The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
id Software have revealed details on the multi-player options for upcoming classic, Doom III - the co-operative mode's been killed!
Speaking in a recent interview, id Software designer Tim Willits revealed some juicy details about the multi-player modes in the forthcoming PC behemoth, Doom III. Up until now, no details had been announced on the multi-player facets of the game, leading many people to believe that the game was going to be single-player only. Fret not, you'll still be able to play with friends, but you may be a little disappointed at some of the details Willits has announced.
Asked whether Doom III had any multi-player content, Willits responded: "Yes, there will be basic multi-player. We won't have any breaking ground with this, it;s fully scalable. John [Carmack] said yesterday that it's just going to be four player but it really depends on the maps we make and the multi-player style we develop. But we are still a long way from that, we've really been working on the single-player mode of the game." Hmm, so far not too bad - Doom III was widely expected to be primarily a single-player experience, so it's not too much of a shocker.
Now the kick in the pants. "We won't have co-operative play, that's definite. Once we get further into the multi-player aspect we will explore voiceover IP options, but for now we don't have any plans for it. All we know is that it is gonna have deathmatch, primarily because we are really structured in the single-player experience, and that's what we're really focusing on." So, the co-op mode has been canned - but is this such a great loss?
id Software have not only single-handedly invented the first-person shooter, but they continue to re-invent it with every new game they produce. The latest Quake game, Quake 3 Arena was designed solely for multi-players, and contained almost no single-player frills. Doom III on the other hand, is the opposite - almost entirely dedicated to a spine-chilling single-player experience. But which do you prefer? Are first-person shooters meant to be enjoyed by a multitude of people, or are they meant for the single player - one man against the world, as it were?
I'd like to know your views on this question - are first-person shooters better suited to multi-player modes or not? Can more enjoyment be gained from playing them solo?
Speaking in a recent interview, id Software designer Tim Willits revealed some juicy details about the multi-player modes in the forthcoming PC behemoth, Doom III. Up until now, no details had been announced on the multi-player facets of the game, leading many people to believe that the game was going to be single-player only. Fret not, you'll still be able to play with friends, but you may be a little disappointed at some of the details Willits has announced.
Asked whether Doom III had any multi-player content, Willits responded: "Yes, there will be basic multi-player. We won't have any breaking ground with this, it;s fully scalable. John [Carmack] said yesterday that it's just going to be four player but it really depends on the maps we make and the multi-player style we develop. But we are still a long way from that, we've really been working on the single-player mode of the game." Hmm, so far not too bad - Doom III was widely expected to be primarily a single-player experience, so it's not too much of a shocker.
Now the kick in the pants. "We won't have co-operative play, that's definite. Once we get further into the multi-player aspect we will explore voiceover IP options, but for now we don't have any plans for it. All we know is that it is gonna have deathmatch, primarily because we are really structured in the single-player experience, and that's what we're really focusing on." So, the co-op mode has been canned - but is this such a great loss?
id Software have not only single-handedly invented the first-person shooter, but they continue to re-invent it with every new game they produce. The latest Quake game, Quake 3 Arena was designed solely for multi-players, and contained almost no single-player frills. Doom III on the other hand, is the opposite - almost entirely dedicated to a spine-chilling single-player experience. But which do you prefer? Are first-person shooters meant to be enjoyed by a multitude of people, or are they meant for the single player - one man against the world, as it were?
I'd like to know your views on this question - are first-person shooters better suited to multi-player modes or not? Can more enjoyment be gained from playing them solo?
Page:
Hmmm...I could swear I've read that exact post somewhere else you know..
Mr.Snuggly wrote:
> I'd like to know your views on this question - are first-person
> shooters better suited to multi-player modes or not? Can more
> enjoyment be gained from playing them solo?
I'd have said a multiplayer mode of some description was an essential pre-requisite for any of today's FPS games, it's pretty hard to enjoy fragging bot after bot for hours on end when the next time you meet them they act exactly as they did before.
Take the best FPS game from any console/PC and there's a multiplayer option: TimeSplitters 2 is renowned for it in its reviews, UT2003 is hardly anything but multiplayer, even other genres are moving to multiplayer, especially online RPGs, because the demand for it is so great.
The reasoning behind this is that bots simply aren't the best opposition you can get. If you want to pit your shooting skills against the best you've got to go up against human intelligence rather than AI.
Leaving out a multiplayer option from a FPS title nowadays is a bit unforgivable, but understandable due to pressures on the developers to meet deadlines. However with today's game engines already in place, and todays technology making programming games a lot simpler than it was a couple of years ago, leaving out multiplayer options in this genre will leave a title floundering against stiffer competition.
For a FPS game to be single player only with no multiplayer options whatsoever, it would have to have something VERY unique making up for it.
If a series like Grand Theft Auto went FPS instead of the current 3rd person perspective, it could probably get away with staying as a single player game, but only just, because adding a co-op or multiplayer mode wouldn't take that much longer to add, and it won't be much longer before gamers expect it to be added as a matter of course.
