Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
First Person Shooters (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Only Xbox Port of Doom 3 Will Have Co-operative Play 153

Posted by CowboyNeal from the taken-for-granted dept.
Ant writes "According to this interview with the Xbox developers Vicarious Visions over at GamePro, only the Xbox port of id's Doom 3 will have co-operative play, and the PC version will not have co-op, unlike the original Doom games. There are also two recent interviews with id themselves on the GamePro site." Co-op was one of the parts of Doom (and Quake) that really got me into the genre, but after I got good enough fighting alongside my friends, I found it was more fun to fight against them, since they were more challenging than anything the computer could come up with then.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Only Xbox Port of Doom 3 Will Have Co-operative Play More

Only Xbox Port of Doom 3 Will Have Co-operative Play

Comments Filter:

  • Short-sighted (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Synic ( 14430 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:27PM (#8513025) Homepage Journal
    Why they didn't bring the co-op portion of the Xbox code to the PC version I have no idea. Personally, after Quake III I gave up hope on id ever producing something good ever again. Quake IV is hopefully in good hands at Raven, but I heard that many left that company that were responsible for their earlier great games.

    • Re:Short-sighted (Score:5, Informative)

      by orn ( 34773 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:50PM (#8513274)
      Why they didn't bring the co-op portion of the Xbox code to the PC version I have no idea.

      Actually it's the other way around. The PC version is being ported to the X-Box.

      I was talking with one of the developers of the X-Box version while playing Natural Selection. He said that they had a later release date and could polish the code better. So, it's pretty much a scheduling restraint...

      I'm pretty bummed about it - I love cooperative FPS. Team sports are great.

      • Re:Short-sighted (Score:2, Interesting)

        by eliza_effect ( 715148 )
        There was an article somewhere quite awhile back that had one of the devs, possibly Carmack saying he would leave it up to the "community" to get co-op going on the PC. I assume the Xbox devs put it in from the get-go because the Xbox is a relatively fixed platform.
      • If youd actually rtfa, you would know not to refer to it as a "port", but a co-operative development effort ;)
      • Even under schedule problems, they could release co-op in a patch. Heck, we're all used to patching PC games a dozen times over, for better or worse.

        I have an Xbox, but still. I just don't like FPS games on a console controller, and co-op is fun.
      • My point was that they should either 1) merge the co-op code from the Xbox version back into the PC version, as VV has been taking all of id's work the opposite direction, so what's the difficulty? Is teh Carmack scared? jk 2) They should push back the date and release it done right. I thought id was the king of "when it's done," but apparently they cowtow due to publisher pressure these days. :(

    • Re:Short-sighted (Score:4, Informative)

      by arrow ( 9545 ) <mike.damm@com> on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @05:12PM (#8513620) Homepage Journal
      Actualy your both wrong. This months GamePro has an interview with an id's level designer(?). He said that the XBox and PC versions of the game were being written side by side.

      There is as little porting of code as possible, and its taking place in both directions. id software is focusing on optimizing the game for PC, and Vicarious Visions is focusing on heavy optimization for the XBox.

      A ultra-tweaked engine for both platforms is the ultimate goal. Mostly because id makes most of their bank from selling engines to other companies. This is, in my opinion, one of the driving factors in bringing an experienced console developer into the mix.
      • One of the reasons they're not porting code is because the shader engine is not modular at all. They had to re-write most of it to support Nvidia (vs. ATI), and I'm sure they wanted to have it "done right" on the XBox. I'm sure it's possible to patch via Live, but post release support is not something that consoles are known for (or people expect, for that matter).
      • "...id makes most of their bank from selling engines to other companies."

        This is bunk, I've posted about it before. It was in a couple different gaming magazines (gameinformer I think was one, don't remember the other, i'd dig but don't keep them for very long) over the last cpl of years. id does not make the majority of their moola off engine licenses.
    • The Xbox version will not include Online Multiplayer from what I have heard. I cna understand that because of the Xbox's limiting hardware. I was also worried about ID ever producing a quality title again, lol. Now Raven on the other hand created SOF series, which in my opinion, SOF2 is one of the top 3 online shooters of all time. Quake IV should be really cool.
      • What do you mean by "limiting hardware"? You're saying that the Xbox is more limiting than the Dreamcast? Heh. That had online Quake III play!

