hell of it. There are some pople like that. I've had people ask me for money to eat because "they are pregnant and hungry," but when I offered to go inside (this was in a grocery-store parking lot) and purchase food for them, they quickly left and went on to the next car. The only reason I offered to do this is because the woman looked extremely strung-out, had track marks on her arms, and didn't appear the least bit pregnant. I know I may come off sounding like some hard-case, right-wing nut, but I do honestly care about people. It's just that some of them will try to take advantage of that, and you should be wary.
I love those "Cashless ATMs" and "Internet Terminal" schemes they offer on TV. Basically, they do all the the work and you just collect the profits each week! Ha! My favorite line is, "Millions have joined up, but the best locations are still available!" I wonder if those "millions" of people who signed up see those commercials and go, "WTF?! People are getting better locations than me?"
No, I was suggesting some sort of networked, distributed alternative. Like a P2P service. The server would have all the files, but there would exist multiple copies of the image distributed and shared among several clients. If the server goes down, you could rebuild it from the nodes.
You'd obviously need a high-speed connection to pull this off.
..but what about recovery plans for catastrophic events? Those backup tapes sitting in a filing cabinet next to the server are useless when the building burns down or is flooded. I suppose you could just ship the tapes to another location, but then restoration becomes and even longer ordeal.
I bet you paid a fortune for that 1.6GB drive, if it was really 9 years ago. I'm just saying this because in 1994/95 (xmas), I got my first 'real' PC. [486DX2-50MHz -- the new Pentiums had just come out -- my parents got royally screwed]
Anyway, the damn thing came with a 200MB harddrive, which was ok for a while, but when Win95 came out, it was woefully small. Ditto, when I realized the abundance of.. uh.. entertainment.. available from the 'net. I kept my eyes on those nice 800MB units, but there was no way I could afford them for a *while.* Ah, memories. =P
Actually, according to the article, he shows the manager some newspaper clippings of his exploits, then asks for a free 1/2 cup of coffee.
On a side note, the Plano, TX Starbucks location (the one across from Collin Creek Mall) which he says he got his start is also the very first Starbucks I ever visited. Fortuntately, it didn't affect me nearly as much, as I've probably only been to Starbucks less than a dozen times in the 4 years since.
No, I'm pretty sure the source code was leaked. (hint: I've seen the code)
*My* opinion as to why both D3 and HL2 have been pushed off is that they were a little *too* advanced for the CPU/Video Card market last year. Yeah, a 9800XT or a FX5950 probably would have run them decently, but for maximum detail and eye candy, they probably *need* the lastest generation of cards (x800/6800). I seriously doubt if *I* would have purchased either title last year, since I just recently upgraded my card to a 9600xt. The developers (more likely, the marketers) may have thought that they would have lost some potential profits if they released too early. [aside: I like to think this is what happened to the original Unreal game. That game was (and still is) amazingly beautiful, but ran like crap on even the high-end systems of the time.] I wouldn't even be surprised if nVidia/ATi had some say in the release date, based on thier product cyles.
No, a house is built upon a foundation. As far as I can tell, this article is about IE. I don't think even MS is trying to argue that IE is the foundation on which [the OS, the Internet, ??] is built.
Or are you arguing that the entire Windows platform (foundation) is inherently weak and structurally insecure? If so, then using *any* browser, including Mozilla/Firefox will be insecure, no? Then the whole issue is moot and the DHS should be advocating an entirely different OS, not just a different browser app.
Who's making self-serving analogies again? Your point is off and rapidly becoming dull.
You know what, if you can make a webbrowser 100% (or 99%) secure, it's probably not a browser anymore, either. You are opening up ports on your machine to millions of invited and uninvited machines all over the world. The second you can claim that system is 100% secure is the second after you pull the cat5 from the wall.
Slashdot Mirror
Close, but you missed it by one.. ;)
WTF are you talking about? I have played D3. That's what this whole topic is about - impressions of playing the game!
And? Does this affect the game in any way? No. Nothing I learn will change the outcome of the game. Nothing I learn will change the routes I take to get to the next destination. Yes, they flesh-out the story a bit, but it's inconsequential to the game.
Yah! Yellow and blue keys have ben replaced with "You need Joe Schmoe's PDA to update your security clearance." Big, innovative change.
Uh, yeah. And if they said, "This game is nothing other than Half-Life with newer graphics," it wouldn't be hyped as much. Doom III was hyped all to hell and back as the greatest FPS to grace your hard drive. It was supposed to be innovative and ground-breaking. Unfortunately, all these apply to the graphics and nothing else.
I'll say it again: Doom III == Great engine, average game.
Well, I *did* play it. And yes, D3 *is* just killing monsters. Clickable computers? That's been around forever. Even SiN had computers that you could log into and get a dos prompt, from which you could run commands. Nothing new here. Read the emails of other people to get clues? Novel! They haven't given me anything important other than codes to open containers. Useful? Yes. Inventive or new? No. And nothing is more immersive than having to save, quit the game, fire up a browser, go to martianbuddy.com, get an access code, go back to game and load, then enter the pin (0508?) to open the container. Wow! Gripping! Having orders come in over the radio? Again, wow - never seen that before. Again, I *can* appreciate the simplicity of the game. Not having to memorize tons of keyboards shortcuts is great. The name of the game is move and shoot.
IMO, what could have made the game better (keep in mind I've only played a few hours, so some of this may show up later, in some form) would be to have things like:
1) Co-Op Mode! Is it technically difficult to implement with such a highly-scripted game? Yes. But not impossible. It could totally change the game. I'd much rather have this than a half-assed multiplayer mode.
2) NPCs that can help you out. Maybe there are some, but I haven't met them yet. I haven't reached Bravo team yet, so there is still a chance, I suppose. The little service droid that shot things for me was good, I'll give them that. But that was only 30 seconds' worth.
3) Alternate firing modes for the weapons. That seems to be pretty standard for a lot of shooters now. Some may say it's a gimic, but it does change/enhance gameplay a bit.
4) Things I can't even think of because I'm not a genius game developer! id has a *lot* of talent, but it was all dedicated to the engine, it appears. Nice work, but the game suffers.
Yes, it is a very polished and cohesive game. Yes, it is beautiful and scary at times. Is it a brilliant, great, fun game? Not by a long shot. But that's ok, someone will eventual licence the engine and make something fun with it. And for that, I thank you id.
Again, these are just my impressions with the game. Feel free to have your own opinions - I won't mind!
Most newer games at least attempt to do something different. Original HL has some nice scripted events and fancy "AI" enemy tactics. Plus it had an engaging story. Some games experiment with varying levels - huge outdoor levels mixed with cramped indoor ones. Some mix stealth tactics with pure run-n-gun. Jedi Knight II had cool transitions from FPS to 3rd-person saber battles. Call of Duty has you storming beaches, being a sniper, infiltrating buildings, driving a tank, etc.
Doom III is a straight up "creep from one monotonous room to the next, while shooting the monsters that spawn behind you" game, with some snazzy new graphics. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it is non anything revolutionary. It is what it is. The enemy AI is nonexistent - they run right at you while you blast them. The weapons are typical and uninspired. The plot is old. The whole "use your PDA to read other people's email and notes to get clues" has been done.
All in all, it's a very average game wrapped in a $20 million graphics engine. Nothing more.
Give it more than an hour, and you'll want your money back. I mean, the graphics are spiffy and sound is engrossing. I even jumped the first 8 or 9 times a monster jumped out at me. But after an hour and a half of the *exact* same thing, it begins to wear thin.
The description of this game was right, a remake of the original Doom, with new graphics. That's it. Nothing new in terms of gameplay. Sneak around. Get spooked. Empty your clip into a zombie. Move on to the next room. Ho-hum.
Glad I "tried it before I bought it." I'll be deleting it soon enough.
While I also believe that is is worthless to distinguish "hate crimes" from "ordinary crimes," we still prosecute based on "thoughts." Pre-meditated murder is an example. The *intent* of a criminal is nothing more than what they were thinking. And that plays a major role in the punishment.
I'm rather certain the "Patriot Act" dictates that you may lose the right to a phone call or access to a lawyer is you are arrested. Or the right to see a court-approved search warrent from the the FBI, before they raid your house.
All in the name of "anti-terrorism."
Right... and how does this apply to the article that says the "sale, advertisement, possession for commercial purposes and use of PlayStation 2 modification chips is illegal in this country."
So I can paint my house, but I can't add a new room or do anything substantial.
No.. you can add a new room. And I suppose you could.. add.. a new.. room to your.. PS2? (I must admit I don't see where you are going with this..)
The article wasn't about making it illegal to "modify you PS2 in any way, whatsoever." If so, THEN the submitter's whine at the end of the blurb would be justified as well as logical. If they try to oulaw putting stickers on your PS2, then yeah, I'll protest that, even if I think it's a dumb thing to do.
You seem to miss the point of the article that says "MOD chips (and their sale and usage) are illegal." Just like crack and missle launchers. And weapons-grade plutonium and child pr0n. I'm not sure what your argument is. You can do lots of stuff to your house, as long as it's within the law. The exact same thing now applies to your PS2 (if you live in the UK.) So yes. Paint your house! Add a new room to your house! But don't tap into the neighborhood cable box and get free HBO in your house!
I realize this, and was being more than just a bit facetious with my original post, as with this one. =P
There are probably perfectly "moral" uses for a dozen 55-gallon drums of toxic nerve gas in your garage, but that doesn't mean that the sale, advertisement, possession for commercial purposes and use of it should be perfectly legal.
So a mod chip then is logically as bad as a missile launcher, crack cocaine or killing a baby.
See, we're all following this same line of absurdity as the original poster.
1) You can't install mod chips!
2) That's like not being able to paint your car!
3) Which is similar to infancide via explosion!
Ergo, a mod chip is logically as bad and putting crack cocaine on your house to lure babies to it, then using your missle launcher to kill them. =P
Yes, I do think this whole mod-chip law is a little absurd, but not quite so much as that stretched analogy.
It's like saying you can't modify your car or your house or your clothes!
No it's not! You can still paint your car, add a garage to your house, and rip holes your clothes. But you can't put missle launchers on your car, coat your house with crack cocaine, or staple dead babies to your shirt.
Similarly, you can paint your PS2, add NO2 stickers, and attach a bobble-head doll on it. But you can't purchase MOD chips. See? =P
Anyway, I was just pointing out that the submitter got a little carried away with his/her outrage and over-generalization...
I agree with you, but feel the need to play the devil's advocate.
I bet there *would* be a large and money-laden rush to *get* laws passed to curb that behaviour, no? I'm sure these '3D copying machines' would become heavily regulated, much like handguns. (And similarly, mainly the law-abiding citizens are the ones who are pushed, as criminal typically don't care.)
And what about the car's designers/engineers? Aren't they hurt? Or do you make the same arguments about them as you do recording artists? That they should not be so greedy and should just design safe and elegant cars for the 'love of the art' and not financial gain? Do you also support software piracy? Should all developers be OSS developers?
And on top of that, it doesn't even work with Firefox! Oh wait...
Does anyone deserve death for eating your food? No.
Does anyone deserve death for breaking into your house? No.
Doed anyone deserve death for stealing your jewelry? No.
Does anyone deserve death for waving a knife around threateningly? No.
Does anyone deserve death for fantasizing about raping and killing your wife? No.
For actually doing it? Yes.
The point is, you don't know what their intentions are. I'd much rather have these kinds of laws than not. Yes, there will be some accidents. Do you have any idea how many people are killed in car accidents each year? Yet we as a society have determined that the benefits of being able to get from point A to point B in a short amount of time and in style and comfort far outweigh the risks associated with vehicular usage. If we can be that seemingly callous (when you consider the number of gruesome infant/children deaths), why should we be too worried about accidently killing a home intruder that was only going to steal most of our possessions and threaten to kill us, but not actually do it?
I feel sorry for you.
