TheGamePhilosophe Posted April 14, 2016 http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/04/13/why-dooms-multiplayer-really-isnt-an-arena-shooter 0 Share this post Link to post
CheeseOnTheMoon Posted April 14, 2016 TheGamePhilosophe said:[IGN Article] Ehh... I'll pass on reading this. 0 Share this post Link to post
MFG38 Posted April 14, 2016 "Halo" was all I needed to see to be convinced that the article wasn't worth reading. What I fail to understand is why people make it seem like borrowing gameplay elements from newer FPS titles means that the multiplayer is somehow inherently bad. We live in an age where Doom veterans from the '90s aren't the only target demographic for DOOM '16. That's what I wish people would realize. Between the time the original Doom came out and now when DOOM '16 is practically right around the corner, there's spawned a new generation with different experiences and expectations. I personally think that borrowing modern gameplay elements is the best DOOM '16 can do. And I don't even care about the relative pace of the multiplayer as opposed to your average modern FPS. As long as I enjoy it, I'll be content. Hell, I've played CoD4 and CoD:BO multiplayer with a friend and I find them to be solid multiplayer experiences. Returning to the modern gameplay elements in DOOM '16's multiplayer, again, they're necessary. From what I've seen, DOOM '16 hasn't been all about kissing the '90s Doomers' collective ass anyway. 0 Share this post Link to post
watstha Posted April 14, 2016 MFG38 said:"Halo" was all I needed to see to be convinced that the article wasn't worth reading. What I fail to understand is why people make it seem like borrowing gameplay elements from newer FPS titles means that the multiplayer is somehow inherently bad. We live in an age where Doom veterans from the '90s aren't the only target demographic for DOOM '16. That's what I wish people would realize. Between the time the original Doom came out and now when DOOM '16 is practically right around the corner, there's spawned a new generation with different experiences and expectations. I personally think that borrowing modern gameplay elements is the best DOOM '16 can do. And I don't even care about the relative pace of the multiplayer as opposed to your average modern FPS. As long as I enjoy it, I'll be content. Hell, I've played CoD4 and CoD:BO multiplayer with a friend and I find them to be solid multiplayer experiences. Returning to the modern gameplay elements in DOOM '16's multiplayer, again, they're necessary. From what I've seen, DOOM '16 hasn't been all about kissing the '90s Doomers' collective ass anyway. Totally this. Doom needs to survive in today´s gaming world, and it needs to appeal to a larger audience, and while it borrows some things from modern Fps, it still has many classic trends in its core, plus, the game IS fun, isn´t that what matters in the end? I hate to see this "Modern gameplay elements, therefore the game is bad" trends, when the game is trying to be much more than being exactly like the classics. Seriously, after seeing many things that are actually in the game, I see id is really going all out on content. 0 Share this post Link to post
Reisal Posted April 14, 2016 It's IGN, do you really expect their articles to be worth reading? Worthless, I tell you. 0 Share this post Link to post
geX Posted April 14, 2016 Great article. Pretty much sums up my own cons and thoughts about the MP part. 0 Share this post Link to post
PsychoGoatee Posted April 14, 2016 The article takes some leaps (pun intendeD), complaining that he wants it to be like "the only reason you want to be on the ground is to jump back into the air". He wants constant jumping, and he wants it to be Quake 3. I dig adding jumping to Doom, but obviously Doom was never about jumping, for obvious reasons. I don't understand why fighting on the ground is somehow something that makes it not an arena shooter. It doesn't have to play identically to all other arena shooters. That said, I do agree with a lot of the points, and I hope they do add some more traditionally arena style play modes to this game too. That it's apparently not shipping with free-for-all DM for example is odd. 0 Share this post Link to post
Moon Marin Posted April 14, 2016 the only point this article has to make is that Doom 2016, while similar, is not a pure arena shooter experience. i think this has been obvious from the start. looking forward to doom, cause it was fun and i appreciate its blend of old and new, rather than just being one or the other. 0 Share this post Link to post
victorboris1 Posted April 14, 2016 Last IGN article I read gave me gonorrhea, I'm not doing that again. 0 Share this post Link to post
TheGamePhilosophe Posted April 14, 2016 Moon Marin said:the only point this article has to make is that Doom 2016, while similar, is not a pure arena shooter experience. I would say that his point is more that Doom 2016 is an arena fps in name only. In his assessment, which I agree with, it fails to create, or even approximate, basically every single element that defines an arena fps. As a result, it plays a lot more like Halo or COD than an arena fps. That doesn't make the game inherently bad. But id did reference arena fps gameplay a lot in the marketing for the game. And they bragged a lot about how fast the game would be. But in the context of their own work, this DOOM game is way behind other games they've made. 0 Share this post Link to post
id.dav Posted April 14, 2016 This article is absolutely correct. The problem is that they shouldn't have advertised Doom MP as arena style. Just call it a modern competitive mp with classic arena elements. 0 Share this post Link to post