        Also, some of the people who were responsible for the Heretic series of games as well as the first Soldier of Fortune have left Raven for greener pastures elsewhere. As when this happens at places like Black Isle, their next game to come out may be a big turd, OK, or great depending on the remaining people at the company.
  • Would you really want Co-Op in an atmosphere based game?

    It's not going to be as frentic with very few enemies on screen at one time so there really isn't any call for it.

    It does seem kind of a shame though, co-op gives you somehting to do to teach people the game.
    • P2Pstudio.com was purchased by someone in January of this year.
    • True, but in an atmospheric game co-op still can be implemented quite interestingly. Imagine this :

      Player 1 and Player 2 (lets call them Sam and Bob for simplicity) are making their way through a hallway, with Bob watching the rear. While passing through a doorway, Sam and Bob are suddenly cut off and Sam is suddenly attacked by an infinite number of enemies. While Sam is yelling at the game trying to fend for himself, Bob has to find a switch/key in order to open the door while sounds of gunfire and yellin

    • Would you really want Co-Op in an atmosphere based game?

      Yes, yes, I would.

      Did no one else ever play System Shock 2 multiplayer?

    • Much like Halo, I'm sure the presenence of co-op on the X-Box but not on the PC is because with the X-Box it will be split screen multiplayer not network co-op play in any form. Obviously PC's arnt well suited to split screen co-op and this feature doesn't really have a place on the PC (and it's more than a 'bit' cramped on TV screen in any case), so it's been omitted from the PC port.

      Network co-op play (on PC or console), which is a far more enjoyable and practical from a gameplay point of view, just hasn

  • That is a shame (Score:5, Funny)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:34PM (#8513097)
    Yes, playing against people of equal skill levels is more fun. But co-op is great for allowing less experienced people a chance to learn the game. About the 10th time in a row I frag my wife, its stops being fun... especially when she starts threatening a divorce...

  • And here is why.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MBraynard ( 653724 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:34PM (#8513098) Journal
    Co-op makes more sense for consoles. Remember what P. Diddy says - 'It's good to play together.'

    Technically, the co-op that will be in Xbox will not be the same as you'd want in PC - it will be Split Screen. It's not as though the Devs can as easily take this split screen co-op and turn it into single screen, multiple location co-op.

    While co-op is important to consoles, it's not such a big deal for PC games. How do I know? I recall Serious Sam having co-op and nearly all the games on the servers were for pvp, not co-op.

    • Maybe the co-op is over xbox live? Can anyone confirm this?
    • I hope that the Doom 3 coop mode is similar to Halo. It is nice that when you get 'stuck' in some area, you can have a friend help you to get you through it, then switch back to single player mode and keep on cruising.

      If I had that mode for Medal of Honor: Spearhead, I might have finished the game.

      It's also the only thing that got me through a few tough levels in Halo at higher difficulty levels.

      Also- I'm thrilled at the way they are developing Doom 3 for two separate systems. One group working on the
      • I'm thrilled at the way they are developing Doom 3 for two separate systems. One group working on the PC, and another working on the Xbox. Then we won't hear how it is 'watered down' from the PC people, or how the 'controls suck' from the Xbox people.

        Ah, but thats what happened to Halo. Halo Xbox was worked on by Bungie, while Halo PC was worked on Gearbox. Simply put, both sides won't even agree that porting Halo 2 to the PC is a good idea. (Gearbox pissed people off badly especially with such high system

    • Re:And here is why.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )
      coop makes sense on any system.

      you know why halo on pc sucks serious ass in many peoples opinions? because it lacks coop. you know why there's some people who despite hating the controller and xbox in general think that halo on xbox can be some serious fun? because it has coop.

      coop IS fun on fuckin any device.

      and yes they could do it pretty much 'easily', the part where coop story runs into problems is the world interaction/story unfolding.

    • Re:And here is why.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Orien ( 720204 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @05:40PM (#8513980)
      Yes, but every time I do a LAN party I do Serious Sam co-op. Co-op isn't for playing with random stranger on the internet that hogs all the good action and do things to make you mad, it's for chillin' with people you know. It goes right back to the old days for me. When I was a kid (think mid to late 80's when the Nintendo was big) I had a best friend who I would always play video games with. Almost every weekend we would beg our parents until they gave us money to rent a game, then we would run down to the rental place and look on the back of all the boxes until we found the ones marked "two player simaltenous action!" or whatever. One player games sucked because one of us would always be sitting there bored, and if the two player wasn't simeltenious it wasn't nearly as good.

