Managing the approach

In before the media blitz on DOOM (4) begins, here are some of my thoughts on the approach to whatever this game might be.

So, back in 2004 I've found an early screenshot of Vulgar (back when it was supposed to be an Archvile) and it was incorrectly described as a Revenant. Note that this was when I didn't have an internet. So my info about D3 was coming from different periods, often outdated ones.

Either way, I remember seeing the Vulgar that was described as the new Revenant. I couldn't see any resemblance and I thought that DOOM 3 will be DOOM in name only.

But you know what? I didn't mean that in a bad way! Quite the opposite. It was exciting for me EXACTLY because it was so different, it was something new and unexpected. Hm? That it wasn't like the original? Pff, who cares? Well, apparently a lot of people do. Not everyone though.

Truth is, I was never, ever concerned in any way that DOOM 3 might not live up to its name. I honestly never thought it was really that important. I was excited by the prospect of a new, modern DOOM game and I just wanted to see what id has in store.
________________________________

But throughout the years I've learnt that people are not like that. They want the new entry to perfectly match their mental model. They have their checklists and requirements. Not only that. They grew cynical, disappointed with everything, essentially just waiting for an opportunity to let the entire world know how the "good old days are gone and will never come back".

That's not to say that everything is acceptable or that everything should be accepted. But I think people are way too quick to criticize just about every single aspect of the game. They're too quick to write something off just because it's not like what they've imagined.

How much would I be able to accept before saying "ok, this is not DOOM anymore"? I don't know! All I know is that just because a monster looks different or some gameplay element is different than 20 freaking years ago, well, it's not enough to make me want to bash it like there's no tommorow. And I'm sorry, I don't understand why is it so important to "stay true to the original" at all costs.

I mean, let's be honest, people are constantly like "it needs this weapon, and this monster and this and that because it won't be DOOM without it". Am I the only one who doesn't care if this game has all those specific things from the old version? Why is it that people need to be such control freaks like their life depends on it and will feel utterly offended by everything that is not like they want?
________________________________

I just wish more people were simply excited for a new entry in their favourite series. Just waiting for whatever is in store, without the cynicism and constant negativity towards everything that's not "like the old days". I mean, if you don't like it, then you don't like it. If it sucks, then it sucks. It might be good, it might flop (I'm not saying it's gonna be awesome no matter what!). But I'm telling you, it's not gonna suck just because it doesn't match your pipe dream version of what it should be. It's also not gonna suck just because it's not a perfect modern projection of the original game.

At least that's my take on this subject.

(And yes, I've been there when this game came out [or not far behind]. I remember the shareware of DOOM stuttering on my PC at the time. So I'd say I've got a pretty good perspective on the situation as I am very much one of the original fans.)

I think it's easy to look at 20 different complaints from 20 different people and hear them as coming from the same voice even though they're not, even though each of them might be mentioning the one and only thing that annoys them. Everyone has their own favorite part in a work of art, as well as their very own dealbreaker.

On a personal level, I'm not big on the concept of franchises, or for that matter of being a fan - the etymology speaks for itself. When everyone from the original dev team has moved on, and if we're talking about something new and different, what is left but a name brand? But that's just me.

When a media snippet is released, I look at it on its own and mercilessly compare it to every other similar art asset on the market; whereas a true fan might have a more passionate look, see a reference to previous games or an exciting new development in his favorite franchise. I'm not a cynic, nor is he wearing rose-tinted glasses. We just have different perspectives and varied levels of involvement.

I, like so many others, can be accused of endlessly blabbering about what ought to/ought not be in Doom 4, as if my enjoyment of the game is dependent on meeting specific criteria. Despite this "mental checklist," I'm completely open to an entirely new Doom experience. I'm sure many would agree that Doom 3, flawed as it is, was a totally different experience, and that by itself is automatically more exciting than the prospect of a Doom 1/2 in HD.

My enjoyment of Doom 4 will be dependent on how id manages the different elements: item/enemy/ placement, tightness of controls, gun mechanics, complexity of general gameplay, map design, art/sound direction, visual fidelity, etc. Such elements have to work well, though not necessarily correlate with my idealizations. What will really kill the experience for me is if it's boring and clunky. I want to be drawn in. I want to feel motivated to explore every nook and cranny, to never get tired of mowing down demons or completing mission objectives (even if they amount to key/switch hunts).

