There's something about Doom

What is it about doom that facinates us soo much. Even doom 3 can't topple it. There's something about those pixilated sureal comic book like characters that just intriges me. Along with the atmoshere of Episode 1: Knee deep in the dead. I mean sure Doom 3 is a better game, but there's something abnout Mar--I mean Doom :D

http://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31151

Heh I agree though :D

I can't resist it. I've got a couple old games, including classics I was raised on, and some newer games too. Nevertheless, despite my lack of interest and being tired of a 11 year old engine I just can't oppose the feeling inside me that pushes me into the darkness, in my green armor, wielding a shotgun and a chainsaw and hearing voices in my head.

TEAR! RIP AND TEAR!!!!
I'M THE MAN AND MY GUN IS HUGE!!!!

It's simply the fun factor. It's an arcade game that requires skill. I played it for the first time in a few months earlier today, and I wondered why I stopped playing it. Dodging those revenants rockets and the cacodemons bolt blasts and the baron's of hell fires blasts. It just feels like an old school 2D blast fest put into 3D. It's just plain old fun. Trying to get through a level and destroy everything, it never gets old. I have a 3 year old computer, I can play doom 3, half-life 2, call of duty, all that crap, and yet I keep going back to this 12 year old game, because it's damn fun. It's simple, it's fast, it relieves stress.

http://www.doomworld.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23712
just to warn you that this very thread may earn you a reputation like mine :P

Its fun, looks decent, and is easy to work with!!!

The simpler a game looks, the better the gameplay is.
The more detailed a game looks, the more poor the gameplay is.
That's the way I look at it most of the time.
I don't care if they see me as a wacko.

DarkJedi188 said:

The simpler a game looks, the better the gameplay is.
The more detailed a game looks, the more poor the gameplay is.
That's the way I look at it most of the time.
I don't care if they see me as a wacko.

In other words: Wolfenstein 3D is the best FPS ever, right?

DarkJedi188 said:

The simpler a game looks, the better the gameplay is.
The more detailed a game looks, the more poor the gameplay is.
That's the way I look at it most of the time.
I don't care if they see me as a wacko.

So Pong is the epitome of gaming then? And most games pre-1993 are better than Doom?

DarkJedi188 said:

The simpler a game looks, the better the gameplay is.
The more detailed a game looks, the more poor the gameplay is.
That's the way I look at it most of the time.
I don't care if they see me as a wacko.

Your logic makes no sense. You do realize that, in 1993, Doom's graphics were considered top notch, and the level of detail of Doom's map was much higher than any other game out at that time, yet it also has some of the best gameplay you can find.

Just because a game looks good doesn't mean it's impossible for it to be any fun at all.

I'm speaking with regards to today's standards, not 1993 standards.
Compared to something like Half-Life2, Doom is not top-notch detail.
But it is 100% more fun.
And yes, Wolfenstein 3-D is the best FPS right next to DOOM...It's a bit oversimplified, but DOOM is just right on the spot.
I only considered the FPS genre when reaching my conclusion. So anything before 1992 is not included.
I think I make enough sense.

DarkJedi188 said:

I'm speaking with regards to today's standards, not 1993 standards.
Compared to something like Half-Life2, Doom is not top-notch detail.
But it is 100% more fun.
And yes, Wolfenstein 3-D is the best FPS right next to DOOM...It's a bit oversimplified, but DOOM is just right on the spot.
I only considered the FPS genre when reaching my conclusion. So anything before 1992 is not included.
I think I make enough sense.

Wow, that's very specific.

I only considered the FPS genre when reaching my conclusion. So anything before 1992 is not included.

Yeah cause Wolfenstien didnt come out in 1991, and that..game where you ran around in the snow and the map was several miles square, like operation flashpoint but you where on your own didnt come out in 1989, and 'Maze' didnt come out in 1986, and Battlezone (the real one) didnt come out in 1984, and...okay, there was probably not any FPS's before that

Now saying that less detail=better is completely wrong. If it is built to not affect gameplay, imagine two games exactly the same gameplay-wise but one has more detail, or better textures, sounds etc. Obviously the better-detailed one is the better/more enjoyable game.

And besides, Half-Life 2 is a horrible choice to say detail makes a game worse. That game was tested like nuts for smooth gameplay and flows better than most other games(and also has superbly-detailed and designed environments and great graphics capabilities).

