I still think the 2nd one was the best..those arcologies were great

Land-0-Funk

Seriously. Arcologies and the SCURK.

Man everything post-SC2000 sucked.

It may be profile related or it may be the general save game bug that is among the many problems Gears for Windows is having:

http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=583531

7.0 is ridiculously generous.

Single player DX10 is an atrocity. That first patch attempted to fix a few things by yanking the more interesting DX10 effects (the distinct depth of field blur) almost completely out. I could see glimmers of an entertaining game there, but the technical issues nuked it for me.

People seem to forget that you're allowed to dislike things.

If it's not your cup of tea, play something else that you dig more.

Threads like this are asinine as the choice doesn't have to be binary: you will be able to play both (and like both) should you so choose.

[QUOTE="heatpackinyum"]

id, while not dead, is no longer the producer of the de-facto standard engine. Yes, there's Quake 4 and Quake Wars, but they don't own the market like in the Q1/Q2 engine days.

PCgamerX

Obviously id has not been at the forefront of gaming as much lately because they have been working on this new technology and a brand new IP to go with it, called Rage. Tech 5 may very well become the "de-facto standard engine" once developers see how cool it is. The megatexture concept being implemented on all surfaces (not just terrain as in the modified Doom 3 engine used in Enemy Territory: Quake Wars) and the built-in support for multi-platform development are going to be huge. I think Tech 5 will be every bit as big as the Doom 3 engine was 3 years ago, especially since id is developing a brand new game with this one.

This reeks of fanboyism. id hasn't put out a completely new ip since quake, and empirical data suggests it would be a non-issue anyway; they disappeared from the face of the earth, brought out Doom 3 and a common reaction was "well, id makes great engines, not necessarily spectacular games." Raven licensed the engine, as Raven always does. If a company resting on its laurels from ten plus years ago develops an engine that nobody else licenses, does it have any effect on the larger industry?

Ignoring the obvious anti-vista bait, this seems to merit a big "meh."

id, while not dead, is no longer the producer of the de-facto standard engine. Yes, there's Quake 4 and Quake Wars, but they don't own the market like in the Q1/Q2 engine days.

Carmack seems to enjoy his status as industry contrarian, so I would think that seeing what Valve and Epic have planned would be a better indicator of what the industry as a whole is going to do.

Unless this is a poor attempt at trolling, if a game doesn't interest you, don't worry about it.

Simple, eh?