Doom 4 should have...

Doom should be a remake like XCom and Human Revolution...Those games were very respectful to their originals and I don't see why Doom can't do the same.

First off, great post!

Touchdown said:

Obviously there's an element of subjectivity. However this particular scenario seems like something that might just not work for a lot of people regardless of how well it's presented. It's complex. It takes a while to establish a successful 'relationship' between the player and an in-game character. Unless you play your cards perfectly, the ambitious idea might backfire. If you fail to struck a chord with the player, you lose the player-character synchronization (case when the character's behaviour or motivations are alien to the player) and this often pulls them out of the experience.

Agreed, it's very hard to pull off. When it does happen though, it's really amazing. I guess one solution is to not place all your eggs in one basket. For instance if you base the entire personal angle of the game on someone missing a child, I'll agree that many players could easily lose interest. If you instead use the missing child as the inital spark for the personal story, you'll be able to get a much wider array of emotions and hopefully strike gold. The missing child could quickly become a metaphor (or entryway) for lost innocense, trying to recapture the past, you can't go home again, the list goes on. It's of course all in the presentation and the handling of the subject matter - which I'm sure you agree with :)
One example of a game which - for me- suffered a sync-error was Far Cry 3 when the main character for some reason chose to stay on the island instead of get away with his friends.

The obvious solution is of course player choice, but as we know that's more expensive and difficult than it sounds.

However there's also the problem of what kind of player are you. Adrian Chmielarz wrote a blog post about it (I'll try to find it) but an extremely simple version is that there are two types of players: role-players and observers. For a 'role-playing' gamer it's very important to BE in the shoes of their avatar, they want their character to be their reflection. As a result, when the sync fails, it hurts the experience for them. For 'observers', the player-character sync is not so important because they are primarily engaged by what happens in the story and are not too concerned about role-playing the character.

Yes. This depends on what the game allows you to be as well.
I see it as a three axis thing where games like Half-Life1 and Doom have no actual main characters or relations to characters. You observe the story through the eyes of an avatar. Any characteristics are virtual. There is no actual role to play.

Games like the Last of Us relies on the player becoming the main character through the conventional storytelling means; relating to his problems and character. You observe the story and the main character, but you as a player play his role.

Then there are games like Mass Effect that generally have a blank slate avatar that is made into a character by the input of the player.

How do you, as your type of player, fare in these games?

DooM_RO said:

Doom should be a remake like XCom and Human Revolution...Those games were very respectful to their originals and I don't see why Doom can't do the same.

A 100% Doom remake with ID tech 5 graphics is just impossible, unless they open the code of PC Doom in the future, allowing fans to make such mod. But don't expect something like this from id that must be struggling to bring Doom to an era where AAA FPS sells 90% more on consoles than on PCs, forcing all devs to consolize their shooters.

Everything changed after Halo. Before Halo, FPS belonged to PC. Halo showed how make a successful FPS to consoles, mixing a decent gameplay mechanic with strong and charismatic characters. CoD simply learned this gameplay formula but giving it its own seasoning and together with Halo, they dominate the FPS market with huge sales(90% of them on consoles - 10% on PCs). The same can be said to Gears of War, that consolized the genre TPS.

FPS lost importance on PC to the point that Bungie didn't even bother making a PC version for Destiny(although a future Pc version is still in consideration, but it will take a lot of time).

Kaskaum said:

A 100% Doom remake with ID tech 5 graphics is just impossible, unless they open the code of PC Doom in the future, allowing fans to make such mod. But don't expect something like this from id that must be struggling to bring Doom to an era where AAA FPS sells 90% more on consoles than on PCs, forcing all devs to consolize their shooters.

Everything changed after Halo. Before Halo, FPS belonged to PC. Halo showed how make a successful FPS to consoles, mixing a decent gameplay mechanic with strong and charismatic characters. CoD simply learned this gameplay formula but giving it its own seasoning and together with Halo, they dominate the FPS market with huge sales(90% of them on consoles - 10% on PCs). The same can be said to Gears of War, that consolized the genre TPS.

FPS lost importance on PC to the point that Bungie didn't even bother making a PC version for Destiny(although a future Pc version is still in consideration, but it will take a lot of time).

But those games weren't carbon copies of the originals, they just showed that you can modernize a classic franchise but still maintain everything interesting about it.

EDIT:

Oh, and Shav, I don't think Id have the chops to make a good FPS story, they are not Machine Games. What they are good at is making great weapons and encounters and that is what they should focus on.

For a 'role-playing' gamer it's very important to BE in the shoes of their avatar, they want their character to be their reflection.

I'm usually the first one to complain about semantic nitpicking, but come on. What you're talking about is the opposite of role-playing. Having the character be your reflection, essentially being yourself, is the opposite of playing a role... Well, it's playing your role, but at the exclusion of playing the infinity of other potential roles.

