Seems like id wants to keep making new Doom games...

We got a recreation of Doom '93 with Doom 2016, then getting a recreation of Doom II with Doom Eternal (they aren't reboots in terms of Canon, they're set after 1 & II but they're still basically reboots in terms of design) 

 

So... is our next trip as the Doom Slayer back to Mars? A hyper - realistic recreation of Doom 3 that elevates the horror design (making it even scarier) while also adding a flavor of run and gun, essentially creating a terrifying Doom 3 and Doom 64 mixed hybrid?

 

I don't know where this franchise is going at this point, I honestly thought Doom 4 would never come out, but it seems like id is now trying to recreate the franchise. 

 

And once all the Eternal DLC is out, if they want to continue this franchise "reboot", 

 

 I think we might see some sort of Doom 3/Doom 64 hybrid in the near future.

 

Just my prediction. If they decide to go down this route, they need to fix the flaws that Doom 3 has.

 

If they fix those minor flaws, I'm honestly all for it. 

 

Just wild speculation and prediction.

2 hours ago, SovereignX9 said:

We got a recreation of Doom '93 with Doom 2016, then getting a recreation of Doom II with Doom Eternal (they aren't reboots in terms of Canon, they're set after 1 & II but they're still basically reboots in terms of design) 

Doom 2016 and Eternal don't recreate the originals. Recreation and reboot are two different things.

2 hours ago, SovereignX9 said:

Just my prediction. If they decide to go down this route, they need to fix the flaws that Doom 3 has.

 

If they fix those minor flaws, I'm honestly all for it. 

What would those flaws be? Because Doom 3 is a fundamentally different game in the canon in terms of atmosphere, ambiance and mood setting. Its far more horror oriented, slower paced and with a significant focus on storytelling.

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

What would those flaws be? Because Doom 3 is a fundamentally different game in the canon in terms of atmosphere, ambiance and mood setting. Its far more horror oriented, slower paced and with a significant focus on storytelling.

 

I would say its flaws is it doesn't do any of those things particularly well. Also looking at Doom Eternal, I don't think that has less storytelling focus than what Doom 3 had, it's just a very different story. 

 

Now since I said it, why did Doom 3 not do those things particularly well? Doom 3 was overreliant on its lighting obfuscating the player's vision, and enemies that spawn conveniently out of sight to jump scare the player. I also think they overestimated the atmospheric qualities of just being really dark all the time, Quake it was not. The story suffers from its use of very unimaginitive beats (mad scientist villian taunting you over the comms, really?). Both of these issues together compound the reason it was a poor horror game, because I believe that reducing horror down to tossing the player into dark corridors with monsters that jump and shout boo is awful. Horror storytelling is as reliant on depth as any other genre. This is a game where the protagonist is just a voiceless marine, the story is just "monsters coming from hell are killing everyone" and there's no substance to any of that, it's all just an excuse to make an FPS game.

 

The difference was Doom 1 and 2 didn't pretend otherwise. 

 

And Doom shouldn't do it again, the Eternal storyline might be ridiculous but its at least more imaginative and fitting for an action orientated videogame, and I think it makes a lot more sense to tailor a story to what Doom is than to try to make what Doom is tailor to a story.  

 

21 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I would say its flaws is it doesn't do any of those things particularly well. Also looking at Doom Eternal, I don't think that has less storytelling focus than what Doom 3 had, it's just a very different story. 

I feel we had this conversation already. Was there not a common consensus that Doom 3 differs significantly from the base Doom concept and was actually more rooted in nature towards the actual original Doom Bible version of Doom?

 

And you feel Doom 3 doesn't do the horror aspect well? Its monster placement is particuarly based off the idea to do exactly that, aswell as the story sequences.

 

What game of that era does do it well then? FEAR?

21 minutes ago, hybridial said:

 

Now since I said it, why did Doom 3 not do those things particularly well? Doom 3 was overreliant on its lighting obfuscating the player's vision, and enemies that spawn conveniently out of sight to jump scare the player.

And at the time, that mechanic was very new and dearing. Using light and shadow obfuscate enemies - 1998's Thief attempted a similar approach.

Stencil shadows and per pixel lighting were two of Doom 3's main visual PR pieces *, so obviously, the gameplay had to take that into account. And it worked pretty well. Well enough that the game got re-released for PS4/XBO and Switch and still holds up, over 15 years since (Though these versions are based on the 2012 BFG Edition).

 

*Stencil shadows weren't a ''first'' with Doom 3, however. Despite that they were able to run that code on Geforce 4 MX without shaders, it was actually 2001's Severance: Blade of Darkness that did the ''Doom 3 shadow'' technique first, before Deus Ex: Invisible War by a full 2 years (Which also did it, mind you).

