First Doom 4 Production Shots Revealed 136
An anonymous reader writes "Actor Brad Hawkins has been tapped to do motion-capture work for Doom 4, and revealed that the game features the military and civilians fighting side by side. Does this mean the game is set on Earth for sure? GGL Wire has an interview with Hawkins and a selection of production shots. '[Filmmaker Mark Bristol] was very specific on the civilians having a certain personality and the military characters having a separate one as well. The body language of the civilians is less, well, "trained." They carry their guns in a looser fashion and are a little sloppier when they run, a little more freestyle. The military characters are sharp as razors, with very swift moves, exact hand positioning and can turn on a dime.'"
This follows news from last month that British novelist Graham Joyce was brought in to develop the story for the game.
So... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The rape of the series continues... (Score:1, Interesting)
What they really should do is stop fucking the Doom franchise and outsource development to the people responsible for Painkiller or Serious Sam. If I wanted heavily strategic gameplay and a deep story, I sure as hell wouldn't buy a game with "DOOM" written on the front of the box. When I buy a Doom game, all I want to do is kill tons of dudes with an assortment of awesome weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
This one is supposedly going back to the roots of DOOM
Re:The rape of the series continues... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BINGO. Serious Sam and Painkiller are the real successors to Doom I/II. Doom III was horrible in every way; it failed at emulating the successful formula of the first two games, AND it failed at blending in elements from other game formulas (the attempt at a story, the apparent attempt at a more atmospheric and realistic feel and horror type, etc.)
One or two enemies per room, "hiding" behind a pillar (IN EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN ROOM) does not frighten me, nor does it keep with the frantic style of the first
Re: (Score:2)
Id should have cashed in on that, hired those guys to do the other Doom episodes and convert Doom II/Heretic/Hexen into Doom 3 engine mods. I would have rather bought that than Doom 3. Though for the record, while I agree it is silly that there is apparently no duct tape on Mars a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody have the name/link of this mod?
Having forced myself to finish Doom 3 and never completing the expansion, that actually sounds like fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise check filefront, or this link http://doom3.filefront.com/file/Classic_Doom_3_ZIP;83549 [filefront.com]
I know it works in WinXP and linux versions of Doom 3 from my CD with the latest patches. It is pretty cool. The soundtrack is available free from ocremix.org, search for dark side of phobos. Should be available as mp3, wav
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I thought the greatest thing Doom 3 did was make me want to dust off System Shock 2. Every time I clicked on anything in the world, I kept on thinking "Gee, you know what would make this great? What they did in System Shock 2."
Bioshock was pretty cool too, but a lot of freedom was removed to cater to the console crowd.
Re:The rape of the series continues... (Score:4, Funny)
One or two enemies per room, "hiding" behind a pillar (IN EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN ROOM) does not frighten me
Speak for yourself. To this day I cannot open a janitorial closet without a shotgun at the ready, and even then my heart races and my brow sweats.
And every time the lights flicker, I have to check every room of the house to make sure no demons spawned or I can't go to sleep.
Once I opened a janitor's closet and there was actually a janitor in it; I was so shocked I almost became a murderer. Fortunately he was really a demon so it was okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Painkiller was excellent, and a truly underrated game.
I'm surprised that I'm the only only one of my friends to have played it.
Re: (Score:1)
I liked the story in Doom 3. It made all the killing more intense [fun]. Simple as the story may seem, it was all in the details.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a website that does not load is blacker than black
Pleb ;) (Score:5, Funny)
Bah, only a pleb would think that black is black and can't be improved any more ;)
Sure it'll be black, but will it be HD-rendered, bump-mapped, paralax-mapped, pixel-shaded, floating-point-colour black? I mean, just #000000 is soo last century. Nowadays only plebs and nostalgiacs would even look at that. Nowadays we want high-res high-polycount shiny objects with normals and displacements precisely calculated to accurately reflect and refract the surrounding, umm, black. We want black reflected on photo-realistic shimmering black water.
