Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Doom III Takes E3 Awards 201

Posted by michael from the marines-taste-good-with-ketchup dept.
Talinom writes "This has just simply gone too far. CNN has a story that tells how the video game Doom III by id Software has won the "Best Of Show" award at the E3 convention about one year before its release. Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is overdue for its "Game Of The Year" award?" The awards site is E3Awards.com. I don't see how they can give an award called "Best Action Game" to something that doesn't exist as a playable game, but then again looking at the past awards I see Neverwinter Nights won in 2000... in 2001... and in 2002.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Doom III Takes E3 Awards More

Doom III Takes E3 Awards

Comments Filter:

  • What? (Score:3, Funny)

    by sheepab ( 461960 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @07:49PM (#3733120) Homepage
    Doom III? You mean there was a Doom II?!
    • How do you not Remember DooM 2?

      It was in gameplay/graphics/sounds/everything the same as the original Doom, but they charged you for the 2 in the title!@

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "Doom III? You mean there was a Doom II?!"

      Yep! And it was called "Doom II". Doom 1.1 would have been a better name for it....
      • So does that mean that a better name for Doom III would be Doom 1.11, or maybe Doom 11.1?

        • Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)

          by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @08:13PM (#3733252) Homepage Journal
          "So does that mean that a better name for Doom III would be Doom 1.11, or maybe Doom 11.1? "

          I was implying that Doom 2 wasn't much more than Doom 1 with extra levels. It's the type of thing that comes to mind when you add more processing cycles to your cognative process.
          • It's the type of thing that comes to mind when you add more processing cycles to your cognative process.

            I'd mod this as (+1, Burn) if I could :]
            • "I'd mod this as (+1, Burn) if I could :] "

              Lol!!

              Moderations would be more entertaining if they used more adjectives.

      • 1.1 (Score:1)

        by Pope ( 17780 )
        Well, maybe for you. Doom II was the first version available to play on the Mac, and therefore somewhat of a hit.

        Marathon was a better game overall, but Doom II still grabbed some fans for this.
    • That reminds me, I need to drink a blue potion and
      push this rock over a little bit before I go up, up the mountain ahead!

      ?sp

  • who cares (Score:2, Funny)

    by wo1verin3 ( 473094 )
    >>Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is
    >>overdue for its "Game Of The Year" award?"

    Who cares, Never Winter Nights is now in stores!
  • to all the major game sites.

    This is idiotic. I am a huge Doom fan and cannot wait. I salivated over the 90 meg movie. I have promised myself a top of the line PC when it comes out.

    Well, now I am safe ... it'll be over by the time it's released.

    This is nuts.

    "Watching programming legend John Carmack manipulate the lone marine through the claustrophobic corridors, it was easy to get caught up in the revolutionary steps embodied by the technology on display." I thought the whole idea behind games was so that PEOPLE could play them.

  • Comment of the Year Edition (Score:3, Funny)

    by Floyd Turbo ( 84609 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @07:51PM (#3733133) Journal
    "Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is overdue for its 'Game Of The Year' award?"

    Since every game that so much as hits the shelves gives itself a "game of the year" award, the answer is yes. Next question.

  • E3 becoming irrelevant? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TellarHK ( 159748 ) <tellarhk@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @07:52PM (#3733136) Homepage Journal
    Year after year, we've seen this happen. Games that either aren't released, or just don't live up to the hype. "Best of Show" at E3 seems to be no indication of whether or not a game will actually be much good. It shows that it's a game that's likely to push a few hardware envelopes, but what does it mean for actual gameplay?

    I prefer getting my game news from sources that refuse to give a verdict on a game until they've had the final shipping version out of the box and played on it for a few days, at least.

    • Re:E3 becoming irrelevant? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alexmogil ( 442209 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @08:49PM (#3733370) Homepage Journal
      But isn't that what E3 is about? This isn't game of the year, this is Game of E3 - a technology exhibit and exposition that shows off the new entertainment tech. There are major awards these games can win based on the finished product, but E3 is about what is on the horizon.

      After all, Xbox won best hardware of 2000.

      And before everyone goes off saying Doom III wasn't playable, it was playable behind closed doors. Or at least playable by John Carmack.