 

Severance also did this on 3DFX Voodoo/ATI Rage grade hardware. It along with a few other late 90s/early 00's really paved the way for the big games that introduced these ''new and innovative'' things. Stuff like Outcast, Trespasser, King's Field, Montezuma's Return and Severance provided the blueprint for later gameplay mechanics. I should make a thread on that some day...*

 

21 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I believe that reducing horror down to tossing the player into dark corridors with monsters that jump and shout boo is awful. Horror storytelling is as reliant on depth as any other genre.

I feel that (Tossing the player into dark corridors with monsters that jump and shout boo) is a simplification. In that same sense you could describe Alma from Fear, but is that an accurate depiction?

 

What many found disappointing in Doom 3 is that it was such a clash from its faster, arcade like predecessors. People weren't used to a Doom that put emphasis on storytelling, because didn't we have this game called Half-Life for that? And if Doom 3 wanted to be an arcade title at release, it would have to pit itself against that other title that plays with demons from hell and is fast paced - Painkiller. So Doom 3 relatively stands on its own, but forfeiting most of what made Doom 1 and Doom 2, well, Doom 1 and Doom 2. :P

 

21 minutes ago, hybridial said:

This is a game where the protagonist is just a voiceless marine, the story is just "monsters coming from hell are killing everyone" and there's no substance to any of that, it's all just an excuse to make an FPS game.

Didn't stop Doom The Movie from being made and it actually being a decent movie to boot ;)

 

Which comparable FPS would provide substance around these concepts that isn't Far-Cry or Half-Life 2?

59 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

I feel we had this conversation already. Was there not a common consensus that Doom 3 differs significantly from the base Doom concept and was actually more rooted in nature towards the actual original Doom Bible version of Doom?

 

No, you must have had that with others, not me. 

 

59 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

And you feel Doom 3 doesn't do the horror aspect well? Its monster placement is particuarly based off the idea to do exactly that, aswell as the story sequences.

 

And the monster placement is repetitive and the story sequences are ineffective for reasons I already said.

 

59 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

What game of that era does do it well then? FEAR?

 

No, I'd just say FEAR was more fun to play. 

 

59 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

And at the time, that mechanic was very new and dearing. Using light and shadow obfuscate enemies - 1998's Thief attempted a similar approach.

 

I presume you mean Thief used it mostly in reverse, the player is trying to obfuscate themselves against the enemies. And yes, that's a mechanic, because it was more about the player using it than being affected by it, because in Doom 3 its not a mechanic its sensory, or literally if you will. And I remember enough from back then, there were people who had issues with it then, lots of people complained about it. 

 

59 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

I feel that (Tossing the player into dark corridors with monsters that jump and shout boo) is a simplification. In that same sense you could describe Alma from Fear, but is that an accurate depiction?

 

Yes its entirely accurate of Doom 3. 

 

59 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

What it was such a clash from its faster, arcade like predecessors. People weren't used to a Doom that put emphasis on storytelling, because didn't we have this game called Half-Life for that? And if Doom 3 wanted to be an arcade title at release, it would have to pit itself against that other title that plays with demons from hell and is fast paced - Painkiller. So Doom 3 relatively stands on its own, but forfeiting most of what made Doom 1 and Doom 2, well, Doom 1 and Doom 2. :P

 

I feel this doesn't really make much sense, I don't get what the point is you're trying to say. There's always going to be other games doing different things, Half Life probably influenced their direction, I doubt Painkiller did at all as that was seen as more niche at the time. 

 

59 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

Didn't stop Doom The Movie from being made and it actually being a decent movie to boot ;)

 

Can't say I agree with that. 

 

59 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

Which comparable FPS would provide substance around these concepts that isn't Far-Cry or Half-Life 2?

 

System Shock 2. And no, the RPG angle on that isn't particularly relevant, the plot would have still worked if it was a straight FPS, but its other facets added to its story. Now the ending was not great, it wasn't a flawless plot. Didn't quite stick the ending but other than that, its a great horror game built on top of a suitable story, has great world building (in fact Doom 3 did attempt to do things in a similar way just much worse) and I think if any game following built on that it was the original Deus Ex. Now what I get from that is these games did attempt to not only expand what players would expect in storytelling from a first person game, but also in implementing other kinds of gameplay mechanics to further players interaction with the environment in order to further aid that story. I feel this was a good direction that was largely abandoned, maybe at least partially picked up by some games since, but we've really gone in the direction of simple gameplay mechanics bolted on top of non-interactive storytelling that doesn't really care much about immersion. And I think to make myself clear I need to say this. I do not like the Half Life games. And I do not consider them to be immersive. And that is mostly the argument I see for them, the first thing people say they like about them, or that they thought they do well. And I really disagree with this. I also don't care for the plot in those games, I think its dull, but I need to be clear that that is a different thing from the techniques used to tell the story, because I can't think of a worse way than what Half Life did to deal with plot exposition. Its environmental storytelling, was okay. I won't completely dismiss that, but they had no idea how to deal with exposition scenes outside of NPCs yammering at the player like the player needs to be paying attention to them. Some players might do that, many I doubt cared, but I just hated it, much like I hated all the filler vehicle sections in Half Life 2. I would rather have well directed cut scenes over that, those at least take talent to make. 

