Gameplay

Well I recently saw that this is a monorail car. Combined with the statements of JC about vehicle code I can imagine the player riding this monorail(HL1 like) In the 2nd part of the Doom3 PCZONE interview a few scenes are desribed. These scenes sound very, very FPS to me!

***SPOILER ALERT***

Let me describe a typical scene. You've entered an area of the UAC base that's been overtaken by Hell, the metallic walls and grey fittings ceding to a Dantean vision of blood-red walls and viscera-strewn caverns. All seems quiet as you locate the item you were looking for - a data stick or some such trifle, to be uploaded to a PDA-like device that holds all your mission information. However, as soon as you make to leave, you somehow awaken a demon, and right on cue all hell breaks loose. Frenzied imps spawn in a dozen places at once, emerging from pentagram-like portals in a burst of magma, pelting you with fireballs and blocking your exit.

One scene tasks you with removing some poisonous gas canisters from a room by picking them up remotely with a crane arm and dumping them in a disposal unit. Thus ensues a brief mini-game that works like a UFO-catcher machine in an arcade, though with rather less frustrating results.

Hmmmmm.. You have to play before you can judge, but this brief mini-game sounds a bit too standard FPS/HL2 puzzle like. But I quess we all knew/Know that Doom3 is not going to be revolutional on the gameplay part.

What were you expecting? Pat Benatar?

All I want is a fun game, I could give less a crap about innovation, the lighting engine and physics engine and what not do it for me for that.

Heh


*Waits for Andrewb to go "OMG DOOM3 SUXORS CAUSE IT CAN'T GIVE ME A HUMMAR!!!"

I´ve looked at this screenshot a dozen times, but I never noticed that it´s actually a train :)

Games that try to bring revolutionary new gameplay often fail with the core gameplay. With core gameplay I mean the basic, but most important aspects like player movement, weapon handling and balancing, monster design and monster attack schemes, interaction between monsters and player (also monsters being able to fight each other), and how all those aspects come together in a smooth, harmonic way. id Softwares games have never disappointed me with the core gameplay, and that´s why its much more fun to play some custom Quake1 singleplayer map instead of playing, for example, Unreal2, which has a terrible core gameplay.

Tetzlaff said:

id Softwares games have never disappointed me with the core gameplay, and that´s why its much more fun to play some custom Quake1 singleplayer map instead of playing, for example, Unreal2, which has a terrible core gameplay.

I'm a big fan of new ideas and innovations when done well and integrated into the game well. I prefer Deus Ex to Quake/2 or RTCW by a long way for example, but I think you make an excellent point about Id software's output. If it's pure, stripped down FPS gameplay you want, I'd agree with you entirely that ID software are nearly unbeatable in this respect.

Yes, and I don´t mean that FPS (or id´s games in particular) have to stop there. If the core gameplay is done right, then you can evolve and innovate all sorts of new gameplay on top of that.

Deus Ex is one of my favourite First-person games, I really enjoyed the deep story (compared to other FPS) and the non-linear and interactive approach. Way to go for the First-person genre!
But the basic gameplay (apart from the story evolution) lacked in many aspects: the RPG style upgrade system made the weapon handling joyless until you finally upgraded your weapon to a decent status, the Cyber implants were poorely implemented and really awful to use, the enemies were repetitiv (no diversity in combat), the level design, though inspiring in it´s non-linearity and multi path aspects, failed on the visual design (which is important for creating athmosphere) and looked downright amateurish in many places. So, Deus Ex made a big leap in story telling and non-linear game design, but didn´t put enough effort in the other design aspects.

The Deus Ex demo pretty much confirmed for me that gameplay innovation means zippo to me. I won't go into details how little the demo ended up appealing to me, because I'm afraid fans of Deus Ex's innovative gameplay will get pissed at me, so I'll get to the point:

Doom 3, for me at least, will succeed with flying colours if the atmosphere, core gameplay (what Tetzlaff said) and design surpass that of any Quake game. Leave gameplay innovation to Ion Storm, 3dRealms or other FPS developers.

dsm said:

The Deus Ex demo pretty much confirmed for me that gameplay innovation means zippo to me.

Basically everyone agrees that the first mission of Deus Ex is the worst. It gets much, much better.

Linguica said:

Basically everyone agrees that the first mission of Deus Ex is the worst. It gets much, much better.

Damn right... the game just keeps escalating for a long time after the first few missions. The globe trotting was awesome as well.

John Carmack himself:

We decided Doom 3's gameplay is not going to be some wild innovation - it's a first-person shooter. There are a lot of arguments that can be made about game design, and I prefer simplicity and elegance. There are big arguments that happen inside id over 'do we wanna have an additional control for something like this?', and I'm always the one saying we want the minimum number of everything, because I want it to be simple and fun to play.