    • Re:E3 becoming irrelevant? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by osgeek ( 239988 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @09:40PM (#3733547) Homepage Journal
      But, E3 isn't "looked up to" as a source of fair-minded gaming reviews. It's an excuse for those in the industry to get together and show off their wares in hopes of getting some good press, a few resumes, and laid at an after-show party.

      For useful gaming reviews, stick to magazines and web sites. My personal favorite is Computer Gaming World, because of its more mature approach to a subject that tends to be dominated by adolescent superlatives, trash talking, and an ingrained sense of style over substance.
    • I think some posters have kind of missed the point. E3 is all about showing off what's in development - with the primary focus being so that the dev houses can cut deals with publishers. The secondary focus, of course, is to generate hype for a game, which will turn into sales when the game is eventually released.

      So, with this in mind, "Best of Show" is just an "impression" award - and that's all it's ever intended to be. Quite simply, this award can't be given on gameplay, because for the most part, what's being shown is in the early development stages, so gameplay hasn't been finalised.

  • not best game - "best in show" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Audent ( 35893 ) <audent@ilov[ ]scuits.com ['ebi' in gap]> on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @07:53PM (#3733142) Homepage
    The award is "best in show" and that says to me that it's not the best game of the year or even best game but the best thing at the show... that which most people talked about and wanted to see, which it probably was.

    to quote:
    "The buzz generated by this early show made Doom III the indisputable 'must see' of E3 2002"

    of course, the stupid statement then does call it the best 'game of show' dammit... just ignore that bit.

  • Metal Gear Solid 2 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cheinonen ( 318646 ) <cheinonen@ho t m ail.com> on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @07:54PM (#3733154)
    Didn't they give an award to Metal Gear Solid 2 a couple of years ago over the demo they showed of that? E3 is all about hype, not playable games, and Doom 3 was definately all that anyone could talk about, so it was the leader in hype. The video was just amazing, and coworkers that went to E3 said the demo there was just amazing as well. If it was the best looking and most interesting thing that people saw at E3, even if it wasn't playable, why shouldn't it win?
    • Both the Doom and Metal Gear Solid series are King Midas style games, they are pure platinum. You get the majority of the original development team together, the game is going to rock, end of story.

      Besides, the coolest thing about E3 was the fact that Trent Reznor was walking around, not Doom3.

    • Excuse me? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by matusa ( 132837 )
      Just a sec.

      Did you ever play doom?

      now, second point.

      Do you code? If so, and the technological achievement of that engine doesn't impress you?

      E3 is noisy, E3 is loud, E3 is hype. But this is doom3.

      and you my friend, are no carmack.

      • Carmack is a great programmer. Doom was a huge advancement in the technology of gaming. Doom was a mediocre game. Doom 3 will be a shitty game. Good games have been made using the Doom engine. Perhaps a couple great games will be made using the Doom 3 engine. Doom 3 does not deserve a "Best Game" award. It deserves a "Best new 3d Engine" award.
  • "Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is overdue for its 'Game Of The Year' award?"

    Are you on crack? Wasnt DNF supposed to be released back in -98 or something?
  • Just look at it, it represents a huge jump in technology, it's only rivaled by Unreal II, and that's still just a rebuild of the unreal engine. What else would you say desrves this award?! it's head and shoulders above the competition, so why not give it what it deserves. Bring on gold copy, and DoomTest :)
    • Technology? Perhaps, but is it fun? That's what's important, or darn well should be, and that's where id has almost always failed with me. I am prepared for them to prove me wrong, when the sucker ships.

      • Re:Deserved (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nomadic ( 141991 )
        That's why UT2 will most likely be a much better game. Id hasn't had a fun game since the original Doom; every release is just a slightly better engine with the same tired old bad heavy metal album cover graphics.

        And nobody start in on how Id does the engine, and leaves the games for other people. They DO release games, and if they're willing to put them on store shelves they (and you) damn well better be prepared to accept criticism.

  • Duke Nukem Forever (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @07:56PM (#3733163)

    Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is overdue for its "Game Of The Year" award?"

    "Duke Nukem Forever" is not the actual name of the game. It's the expected date of release.