At its core, role-playing is about acting like your character would rather than like you would. Sometimes your character can happen to be you, but unless you've been a space marine in the future and experienced an invasion from Hell, I think it's a safe bet to say that particular character isn't going to be anything like you. If you play it as you, you're not role-playing, you're enacting a power fantasy.

Which is totally fine, btw. But it's just not role-playing.

Can't agree with the notion parenthood needs to be experienced to be related to, either; or, for that matter, *any* particular experience. You do have to have a global experience of life in general, basic empathy and at least some ability to extrapolate. All things that should be more or less standard for everyone beyond their teenage years.

Now perhaps you could argue teenagers will play this game and are a significant part of the target audience (if not THE most significant part), and perhaps playing as a mother would not appeal to them as much as being a Gears of War styled space marine. I could certainly see that being a possibility.

Heck if I'm being honest I'd be weary if I heard the Doom protagonist was going to be a mother, not so much because I'm afraid I won't be able to identify with the character, but rather because if marketing makes a big fuss out of it, then I'd assume the game to be more story-driven, and I'd expect there'd be a reasonable chance for that story to be crap or for the gameplay-story mix to fall short.

Nonetheless, I feel you might be drawing a general conclusion from one flawed example. To me, A Machine For Pigs had a poor story and poor narration. Most notably the pacing was terribly off. It seemed like you were meant to empathize with your character, yet you quickly realises you're playing as a total asshole (a much tougher pill to swallow than being a father IMHO ;) ). Your children are never *presented* as characters worthy of love, the few glimpses we get make them to be infuriating more than anything - their messing around in random places, and their voices, geez, their voices. It's a bit cheap to give indie devs a hard time about the quality of voice acting, but when you're shooting for an immersive story, if you can't pull off a particular feature then it's probably best to go another route entirely. Then the devs break the whole "show, don't tell" and have our main character repeatedly profess his love to his annoying kids. That's where the disconnect comes from. We're supposed to care because the game directly tells us to care; the devs tell us we should feel these particular emotions instead of trying to make us feel those emotions. This never works.

You can see The Last Of Us did it completely differently. You're not being *told* you have to care about Ellie (at least emotionally; you're supposed to care she survives for other plot reasons, but that's it); nor is she even relevant to the way Joel deals with loss, initially. She's not an idealized MacGuffin nor a token prize. Instead you're given time to get to know her, as an actual person, and a connection starts to forge as you go through all these hardships. Anyway, evangelizing The Last Of Us is largely irrelevant; point is while some implementations might be worse than others, it doesn't make the concept flawed.

Shaviro said:

I see it as a three axis thing where games like Half-Life1 and Doom have no actual main characters or relations to characters. You observe the story through the eyes of an avatar. Any characteristics are virtual. There is no actual role to play.

Games like the Last of Us relies on the player becoming the main character through the conventional storytelling means; relating to his problems and character. You observe the story and the main character, but you as a player play his role.

Then there are games like Mass Effect that generally have a blank slate avatar that is made into a character by the input of the player.

How do you, as your type of player, fare in these games?

In general all of those types might work for me, if executed right. Problems start when the game forces me to do something I'm not happy with but I still have to do it because 'reasons' - either it happens because "that's the story" or the main character does/says something I disagree with. As long as I'm positive/neutral towards the action of my avatar, it's ok. However when my reaction is negative, the bond is broken. It throws me back to the 'observer' mindset: that's not me, I'm just watching.

Interestingly the very high levels of player input are not required. They are helping A LOT of course, but even in a linear experience, the bond can be strong.

The protagonist can be silent, talking, blank slate, it's just a matter of retaining the sync between me and the character. It's a known problem in game design, making sure the characters actions are not completely alien to the player because it breaks the link.

THEN AGAIN, there are people who prefer to watch it all from a side and don't need to BE the character. It's a totally different story for them. I think that might be the reason why I prefer first-person games: I want to BE there, inside. Seeing 'myself' reminds me I'm just a puppeteer (it's not a deal breaker, but you know what I mean).

By the way, found'em:
Empathy in Game Design
Player-Protagonist Sync

Phml said:

I'm usually the first one to complain about semantic nitpicking, but come on. What you're talking about is the opposite of role-playing. Having the character be your reflection, essentially being yourself, is the opposite of playing a role... Well, it's playing your role, but at the exclusion of playing the infinity of other potential roles.

At its core, role-playing is about acting like your character would rather than like you would. Sometimes your character can happen to be you, but unless you've been a space marine in the future and experienced an invasion from Hell, I think it's a safe bet to say that particular character isn't going to be anything like you. If you play it as you, you're not role-playing, you're enacting a power fantasy.

Which is totally fine, btw. But it's just not role-playing.