And all of that are some of my reasons about why I think FPSes (or Third person shooters too really) trying to have stories since then have done a poor job, that Doom 3 did a similarly poor job, it didn't happen in a vacuum, after all, its pretty clear what id were trying to appeal to with Doom 3. Immersive, minimalistic environmental storytelling doesn't need and I'd even argue is generally done a disservice by being overthought or over focused on. I would point to Dusk as proof of this. It has more immersive storytelling than Doom 3. It has a better story than Doom 3. It is a better horror game than Doom 3. And all this with the most time it spends on added story are Quake like text prompts. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by hybridial

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

No, you must have had that with others, not me. 

That does not make the posed question irrelevant, however.

 

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

And the monster placement is repetitive and the story sequences are ineffective for reasons I already said.

It feels we are walking in circles then. I am aware that you have rather strong stances for a lot of mainline titles (Like Bioshock Infinite) so i am not sure if a further discussion regarding design aspects wouldl be beneficial.

 

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

No, I'd just say FEAR was more fun to play. 

So which other game of that ERA does do it well then?

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I presume you mean Thief used it mostly in reverse, the player is trying to obfuscate themselves against the enemies.

Weren't enemies capable of it aswell? Hiding in the shadow? I felt it worked both ways here, as Garrett couldn't always seen his enemies directly because of it.

 

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

And yes, that's a mechanic, because it was more about the player using it than being affected by it, because in Doom 3 its not a mechanic its sensory, or literally if you will. And I remember enough from back then, there were people who had issues with it then, lots of people complained about it. 

And lots (Looks at PC Zone review of 2004) also didn't had that issue. Doom 3 heavily relied on the light/shadow mechanic and tried to marr it to a story - Resulting in a title that, personally, i would say is decidely far removed from the quicker, arcade like approach that were the first two titles. It does not make Doom 3 a flawed title in my eyes, rather a different one that is perhaps less fitting to the Doom namesake.

 

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

Yes its entirely accurate of Doom 3. 

Repetition isn't a strong argument, elaboration is however.

 

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I feel this doesn't really make much sense, I don't get what the point is you're trying to say.

That part of the reason Doom 3 was flawed is because it tried to implement things that other titles in its timeframe did so much better (HL2).

 

Doom 3 being an arcade title like the previous 2 games would make the game less unique, i would say, given that there was a Doom/Serious Sam clone on the market in the same timeframe. So for that to work, Doom 3 would have had to come up with something worthwhile.

 

This is all speculation though, because Doom 3 as released isn't that kind of a title.

 

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

Can't say I agree with that. 

Then elaborate! What comparison should be made, then? The recent Doom flick? Other sci-fi movies with a Marine going rampant on Mars? Saying ''I don't agree'' is a discussion stopper first and formost. Its fine that you disagree, but why? Please, elaborate.

 

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

System Shock 2. And no, the RPG angle on that isn't particularly relevant, the plot would have still worked if it was a straight FPS, but its other facets added to its story.

SHODAN's world was exactly that - a World, full with lore and other elements. DoomGuy's world is far less that, although it does have lore pieces that one could frame in a story - Like Doom 3's. I mean, nobody remembers Doom 3 for its Oscar-winning story, obviously, but they do remember SHODAN. Doom 3 is also not a storytelling game, albeit it has those elements in, far more so than Doom 1 or Doom 2.

 

I feel its only one of the aspects though - SHODAN's protagonist is memorable for that alone. In a DoomWorld universe, it would be something similar to the CyberDemon being this arch-nemesis kind of creature that locks the player down on Mars, or something like that. And even that setting sounds worse than System Shock's.

 

Pluspoints for mentioning Deus Ex though.

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I feel this was a good direction that was largely abandoned, maybe at least partially picked up by some games since, but we've really gone in the direction of simple gameplay mechanics bolted on top of non-interactive storytelling that doesn't really care much about immersion.

So HL-Alyx should be right up your alley!

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

And I think to make myself clear I need to say this. I do not like the Half Life games.