      I know everyone will have a different opinion about this issue, but for us the goal was to beat the game, and that was a lot more easy with co-op. Try beating Contra by yourself! If a game wasn't co-op then we ended up competing with each other and we would end up getting in a fight by the end of the night. With co-op we felt like a team and it left me with some of my favorite childhood memories.

      Don't discount the value of co-op on PC. You should hear the people raving about UT 2004 demo and the onslaught game mode. That is a perfect set up for one of the best co-op games ever. They have set it up so that it's next to impossible to win without a good team effort, as opposed to traditional CTF where you commonly get 'that one player' who is 100 frags above the curve and scores all the points for the whole team.

      And no, I didn't spell check this, so go ahead and flame me.

    • can all the people that modded this as insightful please never get modding ability again?

      Co-op makes more sense for consoles. Remember what P. Diddy says - 'It's good to play together.'

      ??? what fucked up logic is this? wait, i suppose if p.diddy says it, it must be okay. for a start, first person shooters on consoles are square pegs in round holes for the best part anyway. every single FPS game that has come out for PC in the last few years has had people complaining because there is no co-op. people

  • Quake? Doom? (Score:4, Funny)

    by ooPo ( 29908 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:34PM (#8513105)
    Quake? Doom? Weren't those ancient games people played before Unreal Tournament came out?

    • Re:Quake? Doom? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Cthefuture ( 665326 )
      UT doesn't have anywhere near the smoothness and speed of Quake.

      I hate the way UT feels. It feels jerky and icky.

      This is not a hardware problem. It's more subtle than that. Most players probably can't tell a difference but when you've played as long as me and at the level I do then you realize that UT feels pretty bad compared to Quake3.

      There's also the real performance issue. I mean, Quake3 runs damn fast. Faster than any game that uses the Unreal engine.

      With that said, I like other aspects of UT2
      • It's more subtle than that. Most players probably can't tell a difference but when you've played as long as me and at the level I do then you realize that UT feels pretty bad compared to Quake3.

        You, ah, DO realize that UT feels "bad" probably because you've played so much Quake?

      • Sure, Quake 3 has a technically better engine. The problem I had with it was it offered nothing over Quake 2 in terms of gameplay. So, I looked around and found Unreal Tournament was a bucket of fun. I've looked back a couple of times since but I can't say I've missed anything by making the switch.

        I even bought the Quake 3 teamplay addon and it still failed to grab me. Oh well...

        BTW, I like how you threw in a little ego-building mention of your skills. I'm sure they're quite big and manly but I'm not inte

        • Re:Quake? Doom? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Cthefuture ( 665326 )
          BTW, I like how you threw in a little ego-building mention of your skills. I'm sure they're quite big and manly but I'm not interested.

          I mearly threw that in because there's always someone who starts spouting off about how there is no difference. Just like there's no difference between 30 FPS and 300 FPS.

          You only notice those things when you start playing at the higher levels.

          I didn't say I was better than anyone else, I just said that I'm not a newbie.
          • This is Slashdot Games, on a story that didn't make in to the front page. I'm fairly certain there are near to no newbies here. Most people, especially the ones reading this specific story will have at least 50 to 100 hours of FPS gaming - most people will have significantly more, I'd wager. (Not that that is something to be especially proud of.) So there's really no need to get on such a high horse.
      • I hate the way UT feels. It feels jerky and icky.

        Clearly different strokes for different folks - Quake 3 makes me feel sea sick and I can't play it. All other FPSes are fine but I literally can't stand Quake 3. I'm hoping Doom 3 doesn't do the same to me...

        • This can happen when something is so realistic that your brain says "THIS IS REAL" and your inner ear says "FUCK YOU, WE'RE NOT EVEN MOVING!" ... next thing you know, you're throwing up.

          There was something mentioned about this on slashdot in terms of ultra-HDTV's being developed in Japan that were so high-def and realistic that people were throwing up because their brain thought they were moving and they weren't. (Gross simplification.)
      • I like UT better, as I found Q3 played too "smooth" like I was floating instead of running. UT just felt more "earthy" and organic.

