Idiotic Doomers (yes, you)

You know, there's a reason I left these forums. Many people decided it was because I was so hated, or because I lost my moderating privileges.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

True, while I did mourn the loss of my mod status, and while nobody likes to be hated, neither of these were enough to make me leave. No, the reason I left is because I realized I hate "real Doomers".

I can't tell you how many times I have read threads in these forums which state (not word for word but generally), "I hate newer, more realistic games! Halo and Half-Life are way too real!" How could you be so moronic? How is it possible? For one thing (and these are JUST examples, nothing more) Halo, nor Half-Life, are very realistic at all, and for another thing, what the hell is your problem with realistic games? Get used to it! Games are moving towards increased realism. There aren't going to be any more games like Doom coming out. There will never BE a Doom 3 in the vein that most of you seem to want. The Doom 3 that IS coming is a drastic step away from Doom in terms of gameplay, a step towards *gasp* realism.

A lot of people here like to say that realism countacts escapism, which for most people, is the primary point of videogaming. How could you think this? The very logic behind it is flawed. The point is that while people DO want to escape from reality, it is the only reality they know, and people cannot relate to things they cannot imagine happening in this reality. Thus, they want violent shootouts in office buildings, and gory, flaming explosions in city streets. Nobody these days cares about something happening on a moonbase a long, long time from now, on a moon far, far away. Case in point: Unreal 2.

And for that matter, why is it that every time someone mentions that they like a game more than Doom, they are instantly accused of hating Doom? And why is it that any time someone mentions that they don't think Doom isn't the best game ever, or even that they don't think it's the best FPS ever, they get flamed? It's patently ridiculous, and it's behavior like this that's making me sorry to admit I still play the damn game, because I might get associated with the idiots who frequent this forum!

Even worse are the "old-school" Doomers. Look, fuckers. I still have my version 1.1 "registered" floppies. I beat the game on Ultra-Violence (because back then, there was no Nightmare) and then lanned it over an old, crotchety 10Base2 Netware network at school. What do I have to do to be more "old-school"? Apparently, if you don't regard doom2.exe deathmatch as the pinnacle of multiplayer gaming, you don't even like Doom, and you're obviously not "old-school."

Look, people. It's a goddamned video game. It's not even a particularly exceptional video game. It was when it came out - because it was the first game to truly give the illusion of 3D. That's the ONLY reason it was particularly exceptional. It's a good FPS - a decent assortment of weapons, moderately varied enemies, solid-if-uninspired level design, good texturing (for the time, naturally), and all of the other things that make an FPS good. But step back into reality and take a look around, folks. It's not the end-all be-all of FPSes.

I'm not even trying to make anyone abandon the game, which is what most people will expect when they read this post. I'm just tired and irritated with this paranoid, bipolar, isolationist doctrine which seems to permeate this community, and which is only perpetuated by these forums. It disgusts me. There are some good discussions going on here, and I really hate to see them ruined by idiocy.

Anyway, I've said my piece. I'll probably be outie in a week. Expect an update to my "fanfic" before I go.

-1, Troll

Katarhyne said:

No, the reason I left is because I realized I hate "real Doomers".

All fanatics are assholes, that's for sure. But I do not encounter many of them here on the forum. So don't post in the fanatic sections I would suggest.

Heh. I mostly agree with this. Personaly, I don't like realism. Reality is pretty lame. But still, I won't snub a game just because it has better graphics. Personaly, I like Half-Life a lot. It has great single player that really immerses you and it completely blew me away the first time I played it. Deathmatch blows ass with it, but there are some great mods out there for it. Halo was also a great game. I didn't like it for its shiny graphics at all, but the physics were fucking great. My favorite thing though had to be the vehicles. Blowing jeeps sky high, gettng into a tank and rampaging across the map like a juggernaught, or jousting on jetbikes. It was all good. I think i played a total of five minutes of single player, but multiplayer was enough to keep me entertained for weeks.

To tell you the truth, the reason I don't buy many high-graphics games (besides the fact that I have no 3d card) is because most of them seem to be shitty FPSes, and to tell you the truth, I really don't like FPSes (shock, horror). The only thing that kept me buying them was Id Wolfenstein was the first I played, I got addicted to Doom a few times, the Heretic series was great thanks to Raven, and Quake 1 and 2 were pretty damn cool. Half-Life I got because several friends reccomended it, Thief I got because I played a demo of it one one of those damned Eidos disks and I liked it, and UT I pretty much got on a dare (but it turned out to be moderately fun). Thing is, I just kind of suck at them...my aiming is always off (funny because I'm an excellent shot at both archery and paintball), my reflexes are a little slow, and it seems no matter who I play aganst, at least one of them is some crazy fucker who plays the game 10 hours a day and can't be beat. Not to mention I get kind of bored with switch quest kind of stuff which is basically what every single FPS since Catacomb 3-D has had, no matter how hard they try to hide it.