Doom can be very complex and hardcore, yet you can jump into it with little experience, because the game slowly introduces everything to you through its map design. The rudimentary puzzle element relies on visual and sound cues, allowing you to maintain an action movie pace while thinking on your feet. This is what id needs to remember above all else.

Whatever problems idSoftware had and have, and whatever negative things / decrease in quality had happened around them - the developers of the new Doom are still professionals from a professional game company, so we could at least try to believe in them a bit more. Perfection is impossible, but a complete fail is also improbable, as I see it. So, let's not be naive (like I am, maybe), but let's not be overly negativistic and criticizing either. Before we see the game, and also after we do.

@Touchdown: You can't blame people for having high hopes, and expectations. But you have a point - these expectations would never be fully fulfilled anyway, and people could be more open-minded when viewing the game they get, to be able to enjoy it. Your post has convinced me to look at the upcoming Doom game more indulgently then I was about to do (reading all the other threads, negative views and fuss). Thank you. :)

Hope this Doom takes place on earth, I'm tired of Mars.

I want to see a wrecked city devastated by demons like in The Walking Dead Cities, corpses on the streets, empty buildings to explore-etc.

Why not both?

The game could be split in episodes.

E1 is on mars/phobos

E2 is on earth

E3 is in hell

@Phml
That's true. We also know this game will polarize the community. All I really want to say to everyone whom it may concern is basically: Hey, let's shift back to curiosity instead of demanding. Take a step back and let's see what's coming. That does not guarantee that everyone will like it. Hell, maybe I will hate it! I just don't want to end up hating it because it's different. I think it's a healthier way to handle this.

@DooM_RO
Regarding your question from another thread, about the monster in the teaser. [note I've only seen a screenshot, I don't know if the video shows any more details]

I guess the way I look it is that: I see a monster, a big, horned demon, with cybernetic enhancements and a huge gun on its hand. Cyberdemon it seems. My reaction is: "oh so that's how the new Cyberdemon looks like!". I really don't have any urge to question whether it looks enough like a Cyberdemon or not. It even has all the basic features you'd expect from it.

The whole question of whether it looks like the Cyberdemon or just a cyber demon... I guess the context is important. You can say that this new design, if you look at it without a context, is a generic monster with cybernetic enhancements... But then again, if you look at the original Cyberdemon without the context then guess what? It's a generic monster with cybernetic enhancements.

Touchdown said:

I guess the way I look it is that: I see a monster, a big, horned demon, with cybernetic enhancements and a huge gun on its hand. Cyberdemon it seems. My reaction is: "oh so that's how the new Cyberdemon looks like!". I really don't have any urge to question whether it looks enough like a Cyberdemon or not. It even has all the basic features you'd expect from it.

The whole question of whether it looks like the Cyberdemon or just a cyber demon... I guess the context is important. You can say that this new design, if you look at it without a context, is a generic monster with cybernetic enhancements... But then again, if you look at the original Cyberdemon without the context then guess what? It's a generic monster with cybernetic enhancements.

I agree with this. Especially if you want it to be different, new, refreshing like you seem to. I'm personally a fan of trying to make the new Doom resemble the old as closely as possible, both for the visuals and audio. It's important to note though, that this is no easy task. They can't just go cartooney and creating a carbon copy of Doom would be the biggest and last mistake they'd ever do as a company. So does this look like the cyberdemon from Doom? Sure, somewhat. Does it look ENOUGH like the cyberdemon? It's impossible to say without seeing more of the game. Maybe they had to trade off some classic features for the cyberdemon in order to stay more true to other aspects of the original game. It's not just a matter of trying to recreate the original assets as closely as possible. If that were the case, they wouldn't need Hugo Martin leading the art direction.

That's why I'm reserving my "critique" of what we've seen until we actually see the game whether that's a trailer, beta or whatever.

It just seems strange to me that the door is a 1:1 replica but the Cyberdemon looks different.

It could just as well be a marketing gimmick thought up by some pr guy at bethesda. Star Wars Episode 2 (I apologize for my frequent SW references) had this awesome teaser trailer called "breathing" which featured Vader breathing at regular intervals while showing some shots of the movie. The movie did not feature Darth Vader or his breathing.

...but they should know better. That door is a statement. Hmm, did it look like a 3D model to you or just a touched up texture?

