[Megathread] Doom

[Jtbrig7390]

And this ends now. Post respectfully or don't post at all. Or post and get infracted. I'd prefer the former two though, because that's less paperwork for me to do.

Thanks.

LIER!!!!!......

I demand to see this paperwork, I bet its really just sticky notes

[Aquinan]

Ya I'm the rude fool when your blaming the state of DOOM MP on consoles.

You just some "PC Master Race" prick who blames consoles because DOOM MP is boring. But hey keep trying to pass off a insult as a opinion but when you do don't be surprised when people call you out on it.

Like I said maybe just maybe it wasn't consoles but the devs who are making the game that cause it to be this way.....shocker I know.

Nope..consoles are always to blame for shit like this.

[May90]

"Consoles ruined" is such a weird overused phrase... Consoles do not ruin anything, developers do.

Besides, the franchise isn't ruined: Doom / Doom 2 are very playable even to this day. And if you do want to consider it ruined, then look no further than Doom 3: that was the first game that appropriated the name of the series, while having almost nothing in common with the original games. This is just a nail in the coffin of sequels. Doom / Doom 2 were illustrious games at the time, and I doubt anyone ever is going to repeat their success.

[Jtbrig7390]

"Consoles ruined" is such a weird overused phrase... Consoles do not ruin anything, developers do.

Besides, the franchise isn't ruined: Doom / Doom 2 are very playable even to this day. And if you do want to consider it ruined, then look no further than Doom 3: that was the first game that appropriated the name of the series, while having almost nothing in common with the original games. This is just a nail in the coffin of sequels. Doom / Doom 2 were illustrious games at the time, and I doubt anyone ever is going to repeat their success.

I feel like I am the only one who did not like DOOM 3 at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope..consoles are always to blame for shit like this.

So consoles make the games now? I though Developers make games.

[May90]

I feel like I am the only one who did not like DOOM 3 at all.

I quit, I think, 2 hours in. The game felt so bland and boring... Nothing like the arcade-ish feel of older games. Good for a modern (at the time) FPS, I suppose, but just not Doom any more.

I would name Doom 3 as the most disappointing sequel I've ever played. But, thinking of it now, I think Heroes of Might and Magic IV would top that.

[Deleted]

"Consoles ruined" is such a weird overused phrase... Consoles do not ruin anything, developers do.

Besides, the franchise isn't ruined: Doom / Doom 2 are very playable even to this day. And if you do want to consider it ruined, then look no further than Doom 3: that was the first game that appropriated the name of the series, while having almost nothing in common with the original games. This is just a nail in the coffin of sequels. Doom / Doom 2 were illustrious games at the time, and I doubt anyone ever is going to repeat their success.

I have a feeling that it's mostly nostalgia which guides your opinions. What made Doom 3 a 'bad' game, according to you? And do you think that 2 hours of play time is enough to objectively formulate an opinion?

[Jtbrig7390]

I quit, I think, 2 hours in. The game felt so bland and boring... Nothing like the arcade-ish feel of older games. Good for a modern (at the time) FPS, I suppose, but just not Doom any more.

I would name Doom 3 as the most disappointing sequel I've ever played. But, thinking of it now, I think Heroes of Might and Magic IV would top that.

Between the lack of ammo and just the layout of the levels I hated doom 3. I hated the whole go find a passcode to a storage box and open it crap. Also....don't get me started about the flash light LOL. It did have one moment that made me jump tho. Walked around to a dark conor all I seen was a couple orange lights and the monster jumped at me. Scared the shit out of me at the time LOL.

I though this was going to be the doom I have wanted for so many years. But as time go's on that is slowly changing. Man I hope the SP is great because the MP gets boring really fast. They should just call this Quake Doom since the MP is Quake and the SP "Mite" be doom.

[May90]

I have a feeling that it's mostly nostalgia which guides your opinions. What made Doom 3 a 'bad' game, according to you?

Hardly nostalgia; I replay the first two Doom games even nowadays regularly and never get bored. That arcade-ish feel I haven't seen anywhere but in older ID games (Wolfenstein 3D, Doom 1/2, Heretic, Hexen, Quake) and Jedi Knight series. Doom 3, on the other hand, felt just like a generic modern shooter, with no special qualities, really.