And pay attention to the high resolution part. Just filling a 256x256 texture with (0, 0, 0) doesn't cut it any more. If it's not at least 4096x4096 worth of pure black, you might as well make it text mode.
And will it have realistic depth-of-field effects? It's not a modern game if you can actually see clearly at more that 10 ft. You know it's really modern if you feel like a myopic guy who lost his glasses. In fact, like a myopic guy who just got beladonna drops in the eyes at the occulist, lost his glasses, and is returning home through a severe fog. If you wonder if your CRT suddenly lost the focusing coil, or if your 1600x1200 TFT is actually badly upscaling a 320x240 image, _that's_ a modern game. I mean, bah, black. What we need these days is _blurry_ black.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But, most importantly, will it have black controls labelled in black on a black background, with small black lights that light up black when you press them to let you know you've done it?
Re:Pleb ;) (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I was actually just aiming for "Funny", but I'm probably not that funny if I end up having to explain it.
Of course I'm not proposing to elaborately paint the parts of the texture which aren't even used, or which don't need any detail.
I _do_ find it kinda weird though that so many games, especially on the PC, seem to be (A) stuck with some black-and-brown palette from the 90's, and (B) have to make everything dark. It's like a quest for some devs to use all those amazing graphics possibilities juts to make more "realistic" black-on-black images.
I bought my first console very late. It was a Dreamcast. Let me tell you it was a shock to see the lush and bright scenery in those games, after coming from the everything-is-an-unlit-sewer games I had been playing on the PC. Mind you, a lot of PC games have discovered colours too in the meantime, but we're talking about ID and the successor of Doom 3 here. I can't resist taking a jab at whichever genius thought it's a great idea to make a game where half the time you can't see a fucking thing at all, because you can't use a flashlight and fight at the same time.
And the second jab was at the accursed depth-of-field effect. My first contact with it was when I applied one patch in COH and suddenly everything past 100 ft or so was blurry. As if my character had severe myopia, and couldn't _possibly_ focus on anything at a distance.
In the meantime the annoyance seems to have just spread. E.g., I've installed "Hellgate: London" a Vista computer at one point and turned all the graphics options to the max. (Hey, it's a GTX285. It can take it.) It actually made me squint. There was a road sign some 50 ft or so away, and I still remember that it was so blurry, it was practically smeared into the surrounding pixels. (The effect only seems to exist with DirectX 10, btw.)
I find it pretty damned sad. Here we have more than a decade of GPUs and increasingly sophisticated mapping and filtering possibilities, billions sunk into R&D both on the software and hardware size, etc... and they're used top make the game as blurry and smeared as something rendered in 320x240 on an old VGA card and upscaled badly on a 10 year old TFT.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Monitors don't have depth of field, if you want it you have to add it. And there are reasons both stylistic and game mechanical as to why to do so. If you've played FO3 for example, they did a lot with screwing with the perspective. Blurry vision at times, weird color shifts, whited out concussions and shifts between complete blur and focus when you've got a head injury.
On a side note, it's nice that somebody got the concussions more or less right, you don't see black with a concussion, disruptions to the p
Except most do it wrong (Score:2)
You're talking about FO3 where it was done right, and only for short times when the game actually needed it.
I'm talking about games where full time everything past 40-50 ft looks like it's smeared. Not just to simulate a head injury or concussion, but in every single frame. I'm sorry, my eyes don't work that way. Yes, when I focus on object X, object Y might be blurry, and viceversa. But those games don't actually know what I'm looking at, so they just blur everything. In effect it's a simulation of not bei
Re: (Score:2)
I think part of the problem is how game are made today. Lowest common denominator. Gone are the days when companies try to make something really fantastic and sell it on its own merits. Now it is about cross platforming and market centric releases.
For example. I saw the other day that a new version of Wolfenstien was coming out. Also that they would going back to the zombie nazi killing roots which excited me as it and ET were probably some of my favorite video games of all time.
