Wolfenstein

[z0sa]

There's a new Wolfenstein coming out, simple en led "Wolfenstein". It was actually due this last week, but ActiVision postponed it a fortnight til August 18th. I'm a huge Wolfenstein fan and always have been, so I'm really anticipating this release.

Here's the latest trailer displaying gameplay.

For those of you who haven't played a Wolfenstein, it was actually the original FPS (Wolfenstein 3D) that launched the genre, not Doom contrary to popular opinion. If you can still play/enjoy Doom like I can, you wouldn't be sorry to download W3D from XBL Arcade if you are able (and Doom).

Return To Castle Wolfenstein, another game within the 'series', was released earlier this decade and while a fairly strong entry, I'm expecting more than ever out of the new release.

[CubanMustGo]

, I remember playing the original Castle Wolfenstein on an Apple II in the early 80s.

[Heath Ledger]

Waiting for it to hit xbox360iso.com any time now.

[Cry Havoc]

It looks okay. It might be a great game, but there are a few things that irk me.

- It looks like they took CoD4 and put it in Nazi Germany. The mechanics of the game -- sprinting, damage regen, aiming, all look exactly like CoD4. I'm aware that Call of Duty wasn't the first game to incorporate those mechanics, and I guess they work well, but I'd like to see a little more innovation.

- The damage regen thing is kind of annoying to me. I mean, it's a toss-up in multiplayer because it allows you a chance to survive at the cost of a lot of some of the challenge, but in single-player, I feel it usually makes the game too easy.

- The flame thrower looked EXTREMELY cartoony and not at all convincing. That's kind of a sad thing to say that I want to see it look realistic when I light someone on fire, but if you're going for graphical prowess, why not do it better?

[IronMexican]

It looks okay. It might be a great game, but there are a few things that irk me.

- It looks like they took CoD4 and put it in Nazi Germany. The mechanics of the game -- sprinting, damage regen, aiming, all look exactly like CoD4. I'm aware that Call of Duty wasn't the first game to incorporate those mechanics, and I guess they work well, but I'd like to see a little more innovation.

- The damage regen thing is kind of annoying to me. I mean, it's a toss-up in multiplayer because it allows you a chance to survive at the cost of a lot of some of the challenge, but in single-player, I feel it usually makes the game too easy.

- The flame thrower looked EXTREMELY cartoony and not at all convincing. That's kind of a sad thing to say that I want to see it look realistic when I light someone on fire, but if you're going for graphical prowess, why not do it better?

Graphics are overrated. All I care about is if the game is good.

[velik_m]

Mein leben!

[Phillip]

Spion!

[balli]

The more gameplay I've seen the less excited I've become. I don't need to play games with diluted versions of the CoD engine. If it is that, Activision should quit pimping that out to anybody who wants it. If not, other studios shouldn't copy it.

[Cry Havoc]

Graphics are overrated. All I care about is if the game is good.

Do you play a lot of 8-bit games, then?

Graphics DO matter. They provide a level of immersion and with physics programmed into them, allow for more realistic interaction with the environment.

If a game looks like crap in certain areas, it stands to reason it might play as such, too. A game can look great and still suck, but a game that doesn't look visually compelling is much less likely to get me to take a second look at it.

There's so much happening in the clip shown that to me it just kind of makes the entire thing "blah".

[IronMexican]

Do you play a lot of 8-bit games, then?

Graphics DO matter. They provide a level of immersion and with physics programmed into them, allow for more realistic interaction with the environment.

If a game looks like crap in certain areas, it stands to reason it might play as such, too. A game can look great and still suck, but a game that doesn't look visually compelling is much less likely to get me to take a second look at it.

There's so much happening in the clip shown that to me it just kind of makes the entire thing "blah".

I don't play 8-bit games cause I wasn't even born when that was out. I still play a lot of Smash Brothers on the 64 and those graphics are pretty bad. San Andreas is still one of my favorite games and those graphics are nothing to write about. Graphics are cool, but they don't determine whether or not I get a game.

[resistanze]

Damn, I thought y'all were exaggerating about the COD element.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein scared the outta me when it came out (late 2001?). This game looks hilarious. Ah well.

