Doom. Why is it such a satisfying game to play?

GeckoYamori said:
you play it more like an arcade game

In my opinion, Doom is an arcade game. The way the game is presented at startup (just a bunch of still images and in-game demos), the absence of dialogs and cutscenes, hordes of enemies following simple movement patterns, fast paced action, relentless shooting and outstanding challenges. To summarize, all the elements that make arcade gameing so much fun are in there.

Doctor Faust said:

In my opinion, Doom is an arcade game. The way the game is presented at startup (just a bunch of still images and in-game demos), the absence of dialogs and cutscenes, hordes of enemies following simple movement patterns, fast paced action, relentless shooting and outstanding challenges. To summarize, all the elements that make arcade gameing so much fun are in there.

KInda does have the whole "Arcade" feeling, but nonetheless, it kicks more ass then some of the "real arcade" games.

Doctor Faust said:
In my opinion, Doom is an arcade game. The way the game is presented at startup (just a bunch of still images and in-game demos), the absence of dialogs and cutscenes, hordes of enemies following simple movement patterns, fast paced action, relentless shooting and outstanding challenges.

Also a tally screen after each level so you can measure your progress.

CodeImp said:

Obsession.
 

Indeed.

and maybe a dash of "perfection."

GeckoYamori said:

"immersing yourself with the world"

I think that Doom can do that as well. As an example, CC2 Map24, "The Mucus Flow", was quite immersive IMO. Everything from the music to the texture choice, etc. was distinctive in such a way to make the experience unique and "immersive." There've been many other maps I've played with this type of immersion and the best part is it's still simple, "arcade-like", as we've been saying.

That's a different kind of immersion. I was thinking more about the type of narration some of the more modern games use. An example of bad immersion would be Unreal 2, where inbetween levels you walk around in your spaceship, talking to your crew and having that chick run you through dragged out briefings before you can move on. Sure, it makes more sense plot-wise, but is it any fun?

I still think that the biggest reason why doom is so immersive is because it leaves soooo much to the imagination. Period. I was watching a trailer for Diablo 3 today, and it looks amazing, but I remember thinking that it is so scripted, and therefore more limiting. Will be a great game tho.

The challenge, as I see it, is to keep Doom as scary and immersive as it was when it first came out.

On many modern wads, I often see too much cleverness, too much "good design", too much clever monster placement, too much time spent balancing weapons and ammo and health perfectly, and worst of all, too much treating doom like it is nothing more than a technical challenge, ie how many monsters and how many difficult situations can you survive??

We gotta keep imagination above everything. Not that we should neglect good level design, and challenge and monster and ammo placement, but all theses things have to serve immersion and imagination.

I suspect that most people who will read this are already aware of this, but it bears repeating anyway.

I read the Freud-inspired article, and now understand why I always ride the lift on MAP30 just to spray plasma all over the demon face.






OH GOD I'M SO LONELY

ArchitectofHell said:

I read the Freud-inspired article, and now understand why I always ride the lift on MAP30 just to spray plasma all over the demon face.

Sorry, but you tempted me into doing this:

Tsk Tsk Tsk.

Man if I'd known this thread would end up dying in the gutter of phallic symbolism, I woulda prolly have thought harder about posting it, and posted a thread about, say, Guys Who Drive Muscle Cars instead.

If it tells anyone anything at all, I have never felt the need to smoke a cigarette even after the most intense Doom gaming session.

Cant speak for the rest of you weirdos tho... :P

Kyka said:

Man if I'd known this thread would end up dying in the gutter of phallic symbolism, I woulda prolly have thought harder about posting it, and posted a thread about, say, Guys Who Drive Muscle Cars instead.

That would have suffered a similar fate - we all know guys who drive muscle cars are trying to compensate for inadequacies in other parts of their lives - more so than guys who play FPS's. :-)

Kyka said:

Man if I'd known this thread would end up dying in the gutter of phallic symbolism, I woulda prolly have thought harder about posting it, and posted a thread about, say, Guys Who Drive Muscle Cars instead.