Pencil of Doom Posted April 14, 2016 watstha said:I hate to see this "Modern gameplay elements, therefore the game is bad" trends, when the game is trying to be much more than being exactly like the classics. Yeah, me too, these trends suck. 0 Share this post Link to post
id.dav Posted April 14, 2016 TheGamePhilosophe said:I would say that his point is more that Doom 2016 is an arena fps in name only. In his assessment, which I agree with, it fails to create, or even approximate, basically every single element that defines an arena fps. As a result, it plays a lot more like Halo or COD than an arena fps. That doesn't make the game inherently bad. But id did reference arena fps gameplay a lot in the marketing for the game. And they bragged a lot about how fast the game would be. But in the context of their own work, this DOOM game is way behind other games they've made. Agreed 100%! Just name things what they are.....at this point I think that this misleading could cause damage to Doom's sales, unfortunately. 0 Share this post Link to post
archvile82 Posted April 14, 2016 id.dav said:Agreed 100%! Just name things what they are.....at this point I think that this misleading could cause damage to Doom's sales, unfortunately. When they talked about arena's I am sure they were referring to the big battles in the single player ? 0 Share this post Link to post
Xerge Posted April 14, 2016 It's true that implementing certain features that the majority might find appealing in order to increase sales is not a bad move from a business perspective, I mean you can approve those elements for what they achieve, which are more sales, but that doesn't mean you have to like those implements for what they are, I'm personally not interested in being limited with loadouts. The thing is you need to know the difference, you all seem to be approving a marketing choice for it's financial benefits, that's cool, you can analyze the game contents from a financial perspective judging the quality of the game as a mean to increase sales or you can analyze the quality of the game as a mean to have fun. The reason why I say this is because I'm really skeptical that most of you are really interested in loadouts, as in thinking that they are so much more fun than anything else, but if that's how you feel then it's cool, but if you are not then you seem to be defending these choices only because it's a game title you like and you want to repel criticism at all costs appealing to whatever excuse you can come up with. 0 Share this post Link to post
id.dav Posted April 14, 2016 Xerge said:The reason why I say this is because I'm really skeptical that most of you are really interested in loadouts, as in thinking that they are so much more fun than anything else, but if that's how you feel then it's cool, but if you are not then you seem to be defending these choices only because it's a game title you like and you want to repel criticism at all costs appealing to whatever excuse you can come up with. Wich we call FANBOISM! 0 Share this post Link to post
id.dav Posted April 14, 2016 archvile82 said:When they talked about arena's I am sure they were referring to the big battles in the single player ? No I'm talking about the official mp description. 0 Share this post Link to post
watstha Posted April 14, 2016 Xerge said:It's true that implementing certain features that the majority might find appealing in order to increase sales is not a bad move from a business perspective, I mean you can approve those elements for what they achieve, which are more sales, but that doesn't mean you have to like those implements for what they are, I'm personally not interested in being limited with loadouts. The thing is you need to know the difference, you all seem to be approving a marketing choice for it's financial benefits, that's cool, you can analyze the game contents from a financial perspective judging the quality of the game as a mean to increase sales or you can analyze the quality of the game as a mean to have fun. The reason why I say this is because I'm really skeptical that most of you are really interested in loadouts, as in thinking that they are so much more fun than anything else, but if that's how you feel then it's cool, but if you are not then you seem to be defending these choices only because it's a game title you like and you want to repel criticism at all costs appealing to whatever excuse you can come up with. It´s not about defending the loadouts and excusing a game we like, it´s about the future of the franchise and id as a company, and understand that while it is not exactly as old Doom, its a game with plenty of fun to be found (Not just MP, but Sp). id is on its way to the grave if this game does bad, that´s the reason why sales are so important, and again, the game is not bad (except loadouts), plus, why are we ruling out SP, when we have seen close to nothing about it? If MP is the concern it does not necessarily doom the SP aspect, remember those two are made by two different studios. Also, criticism is different than completely shattering the game as a whole just because it has armor customization like Halo, or loadouts like COD, and even because is not exactly like Quake or the classics; in this case, you are counting out the rest of material that the game offers. 0 Share this post Link to post
watstha Posted April 14, 2016 Ugh! I pressed quote instead of edit, again... Can someone delete this post? I guess I´ll take this opportunity to post this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfMx1NR0Moc 0 Share this post Link to post