I agree that when graphics are used as a selling point or a gimmick that the gameplay tends to suffer, but detail does not have a completely direct relationship with gameplay.

Of course, what makes doom so great, I don't know. I think the low-quality sounds, and the sprites and environments with a great harsh feel just give it a special charm that is impossible to verbally identify. I find this with all older FPS's - they have a very different effect on me than fully 3d games.

I'm sick. I don't like any "new" games as much as DOOM. If DOOM would be the most popular game on the world, i would be happy. But one thing in Wolf 3-d pisses me off. It's hard to modify, cos' you'll need to program it yourself.

deathbringer said:

Battlezone (the real one) didnt come out in 1984

This is a true statement.

DumbSCRIPTguy said:

But one thing in Wolf 3-d pisses me off. It's hard to modify, cos' you'll need to program it yourself.

Have you tried the tools listed here?

Grazza said:

This is a true statement.
Have you tried the tools listed here?

Yes, but if you want to code new features to it, you'll need to program it yourselfl.

DumbSCRIPTguy said:

But one thing in Wolf 3-d pisses me off. It's hard to modify, cos' you'll need to program it yourself.

Try mapping for Rise Of The Triad.
It's 80% similar to Wolf 3-d (no height variations, no diagonal walls), yet it offers a variety of features which have already been programmed for you, such as fog lighting effects, damaging floor terrains, elevating platforms, a variety of floor tiles, crushing walls similar to Doom's crushing ceilings....
It should make you quite happy.

DarkJedi188 said:

Try mapping for Rise Of The Triad.
It's 80% similar to Wolf 3-d (no height variations, no diagonal walls)

Wrooong.
Wolf 3d-no height
Rott-heigh indeed.

Actually, thinking back to the days when I played ROTT, I can't remember one height change. The only way they changed floor height was with those damn floating circular platforms, but they weren't actual sectors.

Nmn said:

Wrooong.
Wolf 3d-no height
Rott-heigh indeed.

There were some sprites used for height (catwalks, jump-pads, and gravitational anomaly disks), but if you take a look at the actual solid walls and sectors,you'll realize that they all have one consistent & uniform height throuhout an entire map.
That was what I meant. Don't let the simplicity fool you :p

I like DooM over other FPSs for a couple of reasons:
1. I love fast paced hectic action. I've played plenty of modern FPSs and none of them has been as hectic as DooM is.
2. Nostalgy factor, I mean, I used to play this game back in time when I was only about eight years old (that's pretty many years ago)!
3. It can be scaaaaaaary. Boo.
4. More custom content than any other FPS game has ever got.

2 reasons here:

1. Lots of custom content
2. It's fairly easy to modify

DarkJedi188 said:

The simpler a game looks, the better the gameplay is.
The more detailed a game looks, the more poor the gameplay is.
That's the way I look at it most of the time.
I don't care if they see me as a wacko.

What?
You must really love Doom3 with r_showlightcount set to 1, then.

Do we agree that "game play" is the fun you have playing?
The way a game looks affects this heavily. Take Doom and substitute all patches and sprites with solid gray. Does the game become more fun? I doubt it. And speaking of environmental detail, it is only in recent time 3D games have caught up with the detail level of 2D games.

I think Starcraft (2D) looks more detailed than Force Commander (3D), whereas Empire at War (3D, upcoming) and CnC: Generals (3D) seem to be on par with Starcraft's level of detail.

Compare the "terrain" of The dig (2D) and Quake3: Team Arena (3D). Sure, "Q3: TA"'s terrain is in full 3D, but the terrain in "The Dig" looks a lot more detailed.

Anyway. I for one think that recent games with detail levels on par with what we were used to seeing in 2D games have been more fun and immersive than earlier 3D games.

DarkJedi188 said:

The simpler a game looks, the better the gameplay is.
The more detailed a game looks, the more poor the gameplay is.
That's the way I look at it most of the time.
I don't care if they see me as a wacko.

It's a good thing too because that's a pretty damn "wacko" statement.

ALL areas of a game need to be tended to. It should look good, sound good, and play well. If any of these is missing, or overlooked, the game is going to suffer. Developers should use every resource they have to the fullest.

I think doom is as fun as it is because it's pretty simple and easy to get into. You can fire it up, play for a few minutes, and then go do something else. It's not a high-maintenance game, though I guess some people like those types.