[Cry Havoc]

I don't play 8-bit games cause I wasn't even born when that was out. I still play a lot of Smash Brothers on the 64 and those graphics are pretty bad. San Andreas is still one of my favorite games and those graphics are nothing to write about. Graphics are cool, but they don't determine whether or not I get a game.

San Andreas was considered massive technical achievement when it was released. It was one of the largest videogames in history in the sheer size of the area you could navigate through. In fact, I think I read somewhere that the game exceeded what was thought possible with 6th gen console hardware.

Your other example... Smash Brothers.... really? A fighting game featuring cartoon videogame icons of the past.... would that ever look realistic? You're comparing completely different genres. A fighting game about cartoons stomping each other is vastly different and demands a much different level of technical detail than a modern First Person Shooter attempting to show off how cool it looks to draw people in.

[z0sa]

It looks like they took CoD4 and put it in Nazi Germany.

It looks like WaW?

The mechanics of the game -- sprinting, damage regen, aiming, all look exactly like CoD4. I'm aware that Call of Duty wasn't the first game to incorporate those mechanics, and I guess they work well, but I'd like to see a little more innovation.

The more gameplay I've seen the less excited I've become. I don't need to play games with diluted versions of the CoD engine. If it is that, Activision should quit pimping that out to anybody who wants it. If not, other studios shouldn't copy it.

First and foremost, CoD 4/WaW run on a much different engine than this game. While I obviously am not aware of the extent just yet, this engine (id Tech 4) is more diverse. It's a highly modified version of the engine that ran Doom 3 (which still has the cutting edge in lighting/shadow effects, for instance). As such, look for more destructible environments, higher resolution textures and rendering and better physics than anything the 4/waw could pull off.

By aiming, I assume you are needlessly complaining about the use of ADS. Have you ever fired a weapon? This is the most accurate, and entertaining, means of recreating gunplay. Other than using the concept first, CoD doesn't own any rights or anything. I'm unsure of why this would be an issue.

- The damage regen thing is kind of annoying to me. I mean, it's a toss-up in multiplayer because it allows you a chance to survive at the cost of a lot of some of the challenge, but in single-player, I feel it usually makes the game too easy.

I will have to play this game before I judge this certain feature. Very hard to do so at this point. They could implement different aspects of each system without taking anything away from either one.

The flame thrower looked EXTREMELY cartoony and not at all convincing. That's kind of a sad thing to say that I want to see it look realistic when I light someone on fire, but if you're going for graphical prowess, why not do it better?

K, I think you need to go back and play the Wolfenstein games. Or just take a look at the cover of this game and read its back story/choice of weapons and powers. This is NOT an overly realistic shooter. There will be special moves you can use which slow down time or destroy multiple enemies. The 'cartoony' aspect is also the result of playing way too much CoD if you ask me. I thought similarly but looking again, I prefer just about everything about this gfx engine over the inhouse one they made at IW. That's not to say they didn't make everything over the top, which they surely did.

[IronMexican]

San Andreas was considered massive technical achievement when it was released. It was one of the largest videogames in history in the sheer size of the area you could navigate through. In fact, I think I read somewhere that the game exceeded what was thought possible with 6th gen console hardware.

Your other example... Smash Brothers.... really? A fighting game featuring cartoon videogame icons of the past.... would that ever look realistic? You're comparing completely different genres. A fighting game about cartoons stomping each other is vastly different and demands a much different level of technical detail than a modern First Person Shooter attempting to show off how cool it looks to draw people in.

You're just a graphics guy, at least, most of you're posts indicate that.

I don't care about it as much as you do, and we'll leave it at that.

[z0sa]

You're just a graphics guy, at least, most of you're posts indicate that.

I don't care about it as much as you do, and we'll leave it at that.

Because I'm buying most games nowadays for the 360, graphics do mean much more to me than if I was an exclusively (or primarily) PC gamer. As one of those, I have rarely enjoyed gfx settings past the minimum, so they didn't matter much if at all.

So gfx do matter, but I'd personally fare that core gameplay, especially physics, is the most important aspect of an FPS.

[IronMexican]

Because I'm buying most games nowadays for the 360, graphics do mean much more to me than if I was an exclusively (or primarily) PC gamer. As one of those, I have rarely enjoyed gfx settings past the minimum, so they didn't matter much if at all.

