Edge Review Doom 3

[Warbie]

Sorry about all these review threads - but Edge is pretty much the only video game magasine worth reading these days, and the most respected publication in the industry.

For those who care, here's a few quotes:

"The reliance on contrived event scripting in a game whose manual encourages you to depend on quicksaving can rapidly undermine your queasy nervousness. Repeating sections round for round and move for move untill perfected makes a mockery of the carefully constructed suspense"

"It's impossible for your heart not to race as you sweat out the fright of its peerless audio design, chattering voices and muffled sobs endlessly scraping your senses. It's this that makes irrelevent the debates of how Doom is Doom. Terror is the surest badge of Doom 3's heritage: this is a tense, ultraviolent action game which demands you revisit the way we played the original game: off with the lights, on with the headphones, and up with the volume.

7/10

 

[KagePrototype]

I love Edge, one of the better gaming magazines avilable.

 

[Kadayi]

7/10...that is a fair assessment I think.

 

[Sui]

Personally i dislike egde. i have a few issues, but it all seems like the people are old gamers who cant break away from the past, and have like 70% of the magazine being about retro games, and all current games are crap in comparison etc. etc.

Every time i read a reveiw they allways just pick out the bad points of a game and try and mark it as low as possible... well thats what i find when i read it anyway.

 

[KagePrototype]

Personally i dislike egde. i have a few issues, but it all seems like the people are old gamers who cant break away from the past, and have like 70% of the magazine being about retro games, and all current games are crap in comparison etc. etc.

Every time i read a reveiw they allways just pick out the bad points of a game and try and mark it as low as possible... well thats what i find when i read it anyway.

It's more of a gaming industry magazine, rather than something for the general populous to consume (like PC Gamer or Pc Zone). So it'd make sense that they would take a critical standpoint when reviewing games, as many in the industry would probably do the same when playing a game. But they do write fair reviews, and are never biased. As for the whole "retro" thing, they only really do that sort of thing in articles, talking about any number of relevant issues, or when they're trying to make some sort of point. Besides, retro games are always better.

 

[Foxtrot]

7/10? That is insane...

 

[Warbie]

7/10? That is insane...

7/10 is a pretty good score for Edge (many of my favourite games recieved the same rating)

 

[lans]

What's edge's highest review - and which game got it?

They are a PC mag, right?

 

[guchi]

What's edge's highest review - and which game got it?

They are a PC mag, right?

i think it was zelda ocharina of time and i think it got 10/10... ive got the issue lying around somewhere...

 

[^Ben]

Sounds about right.

 

[Warbie]

What's edge's highest review - and which game got it?

They are a PC mag, right?

It's a mutli-gaming/industry mag. Edge gets all the exclusives and developer interviews. The reviews and articles are very well written and informative (which is a rare thing these days) The quality of the magasine is fantastic too - excellent screenshots, glossy finish, well set out etc. Each edition is a collection piece. (if you're into gaming as a hobby I highly recommend subscribing)

I particularly enjoy the 'making of ...' series of articles which give a behind the scene look at the development some of greatest games produced.

Only a few games have got 10/10 so far ...... Mario 64 and Zelda OoT spring to mind. They originally gave Golden Eye 9/10 but upped it to 10 a year later \o/ (how good was the N64? )

Edge wasn't about when Half-Life was released - i'm sure it would have got 10/10 too.

 

[lans]

It's a mutli-gaming/industry mag. Edge gets all the exclusives and developer interviews. The reviews and articles are very well written and informative (which is a rare thing these days) The quality of the magasine is fantastic too - excellent screenshots, glossy finish, well set out etc. Each edition is a collection piece. (if you're into gaming as a hobby I highly recommend subscribing)

I particularly enjoy the 'making of ...' series of articles which give a behind the scene look at the development some of greatest games produced.

Only a few games have got 10/10 so far ...... Mario 64 and Zelda OoT spring to mind. They originally gave Golden Eye 9/10 but upped it to 10 a year later \o/ (how good was the N64? )

Edge wasn't about when Half-Life was released - i'm sure it would have got 10/10 too.

Wasn't mario 64 (1996) released before HL (1998)?

Anyway, thanks for the info - I'll look into subscribing it.

 

[Warbie]

Wasn't mario 64 (1996) released before HL (1998)?

Silly me Your right, of course.

I just dug out some old editions - Half Life got 9/10.

//edit - not that scores really matter. This is all subjective at the end of the day.

 

[JimmehH]

Silly me Your right, of course.