I didn't call Doom 3 "bad", by the way. Just didn't like it personally.

Between the lack of ammo and just the layout of the levels I hated doom 3. I hated the whole go find a passcode to a storage box and open it crap. Also....don't get me started about the flash light LOL.

I though this was going to be the doom I have wanted for so many years. But as time go's on that is slowly changing. Man I hope the SP is great because the MP gets boring really fast. They should just call this Quake Doom since the MP is Quake and the SP "Mite" be doom.

What was the most noticeable for me is low enemy numbers. In Doom 1/2 you would sometimes fight dozens enemies at once, while in Doom 3 I don't remember groups of more than 3-4 enemies. It just wasn't the same game, not even close. And that is what scares me now: from the videos of Doom 4 single player I've seen so far, the number of enemies seems to still be low.

[Deleted]

Hardly nostalgia; I replay the first two Doom games even nowadays regularly and never get bored. That arcade-ish feel I haven't seen anywhere but in older ID games (Wolfenstein 3D, Doom 1/2, Heretic, Hexen, Quake) and Jedi Knight series. Doom 3, on the other hand, felt just like a generic modern shooter, with no special qualities, really.


What was the most noticeable for me is low enemy numbers. In Doom 1/2 you would sometimes fight dozens enemies at once, while in Doom 3 I don't remember groups of more than 3-4 enemies. It just wasn't the same game, not even close. And that is what scares me now: from the videos of Doom 4 single player I've seen so far, the number of enemies seems to still be low.

Oof, I loved Heretic and Hexen. Remember Dark Forces? Oddly enough, as someone that despises Star Wars, I loved that game.

Yeah, it is nostalgia speaking buddy, even if you don't think it is. It's true though, Doom 3 wasn't like Doom 1 and 2. Doom 3's design goal was to make you feel uncomfortable and in constant peril, it wasn't a run-and-gun, arcade shooter.

I don't know if you've ever played 486 Doom community maps, but those were about a kazillion times better than the full game. I'd have a look, if I were you.

[May90]

Oof, I loved Heretic and Hexen. Remember Dark Forces? Oddly enough, as someone that despises Star Wars, I loved that game.

Yeah, it is nostalgia speaking buddy, even if you don't think it is. It's true though, Doom 3 wasn't like Doom 1 and 2. Doom 3's design goal was to make you feel uncomfortable and in constant peril, it wasn't a run-and-gun, arcade shooter.

Never gotten into Dark Forces, unfortunately, but I adored Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy.

How do you know it is nostalgia? Can't I just like those games for the gameplay?

[Deleted]

Never gotten into Dark Forces, unfortunately, but I adored Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy.

How do you know it is nostalgia? Can't I just like those games for the gameplay?

You're right, I don't know. But everything suggests it is.

Let's assume Doom 1 (or Wolfenstein, for that matter) would be released today, with upgraded shiny graphics. Nevertheless, with the same game play and mechanics in place. Do you think it would be considered a good game? Honestly now, try to disassociate yourself from the feelings that arise when you think about the 'good ol' days'.

[May90]

You're right, I don't know. But everything suggests it is.

Let's assume Doom 1 (or Wolfenstein, for that matter) would be released today, with upgraded shiny graphics. Nevertheless, with the same game play and mechanics in place. Do you think it would be considered a good game? Honestly now, try to disassociate yourself from the feelings that arise when you think about the 'good ol' days'.

No, probably not. But it wasn't released today. So I don't really see what your point is.

My favorite RPG of all times is Planescape: Torment. Released in 1999. Only the first time I played it was fall 2015. Doesn't look like nostalgia to me.

[Deleted]

Let's assume Doom 1 (or Wolfenstein, for that matter) would be released today, with upgraded shiny graphics. Nevertheless, with the same game play and mechanics in place. Do you think it would be considered a good game? Honestly now, try to disassociate yourself from the feelings that arise when you think about the 'good ol' days'.

Just because something keeps the good old mechanics, doesn't mean it can't add new good ones.