.... Oh. :/ I mean like i said, you have staunch opinions on a lot of games, and a lot of big hit titles are the ones you don't like for a myriad of reasons. Which is fine, obviously. But don't you think your point of view is very sensitive to a particular title, and that others that deviate from it aren't that good?

 

I am not going to go into the rest because its more of a general rant ive read in different variations prior which have less to do with Doom 3 than with games in general.

 

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

after all, its pretty clear what id were trying to appeal to with Doom 3. Immersive, minimalistic environmental storytelling doesn't need and I'd even argue is generally done a disservice by being overthought or over focused on.

How was Doom 3's story overthought?

50 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I would point to Dusk as proof of this. It has more immersive storytelling than Doom 3. It has a better story than Doom 3. It is a better horror game than Doom 3. And all this with the most time it spends on added story are Quake like text prompts. 

I dunno, i think its a fast paced arcade like shooter first and formost, with heavy Quake elements. And yes, those Lovecraftian elements can be horrific.  Because well, that's what the PR videos show you first and formost, no?

 

Its like saying you rate Amid Evil as a deep RPG just because its weaponry is medieval and you can upgrade a few things here and there, when its inherent design is built around fast-paced action first.

 

Like, i see your point with Dusk, but the first association i have isn't ''Oh its a horror title and it has a good story.'' Because the released video's of the game don't sell you that.

I hope not. Doom 3 has its fans and its a good game but it doesn't hold a candle to Doom(2016), Eternal or even the classic Doom games.

I didn't mean to start bashing conflicting opinions over this. This isn't how I wanted this post to turn out, but it is what it is. hybridial and Redneckerz both make valid points, and have criticized mine.

 

So here's my piece and response.

 

1. Don't exaggerate my post. I never said that Doom 3 is flawed altogether. God forbid I criticize this game in this section of Doomworld without someone taking it out of context. Doom 3, in my opinion, is not a flawed game. It just has a few minor flaws towards the second half of the game. It has a few flaws, but it's not flawed. Saying the game is flawed would basically mean that the fundamental idea of the gameplay and core mechanics of the game aren't good or it contradicts itself, and Doom 3 in my opinion doesn't have that problem.

 

2. These minor flaws, are essentially just that it gets a little repetitive after a while. That being said, I'm not saying that the gameplay is bad.

 

They just don't really try anything new towards late game, other than just throwing a bunch of monsters at you in their, horror game? I mean it's D O O M I don't mind it I think it's just they were trying to go for... A survival horror shooter... I mean you have the aresnal I guess to fight them, cough cough Chaingun and Rocket Launcher cough cough, but still albeit it was just sort of a lazy-ish way of "spicing things up" towards the end of the game. Same imp jumpscares, same dialogue of Betruger talking, shitty late game boss that takes 15-20 seconds to kill, etc. They don't really get innovative, which I mean I guess it stays loyal to what it wants to be, but there's nothing wrong with being a little creative towards the end. What would they have done to be a little more "creative" while not making it completely different? Idk. Would've been nice to have some more Hell Knight or Pinky jumpscares or "scenes" (like maybe two Hell Knights break through a door in Central Processing or come up behind you if you stare into a bathroom mirror for too long), make the Sarge more interesting to fight, maybe have some gruesome cutscene where Betruger captures you and tortures you, idk. 

 

But that was pretty much it lol.

 

2. I don't have any other gripes with the game other than that. I think the lighting is amazing, the enemy design, the environmental storytelling, and the actual story altogether was pretty good in my opinion. I love Doom 3. Been playing it for 11 years. I still do Veteran playthroughs every month or so. 

 

This is exactly why I was saying that the new game, if they want to go towards a more "horror" direction, need to make it a crossbreed of Doom 3 and Doom 64. Doom 64 is basically Doom 3, with way more monsters and intentional gunplay. They're different, yet very similar, and I think we'd be getting the best of both worlds if id does this. It'd make everyone happy.

 

3. So what should I call 2016 and Eternal then? I know they aren't reboots, but it's majorly the same story as the originals, except id decided to make all of the games connect somehow into one big meta universe. So it's technically a reboot, but it's also technically not. It's petty of you to nitpick such a little thing when you basically understand what I'm trying to get at with that. I just genuinely don't know what to consider them or "call" them. Should I call them Sequelboots? 

 

Aside from that, these are all my opinions here, and you're still probably going to absolutely nitpick everything here that I've said and find things you want to argue about Redneckerz.

8 minutes ago, Eurisko said:

I hope not. Doom 3 has its fans and its a good game but it doesn't hold a candle to Doom(2016), Eternal or even the classic Doom games.