        That is of course the original UT vs. Q3. UT2003 felt more like Q3 and the unreal fans hated it for that reason. I still liked it. UT2004 is about 5 years better than Q3, so it becomes unfair to compare.

        But then again, I might just not be playing at your high level. (j/k)

      • Re:Quake? Doom? (Score:1, Redundant)

        by G-funk ( 22712 )
        Hmmm, a 5 year old game that runs much smoother than a soon-to-be-released game... Fancy that. I hear that wolf3d gets even better framerates!

  • At least we know it can be done. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Night Goat ( 18437 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:35PM (#8513120) Homepage Journal
    It's too bad Doom 3 won't have cooperative play when it ships. I had a very good time running around Doom's levels with friends, and I'd like to be able to do it again with the new game. The good thing is, id can always put co-op play in in a patch. They add features a lot with their patches, hopefully they'll add this once they get a little less busy getting the game shipped. I bet they just wanted to focus on the single-player game first.
    • The good thing is, id can always put co-op play in in a patch. They add features a lot with their patches, hopefully they'll add this once they get a little less busy getting the game shipped.
      Ah but then you'll get gamers griping (justifiably) about publishers shipping half complete (full price) games. What ever happened to "It will be done when it is done"? (brace yourself for the thousand Duke Nukem Forever jokes)
    • "I bet they just wanted to focus on the single-player game first." yeah? Well I bet MS 'persuaded' them to make co-op available only on the xbox.
      • The PC version wasn't intended to have any multiplayer at all... If I'm not mistaken, ID hired an outside company to create multiplayer for the game after it had already been in development for several years. If Vicarious Vision decided to add co-op multiplayer to the XBox, it is probably because they realized that they were cutting enough that the two games wouldn't be compatible with eachother... I'd be surprised if the XBox kept the per-polygon collision detection... So why not throw in a new multiplay

  • Clarification (Score:5, Informative)

    by IshanCaspian ( 625325 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:47PM (#8513246) Homepage
    From the post some people might imply that the co-op mode was given only to the x-box as some kind of incentive to play that particular version. However, it was not created by Id, but VV, the company in charge of porting D3 to the xbox.

    Id didn't want a co-op mode, and these guys did. That makes me feel much better than if it had been a decision by Id itself in some kind of an attempt to make people buy both versions.
    • I doubt id simply decided to not put co-op in the PC version. Don't forget the original Doom (1 and 2) both had co-op so we know id has worked on co-op at least once in the past. I'm guessing its more a case of technical difficulties rather than "ok this is taking too long, drop it" or "I'm too lazy to code a co-op mode, if you guys want it do it yourselves."

      With a Xbox system its easier since you can do split screen (you can do it with a PC but almost no one does that), plus the closed system will make it

      • Re:Clarification (Score:5, Informative)

        by daVinci1980 ( 73174 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @08:12PM (#8515716) Homepage
        I just had to point this out...

        "As computer hardware continues to accelerate at this pace, the divide between computing power with hardcore gamers and non-hardcore gamers increase, it will be harder and harder to make PC games."

        This is actually not as true as you might believe. I am a graphics programmer, and the sad truth is that we are barely scratching the surface of the capabilities of the newer and newer cards. Sure, they have improved fill rates and higher vertex throughput, but only if you organize your data in such a way to keep the number of batches sent to the hardware very small (less then 600 per frame will get you close to 60 fps on *anything* newer than Radeon 9500, regardless of what's in the batches).

        One of the main reasons that games post only slightly better results between card x and y (and the reason why even older generations of card x and y don't perform terribly worse), is because the increase in performance on the cards and CPU speeds have more or less caused us to get lazy. Rather than using insane optimization tricks to improve the performance by the linear performance imrpovement of the card; we've just gotten more linearly lazy about our data submission.

        The overwhelming majority of games don't even keep the GPU busy at all. We just spin on the CPU side, submitting batches to the hardware.

        If you're interested in a technical presentation on the subject, you can look here [ati.com] (pdf required).
      • Rather than technical difficulties, gameplay difficulties are more likely. The original was run-and-shoot and the new version is more run-and-hide. Perhaps they couldn't find a way to make it work within the schedule without ruining the feel and balance of the game.

