Quake3World

happy now, ladies?

Funnily enough, most Unreal Tournament fanboys claim Q3 sucked because of lack of depth. The argument is that Q3 offered a shallow experience because there were only relatively few weapons, they had no alt-fire, the powerups were uninspired, the number of maps was low and there were only 4 gametypes out of the box.

I doubt anyone on this forum is ready to commit himself to the notion that Q3 is a shallow game, right?

In that same sense, I think we're confusing simple gameplay mechanics with being shallow, boring and uninteresting here. Simple game mechanics can be very interesting. Cue mario.

Agreed

I think the bigger issue people are seeing is that with all the time spent on it, its STILL a shooter from 1999. They haven't really expanded on anything at all, and even the most basic things still feel a bit dated. Of course a simple game isn't a bad game, and yeah, Mario is as simple as it gets but also as fun to play as it gets.

But lets not forget people will say one thing, and one thing only, when looking at Rage... "Is it better than Fallout 3?". And at this stage, the answer is... Who the fuck knows? They have kept this thing so close to their chest, we know next to nothing about the game, and ZERO about the MP side of things. From what I can gather you can upgrade the weapons with "parts" you find, and also the car, too... But then, the game is 100% linear, its A to B, and that brings in the age old problem of "well, ok, the game will obviously get harder the more you play, so I'll just use the pistol the entire game until I need to use other stuff".

They really shot themselves in the foot by making it a closed off, A to B experience. If this world was a huge living environment where you could do mission 17 before mission 2, and maybe unlock more as you went on, then it would be on way more peoples radar. But the truth is, at the moment with what we know... Its a nice looking shooter with mechanics from a decade ago. And in this day and age, is that REALLY enough to sell a game...?

o'dium wrote:Typical o'diumist ranting

You said that we know almost nothing about this game, yet you seem to think you know quite a bit to rant on about how feature A is going to suck balls because they should have done feature B.

People who are stupid enough to compare Rage to Fallout are too stupid to have an opinion that should be paid any form of attention. It's not even the same type of game, the only thing they have in common is the desert wasteland setting. Some FPS players will criticize that the game has too much RPG-style questing in it and RPG players will criticize that the game isn't free-roaming enough. Both types of people are mouth breathers so until the game actually comes out, they can do everyone a favour and shoot themselves in the face. I'm quite tired of people giving detailed game reviews based off of a handful of screenshots and a trailer. Old people used to call this "judging a book by its cover".

Somewhere on a parallel forum of the Internet, there is someone named d'oium who is giving a detailed gameplay analysis of Overdose based off of the screenshots and saying how Blur is shooting themselves in the foot because it probably won't play anything like Super Monkey Ball.

What we do know from what id Software has said is that the game is not a linear game, nor is it open world sandbox. It's halfway in between, there is some choice on missions but you are directed as far as the overall plot and unlocking of other missions. Many of the missions are indoor classic shooters, others are races, some might be in other locations. Speculating on anything else like you know two shits worth is like trying to determine Gabe Newell's sex by only looking at his manboob.

Typical knee jerk flame against o'dium reaction.

I just have hope that I can still knock some sense into you but that brick head of yours seems impressively resistant.

What sense do I need knocking into me again? That my opinion, in any case, is invalid and that yours takes precedence over mine simply because it’s yours? Yeah, I'll get right on that...

Once you get your head out of your arse you will soon realise that what I said was technically and factually valid. Any time anybody posts even the smallest bit of news on Rage, two topics of interest are brought up; A) This game is trying to be Fallout 3/Borderlands *yawn* and B) This game is classic id Software, way too simple, just a classic threadbare shooter from what we have seen.

You don’t need an O Level in computer gaming to see that from what we know so far, this game is quite basic compared to other games. It’s an A to B shooter, with no RPG elements, no free roaming etc, just like every single id software game before it. Theres no doubt in my mind it will be “good”, but I don’t think for a second it will be “amazing”, and I honestly hope I’m proven wrong on this. I just think id Software are too set in their ways to realise what people expect from gaming these days. Rage doesn’t have to be Fallout 3 to be good, but if you honestly can’t see that the general public will go “Post apoc single player game... Post apoc single player game… Which is better?” then you clearly haven’t thought about this. The “market” this is being aimed at remember is a heavily saturated one with little to no innovation as it is, and we lap up anything original that works… What place do you expect a shooter with game mechanics a decade old is going to have there?

Rather than bursting out into flame mode just because you think it makes your inter-ego look cool, why don’t you spend more than five seconds writing a post that doesn’t contradict itself and have several flames towards me in the first line, eh?

P.S. Cunt.

He's right and you're wrong Gavin.

And boom goes the dynamite.

i thought i recalled em talkin about exploration etc of the badlands, i dont think its an a to b game... could be wrong tho.

You give the general gaming populace far too much credit there gumbo...

o'dium wrote:They really shot themselves in the foot by making it a closed off, A to B experience.

Why? Call of Duty seems to do pretty well and that's pretty much the dictionary definition of an "A to B experience".

O'dium has not read my post, obviously...

Eraser wrote:

o'dium wrote:They really shot themselves in the foot by making it a closed off, A to B experience.

Why? Call of Duty seems to do pretty well and that's pretty much the dictionary definition of an "A to B experience".

When did anybody ever buy COD for the single player...? People buy COD because its COD, it will have that COD gameplay and that COD MP. How many people are buying Rage "because its the guys that made Doom/Quake"?

fewer than they are hoping for, I bet.
why else are they toting the Doom/Quake badge in the trailer

o'dium wrote:

Eraser wrote:

Why? Call of Duty seems to do pretty well and that's pretty much the dictionary definition of an "A to B experience".

When did anybody ever buy COD for the single player...? People buy COD because its COD, it will have that COD gameplay and that COD MP. How many people are buying Rage "because its the guys that made Doom/Quake"?

I hate CoD multiplayer...I bought Blackops for the single player...

I paid £32 and if you play it on veteran it takes 14 hours or so with a 360 pad :P

lol, video games.

arguing bout video games lol

New gameplay video:

underwhelmed... good thing brink looks solid. id lost it years ago...

why cant games do eyes and teeth right in these modern times? that guy in yellow looks fucking horrible... like a bad mod model or something...

Looks a lot like fallout....

The weapons vid makes it look like an entertaining shooter at the very least. Hopefully they attach a decent storyline to it but either way it'll be worth playing.

AmIdYfReAk wrote:Looks a lot like fallout....