There are other new games I like as well. GTA3 is an excellent game for various reasons. I mean, its possibly one of the most open ended games ever (besides SIM games Civ, or other such stuff)...you can steal cars, go for joy rides, get hired to assassinate people, go on crazy police-killing rampages, try to not fly the Dodo into the ocean, or just sit around and listen to the passerbys bitch about stuff. Civilization 3 is a relatively new game that kicks ass to, and compared to its predecesors, has damn good graphics. I mean, you can actualy see the guys fight and stuff instead of them just running into each other with a few funky explosion sprites and noise.

Then there's my newest obsession - RPGs. True, the most advanced one I have at the moment is Icewind Dale 2, but I'm looking at Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind now and they seem to be pretty damn cool. Thing is, I'll need to make myself a new computer just to play them (thats my new computer objective - make a box that can play both games :D). And for them, realism seems to just increase the fun. I mean, RPG video games have gone a long way since Akalabeth's damn wireframe Gelatinous Cubes. Just try to play an old Ultima game and tell me it doesn't give you a headache. Hmm...now that would be something...a gelatinous cube with ripple effects and transparency in 3d-card glory. /me begins to daydream

Katarhyne said:

A lot of people here like to say that realism countacts escapism, which for most people, is the primary point of videogaming. How could you think this? The very logic behind it is flawed. The point is that while people DO want to escape from reality, it is the only reality they know, and people cannot relate to things they cannot imagine happening in this reality. Thus, they want violent shootouts in office buildings, and gory, flaming explosions in city streets. Nobody these days cares about something happening on a moonbase a long, long time from now, on a moon far, far away. Case in point: Unreal 2.

Very nice diatribe. Your vitriol is something that shall be admired for ages due to it's elegantsimplicity. Anyway, I agree with you to some degree. Indeed, there are myopic idiots everwhere you go and this forum is no exception. You, having claimed that this forum is the perpetuant of Doom-elitism and general stupidity, have forgotten, simply, that stupidity begets stupidity no matter what variety or wherever it may be. I'd imagine that the reason ultra fanatic Doomers say what they do is that they simply cannot express adequately what makes Doom unique to them, so they resort to posting idiotic threads of "Doom vs _____". It could also be taken into consideration that these Doomers, mostly newbies it seems, are simply juvenile in nature and will grow up, eliminating their desire to impress senior forum members with pro-Doom banter and anti-anything else slander. Just bear in mind that stupidity thrives within a majority of people you encounter in day to day life; and even if those people's virulent idiocy tainted the better part of life (which is generally the case) it would be unreasonable to just "quit life" for that very reason.

...who said anything about quitting life? I'm quitting the forum again.

Katarhyne said:

I can't tell you how many times I have read threads in these forums which state (not word for word but generally), "I hate newer, more realistic games! Halo and Half-Life are way too real!" How could you be so moronic? How is it possible? For one thing (and these are JUST examples, nothing more) Halo, nor Half-Life, are very realistic at all, and for another thing, what the hoop is your problem with realistic games? Get used to it!

I wanted to respond to this part in particular...

You misunderstand entirely. It's not about hating realistic games, or games being too real. It's about games being caught up in graphics and technology, and fun/addictiveness being left behind.

Let me tell you how I see it. Graphics technology is moving forward at an incredible rate. Constantly accelerating. Hard drive space is becoming unlimited. Developers have to push and push hard to meet the new limits in technology. They basically have to build a game engine that's up to par, and toss in some gameplay. Yet if they don't release their game soon enough, their graphics technology will be criticised for being outdated. So they have to cut away the development time reserved for actually making a game. If they don't they'll fall out of the picture and be seen as insignificant.

Addictive/fun gameplay is a science. You can't just take a next-gen graphics engine, throw in some standard gameplay, and expect it to be worthwhile. This is why many people (possibly even you, from the impression I get from you) endlessly concentrate on having the best machine and great graphics. It's become more of the game than actual games.

And yes, it is a huge problem for those seeking some keep-you-awake-at-night-wanting-to-play-again-tomorrow type fun.