        I have great faith that Doom3 will be extensively mod-able (on the PC, not Xbox!) and that the community will add co-op mode. Co-op is definitely one of the best features from Doom and is something sadly lacking from every FPS I've played unt

  • idunno (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drjenk ( 696304 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @04:49PM (#8513257)
    They didn't really make it clear if the it is split screen co-op or over xbox live...
    • Mmm... with split screen Microsoft sells only one Xbox and one copy of the game, but does sell one extra controller.

      If co-op is done over Xbox Live, Microsoft gets to sell two Xboxes, two Live subscriptions, and two copies of the game.

      Gee, I wonder what it will be.

      • You've never played 16 player, 4 Xbox, split-screen Halo, have you? Talk about a kick in the pants! Well, a sniper shot in the head, actually :-)
  • Co-op play should almost be required in action games. Even ones as heavily scripted and story-based as Doom 3.

    Neverwinter Nights and its expansions are very good examples. Granted, NwN is an RPG, not an FPS, but it is still has a very heavily scripted story-line. The single-player campaign is made to be played uhm - single player, but it is still _possible_ to play it in coop mode with your friends on a LAN or on the internet. This is a _very good thing_(tm).

    HALO and a lot of other games have also impleme
    • Ah... but it ISNT implemented in the code so to speak. You have to remember that the codebase is for the PC version alone. VV is responsible for porting it to the Xbox. iD is not designing the game with co-op in mind... VV is designing the PORT with co-op in mind. You can look a co-op as a pre-release mod hard coded into the Xbox release. Aside from that, co-op play can be a tricky thing to code up. Let me give you an example to illustrate this point. Assume you are playing a single player mission.
      • You're missing the point. You point out all these problems that have to be solved in order to add co-op to a single player fps. Since they are adding co-op to the Xbox version they have already solved these problems. It would be trivial to implement them in the PC version.
        • Who exactly to you mean by "they". iD isn't handling coding for the Xbox. The porting group is. In that context iD has NOT already solved these problems. Not to mention the solution on the Xbox is very much NOT what we want for a PC. I don't want to have to sit next to my friend to play co-op with him on one monitor. For PC, the proper network communication protocols would have to be derived for syncronization (duh), but more importantly script syncronization would have to be taken care of. That's ea
          • No, again I completely disagree with you. iD may not have solved them, but it's a poor assumption to think that iD and VV cannot share information and ideas with eachother. None of the issues you mention are show-stoppers in any way.

            I don't want to have to sit next to my friend to play co-op with him on one monitor.
            Ok, so iD will have to disable split screen. Removing code isn't too much trouble. They will have to enable dual screens, but since they have multiplayer already planned for the PC this is
      • Well - NWN did not have co-op play in mind when they made the campaigns. They clearly state in the manual that the campaign is intended to be played in single player, but that it is _possible_ to play it in coop-mode.
        I've had quite a few lock-ups and such when playing NwN - for example, in the last expansion only one of us could even enter the dungeon! We had to run a couple of Dungeon Master commands to be able to continue at all! ..And yes, in NwN, you do have traps locking the character inside a room. Wi
  • Couldn't all gametypes be structured as multiplayer? I mean so far as single playing being two teams, the player (a one man team) versus the enemies.

    And using this, wouldn't it be much simpler to implement coop play and versus play into games?

    The most obvious reason I can think of for this not to work is the size of current game levels. Is this the problem? Note the load times between two sections of Halo, and how a lagging player is teleported to activated checkpoint.

    Anyone know why me aformentioned
    • The single player missions in a game like Doom III will not be...

      1. Start level
      2. Wait until player arrives at end ...sort of affairs. I'm sure Doom III will be full of scripted events, and will rely on certain things happening at certain times in response to actions. Adding a co-op player means re-thinking all that stuff, and multiplies the possibilities to be considered.

      As you say, co-op presents no special technical difficulties. It's just a matter of editing presentation and scripting - but that'
    • This is certainly the case in terms of technology. Many engines are implemented this way, most of them make all games network games even if only 1 person is playing (i.e. Quake 3).

      If a game is made to be multiplayer from the start, then the extra programming work to add things like coop etc. is normally minimal. If there's a single player version of the game and you want to add coop, then you're normally looking at alot of work.

      However, technology is only half the battle, there's also the issues of level
      • Many engines are implemented this way, most of them make all games network games even if only 1 person is playing (i.e. Quake 3).