You're right, that was an unfortunate shortcut on my part. What I meant in that regard was the need to BE inside the experience, everything that happens to your character, happens to you. It doesn't have to be exactly YOU, you can role-play someone else. But the core thing is that you're not the characters puppeteer, you ARE the character.

Phml said:

Can't agree with the notion parenthood needs to be experienced to be related to, either; or, for that matter, *any* particular experience. You do have to have a global experience of life in general, basic empathy and at least some ability to extrapolate. All things that should be more or less standard for everyone beyond their teenage years.

Now perhaps you could argue teenagers will play this game and are a significant part of the target audience (if not THE most significant part), and perhaps playing as a mother would not appeal to them as much as being a Gears of War styled space marine. I could certainly see that being a possibility.

I think it is important, if the goal is 'being' the character. If you're an 'observer', it doesn't matter because you're more interested in the relationships between characters, not necessary participating in them.

Here's the important thing: to be in sync with the character, you don't need to be exactly like him/her (although after re-reading my post, I kind of implied that). You can play as an opposite sex and you can still be in sync. What I try to say is that it's harder to achieve proper sync if we're talking about situations like parenthood. I'm not saying it's impossible and also some people might have no problems with that. Of course the right presentation is the key. But I still think it's a bit more tricky, not something everyone can just *click* and get into the right immersion level. It might require (or at least strongly benefit from) not only common knowledge but experience to really 'get it'.

Also, it's a death sentence if the player in question is not 'willing' to play along, people that are harder to get involved on an emotional level. It's easy to say the game is just not for them but that depends on a variety of factors.

Phml said:

Nonetheless, I feel you might be drawing a general conclusion from one flawed example. To me, A Machine For Pigs had a poor story and poor narration. Most notably the pacing was terribly off. It seemed like you were meant to empathize with your character, yet you quickly realises you're playing as a total asshole (a much tougher pill to swallow than being a father IMHO ;) ). Your children are never *presented* as characters worthy of love, the few glimpses we get make them to be infuriating more than anything - their messing around in random places, and their voices, geez, their voices. It's a bit cheap to give indie devs a hard time about the quality of voice acting, but when you're shooting for an immersive story, if you can't pull off a particular feature then it's probably best to go another route entirely. Then the devs break the whole "show, don't tell" and have our main character repeatedly profess his love to his annoying kids. That's where the disconnect comes from. We're supposed to care because the game directly tells us to care; the devs tell us we should feel these particular emotions instead of trying to make us feel those emotions. This never works.

You can see The Last Of Us did it completely differently. You're not being *told* you have to care about Ellie (at least emotionally; you're supposed to care she survives for other plot reasons, but that's it); nor is she even relevant to the way Joel deals with loss, initially. She's not an idealized MacGuffin nor a token prize. Instead you're given time to get to know her, as an actual person, and a connection starts to forge as you go through all these hardships. Anyway, evangelizing The Last Of Us is largely irrelevant; point is while some implementations might be worse than others, it doesn't make the concept flawed.

That was just a single example, though. To properly discuss it we would indeed need more than that. I generally agree with what you said about AAMFP, haven't played The Last of Us so I can't really comment on it but I see what you mean there. But, again, I think it's possible but it's also easier to screw it up. It's more dangerous to attempt that because if you fail at it, the damage is more significant to the overall experience.

DooM_RO said:

Doom should be a remake like XCom and Human Revolution...Those games were very respectful to their originals and I don't see why Doom can't do the same.

I agree 110% with you on that. DOOM should just be a remake of the original. Kind of like how The New Order was a remake of Wolfenstein 3D.

Well, everyone here knows the story for Classic DOOM right? You were fighting Communist insurgents on Earth and then you assaulted your superior officer because he told you to fire on innocent civilians. Then you were assigned as a security guard on Mars to work for the UAC. With no action for millions of miles you generally watch 80's action movies.

The UAC has been conducting strange experiements with the gateways, from what you heard people that go through the gateways go crazy, and mumble and curse and then explode into a bunch of gibs.

Suddenly, you get a distress beacon from Phobos. Something evil is coming out of the gateway.

You go to Phobos with your squad, to go investigate. Your squad takes all of the good stuff, and leaves you behind with a Beretta M92FS and your brass knuckles.

A couple of hours pass and you wonder what happened to them. You hear the screams of your fellow marines, bones cracking, demons laughing, and the bloodcurdling roars of the demons. You kick down the door, there is no turning back now, you are knee deep-in the dead.

Nobody knows what's in it for you.... You go through a hangar, a nuclear plant, a toxin refinery, a military base, a command control outpost, the Phobos Labs complex, the central processing area, the computer station, and finally you find the geological anomaly.

After fighting your way through 10 Pinkies, you see the doors open in front of you.

Two giant Barons of Hell come out of the doors, roaring, and thrashing. *It would be funny if Doomguy said something like "You are one ugly motherfucker!" That would be very funny anyway back on topic*

The two giant Barons of Hell are hard to kill, but once you kill them you are rewarded with a satisfying death animation and the doors lower so you can go through the teleporter.

Once you beat the big badasses and clean out the Moon base you are supposed to win, aren't you? Aren't you? Where's your fat reward and your ticket home? What the hell is this? It's not supposed to end this way. It stinks like rotten meat, but looks like the lost Deimos base. Looks like you're stuck on the shores of hell. Only way in is through.

Going through the Deimos Geological Anomaly, *if you have a good eye you can find a secret Plasma Rifle* and you kill Cacodemons and the lot of them. Then you go through the Containment Area, where you kill more demons and find the Chaingun. You pick up ol painless, and you are overjoyed. Running through the level and killing everything that moves.

Now you exit and enter into the Refinery. The Refinery is eerie and creepy, it's ominous. It's at this point that I would suggest they should make this part more like DOOM 64/DOOM PSX.... You are running through and killing everything that moves but something doesn't feel right.

You enter the Deimos Labs Complex, and you hear the ominous music of people singing the "AHAAAA" damn it, I can't put the Deimos Labs E2M4 music in here. XD Anyway, you go through and you kill more demons and Hell is really merging with Deimos. Then you arrive in the Command Center, where you find more demons and Hell is really merging; and it's creeping you out. Once you kill them, you go to the Halls of the Damned.

Now this level should have this as the music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTswoVCjD-0 Tell me that isn't awesome! I mean it just is.

Ok seriously, back on topic. You fight your way through the onslaught of demons. You arrive in Spawning Vats, you are pumped up with adrenaline the epic music also helps. You rip and tear your way through the hordes, and finally arrive at the exit after searching for keycards for 2 hours.....

You exit the level, really pumped up. Epic music is playing (you know E2M8) and you hit all of the switches, and then you are outside and next thing you know you see the massive Cyberdemon. This thing is huge as fuck, like in that teaser trailer we saw. And this Cyberdemon can kill you in quite a few hits. Unless you have a Supercharge and a Megaarmor that is! Also, none of that Soul Cube bullshit here.

You have to use your actual weapons. After it explodes into juicy gibs....

You've done it! The hideous Cyberdemon Lord that ruled the lost Deimos moon base has been slain and you are triumphant! But... Where are you? You clamber to the edge of Deimos and look down to see Hell beneath.

You descend into Hell, once again you massacre everything in the Hell Keep, the Slough of Despair, the Pandemonium, the House of Pain, the Unholy Cathedral, Mount Erebus, Warrens, Limbo, and Dis.

Inside Dis, you fight the massive Spider Mastermind. Firing it's chainguns at you, you cower in fear, but then you pull out your BFG9000 and fire as much as you can at the bastard. When it finally dies, and explodes you rejoice. It is the hardest enemy in the game though, it's not easy to kill.

OK, now that you killed it you get this text screen at the end.

THE HORRENDOUS VISAGE OF THE BIGGEST DEMON YOU'VE EVER SEEN CRUMBLES BEFORE YOU, AFTER YOU PUMP YOUR ROCKETS INTO HIS EXPOSED BRAIN. THE MONSTER SHRIVELS UP AND DIES, IT'S THRASHING LIMBS DEVASTATING UNTOLD MILES OF HELL'S SURFACE.

YOU'VE DONE IT. THE INVASION IS OVER. EARTH IS SAVED. HELL IS A WRECK. YOU WONDER WHERE BAD FOLKS WILL GO WHEN THEY DIE NOW. WIPING THE SWEAT FROM YOUR FOREHEAD. YOU BEGIN THE LONG TREK HOME. REBUILDING THE EARTH OUGHT TO BE A LOT MORE FUN THAN RUINING IT WAS.

On a side note the text screens should be cutscenes but the text should be read out loud by a guy that makes it seem ominous.

Weapons:

Brass Knuckles

Eager Beaver Chainsaw

Beretta M92FS

Ithaca M37 Stakeout

Chaingun

Rocket Launcher

Plasma Rifle that looks like DOOM 1 Plasma Rifle

BFG9000

Touchdown said:

...

Thanks for the followup, I can see where you're coming from now. Interestingly enough, I think I agree with all your points, but I can't really see eye to eye with those blog posts, heh.

Especially his views on empathy and role-playing vs care-taking. It seems that to him, either you're the character as yourself, or you're a puppeteer pulling the strings, emotionally involved but still a distinctive person; but personally when I role-play (or care-take, by Adrian's definition) I immerse myself in the character, I become the character. But the character doesn't become me.

It's much like acting, you have to behave as your character would, but if you don't also feel what your character is supposed to feel as your own feelings, your performance is more likely to come across as detached and wooden.

Edit: I guess I skimmed a bit too fast and he does touch on that near the end. Seemed odd, the meat of the article is structured with this cognitive empathy vs emotional empathy almost as a black/white thing, then almost as a footnote he acknowledges several more options.

See, that's the kind of game I hope Doom 4 is not.

The Last of Us was a fantastic experience, but it's the type of game I have no desire to replay. The story makes up a large chunk of the appeal, and so a large chunk of the appeal is out of your control and the same for every play-through. That's great for experiencing the game once, but that's it. It's not the type of experience I want to sink my teeth into.

If Doom 4 is going to try for an emotional story, it will most likely have to be towards the forefront of the experience, and thus have a similar effect. If id Software goes for more of a mystery angle, like with Doom 3, then they can keep the story more subtle and optional.

Another option is to have multiple modes, one of which provides the emotional, story-driven campaign, and one of which provides more of a no bullshit experience (which might be designed for co-op). Or perhaps that can all be included in an open-world. Just spit-balling here.

All in all, if Doom 4 emphasizes the storytelling, I hope they don't simply try to fit in with games like The Last of Us and BioShock, but rather do it in a way that strengthens the Doom identity.

The problem with adding a cohesive, detailed narrative to a new Doom is that the original source material is caked in vagueness and 80s retrofuture tech. 20 years ago, there was little if any pressure to craft a video game narrative that was truly forward thinking in this regard.

We now live in an era where the astounding implications of neuroscience, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, cybernetics and meta materials has made its way into contemporary games; none of these themes are covered in Doom, and few if any can be found in Doom 3.

This leads to the following question: Should neo-Doom's plot utilize an 80s retrofuture aesthetic--which would serve little purpose than being an homage to the original games--or should it move forward and embrace the possibilities of future tech, which risks detracting from the atmosphere the franchise is known for?

I'm going with the latter, because I want a progressive, smart Doom game that is unafraid of pushing for a mature take on an idea that, while ultimately feeling like an early Paul Verhoeven or John Carpenter film, holds the potential to be well thought out, even if it's too outlandish to be plausible.

GoatLord said:

The problem with adding a cohesive, detailed narrative to a new Doom is that the original source material is caked in vagueness and 80s retrofuture tech.

I don't think that's the issue at all. Changing and updating the setting is necessary to keep the franchise interesting.

The issue is if a detailed narrative homogenizes the Doom experience and makes for less replay-ability. The story has to be non-intrusive.

Good point. I stand by my position that high concept technology can work in the narrative. Interesting visuals can illuminate the setting without the need for expositional dialogue, or at least very little of it. I'm very curious as to how the weapons will be handled. I don't want to see "futury" interpretations of classic weapons, as that's too predictable, but getting too carried away with truly futuristic designs might make the game feel very un-Doom. There definitely has to be a balance.

GoatLord said:

Good point. I stand by my position that high concept technology can work in the narrative. Interesting visuals can illuminate the setting without the need for expositional dialogue, or at least very little of it. I'm very curious as to how the weapons will be handled. I don't want to see "futury" interpretations of classic weapons, as that's too predictable, but getting too carried away with truly futuristic designs might make the game feel very un-Doom. There definitely has to be a balance.

Yeah, it would be interesting, but a big change for the aesthetics of the franchise. A good example is the Cyberdemon. The idea of merging biological life with synthetic technology is done simply with cybernetics (hence his name). But that view of the future is kind of outdated.

Don't get me wrong. Cybernetics WILL be part of our future, but as you mentioned, we'll also have things like nanotechnology at that time, which is a complete game-changer.

Also, having a demon with cybernetic limbs and a gun for an arm is incredibly badass. How can Doom 4 make nanotechnology badass? Perhaps the plot could involve Hell using nanotechnology to reshape Earth into a more twisted landscape, while still having the demons use cybernetics, thus keeping a nice balance.

I do think it's good to note that the "good guys" in Doom are literally all of humanity. A homeless American hippie bloke just trying to scrape by with what little weaponry he finds, a super-trained Israeli spec-ops operative with a wall-to-wall gun collection, a young British punk with only a rusty bat -- just about every possible human profile could reasonably make for a character in the context of Doom, if not an outright protagonist. Even a mother trying to get to her children. Throw in a gun picked up from a marine's half-eaten corpse and some kind of sci-fi performance-enhancing armour and voilà, Doommom.

GoatLord said:

This leads to the following question: Should neo-Doom's plot utilize an 80s retrofuture aesthetic--which would serve little purpose than being an homage to the original games--or should it move forward and embrace the possibilities of future tech, which risks detracting from the atmosphere the franchise is known for?

