Doom 4 A Certainty

What storyline do you think it will have? Beats me.

I hope they make the player a monster or archangel. I'm sick of playing as a simple looking human having superior agility.

Yay, 3 titles getting rehashed as guaranteed cash earners (again).

Can't say I'm particularly enthused by any of them. :/

exp(x) said:
I bet it's going to suck even more than Doom 3.

/me head explodes

How about I put it in simple terms...bitching about Doom 3 not being like the previous games is like bitching about a Shakespeare play not having aliens and lasers.

As Tim Willits said, it was created as if the first 2 never happened.

How else can I explain my frustration every time someone on here says the game sucks? Don't get me wrong...it's not to me as if it's the absolute greatest game in the world (the orginal is, heh). It is, however, quite enthralling with it's environment and the mood it creates. And I think Hell is quite possibly one of the best, if not THE best, stand-alone FPS levels ever made. That alone to me makes it worth playing, that and the story leading up to the level, and some of it afterward.

Long story short, it's a game that should at least be highly appreciated. You'd almost have to be brain-dead not to appreciate it (which is the case with most "gamers" today).

I'll be fine in an hour.

i like doom 3

Texas Libra said:

How about I put it in simple terms...bitching about Doom 3 not being like the previous games is like bitching about a Shakespeare play not having aliens and lasers.

Who said I was bitching about Doom 3 not being like 1 or 2? Doom 3 sucks no matter how you look at it.

Doom 4: Hell on Earth?

If Doom 4 is made it had BETTER be a Hell on Earth. Thats so blindingly obviously the only way for the game to distinguish itself in terms of gameplay and as a game.

Linguica said:

That answers that I guess

In any event we know this is going to be a boring ass derivative FPS by one of the id satellites (Raven, Nerve, Splash Damage, etc).

As opposed to a boring-ass derivative FPS by id software itself? Doom 3 was a terrible game by any standards.

leileilol said:

i like doom 3

Meh, I liked doom3 better than quake4 and prey.

Jonathan said:
The difference now is that with the old id, we had to wait 11 years for a sequel to Doom 2, and it only happened because the developers sat down and said "it'd be fun to make a Doom sequel".

Bad example. For DOOM you had to wait a year for the sequel, for DOOM 3, five of more years (presuming it's a sequel... but likely so). DOOM 3 wasn't a sequel, but the reuse of a "frachise", a trademarked name and it's associated concept, to make a new "updated" game based on the earlier one. This has been happening for a while; in fact the Quakes are only semi-sequels, like a transition to the current reuse of basic concepts. The difference is that now they feel they can or need to expliot their old more legendary franchises again (Wolf3D, DOOM, Quake). Perhaps it gives them a measure of potential stability, and maybe they aren't so sure any new titles will ever stick as much as their two or three groundbreaking ones did.

That doesn't sound like the ballsy, innovative, breaking-the-mould id that we used to know and love in the early 90's though. Have they gone soft in their old age?

Still making the same games almost 20 years after their initial release may be a safe financial bet, but where's the spark gone?

Well, it's a different world now than it was 15 years ago.

Back then you could scramble a game together in less than a year. Actually at that time Doom was considered to take a lot of time to finish.

The stakes are higher, and I suppose while getting older, you tend to get more careful. But I dunno, maybe they just care about money these days, or they just want to see more games based from a time that they're just as nostalgic about as we are.

Doesn't really matter, all that matters is if you like them or not. If you don't, you move on. Atleast I would, rather than sit around and bitch about it every chance I get.

I really enjoyed playing Doom3, so I'm definitely looking forward to a sequel... however, I hope they add more non-linearity this time!

myk said:

Bad example. For DOOM you had to wait a year for the sequel, for DOOM 3, five of more years (presuming it's a sequel... but likely so). DOOM 3 wasn't a sequel, but the reuse of a "frachise", a trademarked name and it's associated concept, to make a new "updated" game based on the earlier one. This has been happening for a while; in fact the Quakes are only semi-sequels, like a transition to the current reuse of basic concepts. The difference is that now they feel they can or need to expliot their old more legendary franchises again (Wolf3D, DOOM, Quake). Perhaps it gives them a measure of potential stability, and maybe they aren't so sure any new titles will ever stick as much as their two or three groundbreaking ones did.

What the fuck, did you just restate the exact point I made in my post, that id have shifted to exploiting their existing franchises as a matter of course, only postured as if it was some original, conflicting opinion? Why did you do that? The semantics of whether Doom 3 is a "sequel" or a "remake" are irrelevant, the point is that it was a creative decision of the core team that they wanted to make a new Doom game (something that caused a fair degree of friction within the company, as we know). Now the company are restructuring their entire development approach so that they are setup to continually leverage their existing franchises whilst developing new ones.

kristus said:

Doesn't really matter, all that matters is if you like them or not. If you don't, you move on. Atleast I would, rather than sit around and bitch about it every chance I get.