  • but could E3 stop giving awards to games that are still a long way from being released, I mean in the past games like team fortress 2 and freelancer have won best of show, where the hell are they now huh.

    It seems that all you have to do to win BOS is turn up with a non-playable demo and wow a few critics, Its like giving a goldern globe for a preview or teaser.

    The point of E3 is to demo games which are going to be released this year, normally around september and not things still a good year away from going gold

    Cheers thanks for letting me get that out of my system

    BTW, I'm not dissing ID or DOOM just E3's brain dead award system

    • This award is given for the best game *preview*. Every game was previewed - that's the point of a trade show like this one. What do you want them to do, give an award for a game that's already been released, and as such wouldn't have had a presence at the show?

      Lighten up.

  • E3 Awards is just another web page... (Score:5, Informative)

    by .pentai. ( 37595 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @07:56PM (#3733167) Homepage
    If you check it out, you'll notice they're not run by the IDSA (The happy people that bring us E3 yearly) or anyone of consequence...

    It's just like every magazine having its own Best of E3 list. I mean come on, a game I made made it on one of the lists, so trust me it's not seen as a huge accomplishment.
  • At an expo, you expose products. E3's own website states that its intent is to showcase the bleeding-edge of interactive entertainment. And since the public can't attend, Joe Gamer isn't going to care that Game X isn't available for him to buy. Clearly, some game that made it through marketing, production, and shipping shouldn't win a "Best of Show" award at a developer's expo.

  • I see the logic here. (Score:4, Funny)

    by wackybrit ( 321117 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @08:00PM (#3733185) Homepage Journal
    The buzz generated by this early show made Doom III the indisputable 'must see' of E3 2002.

    Yeah, I see the logic here. Let's apply this to women.

    The Olsen Twins are hot. Okay, they're 16, but hell, they're hot. Their buns might not yet be fully cooked, but they're due for release in two years, and I can already say that those puppies will be bouncy and full of fun.

    So what if Doom isn't finished? It's like a barely underage girl. You just know they'll be even hotter in a year or two.

    • Re:I see the logic here. (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You just know they'll be even hotter in a year or two.

      Maybe in your case it's another beer or two. Perv.

    • I did that once -

      Spent hours collecting pictures, trading shots and insider info - you wait and wait for that next tasty shot, showing a closeup, details you hadn't noticed before, trading little facts, sneaking in backdoors for preview pictures, leeching underground sites before the man shuts them down...

      ...and 3 years later you come out of jail just to find out the buns cooked, and came out stale. Not to mention your wife left you and you have to move to a new town. They were right, when I told them I was just thinking about their potential, it was a bunch of a useless crap.

      I mean, when I say 'their', I mean 3DRealms and Duke. And Doom III. Right.
  • ...they do matter, but maybe not to the public in a really direct way. When games win awards like this before they're even playable they generate more hype. More people and game websites and manages are talking about them. Ultimately, this buys the developers more time to get things done. After all, if people are caught up in talking about a game they won't forget that it exists, right?

    On the other hand, when people stop talking about a game, demos stop being shown, and awards stop being won everyone forgets that the game even exists. Anyone want to tell me where Team Fortress 2 is? :)

  • this is an appropriate use of the award (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FrenZon ( 65408 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @08:02PM (#3733192) Homepage
    E3 exists to allow publishers to show off upcoming titles - E3 gives awards to the people who generated the most positive attention and hype for their product.

    What exactly is the problem here? I would understand this story if it was about Doom3 being awarded 'Game of the Year', but it's not; it's being honoured as having the most impressive preview out of all the thousands of games out there, and I don't see how anyone could find fault with that.
  • a beta version was leaked similar to this story [unrealtournament2.com] (first article). THEN we could judge it ourselves to see if it deserves the best of e3 award so we stop complaining =)

  • Yawn (Score:1, Troll)

    by dlb ( 17444 )
    Doom III is just the same ugly girl with a lot more makeup.

    The first one was only fun because it was new.

