Doom is like chess

I'm not sure as I haven't played modern FPS games to know, but I feel doom 1 / 2 is like chess. In modern games you are usually given one or two monsters to kill at a time and the challenege is just aiming at their head to kill them fast as possible. In classic doom, there is more of a chess setting. Each room presents you with a variety of moves you can go through with in order to complete each room. The combination of monsters and layout present a challenge that can be overcome by different strategies. Meaning, every time you play a classic doom level, every fight is different and more than just killing all the bad guys. You have to choose what monsters to kill first, where to run for safety, and plan routes through monster infested rooms. This is what keeps doom alive, the diversity of the encounters that extend beyond the "kill this.. then that" gameplay of modern games.

Sorry dude, but, I never even used the word strategy and DOOM in the same sentence. With none of id's titles actually. Which is a good thing for me.

Doom is absolutely nothing like chess.

Playing doom is mostly about acting impulsively, instinctively, and improvisationally. I suppose Doom is like chess if you are only allotted one second to make moves.

I wouldnt compare to cheass really, but I`m with you on the strategy-part. Its a fast paced real time strategy FPS, hehe, or something.

Not all WADs though, but stuff like HR and Speed Of Doom certainly is

40 and Sig, you're looking at it too literally. :P

Huy has some interesting things to say about this in Deus Vult 2's textfile -- chess strategy actually has a lot to do with how DV2's battles were planned. Not that I'm an expert at all (I'm terrible at the damn game), but it's an interesting read regardless.

Though there is no 1-1 correspondence here, I see the OP's point. There is a bit of strategy/tactics/whatnot involved, even if most of it all boils down to "what do I kill first?"

In some ammo-tight Tyson runs, yes.

Modern shooters are like tic-tac-toe.

Winning at Chess requires a lot of thought and tactics.
Winning at Doom doesn't require much thought at all, just being a mindless barbarian =)

Bishop said:

Winning at Chess requires a lot of thought and tactics.
Winning at Doom doesn't require much thought at all, just being a mindless barbarian =)

Yeah,right!Try being a barbarian and forgetting ow to dodge!I wonder how many seconds you will resist..

Sigvatr said:

Doom is absolutely nothing like chess.

ask ANY good duelist about doom2 map01 and the word "chess" will appear very, very fast. two players of similar level have to plan their attacks and defences for a few steps/situations/frags in advance and different tactics vastly change the outcome.

i don't see the resemblance to chess when it comes to singleplayer doomin', but words like "absolutely" shouldn't be thrown around when you don't even understand what doom can be about.

Each monster/chess piece can only move and attack a certain way.
Do you allow yourself to be damaged/lose a chess piece to gain an advantage.
Each specific map/chess game is always laid out the exact same way, but vast amounts of variables make each game different.

I could go on,

Bishop said:

Winning at Chess requires a lot of thought and tactics.
Winning at Doom doesn't require much thought at all, just being a mindless barbarian =)

Trying playing without saves.

I dare say I am better qualified to assess this than most (e.g. I've drawn with the current world champion), and have to say that I do find more similarities between Doom and chess than with most of the other things that chess routinely gets compared with (snooker, boxing, mathematics, soccer, marriages, bowling, poker, etc., etc.).

Above a certain level, most chess thought is concerned with short-term planning and tactical implementation of ideas, together with prophylactic thinking (related to foreseeing and hindering the opponent's main ideas). Grandiose long-term strategy is just in the background (or wholly irrelevant), as part of the essential knowledge that is necessary for successful chess.

Chess is all about adapting to new situations where you don't have complete knowledge of what is going on, but you have a certain skill-set and body of knowledge, and must decide how best to use it to meet the current challenges. It's about using intuition and knowledge in a fundamentally intertwined way, and making good decisions (and not dawdling over them) based on no more than a few insights and a well-trained hunch.

How much of that sounds like what is also required of the Doomer? Maybe not much in the case of casual play, but quite a lot if you are pushing the game closer to its limits.

Speed Chess perhaps? Though I've never played it myself.

Having played a lot of 1-minute chess, I'd say it has fewer of the qualities I described above. It's almost entirely based on instinct. The thought involved is more akin to the way a strong player can beat a weak one even when totally inebriated, or when playing a simul: you just play the obvious moves, and don't try to be too clever.

Grazza's post sums up my feelings on this matter. One may think that a slaughtermap is "mindless" yet requires more foresight, knowledge, and coordinated attack strategies than solving "puzzles" in Hexen.

Then there's just the regular entryway to exit chamber maps that just requires you don't die on the way there when charging into rooms shooting everything. When the player is greatly outnumbered or the environment is designed in a way to be an enemy in itself, you need to plan ahead.

Bishop said:

Winning at Chess requires a lot of thought and tactics.
Winning at Doom doesn't require much thought at all, just being a mindless barbarian =)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTB0BX0Btw&feature=player_embedded

Yeah, no thought at all went into this hey? Maybe your concept of strategy begins and ends with hiding around a corner waiting for your health to regenerate, but there are some of us who aren't retarded enough to keep falling for that gimmick.

Aww, that's the same vid as last time.

Gez said:

Aww, that's the same vid as last time.

That vid hits the point home like no other for me and is one of my favorite. Though I can show another vid if you want.