I don't see what the fuzz is about, sorry. You're reading way too much into something that I'm pretty sure is completely insignificant. They have a door from the original game in the teaser. Because, you know, fans will recognize it. It's a cool reference. That's it. If that is such a big deal for you I dread to think what will your impressions be upon seeing the actual gameplay.

It probably is a statement, but it's not necessarily to be taken so literally that it means there will be oldschool doors and sounds. It could be a little easter egg for the original fans, something they would appreciate. Thinking it means 1:1 design will more than likely end up with you being disappointed.

Shaviro said:

Maybe they had to trade off some classic features for the cyberdemon in order to stay more true to other aspects of the original game. It's not just a matter of trying to recreate the original assets as closely as possible.

I also think that if they've made the Cyberdemon colorful and with the classic horns, it'd end up being too cartoony, and not emphasizing the dreadful atmosphere that Doom(4) authors might want to achieve. So they decided to get rid of those design elements for the better. I don't see it as bad at all. I hope they'll be able to implement their overall vision well. If they do, I won't have any doubts that their decision has been right.

Maybe it will be like that Deathshead painting secret in TNO.

scifista42 said:

I also think that if they've made the Cyberdemon colorful and with the classic horns, it'd end up being too cartoony, and not emphasizing the dreadful atmosphere that Doom(4) authors might want to achieve. So they decided to get rid of those design elements for the better. I don't see it as bad at all. I hope they'll be able to implement their overall vision well. If they do, I won't have any doubts that their decision has been right.

But Doom IS cartoony. I would really like to see bright and vibrant colors in this, not shit-brown like the Quake games. The blood in Doom is so different to other games, it looks so bright.

DooM_RO said:

But Doom IS cartoony.

Hehe, no doubts about it. I think that Doom(4) creators probably don't want to create a cartoony modern Doom game, they want it to be serious to work in today's gaming scene. Getting rid of cheesy elements, in order to make the Cyberdemon look kickass and dreadful, might eventually turn out as a good decision anyway - that was my point.

DooM_RO said:

But Doom IS cartoony. I would really like to see bright and vibrant colors in this. The blood in Doom is so different to other games, it looks so bright.

I don't really think that was ever a design decision, but rather due to the limitations of color depth etc. When *remaking* (which I guess is what it is?) something like Doom it's more important to look at what Doom was back then than what Doom is today. Doom back then was a suspenseful masterpiece with incredible graphics, varied action etc. etc. It wasn't quite as fast paced as the games of its time. It was easier, it was less arcadey (the removal of lives/score etc.). It was dark. It looked realistic. Doom today is a visceral, but somewhat cartoony action game with lots in common with casual games. The game itself hasn't changed, but how the general public views it definitely has - not to mention the industry and its games.

As for colors I'm not so worried. Colors in video games have been back for years. We're no longer in the grey on grey era.

Yeah, the perception of Doom has been altered over the years. I see a lot of people all over the place that the game is cool because it is a presumably one-note experience and its stupidity is a strength. I blame Serious Sam and in part Brutal Doom for this. For most people, the most memorable characteristic of Doom is heavy metal, big monster counts and open levels and while these components are vital for Doom it is not all Doom is made of. I think Doom is a game of powerful contrasts. One moment you are in a bright area, the next in a dark area, one moment you are fighting a baron in a very tight corridor, in another you are fighting 6 barons in an open area. Doom is not just about "heavy metal and gore", it also has suspenseful music and cramped corridors complete with monster closets (the blue keycard room in E1M3). In short, id should ignore these plebeians and instead acknowledge that Doom is all of these traits at the same time, even though it leans more to action/heavy metal. It needs to have variety which is why I think there should be a few Doom 3-like levels. Or better yet, individual levels with lots of variety in terms of colors, fights and architecture. There shouldnt be a "scary leve" or "actiony level" All of the levels should include all of these traits but some should lean to one type of level than others. Take for instance E1M5. It starts in a very bright and cramped area and then opens, then another hallway and finally the dreaded spectre room.

Warning, now I'll speak quite generally:

Variety is a great thing. On the other hand, I don't believe that each level (or game) should necessarily provide a mixture of everything, that's an undesired approach on variety which may turn out as bad, and even not really varied. Distinct differences between particular things (games, levels...) are the reason why variety rules. Everybody can choose what he likes, and have fun with it. Not every level (game) has to try to impress everybody at least partially, and nobody fully. There *should* be action levels, scary levels, and also mixture levels out there, and it's all alright, for the sake of variety. That's what I think.