There is no topic that cannot not be related to sex by someone's imagination. While I disagreed earlier about the frequency with which people think about sex, some do quite a lot.

You might as well just present whatever topic you have on your mind and get in as much useful discussion as you can before someone makes a silly comment.

Yeah my demo of Spira can be interpreted as a sublimated erectile dysfunctionement then !

Yeah, sorry about that. Shame on me. :(

In all honesty, I don't think one can credibly relate games like Doom to one's sex drive, and have always kind of thought that Freudian psychology feels the need to link everything people do to it. That and the fact that any psychological oddities are somehow related to one's mother.

The problem isn't whether doing something like playing a game is tied to sexuality, which is likely true and not a big deal, but rather being too touchy on the subject. Just because everything we do is "sexualized" it doesn't mean doing something like that implies you're a "sexual loser". People who overreact to such an idea either aren't very mature yet, or do in fact have some issues to solve.

My joke was on-topic, and intended as a sarcastic view of the Freudian explanation for why Doomers dig Doom.

Freud had some heady and interesting ideas, but let's remember much of it is not scientifically verifiable. Which makes it speculation, pure speculation.

I don't know why I enjoy Doom! I don't know why I like blue cheese and disdain cheddar.

One reason may be that we still have evolution-produced hunter-gatherer instincts wired into our brains that don't get used much, and we enjoy stimulating them. But that's not a very educated guess. Reading a few psychology textbooks in my spare time hardly qualifies me to speak on the subject with any seriousness.

I enjoy the look, the feel, the simple hand-eye coordination and joy of struggling to survive in an imaginary situation. And I love seeing what map authors do with the limitations of Doom and the expanded capabilities of source ports.

Almost every time I load up a PWAD, I enjoy a near-perfect balance of something familiar (imps, shotgun sergeants, demons) in a new context (say, the custom-textured environments of Requiem). Doom has acquired a thousand distinct flavors. No, more. I enjoy that feeling of familiarity and newness enough to keep going back for more, and more, and more.

ArchitectofHell said:
Freud had some heady and interesting ideas, but let's remember much of it is not scientifically verifiable. Which makes it speculation, pure speculation.

That sounds like something the local parson would say. I mean the same one that might then bring up "intelligent design".

Did Doom evolve from a less advanced game or is it the product of intelligent design? :-)
Doesn't matter one way or the other to me - I still enjoy playing the game.

Fast Monsters + Respawning Items + Respawning Monsters + Cooperative. That does it for me.

shinobi.cl said:

There is a page that has a theory why Doom is so cool to play

Its called "Doom's Sexual Theory"

It's in spanish. So, if you dont know spanish, you lose :(

Anyway, here it is

http://www.telecable.es/personales/alberto9/textos/teoriasexualdeldoom.htm

I translated that with google. I'm not sure if I should be utterly horrified or laughing my ass off.

At some point it mentioned the weapon being an extension of the player's male genitalia. What gets me is, what if a female's playing it? Lawl. **

--=--=--=--

On topic, there's many aspects of Doom which I find enjoyable. Even if I hadn't found the Doom Wiki, Zdoom port and this site, I'd still be playing it. The only reason I found out about all this stuff is because I went about LOOKING for the Doom II CD and became addicted all over again. The only reason I found all this is because I was watching a speedrun of the Icon of Sin with freelook in Zdoom, because Doom got me obsessed in a whole new light, a much higher level than it used to when I was a child. It's many of these new aspects, sure, that brings me back to Doom over and over now, but I would have still been playing Doom to pass the time and have a good one. Just as much as I still play the original Quake.

I find that the reason why is because these games took new concepts and ideas for environments and put them to use, as where newer games take many cliche and overused environments and concepts. The first person shooter with a more indirect story is more fun to play than the first person shooter with story in every little detail, in my opinion. Save the little details for RPG games.