For what it's worth, I'm doubting that exploring the possibilities of technology would really be an outright necessary thing to do, even in a story-driven Doom. In the vein of Aliens, Doom's always been using the sci-fi more as a backdrop for the horror-action than a real basis; all the tech mostly serves to give the player fun toys to fry monsters with and vaguely believable places to do it in. (Likewise Hexen.) The invasion of hell through man-made technology does give a basis on which to squeeze in the "consequences of technology" theme, nevertheless.

Totally unrelated, but one specific idea I've been toying around with is to have the plasma gun actually be a cutting or digging tool instead of a purpose-built weapon.

I tend to envision the chainsaw being resurrected as a space-age cutting tool that can dish much more brutal damage than the original.

GoatLord said:

I tend to envision the chainsaw being resurrected as a space-age cutting tool that can dish much more brutal damage than the original.

The double bladed chainsaw from doom 64 would be a perfect design.

In order to enjoy this game, I think it is extremely important to have realistic expectations. Expecting the game to have 60 mph running speed, no reloading and constant music is unreasonable I think. The best we can expect is for Id to take the TNO formula and greatly expand it, possibly adding a bit of RAGE-style freeroaming in the mix. If they do that and if they manage to pull it off, I think I will be happy.

DooM_RO said:

Oh, and Shav, I don't think Id have the chops to make a good FPS story, they are not Machine Games. What they are good at is making great weapons and encounters and that is what they should focus on.

What? They aren't exactly the same bunch of people that make Doom and Quake. They're not even the same group that made Doom3 and RAGE. If they don't want to go bankrupt, they'll have to get with the times. Good weapons and encounters didn't save RAGE from being a commercial flop. In the world where everybody else is going forward, the guy standing still is going backwards, relatively speaking. Good shooting mechanics isn't a selling point for a first person shooter, it is a prerequisite, a given. Also, the worship of id for its weapons and encounters isn't as big outside the doom community. Perspective! Horizon! They'll go under with the kind of thinking you express here.

But RAGE wasn't a step backwards, it was just a confused mess, which is the reason it flopped. For instance, I think the racing element was added only because Id didn't know how to make the game beyond a linear set of levels. The actual meat of the game is really not very special. The part where it truly shines is the gunplay and some of the art direction. I still think they should evolve the TNO formula. Doom 4 should be to TNO what Doom was to Wolf3D.

Good shooting may be a prerequisite but few companies do it as good as Id and Machinegames (DICE for example). If it was just a prerequisite, reviewers would not have praised the gunplay in RAGE and TNO so much. What they did in TNO was great and I think it is a step in the right direction and I expect Id to improve on these aspects.

EDIT:

Oh and one more thing, I really don't think Id should just "go with the times", Id is a company that always took bold risks and even if they didn't always pay off (RAGE and maybe Doom 3), it is something I expect of them, I expect them to innovate. My point is that other companies should be following Id, not the other way around. They could either do something completely new or they could return to their roots and put even more old school stuff than TNO had. The old school design is now old enough that it could be fresh again. In the early 90s they took the risk by making PC games, then demanding players they have 3D accelerators then the ridiculous system requirements of Doom 3 and finally Megatextures (which I consider to be their only "real" failure) I expect them to do something bold again and "going with the times" is not that.

DooM_RO said:

But RAGE wasn't a step backwards, it was just a confused mess, which is the reason it flopped. For instance, I think the racing element was added only because Id didn't know how to make the game beyond a linear set of levels. The actual meat of the game is really not very special. The part where it truly shines is the gunplay and some of the art direction. I still think they should evolve the TNO formula. Doom 4 should be to TNO what Doom was to Wolf3D.

RAGE was a classic id software move. They have been extremely conservative with their games, which is a huge part of why they're no longer really relevant on the big gaming stage. Doom3 was like a cheap man's half-life, 6 years late to the party. They had claimed stories were irrelevant to games. Oops, apparently not. Let's make something like Half-Life. They they made a dark Doom version of Half-Life 1. They were so self-involved that the main complaint about Doom3 (it being way too dark) had no impact on them for their next project. The darkness as they called it. It wasn't until 1-2 years into production that they realized "hey, maybe we shouldn't make yet another dark game". So, 7 years after Far Cry 3 and Half-Life 2 had placed games outside in the bright light, id released their version. Now vehicles were apparently okay to have in their game. "Id doesn't do vehicles" was a long standing position. They haven't been thinking forward in their games since Doom/2. That is why they're no longer "relevant". Your idea bout them focusing on what they're already good at is just more of that. RAGE may have been a step forward in relation to Doom3, but in relation to everybody else it was not. If everybody else is going at 10 and id is going 8, they're still going backwards relatively speaking.