 

I hear ya. Imo it's all about perspective. I think if they mix 3 and 64's formula together I think it'd make everyone happy. Just my opinion though.

50 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

So which other game of that ERA does do it well then?

 

If we're talking about horror, and I think that's the intended thread, but I'm not clear on what timeframe you mean by era here, but I'd say in the FPS genre there's not a lot of great examples I think to draw on, if we open that up, there's games like Silent Hill 2, Fatal Frame/Project Zero, Haunting Ground, the remake of the original Resident Evil. I even think Quake, just from its atmosphere alone is pretty good if you want a horror vibe, its more built on atmosphere than scares but that's not really a problem by any means. Doom 3 is just too forced, and lacking creativity in its premise to match that. Generally more niche games that definitely were about exploring horror from a less action orientated end. Going a bit later, I actually think Dead Space did a respectable job, nothing great but I'd say it worked, not so much in its sequels though. 

 

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

Weren't enemies capable of it aswell? Hiding in the shadow? I felt it worked both ways here, as Garrett couldn't always seen his enemies directly because of it.

 

No I never have got that impression from playing Thief 1 and 2 and I like them and have played them a lot. I do think the environmental storytelling and general feeling of oppressiveness from being this lone man up against a superior force with his wits being his means of survival itself does a lot to make Thief great, because that entirely fits with the gameplay and story, and its a lot more effective than monsters lumbering out of the dark. 

 

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

And lots (Looks at PC Zone review of 2004) also didn't had that issue. Doom 3 heavily relied on the light/shadow mechanic and tried to marr it to a story - Resulting in a title that, personally, i would say is decidely far removed from the quicker, arcade like approach that were the first two titles. It does not make Doom 3 a flawed title in my eyes, rather a different one that is perhaps less fitting to the Doom namesake.

 

That's a fair position but mine is based on the fact I believe Doom 3 fails at what it is setting out to achieve. I also feel Doom 2016 did as well for unrelated reasons, and that Doom Eternal actually made positive changes that I think better reflect what the new Doom games wanted to focus on. But I don't judge them negatively because they are different from Doom 1 and 2, I have no issue with that. 

 

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

Then elaborate! What comparison should be made, then? The recent Doom flick? Other sci-fi movies with a Marine going rampant on Mars? Saying ''I don't agree'' is a discussion stopper first and formost. Its fine that you disagree, but why? Please, elaborate.

 

The Doom movie was poorly written, poorly directed, poorly acted (which I think is a fault of the former two things more than any actor's lack of trying, actors can't always work miracles after all) piece of action schlock which doesn't even attempt to follow the Doom story (because apparently it would have clashed with the release of Event Horizon based on some speculation I read, I don't know if that's true, Event Horizon is a better movie though for sure). There's not much action in it, and I don't generally speaking like action movies that overcompensate for having poor premises, stories or characters with action but at least for a Doom based movie you'd expect more than what was there at least. Only interesting part of it was the first person sequence. 

 

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

SHODAN's world was exactly that - a World, full with lore and other elements. DoomGuy's world is far less that, although it does have lore pieces that one could frame in a story - Like Doom 3's. I mean, nobody remembers Doom 3 for its Oscar-winning story, obviously, but they do remember SHODAN. Doom 3 is also not a storytelling game, albeit it has those elements in, far more so than Doom 1 or Doom 2.

 

I think the whole problem stems from the fact that they start with the premise "it has to be a shooting game where the player shoots demons" and tries to be too elaborate. I find it lands in a place where it simply fails. It is too overwritten and restrictive on the player if we just want to make that premise fun, but its underwritten and bad if we want to try and make the player feel they are part of a story, and I felt that was the norm with the FPS genre going forward. Games like Timesplitters and No One Lives Forever were to me designed to be fun but they weren't really the trend setters. That's what I mean when I referred to they overthought it, because I think with Doom 3 they made the wrong choice. And no, Painkiller is nothing like Doom, it's no more like Doom than Serious Sam ever was. A more arcade like Doom released at the time wouldn't have been Painkiller, it probably would have resembled Quake 2 the most. I wouldn't have liked it if it had been Painkiller either, because well... but hey, shows I'm not just biased against the AAA games :P 

 

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

.... Oh. :/ I mean like i said, you have staunch opinions on a lot of games, and a lot of big hit titles are the ones you don't like for a myriad of reasons. Which is fine, obviously. But don't you think your point of view is very sensitive to a particular title, and that others that deviate from it aren't that good?

