Which game company is least deserving of its success?

[sggg]

Like Sega, SNK is not exactly "successful"....

But IMO few companies deserve "more success" as much as SNK does. Bust out some of the NGPC software and you'll see they made a lot of great games in addition to MS and KOF.

Also, I think they deserve some slack in the "what have you done for me lately" catagory since they were anally raped by Aruze and only now recovering...

[gamevet]

Originally posted by diffusionx
Neo's right. They're a really small company. If they don't want to diversify, they dont have to, because what they're doing now is already incredible.

They build the best game technology on the planet. They revolutionized gaming probably about five times now (Doom's pseudo-3D and mapping bilities, Quake's full-3D, TCP/IP play and massive customizability), and they truly are the world's leaders on graphic technology. Doom III is so far ahead of the rest of the world graphically it doesn't even need to be mentioned, its practically understood. Other developers follow where they lead. Videocard companies hinge on Carmack's every word. An entire industry has built up on top of Quake. Raven builds amazing games with id technology, and they do it over and over again. I couldnt fathom how many people got into the game industry because of homebrewed Quake/Quake-engine stuff. In fact, one of the main developers of your beloved Metroid Prime, David Zoid Kirsch, got his start doing QuakeCTF.

To say that id Software of all companies doesn't deserve their success shows pure ignorance on the subject. They deserve it every bit as much as Nintendo does.

----------------


It's not ignorance, it's more like, wow another FPS. Looking at it, as a casual FPS player, I'm wondering what all the hype is about. I've played Doom, Ultimate Doom, Beyond Castle Wolfenstien, Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament. They all play fairly alike and from my perspective have'nt really advanced much in gameplay, with the only exception being the graphic's.


Look at a title like Halo, where the single player experience is just as important as a multiplayer one. While I have'nt really played Halo more than a few minutes here and there at Demo kiosks, it has a huge world to exlore and from all the talk about the game, it sounds like there is a solid storyline behind all the strafing and shooting.


I don't dislike Id for their style of games, it's just that they get so much credit, for making what I as a gamer consider the same old, same old. Much like the same way EA is critisized for making the same old same old with thier sports titles, but a NFL fan like me can appreciate how the sports games have evolved over the years, much like those who adore Id feel about thier FPS's.

[Tracer]

To each his own I suppose, but I'd feel like a cop-out :/

I still think it neglects thier innovation as Diffusion mentioned. You're not the first person to call iD software poor game makers, and likely won't be the last (we remember Gehn right?) but there is certianly diffrent play mechanic between UT (for instance) and Q3. The school of play is much diffrent once you delve into it. The only stike I deliver to iD is the occasional Map qualms (some are ingenious for MP others are down-right insulting) and thier recycleing of sounds in the past Quake games.

I can say Carmack is a technical mind that any studio would be lucky to have but he is not the most creative of people if his work is any indication... that was Romero's role. But when you have him making an engine and creative people (established or otherwise) can get thier hands on it - problem solved. He and the rest of id software do the heavy leg work that few can and it lets more creative minds make creative imaginitive games. In anycase, many MANY established and great studios actually came from Id software at one point. They're the Mesopotamia (by and large) of todays PC gaming world. Small wonder there's a lot of GOOD first-person-shooters on the market.\

Diffusion - wasn't NOLF Quake based? Or am I wrong?

[Jeremy]

Like Gamevet, I'm also a casual FPS player, and I'm also wondering what the big deal is with the genre. It's fun, to be sure, but what, exactly, makes this genre so loved?

[Tain]

In fact, one of the main developers of your beloved Metroid Prime, David Zoid Kirsch, got his start doing QuakeCTF.

That, I did not know. Cool.

Diffusion - wasn't NOLF Quake based? Or am I wrong?

Lithtech engine. Shogo, AvP2 (I think), Blood 2...

[Tracer]

I remember now... you're right.

I actually don't know why I forgot that. :/ I really don't like the Lithtech engine... it never ran well on my box. For that reason alone.

Jay: The reason why it is so well liked is

• Immersion. As shown by Morrowind (not a shooter, but the perspective is what has to be appreciated), and Half/Life it is easy to get sucked into the game. You feel like you're there.
• No CAMERA problems. Name a 3D game not in first-person that doesn't have some kind of camera issue or requires you to manage it somehow. (EDIT - Ok, the 3/4 view *Diablo-style* game has not camera.. but ot doesn't compare to the other elements).
• Precision and Movement. It's the only way to have fast-action w/ precsion and freedom of movement all at once. Makes it great for head-to-head play which brings you to the next reason...
• Multiplayer! The FPS is perhaps the closest to a sport of it's own than any other kind of game. Whether you're playing UT2K3's Bombing Run or Q3TA One-Flag or Classic CTF and plain ol' DM you're competing agaist people who are continually getting better and it makes you better. You constantly have to find your edge and you need (in team play) to be able to corrdinate a good strategy on the fly with others to be truely great. Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter... these multiplayer experiences are far less fulfilling than a really good online mode in your choice of good FPS.

These games tell stories, boast interactivity and cutting edge competitiveness like few others and these make it no suprise to me why the genre is so popular.

[Tain]

Well said. I agree with you on everything but this:

Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter... these multiplayer experiences are far less fulfilling than a really good online mode in your choice of good FPS.

But, yeah, it comes close enough.

[Jeremy]

Eh, I just don't see it...
Ah well.

[Tracer]

I should have tacked on an IMO :/ They're deep games, but for some reason the whole *1 match it's done, NEXT* approach ends it for me. There's less.. tact? I'm sorry but when I see people throwing Hadoken's for 3 minutes in a 2D game I get a bit turned off. That's what's so great about VOOT though! It mixes the elements of the Map, diverse weaponry and positioning for range or melee (or slow weapons) reading jumps and reload (and/or refill) times of a FPS but the match based, one-on-one experience and console style play of the fighting game. VOOT is perhaps a perfect fusion... though it's camera and collision-detect has upset me on more than one occasion. No fighting game offers me this I'm afraid.

EDIT - Also the specific character attributes and abilites are another fighting game plus that VOOT offers (so does TFC though).

ºTracer

[Tain]

That's what's so great about VOOT though! It mixes the elements of the Map, diverse weaponry and positioning for range or melee (or slow weapons) reading jumps and reload (and/or refill) times of a FPS but the match based, one-on-one experience and console style play of the fighting game. VOOT is perhaps a perfect fusion...

I'd say so.

And Virtual On: Force is a step toward having the teamplay aspect of an FPS, too. Granted, the game itself is closer to VOOM than VOOT (slower, VOOM-style CC, less turbo attack variations), but the teamplay supposedly makes up for it.

*sigh*

Damn you Hitmaker. Can't we have Force instead of Marz?