Katarhyne said:

stuff

OMG NO DOOM IS THE ONLY GAME REALISM IS FOR IDIOTS LOL CALL URSELF OLDSKOOL???1111 I STILL PLAY DOOM ON MY 486 LOL BEAT THAT OMG PEOPLE WITH MODERN COMPUTARS ARE STUPID IDIOTS DOOM ALL THE WAY!!!!!111111

I totally agree with you Kat.

Doom isn't the best game ever, there are far more involving and playable games out there. OMG I HATE DOOM LOL. Sure it's fun but IMO it gets old pretty fast. I rarely play it these days.

Hmm, it's not so much a Doom community, more a community of gamers, who play Doom. Which really includes most gamers in the teenage onwards age bracket :P

Damn school filtering software won't let me post with swearing :(

AndrewB said:

stuff

Graphics are key to the entire game. If it's ugly, it won't sell. I mean come on, would you rather play a pretty game or an ugly game? And your first impressions are mostly based on how it looks. OK so a pretty game with little gameplay won't do well but it will do better and receive more exposure than an ugly game with lots of gameplay.

Sorry for double posting.

Lollerskates @ this whole thread.

I will say, however, that I like bizarre and unrealistic stuff - especially within the realm of escapist SF - as long as it's well-done and not generic, retarded retreads of bad movie plots (Case in point: Unreal 2).

I don't really care about forum elitism or fanaticism, as that's something that's omnipresent in every corner of the internet to one degree or another, and this place for the most part more mild than many I've seen (Case in point: the old "Immortalizing the Moment" forums loosely based around the works of Jhonen Vasquez that turned into a mutual masturbation party for haughty, stuck-up mid-20s camwhores). After a while you get used to hearing the random few people bleating and whining and screaming in every community, and just tune them out. It's kinda something you gotta do when you're using this whole interweb thing. I'm relatively new here but it's a fun place, and general idiocy kind of goes along with the whole "being human and living on Earth" thing. :)

I mean, hell, if you want STUPID, just look at the OTHER forum I frequent. :)

zarcyb said:

Graphics are key to the entire game. If it's ugly, it won't sell. I mean come on, would you rather play a pretty game or an ugly game? And your first impressions are mostly based on how it looks. OK so a pretty game with little gameplay won't do well but it will do better and receive more exposure than an ugly game with lots of gameplay.

*Swish...* Did something just fly over your head?

I mean seriously, WT_, I've never seen such outrageous gaming bigotry in my life.

First of all, there's a difference between having advanced graphics and looking pretty. Those are two totally separate, unrelated things. There are plenty of old games that look much nicer than new, popular ones. I'll name a few old ones. Super Mario Bros 3. Donkey Kong Country. SimCity 2000. Okay, compare that to Quake 2, Operation Flashpoint, and Counter-Strike. Three graphically gorgeous games and three bat-ugly games. Can you tell which are which?

All I really want to say is that addicting game-making is a science. I can't emphasise that enough. You need to have a really well-thought-out gaming formula that induces gamer experimentation.

And might I add, responding to your general post, that today's graphics are coming at a cost of gameplay. Not nearly enough time is being spent on looking for ways to make a fun little virtual toy. It's not enough to simply extend development time for gameplay. The gameplay formula must be the foundation, and the graphics/sounds must be the appendages. I use the term "must" meaning it is a necessity for optimal fun. Modern developers almost never do it anymore, because they have to catch people's eyes to sell the product. Graphics can easily be plastered on a cardboard ad. Gameplay cannot be advertised effectively. So graphics wins out.

i think i liked doom because it was one of very few FPSs that wasn't all about the money. tom hall and john romero loved their games with a passion. romero announces BIRTHDAYS for his games on his own website about them. he plays doom dm in tournaments still, and more than anything he loves what he does. of course i play doom for sentimental value. designers are forced to make games they don't even want to make now, for the sake of trying to have the most high-tech crap, which is what people really seem to want in an FPS nowadays. the industry is far too competitive for companies to try anything new and original now. how many FPSs AREN'T sequels (at least in name) anymore? doomIII, postal2, half-life2, soldier of fortune2, hexen2, hereticII, quake2, quake3, quake4, duke nukem forever, deus ex 2, RTCW, ... no one designs for fun anymore. sequels are just a way to lure the same old audience back, to give people a familiar brand name. when you have a company like id that has to blackmail 2/3 of its oldest employees to make a game they don't want to make, and a head designer who would have rather made an RPG, you have to wonder whether the company still enjoys what it's doing, or are just following their pocketbooks.

daikatana was an attempt at originality, a failed attempt, but at least it tried to do something different, which is far more than i can say for most other games in recent years. i'll take failed originality to successful mimicry without question. most (especially the older, big-name) gaming companies now design solely for the purpose of making money.
every now and then a smaller company will make a breakthrough (such as valve) but how long can you expect them to keep their integrity towards making good, original games? if you've read some of my posts in the war thread you'll see i'm a fucking insane supporter of capitalism. but capitalism has fucked over this genre, and i happen to prefer the simple, feel-good designing days of doom.