 

Half Life was really successful. Everybody thought it was how games should be. Many copied its design. It's logical that if I don't like Half Life, I wouldn't much care for the things that copied it. I feel I am open to different ways of doing things, but we're talking videogames here and I think variety has mostly decreased in recent years, certainly in the AAA sphere. I quite like retro games because of their simple approaches and modest goals, but for AAA games they cost more to make, they cost more to buy, its very much like Hollywood at this point, overly reliant on spectacle at the expense of everything else. But to highlight some games I thought were neat, I liked Dishonoured, I had a lot of fun with Fallout New Vegas, Yakuza 3 was nice, but its really cherrypicking at this point, I've mostly accepted I've lost interest because I don't think much has changed for a long time. 

 

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

How was Doom 3's story overthought?

 

Yeah I can understand the spit take that probably caused but above I did give my reasons for it. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

I dunno, i think its a fast paced arcade like shooter first and formost, with heavy Quake elements. And yes, those Lovecraftian elements can be horrific.  Because well, that's what the PR videos show you first and formost, no?

 

Its like saying you rate Amid Evil as a deep RPG just because its weaponry is medieval and you can upgrade a few things here and there, when its inherent design is built around fast-paced action first.

 

Like, i see your point with Dusk, but the first association i have isn't ''Oh its a horror title and it has a good story.'' Because the released video's of the game don't sell you that.

 

No, your Amid Evil analogy doesn't work because that's not equatable to what I said in the least. And also, okay, Dusk was marketed a particular way, but what I said was based on playing it. I don't think the marketing was at all misleading or wrong, just that when players played it they'd find interesting things in there that are thoughtful but don't detract from the core of the game. And I think there's a Doom 3 concept that could have been just like that. 

31 minutes ago, SovereignX9 said:

 It has a few flaws, but it's not flawed. Saying the game is flawed would basically mean that the fundamental idea of the gameplay and core mechanics of the game aren't good or it contradicts itself, and Doom 3 in my opinion doesn't have that problem.

Exactemundo. Flawed games are games that are inherently terrible. Something like Bugsy 3D. (And yes, i realize that abominations also have fans, for reasons like ''So bad its good'' and so on.) ;)

 

Doom 3 isn't a flawed game. What was flawed, is that the game got an early leak :P

 

31 minutes ago, SovereignX9 said:

Aside from that, these are all my opinions here, and you're still probably going to absolutely nitpick everything here that I've said and find things you want to argue about Redneckerz.

I don't like your avatar.

 

;)

 

19 minutes ago, hybridial said:

If we're talking about horror, and I think that's the intended thread, but I'm not clear on what timeframe you mean by era here,

2002-2005.

19 minutes ago, hybridial said:

but I'd say in the FPS genre there's not a lot of great examples I think to draw on, if we open that up, there's games like Silent Hill 2, Fatal Frame/Project Zero, Haunting Ground, the remake of the original Resident Evil. I even think Quake, just from its atmosphere alone is pretty good if you want a horror vibe, its more built on atmosphere than scares but that's not really a problem by any means.

So the problem is more FPS titles, because those have difficulties translating the horror aspect to the point of view.

19 minutes ago, hybridial said:

That's a fair position but mine is based on the fact I believe Doom 3 fails at what it is setting out to achieve.

What is your canvas of comparison?  You say you don't judge Eternal and 2016 negatively because they are different (Despite clearly sporting a similar mode of gameplay) but then you judge Doom 3 for doing exactly that, being different from most Doom titles.

 

19 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I've mostly accepted I've lost interest because I don't think much has changed for a long time. 

A good advice as never: Singularity. Raven's last title before they became a co-op studio for the COD games. It is... interesting.

 

19 minutes ago, hybridial said:

And also, okay, Dusk was marketed a particular way, but what I said was based on playing it.

What they show is Dusk being a fast paced shooter. That it also has a story and horror elements isn't the main focus.

What was shown of Doom 3 showed a more cinematic Doom, different from the other titles. Certainly not a fast paced title.

 

I'm mostly with hybridial on this one honestly, he mirrors most of my thoughts on why Doom 3 kinda just fell flat on its face - forced story, over-reliance on jump scares, and also unbalanced lightning (Doom 3 was either too dark, or too bright, there rarely was a balance in this game when it came to light/dark areas - but like I said in other posts of mine, I am mostly convinced that the way Doom 3 was meant to look like was actually the BFG edition, the OG was overly dark likely to avoid tanking the framerate on most people's hardware of the time due to too many light sources, as it can be observed in the E3 techdemo which was visibly brighter).

 

I don't find it a bad game at all, but it's not like it's flawless either. Honestly, if it didn't try too hard to be scary in unoriginal ways (no, jump scares are not scary when that's everything the game does... ) and take itself waaay too serious, it would've been much better than it ended up being. It was also way too slow, and the player never felt in control of the situation in any moment. I would love a more horror-oriented Doom entry too, but if they want to do that, they're better off looking at Doom 64 and ports such as PSX Doom instead. The player was still a badass and the games themselves weren't too slow paced to not be much fun - but not run & gun either.