However I read further, and
Re: (Score:2)
However I read further, and see that it is actually going to be developed for platform games and ported to the PC. Ported! That means a couple of things. Controls will suck, as going from controllers to keyboard mouse never works. This also effects what types of things you can do in game as some things are just too hard to do with a controller. Also the graphics will suck. They will be designed with a TV and a console video card in mind, and likely upscaled for the PC. Which means blurry and blocky and distorted graphics.
Well, the fact is that the profits are much higher in the consoles. Or so my friends in the business tells me. And no surprise, since the prices per game is much higher, allegedly due to lesser risk of piracy^Wcopyright infrigement.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm having a hard time remembering when this mythical era of gaming utopia occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
Your problem is called FSAA and other smoothing techniques. Anti-aliasing is a curse when improperly used. Just look at a few screen shots of Fallout 3 on the PC, 360 and PS3. The PS3 has no FSAA enabled for technical reasons, and distant objects are much easier to see and identify as a result. Sure, there's visible aliasing in specific circumstances, but its not distracting and I'd much rather identify objects than have no jaggies.
As for darkness, buy a CRT or some other screen with true black levels.
Not FSAA (Score:3, Informative)
It's not the FSAA I'm talking about. I understand your point about FSAA, but now think the same on steroids, squared and applied generously to boot.
In COH it's called explicitly "depth of field effects" in the options, and really it makes distand objects look as if you're drunk. Not just "less clear", but as in actually like you're seeing unfocused and seeing a little bit double. I _can_ tell a difference between that one and the option called FSAA :P
And in HGL IIRC it's called something like "DirectX 10 sm
Re: (Score:2)
Depth of field doesn't bother me when its done properly (see Metal Gear Solid 4). In a lot of games its annoyingly imprecise though. In MGS4, it only applies when aiming through the sight of a weapon or using binoc's, not (noticeably) when just running around the environment.
Re: (Score:1)
Why were you playing the game 50 feet away from your monitor?
Re: blurry (Score:1)
Nowadays, you're supposed to use the 3D glasses; they help you focus on that faraway stuff when the need arises.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno, it's tough to get more advanced than "black".
As far as Doom is concerned, "black" is the new b...
Um.
Well, it's not as if I'm going to buy it anyway. I have a colour monitor.
Duct tape? (Score:5, Funny)
Will the Marines in this game remember about duct tape?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I was referencing the mod community! However, I suppose the civilians making impromptu modifications to weapons would be quite awesome... Have I hit on something unreleased by mistake?
Re: (Score:1)
Are you listening, id?!
Re: (Score:2)
I'll license him my IP for a modest fee
Re: (Score:2)
And will they remember to buy a $4.99 LED flashlight and a couple AA batteries at the PX?
The 1/2 candle power, gov't issued, 15-second-lifespan flashlight that comes as standard issue just doesn't cut it when fighting the undead.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to hog-tie the demons?
Granted, it would be entertaining.
...and? (Score:1, Insightful)
Quite frankly, I could care less.
DOOM was great, DOOM II real fun. DOOM III was boring (yes, boring!). DOOM IV has pretty graphics. Oooooh, haven't seen pretty graphics in, er, minutes.
id software used to be our heros, but by now I believe they simply dropped out. They used to be at the very fore-front of new ideas, new graphics, amazing ideas - these days, it's just like any other large software company: "Let's do the next version of our old game, and not risk anything really new. We'll advertise via prett
Re:...and? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that they are in it to make games. Are you sure that's a good assumption? Because, from where I sit, they seem to be more in the business of making game engines and licensing them, using DOOM to show it off rather than anything else.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
But really...how many people license id Tech? Unreal and Renderware are significantly more popular choices (well, not Renderware so much now that it has been discontinued by EA or some such). Even Gamebryo/NetImmerse is a bigger competitor in the engine market than id.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Renderware is EA property anyway.
Unreal Engine is relatively cheap and for the last couple of years we've seen a crap load of shit and honestly really bad looking games made with it.
Gamebryo is not really a competitor. Or you really thinkg the same tech was used for Civilization IV and Fallout 3?