But I was actually talking more about "all the games / levels out there" than levels of a particular one game. I might have been talking about something different than you've meant, and I have got off-topic, so I apologize.

Shaviro said:

It probably is a statement, but it's not necessarily to be taken so literally that it means there will be oldschool doors and sounds. It could be a little easter egg for the original fans, something they would appreciate. Thinking it means 1:1 design will more than likely end up with you being disappointed.

If anything, I think it might be a statement that they remember where it all began, that they are not oblivious to the legacy of the game they're making.

Is it sad if the door was the most exciting part of the trailer for me?

DOOM 4's approach should be the 70's 80's retrofuture kind of feel. See the movie Alien, Aliens, Event Horizon, and Blade Runner for the kind of feel I mean.

Now DOOM wasn't pure action as many people think, nor was it pure horror. The perfect DOOM in my honest opinion was the PSX DOOM. It was creepy, omninous, and the music.... man that music stays with you years after you play it. The monsters were much more creepier, and the guns sounded powerful. However ammo was very scarce. The same goes for DOOM 64. Ammo was scare, guns sounded powerful, monsters were scary, and the game was all around scary and awesome.


DOOM 64 in my opinion is the real DOOM 3. Not Painkiller, not Serious Sam, not DOOM 3.


DOOM 64 is the real DOOM 3 folks, it successfully combined action with horror and is a very underrated DOOM game. If DOOM 4 should be anything....


DOOM 4 should be a sequel to DOOM 64.

Doom 4 won't be a sequel to Doom 64, though. That game is considered obscure in the general gaming community and I doubt the current devs at id have paid much attention to the PS1/N64 versions. Obviously, it's a great game, as it delivers on all fronts (atmosphere, mood, ambiance, horror, violence, combat, design, etc.), but it would be career suicide for id to basically say, "Here you go, a sequel to a game only loosely tied to the franchise that will only be appreciated by a small subset of hardcore fanatics."

AshWilliams43 you have posted in this thread clearly without even reading the first post.

I have Touchdown. You basically went on a rant about how DOOM 3 didn't really look or feel like DOOM. I agree with you.

DOOM isn't a pure action game, and it isn't pure horror. It's a mixture in between. The PSX version I think really captured this quite perfectly.

No, that's not what I said.

Wait, no you said that you wish people would stop bitching and moaning about how the new DOOM isn't like the old days.

You wish they would simply be excited for the new DOOM.

Yes, I can be excited for the new DOOM. I am right now, but I don't know if they are going to have the Spider Mastermind or Arachnotrons.... Or if there's actually going to be Hell in the game. I mean DOOM 3 was 2 levels that's it.

Doom 4 should be the game version of the Doom Movie.

It kinda boggles me how id dropped the ball the way they handled Hell in Doom 3. It's almost as if the entire game was a straight corridor shooter set in a realistic environment, and then the supernatural/demonic elements were added as an afterthought. There's random prefabs of sacrificial bodies and flesh goo, then suddenly you're in Hell. There's no transition or buildup. And even then, Hell, while it had a few badass moments (most notably the very beginning, the giant hammer, and the way some of the pieces of the environment would form right in front of you) felt really generic and unimaginative. It's weird that they had far less restrictions in terms of geometry and architecture, and did very little with it.

GoatLord said:

It kinda boggles me how id dropped the ball the way they handled Hell in Doom 3. It's almost as if the entire game was a straight corridor shooter set in a realistic environment, and then the supernatural/demonic elements were added as an afterthought. There's random prefabs of sacrificial bodies and flesh goo, then suddenly you're in Hell. There's no transition or buildup. And even then, Hell, while it had a few badass moments (most notably the very beginning, the giant hammer, and the way some of the pieces of the environment would form right in front of you) felt really generic and unimaginative. It's weird that they had far less restrictions in terms of geometry and architecture, and did very little with it.

It's really sad. I had to remedy this with the 21-level episode created by modders known as In Hell Director's Cut V1.1 and the Icon of Sin mod for DOOM 3. I really wish they would have had the final boss be the Spider Mastermind, but instead we get the Cyberdemon and we return to boring labs...

So much for DOOM 3 being a "remake" of the original DOOM. I don't really see it being a remake... if anything Half-Life 1/Black Mesa is more of a remake of DOOM.