> I'd like to know your views on this question - are first-person
> shooters better suited to multi-player modes or not? Can more
> enjoyment be gained from playing them solo?
I'd have said a multiplayer mode of some description was an essential pre-requisite for any of today's FPS games, it's pretty hard to enjoy fragging bot after bot for hours on end when the next time you meet them they act exactly as they did before.
Take the best FPS game from any console/PC and there's a multiplayer option: TimeSplitters 2 is renowned for it in its reviews, UT2003 is hardly anything but multiplayer, even other genres are moving to multiplayer, especially online RPGs, because the demand for it is so great.
The reasoning behind this is that bots simply aren't the best opposition you can get. If you want to pit your shooting skills against the best you've got to go up against human intelligence rather than AI.
Leaving out a multiplayer option from a FPS title nowadays is a bit unforgivable, but understandable due to pressures on the developers to meet deadlines. However with today's game engines already in place, and todays technology making programming games a lot simpler than it was a couple of years ago, leaving out multiplayer options in this genre will leave a title floundering against stiffer competition.
For a FPS game to be single player only with no multiplayer options whatsoever, it would have to have something VERY unique making up for it.
If a series like Grand Theft Auto went FPS instead of the current 3rd person perspective, it could probably get away with staying as a single player game, but only just, because adding a co-op or multiplayer mode wouldn't take that much longer to add, and it won't be much longer before gamers expect it to be added as a matter of course.
er-no wrote:
> Let us wait with baited breath.
>
> *attaches a hook and worm to his tongue*
LOL. Nice one, i didnt see it coming.
> Let us wait with baited breath.
>
> *attaches a hook and worm to his tongue*
LOL. Nice one, i didnt see it coming.
I start that trend Edgy, but then I see a poodle with a fluffy tail running about and chase it.
( we have a poodle, its name is Walter).
:-D
( we have a poodle, its name is Walter).
:-D
Sorry, I can't help it. When I'm on a roll, I can type and type and type and type and type and type and type forever! It's only by the click of a mouse button I pause momentarily before finding something else to type about.
Like lemmings. Anybody had one deep fried? I haven't but... and that's why gelatine doesn't fit into a vegatarian diet.
Like lemmings. Anybody had one deep fried? I haven't but...
§n][pe® wrote:
> doom 3..... another 'hyped' up PC game because of its graphics......
He speaks the truth!
Has any magazine actually played it? or just seen some footage and screenies.
Let us wait with baited breath.
*attaches a hook and worm to his tongue*
> doom 3..... another 'hyped' up PC game because of its graphics......
He speaks the truth!
Has any magazine actually played it? or just seen some footage and screenies.
Let us wait with baited breath.
*attaches a hook and worm to his tongue*
doom 3..... another 'hyped' up PC game because of its graphics......
Ummm...I dont think Snuggly was looking for THAT much Edgy. I know you write articles for codejunkies, but you need to put a locking mechanism on your fingers.
;¬)
;¬)
Edgy couldn't stop typing!
:-D
:-D
Is it really such a big loss that a co-operative mode on Doom III on the PC has been canned? To be quite honest, I can't see the majority of British gamers being too bothered about that. Not if Doom III is released withing the next year or so anyway.
The Doom series is known for it's large maze-like 'chapters' of old-school gaming which would take you through a number of giant labyrinths that have all but one goal - find the exit. This all involved running, strafing, dodging, shooting, blasting and hunting for three different coloured keys that would unlock doors that were unopenable before. If a cooperative mode was implemented, wouldn't that cause problems if Doom III was to try to stay true to the series?
The Doom series is known to be single player. The original two games did have multiplayer features if you could ever work out how to use the DWANGO system, but even then it was mainly for local area networks. People adapted it to the internet and played online, but it was still the single player game that got people hooked, not the multiplayer features.
In the 21st Century, it is very hard to find a first person shooter that doesn't have online features. With shooters like Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament, it is very difficult for games of this genre to appeal primarily to offline gamers. However, there are one or two out there that manage to, such as IDs very own Return to Castle Wolfenstein, the sequel to the game the Doom series was based on. Although they do contain a multiplayer deathmatch mode, the single player missions are what the gamers initially want, to be able to shoot computer controlled players and complete the game.
I personally find that single player games on a PC are much more exciting than multiplayer modes through online gaming. I like the indepth missions that modern first person shooters present and I like to wipe out the computer controlled characters just to prove I can do better than a machine. Ofcourse, this all depends on the programming. A poor repetative game where the aim is to find an item, bring it to another item then activate every single mission can become vey tedious, but most shooters have a variety of different objectives that need to be completed.
My experience of multiplayer online gaming with 3D first person shooters hasn't been a good one. I don't blame the manufacturers of the game, I don't blame my PC which, after ten or so months, is still a decent PC, even if it's value has dropped to below half of what I paid for it. What I do blame is BT and the lack of broadband features in the United Kingdom. If Broadband has launched (as BT claim on their TV adverts and banners) then why can't I get it? It's the lack of a high speed connection, compared to the lack of low speed connections in the rest of the world, that to me, makes online first person shooting pointless, frustrating and not worth the hassel. So if Doom III has lost it's co-operative mode, it isn't really going to bother me.