PS: And what makes you think he needed to steal you food in order to live. It's possible that he just wanted to grab something for the hell of it. There are some pople like that. I've had people ask me for money to eat because "they are pregnant and hungry," but when I offered to go inside (this was in a grocery-store parking lot) and purchase food for them, they quickly left and went on to the next car. The only reason I offered to do this is because the woman looked extremely strung-out, had track marks on her arms, and didn't appear the least bit pregnant. I know I may come off sounding like some hard-case, right-wing nut, but I do honestly care about people. It's just that some of them will try to take advantage of that, and you should be wary.
I love those "Cashless ATMs" and "Internet Terminal" schemes they offer on TV. Basically, they do all the the work and you just collect the profits each week! Ha! My favorite line is, "Millions have joined up, but the best locations are still available!" I wonder if those "millions" of people who signed up see those commercials and go, "WTF?! People are getting better locations than me?"
This pretty much means that the popup window will be officially dead in a year's time.
Agreed! But only if by "dead" you actually mean "more insidious" or "replaced by even more sinister means to spam-advertise you to death."
I dread the ubiquitous use of pop-up blockers, as that means their effectiveness will soon wane..
Tapes still have the most bang-for-the-buck value.
Hmm..
Exabyte 50Gb Mammoth II 75M AME Data Cartridge 00572 - $35
100pack DVD-R 4.7GB Blank Media General Purpose DVDR Disc - $27
Tape: $35/50GB = $0.70 per GB
DVDR: $27/470GB = $0.05 per GB
??
No, I was suggesting some sort of networked, distributed alternative. Like a P2P service. The server would have all the files, but there would exist multiple copies of the image distributed and shared among several clients. If the server goes down, you could rebuild it from the nodes.
You'd obviously need a high-speed connection to pull this off.
I bet you paid a fortune for that 1.6GB drive, if it was really 9 years ago. I'm just saying this because in 1994/95 (xmas), I got my first 'real' PC. [486DX2-50MHz -- the new Pentiums had just come out -- my parents got royally screwed]
Anyway, the damn thing came with a 200MB harddrive, which was ok for a while, but when Win95 came out, it was woefully small. Ditto, when I realized the abundance of.. uh.. entertainment.. available from the 'net. I kept my eyes on those nice 800MB units, but there was no way I could afford them for a *while.* Ah, memories. =P
Actually, according to the article, he shows the manager some newspaper clippings of his exploits, then asks for a free 1/2 cup of coffee.
On a side note, the Plano, TX Starbucks location (the one across from Collin Creek Mall) which he says he got his start is also the very first Starbucks I ever visited. Fortuntately, it didn't affect me nearly as much, as I've probably only been to Starbucks less than a dozen times in the 4 years since.
No, I'm pretty sure the source code was leaked. (hint: I've seen the code)
*My* opinion as to why both D3 and HL2 have been pushed off is that they were a little *too* advanced for the CPU/Video Card market last year. Yeah, a 9800XT or a FX5950 probably would have run them decently, but for maximum detail and eye candy, they probably *need* the lastest generation of cards (x800/6800). I seriously doubt if *I* would have purchased either title last year, since I just recently upgraded my card to a 9600xt. The developers (more likely, the marketers) may have thought that they would have lost some potential profits if they released too early. [aside: I like to think this is what happened to the original Unreal game. That game was (and still is) amazingly beautiful, but ran like crap on even the high-end systems of the time.] I wouldn't even be surprised if nVidia/ATi had some say in the release date, based on thier product cyles.
But, like I siad, that's all my opinion.
No, a house is built upon a foundation. As far as I can tell, this article is about IE. I don't think even MS is trying to argue that IE is the foundation on which [the OS, the Internet, ??] is built.
Or are you arguing that the entire Windows platform (foundation) is inherently weak and structurally insecure? If so, then using *any* browser, including Mozilla/Firefox will be insecure, no? Then the whole issue is moot and the DHS should be advocating an entirely different OS, not just a different browser app.
Who's making self-serving analogies again? Your point is off and rapidly becoming dull.
You know what, if you can make a webbrowser 100% (or 99%) secure, it's probably not a browser anymore, either. You are opening up ports on your machine to millions of invited and uninvited machines all over the world. The second you can claim that system is 100% secure is the second after you pull the cat5 from the wall.