I just dug out some old editions - Half Life got 9/10.

//edit - not that scores really matter. This is all subjective at the end of the day.

Yeah. S'not about scores, guy. Scores change with the reviewer and even what the weather outside is like. All sorts. Don't judge a game by it's score.

 

[wayne white]

ocarina of time has been called best game ever by a bunch of magazines.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

It's more of a gaming industry magazine, rather than something for the general populous to consume (like PC Gamer or Pc Zone). So it'd make sense that they would take a critical standpoint when reviewing games, as many in the industry would probably do the same when playing a game. But they do write fair reviews, and are never biased. As for the whole "retro" thing, they only really do that sort of thing in articles, talking about any number of relevant issues, or when they're trying to make some sort of point. Besides, retro games are always better.

Sounds like my kind of mag! I'm sick of PC Gamer'esque type mags throwing scores of 90+ around like confetti. It's ridiculous!

 

[DarkStar]

Yeah, the issue of Edge I've seen are awesome. Much better than anything we have in the USA. They're kinda like that old NextGen magazine that I really liked.

 

[Arno]

"The reliance on contrived event scripting in a game whose manual encourages you to depend on quicksaving can rapidly undermine your queasy nervousness. Repeating sections round for round and move for move untill perfected makes a mockery of the carefully constructed suspense"

Funny, nobody has commented on this part yet.
They do have a point: the quicksave system can feel like cheating sometimes. However, the alternative is a system with limited save games, which absolutely sucks, IMO. I hate limited save game systems in games such as Far Cry or Tomb Raider.

 

[DarkStar]

Funny, nobody has commented on this part yet.
They do have a point: the quicksave system can feel like cheating sometimes. However, the alternative is a system with limited save games, which absolutely sucks, IMO. I hate limited save game systems in games such as Far Cry or Tomb Raider.

I think games should give you a choice when you start a new game.

 

[KagePrototype]

Funny, nobody has commented on this part yet.
They do have a point: the quicksave system can feel like cheating sometimes. However, the alternative is a system with limited save games, which absolutely sucks, IMO. I hate limited save game systems in games such as Far Cry or Tomb Raider.

But they are effective in raising tension. And if placed correctly, shouldn't be a bother at all. Maybe 4 or 5 per level would have worked, varying with difficulty. Would have made it a lot more tense for the player. I do have to admit, that quicksave was the only thing that kept me from exiting the game altogether sometimes, from it being so tense.

 

[Warbie]

Funny, nobody has commented on this part yet.
They do have a point: the quicksave system can feel like cheating sometimes. However, the alternative is a system with limited save games, which absolutely sucks, IMO. I hate limited save game systems in games such as Far Cry or Tomb Raider.

Personally I can't stand quicksaving in any first person shooter. It was fine years ago but, just like '3 lives and game over', it's time to move on.

(my 2 fave shooters are Golden Eye and Perfect Dark - the ability to quicksave would have ruined both. It detracts from the immersion, challenge and replayability. The only type of shooter than needs quicksaving is a poorly designed one. Unfortunately Doom 3 needs quicksaving)

imo, either seperate a game into levels/missions and have no saving at all (Golden Eye/Perfect Dark), or have checkpoints (Halo, FarCry). These saving systems only become frustrating if they aren't implemeed properly.

(there's quite a few articles on quicksaving in video games - the general conclusion seems to be that quicksaving is THE DEVIL!)

 

[Arno]

(there's quite a few articles on quicksaving in video games - the general conclusion seems to be that quicksaving is THE DEVIL!)

The internet is stacked to the roof with articles. It's never that hard to find articles that agree with your opinion.

For example, from Gamespy's review of Far Cry:

It's also worth mentioning Far Cry's save-game system, which has proven to be a sore spot among some gamers (myself included). There's no way to save your game manually -- the game simply auto-saves as you pass invisible checkpoints in each level. ... Other times, the game would save right after a huge battle, leaving me with little health to survive the next section, forcing me to backtrack a checkpoint and replay the section. In a game that should really encourage exploration and experimentation, it's a shame that it's save-game system promotes the exact opposite.

link.

I guess the best way to deal with it is as DarkStar suggested: to offer both an option for quicksave and for checkpoints.

 

[Warbie]

The internet is stacked to the roof with articles. It's never that hard to find articles that agree with your opinion.

For example, from Gamespy's review of Far Cry:
link.