Good shooting may be a prerequisite but few companies do it as good as Id and Machinegames (DICE for example). If it was just a prerequisite, reviewers would not have praised the gunplay in RAGE and TNO so much. What they did in TNO was great and I think it is a step in the right direction and I expect Id to improve on these aspects.

That's your, perfectly fair and entitled, opinion. It is not the global consensus. For many many people Doom3 had some of the worst gunplay of its time. Did RAGE have good gunplay? Who cares, the game is mostly remembered for its spectacular launch failure and missing ending. Great shooting in a shooter is a given. If it's way better than the competition then great, but it's not really a selling point in this day and age. Id software needs to get out of the "we invented the fps" mindset and start looking at the future and its possibilities.

Oh and one more thing, I really don't think Id should just "go with the times", Id is a company that always took bold risks and even if they didn't always pay off (RAGE and maybe Doom 3), it is something I expect of them, I expect them to innovate. My point is that other companies should be following Id, not the other way around. They could either do something completely new or they could return to their roots and put even more old school stuff than TNO had. The old school design is now old enough that it could be fresh again. In the early 90s they took the risk by making PC games, then demanding players they have 3D accelerators then the ridiculous system requirements of Doom 3 and finally Megatextures (which I consider to be their only "real" failure) I expect them to do something bold again and "going with the times" is not that.

"Getting with the times" is like a video rental chain looking into streaming before it becomes popular. It is not about copying what everybody else is doing. There is often a general direction though. I don't see how id has innovated anything since Doom. Yeah yeah, Quake 1 was true 3D, but every game since after Doom2 has put them further and further behind the competition.

It would be cool if the other companies followed it, but this requires that id actually gets into the game instead of all the "we invented the fps" self-praise. I also still don't see what "old school stuff" TNO had? It was more or less like any other modern shooter, with its own unique traits of course, but not much "old school" about it.

Destiny will be what Rage should have been since the beginning, a FPS-MMORPG, it would extract a bigger potential from its open world like Destiny is doing, based on the alpha demo, it felt like a more complete experience than the whole Rage.

On topic, I for one advocate an 80's retrofuture feel for the new DOOM. At least the levels set on Phobos and Deimos. It should look like the technology from Aliens.

Because if anyone knows their DOOM history.

You should know that Evil Dead 2 (1987) and Aliens (1986) directly inspired DOOM.

In John Carmack's words "DOOM was also inspired by what we were watching at the time, Evil Dead and Aliens."

Also to reply to CaptainW.... I like your idea of all of humanity. But you must realize this.

We have had far too many games where we have been bogged down with so many damn NPC allies that it kind of gets... a little annoying.

Seriously take Half-Life 2 or RAGE for instance. It's just... I don't know how to explain it.

If they are going to make a DOOM game it should be one man against Hell.

That is the whole premise of DOOM. One 80's action hero vs Hell. I mean the whole inspiration for DOOM is basically Evil Dead 2 and Aliens.

Some notes.

* I don't see how TNO is supposed to be a good basis for anything, to be honest. There's almost nothing in that game that I'd like to see in DOOM 4.

* I disagree with people who say that id should go back to 'setting the standard'. The reason is simple: nothing really sets standards anymore. I mean, what was the last shooter that really did something that everyone else followed? Half-Life (1) probably. Call of Duty (and not in a good way). People go in different directions, the industry is huge and full of improvements here and there... But I don't believe that in this day and age a single game can totally turn the industry around like DOOM or HL did.

* Shaviro, I have to ask. Considering you're so disappointed with id, why do you even still bother with them? I mean, you're disappointed with their latest games, with their tech, with their direction (both technical and gameplay) yet you still stick around, waiting for DOOM 4. I don't mean that in a confrontational way but I'm curious. Because I gotta say, if I had shared your opinions I would have just stopped caring for the company long ago.

Touchdown said:

* Shaviro, I have to ask. Considering you're so disappointed with id, why do you even still bother with them? I mean, you're disappointed with their latest games, with their tech, with their direction (both technical and gameplay) yet you still stick around, waiting for DOOM 4. I don't mean that in a confrontational way but I'm curious. Because I gotta say, if I had shared your opinions I would have just stopped caring for the company long ago.

Actually, I'm arguing less from my personal standpoint and more from the situation id is in as well as the market in general. As objectively as I can. Things here on doomworld more often than not becomes an id software/doom circle jerk party where people are completely oblivious to the cold hard facts. As much as I personally love Doom, believing that the merits of the 20 year old game are some sort of holy grail, a timeless be all end all of gaming is misinformed and naive. Personally, I wasn't all that disappointed about Doom3. I'm still working on a mod for it for crying out loud ;) RAGE was more or less exactly like I expected, but I do believe it deserves a Plinkett review as it's SW Prequel bad. I have enjoyed all id games, including RAGE, for different reasons, but the market isn't a clone of me.