:applauds: Excellent! This thread didn't turn into a flamewar, as predicted by some, but rather an intelligent discussion. This is what happens when you make valid points in an eloquent manner. ^.^

First off - Dan, why didn't you tell me you were building a new box? :(

Second, Job, you are correct, or at least correct enough in my eyes to warrant a rare compliment. Good post.

Thirdly, AndrewB - you and I have gone around and around on this very topic and you're still making all the right points for all the wrong reasons, and neither acknowledging nor responding to any of my points, because when you hold the view that you do, there is no response. So, basically, I'm going to ignore your posts lke I usually do, because I just don't have the patience to deal with your blindness anymore.

Lastly, baldy... Excellent post, and I honestly agree with large portions of it. Id is not doing what they want to do right now; that much is clear and it's rather pitiful but what they're doing seems a step in the right direction and so I am at least interested, if not a little excited. I don't think they're in it strictly for the money, but I do think that's their primary motivation - Carmack has said that there's very little innovation left in 3D graphics, and he obviously has a lot more fun with Armadillo Aerospace. That said...

Not all sequels are unoriginal. I know this will probably hurt your head, as it seems oxymoronic, but it's the truth. Postal 2, for example, is completely different from the first game, and also very original.

Designers these days aren't forced to make games they don't want to make for the sake of using the most high-tech crap, but usually the other way around - they're not allowed to experiment with the high-tech crap because they're making games for the PIII 667 and Geforce2 MX that the guy in Wal-mart is using. I know a fair number of designers who would be happy to let loose and blow the world away with some amazing things, were it not for their boss's demands. Id is in a perfect position to do just that, and yet they're giving us Doom 3, which is really a modest upgrade from Unreal 2 (technologically), because it will make more money. Not that I'm complaining about it - I WANT Doom 3 - but I do think it's sad.

Katarhyne said:

Not all sequels are unoriginal. I know this will probably hurt your head, as it seems oxymoronic, but it's the truth. Postal 2, for example, is completely different from the first game, and also very original.

i never claimed (or at least, meant to make the claim) that sequels are unoriginal. i just finished up postal2 today and it was certainly an original game for the most part, and i enjoyed it. by mentioning the sequels, i was aiming to highlight the lack of original names in the industry. games don't even need to share anything in common with its prequels (quakes, anyone?) to share the same name nowadays. certainly, sequels can be creative, but when companies start making them a habit, you have to wonder how much work was spent in the design department, and how much work was spent in the PR department.

Ah. 'Tis true.

You should have highlighted "names" and not "original" in that last post. ^_^

Katarhyne said:

Ah. 'Tis true.

You should have highlighted "names" and not "original" in that last post. ^_^

/me changes it

i should get some sleep :P

Umm, I don't recall ever seeing anyone in the DW forums saying the reason they dislike modern games is because they're too realistic.

Heh, on the point of idiotic Doomers, there's a specific Doomer I'm going to target.

He says that Doom2.exe is the only true deathmatch, yet he uses ZDaemon. Last time I checked, ZDaemon was hardly Doom2.exe. He also complained that jumping / freelook is "Quake" and WANTS THEM REMOVED FROM ALL PORTS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE THEM. What kind of gay bullshit is that? I just find it totally amusing that he claims to be a Doom purist yet uses source ports.

Kat rules.

Iv'e had my fun with doom, no more levels from me. Realistic games are fun most of the time, they allow you to do the things in which you would like to do in real life and have the same desired aftermath. You shoot a terrorist, he falls over and twitches, then dies.. not melt into a green puddle of ooze or blow into a million pieces in a cloud of blood and femur bones.

There is two sides to the coin, out of this world fake games are also fun.. Serious Sam, for example.. but it seems a little like watching a Buggs Bunny cartoon these days.. just.......... childish. Bring on the mp5s!

AndrewB said:
You misunderstand entirely. It's not about hating realistic games, or games being too real. It's about games being caught up in graphics and technology, and fun/addictiveness being left behind.