I couldn't disagree more with Gamespy on this. The problems they had with FarCry were nothing to do with the saving system, but rather how it was implemented. Quicksaving certainly doesn't 'encourage exploration and experimentation' - quite the opposite. If anything it makes the experience even more linear.

We're used to relying on quicksaving as one would a crutch. In a decent game it shouldn't be a chore if you die and have to repeat a level. Sure, if this happens too often it can become very frustrating - but that is a problem with poor design (difficulty setting, learning curve, AI, pacing etc), not the lack of quicksaving.

Adding the ability to quicksave may make a game easier and less annoying, but this isn't not a solution, it's a 'get around'. ('I don't want to have to do that bit again', 'it was too hard/boring/frustrating', 'I better quicksave' Or, worst of all, 'I haven't got much health/ammo left')

Golden Eye is proof of this. Not being able to save never frustrated, but encouraged. You were asked to gradually improve your skills as the game progressed. Not for one moment does the tension, or the challange, diminish. None of this would have been the case had the option to quicksave been there. It would have been easy, 'safe'. A years worth of happy gamig would have become a few weeks of so so gaming.

Which brings me onto my biggest gripe with most single player pc shooters. Nearly all have quicksaving, and as a result they're all very simple. There's no practise needed, no skills to develop. Little challenge and therefore little satisfaction. CoD, Fac Cry, Doom 3 - all offered a few weeks entertainment (at best :/) What tension there was vanishes at the push of a button.

(imo, of course )

//soz for going so far off topic

 

[DarkStar]

What's wrong with letting you choose between quicksaving and checkpoints? Wouldn't that solve all the problems?

 

[Raxxman]

Problem is, something like Goldeneye, timesplitters, Perfect Dark. Is in comparision to games like far cry, the levels are very short. Project IGI got it so very wrong all those years ago when it imitated Golden eye by not having a same shortness of levels.

Auto saves are okay, but they need to be correctly implimented. I found that Halo's were okay, but very frequent, being about as much I'd quicksave anyhow, while farcry's were a little thin on the ground, but poorly spaced. I found at times I'd hit 3 checkpoints in a few mins, then spend about 20 till I hit the next one. Personally I think the best show of quicksaving has to be Half-life which autosaved after a period of time. I never quicksaved in HL.

Thing about quicksaving however, is its an option. If you think quicksaving ruins games you're not forced to use it. For people who do want to use quicksave why not let them have it? my understanding is that most consoles don't have quicksaves because they don't/didn't have the memory for the task. Is that not true?

 

[DarkStar]

Thing about quicksaving however, is its an option. If you think quicksaving ruins games you're not forced to use it.

The thing is I have no willpower. If quicksaving is an option, I'm going to use it. That's why I wish developers would give you a choice between a quicksave scheme and a checkpoint sheme.

 

[Warbie]

It's true that most consoles don't have the ability to quicksave. That doesn't make quicksaving any more valid a system, though

Golden Eye may have had smaller levels than Far Cry - but they actually took longer to complete (at least in a few cases) were harder and more involved.

I agree about IGI - but again, that wasn't a problem with the saving (imo) that game was just dire. Quicksaving would have improved the experience for sure - but that says more about its poor quality than the benefits of quicksaving.

Try and think of an example when quicksaving in a fps is a good thing. I still can't (unless the person in question is really pushed for time, but even then - if it's a good game just play the level again. It shouldn't be a chore)

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play a game. Just that quicksaving does detract from the experience, challenge, tension, replayability etc ...... and that there are better ways.

 

[Asknoone]

Dont like edge, never have

However 7/10 is about right

 

[kungfucheez]

Meh, I never heard of edge, I prefer Pcgamer, they seem to have great reviews. How ever a 7/10 seems a bit low, i'd give it maybe a 9/10

 

[Asknoone]

It doesnt deserve that, 9/10, i am extremely disapointed with doom 3

 

[Styloid]

I'm not really sure what side I sit on in terms of quicksaving or not.
It does seem almost like cheating because it makes many games very easy to complete, takes away most fear of dying and makes any game beatable by any player no matter how poor his/her skills are.
However I do not enjoy playing the same sequence in a game over and over again because I cannot get past a section further ahead. This is particularly true in story-driven games, that do not focus on the challenge of the fighting, where I would have to play through the same story based section over and over each time diminishing the effect of the event.

 

[kungfucheez]

It doesnt deserve that, 9/10, i am extremely disapointed with doom 3

Well thats just my personal score, I wasnt really dissapointed in D3, seems dark and scary like it should be, but it had some down sides

 

[Raxxman]

you can however argue that lack of a quicksave just extends the life of the game artifically.