    Please just let the series die.
  • I don't make my game purchasing decisions based on media awards, I decide on the basis of the game. Right now from what I've seen, Doom 3 will be sucking up disk space on my machine as soon as possible, but then the much much hyped Neverwinter Nights probably will not. I'm not into the click click clickity click dungeon crawl. It may be called Game of the century by every trade publication known to man, But I probably won't buy it. In order for this to be a less media controlled society, we need to stop letting our purchasing decisions influenced by tripe like this. But that of course would require common sense breaking out all over, and ain't gonna happen. Ignoring all that crap, this award basically is for the Best Demo. Not game. When it's finished, then we can call it game of the century, right now it's just a damn pretty demo.
  • Here's another interesting thing to note about the awards this year. The Legend of Zelda took the award for best console game overall, but yet didn't even manage to finish 1st or 2nd in it's own category; adventure. How is that possible?
    • Probably because the adventure catagory includes non console games. But then you look and notice that the runner up is Super Mario Sunshine. So I'm assuming that a title can't be nominated more than once. Hold on, Doom III is best of show, and best action. Oh Zelda is runner up for best of show!
      Oh well, having Zelda appear as best console, runner up best of show (next to DOOM III) and best adventure would have been overkill. I'm sure there is some attempt to get as many different games named, than have one game win as many awards as possible like they do on telivised (sp?) Award Shows.

  • Can somebody please loan Michael a clue....... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ride-My-Rocket ( 96935 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @08:08PM (#3733225) Homepage
    ..... as to what E3 is? It is NOT a software store, where titles that have already been released are shown. It _IS_ an expo where new, bleeding-edge games that people will see IN THE FUTURE are shown (to varying degrees).

    Here's a hint -- you WON'T see Neverwinter Nights again as a candidate for "Best of Show" next year. Next time, be sure to think before you post..........
    • Well... it almost isn't a software store. The *REAL* E3 is all the closed back room deals done by big time retailers. This is where buyers from Best Buy, Wal-Mart, CompUSA and other foreign markets come to see what's going to be hot in the coming months. The E3 Awards actually are useful as they serve as a barometer for potential future sales.

      You can't tell me that a buyer from a major retail outlet isn't going to look at those results and not think twice about ordering some more SKUs of product. Hype? Sure, but it does have a purpose, contrary to what the original poster and Michael might think.

  • "Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is overdue for its "Game Of The Year" award?"

    um, what about "game of the years" instead?
  • (from Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com])


    We've already said what we were going to say regarding Doom III, but seeing it garner the accolades it has just makes me want to say it again louder. There's no game there. There's nothing to comment on from a play perspective, save a few minutes of visual and auditory presentation - like a Future Crew demo writ large. I'm not saying it's going to suck or rule. Maybe id will be the ones to make a real game with their technology again. What I'm saying is that there's nothing to actually know about it. Promising? Okay, you can have "promising." Here you go. Best of show? Not on my watch. What the hell show did you go to?

  • Hype sux (Score:2, Insightful)

    by IIRCAFAIKIANAL ( 572786 )
    I *hate* hype - it ruins the actual experience because the end result never lives up to the hype. That's why I don't follow E3 or pay attention to movie trailers or otherwise be like a raving fanboy (ie/ Star Wars Ep 3 is gonna rock nads dewd yeah!).

    It's actually kind of cool - like when Resident Evil came out for Gamecube, I had no idea that it was in development. Once I found out, I read some reviews and bought the game and it blew me away. I suspect that if I had been caught up in the hype (assuming there was hype for the game) it may not have lived up to my expectations.

    Even worst is when you do get caught up in the hype and the end result not only doesn't live up to the hype, but totally blows. Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor did that to me. That's why I never buy a game or watch a movie until I see a few reviews for it anymore.
  • Still.. at least Doom III hasn't won E9 [somethingawful.com], the new, super elite trade show. Very few people got in, I hear.
  • Id called in at 0300; they were working late and looking for a way to hornify potential doom3'ers. They made a deal with theirs truly: a good review for the price of (fill in respectable amount of dough here). Sorry gents, the world is a corrupt place. A few controllers run what you hear on the radio, what you play, what you eat, even what you feed your cat. And all /. polls are registered and stuffed together for an overall picture. Don't bitch about Big Brother being on the way - he's already camping in your back yard :)

    Jynx

    "What do you mean? Of COURSE I know everything!"

  • Does it matter? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jayde Stargunner ( 207280 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @08:22PM (#3733278)
    I'm seeing quite a few comments along to line of "What's the point of E3 any more? It's just hype."