Oh my fucking god... I have to agree with AndrewB on this!

o_O

NiGHTMARE said:

Umm, I don't recall ever seeing anyone in the DW forums saying the reason they dislike modern games is because they're too realistic.

Yes, complaints about "realism" are generally not about the games looking too realistic, but rather the gameplay becoming slow and tedious due to an extreme need for stealth/caution, etc., even though that may very well be a realistic portrayal of real-life combat situations.

I don't give a rat's ass about graphics in a game. It's about as important to me as the color of my socks when I play tennis or whatever, I see games as sports. The game can be as realistic or unrealistic as it pleases, if it has addicting gameplay I'll stick with it, othervise I'll throw it in the trash.

I also don't recall anyone ever getting flamed simply because they said that Doom isn't the best game ever. I've said this loads of times and no-one ever flamed me.

Are you sure you aren't confusing the DW forums with the Newdoom forums Kat? ;)

NiGHTMARE said:

I also don't recall anyone ever getting flamed simply because they said that Doom isn't the best game ever. I've said this loads of times and no-one ever flamed me.

Are you sure you aren't confusing the DW forums with the Newdoom forums Kat? ;)

Goddamn, the Newdoom forums aren't like that. I goddamn hate this stupid grudge between the two. As a user of both, I feel I have to say something when a usere on either forum says something like this about the other (which they often do).


I would stay clear of saying that unrealistic games are any more childish than realistic ones. Or indeed that any game is more or less childish than any other. Having lots of gore or nudity certainly doesn't make a game more adult (although it'll up the rating), and neither does having gameplay which requires huge amounts of planning or thought.

Katarhyne said:

I'm quitting the forum again.

<Ralphis> I'M LEAVING
<Ralphis> AGAIN

I agree for the most part with Kat. I posted something a while ago about Far Cry and I was impressed by the graphics of the game. Although the comparison with Doom III was useless since both games are going for a different approach, I admit that, I disliked some reactions that I got about posting stuff about Far Cry. I can't really remember the exact reactions, but most of the time when you dare to say that another fps out there might be just as good or even better than Doom III some people here react like: "What the hell? Those graphics suck. Look at that little light over there, that doesn't look real enough!! Doom III's lighting is better!"

It's the same with sportsfanatics. They're too much a fan of a team to be able to see the truth.

Katarhyne said:
I can't tell you how many times I have read threads in these forums which state (not word for word but generally), "I hate newer, more realistic games! Halo and Half-Life are way too real!" How could you be so moronic? How is it possible? For one thing (and these are JUST examples, nothing more) Halo, nor Half-Life, are very realistic at all, and for another thing, what the hell is your problem with realistic games? Get used to it! Games are moving towards increased realism. There aren't going to be any more games like Doom coming out.

And for that matter, why is it that every time someone mentions that they like a game more than Doom, they are instantly accused of hating Doom?B]

Disclaimer: I haven't read this entire thread very carefully, as I'm late for school. So, here's my reply.

Hmm...I agree with you very much so. I generally don't like what are considered very realistic games, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying them. I like a game for it's gameplay and funfactor. Probably why I still play alot of Genesis games. I find them fun. Now, there's alot of newer, "more realistic" games that I like to. Splinter Cell, for example. Half-Life wasn't too bad either. I prefer the gameplay in older games, like Doom, but that doesn't mean I have to attack the new realistic ones. IMO, people just act like idiots at times and overly critique a game based on one aspect of it. And I think that that's what the entire videogame community is looking for in games anymore.

Also, I haven't really noticed people getting flames because they like some games better than Doom. But, that may just be me. I happen to like Rott better than Doom. I also like DDR better than Doom. So, go ahead and flame me now. It's just that I prefer a game like Doom most of the time over others, and that I happen to like the atmosphere of Doom better than other FPS games. It's all just prefrence. Once again, people are idiots and judge people wrongly. So what if I don't like Doom the best anymore. I still respect it for what it is, and I still love mapping for it.

Katarhyne, I agree with you. I'm sad to see you go, but it's your decision and I respect you for being so honest about it. I'm sorry if I ever was one of the people you hate.

I pity the fool that aint down with the oldschool, yo.

werd.

Katarhyne if you feal that way then you should leave. Just reamber one thing. No one made you come to doomworld.com. To me you sound like a big ass. People think diffrently then you do. That's the way life is. Just becouse you think you right dose not give you the right to post some big troll. That self asorbed addatude of your has got to go.