Re: (Score:2)
While id Tech 4 had taken a new direction with its dynamic per-pixel lighting, this unconventional feature had steeper hardware requirements and was initially only useful in "spooky games" (until the MegaTexture addition), whereas an increasing number of developers preferred conventional engines that could render large outdoor areas. Also notable was id Tech 4's relative lack of scalability compared to competing FPS engines which would have limited its potential audience; the Source Engine could still run on the older widespread DirectX 7 GPUs albeit without shaders being used.
Also, Doom 3 was... to put it politely, terribly un-Doom-like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't personally think this is genuinely what they do, but if it was it would be reprehensible.
Since when is maximizing profits "reprehensible" behavior for a company? I don't think you can even call it dishonest just because *you* think a product should be labeled a "tech demo" rather than a "game".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that someone from id stated exactly that - 10 years ago.
They failed pretty badly there (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire list of iDTech 4 games from Wikipedia:
Doom 3 - id Software
Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil - Nerve Software
Quake 4 - Raven Software
Prey - Human Head Studios
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars - Splash Damage
Wolfenstein - Raven Software
A total of six titles, one of which is an expansion pack for their game. Now how about their main competitor, the Unreal Engine, specifically version 3 since that's the newest. Well I'm not going to copy and paste the list... Because it's huge. There's more than 50 games on it.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Then he'll get his comeuppance. Twice. In the same level.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? I don't know what that list is so short, but I know there are a lot more games based on the various id game engines.
One my son is playing at this very moment, Teeworlds, is based on the Q3 engine, I believe. There are also all the games based off of the Quake and Quake 2 game engines - Half-Life and Half-Life 2 ring a bell? There are dozens more which were based off of Quake and Quake 2 I couldn't even begin to recall (as I never played most of them).
Re: (Score:2)
That's not iDTech 4, which is the Doom 3 engine. Quake 3 is iDTech 3 and yes, it sold a lot of licenses. Halflife was based off of Quake 1, but not Halflife 2. That is Valve's own engine (called Source).
In the past, iD had much better engine sales. However, they also had much better game sales. Doom 3 has failed on both accounts. It isn't a very good game over all and the engine hasn't sold well.
Re: (Score:2)
And you'd be correct. Doom and Doom 2 were not fantastically interesting games. They were just a lot of fun blowing stuff up. It hadn't been done much before, so they were new and exciting.
What's interesting like you said is how they work, what the engines can do this time that they couldn't do before, etc.
Re:...and? (Score:5, Funny)
lalala I have a stereotypical opinion and I'm angry about it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let's do the next version of our old game, and not risk anything really new. We'll advertise via pretty graphics, not with interesting game"
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Re: (Score:2)
http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/images/rage_first_screenshot.jpg [pcworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Why do so many modern first-person shooters create visuals that are essentially black and white? Or in this case, brown and tan. The details of the models in that Rage screenshot are interesting to look at, but the total lack of color makes the image so bland to me that I quickly lose interest.
Is there a reason for this trend of monochrome visuals? Is it to exaggerate the normal mapping on the models or a cheap way to inject atmosphere? I can't help wondering how stunning that screenshot might look if i
Re:...and? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good on you to be the first to post that very common opinion that you no doubt have read here several times in the past. This will no doubt get you a well deserved +5, insightful.
Re:...and? (Score:5, Insightful)
Id actually developed an awesome survival horror game that those of us who enjoy such games loved. But everyone else in the world expected a shotgun gorefest and thus described it as boring, or whatever.
And the expectations were thus because they called it Doom.
I'm not sure why they did that. Possibly because Carmack is not a marketing guy. Possibly because Doom 3 was inevitably going to sell buckets whatever the content.
Saying they have dropped out is nonsense, you've just attached yourself to the 13 year old fanboi meme. Doom 3 was actually a very well executed game with good level design and well written game progression. It just wasn't what people expected.
However having said that, I'm not sure I care anymore either. FPS games bore me nowadays, and Id seemingly can only make those.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Doom 3 was actually a very well executed game with good level design and well written game progression. It just wasn't what people expected.
Which means it was poorly executed, because the goal is to sell people what they will buy.
