Does anyone else think this game is going to suck?

33 minutes ago, Reaverbot said:

tbh like half the comments i see defending the newer game from any and all criticism are just weird canned arguments that always run everything back to a handful of talking points. For all the talk about how people are hating on it, just about anywhere on the internet, criticism of D2016 or Eternal is usually met with fanboys dogpiling on you while addressing the things that you say in the least substantial way possible.

 

People have this image in their head of why someone doesn't like their favorite game and they just can't muster any nuance beyond it

I have mixed feelings about D2016, because whilst I love the way it looks and how the id Tech 6 engine is, I don't much care for the "push-forward" combat system. I mean, Doom 1, 2 and 3 had you running around evading monster attacks and shooting them as D2016 does, but at least the monsters were slower in their movements and couldn't go beyond certain obstacles, like higher or lower ledges, or even having doors shut on the larger monsters that couldn't follow you in. They also allowed you to use more cover because of the hitscanners. But in D2016, the monsters chase after you quickly and can follow you anywhere, and the level designs feel less like a living, working space base like Doom 1, 2 and 3 do, but obvious arenas for battle. And DE pushes the "game" aspect of it even more, with big, brightly-coloured switches and pickups that take away from any atmosphere that could be generated.

18 minutes ago, Foebane72 said:

And DE pushes the "game" aspect of it even more, with big, brightly-coloured switches and pickups that take away from any atmosphere that could be generated.

You can disable the glow effect, I'm pretty sure.

Besides, they HAVE to get the player's attention to things that are important, there ain't much id can do to improve this.

25 minutes ago, Foebane72 said:

 

I have mixed feelings about D2016, because whilst I love the way it looks and how the id Tech 6 engine is, I don't much care for the "push-forward" combat system. I mean, Doom 1, 2 and 3 had you running around evading monster attacks and shooting them as D2016 does, but at least the monsters were slower in their movements and couldn't go beyond certain obstacles, like higher or lower ledges, or even having doors shut on the larger monsters that couldn't follow you in. They also allowed you to use more cover because of the hitscanners. But in D2016, the monsters chase after you quickly and can follow you anywhere, and the level designs feel less like a living, working space base like Doom 1, 2 and 3 do, but obvious arenas for battle.

 

I'd say even the human-built areas in Doom 1 and 2 are pretty abstract. Does any of this really look like a Hangar? And what the hell kind of suburbs look like Map16 of Doom II? Whereas the human architecture of Doom 2016 is more like that of Doom 3, which does actually look like a place where humans might work, what with having chairs and toilets along with paperwork and other human detritus.

I agree that Doom 2016 could have been designed without more than one or two lockdown areas, and I'm honestly not sure why id thought that it was necessary to corral the player within the level like that. The demons' pathfinding and traversal capabilities are good enough to keep up with a player on the move.

The maps are going to be bigger this time, so I think there will be more chances for incidental combat in between the larger encounters, and combat areas in general feeling less restricted.

1 hour ago, Foebane72 said:

....but at least the monsters were slower in their movements and couldn't go beyond certain obstacles, like higher or lower ledges, or even having doors shut on the larger monsters that couldn't follow you in. 

I didn't really mind the fact that monsters were smarter and more acrobatic, but the arenas aspect did get a bit old for me, especially on subsequent playthroughs, levels seem larger this time around so perhaps there'll be more variety in that department.

For the glow we know you can turn off glory-kill indicators like you could in 2016, and you can also turn off power-ups and 1ups, as for the brightly colored switches, there's likely no way around it since that's a crucial progression element and they need to catch your eye so you don't get lost, admittedly it does look a bit too excessive in some of the gameplay bits but I'm not really bothered by it all that much, although I did play some games that did it in a more subtle way (eg: white paintings on climbable ledges..etc), but I don't know if the comparison is valid here since it's a different kind of game.

8 minutes ago, NoXion said:

I'd say even the human-built areas in Doom 1 and 2 are pretty abstract. Does any of this really look like a Hangar? And what the hell kind of suburbs look like Map16 of Doom II?

I put that down to the severe limitations of id Tech 1, that's all.

3 hours ago, Foebane72 said:

 

I have mixed feelings about D2016, because whilst I love the way it looks and how the id Tech 6 engine is, I don't much care for the "push-forward" combat system. I mean, Doom 1, 2 and 3 had you running around evading monster attacks and shooting them as D2016 does, but at least the monsters were slower in their movements and couldn't go beyond certain obstacles, like higher or lower ledges, or even having doors shut on the larger monsters that couldn't follow you in. They also allowed you to use more cover because of the hitscanners. But in D2016, the monsters chase after you quickly and can follow you anywhere, and the level designs feel less like a living, working space base like Doom 1, 2 and 3 do, but obvious arenas for battle. And DE pushes the "game" aspect of it even more, with big, brightly-coloured switches and pickups that take away from any atmosphere that could be generated.