From what I've seen in Doom4, they removed eveything that was Doom and made a weaker Halo out of it.
Extremely slow movement, movement is extremely limited -> That's not what doom is known for.
No weapon pick ups, call of duty loadouts -> that's not what an Arena shooter is about

It's console optimized shit...and you can see that in every single corner of the game. I chose to blame consoles and not the developers, simply because developers have to appeal to the a console player's shit-tier taste, so they can make money. It sounds harsh and "rough" but that's basically what it comes down to. Console is the reason why we don't have niché games anymore and everything feels the same.

Maybe I'm getting my hopes up here, but the new UT, which is designed for PC, looks so much better.

[Deleted]

No, probably not. But it wasn't released today. So I don't really see what your point is.

You don't? Curious.

Just because something keeps the good old mechanics, doesn't mean it can't add new good ones.

From what I've seen in Doom4, they removed eveything that was Doom and made a weaker Halo out of it.
Extremely slow movement, movement is extremely limited -> That's not what doom is known for.
No weapon pick ups, call of duty loadouts -> that's not what an Arena shooter is about

It's console optimized shit...and you can see that in every single corner of the game.

Oh, don't get me wrong, Doom MP was absolute rubbish, especially from a hard-core competitive Quake 3 & Painkiller player's perspective.

Doom never had worthwhile MP though, nevertheless, I hoped for another Quake 3 style arena shooter. While I don't have the time to actually get good, I did hope this would give me an excuse to install mIRC and find my old Quake 3/Painkiller sparring buddies

UT is actually good. It captures the original UT's gameplay almost perfectly. Give it a shot, it's totally worth it!

[May90]

You don't? Curious.

Nowadays there is a lot of expectations from newer games. Doom/Doom 2 contained next to no story, no cutscenes, no dynamic camera, very basic and not optimized multiplayer, a lot of mini-bugs and exploits (which were part of fun, actually, at the time)... I don't think such a game would pick up nowadays. Maybe as a Kickstarter project, it could be a niche game a small community of fans of older shooters would play, but hardly beyond that.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depends on how you look at it), as the tech has improved, the standards have improved as well. In the past, a developer could get away with a "raw" game, without all those shiny features, slick gameplay, etc. Now, expectations from games are much more broad: people don't just want one element in the game winning the player, at the expense of everything else, they want everything to be on the level. Which, some would argue, leads to games being polished, but lifeless. I disagree with the "lifeless" part, but I also understand that all these expectations make it harder for the developers to truly express themselves the way they would love to.

Take Planescape: Torment. The graphics was outdated even back when it was released, the gameplay was atrocious by almost everyone's opinion, cutscenes were very basic and felt more like a nuisance than part of the game... The game won players over by its incredible storytelling alone. Would a game great in storytelling, but pretty weak in everything else, succeed nowadays? Without a great gameplay, most people will abandon it shortly. Without some kind of achievement system, most people will abandon it shortly. Without regular patches and, hopefully, DLCs, most people will abandon it shortly.

The times have changed. Does it mean though that all people should prefer newer games to older ones? I don't think so. I can have equal fun playing both best games from 90-s and best games from 2010-s. Doesn't have anything to do with nostalgia, just with a personal preference.

---

That said, all this ranting aside, I don't think I've played an FPS game released after 2003 that would capture that arcade-ish sandbox-ish feeling I had playing older ID games. I've tried a large variety of FPS games released after that and found them all lacking in this department strongly. I don't like all this realism (physics, graphics, etc.) they put in every FPS nowadays, I would like me some old good messing around, shooting hordes of demons!

[Deleted]

snip

Nostalgia, doesn't relate to a specific activity. It relates to an emotion directly linked to that specific activity. I suspect and yes, I know you disagree, that Doom brings back those 'warm and fuzzy feelings', which is why you think you enjoy the game, while in fact you're enjoying the emotions that unfold. My theory, anyway.

There are plenty of successful games which lack everything you mentioned (DLC, patches, achievements, fancy physics, etc). A game has to be entertaining first, everything else comes after. But what entertains? In my case, it's the atmosphere and story, which is why I'm enduring the pain of using a controller to alleviate the horrible movement in Dark Souls III, which is an extremely big deal for me.