    Well, as a member of the gaming media (I'm an editor for RPGFan.com), I can tell you that E3 is and will continute to be a valuable assest for everyone in the business.

    Really, "Best of Show" awards are just fluff. The real nitty-gritty of the show happens on the floor, when thousands of industry folks get to play and see every upcoming game for the next year (or three--depending on the publisher.)

    Sure, people give awards as a way to highlight certain events, but that's NOT what E3 is about. I can assure you that people play more than the highlight titles, and it helps the gaming media--and industry as a whole--get better aquainted with upcoming product lineups and emerging publishers/developers.

    As long as E3 continutes to be a place for the gaming trade to go and look at a pltehora of upcoming products, it serves its purpose well.

    Just my 2 cents...

    -Jayde

  • The point of E3... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Somebody really seems to have missed the point of E3. Wonder why the average fan isn't allowed in? Wonder why even kids with dodgie news websites aren't allowed in?

    It's a show in which publishers show the games off to retailers, so that the retailers know which products to be buying and hyping in the next year.

    Of course, the nature of the media and the net in particular means that gamers themselves are very interested in what goes on, but don't forget why the show is there.
  • the DM tools are so awesome!

    Especially for OS X and Linux. Uh.. oh.. wait...never mind.

  • we totally blocked off to the entrance to the xbox stand [and it was a big, wide, glowing green entry too.] you should have seen all the microsoft guys trying to swish us away :) it was definitely one of the best games at the show.
  • Actually, Doom 3 was playable, but in a closed door presentation.

  • Um... (Score:5, Informative)

    by GrandCow ( 229565 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @08:53PM (#3733387)

    I don't see how they can give an award called "Best Action Game" to something that doesn't exist as a playable game, but then again looking at the past awards I see Neverwinter Nights won in 2000... in 2001... and in 2002

    ID was approached by some of the people giving the awards during E3 concerning the awards ceremony. They were told that the game could not qualify unless it was in playable form during the show. ID saw this as a really good PR opportunity and DID let the game be shown in playable form... behind closed doors and your entry was based on a lottery system. Look on Kazaa, there's about a 10 minute video that someone took when they smuggled a camcorder into the room (against ID's wishes)

    • Re:Um... (Score:5, Informative)

      by GrandCow ( 229565 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @09:04PM (#3733418)
      I know I shouldn't be replying to my own post, but whatever. I figured I should clarify and there's no "edit post" button

      The majority of people did not actually sit down and play the game itself. The programmers made a hasty developer build and were showing people diferent levels. The game was being played (by one of the developers), so people could see. The programmers would open up a map, drop in the enemies that are supposed to be in the level, and run around and let people see how the game is coming along. There were VERY few people that actually sat down at the keyboard themselves, but over the course of E3 about 5-10 people were allowed to play instead of just watching.
  • yeah, it's a bit premature to be handing out ribbons, but it should be tight.

    anyway, i'm holding off any video card purchases until this beast is released.

  • your aim is off good sir (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stalcair ( 116043 ) <stalcair.charter@net> on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @09:04PM (#3733421)
    I agree that it is pretty ridiculous that many products are rated before they ever are out and tested exensively. On sites like Amazon, it is sad to see the pool of reviews so corrupted by obviously irrellevant posts. (sure the series was great, but we are talking about THIS game) Another factor that is both annoying and sad is that professional reviewers often do this. How can you judge a game, especially any persistent world or long term game, solely based on a week or two of play? Most things have a newness factor, yet reviews do not often reflect this.

    However, it is my understanding that 'Best of Show' literally has to do with presentation at E3. meaning that I could go there with a proof of concept, a few screen captures and wireframe models but win if I displayed my booth in a fantastic way. At least that is the way I have seen it in the past. Sort of like how there is 'Best Picture' and 'Best Actor/Actress' awards.

    • agree that it is pretty ridiculous that many products are rated before they ever are out and tested exensively. On sites like Amazon, it is sad to see the pool of reviews so corrupted by obviously irrellevant posts. (sure the series was great, but we are talking about THIS game)

      Tell me about it! Just today I was looking at the Amazon page for Grand Theft Auto 3, Gameboy Advance version. It's got a 4.5 star average rating with almost 20 reviews... and it's not even out yet!