 

My feelings aren't far off. The arena structure of the game really wore thin on me as early as going to Hell. At the best of times it made me think of Painkiller, which i don't particularly like but I can tolerate, and at the worst of times it made me think of Call of Duty's level design where you follow corridors that have small spatterings of enemies until you get to a big zone where you fight dudes for 5-10 minutes or so, repeat repeat repeat. I'm not entirely sure what else you can do with that AI though because like you said, it's basically made to run frantically around a big area and climb and jump and just kind of zoom around on crack. I'm not asking for Doom AI where things meander around and throw a fireball every two seconds or anything, but enemies having specific behaviors that don't blend together so much outside of a handful of them like Cacodemons and Mancubi would really go a long way into making fights more varied and giving you opportunities to build encounters that you won't forget five seconds after you walk out of the Designated Dude Killing Zone.

I do admit I don't mind the glowy aspect of Eternal. It's not exactly visually attractive but it does look more interesting than Doom 2016.  A lot of other stuff is making me roll my eyes like everything regarding the story, but I didn't think that was going to get better. What I'm mainly going to be watching for after it was released is if they did *anything* to make encounters more unique

On 11/20/2019 at 7:30 PM, tsunstealer said:

I’m not here to start any drama, but seriously... look at the track record of anything Bethesda has touched since 2016... it has all been criticized to hell and back, literally. I know, I know, Doom is by Id, but this isn’t the Id that made Doom 1-3. None of the key figures are there anymore and the ones that were left removed themselves during “Doom 4”‘s initial development hell. This is the Id that is owned and controlled by Bethesda. If you’re happy with what has happened with Wolfenstein, Quake, and Doom while under Bethesda’s wing, then power to you, I’m not going to argue my opinions on these games. I’m just curious if you all feel the delay is only to prevent the game from being a turd sandwich and more like an ass disaster of turd nuggets? 
 

Also, with the way they released Doom and Doom II, I have no real reason to be hyped for Doom 64, because I guarantee you it will be as buggy and shitty as their most recent “Classic Doom” ports. Doom 3 worked fine but it was just the BFG edition anyways. Why they didn’t just backwards compat the PSN collection that was on PS3 is beyond me but I’m pretty sure it was so they could force fuck you into creating a Bethesda account and to play an inferior version of Doom so that you’d quickly lose interest and be mind controlled into preordering Doom Eternal for the Doom 64 port which will more than likely suffer from similar problems. 
 

again, I don’t care about how you feel about these games, I’m just curious how you feel the new one will hold up to people who enjoyed 2016, or if you think it will make people who hated 2016 Doom happier and be the better of the two. Or.. will it just amount to being a big disappointment for both parties?

I see youtubers who managed to play it are calling this game the new Half-Life (impact-wise). Youtubers who shit on shit or bad games (For example GManLives)

And why would I by any chance think that it might suck? It basically cannot suck at this point.

About Wolfenstein, yeah Youngblood is a terrible game, sure. But it's a spin-off and the second one wasn't terrible. So I believe Wolfenstein 3 will be decent.

I have my doubts about the Doom 64 port, so I won't pre-order the game. But it does not make Doom Eternal bad.

In about 3-4 days this thread will finally die. 

20 minutes ago, Zemini said:

In about 3-4 days this thread will finally die. 

And instead of "DAE think this game will suck?" a new thread will pop up called "Things you hate/are disappointed about in Doom Eternal". :P

10 minutes ago, Spectre01 said:

Things you hate/are disappointed about in Doom Eternal

All I can say is:

2 hours ago, Foebane72 said:

the level designs feel less like a living, working space base like Doom 1, 2 and 3 do, but obvious arenas for battle.

You are really scratching the bottom of the barrel here, there is no way doom 1 and 2 levels are more "believable" than the ones from 2016.

Doom 1 and 2 levels have nothing that makes me say "this placed used to be filled with people" apart from boxes and some dead marine's corpse here and there, while doom 2016 comes way closer to the "living, working space base" thing.

And has nothing to do with engine limitations because various wads have demostrated that you can make believable levels with id tech 1.

The "obvious arenas for a battle" is weird considering the fact that classic doom does the exact same thing on multiple occasions.