So gfx do matter, but I'd personally fare that gameplay, especially physics, is the most important aspect of an FPS.

I wont sit here and say graphics don't matter, at all. I still play Oblivion on the lowest graphics setting since my processor sucks.

Madden 10 is also very pretty to look at with it's much improved graphics over 09.

[Cry Havoc]

It looks like WaW?

First and foremost, CoD 4/WaW run on a much different engine than this game. While I obviously am not aware of the extent just yet, this engine (id Tech 4) is more diverse. It's a highly modified version of the engine that ran Doom 3 (which still has the cutting edge in lighting/shadow effects, for instance). As such, look for more destructible environments, higher resolution textures and rendering and better physics than anything the 4/waw could pull off.

Nah, it looks vastly different than WaW. But the character movement and the method of aiming are extremely similar (i.e., gun dropping to character's side as he sprints).

By aiming, I assume you are needlessly complaining about the use of ADS. Have you ever fired a weapon? This is the most accurate, and entertaining, means of recreating gunplay.

Perhaps. Or it could be simply that no one has developed a better method of simulating gunplay yet. I have fired probably a hundred or more different types of guns in my life (father is an ex gun-dealer).

Other than using the concept first, CoD doesn't own any rights or anything. I'm unsure of why this would be an issue.

On it's own, it's not. It's just that the movement of this game mirrors the CoD games a little too closely.

I will have to play this game before I judge this certain feature. Very hard to do so at this point. They could implement different aspects of each system without taking anything away from either one.

Agreed.

K, I think you need to go back and play the Wolfenstein games. Or just take a look at the cover of this game and read its back story/choice of weapons and powers. This is NOT an overly realistic shooter. There will be special moves you can use which slow down time or destroy multiple enemies. The 'cartoony' aspect is also the result of playing way too much CoD if you ask me. I thought similarly but looking again, I prefer just about everything about this gfx engine over the inhouse one they made at IW.

This is a good point, but if you're not going for realism in a game, why make parts of the game overly realistic? It's too early to tell, but if you're designing Wolfenstein to be a bloodbath of epic proportions where there are as many bullets on the screen as pixels, why incorporate such things as having to drop your gun when you sprint? That takes away from the action.

It's obviously too early to tell at this point. I think I was just a bit boggled at the mix of realism and er... I'm not sure there's a word for it.... hyperbolic reality? features of the game.

[Cry Havoc]

You're just a graphics guy, at least, most of you're posts indicate that.

I don't care about it as much as you do, and we'll leave it at that.

You could not be more incredibly, impossibly wrong with this statement. But if it helps you to think that, go ahead. I've detailed reasons why this isn't true, and I've also listed the rationale for how graphics not only improve immersion, but ADD to gameplay by allowing players to interact with the game in a more flexible, responsive manner.

[leemajors]

The more gameplay I've seen the less excited I've become. I don't need to play games with diluted versions of the CoD engine. If it is that, Activision should quit pimping that out to anybody who wants it. If not, other studios shouldn't copy it.

iD makes their own engines, always have. People port id's tech for their own games, not the other way around.

[balli]

Cool, I didn't know. I'm still not that excited for it. And I guess that says more about me than it does the game itself, but man, I'm getting really played on almost the entire FPS genre. I'm not even playing CoD too much these days and I think its going to take something more substantive than Wolfenstein to pull me back in. I don't know, I could be proven wrong and this game could end up being great, but so far it looks pretty run of the mill.

[z0sa]

Nah, it looks vastly different than WaW. But the character movement and the method of aiming are extremely similar (i.e., gun dropping to character's side as he sprints).

Well, I'm confused. You say it looks just like 4 dropped in Nazi germany. That's WaW.

Perhaps. Or it could be simply that no one has developed a better method of simulating gunplay yet.

Do you have a better idea? AFAIC, most shooters should move to ADS. It is highly realistic and quite entertaining. However, there are a couple different ways of using the ADS. Do you want the sights to center gravitationally on a single position, or do you want the player completely in charge of controlling his recoil? I think there could be more innovation/compromise in this area because CoD tends to be a spray fest, even at midrange, while games like DoD:Source or FarCry overdo the other extreme and you basically can't go fullauto which is stupid.

