08-13-2004, 12:34 AM
Quote:Although, it is sad that you waited 3 years and built a machine around a game that you can finish in 50 hours.
-_- you really took your time if it took you 50 hours. I finished it in about half the time, and all the reviews say it has about 20 hours of gameplay.
Is it just me, or do good graphics suck? My friend's got tar uber fast comp, and he can't even get a steady 60 frames per second with everything on lowest. I'm hoping that devs start focusing more on gameplay than graphics... I was lured by both Far Cry's and Doom 3's screenshots, but the rest of the game was horrible, and Far Cry at least doesn't look good with everything on lowest.
Graphics are probably the lowest thing on my list of qualities that make a good game; playability and gameplay being foremost. Playing anything at less than 60 fps is an unenjoyable experience, IMO.
I think that single player first person shooters in general aren't that great. I can't think of ONE with a particularly good story; why would you want to play a FPS single player if you aren't getting something out of it? You beat a game. Big whoop. Can't wait to call up all your friends and tell them how you squandered 20 hours, eh? In the case of Doom 3, you didn't even learn any valuable skills, and only increased your twitch marginally. The bullets go straight to the center of the screen ALL THE TIME. This game REALLY is Doom remade in 3d... Christ. Taking an FPS online is the only way to go, and I find all of the 'great' SP shooters to have bad online play.
A little off topic here, but what is the deal with Half-Life? The story is 1984 meets Quake and the gameplay is horrible and unrealistic, so what is with the big fuss about it? Everybody I talk to seems to want to have its' babies.