3 hours ago, Reaverbot said:

tbh like half the comments i see defending the newer game from any and all criticism are just weird canned arguments that always run everything back to a handful of talking points.

And all I see is the pot calling the kettle black. 

I'm mostly restraining myself from posting until the first reviews come in after the embargo is lifed on the 17th. But whilst I've got DE's Metacritic page bookmarked, I have a funny feeling that nothing will come from there until release day, because they have an active countdown there. They may be like RottenTomatoes, refusing to post ANY reviews until days later.

Or am I wrong? Please tell me.

8 minutes ago, Foebane72 said:

Or am I wrong? Please tell me.

You're always wrong

11 minutes ago, thewormofautumn said:

You're always wrong

Not always. But please, enlighten me.

4 hours ago, The Doommer said:

I have my doubts about the Doom 64 port,

I'll say this again. Doom 64 is in really capable hands, why would you have your doubts about it?

for the love of god let this thread die

3 minutes ago, skepticalbiscuit said:

for the love of god let this thread die

Have posts like this ever actually reduced thread activity? I think not. The best method is avoiding threads you're not interested in. ;)

It's funny how in all the internet it's praising Doom Eternal, even casual players that never played Doom, and the doomworld forum have this kind of thread going futher xD

1 hour ago, jamondemarnatural said:

It's funny how in all the internet it's praising Doom Eternal, even casual players that never played Doom, and the doomworld forum have this kind of thread going futher xD

Seriously, why is the forum full of edgy teens and Boomers spamming that the new Doom sucks because its "different"? Like we get it, you hate new things, give it a rest already. 

Their whole argument reminds me of this guy: 

It's kind of sad.

6 hours ago, Danzer said:

 

You are really scratching the bottom of the barrel here, there is no way doom 1 and 2 levels are more "believable" than the ones from 2016.

Doom 1 and 2 levels have nothing that makes me say "this placed used to be filled with people" apart from boxes and some dead marine's corpse here and there, while doom 2016 comes way closer to the "living, working space base" thing.

And has nothing to do with engine limitations because various wads have demostrated that you can make believable levels with id tech 1.

The "obvious arenas for a battle" is weird considering the fact that classic doom does the exact same thing on multiple occasions.

Neither did Doom 2016, it got closer sure, but they werent even trying. The hell levels were dull and the base levels looked very plastic, with the same dead guy copied and pasted all over the place. Incredible to think that such an older game like Doom 1 and 2 did this better. Doom 3 too.
 

8 hours ago, Reaverbot said:

 

My feelings aren't far off. The arena structure of the game really wore thin on me as early as going to Hell. At the best of times it made me think of Painkiller, which i don't particularly like but I can tolerate, and at the worst of times it made me think of Call of Duty's level design where you follow corridors that have small spatterings of enemies until you get to a big zone where you fight dudes for 5-10 minutes or so, repeat repeat repeat. I'm not entirely sure what else you can do with that AI though because like you said, it's basically made to run frantically around a big area and climb and jump and just kind of zoom around on crack. I'm not asking for Doom AI where things meander around and throw a fireball every two seconds or anything, but enemies having specific behaviors that don't blend together so much outside of a handful of them like Cacodemons and Mancubi would really go a long way into making fights more varied and giving you opportunities to build encounters that you won't forget five seconds after you walk out of the Designated Dude Killing Zone.

 

I do admit I don't mind the glowy aspect of Eternal. It's not exactly visually attractive but it does look more interesting than Doom 2016.  A lot of other stuff is making me roll my eyes like everything regarding the story, but I didn't think that was going to get better. What I'm mainly going to be watching for after it was released is if they did *anything* to make encounters more unique

Two or three hours in, and you already saw everything Doom 2016 had to offer. Then it becomes repetitive, then it becomes a boring chore. They have to focus on gameplay and level design instead of pretty graphics.
 

8 hours ago, seed said:

 

You can disable the glow effect, I'm pretty sure.

 

Besides, they HAVE to get the player's attention to things that are important, there ain't much id can do to improve this.

You could only disable some stuff in Doom 2016.
Stuff like the panel in the room or the Doomguy armor suit at the very start of the game have a glowing effect (and you cannot move until the cutscene ends) and other stuff through the game. That is pandering for casuals.

And that is no excuse, SOMA to put an example (and unfair example because is a fantastic game) always told you where you had to go through level design and enviromental storytelling alone, no hand holding.

Oh and not everybody who dislikes the flaws in something is a "hater", i am sick of seeing this trend being in games or movies or whatever: Something that people likes gets released and everybody praises it blindly as if it was perfect, then anybody who dislikes it or even say that it has some minor flaws is automatically a "hater", wtf!