Y'know....

Just reading through the replies, it seems that there are a lot of really smart people hanging around this thread.

Im kinda glad about that. i dont suffer stupidity very well I'm afraid.

Tho I am a bit of a sucker for silliness.

Great replies, even if some of them are a little off track. :)

To borrow a quote from Nicholas cage in "Gone in 60 seconds".....

Q. What is better... having sex or playing Doom??

A. Having sex while playing doom.

Hehe... Kyka One, Sigmund Freud Zero.

I've been playing Doom for 11 years and still prefer it for game play over all other games. As has been mentioned, the simplicity of the game and the fact that it's so customizable make it THE all-time classic in my book. That's not to mention the supremacy of its many environments and accompanying music.

What I've always found ironic is that the self-righteous who have condemned Doom for all these years (many, perhaps most, on the basis of religious beliefs) haven't looked deep enough into the game to realize that the enemy being shot up is evil, not good.

Marco said:

What I've always found ironic is that the self-righteous who have condemned Doom for all these years (many, perhaps most, on the basis of religious beliefs) haven't looked deep enough into the game to realize that the enemy being shot up is evil, not good.

Agreed. When I play games of this nature, I never loose sight that it is just a game and the subject matter is only relevant so far as it enhances the environment and gameplay. Me and people I know don't take it that seriously. One other thing is the recurring argumant that Doom makes people like killing in real life. I know too many people IRL who've played this game for forever. Wouldn't they have become killing machines long ago? IRL, I don't even squish insects and spiders if they're just chilling in my house (except for venemous spiders. There are black widows where I live, and while the fatality rate of their bits is relatively low, I've been sickly and bedridden from spider bits for days at a time, so better to take them out lest I startle them by mistake or they crawl into my bed and bite me.)

myk said:

That sounds like something the local parson would say. I mean the same one that might then bring up "intelligent design".

Huh?

That's the opposite of what I'd expect to hear. Can you explain exactly how my need for hard evidence reminds you of your neighborhood's flat-earthers?

I was merely pointing out that there's no need for everybody to get too riled up by the opinions of somebody who was merely speculating, such as Freud. He's famous, and too many people treat his ideas as though they were fact, but really he was more of a poet or philosopher than a scientist.

Sorry if I offended you because you dig Freud or something.

Y'know, Ive read a lot about evolution and intelligent design, and the funny thing is, both have hard evidence to support their theories (and they are both still theories, regardless of how strongly some proponents may argue otherwise). And probably neither of them will ever be provable beyond all doubt.

That is no excuse tho for not doing our very best to discover the truth and use every bit of reason and observation available to us.

here is an example.

Theory: "doom is the greatest computer game of all time"

Proof 1: "Because I said so." This proof should, in my humble opinion, be sufficient for everyone, but it really is a diverse world we live in, and some people are just never satisfied. Hence this thread. People in this thread have given so many good reasons why doom is such an awesome game, reasons that I would not have thought of on my own, but when I read them, I stopped and went "hey, thats so true".

Proof 2 to n-1 where n is an open-ended integer: Read the posts in this thread. Together they bring in a volume of evidence that is beyond the mere small minded "because I said so" that is so common among..... well others. Never me of course.

Never.

NEVER.......

And now everyone is looking at me and wondering what the F^$%#&@k I am on about.

Quick Kyka...... say something funny......

"HEY EVERYONE....... LOOK OVER THERE!"

*poof* (Kyka vanishes in a puff of smoke)

Death-Destiny said:

One other thing is the recurring argumant that Doom makes people like killing in real life.

That's annoyed me most about opponents of violence in gaming. No studies have proven any connection between real-life homicide and an inclination toward Doom or any other violent video game, but still people insist on this. I think parents should be involved with their kids and make sure they understand the difference between healthy gaming and destructive real-life behavior. Beyond that, no problem!