Anyway, whatever personal preferences one might have for a fourth Doom game are fine, but it would suit the discussion with a little more realism, and insight into the market, id's position and their competitors. You could make a game catering to old Doom/id fans and you could make a living off of it, but it would be a completely different setup and not a 100-200 man large AAA development team with wealthy "investors" backing them up.

My latest post may be razor-sharp and right there on the edge of exaggeration, but I believe everything I said to be true. You have to be able to set aside your own personal reality and desires in order to tackle an issue like how Doom should be today, given they're a AAA developer with a fuckload of employees competing on the biggest stage. Focusing on your own likes and dislikes is fine, but ignoring reality is just stupid.

Touchdown said:

Some notes.

* I don't see how TNO is supposed to be a good basis for anything, to be honest. There's almost nothing in that game that I'd like to see in DOOM 4.

* I disagree with people who say that id should go back to 'setting the standard'. The reason is simple: nothing really sets standards anymore. I mean, what was the last shooter that really did something that everyone else followed? Half-Life (1) probably. Call of Duty (and not in a good way). People go in different directions, the industry is huge and full of improvements here and there... But I don't believe that in this day and age a single game can totally turn the industry around like DOOM or HL did.

* Shaviro, I have to ask. Considering you're so disappointed with id, why do you even still bother with them? I mean, you're disappointed with their latest games, with their tech, with their direction (both technical and gameplay) yet you still stick around, waiting for DOOM 4. I don't mean that in a confrontational way but I'm curious. Because I gotta say, if I had shared your opinions I would have just stopped caring for the company long ago.

Touchdown, why do you still play DOOM? Why do you still play Half-Life? Because they innovated. They had a spirit, they were revolutionary. They set the standard for the industry.

The founding fathers of id Software might have all left. But if they can just innovate with their new game, maybe... just maybe they could change the video game market and the industry as we know it.

We are inundated with Call of Duty and Battlefield. It's time that there is a change in the industry, it's time that DOOM returns to it's roots.

The core of id Software was always about being for the gamer by the gamer. The new DOOM should just ditch those silly modern game mechanics and return to its roots. A game that's about survival.

DOOM was about survival, action, horror, and suspense. Survival is what DOOM was about. The story of DOOM was really simple.


It was about a marine who became a security guard because he assaulted his superior officer, when his superior officer told him to fire on civilians.

It was about a marine, one man against Hell itself.

I hope that the new DOOM continues what id Software has been about.

Innovation. Technology. Gameplay.

id Software should go forward in innovation. id Software... they shouldn't be afraid to embrace the future. The future of gaming, and setting the standard for the gaming industry once more.

I also agree that ignoring the current market situation will be suicide. Old school gameplay mechanics as we can see in Quake, a very fast paced gameplay won't work on consoles because joysticks can't handle it as keyboard and mouse does. As as we now, any AAA FPS whose company wants to make profit must be playable on consoles, so they must adapt the gampelay for joysticks first because consoles nowadays are the main house of FPS, 80%-90% of AAA FPSs are sold on consoles while PC has become more irrelevant to the genre.

Even Carmack faced this reality some years ago while developing Rage, and said how consoles have become the main house of FPS games, and how they can't profit on PCs only as they used to do in the 90s. Unless you have a successful subscription based game like a MMO to print money for your company, a 100% PC game means loss of money, Carmack concluded.

I think the best they can do is borrowing the best FPS console mechanic made until now(and copied by other companies): Halo. Halo mechanics have proven to be successful for both single player and competitive multiplayer console shooter, and made FPS to be successful and mainstream in consoles.

Of course exact 1-to-1 replication of old school gameplay isn't going to work. I think that satisfying weapons, a non-intrusive storyline and (relatively) open-ended level design will though.

Also Shaviro IIRC id Software's total employee count has been reduced to around 50 or less.

Shaviro, can you explain in more detail what you think id Software should do for Doom 4 to receive AAA sales and be a relevant game for a decently long time?

The only member in this thread who wants Doom 4 to be almost exactly like Doom 1 is Doomguy777. So I think most of us would agree with you if you went into more detail.

ChickenOrBeef said:

Shaviro, can you explain in more detail what you think id Software should do for Doom 4 to receive AAA sales and be a relevant game for a decently long time?

Already have on several occasions, but the best and most coherent post I've written on the subject of Doom 4's appeal is probably this one: http://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1220459#post1220459
including replies etc.

If I have to shamelessly pat myself on the back, I'll say that my point about the "resistance" pitfall of modern shooters was EXACTLY like the one in Wolf TNO turned out. (I did like the game though)

I and other console gamers will be very happy if they can simulate the Halo playsyle because it is the most fluent and arcade-like gameplay a console can have for a shooter, who played Halo, both campaign and multiplayer knows that.