-

15 minutes ago, waveplay said:

That video is god awful.  No actual arguments made.  He just "doesn't like it."  Barf.

 

He completely misses the fact that Doom references content from GZDoom and Skulltag Mads (Brutal doom & Invasion Mode, namely)...while claiming that other games are being "clearly ripped off".

 

Here are some "great" quotes:

 

"Sausage doom guy"
"parkour in Doom?"

"this just feeeeels...sooo wrong"

 

Just another emasculated cuntbag. 

He also doesn't understand that jumping mechanics in modern games are supposed to be a given. Its like he still wants Doom to be 2.5D.

2 minutes ago, D88M3R said:

Neither did Doom 2016, it got closer sure, but they werent even trying. The hell levels were dull and the base levels looked very plastic, with the same dead guy copied and pasted all over the place. Incredible to think that such an older game like Doom 1 and 2 did this better. Doom 3 too.
 

Two or three hours in, and you already saw everything Doom 2016 had to offer. Then it becomes repetitive, then it becomes a boring chore. They have to focus on gameplay and level design instead of pretty graphics.
 

You could only disable some stuff in Doom 2016.
Stuff like the panel in the room or the Doomguy armor suit at the very start of the game have a glowing effect (and you cannot move until the cutscene ends) and other stuff through the game. That is pandering for casuals.

And that is no excuse, SOMA to put an example (and unfair example because is a fantastic game) always told you where you had to go through level design and enviromental storytelling alone, no hand holding.

The Complex level right before Lazarus more than makes up for the believability of levels compared to Hanger or the city levels in Doom 1 and 2 respectively. Also the dead guy copied and pasted is a real big stretch you are making with believability, especially considering practically every game even today does this sort of thing.

Hugo has admitted that Doom 16 got repetitive over time and intends to fix that . However, don't tell me Doom 1 and 2 didn't get boring after 2 or 3 hours in either, most players that aren't binging would take breaks in between episodes of Doom or hell, any retro fps game due to the repetitive nature of the genre. (also you haven't seen everything by 2-3 hours, by then you haven't even seen hell or met the rest of the demons to fill the roster.).

that 3rd one..... oh boy.... the cutscenes may not be skippable but no way in hell are they long. Their are barely even 5 lengthy cutscenes to stop the action (they are spaced fairly well apart too so again, unless you are binging, you won't see more than 1 or 2 by the time you take a break).

And Soma is not even part of the same genre as Doom, you don't even fight enemies in that game. I love Soma to death but no way would I go to a new Doom game and say "Ehh the environments aren't like Soma, passs." when they aren't even the same in level design.

9 minutes ago, D88M3R said:

Oh and not everybody who dislikes the flaws in something is a "hater", i am sick of seeing this trend being in games or movies or whatever: Something that people likes gets released and everybody praises it blindly as if it was perfect, then anybody who dislikes it or even say that it has some minor flaws is automatically a "hater", wtf!

This only becomes a problem when the same people start to heavily repeat the same tripe of "oh how I hate this game or movie, don't understand why others can like it." like Warman or Foebane over and over and over without end. Those guys are the actual haters, since they try to poison the community with their spread of hate. You can not like Doom Eternal, don't try to force it on others though.

Well said, Zalgo. I also agree with what you had to say on the thread about Sgt. Mark's opinion of DOOM 2016. Echos my thoughts exactly.

9 minutes ago, ZALGO said:

You can not like Doom Eternal, don't try to force it on others though.

Exactly! It's fine if you don't like it, but stop trying to force other people to agree with you.

I don't see anyone in here trying to force anything on anyone

2 minutes ago, Reaverbot said:

I don't see anyone in here trying to force anything on anyone

I respectfully disagree. Simply look at the titles of threads in the forum and at you'll see that at least a quarter of them are about why the new Doom sucks. I would say thats forcing opinions onto someone.

"I don't want Doom Eternal to be Team Fortress 2"

"Is Doom done being serious?"

"Does anyone else think this game is going to suck?"

"Who decided that Doom needed such a complex "lore"?

"Remember when Doom was SIMPLE?"

etc

It sounds like those people like something different than you and they want to talk about it. Nothing about anything in those threads you listed makes me feel like those people are trying to steal the enjoyment you have, unless the only way you can enjoy modern doom is if everyone else does too.

I guess I'll just never understand why criticizing these games makes so many people fall on their swords without a second thought. It's not like I don't want to enjoy it. And while there are certainly bitter people out there that fit that bill, the majority of people in this thread don't seem to fit under that classification either.