However having said that, I'm not sure I care anymore either. FPS games bore me nowadays, and Id seemingly can only make those.
Honestly the only FPS I'm playing these days is Star Wars: Battlefront 2, and it's on my Xbox. The control scheme leaves something to be desired (mouse+keyboard FTW) and some levels choke hard on that video+cpu combo but I don't have to use my PC to play. I just don't have time to play games that take hours any more. If I try to play an RPG I'll get interrupted to do some chore or look at a plant or a shiny rock so muc
Re: (Score:1)
Doom 3 was great. It was a survival horror Doom. Just like Doom RPG is a Doom RPG.
A derivative survival horror game (Score:5, Insightful)
I like survival horror, but DooM was a derivative shockfest, it is what your typical big budget horror movie is to real horror movies. DooM III tried to be System Shock and failed (even copying the audio diary story telling format).
Hint: When something jumps out of every corner it ceases to be a surprise. I "won" DooM III when I realised the level designers would put the monster door right in the spot an FPS player would put their back to instinctively. After that point I would know roughly where the monsters were going to be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree there were too many shocks. I wonder if they decided to do that because they could take advantage of the true darkness that Doom3 engine allowed?
However, some were good. My favourite shock scare was when I approached some stairs, I could only see the stairs because of some glare off them from another light source. Suddenly a light under the stairs turned on and through the gaps in the stairs I could see the silhouette of an imp staring back at me, maybe half a meter from my face. And of course the m
Re: (Score:1)
I enjoyed the game immensely in the first couple of levels. Playing the game in a dark room with headphones would literally send shivers down your spine. But seriously, the could have made random location spawns. It got old when you knew to turn around every time you walked into a room because an enemy would spawn behind you.
Or that full health lying in the corner... Just leave it, you're better off at 30% than the ass raping that will open up in the room if you go for it. Programming a trap for health
Re: (Score:2)
After that point I would know roughly where the monsters were going to be.
Make me think back to Resident Evil for the old Playstation. I remember my first play through making a game out guessing how the next monster would attack. Surprisingly I was almost always right; it's just that one tends to turn the brain off for such games :-)
F.E.A.R got it right IMHO. They didn't even try to scare you, instead banked on good AI and level design. Must have disappointed gamers that wanted a good scare, but even they got a good game for their money.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I quit playing when I realized I'd developed the non-conscious reaction of spinning and shooting every time the lights went out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't have a problem with Doom 3 initially. I was blown away at first, but after about 30 minutes when the levels barely changed from one area to the next, I began to fret that the entire game would be like that. My memory of the game is of dim, neverending corridors of metal. I played through it to re
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There, fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DOOM was great, DOOM II real fun. DOOM III was boring (yes, boring!)... these days, it's just like any other large software company: "Let's do the next version of our old game, and not risk anything really new."
So first you say Doom 3 was boring (I guess because it wasn't the action-packed game that you were expecting and because of the different atmosphere to the previous Dooms) and then you blast ID for not risking anything really new?
I think you are either contradicting yourself or that you don't know what you're talking about. Doom 3 went in a very different direction than the previous Dooms and I guess that just because they were trying to make something new, disappointed alot of people and were not very wel
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. I think Doom 3 was the only Doom I actually played all the way through without cheating, even though I spent an unholy number of hours on 1 and 2. And mod me down, but I liked how they handled the flashlight.
Re: (Score:2)
What new direction did Doom 3 take? You walked into a dark room, activated a trigger that opened a monster closet, then moved onto the next dark room. You're right that it's different from the previous Dooms, but it wasn't very innovative. After the opening sequence, the game settles into a predictable routine that doesn't end until Hell.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> Personally, I thought Doom 3 was great.
So do many of my cow-orkers. And yes, perhaps id has simply switched to producing graphics game engines, and use their games not as a game but as a demonstration of this engine.
But I consider this a great pity. id used to create great games (I've been around since before the original 'Castle Wolfenstein' on the Apple II - thus, yes, I'm an Old Fart), games which we all liked, and which I followed very closely.