Like Goldeneye, you can win that game on 007 really by only learning were the enemies come from and be waiting for them when they do.

not saying its a bad thing. Just playing devils advocate as it were.

 

[Chris D]

In my opinion Doom 3 is certainly worth no more than 7/10. It just doesn't have a hold over me like even most games I play. I play it for about half an hour at a time, a few times a week, but only that's because I realise that I spent money on it so I should at least try to finish it.

It's a good game, but it just doesn't outstand me. I guess I'm trying to say it's average in my personal opinion.

 

[kungfucheez]

Well it has been about a week since I last started playing it but the only thing that gets me down about it is that MP is only fun for a couple of days, and once your done with the Sp, which isnt bad but it does get repetitive, theres nothing really more to do except mod it, which also isnt the easiest thing to do

 

[Sporky]

As for saving/quicksaving I think ultimately the fact that D3 autosaves at every level start and then leaves you to get on with it is a good thing. If you don't want quicksaving because it diminishes the tension(which it does) then don't use it. Bind the key to something else.

I didn't quick save at all first time through the game with the exception of the jumps over the ERF or whatever it was called.

It strikes me that complaining about quick saving is a bit like complaining about having your cake and eating it. You want it? great, you don't? Don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to hit the F5 key, and if you're too weak to not use it then really you need to ask what you should be changing about yourself.

I'd have given D3 around a 8.75 or so out of 10. I really enjoyed the game, got sucked in by the atmosphere and enjoyed the gameplay. I don't have a problem with monster closets because, you know what? It's a gameplay contrivance and it works. The only really negative thing I would say about the game is that yes, if you play it for too long in one sitting blasting monsters gets repetitive, just like it does in any game. And by the time I got to the end of alpha labs I was VERY ready for a change of scenery, which to be fair I got. And I LOVED Delta when I finally got there, at which point the game had become somewhat more action packed.

Aside from that I think the sheer polish and degree of detail in the game needs to be recognised. I can think of no other FPS which is as detailed or as downright 'finished' as D3. I don't think I came across a wonky texture, an empty stretch of space or a polygon out of place in the entire game, which also ran flawlessly out of the box and beautifully on a massive range of systems whilst still pushing tech that really is next generation in most regards.

Edit : I honestly believe that had this game come out with a different name, from a developer no one knew anything about but was otherwise identical a lot more people would be singing its praises to the max, overlooking its occasionaly flaws and magazines would be creaming themselves over it.

 

[Warbie]

Edit : I honestly believe that had this game come out with a different name, from a developer no one knew anything about but was otherwise identical a lot more people would be singing its praises to the max, overlooking its occasionaly flaws and magazines would be creaming themselves over it.

It's funny you should say that. I was having a conversation on the same topic with a m8. We both agreed that had this been the case with Doom 3 it would have gotten very little hype. People would have praised the graphics/sound - and that's about it. Doom 3 is riding the wave of its predesessors.

I'm glad you enjoyed the game, but many didn't. When fps/horror/Doom fans are finding Doom 3 boring/easy/repetitive it's not a great sign.

As for quicksave - while I generally hate the feature I still used it in Doom 3. Like you, I didn't at first. However, after dying and being forced to repeat sections of the game the option to quicksave soon became very appealing. This had nothing to do with the challenge being too great, or the experience too scary, but in a 'I don't want to have to do that bit again' and 'i'm glad that's out the way' kind of way. Having to repeat even the tiniest section more than once filled me with a sence of apathy (which isn't the case with other, superior titles)

It doesn't matter if the option to quicksave is there or not. How often you use it due to poor game design does.

 

[SAJ]

Doom3 , the game : 7/10
Doom3 , the engine : 10/10
(imho)

On quicksaving:
A thought bubbled up , how about this.
How about games giving you a quicksave when you pass a checkpoint?
So , in Farcry(for example) whenyou pass a checkpoint, an icon appears in your hud telling you that a new quicksave is available(rather like the new "pda data available" icon/animation in d3).
These quicksaves would accumalate if not used (the amount to be displayed in hud) and carried over to subsequent levels.
Two ways it could be varied : on easier settings it would be in addition to(more frequent) autosaving at checkpoints.
And on harder levels , it would replace (less frequent) autosaving, so that the hunt for new save slots becomes as important as looking for health /ammo.
Any opinions , thoughts , crits ?

ps : edge has been around since `93.