Chess can't be won without attacking the opponent. Maybe more like Trouble, or an encounter in D&D 3.5, or Doom: The Board Game.

Yes, but an "attack" can take many forms. For instance, if one player stakes everything on a big assault, and the opponent defends accurately and refutes the attack, obtaining a trivially won position. Has the winner truly attacked in that case? Only kind of - he has taken some positive action that enabled him to achieve his aim. One could define pressing the exit switch in a pacifist run (and the plan and ideas used to reach that point) as an attack just as convincingly.

andrewj said:
Image

I think player one needs to learn how to play chess.

Deus Vult 2 map 03 probably agrees with you.

Coopersville said:

Maybe more like Trouble

Like, Pop-O-Matic Trouble©?

Grazza said:

Above a certain level, most chess thought is concerned with short-term planning and tactical implementation of ideas, together with prophylactic thinking (related to foreseeing and hindering the opponent's main ideas). Grandiose long-term strategy is just in the background (or wholly irrelevant), as part of the essential knowledge that is necessary for successful chess.

Chess is all about adapting to new situations where you don't have complete knowledge of what is going on

These don't seem like the salient features of chess.

So many games and other things you do in life involve planning ahead, trying to predict future events, and so on.

When I look at chess, there are three things that set it apart from other games. One is pacing - the fact that in casual play you usually have all the time you want to make your move. In this sense doom is obviously not like chess.

Another unique thing is the fact that you have 16 pieces to move. There are also 6 different "movement styles" (unlike in checkers where all pieces move the same way). This is one of the reasons people often take forever to make moves - there can be many options depending on your skill and the state of the game. In this sense doom is obviously not like chess (you are 1 or maybe a couple of players against a bazillion monsters).

The final feature I'm thinking about is the balance of power. In chess, the balance of power is extremely delicate. Often one move can turn the tables, when a player gains a lead in material or position. One mistake can mean certain loss. It is very very difficult to win after you've lost the material lead unless you have a really amazing position going. In this sense, doom is NOT LIKE CHESS. In doom the player can scrape by with minimal health - can avoid fights when low on ammunition - can find a secret or a stash of health and recover instantly.

Saying chess is like doom sounds a lot to me like saying games are like games. Just because you have an opponent and there's some strategy involved doesn't make it a worthwhile comparison.

Grazza wrote:

Appeal to authority?

Which will be edited out automatically by the "stop quoting images" filter?

Gez said:

Appeal to authority?

Authority is never wrong!

At the very least, the existence of that book is evidence that Grazza's understanding of chess may be more accurate and sophisticated than the rest of ours.

Even less than that, posting that image is a fun way to point out that we have a serious chess enthusiast in our midst, for those who are unaware.

Is there a "stop quoting images" filter? I thought it was a manual mod edit each time.

magicsofa said:
When I look at chess, there are three things that set it apart from other games. One is pacing - the fact that in casual play you usually have all the time you want to make your move. In this sense doom is obviously not like chess.

i will ignore the fact that chess is turn based and doom is not and skip to comparing just the "style". your error lies in assuming doom consists just of single player. i've seen doom2 map01 1on1 matches to 50 frags (a competitive standard) last over 45 minutes, that's pretty hardcore. there's also the already legendary game between ocelot and mortalogy on king1 where both of them refused to break a standoff and held their grounds comparing their patience for 12 minutes before another frag occured. you can slow the pace down in a duel if you want - actually campers usually win. :p

Another unique thing is the fact that you have 16 pieces to move. There are also 6 different "movement styles" (unlike in checkers where all pieces move the same way). This is one of the reasons people often take forever to make moves - there can be many options depending on your skill and the state of the game. In this sense doom is obviously not like chess (you are 1 or maybe a couple of players against a bazillion monsters).

i will use map01 as my expample again. dueling there is like series of "scenarios" where you need to know many different tactics and run them against what you know about your opponent. how much health does he have? what weapons and how much ammo? is he aggressive or a +back defender? pick the right weapon for the right situation, or try a surprising move with a "wrong one" requires a ton of planning and experience. you just don't have forever to decide.

The final feature I'm thinking about is the balance of power. In chess, the balance of power is extremely delicate. Often one move can turn the tables, when a player gains a lead in material or position. One mistake can mean certain loss. It is very very difficult to win after you've lost the material lead unless you have a really amazing position going. In this sense, doom is NOT LIKE CHESS. In doom the player can scrape by with minimal health - can avoid fights when low on ammunition - can find a secret or a stash of health and recover instantly.

again, not true in a duel on map01. once you lose map control, you're in a tough spot to regain it... and in the meantime you leak frags. the difference is that the games are usually long enough to give you a fighting chance to crawl back from even a severe frag deficit. the balance is indeed delicate and entirely different from quake-style item whoring.

Saying chess is like doom sounds a lot to me like saying games are like games. Just because you have an opponent and there's some strategy involved doesn't make it a worthwhile comparison.

you might want to check this. chris "devastation" felix, a chess player himself by the way, wrote a guide to dueling in doom. it's a sequel to his previous map01 guide from 8 years ago or so and you can see he had chess guides for a model. so many people with intimate knowledge of "the game" compare it to chess, why rebel against it because your particular (limited?) experience seems different?