My Doom 3 weapons rant...

Ok, I’ve been Wondering, the majority of you seem to be thoroughly ageist the idea of having a railgun in doom 3 because you say that It doesn’t fit with dooms atmosphere, and it doesn’t belong… But why do you think doom3 is going to play anything like the first doom games anyway? From what I hear, It sounds like the marine campaign from Aliens Vs Predator 2 without the NPCs and with hell spawn instead of Aliens and/or Predators.

If you want a doom game that plays like the original, but with better graphics, play Jdoom or something. Because Id What to sell this game to EVERYBODY, not just a hand full of doom fanatics

Id have said so them selves that there isn’t going to be more then 5 or so enemies onscreen at one time, so I’m assuming that to compensate for there lack of numbers, they are going to be tougher and/or faster. (And by the looks of things, they are faster). Which is the kind of situation that a railgun would fit right into. You could catch them off guard with it, pick ‘em off from a safe distance. But at the same time, it wouldn’t be unbalanced, because they’d still be able to get very close, very quickly, so if you missed the first time around, you’d better grab you shotty quick!

If any weapon should be called into question, it’s the BFG. Ok, ok, first off, if id were silly enough to drop it from doom 3, I would be the first one to scream in protest. But really, how useful would it be? Most doom veterans would consider taking out five imps or zombies with a BFG in Doom 1&2 overkill. So I’m afraid it’s either going to be maid more powerful at the expense of some of the other weapons, or it’s just going to end up like the quake 2 BFG, fun to use, but not really useful for any thing other then novelty vale. Yes, I know it’s useful Bosses, but anybody who is half decent at a FPS should be able to make do vary well with the rest of there weapons.

As for multiplayer… Well, I really don’t give a rats arse about doom 3s multiplayer, why should I? Id certainly aren’t.

i want the BFG :)

He does have a point about the BFG not being very useful in the game, since there aren't going to be room-fulls of monsters like there were in the original games. Yeah it'd still come in handy against a cyberdemon, or as a "I don't have time for you" way of taking out the arch-vile, but if these guys aren't going to be in the game much (and I don't think they are) having the BFG to take them out with would somewhat take away from the fight, and the fright, since u know u can take them out fast. Some people are probly gonna bitch about there not being a ton of demons at once, but I have a feeling that, since the game is gonna be so realistic, that that was a good side effect of the heavy graphics. How good would u fare in reality against 2 dozen [insert any Doom demon]? Especially earlier in the game when u don't have the mother weapons, rockets, plasma and BFG(it's gonna be in there)

If you want a doom game that plays like the original, but with better graphics, play Jdoom or something. Because Id What to sell this game to EVERYBODY, not just a hand full of quake maniacs

Believe what you will 999cop, but doom 3 will have more in common with the first two quake games, then the first two doom games (mechanics wise).

P.S. yes I am well aware the the BFG will be makeing it returne in Doom 3. which I think is a good thing. but I am saying, any 'damage' a railgun dose to the feel of doom 3, the BFG will do more.

And if I haven't made my point clear yet: I WANT MY RAILGUN DAMN YOU!

There are also gonna be much larger and scarier monsters in Doom3 than demons and imps.

I would rather have a BFG in a boss fight than a railgun.


A quick to aim, long range insta-hit high-damage weapon would take some of the tension out of boss battles.

Then, I'd rather have a big clumsy, hard to aim weapon with a considerate warm-up time and extreme damage (add in a chance of overheating or malfunction) to keep my company in a really nerve-wracking battle. Also the BFG could be a great excuse to implement some really flashy otherworldly GFX.


Oh yeah, and it should be dangerous to be caught near the blast when the weapon strikes home.



Sorry folks, but I think that the raílgun is simply too slick and effective a weapon. Takes a bit of the desparation out of the game.

I'd make all the weapons effective close up and suck at a distance, like in doom II. Maybe with one exception, the chaingun. The railgun doesn't fit into that picture now does it? Maybe make the bfg an even more close range focused weapon and make the chaingun aim less accurate at long range to add even more tension and avoid lame sniping.

pistol - shitty
shotgun - good close up and at medium range
chaingun- quite good at all ranges, but not very powerful
ssg - powerful close up, sucks at a range
rockets - powerful at any distance, but easy to miss from range.
plasma - same as rockets pretty much
BFG - insane damage close up, moderate damage at a range.

railgun - heavy damage from any distance (no thanks).

Ok, let's see here:

Ct_red_pants said:

But why do you think doom3 is going to play anything like the first doom games anyway? From what I hear, It sounds like the marine campaign from Aliens Vs Predator 2 without the NPCs and with hell spawn instead of Aliens and/or Predators.

If you want a doom game that plays like the original, but with better graphics, play Jdoom or something.

I can already tell that Doom 3 will play pretty much like the old games. Why? Because the flow of monsters is similar and the atmposphere seems satisfactorily doomish. It doesn't fucking matter that they can only display five monsters - we saw in the E3 presentation how there was plenty to do all the time. And although id have changed a lot of the monsters they still seem have quite a similar feel to them. So no, I disagree - Doom 3 WILL be a Doom game like the old ones and not another Quake game, regardless of its 3d graphics.

Because Id What to sell this game to EVERYBODY, not just a hand full of doom fanatics

The argument of id implementing the railgun "to sell this game to EVERYBODY" is among the most stupid I've heard in a loong time. I think pretty much everyone wants new weapons in the new games that are emerging rather than old re-hashes. Besides, Quake IV is underway - why don't they just save the railgun for that game? Quake IV's likely going to have a more war-like atmosphere with more outdoor situations in which the railgun would fit perfectly well, whereas Doom 3 has the mostly claustrophobic setting and feel of the old Dooms in which a railgun is pathetically useless. The idea of having Quake IV being based off of the by far most Doom-like Quake setting (the Strogg universe) of them all and have it released after Doom 3 would seem kinda stupid to me IF I knew that they would implement the same weapons in both games and have the two games feel alike.
So I say: Save the damn railgun for Quake IV and please everybody by having a NEW gun in the railgun's place for Doom 3.

Id have said so them selves that there isn’t going to be more then 5 or so enemies onscreen at one time, so I’m assuming that to compensate for there lack of numbers, they are going to be tougher and/or faster. (And by the looks of things, they are faster). Which is the kind of situation that a railgun would fit right into. You could catch them off guard with it, pick ‘em off from a safe distance.

Rubbish! Doom was never ever a sniper fest and Doom 3 should (and doesn't seem to be so either) never be any such either. Doom 3's gameplay doesn't seem to lend many possibilities of you taking the enemies by surprise (rather it's the other way round) A railgun fitting better against FAST enemies? Pal, what are you smoking? A railgun requires careful aim (which to most players requires a safe spot and time to concentrate on getting the aim right).
So again: I disagree.

If any weapon should be called into question, it’s the BFG. Ok, ok, first off, if id were silly enough to drop it from doom 3, I would be the first one to scream in protest. But really, how useful would it be? Most doom veterans would consider taking out five imps or zombies with a BFG in Doom 1&2 overkill. So I’m afraid it’s either going to be maid more powerful at the expense of some of the other weapons, or it’s just going to end up like the quake 2 BFG, fun to use, but not really useful for any thing other then novelty vale. Yes, I know it’s useful Bosses, but anybody who is half decent at a FPS should be able to make do vary well with the rest of there weapons.

Good point....
...except that you ain't supposed to be using the bfg against zombs and imps, but against groups of Cacodemons (five cacodemons are enough to give the BFG something to work with without it being overkill), tougher/similar tough enemies and against single, really tough enemies like bosses, Barons of Hell or archviles. So no, the BFG is a perfectly legitimate weapon to put into Doom 3. It's not ALL claustrophobia JUST because that's the only thing we've seen so far.

GO GO GO DSM!#^($$^&*!

/me pours some c0ff33 for D S M

*cough*

if a railgun gets put into doom3 i'll slit my wrists (not really)

Well, dsm already stole everything I was gonna say last night but because I had to go. The major point I needed to state that is also what dsm has already mentioned. If you want railgun, why don't you just go for Quake IV instead? This issue has been discussed before and our basic opinions on it have already been concluded when the subject was first brought up. Railgun does not apply appropriately to singleplayer FPS games. What I would really like to see is something newer, balanced, and more creative weapons in Doom 3, not a stupid quakish stinky railgun.

I wouldn't mind a high powered snipering rail gun, as long as they played it out right.

You should only be able to carry a few shots for it, and ammo should be rare. Halo showed a good example with its sniper rifle. Many times you'd start a mission with it, but have to save ammo for important parts. In Doom they could give you enough to take out a few big enemies, but not enough to take out bosses with it. If the slug is that powerful it's probably pretty big. After all, it is fun to snipe on occasion when there's a guy down yonder you want to get rid of, but you shouldn't have the luxury of caching ammo for a weapon like that.

I dunno exactly why, but the idea of a super powerful weapon with only very limited ammo in a Doom game doesn't feel right to me. The typical Doom style is lots of ammo for every single weapon, meaning that you can actually use each weapon a lot if you want to - weapons with limited ammo tend to be underused and I don't really like to have underused weapons.
Just my humble opinion.

dsm said:

Ok, let's see here: ...
(the rest)

Wot he said.

dsm said:

I dunno exactly why, but the idea of a super powerful weapon with only very limited ammo in a Doom game doesn't feel right to me. The typical Doom style is lots of ammo for every single weapon, meaning that you can actually use each weapon a lot if you want to - weapons with limited ammo tend to be underused and I don't really like to have underused weapons.
Just my humble opinion.

I see where you're coming from. It's not so much that I want to have a powerful but underused weapon as one that requires a bit of accuracy, which is one thing Doom never needed too much of. People complain that some games are "Accuracy Fights" but I don't find it a bad thing. I think there should be a combination of accuracy and more powerful "Spray and Pray" weapons.

Why in the name of all that is good and holy, dose everybody say that the railgun turns every game it touches into a sniper fest? Maybe I'm strange, but when I played through quake 2, I still mostly used the shotguns and the hyperblaster, and only took out the railgun for the odd flying enemy, and sometimes gunners. Everything else was either to strong to be taken down effectively, or to weak to be worth the effort.

JavaGuy said
I wouldn't mind a high powered snipering rail gun, as long as they played it out right.

You should only be able to carry a few shots for it, and ammo should be rare. Halo showed a good example with its sniper rifle. Many times you'd start a mission with it, but have to save ammo for important parts. In Doom they could give you enough to take out a few big enemies, but not enough to take out bosses with it. If the slug is that powerful it's probably pretty big. After all, it is fun to snipe on occasion when there's a guy down yonder you want to get rid of, but you shouldn't have the luxury of caching ammo for a weapon like that.

Give this man a medal! He has pretty much beat me to what I wanted to say about how a railgun should be implanted into doom3. I admit that in quake 2, you had WAY too much ammo for the railgun. It doesn’t even have to be a railgun (But railgun is an ‘id’ kind of weapon). And why do you think that id would not include a new weapon just because they included a railgun? If id are serious about making one awesome Single player FPS, they’d better include some new weapons, (Hey id guys, If your reading this, an AvP style flame thrower world rock!) and I’m sure they come up with some fantastic new weapon concept like they have with all their other games (except maybe quake 3, but that was more like a ‘Best of’). And even if they did include a rail gun, it’s not they’ll say ‘hmm… instead of putting a shotgun here, I’ll think we’ll have a railgun!’.

Any anybody who thinks that doom 3 is not going to deviate from doom and doom 2 formula is going to be sorely disappointed.

P.S. I have very little interest Quake IV.

The railgun just doesn't feel Doomy at all. Railguns are long-range, extremely accurate. They're precision weapons. Doom is about running around and blowing away monsters. Doom weapons pump out tons of bullets or plasma, or fire exploding rockets, or a big cone of pellets, or a giant green ball of death, etc. An accurate, controlled railgun doesn't really fit in with that style of gameplay.

I guess I should state the other side of the argument too.
One thing that is true about Doom is that it's a close up game. Tight corridors make the atmosphere claustrophobic and scary, and call for quick reflexes to blast your enemy to ribbons before he rips your face off. Normally, there really isn't a need for such a long range weapon, and as most agree, it doesn't really feel doomish. But still, after my Mechwarrior 3 days where accuracy was difficult but important, I have to believe that something similar can be integrated into Doom without causing it to lose it's feel. After all, it's not as though most of you never used the rocket launcher for a long range sniping weapon. It would just make more sense to have something small rather than 100 rockets stored in your pants.

Well, Doom doesn't really make much sense anyway, so who am I kidding? As long as it's fun.

But I really don't think doom 3 is going to play the same way doom 2 did, for a few resions:
The focous is going to be on fear, and as such, I'm sure they are going to slow the player momment down, and speed the monsters up. I'm also sure id plan to improve the AI (Compared to doom 2 at least, and maybe the quakes), so while a railgun in doom and doom 2 wouldn't fit, but doom 3 is a whole new game.

at a guess, here's how I see the news weapons panning out :

Fist:

Chainsaw:
Peatty certen about this one

Pistol:
A little uncerten.

Shotgun:
of corse! but they better get it right!

Super shotgun:
%99 sure about its implantation

Assault rifle:
Hopefully better then the quake 2 machinegun.

Chaingun:
Hopefully I’ll have more in common with the quake 2 chaingun rather then dooms

Grenade launcher:
maybe… it could work, but id might decide it’s not worth the effort.

Rocket launcher:
Hmmm… I’m thinking quake 2 like… Not because quake 2 rocket launcher is that good, but it’d make it more balanced

Plasma rifle:
Hopefully more like dooms then quake 3s…

BFG:
Even if it is just for old times sake

Railgun:
Well… you know…

ids new weapon(s)
Which I hope will include a flame thrower.

Ct_red_pants said:

ids new weapon(s)
Which I hope will include a flame thrower.

DAMN, this brings me back to the days of teh triple barrelled shotguns and golden pp7s and magnums and nailguns the newbies wanted in, NOSTALGIA :D

This is probably the perfect time to discuss a certain weapon: grenades.

You think sniper rifles ruin the mood, then this would destroy the game. I mean, most games now adays have grenades. They're one of the most useful weapons, as they allow you to cowardly hide on a ledge and chuck shit down into the swarming masses of [5] demons. It makes some parts of newer games too easy. I'd prefere to always have to look at the enemy I'm trying to kill.

One of these days i'm going to drown you in your own coff33 >:D.

err, at any rate, whats so N00B about a flame thrower? (though I can see why it might not quite fit into a doom game...)

You people are strange! Any shooting weapon can be made to fit into the doom universe. Hell and earth has plenty room for all guns. Its the monsters I’m worried about.

Wanting a railgun in a Doom game shows complete lack of awareness of what Doom is all about.
Oh yeah, Quake 2 had a railgun, but had an otherwise pretty Doomish feel. However I wasn't too fond of it because I rarely found any real use for it. Let me repeat: The railgun is a long range weapon - Quake 2 had long range situations, but not enough. Doom 3 however, as this pc gamer article that BBG just scanned has stated, has very few outdoor areas and more tight areas, thus making a railgun look really silly. Anyway, according to that same article, it seems that id software have realized that the railgun won't fit - that's great, because then it can be safely be implemented into Quake IV without making Q4 seem totally like a Doom 3 ripoff (which it shouldn't).

You only argue for a railgun because YOU want one, while you don't look into the overall scope.
Look at things from id's point of view: They have two game with very similar concepts (the Doom universe and the Strogg universe) especially in terms of weapons. To make sure that both games are attractive in their own right, they need to make the games differ in weaponry and overall feel, which is not too easy, since Quake 2 is probably the Quake game with the most Doom like weaponry. So what would be better than to keep the railgun out of Doom 3, but have it for Quake 4 - surely the railgun isn't id's most popular weapon out there and as long as Doom has other super popular weapons it should be all right.
I've actually talked to a few Quake fans about this issue and surprisingly, they agree that the railgun should be saved for Quake 4 rather than be rehashed in Doom 3. So id would please just about everyone if they implemented a new weapon instead.

Oh, and I don't care about a flamethrower - a flamethrower could be really great if implemented right (it could also suck though) - some creatures could be more or less immune to fire, but remember this:
In the old Dooms, fire wielding monsters could harm other monsters, so there should be enough basis for a flamethrower in Doom. I only hope it's better than the one in RtCW.

hmm... after reading through PC gamer, It looks like you might be right. I still say a railgun couldn't hurt.
But I still argue that there should be a long-range weapon. I have never played a FPS (with maybe the exception of Wolf 3d) where I wasn't taking out my enemies at medium to long range. In games like doom and the first quake, that usually taking out the rocket launcher. And I just don’t like sniping with the rocket launcher, it just feels, well wrong. same goes for the plasma rifle. I’m hoping for at lest one accurate, long ranged weapon. It doesn’t have to be a railgun, it doesn’t even need to be instant kill, just enough to make ‘em react, to give me some time to switch to another weapon. And before you suggest the pistol or even worse, the assault rifle and/or chaingun, I’m almost cretin that id will make them inaccurate as buggery like they did for the first two game.

But the lack of the railgun dose worry me for another reason, I'm really hoping that id will decide not to set it entirely in enclosed spaces, I mean, that's all well and good for the mars base (or Phobos base) to be in doors, but how will it pan out for hell?

However, what I said about the BFG is still true. It’s Unnecessary. You argue, that it could be used for taking out 5 or so medium strength opponents (you used cacodemons as an example). But most veteran players (which, lets face it, are going to make up %90 of the people who are going to bye this game.) would be more efficient (ammo wise) with the plasma rifle. And buy the sounds of it, your going to need all the ammo you can get. In other words, a BFG isn’t going to be a weapon you’ll use often, so that if you’re going to include a BFG, you might as well include a railgun while you’re at it.

And as for quake 4 feeling like a doom 3 rip-off. I can assure, that is extremely unlikely for a number reasons; firstly it’s being made by raven. Now, I have nothing ageist raven, but they aren’t too original (nowadays) when it comes to sequels, and as such, I have a feeling that quake 4 will be basically a remake of quake 2 (workings wise, not in terms of the plot). Quake 2 was more flat out combat, where as doom 3 will be mostly survival horror. Secondly, raven isn’t too good at weapon balance. They are likely to throw in a bunch of new annoying weapons that are either too strong, or are just do the same thing as the other weapons already in the quake 2 arsenal, but use different ammo, or have some annoying feature that nobody cares about, where as doom 3 will have a basic but well balanced weapon setup. If quake 4 was being maid by id, then I might be a little more optimistic. But raven is a different kettle of fish.

But if the masses say they don’t want a railgun in doom 3, then id will heed them, and it will be dropped. But just don’t expect quake 4 to satisfy the wishes of the many snipers out there in single player game land.

On another note, JavaGuy made a good point about grenades launchers. However, I think id are only implanting hand grenades, which are slow to use and difficult to aim, and near impossible to spam with. So I don’t think it will be a problem.

Ct_red_pants said:

However, what I said about the BFG is still true. It’s Unnecessary. You argue, that it could be used for taking out 5 or so medium strength opponents (you used cacodemons as an example). But most veteran players (which, lets face it, are going to make up %90 of the people who are going to bye this game.) would be more efficient (ammo wise) with the plasma rifle. And buy the sounds of it, your going to need all the ammo you can get. In other words, a BFG isn’t going to be a weapon you’ll use often, so that if you’re going to include a BFG, you might as well include a railgun while you’re at it.

Bullshit - There are several situations where you conserve more ammo with the BFG than with the plasma rifle - when you kill a baron of Hell with a single BFG shot you conserve ammo if you do it right. I've experienced that several times.
And the BFG is good for taking out.. for instance the aforementioned cacos instantly - the BFG does it quicker and more conveniently which is reason enough to make it legitimate.

As for you not having high hopes for Quake IV: I can't say that I understand that. Raven seems to be pretty good at doing games overall.
Also, never judge a game company by its previous efforts - they may yet change directions as to how they'll do games. id have pretty much changed directions in many aspects regarding Doom 3 (Compelling plot, NPCs), so why couldn't Raven Software do the same?

Lastly, I thank thee for an interesting discussion - it may be, well, 'aged' but you brought along several points that were worth replying to. I wish you good day now and hope that in the end we will all be pleased with Doom 3.

dsm said:
As for you not having high hopes for Quake IV: I can't say that I understand that. Raven seems to be pretty good at doing games overall.
Also, never judge a game company by its previous efforts - they may yet change directions as to how they'll do games. id have pretty much changed directions in many aspects regarding Doom 3 (Compelling plot, NPCs), so why couldn't Raven Software do the same?

Well, I'm not sure if you have played some of their more recent games, namely Solder of fortune 2, and Jedi outcast, it’s not that they are bad games, but Jedi outcast in particular, borrows things from Jedi knight, but err, they don’t really do it ‘right’.

Firstly, the weapons . aside from the light saber, they weren’t much fun, partly because they dropped the auto aim from Jedi knight. That wouldn’t be so bad for bullet based ‘instant hit’ weapons, but it makes it extremely difficult to hit a humanoid shape with a storm trooper rifle at medium range. They were just to damn hard to hit, especially since the storm troopers AI was very good, along with the fact that they had a very small “damage area”. Now imagine if they tried to port a similar system to quake 4 with the blaster, ageists the processed humans for quake 4? It would end up being more frustrating then fun. Aside from that, the weapons also felt very ‘unreal-ish’. The flechette gun was basically the flack cannon from unreal. And I’m sure anybody who has played unreal can tell you that the one of it’s weaker point is it’s weapons. Bad weapons + good AI = Annoying combat.

Also, as with most post hexen raven games, the level design in both Solder of fortune along with its sequel and Jedi outcast were just a little to liner for most peoples tastes… you’d have to play it to see what I mean. Although, quake 2 was pretty liner to begin with, so it shouldn’t be too bad.

Also, in Jedi outcast, they rehashed several of the old seniors from Jedi knight, but didn’t do then to well. The best example I can think of is the crashing ship. In Jedi knight, it was awesome! Explosions, red lights, bit and peaces falling about the place, not too mention, you could see the ship sliding down the canyon it just installed a real sense of panic. But in Jedi outcast, it was just a pail imitation, and just felt ‘whacked on’. For starters, it was in zero gravity, which is annoying in FPS. It also had stupid, ‘time puzzles’ and bit that you couldn’t get through without getting hurt. I afraid that they’ll redo the power plant or big gun from quake 2 over with similar flaws.

I’m pretty sure that quake 4 will be a good game, but unless raven make some radical changes, it will be stomped into oblivion by doom 3.

dsm said:
Lastly, I thank thee for an interesting discussion - it may be, well, 'aged' but you brought along several points that were worth replying to. I wish you good day now and hope that in the end we will all be pleased with Doom 3.

Yeah is an old topic, but it's important none the less. Nice to see that a few people take their doom seriously enough to get dragged into another weapon debate. Regardless of weather or not a railgun, or sniper rifle, or flamer thrower, or grenade launcher make an appearance in doom 3, I’m sure id will do a fantastic job.

Cheers dsm, and everybody else for you input.

hmm, how about if we take the ssg... and... add another barrel...?

Although most of Doom III will be confined excatly how small a room do you think the spider master minds will fit into?

I can imagine a hanger area having room enough for some long distance shots. The real determinant as to wether or not there will be a rail gun depends on if there is a monster that is best killed by one. Too tough to kill with the double barreled shotgun or gatling but too fast to hit with the rocket launcher or BFG.

People, UNTIL YOUVE PLAYED THE GAME YOU CANT TELL HOW THE GAME WILL PLAY... you might be able to say how it *looks* by looking at it, but you cant say how it PLAYS until you play it

duh. Its common sense - both DSM and Ct red pants might want to take heed