Xerge Posted April 14, 2016 I understand your concerns. My point of view is this: When I play a game I want to have the most fun I can have, I also wish the best for ID software and the future of the franchise, so it's kinda sad that modern games need to rely on certain features that in my opinion aren't that fun, they are ok, but I prefer other things. It's also sad when a company seems to be in a position where they aren't able to take certain risks anymore and they need to rely a lot on what are considered safe choices. 0 Share this post Link to post
Almonds Posted April 14, 2016 id.dav said:Wich we call FANBOISM! you sound like one huge fucking spaz. 0 Share this post Link to post
id.dav Posted April 14, 2016 Almonds said:you sound like one huge fucking spaz. Then don't read my posts! 0 Share this post Link to post
ChickenOrBeef Posted April 14, 2016 Xerge said:It's true that implementing certain features that the majority might find appealing in order to increase sales is not a bad move from a business perspective, I mean you can approve those elements for what they achieve, which are more sales, but that doesn't mean you have to like those implements for what they are, I'm personally not interested in being limited with loadouts. My view is this: I'd rather have more weapon pickups than the large number of loadout weapons, but people are focusing so much on a couple of the modern casual elements without appreciating so many of the core old-school elements this game DOES use... -There's still a ton of pickups around the map: And this includes some very advantageous pickups (power weapon, demon rune, power-ups, mega health, mega armor). So constant movement around the map and managing the map is still key. -No regenerating health or armor: The player is not encouraged to constantly take cover and wait for health/armor to regenerate. -No reloading: Again, there's no encouragement to move behind cover and reload. -No need to aim-down-sights: The Vortex Rifle is the only weapon that basically requires the player to use the scope, but that's the exception and you don't have to use it. For every other weapon you can shoot on the move. -No need to sprint: Yes, the game could be a tad faster, but it's great that the player doesn't have to constantly activate sprinting. You just worry about actual movement. -Map design: These maps are very cleverly designed to allow for fun, smooth platforming around the map instead of focusing on realism. There's also jump pads, teleporters, and hazards. Everything is within reach of a properly timed jump or double-jump, and there's often multiple paths to the same destination. -Over-The-Top Gore: Both the visual and audio effects when gibbing someone are very satisfying. Most of these elements are UNHEARD OF these days in AAA shooters. id has the balls to go that far, but since they don't go 100% they get trashed. People say "I'll just play the new Unreal Tournament", and yet that community is a ghost town. 0 Share this post Link to post
VGamingJunkie Posted April 15, 2016 It's sort of a hybrid of old and new and, in my opinion, at least pulls off it off better than Duke Nukem Forever. 0 Share this post Link to post
PsychoGoatee Posted April 15, 2016 MetroidJunkie said:It's sort of a hybrid of old and new and, in my opinion, at least pulls off it off better than Duke Nukem Forever. Why people gotta throw DNF under the bus like that. It actually has pretty fun multiplayer. Much better multiplayer than say Doom 3. And it was five years ago, comparing this to that isn't very fair to DNF. (there is irony here granted, since Doom 3 is seven years older :P) But hey, this multiplayer looks fun to me too. 0 Share this post Link to post
VGamingJunkie Posted April 15, 2016 I more meant DNF's single player aspect, I hear the multiplayer was actually good. 0 Share this post Link to post
Flesh420 Posted April 15, 2016 watstha said:It´s not about defending the loadouts and excusing a game we like, it´s about the future of the franchise and id as a company, and understand that while it is not exactly as old Doom, its a game with plenty of fun to be found (Not just MP, but Sp). id is on its way to the grave if this game does bad, that´s the reason why sales are so important, and again, the game is not bad (except loadouts), plus, why are we ruling out SP, when we have seen close to nothing about it? If MP is the concern it does not necessarily doom the SP aspect, remember those two are made by two different studios. Also, criticism is different than completely shattering the game as a whole just because it has armor customization like Halo, or loadouts like COD, and even because is not exactly like Quake or the classics; in this case, you are counting out the rest of material that the game offers. ID just opened a studio in Germany didn't they? 0 Share this post Link to post
tuo Posted April 15, 2016 Flesh420 said:ID just opened a studio in Germany didn't they? Yes, they did. But speculation is that one reason for it was the financial situation of Crytek (Edit: both Crytek and ID Germany are in Frankfurt am Rhein...coincidence?), and developers leaving Crytek which ID hired. IIRC - but I can't find a source at the moment - the german studio was mainly founded for engine development, which wouldn't make sense in Germany without some the chance/idea to get some skilled people from Crytek. 0 Share this post Link to post
snapshot Posted April 15, 2016 Shit said:Doom's multiplayer... is a Strogg-like fusion of Call of Duty meets Quake 0 Share this post Link to post