Let's go out on a far, far limb by saying "Why yes! Doom DOES teach me exactly how to kill. It's like a training program!"

Even in that hypothetical situation, would gaming make a person any more dangerous? I have family members who've been in the military, and boy do they ever know how to kill effectively. Should I be concerned that they might wake up one morning and decide they liked learning to kill so well that they're actually going to go out and do it? No way.

Also, does this mean that POSITIVE video games result in more positive behavior? Doubt it. The old SNES game Zombies Ate My Neighbors hasn't led me to join any search-and-rescue parties. Burger Time certainly hasn't encouraged me to own a restaurant, though I loved the game. Et cetera.

Kyka said:

Y'know, Ive read a lot about evolution and intelligent design, and ... both have hard evidence to support their theories

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech.... a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable." -Wikipedia, from the "Theory" entry.

It's a common mistake for people to interpret the word "Theory" as "Guess." Intelligent Design is a guess based on unverified sources. Evolution is an extensively tested theory in the scientific sense of the word, and it has held over time thanks to an overwhelming abundance of supporting evidence gathered using the Scientific Method.

Steering this back on-topic...

If we want to talk about science, let's turn our attention to a statement I once read in early news releases for Doom. I seem to recall something about neurons in the brain timing themselves to the patterns of the game engine's algorithms in such a way that after a long Dooming session, they'll continue to function that way temporarily. Does this explain why I see Doom corridors and tunnels as I begin to fall asleep some nights?

I can't remember where I read the aforementioned statement. Anybody know where I might've been looking?

ArchitectofHell said:
I was merely pointing out that there's no need for everybody to get too riled up by the opinions of somebody who was merely speculating, such as Freud. He's famous, and too many people treat his ideas as though they were fact, but really he was more of a poet or philosopher than a scientist.

I agree with that stance to a point except that "merely speculating" and "pure speculation" does not apply to theories made from reasoned observation. The thing about people treating it as fact is a problem with hard science as well. Mostly because people often end up being rather dogmatic about anything they discover which seems to be "true", which is why I brought up the parson. Even "scientifically verified" concepts can be reevaluated enough to become untrue, incomplete, or incompatible with phenomena which become evident though scientific development. The parson will reject anything because it's not conclusive, and then insert a theory based on something he thinks is true. He uses "scientific verifiability" against science.

The idea that "sexuality" is affecting practically everything we do is very compatible with modern evolutionary and genetic biology, and the conception goes well beyond Freud in both psychology and biology. My point is there's no need to dismiss the rather humorous DOOM related article because, for one, there seems to be some truth in it, but neither is it necessary to reduce any symbolism or relation to sex to predictable or stereotypical assumptions, such as that of playing DOOM or a similar game being a sign of sexual dysfunction or the like.

Sorry if I offended you because you dig Freud or something.

I'm not offended nor am I something like a "religious follower of Freud", it's just that positivism and objectivism tend toward dogmatism that denies our relative existence (and understanding).

ArchitectofHell said:

Intelligent Design is a guess based on unverified sources. Evolution is an extensively tested theory in the scientific sense of the word, and it has held over time thanks to an overwhelming abundance of supporting evidence gathered using the Scientific Method.

This is the only part of your statement that I disagree with. The evidence seems to me to be just as scientific and just as hard for intelligent design. The key difference is simply that it is far less widely accepted.

Other than that, well said. Even the atomic theory is still called a theory and no serious scientist today would dispute its validity.

And Myk.... Its a pity that you gotta use religion as your straw man that you use to knock down to make your point. It is true that religion has often worked against science, but more often than not, the reverse has been true. Coz other than that, I agree with you. Closed mindedness and dogmatism is the death of progress, religious or otherwise.

Well said tho guys.....

Oh yeah... Doom is really satisfying to play. Yeah Yeah. Cool

We've done sex and religion - all we need now to totally derail this thread is to introduce politics. Which one do you think would make the better DooM player - McCain or Obama?