In terms of controls, i think everybody agrees that simplicity and elegance are important. I hate it when I play a game, and much search for the [ALT] R combination to do something in the game. But I think that more innovative gameplay and controls do not have to go hand in hand.

There is no standard how to assess gameplay, but here I go (again):

took some stuff from http://www.gamedev.net/reference/list.asp?categoryid=23#21

Meaningful Interactions: The only interactions I want in a game is "shoot the basterd". For me it is not neccecary to have interactions with doors or "....gas canisters from a room by picking them up remotely with a crane arm and dumping them in a disposal unit"
Point of Diminishing Returns: I think on the point of User Interface (the graphics) there is not much to say about doom3 but..fantastic!
Responsiveness: With all this phisycs going on. I guess the world will be very responsive.
Assumption Boundaries I have not played the game, so I guess that all assumptions made in the game are correct. Allthough I think the whipping Zombie is strange....Why doesn't he take up any arms? Or is he only whipping during close combat?
Levels of Reality I thought it was real..
Compelling or Interesting Characters Hmmmm, Doomguy, demons, Dr. Betruger, scientists... I don't know how doom3 is going to do here..
Evolving Characters I would like to see this.. but I think I,m the only one.
History and Environment I think the history to the story will be very thin.. like "Oh shit demons, shoot them". On the other hand maybe they tell something on Dr. Betruger..
A Story Worth Following This was a weak point.. I hope this will change..

I agree with you Tetzlaff that a game just should play well balanced and all that shit, but that should apply for all games. I would like to see more...(see above)

dsm: you should definitely try Deus Ex, it´s very worthy despite it´s design flaws. The world feels alive in Deus Ex, you meet many different characters and there is a lot happening along the way. The NPCs aren´t just dummies like in other FPS games (even if they often look like the same model with a different skin), they all have their own personality and background story (and you aren´t forced to hear all that, you only talk if you want), that adds a lot to the game.

I never expected Doom3's gameplay to be wildly different from any other standard fps, and apparently that's the way it's going to be. But I cant say it really bothers me either. As long as it's as fun as Doom, Quake, or half-life, I'll be perfectly happy.

Tetzlaff said:

dsm: you should definitely try Deus Ex, it´s very worthy despite it´s design flaws. The world feels alive in Deus Ex, you meet many different characters and there is a lot happening along the way. The NPCs aren´t just dummies like in other FPS games (even if they often look like the same model with a different skin), they all have their own personality and background story (and you aren´t forced to hear all that, you only talk if you want), that adds a lot to the game.

Plus the fact that it is possible to have divergences in the plot. Despite finishing it 3 times, I have never managed to stop Paul (your brother) from dying and it was only on the last time that I prevented the helicopter explosion that kills Jock.

I remember being amazed at going into the ladies' and harassing the woman in there, and then getting bollocked by manderly at my next mission briefing.

Games that try to bring revolutionary new gameplay often fail with the core gameplay. With core gameplay I mean the basic, but most important aspects like player movement, weapon handling and balancing, monster design and monster attack schemes, interaction between monsters and player (also monsters being able to fight each other), and how all those aspects come together in a smooth, harmonic way. id Softwares games have never disappointed me with the core gameplay, and that´s why its much more fun to play some custom Quake1 singleplayer map instead of playing, for example, Unreal2, which has a terrible core gameplay.

Doom1 was an exception, and I hope Doom3.

Has everyone forgotten the alpha already? Go play that and see how the gameplay works, although A LOT must have been changed and revolutionized, it still forms a fundamental impression of how the game will be like. Its innovative and immersive without forgoing the simplicity and elegance the game originally intended to be.

Mini-games inside of games are definitely a good thing. Keeps a good variety of gameplay, keeps the game fresh, and such.

But again, they imply extreme overwhelming difficutly. This does not make a game scary. Doom was quite scary, and it wasn't because it was difficult (which it wasn't). It was because the game convinced you it was difficult.

AndrewB said:

which it wasn't

I take it you still haven't touched Nightmare :P

If you have, congratulations.

From what I saw in the alpha, the "Core Gameplay" is spot on. I ENJOYED playing it, even at 10fps (on my old system :P), over 3 small levels. It feels right, once you get used to not being able to zoom about everywhere like you can in a lot of games.

it wasn't because it was difficult (which it wasn't). It was because the game convinced you it was difficult.

I take it someone hasn't tried Nightmare.

If you did, and didn't find it to be difficult, then you have ascended beyond the level of Doom's mortal players, and are worthy of our praise and worship.