On it's own, it's not. It's just that the movement of this game mirrors the CoD games a little too closely.

I'd be more into 'feeling' the way the game flows rather than making a quick judgment because the movement mirrors another game. Besides, CoD is today
's most popular FPS. Mirroring a few aspects of them is just a testament to what is the most entertaining. While I'm personally very confident this game will be played much differently than CoD, I'd advise against the "ball" syndrome of hating the game just because you feel the developers aren't bringing enough new to the table. There will hopefully be plenty of new , however wacky, implemented that will make you forget you ever considered the two games alike.

This is a good point, but if you're not going for realism in a game, why make parts of the game overly realistic? It's too early to tell, but if you're designing Wolfenstein to be a bloodbath of epic proportions where there are as many bullets on the screen as pixels, why incorporate such things as having to drop your gun when you sprint? That takes away from the action.

I'm not sure if that's their goal (having huge firefights) exactly, though it is in their plans undoubtedly. I think a lot of basic actions, like walking/running or jumping, have 'realism' etched on them because humans need somewhere they can firmly plant their feet so to speak. Having a basic system in place you are already familiar with definitely dissipates learning curves, which I actually think with the Veil powers and the various types of enemies and weapons there'll exist one.

It's obviously too early to tell at this point. I think I was just a bit boggled at the mix of realism and er... I'm not sure there's a word for it.... hyperbolic reality? features of the game.

Yeah, if its anything like the previous installments it's going to be filled with wacky from beginning to end. However, glancing over the current list of enemies and their descriptions, and factoring in the "veil" abilities, I'd have to say this definitely won't just be a run of the mill shoot em up. At least, there's a lot of potential.

[balli]

While I'm personally very confident this game will be played much differently than CoD, I'd advise against the "ball" syndrome of hating the game just because you feel the developers aren't bringing enough new to the table. There will hopefully be plenty of new , however wacky, implemented that will make you forget you ever considered the two games alike.

Why? I mean, why drop $60 every time a semi-cool FPS comes out? If you're sick of something, why keep paying for slightly different, more-wacky versions of it?

There are plenty of games I'd rather play right now other than Wolfenstein. The reason being, that Wolfenstein probably won't have much in the way that we haven't seen it before.

It's nothing personal (unlike with WaW). I never said I hated it, if you enjoy it, God bless, I think nothing less of you. If I wasn't sick of the first person I might get it too, but right now, for me, that game has buyer's regret written all over it. And I don't think that's a 'syndrome' I think it's called being a conscientious consumer.

[Bender]

who the uses "fortnight" anymore...?

[leemajors]

ehh, this is a Raven game. iD's helping them a lot, but it will probably be meh, look good, run great, and have good multiplayer. I'm more interested in iD's next gen engine, hope it's used in this.

[z0sa]

Why? I mean, why drop $60 every time a semi-cool FPS comes out? If you're sick of something, why keep paying for slightly different, more-wacky versions of it?

I would fare to say that this game will be completely different, even if the core principles are the same, simply because it has such a different gameplay engine. This isn't the era of Doom/Hexen. Nowadays, the sky (and your budget) is the limit for what you can pull off. Rather than reinventing the wheel yet again, use similar core concepts and expand from there. I agree that it does look stirkingly similar to CoD, but you can't judge a book by its cover, especially one which is promising a lot of which can only be experienced.

There are plenty of games I'd rather play right now other than Wolfenstein. The reason being, that Wolfenstein probably won't have much in the way that we haven't seen it before.

We'll see.

It's nothing personal (unlike with WaW). I never said I hated it, if you enjoy it, God bless, I think nothing less of you. If I wasn't sick of the first person I might get it too, but right now, for me, that game has buyer's regret written all over it. And I don't think that's a 'syndrome' I think it's called being a conscientious consumer.

Buyer's regret? That's why GameStop has a 30 day money back policy. But seriously, I don't ever suffer from it because I don't keep my expectations absurdly high for each new release. A geography-changing release occurs, and everyone copies it while adding in the they like. Some are successful at implementing their new ideas, some aren't. That's how gaming has worked since the beginning. It's how a lot of mass media entertainment works. In fact, its how humanity works.