I guess moving on, or at least away, is what I'm doing. RoE was, I think, the first id product I simply wasn't interested enough in to buy.

I'm not ruling out me buying any of these upcoming titles, but I will approach with caution as opposed to buying them as a matter of course. I'll wait for screenshots, reviews and opinions rather than sit slavering at the doors of my local game store waiting to buy them purely on the strength of their maker's name. So far, there is nothing in the id pipeline, that I am aware of, that has got me interested enough to be looking forward to its release.

leileilol said:

i like doom 3

As did I, but i was a bigger fan of the expansion and hell levels than anything else. The bosses in doom 3 where weak all around (common, the cyberdemon battle was spelled out for you time and time again). Roe's boss at least required some skill to defeat. All in all i just hope that the next developers are paying attention to the strengths and weaknesses of doom 3.

Jonathan said:
did you just restate the exact point I made in my post, that id have shifted to exploiting their existing franchises as a matter of course, only postured as if it was some original, conflicting opinion? Why did you do that?

You can't see the different interpretation I made of the events? It looks like Enjay and kristus did, though.

The semantics of whether Doom 3 is a "sequel" or a "remake" are irrelevant,

The fact that it's a remake of their hit title is what characterizes this shift, as opposed to making a quick set of sequels like they did in their early days. How is an error that makes your sentence unclear irrelevant?

the point is that it was a creative decision of the core team that they wanted to make a new Doom game (something that caused a fair degree of friction within the company, as we know).

More concretely, Adrian Carmack was in the company, and now he isn't. Was DOOM 3 really a "creative decision"? I'd say it had to do more with the fact that they felt that their focus brand, Quake, was losing steam and character, and they noticed DOOM was approaching its decade of life, so they took advantage of this for business reasons, and John Carmack liked the idea because it would not interfere with engine design concepts he could develop.

Now the company are restructuring their entire development approach so that they are setup to continually leverage their existing franchises whilst developing new ones.

The point where it was most different from how it appears to be now is during a not so extensive period, the late 90s, when they were dedicated to the Quake line. But the change from that period isn't recent, and could be said to have started around the turn of the century (7 years ago). In the earlier period they had a different (startup company) scale, but with Romero they also had sideprojects and derivations.

I think one big difference is in the hierarchy and management of the company. John Carmack seems to now be the sole strong owner, but he's clearly allowed the other "departments", design and business, to grow (in magnitude) in the way a more standard company would: it's becoming somewhat more publishing and design focused, but a bit less development oriented.

A factor that likely contributes to the changes, and that kristus hinted at, is that if your main titles are far in between, you need to fill the gaps with something to keep the company going.

Yeah, I liked Doom 3 also. I would hope Doom 4 would be a re-telling of Doom 2. I would love to see the new ID tech used to display entire cities in chaos on a massive scale.

Doom 3 was a decent shooter. Not a perfect one by any stretch of the word, but an enjoyable one IMO. I thought it was better than Half-Life 2, personally.

I am sick of people bitching about Doom 3, just because it wasn't in the style of the original or wasn't how they expected it to be.

exp(x) said:

Doom 3 sucks no matter how you look at it.

Wobbo said:

Doom 3 was a terrible game by any standards.

Any reasoning behind those statements?

Fo'get about Doom 4, I'm still waiting for a proper Heretic FPS sequel.
And no, Heretic 2 doesn't count. It's an embarassment to the Heretic name.

Heretic 2 wasn't bad. It's a great game if you can get past how different it was to the original. I won't lie though, I would love to see a remake of the original with the newest id engine.

I liked Heretic 2 dammit.

Megalyth said:

Any reasoning behind those statements?

Yes, I didn't like it.

Thanks, it's all perfectly clear now. :)

I really wanted to like Heretic 2, but playing it it did absolutely nothing for me. Completely void of atmosphere and any fun at all really. :(

yomoneyboat said:

I'm still waiting for a proper Heretic FPS sequel.
And no, Heretic 2 doesn't count. It's an embarassment to the Heretic name.

Hrm, Hexen is the proper sequel to Heretic.
Hexen2 and Heretic2 was never really meant to be. But it was a series of three: Heretic, Hexen and Hecatomb.

But they (the publishers) decided that the success was too great for the franchise so they had to ruin it by making gay sequels instead of the real ending of the saga.

kristus said:

Hecatomb.

What is this "Hecatomb" of which you speak? Was it ever made? Will it ever be made? I can't find any info on it.

kristus said:
But they (the publishers) decided that the success was too great for the franchise so they had to ruin it by making gay sequels instead of the real ending of the saga.

I think the change from 2.D to 3D may have influenced the decision. Had 2.5D remained as a commercial choice, they would have made Hecatomb instead of what they did.

EDIT: Enjay; see here.

Stupid, influenced the decision.