 

Also no, the OG Doom movie is terrible... apart from the name, marines, the BFG, and some evocative locations, there isn't even anything in it that screams Doom. Even the core essence is absent...

Edited April 20, 2020 by seed

5 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

 

 

I don't like your avatar.

 

;)

 

 

 

He's a sexy boi and you know it ;) 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

A good advice as never: Singularity. Raven's last title before they became a co-op studio for the COD games. It is... interesting.

 

I think the true game Raven wanted to make might have been interesting, but the game I played was gimmicky and I stopped playing during the segment with the time ticks because swarm enemies are the dirt worst in FPSes. The goddamn dirt worst. :P. You know what though, Clive Barker's Jericho was generally poorly received but I found it more interesting than most games of the period, and I thought it had some things other games lacked like a fun cast of characters the game is set around, a premise that was at least weird and fleshed out enough to be of interest and felt like it really built up a lot of stakes. Then it ends and its just... well least I had some fun with it. But it still played it too safe in some areas. Also a game that was immensely ambitious then got crushed under the weight of it was Geist on the Gamecube, that one was a real case of what could have been. 

 

9 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

What was shown of Doom 3 showed a more cinematic Doom, different from the other titles. Certainly not a fast paced title.

 

I feel that word is just dirty now :P. But seriously, different /= good. It's simply judging these games on their own merits. 

 

And on Doom 2016 and Eternal, its pretty simple, Eternal is a refinement of things that worked and changing things that detracted from the focus. The focus was combat, clearly, lot of work put into how the combat worked. Where I think Doom 2016 went wrong was level design. Some levels tried to kind of do exploration. Some (especially later) really didn't hide that they were Serious Sam style arenas. The former did not work, and the latter was pretty dull and made the gameplay begin to grate. 

 

With Doom Eternal they decided to mostly go linear. Linear isn't a dirty word, its the right choice for many games. I think it was the right choice for Doom Eternal, because combat is the focus, combat encounters should be the focus, lets design levels around variety and pace of the encounters, and lets try and do something clever with each segment so they're not all the same. And the added platform elements I think were done fine, and add to the package because it improved the pacing. 

8 minutes ago, seed said:

Also no, the OG Doom movie is terrible... apart from the name, marines, the BFG, and some evocative locations, there isn't even anything in it that screams Doom. Even the core essence is absent...

 

The only part of the movie I like is the First Person part when he wakes up healed from his wounds and goes on a fucking rampage and obliterates anything in his way. I wish there were more scenes like that in the movie.

 

Also I wish at some point they went to Hell in the movie, even if it would've been just for a brief moment it would've been very welcome.

2 minutes ago, SovereignX9 said:

The only part of the movie I like is the First Person part when he wakes up healed from his wounds and goes on a fucking rampage and obliterates anything in his way. I wish there were more scenes like that in the movie.

 

Also I wish at some point they went to Hell in the movie, even if it would've been just for a brief moment it would've been very welcome.

 

There was no way they could've possibly had any kind of Hell in that movie - it didn't even have "demons" and other dark beings...

1 hour ago, SovereignX9 said:

 

I hear ya. Imo it's all about perspective. I think if they mix 3 and 64's formula together I think it'd make everyone happy. Just my opinion though.

 

I don't think you need much of 3, would be my general point, you want Doom with a darker tone, Doom 64 was that. It was also a little slower, a little chunkier but not unrecognisable from the prior games.

 

I think it'd be possible to create a new game in the Doom series kind of like that, but I also think that premise would be as good a fit for Quake and maybe more interesting just because of its different and more esoteric theme. 

No idea where they'd go from here. Doom 3 is more like dead space in first person. It doesn't even look like doom. Doom had colourful monsters, doom3 only knows shades of grey and black. Also, all the monsters from classic doom have had redesigns

10 hours ago, SovereignX9 said:

If they fix those minor flaws, I'm honestly all for it. 

I'd be down for another shot at Horror Doom, push the survival horror aspect further, add some Metro Librarian-like type of enemy, reduce resources players can get and encourage scavenging dead UAC employees bodies, cabinets and lockers (that don't require keycodes all the time) add some small crab-like type of enemies that jump at you through vents, bind the grenades to a shortcut like in Doom 2016 just a bunch more stuff to spice things up and make it less basic than walking through the same corridors all the time, and maybe come up with a more compelling story, but seeing how the majority of people aren't really looking for slow-paced horror-focused Doom game it's probably going to be a while before that happens, maybe make it its own IP so you don't end up disappointing Doom fans and have more creative freedom with it probably :)

14 minutes ago, hybridial said:

 

I think the true game Raven wanted to make might have been interesting, but the game I played was gimmicky and I stopped playing during the segment with the time ticks because swarm enemies are the dirt worst in FPSes.