  • Huh? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Morgahastu ( 522162 ) <bshel ... fave bands name> on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @09:05PM (#3733425) Journal
    They gave it the best in show award. Not the best playable game award. They decided that their demonstration was the best. Its not that complicated. They didn't say it was the best playing game, they said it was in the best in show. As in a trade show, product DEMONSTRATION people.
    • Playable Format
      In order to compete a game must have been shown in playable form. Playable form is defined as the ability for the judge or a developer to manipulate the game in real-time running on its native platform. Games which were only demonstrated via videotapes, screenshots, rendered movies, concept art, sell sheets, press kits, EPKs, or any derivative thereof were automatically disqualified from consideration in the major award categories. However, non-playable games were still eligible for Special Commendations in Graphics and Sound Design.


      (from www.e3awards.com)


      I got this reply when I mailed them regarding if Doom III was playable:


      Actually, Doom III was playable at the show. It was shown in playable format to the judges and others behind closed doors at the Activision booth. We do have a rule stating that games must be playable. The video shown in the theater was not eligible for this reason, but Activision did show playable code and it passed eligibility.


      Thanks


      Rob

  • Doom III got people excited (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @09:06PM (#3733428)
    That's about it. That's what E3 is for. Certaintly it has generated more buzz than any other game released at E3. There's more to games than buzz, of course.

    Even so, Doom III is currently all about rendering. It looks really nice. The lighting and shadows are amazing. It's going to up the bar a couple of notches for everyone else. But is it a game? No one really knows yet. And we don't know if there's any innovation there besides the rendering engine. It takes a dozen or more people to make a modern game (50 or more for big titles), and there's usually one person writing the core rendering code. Everyone else works on the game side of things. So don't make the mistake of equating rendering with gameplay.
    • Keep in mind, thats all Quake III was for - to show off the engine.
    • Well its more than that, Carmack needs this considering Romero fell flat on his face. Besides id makes loads of money off licensing their engine. So if they intend on continuing to make money from other mod creators and FPS in general they need this engine and rendering system to work out as much as the hype is building.
    • The sounds really made that game. The hoofed deamon really scared me, even though it was behind a wall in another room. If Doom III will be like people are saying, more creeping around scared shitless rather that running like mad around with a rocket launcher, well then I will be first in line for it!
  • From the 2000 show:

    "... [Neverwinter Nights] is destined to be the more-addictive-than-crack game of 2001. - Aaron John Loeb Chairman, Game Critics Awards"

    I miss out on all the good games. Oh well, I should be able to find it in the bargin bin by now.

  • *NOW* i know it's worth buying

    "... Leave it to Trent Reznor, frontman for Nine Inch Nails, to meet and exceed that challenge. Reznor's richly textured 5.1 channel soundtrack literally rocked the theater, forming an important part of the ever-so-impressive multimedia assault that was DOOM III..."

    you may recall trent from quake, he wouldn't put his seal on it if it was shit.. now i need to save for a gf4 i'm afraid
    • GF4? I have one and from what I've read I get the impression that my GeForce 4 Ti 4600 will be LUCKY to get 30 fps above 800*600 16-bit color. Go for a Matrox Parhelia, GeForce 5, or that new 3DLabs card.

      • Re:YEA BABY (Score:2, Informative)

        by Lt.Phil ( 586773 )
        I'm not sure I'd grab a Parhelia. While I think it will do well with current games, Matrox refused to send a Parhelia to [H]ard|OCP [hardocp.com] for review. Their reason was (and I quote, from the [H]orse's mouth): "Matrox stated that due to the nature of our testing that they were not "comfortable" with sending us a Parhelia card. They seemed to think that we would be a bit too rough on the Parhelia and possibly show some issues that the "enthusiast" might identify as weaknesses."

        Those "issues" Matrox is afraid of [H]ard|OCP revealing might be something like lack of vertex and/or pixel shaders... which are currently the only efficient way to do bumpmapping.