I've got a few more examples if you like; Full Throttle, Sam and Max, Loom, Riddick, Metro 2033, all very successful games with a whole bunch of horrible elements, but with excellent story telling and/or atmosphere. CS at the other side of the spectrum; it's the mother of all rehashes, but the game play is so good, people don't care. Players have become more demanding, luckily. But developers often manage to focus on their unique selling point just enough to make you tolerate everything you hate about their product.

[SodiumChloride]

Look if you want Doom/Quake like gameplay, i.e. twitch shooters, look in the indie scene because you won't find it in AAA titles.

The skill cap is too high, resulting in the gap between players being too large, leading to a minority dominating the game and the majority getting rolled (who will then not buy the sequel when it comes out) - i.e. it will end up a niche game.

AAA titles with 10s of millions of dollars in production cost cannot be niche games if the developer wants to stay in the black.

[Deleted]

Look if you want Doom/Quake like gameplay, i.e. twitch shooters, look in the indie scene because you won't find it in AAA titles.

The skill cap is too high, resulting in the gap between players being too large, leading to a minority dominating the game and the majority getting rolled (who will then not buy the sequel when it comes out) - i.e. it will end up a niche game.

AAA titles with 10s of millions of dollars in production cost cannot be niche games if the developer wants to stay in the black.

UT which might not be a triple A title budget wise, is of AAA quality. Now in free pre-alpha and it already has a massive player base.

Your theory has a flawed basis. CS might not be fast-paced (not a 'twitchy' shooter - sigh) but it has an extremely hight skill ceiling as well. Yet, it's the most popular shooter out there.

Average, or even low skilled players can simply find a 'noob-friendly' server that fits their needs.

You mention these games, but CoD doesn't even give you the option to pick a server. You're matched randomly and you will be bulldozed by players that know how to play (especially in AW and to a lesser extent in BOIII), without any possibility of avoiding it. That doesn't seem to affect its success either.

[SodiumChloride]

UT which might not be a triple A title budget wise, is of AAA quality. Now in free pre-alpha and it already has a massive player base.

Your theory has a flawed basis. CS might not be fast-paced (not a 'twitchy' shooter - sigh) but it has an extremely hight skill ceiling as well. Yet, it's the most popular shooter out there.

Average, or even low skilled players can simply find a 'noob-friendly' server that fits their needs.

You mention these games, but CoD doesn't even give you the option to pick a server. You're matched randomly and you will be bulldozed by players that know how to play (especially in AW and to a lesser extent in BOIII), without any possibility of avoiding it. That doesn't seem to affect its success either.

CS is pretty hardcore. It's simple to learn though. But it pales in comparison to CoD in popularity.

CoD is the poster boy for the modern shooter. Much slower paced, with ez-mode weapons (the "noobtube") for new/poor players so they can at least accomplish something, perks and leveling (can't beat them with skill, beat them with time spent) ... etc.

Completely different from Doom/Quake, where your only choice is to "git gud".

[Deleted]

CS is pretty hardcore. It's simple to learn though. But it pales in comparison to CoD in popularity.

CoD is the poster boy for the modern shooter. Much slower paced, with ez-mode weapons (the "noobtube") for new/poor players so they can at least accomplish something, perks and leveling (can't beat them with skill, beat them with time spent) ... etc.

Completely different from Doom/Quake, where your only choice is to "git gud".

Excuse me, what? CS pales?

Okay, your whole reply reeks of ignorance (no offence intended, you just don't have your facts straight).

CS:GO peaks at almost a million active players every day - and it's only on PC. CoD pales in comparison to CS, even if you add all console players to the equation.

Leveling up in BOIII, (let's use the last version as an example) doesn't make you stronger in any way. It merely gives you a few shiny orange digits. AW and BOIII are far from slow-paced. Mind you, I've played Quake 3 and Painkiller at the highest possible level. While not as fast, they are still extremely fast and you will be dominated by skilled players, regardless of the weapon you use, the level you are or the perks you have. You do not beat opponents with time spent, unless that time spent directly translates into skill acquired, not unlike CS:GO or any other skill based game.

You seem to make assumptions without actually having any first hand experience.