-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Which to buy? The Sims 2 or DOOM3?
- Thread starter Vieo
- Start date
)
MrAngryFace
Banned
Sims 2, if you want a better Doom 3 get System Shock 2.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
Doom III sucks, repetitive shitty shooter that gets old fast. The story was fucking terrible and didn't explain shit and the ending was like 15 secs long or something.
Terrible, over hyped game with amazing graphics. If you haven't played Far Cry yet I recommend that you do so now.
I dunno anything about the Sims series so I can't recommend Sims 2 either.
Terrible, over hyped game with amazing graphics. If you haven't played Far Cry yet I recommend that you do so now.
I dunno anything about the Sims series so I can't recommend Sims 2 either.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
Doom 3 is a tech demo
Doom_Bringer
Banned
Far Cry sucks?
ahaha you people have terrible tastes when it comes to FPS.
Far Cry has
Awesome graphics
Amazing environments
Intelligent AI
Nice music
Vehicles
The only bad thing about Far Cry is the TRIGENS (the mutant bastards), they kinda ruined the game.
ahaha you people have terrible tastes when it comes to FPS.
Far Cry has
Awesome graphics
Amazing environments
Intelligent AI
Nice music
Vehicles
The only bad thing about Far Cry is the TRIGENS (the mutant bastards), they kinda ruined the game.
Doom 3 was fun\scary\intense for a while, then it got repetetive and annoying.
Didn't like the first Sims so I didnt pick up Sims 2, but if you liked the original than youll probably like 2.
And about FarCry, what ruined the game for me was the shitty indoor levels. Most of the outdoor stuff was rockin.
Didn't like the first Sims so I didnt pick up Sims 2, but if you liked the original than youll probably like 2.
And about FarCry, what ruined the game for me was the shitty indoor levels. Most of the outdoor stuff was rockin.
Doom_Bringer said:
Poor scenario design, unreliable game mechanics that aren't particularly good to begin with, mediocre AI that can be downright awful at times, and a general lack of polish (poor animation, transitions, and other issues).
I believe that most scenarios relied solely on visuals rather than smart design. I'm not one to enjoy scripting, but I would like some actual direction in the flow of gameplay. Each level basically presented a large island that was admittedly beautiful, but with enemy placement that often seemed rather random and failed to give the impression of a carefully designed scenario. It was just sloppy feeling.
I do not believe that the AI was very good. The enemies sounded so much more intelligent than they actually were (and I have to wonder if the dialog actually managed to fool people), yet they really did little in the way of creative tactics to attack the player nor did they react in a realistic fashion. You could stand across a river bank (out of view even) and snipe an enemy in a guard tower. The second the trigger is pulled, however, EVERY enemy in the area "activates" and immediately knows your location. If you were hiding in some house directly after that shot was fired, you're going to see bullets pelting the side of the wall no matter HOW well hidden you were. The enemies do not attempt to hunt you down (either in groups or alone). You basically encounter "groups" per area that can be alerted as a whole. When that group goes on alert, however, they all become active and will be fully aware of your location. That's not good AI and it isn't realistic.
The battle that ensues then really isn't exciting. That's one of the other major problems. The setep prior to each battle isn't very solid, but the combat itself is even worse.
Most enemies will stand there shooting, while those that do not jitter around in a most un-natural fashion while screaming about shooting you in the face. If they animated well and actually fought in a somewhat interesting fashion, perhaps the combat would be more exciting.
The weapons certainly don't help. They aren't bad, per se, but they lack that punch and personality most often found in AAA FPS titles. I never found any of them to be particularly satisfying to use and the hit detection wasn't reliable enough either. Head shots were not always deadly, for example. When you combine the generally poor AI with jittery, glitchy reactions and the limp weapons...the combat simply fails to leave a good impression.
The Trigen were even worse. When you see a large Trigen come leaping across the map and watch as you DIE while he lands 10 feet away from your character, you know there is something wrong. The wretched animation only served to further pull you out of the game. The Trigen were present during 75% of the game and made the combat even less enjoyable while further exposing the flaws and shortcomings in the combat mechanics.
The problem is that none of the gameplay elements stand out. You have limp gunplay mechanics, AI that is NOT entertaining to fight, poor scenario setups, and a truly awful plot. If one or even TWO of those problems were still present, I could probably overlook them...but as it stands, there was just little reason to continue playing the game.
Then again, perhaps there WAS a reason...
The one thing that kept me playing till the end were the visuals. The game is INCREDIBLE looking and presents an absolutely massive environment. By the sole virtue of wandering about such lush, massive locations...the game managed to remain SOMEWHAT interesting until the end. However, the core gameplay and design was just not very good or complete. It was AVERAGE as hell in most cases.
Now, as harsh as that sounds, the entire game wasn't a bust. Missions such as "Boat" and "River" were extremely fun. In both cases, the actual objectives and mission flow were MUCH more focused while still retaining the freedom granted by the engine.
As for taste in FPS games, you can be the judge of that, but my top 5 "FPS" titles on the market are...
System Shock 2
Deus Ex
Thief II
Halo
Half-Life
There are plenty of others that I could add directly below Half-Life as well. I just feel that Far Cry was like a light at the end of a tunnel for PC gamers and the visuals helped people overlook the flaws. I WANTED to like it and I went in expecting a good game...but there were times when I found myself wanting to YELL "THIS GAME SUCKS" at my monitor. It just made me angry and, no matter how many times I tried to love it, it generally disappointed.
I'd love to hear what it is that makes the game so beloved, though...
border said:
Different situation.
Doom 3 does not feature good AI, but it also doesn't allow the enemies to do really stupid things and end up looking glitchy. The enemies in Doom 3 are more akin to the mindless drones you kill in games like Metal Slug. It's all about the visceral combat experience. The areas are small and the general flow of the combat is entirely different.
It's just a different type of FPS and I don't really like to compare the two. The actual core combat mechanics are also much better in Doom 3 and it has an almost arcade like design to it.
Far Cry tries for something entirely different, and it just so happens that AI becomes MUCH more important in the context of a world like Far Cry's.
It's certainly not a masterpiece or anything, but it is a better experience than Far Cry.
Similar threads
- Poll