        However, this is only speculation, since, after all, no one has seen a Parhelia for themselves though and gotten a chance to play with it extensively. Who knows? The Parhelia could be a GF4Ti-killer (not likely, but it's nice to hope ;])

  • Doom III rant (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kenny.EXE -P666- ( 586751 ) on Wednesday June 19, 2002 @10:57PM (#3733827)
    OK, here is my humble opinion on this whole mess. Firstly, from what the Id guys said, The E3 Doom III footage was a demonstration of actual gameplay, YES you heard correctly. If you don't believe me, here is the proof [gamespy.com]. (This is assuming that you consider Gamespy a believable news source, If not, that's cool and I have no other real proof, but I am sidetracking...) Secondly the Doom III Legacy video is NOT what was shown inside the booth. Most of you already know this, but just in case... I and some of my friends asked if we could get video of the closed demo but they were not allowing it, (hence the whole wait in line for 3 trillion hours. It looks like they wanted control of the viewers and what intellectual property they captured on film.) Yes, as far as I can tell it is nowhere near done, (the console said version 0.01) yes, the engine technology is amazing, yes, the gameplay seems to be much more focused on surviving and making slow, calculated, fear driven moves. I would liken the gameplay I saw more to a combination FPS/Silent Hill style game than the old school "shoot the 10,000 creatures and flip a switch" system of Doom II and Doom. It looks like you as the player will have to occasionally hide and run from the enemy rather than haul out the BFG and let all die. I saw demons break out of walls behind you and from pipes in front of you. The player seemed more able to interact with his/her environment in a realistic way. This does A LOT for improving suspension of disbelief within the game. The rules you have come to expect to hold true from all FPS games, (hiding in corners where nobody will attack you from behind, inanimate objects always face one direction and can NEVER tip over) may not always apply anymore. Simply put, hiding in a corner is not going to save your sorry a-- now marine! The lighting engine goes a LONG way to enhance your perspective of where everything is. If you see a large daemon shaped shadow on the ground, it is probably a good idea to hide at this point, especially if the demon has not seen you yet. (As evidenced by it eating your head. :)

    My concern is simply this, I have seen A LOT of Id bashing these past few weeks since E3. Frankly, the PA guys aren't helping much with the whole "I wish they would make a game out of the engine sometime" attitude. They have that opinion, and although I tend to disagree with it, they are entitled to it. I am more concerned with the HORDES of end users who take this idea and treat it as biblical law rather than thinking on their own. I agree Id does not have a truly working full game out yet. H-ll, I am sure they are nowhere near done, but just because the graphics are amazing and it is an Id release, does not necessarily mean that this game will be plotless. Doom III is the first Id game I can think of where a WRITER (from 7th Guest and 11th Hour) was hired for the team.

    I have a theory regarding successful companies and end users opinions regarding them. It seems fashionable to hold successful, established companies in low regard. While us readers of Slashdot bash Micro$oft, we at least have A LOT of material to work with. (I think of the hundreds of security loopholes, system crashes, and restarts over the past few years I had to deal with. :) Id, however, has consistently released stable, fun, modable, and groundbreaking CROSS PLATFORM products that I and several thousand people have consistently enjoyed. So why does everybody want a groundbreaking, reliable, fun, and modable cross platform game RIGHT NOW?! Please, give the Id people some time to breathe. Note, I did not say praise Id for they are infallible, just don't bash them with less than all the facts.

    In closing, I would say that this demo deserved the award it got, does this mean the game will rule all when it is released? Not necessarily, I only saw less than 7 minutes of gameplay. When comparing this to the 29 hours I spent on RTCW, this seems trite indeed. However, this demo did give me a glimpse into the future of gaming technologies, something I hold dear to my heart. I want to know that through this recession, through this war on terrorism, through the Colombine tragedy, and in this post dot com world, that somebody has the ability to be creative, talented, and gutsy enough to push the envelope and change the industry for the better. Did Id give me a great game? We will find out when it is released. Did Id give me hope for a bright future for games? I would say a resounding yes.
    • My concern is simply this, I have seen A LOT of Id bashing these past few weeks since E3. Frankly, the PA guys aren't helping much with the whole "I wish they would make a game out of the engine sometime" attitude

      My understanding is the PA guys did watch the demo, and they thought it was a standard DM FPS.