        I agree its more about design than tech, but I want to illustrate one point. Even Q3 engine games, with the possible exception of Quake3 itself, ship with seperate executables for single and multiplayer. But this is still about design. Even when the weapons, powers, etc. are all the same, what works for the single player portion doesn't translate directly to multi or co-op.

  • No Co-op = No Buy (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D: they all had co-op out of the box. And that was in the days of modems and kermit for [omnipotent diety here]'s sakes!

    If they can't take the time to include co-op, then I'm not going to waste my time and money to buy the frickin game.

  • Too bad.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by DeadboltX ( 751907 )
    Serious sam is a game that if not for the co-op aspect, I would have played for 15 minutes before junking it. Thankfully for the co-op and the magic of lan, I was able to play it co-op on ultra hard with 2 other people for a few hours before junking it.
  • Well.. the co-op for xbox is ok, but basically is the best news Ive heard on the port, theres a lot of talk about the game being released at the same time than pc's but theres no store preordering, is not even listed yet. Considering Doom3 for pc is coming out in june thats not a good sign. And probably means the game will be delayed until halloween or xmas, months after "the release hype" reaches its critical point, chances are you will already played and maybe even finished doom by the time it hits the

  • nonsense... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bergeron76 ( 176351 ) * on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @05:44PM (#8514032) Homepage
    We're the consumers. NEVER FORGET, that WE dictate what platforms will offer what functionality - not vice-versa.

    Never underestimate the power of the dollars in your wallet. Contact the vendor and tell them what games you've bought in the past, and how if they don't offer the functionality you want you won't buy any future games; and furthermore, you'll tell all of your friends (and blog-mates, and website visitors, etc) NOT to purchase the game.

    They're going to "try" to limit the functionality, but I'm sure that if enough people bitch they'll see the err of their ways.

    • Brilliant. I'm sure the charge you start on slashdot will storm the unwashed masses and cause ID to shudder at the mere mention of the name "Christopher Bergeron."

  • then i won't buy it (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    what's the point of buying it if 1/2 of the game is missing? fuck id. i thought it was great that they were bringing their games to linux, but they're just screwing us.

    maybe i'll burn my registered copy of wolfenstein 3d along with my other id games and never buy anything by them again.
    • >>what's the point of buying it if 1/2 of the game is missing?

      Even though I'm pissed over this too...I can't help but laugh, considering the flames we Mac users took over Bioware not porting the Neverwinter Nights toolset to the Mac platform as promised.

      Sucks don't it?!

  • Playing old DOOM games with addons... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @07:00PM (#8514943) Homepage Journal
    I remember the days I played addons and mods with my buddies in DOOM 1 and 2 over dial-up modems and SirDOOM (lets you do 4 players on BBS' with dialup modems). It was much more fun when playing maps that we haven't played before.

    I was hoping DOOM 3 (PC port) would have co-operative play like System Shock 2 [sshock2.com]. I guess not. Maybe someone can hack DOOM 3 to have co-op like Sven Co-op [svencoop.com].
  • but there apears to be no reason for not having co-op on pc as well. Why?

    I quote "We're even including new features like co-op play, which require a tremendous amount of creativity and planning from everyone at VV and id."

    If this is the case, and id are working on it as well, then I expect it to be in the PC release as well. If it doesn't come out at release on PC, or if there isn't a promise of co-op in a patch, then id had better prepare to be viewed as sell-outs to M$ and the console world, since that
  • If console and PC doom players share the same server, the PC players with mouse will just be absolutely SUPERIOR.

    - There is no way in hell every xbox owner will buy a mouse for one game.

    - There is no way in hell a console controller will give you better aim than a mouse. Especially not that made-for-giant xbox controller.
  • I was planning on buying a new beefed up game station when D3 comes out. But if there isn't going to be any COOP mode on the PC, I think I might just stick with my xbox instead.
    Don't you think ID might release a COOP patch later for the PC version though? I really wan't a good excuse for burning a couple of k:s on that new machine :)

