Oni said:
You say it's a joke, and yet you do it anyways 
Guys, can we please have a thread about this game that doesn't degrade into a 'Which unreleased, unplayed, untested game is better' thread?
I think that would make my week.
LOL. I think you took my statement incorrectly. I don't mean the ACTION of comparing them is a joke, I think his conclusions of the comparison were the joke. There is nothring wrong with making a comparison between 2 items. Everyone within these forums does it daily. It is the way we judge items and make buying decisions. I understand when someone makes a completely emtpy statement like : "A is better then B because B sucks PERIOD." I didn't do this though. I tried to use a couple specific examples to support what I like about each game. I believe they both will sale a ton and make alot of money for each developer.
UnseenMenace said:
im rather disapointed, after all the hype that it was going to take nothing short of a graphic card with the power of an atomic generator to run this game i was simply expecting something more... Its just more of the same with pretty graphics, nothing radical.
Its a sheep game, it just follows what has gone before without drastically changing anything or making a massive step forward.... we seriously need another game like Q3 which changes gaming
Now this is a true statement. You really can't fault them for going with the accepted norms and making money at what they do best. I read an interview the other day with John Carmack that answered this question. He says :
"""
GameSpy: Do you see yourself ever straying away from FPS games?
John Carmack: Occasionally I desire to do a different kind of game. To a large degree, id Software is a prisoner of its own success. Because we are a single-title company, we have a strong obligation to do something that has relatively low risk.
With game development taking multiple years and costing many millions of dollars… I think real innovation will not necessarily come from triple-A titles. Triple-A titles have so much of an investment that it engenders a huge risk-aversion. I think that the real innovation will come from things that are done on a smaller budget, that might be targeted as budget titles. It's okay to risk $500,000 on a development budget where you might say, "This is a clever idea, lets give it a try." Risking $10 million dollars, and some development budgets are going well over that already, is a lot harder.
Even going to another style of game, we have an obligation to make sure that our current distribution of artists, level designers, and programmers are gainfully employed on the next project. We are built around doing first-person shooters with this mix of content creation.
"""
The complete interview is here :
http://www.gamespy.com/quakecon2003/carmack/index.shtml