      I don't care if its playable or not, but just adding prettier graphics to a DM FPS is crap. The gaming community doesn't want that, they want SUBSTANCE. Innovation is about to get a second wind in the gaming industry (and I mean innovation in game play, not graphic engines). Just watch.
  • Got an email with that URL and thought it was spam. Now that I look at the site I still think it is lackluster. it looks like a lazy high school student site that is trying to make some extra dollars outside their blockbuster job.

    No screenshots, no videos, just a little blurb.
  • What's the big deal if Doom III wins best in show? The award "Best in show" means "the best-looking game at the show". They aren't pretending to give out "best game on the market" or "best game ever" awards.
  • These awards are for the best things at the E3 trade show.

    And Doom III was demoed at the show.

    And, one might presume, the most interesting PC game there.

    So how exactly is it odd for it to win? The award isn't for best thing you can buy in the shops, it's for best thing exhibited at the show.

    I'd guess at least 60% of the stuff at E3 isn't out yet. That would be rather the point of E3, wouldn't it?

  • There were better games at the show (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    DOOM III might win an award for "The game most liekly to force more video card sales" but that dosent make it the best game and certainly not the most original.
    Republic : the revolution is an original and far more interesting looking game, and that was also shown at E3.
    Still, maybe DOOM III had a bigger bar tab for journalists. Essentially its Doom I with better graphics. Hardly reason to buy a whole new PC just to play it is it?

  • Doom3: Now with more lens flares & colored lig (Score:3, Informative)

    by tenzig_112 ( 213387 ) on Thursday June 20, 2002 @09:00AM (#3735400) Homepage
    I know this is old news, but I found it funny:

    (taken from: http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=59 5)

    Vaporware Doom Sequel Wins Coveted E3 Hype Award [ridiculopathy.com]

    LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA- On Tuesday, officials from the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) awarded Id Software's Doom III its "Best Game For Any Platform Ever" prize. In an effort to remain true to the spirit of the game development industry, they announced the award several weeks after the expo itself had closed.

    "Anyone can develop a decent game these days," said industry observer and mother's basement dweller Randall Smudgeworth. "It's a far, far tougher thing to talk up a product that doesn't even exist in playable form yet, to work your potential customers into a froth and yet have nothing to actually sell them."

    Taking a page from the Myst III: Exile playbook, Id plans to ship a product by Christmas, even though a stable build of the product won't be possible until Q2 2003.

    Lead developer John Carmack told reporters that his company has its priorities in order. "We're hoping to release a completely crippled game, something that not only doesn't work but also does some permanent damage to your PC if it's at all possible. It's a goal we're very committed to right now."

    Even if the company blows the fall 2002 release timetable, it may not do much damage to the company financially. Recent earnings reports indicate that Id's primary business model is now built around distributing screen shots for upcoming titles to various gaming websites.

    "As a company we are 100% focused on meeting our screenshot deadlines," said Carmack. "E3 is just more proof of how important that is."

    The following is an excerpt from the company's strategic mission and vision, printed in their 2002 annual report:



    Phase 1. Begin game development; build rendering engines, etc.; design characters.

    Phase 2. Generate and distribute screenshots

    Phase 3.

    Phase 4. Profit!

    Carmack used the press conference as a platform to formally announce that Doom III screenshots will soon have multiplayer capabilities, including a Team Fortress mod due out later this summer.

    Also contributing to the industry buzz is the return of Trent Reznor to design the game's soundtrack. During the development of Quake Reznor's Nine Inch Nails were selling out arenas. Now that Reznor spends most of his days playing games in an effort to avoid working on his never-to-be-completed orchestral album, he says that he's only too glad to lend his work to Id's never-to-be-completed game.

    With the big win at E3, Id's Doom 3 now joins the illustrious ranks of the mega-mucho-uber hyped Daikitana, produced by former Id designer John Romero. The long-delayed and buggy first person sword fighter set the bar very high for other vaporware games to follow. Carmack admits that he's a bit worried that Doom III may not generate enough glowing pre-reviews and non-playable demos to put them over the top.

    "I only hope we can live up to all of this. If we're really lucky the game will never come out and people will continue to adore us. Thankfully for John [Romero] everybody loved Daikitana."

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Close