And now they have dropped into the 'stuff as usual' whi
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase is "couldn't care less". If you could care less, then you do care at least a little? ;)
Anyway, I loved the original Doom and Doom II, and must have puts weeks/months of game time into playing them. I used to do co-op with friends, set myself challenges. Other FPS games since then have been judged next to those games. I played Doom 3 for about 2 hours, before I got bored and gave up, as it was just about unplayable. There were some dark bits in Doom 1 and 2, but they were rare, and well used (and
Re: (Score:1)
"I played a game for 2 hours and can now spurt crap about it on an online forum"
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Thanks for noticing that I thought the game was crap. That was the intent of the message.
Do you not think I followed with great interest Doom 3's development, after it was announced? Do you not think I discussed it at length with gaming friends, watched trailers, watched friends play it? And then I sat down and played it myself. After two hours of most other FPS games, I knew pretty well whether or not I liked the game, and in this case I knew I didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
In an age of sandbox games and FPS's with large open spaces, it's a little hard to do anything innovative with what is, at its heart, an old-school hallway runner. No matter how pretty you make the hallway, it's still just a hallway. And it didn't help that Doom 3 also aped its predecessors with scripted enemy appearances and an AI which consisted entirely of "run toward the player and attack."
Doom 4 would basically have to reinvent itself to modernize, but then everyone would complain that it wasn't true
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Quite frankly, I could care less.
I'm curious - what exactly could you care less about? How much less about something else can you actually care? Interesting!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Cut the crap dude. I won't bother talking about Doom with people like you. But id Software is indeed doing completely new stuff. Name's Rage. Now shut up.
^^^ Nerdrage
WHOA (Score:1)
Wait, Id is now incorporating a STORY into one of their games? What will they think of next?
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only slashdot'ted, but super-slashdot'ted. I can't even get a byte back from them. And coral cache has similar problems.
Hint, in case this hasn't already occurred to people: DO NOT LINK TO A WEBSITE THAT CAN'T HANDLE TRAFFIC. Seriously, I don't think a single poster here has managed to actually see the screenshots at all.
This is the problem with heavily-dynamic websites - a few visitors and you need to add extra servers. At least with static content, you can serve up to the capacity of your internet connection.
Re: (Score:1)
lalala I'm offering hints that were first offered 10 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and still people don't listen. What's the incentive to visit a website that a) doesn't work itself or that b) the majority of its content is links to websites that don't work?
People should be CHECKING these things because, as you rightly point out, 10 years is a long time to keep giving the same hints. Every time SlashDot does something stupid, I'm less and less keen to use it. Linking to a broken link (caused, in no small part, by not checking that the link works or is capable of handling the traff
Re: (Score:1)
I agree but there is seemingly no solution.
Target site wants to control the traffic to its copyrighted content.
Slashdot wants to beat other sites to syndicating said content, so it won't hold off because said content will be slashdotted.
Ideas like Diggmirror violate first principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Difficult to find out if a site can't handle traffic until it is too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Email the webmaster, perhaps? Or just ask?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
if you use the goolge cache text-only version:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Unj2yZYm0pUJ:wire.ggl.com/2009/02/09/the-doom-4-mo-cap-interview-first-production-shots-revealed/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1 [74.125.95.132]
you can see the shots are flickr links. they seem to be motion capture work. no in-game shots.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're flickr links, then post them. Flickr can handle the bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
The resurrect pages [mozilla.org] plugin for Firefox makes using the various caches out there easy, but doesn't help if they're not used before the site gets slashdotted.
Re: (Score:1)
What was that other game again... (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Mirror of article (Score:1)
A lymeric. (Score:3, Funny)
mirror (Score:1)
Why not the books? (Score:2)
What the hell ever happened to the Doom novels? Someone should use some of THAT story. What? Just because the Columbine shooters liked them, everyone pretends the books never existed? At any rate, this does sound pretty cool.
And re-veiled just as quickly (Score:3, Insightful)
"Interview removed by request of id Software."
Re: (Score:1)