I may aswell stop recommending titles because the vast amount of titles i have seen you have played contain the same words:

''Flawed''

''The worst''

''Gimmicky''

''Wrong''

 

The few that do get your nod of approval (Like Jericho) still exhibit several flaws, but the ending conclusion is ''Well i had some fun with it''.

 

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer since you came to a similar sounding conclusion but i feel you look at games through a very narrow lens before the aforementioned expletives come out. Its very absolute, is what i try to say.

 

Obviously you don't mean it that way, but i do feel it gets rather trite to discuss games here, because it sooner or later drops down to these statements. They aren't exactly... nuanced, is what i try to say with it :)

 

But you do you, you know? This is a me problem, it affects me, not you. I just wanted to explain this.

 

Hope that, if you tried it atleast, you played Alien Isolation.

1 minute ago, sluggard said:

maybe make it its own IP so you don't end up disappointing Doom fans and have more creative freedom with it probably :)

 

Well, it's impossible to please everyone, isn't it? No matter what route they take there will always be people out there feeling disappointed for one reason or another, just like Eternal and 2016 disappointed those who were looking for something even closer to classic Doom and more serious.

3 minutes ago, sluggard said:

I'd be down for another shot at Horror Doom, push the survival horror aspect further, add some Metro Librarian-like type of enemy, reduce resources players can get and encourage scavenging dead UAC employees bodies, cabinets and lockers (that don't require keycodes all the time) add some small crab-like type of enemies that jump at you through vents, bind the grenades to a shortcut like in Doom 2016 just a bunch more stuff to spice things up and make it less basic than walking through the same corridors all the time, and maybe come up with a more compelling story, but seeing how the majority of people aren't really looking for slow-paced horror-focused Doom game it's probably going to be a while before that happens, maybe make it its own IP so you don't end up disappointing Doom fans and have more creative freedom with it probably :)

Personally I think the original Quake's grungier aesthetic has a lot of potential, if combined with survival horror mechanics.

1 minute ago, Redneckerz said:

Hope that, if you tried it atleast, you played Alien Isolation.

 

... 

 

Well, I did play it. 

I don't think they'll try to recreate/reboot Doom 3. They're going to stick to the colorful arena style gameplay formula for now. We already had 2016 take place on Mars anyways. In fact, I hope they don't try to make the next Doom game a reboot of anything. We've had 2016 and Eternal honor the concepts of the first two games, I'd like to see the Slayer enter relatively uncharted territory and have a wholly original story.

 

I could see them making spin-offs in the near future though, sort of like how Wolfenstein 2 was followed by Youngblood and Cyberpilot. If that's true, a horror-centric spin-off wouldn't be entirely out of the question.

a new quake game that isn't shitty multiplayer only would be cool

13 minutes ago, hybridial said:

 

... 

 

Well, I did play it. 

I take it the ... denote that it too didn't pass the Hybridial test of a good game ;)

18 minutes ago, seed said:

Well, it's impossible to please everyone, isn't it? No matter what route they take there will always be people out there feeling disappointed for one reason or another

Well it doesn't really matter that they're disappointed if they aren't the target audience, I wouldn't go into Witcher 3 expecting something like Resident Evil 2.

Just now, Redneckerz said:

I take it the ... denote that it too didn't pass the Hybridial test of a good game ;)

 

Now, Jack Packard of Red Letter Media called it the Death of the Art form. He said it.

 

I just agree. :p 

I'm actually praying they'll acknowledge Doom 3 beyond the Soul Cube in 2016 and have a proper continuation someday. Take what worked, ignore what didn't work, and make a truly awesome survival horror style Doom with actual scary demons and oppressive Hell.

On 6/19/2020 at 9:19 PM, Lila Feuer said:

I'm actually praying they'll acknowledge Doom 3 beyond the Soul Cube in 2016 and have a proper continuation someday. Take what worked, ignore what didn't work, and make a truly awesome survival horror style Doom with actual scary demons and oppressive Hell.

 

I wholly second this as well. As awesome as the nuDoom titles are (2016 and Eternal), I can't help but feel that not only have the demons been turned into big red devils instead of otherworldly eldritch abominations, they've basically been reduced to literal punchlines (lol Slayer punches a bajillion demons).

Bringing back legitimately scary demons and a more oppressive version of Hell would be refreshing in my book.