|
by Fussbett 05/05/2003, 6:11pm PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
I need clarification wrote:
Did everyone catch that? id should never have succeeded on the level it did, and only did so because gamers are TEH STUPID. Why does he even bother writing about the games industry anymore?
Au is trolling us, because he can't be that thick. I get the feeling right now Au is gleefully looking up all the forum threads where his "review" has sparked a thread of hatred. He knew very well that attacking iD is the only way he can wrestle the title of "Most Talked About Gaming Article" from the engorged clit of Gamegirladvance.com's Rez piece.
Almost every paragraph is quotable for it's extra chromasomes, but I guess these are my favourites of this hour:
Au wrote:
Over 12 months later, Carmack finally did succeed at speedier texture mapping, but only at a huge hit to realism. In "Catacomb 3-D," as in "Wolfenstein 3-D" -- the Nazi-killing follow-up they put out in May 1992, which really made their reputation -- you could move forward, backward, or laterally, but you couldn't go or look up or down. These shortcuts enabled id to create fast-paced action games with the limited PC power of the time. But it also meant these games were, at best, 2.5D.
Au wrote:
..."Wolf 3-D's" dominance was more a matter of market timing and revenue model, over quality: When id's game came out, most PC owners didn't have computers that were powerful enough to run "Underworld." (Which also was, it must be said, difficult to learn, and indifferently marketed.) Meanwhile, "Wolfenstein" was easy to play, fun for what it was, and best of all, free.
So let's see, iD made a game that wisely chose to be fun, easy to learn, easy to acquire, and it ran on your computer. Blue Sky made a game that was difficult to learn, and ran like shit on the machines of the day. It's settled. Blue Sky Studios were overlooked geniuses! |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|