If, however, the co-operative mode was in split-screen, and on a console, like Perfect Dark was on the Nintendo 64, then I could see there being a lot of fuss in the UK about the cancellation of the mode. My brother bought Perfect Dark, not for the fact that it was the unofficial sequel to Goldeneye, but because it had a co-operative mode, which is something my brother has always enjoyed in a game. He wanted the never released Starcraft for the Nintendo 64 because that was a strategy game with a co-operative mode, and he kept talking about different tactics that him and I were going to use, but sadly the game never saw a release in the UK.
Don't get me wrong by it all, I love a good old multiplayer deathmatch on a first person shooter. Why else would I go to Dark Mark's house? To see him? (well actually..yes...erm). I have enjoyed, despite losing virtually every time, many a Quake III Arena deathmatch on his Dreamcast, and have also enjoyed playing against my brother on Timesplitters, and both my brother and Mark on Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. It's very rare (no puns about my choice of word there) that slow downs and frustrating waiting times for other players to get in 'synch' with the rest of the game actually happens, which means, with the lack of online play, I can still enjoy a rollicking match with my mates. However, with the limitations lower spec' modems and PCs contain, problems can occur injust trying to start a deathmatch game, let alone a co-operative play!
So basically, it matters to me not that Doom III will no longer be having a co-operative mode in development. I will still play the game just as much as if it had. After all, I'm stuck with a 56k modem and that wont change unless BT get with the times and modify the lines.
Happy Snuggly?
The Doom series is known for it's large maze-like 'chapters' of old-school gaming which would take you through a number of giant labyrinths that have all but one goal - find the exit. This all involved running, strafing, dodging, shooting, blasting and hunting for three different coloured keys that would unlock doors that were unopenable before. If a cooperative mode was implemented, wouldn't that cause problems if Doom III was to try to stay true to the series?
The Doom series is known to be single player. The original two games did have multiplayer features if you could ever work out how to use the DWANGO system, but even then it was mainly for local area networks. People adapted it to the internet and played online, but it was still the single player game that got people hooked, not the multiplayer features.
In the 21st Century, it is very hard to find a first person shooter that doesn't have online features. With shooters like Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament, it is very difficult for games of this genre to appeal primarily to offline gamers. However, there are one or two out there that manage to, such as IDs very own Return to Castle Wolfenstein, the sequel to the game the Doom series was based on. Although they do contain a multiplayer deathmatch mode, the single player missions are what the gamers initially want, to be able to shoot computer controlled players and complete the game.
I personally find that single player games on a PC are much more exciting than multiplayer modes through online gaming. I like the indepth missions that modern first person shooters present and I like to wipe out the computer controlled characters just to prove I can do better than a machine. Ofcourse, this all depends on the programming. A poor repetative game where the aim is to find an item, bring it to another item then activate every single mission can become vey tedious, but most shooters have a variety of different objectives that need to be completed.
My experience of multiplayer online gaming with 3D first person shooters hasn't been a good one. I don't blame the manufacturers of the game, I don't blame my PC which, after ten or so months, is still a decent PC, even if it's value has dropped to below half of what I paid for it. What I do blame is BT and the lack of broadband features in the United Kingdom. If Broadband has launched (as BT claim on their TV adverts and banners) then why can't I get it? It's the lack of a high speed connection, compared to the lack of low speed connections in the rest of the world, that to me, makes online first person shooting pointless, frustrating and not worth the hassel. So if Doom III has lost it's co-operative mode, it isn't really going to bother me.
If, however, the co-operative mode was in split-screen, and on a console, like Perfect Dark was on the Nintendo 64, then I could see there being a lot of fuss in the UK about the cancellation of the mode. My brother bought Perfect Dark, not for the fact that it was the unofficial sequel to Goldeneye, but because it had a co-operative mode, which is something my brother has always enjoyed in a game. He wanted the never released Starcraft for the Nintendo 64 because that was a strategy game with a co-operative mode, and he kept talking about different tactics that him and I were going to use, but sadly the game never saw a release in the UK.
Don't get me wrong by it all, I love a good old multiplayer deathmatch on a first person shooter. Why else would I go to Dark Mark's house? To see him? (well actually..yes...erm). I have enjoyed, despite losing virtually every time, many a Quake III Arena deathmatch on his Dreamcast, and have also enjoyed playing against my brother on Timesplitters, and both my brother and Mark on Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. It's very rare (no puns about my choice of word there) that slow downs and frustrating waiting times for other players to get in 'synch' with the rest of the game actually happens, which means, with the lack of online play, I can still enjoy a rollicking match with my mates. However, with the limitations lower spec' modems and PCs contain, problems can occur injust trying to start a deathmatch game, let alone a co-operative play!
So basically, it matters to me not that Doom III will no longer be having a co-operative mode in development. I will still play the game just as much as if it had. After all, I'm stuck with a 56k modem and that wont change unless BT get with the times and modify the lines.
Happy Snuggly?
Page: