If every game was like Doom 2016

I only played Modern Warfare, and thought it was incredibly dull. Don't see the appeal at all.

7 minutes ago, Ajora said:

I only played Modern Warfare, and thought it was incredibly dull. Don't see the appeal at all.

If it's groundbreaking and interesting stuff that you like, AAA games probably aren't going to offer them anyway. I just accept them for what they are; if you can get into them for a bit, it makes for a nice quick diversion with your friends and nothing more. Alternatively, if you're all alone and bored, I think you can at least get some fun out of strolling through the campaign.

I don't really consider them to be this "boogieman" of the game-industry like so many people do. Sure, they're certainly not great games by any stretch of the imagination, but when it comes to AAA games I've played a lot worse as well. I'd say they were "tolerable" up until Modern Warfare 2. Black Ops was the nail in the coffin for me.

I still vastly dislike call of duty for the multiplayer designs they helped perpetuate after mw2, the casualisation, or introduction to "team meta" multiplayer design was a vigorously hated trend for me. So many companies tried to do the same thing since call of duty had such great success, creating worthless multiplayer games that where once great franchises. Those were bad times that are thankfully over now.

It's a generational difference, really. I guess when COD first appeared in the early 2000s, that kind of marked the beginning of the "tactical military shooter" trend, regardless of how realistic it was attempting to be. This seems to be the dividing line for a lot of old schoolers. Personally, I think it's deeply disturbing not only to craft games based on real-world conflicts (I know not all of them are), but to take delight in playing them. I mean, entertainment is entertainment, so do as you will, but that's too close to home for my taste. Doom could never happen. Blood could never happen. Duke Nukem? Fuhgettaboutit! It's not just the big blocky pixels and psuedo-3D environments, it's that sense of fantasy. That's what draws me in.

41 minutes ago, GoatLord said:

It's a generational difference, really. I guess when COD first appeared in the early 2000s, that kind of marked the beginning of the "tactical military shooter" trend, regardless of how realistic it was attempting to be. This seems to be the dividing line for a lot of old schoolers. Personally, I think it's deeply disturbing not only to craft games based on real-world conflicts (I know not all of them are), but to take delight in playing them. I mean, entertainment is entertainment, so do as you will, but that's too close to home for my taste. Doom could never happen. Blood could never happen. Duke Nukem? Fuhgettaboutit! It's not just the big blocky pixels and psuedo-3D environments, it's that sense of fantasy. That's what draws me in.

Why are you trying to classify all people who enjoy CoD as being of a different generation? I'm not sure what the purpose of this generalization is... I've been playing games since the early nineties, and I can see why people enjoy playing CoD. Christ, give it a rest with this smugness.
 

35 minutes ago, Agentbromsnor said:

Why are you trying to classify all people who enjoy CoD as being of a different generation? I'm not sure what the purpose of this generalization is... I've been playing games since the early nineties, and I can see why people enjoy playing CoD. Christ, give it a rest with this smugness.
 

That's smug to you? I admit that I totally get the appeal. And I know there's crossover between crowds. It's just that, if you're an old school FPS fan, you might prefer old school FPS, and might not find some of the newer ones (generally) as enjoyable. I mean is this not accurate? If it is not, then forgive me. But I think you may be projecting, because I have no issue with preference, the crossovers between the two styles, and the fact that shooters are in a way fundamentally different than they were then. I'm not implying anything negative about gamers who prefer a more modern style. Yes, I did say that I find it disturbing that there are parallels to real-world conflicts, but I don't think that's an inherently bad thing.

I play and enjoy a wide variety of games, Doom is just a small drop in the water when taking as a whole what I like to play and enjoy. For a few years of my life I only played Half-Life, Counter-Strike and various HL mods. Nothing else.

However, these days overall I'd say I prefer my FPS to follow an overall "90's" design, or at the very least if they are linear have enough crazy things going on to keep it interesting like Half-Life or Soldier of Fortune. That said, I have played every CoD up to World at War, and my conclusion is they are decent. They set out to make a rollercoaster ride for you get on, see the explosions, mow down the bad guys, experience the TV show quality plot, and get off. That's fine by me, and being a WW2 nerd I quite enjoyed CoD 2 and World at War. WaW had an impressively grim atmosphere when you get to the falling apart Berlin that I had never experienced before in a WW2 game. It was appropriately chaotic and even a bit disorienting seeing all these people run around shouting, with gun fire filling the air as it thunders in the night sky and above you fills with smoke.

The only things that annoy me about CoD is its overly tight linear design. You really are just a movie actor on set and if you step too much out of line the immersion can easily fall apart. Also, the price for these games is ridiculous. $20 still for the first CoD? Really Activision? Go fuck yourself.

Perhaps that's he only real issue I have with it, come to think of it, is overly linear design.

Since we are talking about CoD, I think that it won't harm anyone if I talked about my opinion on the series.

So, I first played CoD MW1, when I was 13 years old iirc. At the time I wasn't into Doom or shooters in general and CoD was something new for me, that I really enjoyed.

I had fun in the sniper mission near the beginning, in the ship mission later and the final mission where you get to kill Zakkaev (or whatever he is called) and his guards, after a car chase. At the time I also felt that Soap was a fun character, but I don't remember him now, in order to judge.

In multiplayer, I had great amounts of fun (I reached lvl 55 after 2-3 months) and it was awesome playing Free for All with my friends once in a while. And yes, the multiplayer consisted mainly of rushing the enemy and hip firing, but there was still some kind of balance in the weapons (looking at you modern CoDs, with your players running around at the speed of light, knifing everything they see moving).

I also played the story of MW2 and MW3, in order to finish the whole arc, but I was disappointed with MW3.

Then, I tried the multiplayer in those games and it felt very awkward in terms of control. The mouse aim was off for me in MW2,3 and Black Ops 1, while in MW1 it seemed perfect (it could be just me though, because a friend of mine had no such problem).

Additionally, what I don't like in CoD is the recycling of the same game engine over and over again, while having to pay tons of money for each new game (I was lucky, because I got the trilogy cheaper from a local game store, after much time since their release had passed, but still, they should be cheaper now).

Overall, I find MW1 to be one of the greatest games in the series and from there it went downhill for me.

And while I like 90s shooters more compared to newer shooters, MW1 has secured a place somewhere in my heart, for I had fun and great memories in that game (Doom 1 will always be first though).

I might also play WW2 CoD games in the future, just to see what they were like.

Let me not talk about Infinite Bullshit or Black Ops 3 or whatever that SHIT at my friend's house was, because something is way off in the campaign when you end up punching robots off a train roof and grabbing with your exoskeleton the side of a ship, while it is being thrown away by a tsunami (SERIOUSLY??? ARE THE DEVS STONED???).

That game was the last thing I tried from the CoD series. I won't waste more time with their new games. I won't limit myself to small maps, unbalanced weapons and salty kids trying to make a 360 no-scope montage, when I can have Doom or 90s shooters instead. Doom has atmosphere, exploration, puzzles, good music, infinite community levels and fun weapons, with each weapon having good use in the game.

Enough said.

4 hours ago, ShotgunDemolition said:

CoD is the recycling of the same game engine over and over again

You mean revising and improving right?

On 9/21/2017 at 11:45 PM, Red said:

Well yeah, lots of great military shooters and other more realistic takes on the genre.

 

Somebody please revive STALKER and let it know I missed it dearly 

I was gonna say, I'm not big on most military shooters but then you reminded me of Stalker which I guess is a mutated version of one?

i dont want to see chex quest or mirrors edge or portal to be a doom 2016 game :C

7 hours ago, Trycon said:

You mean revising and improving right?

No, I don't think so. Again, I could be wrong, but I remember MW1 running with similar performance compared to MW2 and MW3 and those games didn't look like an improvement graphics-wise. Even if they used another engine, it was way too similar.

Now I don't know about the Black Ops series, Ghosts or Infinite Warfare, but I remember my friend telling me that Black Ops 3 was very badly optimized.

Edit: Just looked it up and it turns out all CoD games use different versions of the IW engine, with some slight improvements between each game. But this improvements made almost no difference in the MW series, so we could just say that it was the same damn engine they used again and again. And that I find ridiculous, thanks to the high price of CoDs. Especially if you look at the differences between MW1's and MW2's engine, they are not worth spending the price they demanded on these games. The later games in the series should have easily been cheaper at the time of their release, compared to the price of MW1.

11 hours ago, Trycon said:

You mean revising and improving right?

I hear this complaint more often, but honestly: why change something you're familiar with? Their proprietary version of the idTech 3 engine is something that players have grown accustomed to over the years, so completely changing the inner workings of your game is probably not in the best interest of your franchise and a huge financial risk.

If it's graphics that people are concerned with: in my opinion the latest CoD games look pretty good, but I'm not a graphics snob. I can live with a game not including the latest face-melting post-processing shaders as long as the art direction and design is good.

If anything military shooter in recent years have been a LOT more fun and varied  than people seem to realize

just look at Titanfall 2 with a surprisingly decent campaign and superb player movement

Halo 5 though I don’t like 343 games definitely have similar crazy movement over aiming down behind cover (if anyone even does that anymore)

Battlefield mostly keeps that traditional military shooter thing people have in mind but with a shit ton of vehicles and large maps and whatnot

Red Orchestra focusing on tactics, teamwork and some semblance of realism

ARMA which is the last two combined and to the tenth power 

And then PUBG which I guess classifies as that too but with a somewhat unique royale setting

Then there’s games like STALKER which bring open world with slight RPG elements mixed with mechanics aiming for realism mixed with some of the best AI and atmosphere in games

There is a CRAPTON of variety in military shooters, for people to group them all as boring tryhard millennial shit is frankly ignorant  

On 25/09/2017 at 6:04 PM, Agentbromsnor said:

If it's groundbreaking and interesting stuff that you like, AAA games probably aren't going to offer them anyway. 

Dude, you're just as clueless as Goatlord. There are these games called Dark Souls and Bloodborne which invalidate all nerdy counter-cultural generalisations of triple-A gaming. Yes, they're the minority, but so are Minecraft, Grimrock and The Binding of Isaac. Plenty of shit games are made by some entrepreneuring guy with a vision or whatever.

Plenty of shit games were made in the 90s, for the record. There are good games, there are bad games.

1 hour ago, DoomUK said:

Dude, you're just as clueless as Goatlord. There are these games called Dark Souls and Bloodborne which invalidate all nerdy counter-cultural generalisations of triple-A gaming. Yes, they're the minority, but so are Minecraft, Grimrock and The Binding of Isaac. Plenty of shit games are made by some entrepreneuring guy with a vision or whatever.

 

Plenty of shit games were made in the 90s, for the record. There are good games, there are bad games.

I agree, but I don't think that Dark Souls is a groundbreaking game. It has a large fanbase, but I think we can agree that most of the ambitious games tend to come from more independent developers, since they don't have the issue of working with tight release-schedules and such.

Minecraft, The Binding of Isaac etc. are odd examples, since they're indie games that grew in popularity. I think it's fair to say that most games start out as an honest creative effort on the side of the developer, but as they grow in popularity, big companies get involved and developers are pressured to deliver a product.

1 minute ago, Agentbromsnor said:

I don't think that Dark Souls is a groundbreaking game.

lol, if Demon/ Dark Souls isn't ground breaking, then i guess I don't know what the hell is. But then again, this comment makes a lot of sense coming from you.

4 minutes ago, MrGlide said:

lol, if Demon/ Dark Souls isn't ground breaking, then i guess I don't know what the hell is. But then again, this comment makes a lot of sense coming from you.

I'm sorry I'm not a modern game-scrub like you who has no clue of the history of video-games. If you think Demon / Dark Souls is a ground-breaking game, you're probably an ignorant millenial with very little knowledge.

You're on a bloody Doom forum; ever heard of this little game called Hexen?

I don't even know how to respond to your ridiculous post above bromsnor. Keep doing what you do best, which is making an ass out of your self.

7 minutes ago, MrGlide said:

I don't even know how to respond to your ridiculous post above bromsnor. Keep doing what you do best, which is making an ass out of your self.

Why even bother posting anything at all if you don't intend to add anything of use? Have fun being an ignorant tool on the internet.

22 minutes ago, Agentbromsnor said:

I don't think that Dark Souls is a groundbreaking game. 

Any AAA game that doesn't have microtransactions is pretty groundbreaking in my book.

I jest. Groundbreaking? No. They're 3rd person action games, and with the exception of Bloodborne, the whole aesthetic isn't THAT different from the slew of other fantasy arpgs. But for me, what sets them apart is their rich story and lore, which are delivered in a way that never interferes with the gameplay.  Their creator is an extremely well-read guy, and it shows in the games he oversees. Speaking of the gameplay, that's pretty amazing too, especially in Bloodborne. 

16 hours ago, Agentbromsnor said:

I'm sorry I'm not a modern game-scrub like you who has no clue of the history of video-games. If you think Demon / Dark Souls is a ground-breaking game, you're probably an ignorant millenial with very little knowledge.

 

You're on a bloody Doom forum; ever heard of this little game called Hexen?

They actually were "ground-breaking" through their heavy use of unique and constant player interaction through PvE, PvP and even solo play which pushed the envelope of the idea of constant player effects and actions that directly effect others within their own world space; normalizing, centralizing and refining this rare/unheard of style of player interaction and inspiring countless others to follow suit.

The theme of the games were not what made it "ground-breaking", it was the multiplayer, making your weird point of "Hexen existing so Demon Souls =/= ground-breaking" really fucking strange as Hexen doesn't have that style of multiplayer (the "ground-breaking" part of the Souls series) and it is a real stretch as the games aren't even similar...

But whatever.

Also the bond fire/ save system with the game that doesn't pause. That was very unique as well.

The only thing hexen shares with those games is being a medieval fantasy game lol.

12 hours ago, mrthejoshmon said:

They actually were "ground-breaking" through their heavy use of unique and constant player interaction through PvE, PvP and even solo play which pushed the envelope of the idea of constant player effects and actions that directly effect others within their own world space; normalizing, centralizing and refining this rare/unheard of style of player interaction and inspiring countless others to follow suit.

 

The theme of the games were not what made it "ground-breaking", it was the multiplayer, making your weird point of "Hexen existing so Demon Souls =/= ground-breaking" really fucking strange as Hexen doesn't have that style of multiplayer (the "ground-breaking" part of the Souls series) and it is a real stretch as the games aren't even similar...

 

But whatever.

I guess you have a different opinion on what groundbreaking means then.

Is it really that much of a stretch to compare the gameplay of Hexen to Dark Souls? Of course they are different games in their own rights, but I think they have a similar approach to gameplay (and a very similar setting), although obviously with a different direction. It at least shows us that the idea of a melee-focused game in a dark medieval setting has been done before. Everything else (including the things you listed) seem like rather minor details to me.

When you mention "groundbreaking", you should be careful with your wording. The landscape of multimedia is very vast, and you can count on it that a new popular concept has (at the very least) been tried before in the past.

8 hours ago, MrGlide said:

Also the bond fire/ save system with the game that doesn't pause. That was very unique as well.

"Bond fire"...

Games have had all sorts of save-systems in the past. Also: unique =/= groundbreaking.

On 21.9.2017 at 8:59 AM, Yhe1 said:

If every FPS game was like Doom 2016, would you start missing the modern military Shooters?

I practically skipped all the military shooters, so no.

26 minutes ago, Agentbromsnor said:

I guess you have a different opinion on what groundbreaking means then.

Is it really that much of a stretch to compare the gameplay of Hexen to Dark Souls? Of course they are different games in their own rights, but I think they have a similar approach to gameplay (and a very similar setting), although obviously with a different direction. It at least shows us that the idea of a melee-focused game in a dark medieval setting has been done before. Everything else (including the things you listed) seem like rather minor details to me.

 

When you mention "groundbreaking", you should be careful with your wording. The landscape of multimedia is very vast, and you can count on it that a new popular concept has (at the very least) been tried before in the past.

"Ground-breaking" in my eyes is not the one that tried first but the one who pulled it off and paved the way for others to follow, a literal interpretation; the ground has been broken by one big boy for the little ones to slide on through after it, the ground itself being stabbed at before but never truly fully tapped into or accessed before. I'm sure somebody tried Souls style multiplayer interactions before but they never broke through and nailed it into a successful idea and made a mark that inspired anyone, From Software however did pull it off, they made it successful and inspired countless others with the formula they created for their multiplayer experience.

You say that the parts I mentioned were minor details and I question if you even played it, the features I mentioned (as well as the difficulty) was legitimately the selling point and one of the core features of the series. On a populated server you would find yourself forver interacting with others, actions big and small shaping your entire experience around the efforts of others and yourself (allowing for a dynamic, unpredictable and almost unheard of experience at the time).

It seems like "ground-breaking" to you is relegated to just theme and style (which is an assumption I'm making based on the posts you've made here, please educate me to the correct answer if this is untrue) which if this is the case then truly nothing can be done that will be "ground-breaking" as it is all done already, you seem ready to disregard anything "unique" in terms of mechanics/game play in favour of caring about theme and presentation (which is why I disagree).

-

Back to the Hexen = Dark Souls thing, they are so far apart it isn't even funny, it is like comparing Wasteland to Fallout 3 because they are post apocalypse RPGs or comparing Doom to Vanquish because they are sci-fi shooters, they don't even play the same.

1 minute ago, mrthejoshmon said:

"Ground-breaking" in my eyes is not the one that tried first but the one who pulled it off and paved the way for others to follow, a literal interpretation; the ground has been broken by one big boy for the little ones to slide on through after it, the ground itself being stabbed at before but never truly fully tapped into or accessed before. I'm sure somebody tried Souls style multiplayer interactions before but they never broke through and nailed it into a successful idea and made a mark that inspired anyone, From Software however did pull it off, they made it successful and inspired countless others with the formula they created for their multiplayer experience.

 

You say that the parts I mentioned were minor details and I question if you even played it, the features I mentioned (as well as the difficulty) was legitimately the selling point and one of the core features of the series. On a populated server you would find yourself forver interacting with others, actions big and small shaping your entire experience around the efforts of others and yourself (allowing for a dynamic, unpredictable and almost unheard of experience at the time).

 

It seems like "ground-breaking" to you is relegated to just theme and style (which is an assumption I'm making based on the posts you've made here, please educate me to the correct answer if this is untrue) which if this is the case then truly nothing can be done that will be "ground-breaking" as it is all done already, you seem ready to disregard anything "unique" in terms of mechanics/game play in favour of caring about theme and presentation (which is why I disagree).

 

-

 

Back to the Hexen = Dark Souls thing, they are so far apart it isn't even funny, it is like comparing Wasteland to Fallout 3 because they are post apocalypse RPGs or comparing Doom to Vanquish because they are sci-fi shooters, they don't even play the same.

I agree with your definition of groundbreaking, hence why I think that "unique" is different from that.

The things that you listed are things that I would call "selling points" (just as you worded above). Things that fans enjoy about the game, indeed. "Groundbreaking"? Hardly. I've seen this sort of interactive multiplayer before, and not in some obscure game either.
 

Quote

"Back to the Hexen = Dark Souls thing"

You missed the point completely here. By writing "Hexen = Dark Souls" you're making a strawman of what I said, making it seem as if I claimed the games are interchangeable. This is obviously not the case, but again: on the surface they're games that have a very similar tone and focus. Of course there are countless of minor details that set them apart, but let's be fair here.

As a comparison: when people say that Half-Life is very similar to Doom, they mean that the premise of both games are almost identical and the idea of a silent protagonist who's the only hope to save the world is also not a coincidence. Yet we can all agree that Doom and Half-Life are still completely different games. That still doesn't invalidate the very obvious comparisons.