  • What could be the reason... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kegetys ( 659066 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @07:54PM (#8515465) Homepage
    I wonder what makes it so hard to make co-op for the PC version too then? I'd imagine that co-op makes the leveldesign part a bit more challenging, as you need to take in consideration that the players could be in very different places in the map so you'd need to be careful about locking doors behind the player for example. But as the levels are the same in xbox and PC versions (I assume) then what could be the reason for this? If the company doing the xbox port has time to do this, then why not ID? Isn't it the ID guys saying that the game will be released "when its done", so lack of time is not a very good excuse. Its a shame that developers seem to keep co-op play in such low regard today. For me personally co-op has given the most memorable gaming moments ever, and lots of people seem to share my thoughs about it (For example in the Stalker forums theres a huge thread where people cry for co-op support, after the developer announced that it might not make it to the final game).
  • Whats the point in sweating over this? doom for pc will be modable, if co-op is seen as something cool someone any team can mod it in. Seems like a good project by the way.
    Anyway, co-op in PC is not that good unless you are playing in a lan. or the games allows a lot of players at the same time.

  • I'll give you a hint: $$$$ (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nobodyman ( 90587 ) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @09:35PM (#8516493) Homepage
    Why are so many people mystified as to the reasoning behind this decision. People arguing that there is no technical reason why you can't have co-op on the PC are missing the point.

    I'm almost positive that this has *nothing* to do with technical/time constraints and almost everything to do with a big fat check from Microsoft. In Id's Wired interview, they claimed that they were getting a lot of pressure to do an XBox exclusivity deal a la Halo or possibly a 6 month delay. I'm sure that this is a compromise.

    • I'm almost positive that this has *nothing* to do with technical/time constraints and almost everything to do with a big fat check from Microsoft.

      I don't know about that... given what Carmack's attitude seems to be (support of OpenGL, linux, etc.), it seems unlikely that he'd be willing to sell out to Microsoft.

      I think the explanation is more likely that id thinks that PC co-op play comes in a distant third to deathmatch and single player, and so has devoted their resources to improving those rather th
  • Bend over for Microsoft? This is pretty much plain crap, no way around it.
  • People are extremely naive to think coop was exclusive to xbox. It's just another attempt to convince M$ fanboys to buy an Xbox.

    Can someone say "Marketing". Unless I had 20 different websites saying the same thing a month before release, it's complete BS.

    Mod me down, you know I am right.
    • I bought an XBOX partly because I knew Doom 3 was coming to it. I'm not an MS fanboy, I just don't care to build/upgrade a PC to play a game, the console is easier to deal with I know Doom 3 XBOX will run on it, no driver/hardware/whatever issues.

  • Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slycer9 ( 264565 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:06PM (#8522129) Journal
    Carmack's no saint. I'm sure with the amount of money Gates threw at him he agreed quickly enough.

    I mean really. For Christ's sake.

    Sellout anyone?

    Go ahead & mod me flamebait, I'm in a FOUL fucking mood today, and this just pushed me over the edge.

    Conspiracy theorist? Look at the track record.
    Each and every godamned Id release has also had a Mac version with FULL godamned functionality.

    They've even released Mac demos!

    Now, once the mighty X-Box enters the fray, suddenly only 'It' (I'm using the Stephen Kingative version of 'It' here) will have co-op?

    Wonder what fucktard thought THAT would go over well.

    I'm NOT buying an X-Box, and I'm NOT buying Doom3 it seems. Co-op was one of the things I was REALLY looking forward to.

    Fuck this Virginia. Santa Claus isn't only dead, his body's been donated to science.
    • What happened is pretty simple if you actually, say, read the article (though your conspiracy idea is cute - sure, iD is going to intentionally piss off its PC fanbase because they aren't rich enough). iD is doing the PC game - another team is doing the Xbox version, much of it built from the ground up. iD isn't doing cooperative play. So if you want cooperative play, don't get the version made my iD.
  • Seriously, any game that people want co-op for, they'll do it themselves. Id is usually very good about releasing game sourcecode (not engine, game). I'm sure we'll see a mod that adds co-op mere weeks (or days) after DooM 3's release. Heck, people have even done it for games like Half-Life and Deus-Ex, where the games didn't lend themselves well to co-op.
  • I have to say that my love for videogames was spawned by a PC. I had NES and SNES back when they were initially released, but when I saw Wing Commander 2 on a 486 with all that speech (hehehe) back in '92, I was hooked. Since then, a PC has been my primary source of video game entertainment. Until recently, though, I've found myself to be a bit more satisfied with a console experience. Maybe it's because I got an HDTV for XMAS and I'm just still stuck on the novelty of high resolution console gaming, but fo

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close