That was sarcasm, mind you.

dsm said:

The Deus Ex demo pretty much confirmed for me that gameplay innovation means zippo to me. I won't go into details how little the demo ended up appealing to me, because I'm afraid fans of Deus Ex's innovative gameplay will get pissed at me, so I'll get to the point:

Doom 3, for me at least, will succeed with flying colours if the atmosphere, core gameplay (what Tetzlaff said) and design surpass that of any Quake game. Leave gameplay innovation to Ion Storm, 3dRealms or other FPS developers.

Agreed. When I play doom what I want is to pick up a gun, and have to mow hordes of creatures down while they violently and suddenly attack me. Doom has always been about gameplay and the concept that your fighting demons makes it all that much better.

Doom was not about mowing down hordes of monsters. If it were just that, it would get repetitive and tiring. It was a good balance between horde-fights, light puzzle-solving, dexterity challenges, and navigation.

I Love Stupid Stuff said:

I take it someone hasn't tried Nightmare.

heh

AndrewB said:

Doom was not about mowing down hordes of monsters. If it were just that, it would get repetitive and tiring. It was a good balance between horde-fights, light puzzle-solving, dexterity challenges, and navigation.

It was about mowing down hordes of monsters to me. I never had problems witht he puzzles and navigation, just the frickin cyberdemon, and archviles, which is why im glad i had a couple hundred rounds in my chaingun ;). Its something different to everyone but the truth is the game is fun and thats why so many liked it

The game was fun, but what's important is why it was fun. That's something that can't be answered in few words. Fun, long-lasting gameplay is a science, a formula, a delicate balance...

Like GTA3, and although there is a sequel, I still play that one a lot. Not even doing the missions just driving around and shooting people. It was revolutionary, I think. Now when half the games come out now that I haven't played, people always tell me "Yeah its kinda like GTA3". When you've reached that level in a game you create that many others (some that don't even marginally relate) use yours as a comparison to describe others' games, you know you've created a classic. After doom 3 comes out, many will still play D1, some on their cell phones. Yes, some could consider that D3 will be boring action wise when compared to D1, but most of the levels in Doom weren't just blasting away at hordes and hordes of monsters anyway. I would enjoy a fight with one or two now monsters that require actual skill to kill, than a 100 and have the fights last the same amount of time anyway.

What would everyone think of a part in the game where you have to leave all your weapons behind, and are forced into a chase with a very angery and fast monster, unarmed? I think that would rock.

If Doom 3 ends up being a super graphical and clever AI (Clever as in not run into walls) version of Quake 2 with all the original Doom cast then it will be a god send for me... coz i loved doom and quake 2's basic story yet amazing gameplay.

Lectrix said:

If Doom 3 ends up being a super graphical and clever AI (Clever as in not run into walls) version of Quake 2 with all the original Doom cast then it will be a god send for me... coz i loved doom and quake 2's basic story yet amazing gameplay.

That makes two of us, however I'm already convinced that Doom 3's gameplay will be much more than just basic Quake 2 gameplay with the original Doom cast reinterpreted.

Teh Macvileness said:

All I want is a fun game, I could give less a crap about innovation, the lighting engine and physics engine and what not do it for me for that.

Yeah, I agree. I don't play a game because it has the latest new stuff or has such innovative gameplay, I just consider those plusses. If the game is fun, but looks uglier than dirt, it's still fun, and that is all that matters. If the game is supar pretty but plays like ass, I won't like it.

People who only like a game because it's "the next big thing" are assholes.

BBG said:

Yeah, I agree. I don't play a game because it has the latest new stuff or has such innovative gameplay, I just consider those plusses. If the game is fun, but looks uglier than dirt, it's still fun, and that is all that matters. If the game is supar pretty but plays like ass, I won't like it.

People who only like a game because it's "the next big thing" are assholes.

heh. Wy does everybody have such a square look at games? The funfactor is a result of all the impressions you get from the game.

Shaviro said:

heh. Wy

The fun factor is from the game algorithm element, or how well one event makes you want to continue playing to the next event and so on.

There's a goldmine of undiscovered and untried great game recipes. The redundancy in the game "industry" is pathetic. I think that the video game "industry" is the victim of its own success and competitiveness. Nobody can wander off the path and try fresh new gameplay or technological innovations, because they're at risk of falling behind the pack.

By technological innovations, constantly increasing the number of polygons and flashy visual tricks doesn't count. I'd say that the whole polygon/texture model is inefficient and outdated.

AndrewB said:

I'd say that the whole polygon/texture model is inefficient and outdated.

Fine, since you obviously have a good idea of where the industry is going next, why don't you express the idea and capitalize on it yourself?