"It's too cartoony"

[Koko Ricky]

And I agree with @EtherBot that realistic designs clash a bit with heavily stylized designs. It's not as easy to do this with hyper-detailed 3D models! But the overall look is consistent, even if the physiology of the characters isn't. I think that's what important, is broad consistency, which "Eternal" has.

[Chezza]

6 hours ago, GoatLord said:

I disagree. The cyberdemon has giant clunky arms and legs, and a massively wide jaw. Those are classic cartoon proportions. The original has a more or less humanoid (albeit very muscular) form.

I remember someone here Photoshopped the Jaw of the Cyberdemon to shrink its proportion, it did look notably more sinister and less cartoony for that minor change. I wish id followed that design.

[snapshot]

On 11/3/2018 at 2:16 PM, Tetzlaff said:

It looks goofy, but maybe it will look fine in action.

[seed]

13 hours ago, tempdecal.wad said:

It looks goofy, but maybe it will look fine in action.

 

 

Perfection.

[pro_zealot]

Cyberdemon face should be base on bull instead of moose. Same goes for Hell knight he was goat no alien. That are only two changes i wanted to see in new DE.

[A Nobody]

A first person shooter being colorful isn't a bad thing.

[chemo]

On 9/7/2018 at 3:47 PM, Touchdown said:

The new Zombies look almost like something out of a Scooby-Doo with their stupid faces. A massive step down from the really cool looking, and way more original, counterparts in D4.

 

I like the new designs for the basic zombies because while yeah, they don't look all that menacing, I think it's fitting since they're meant to be the most weak and frail enemies in the roster. Yet, aspects such as the pentagrams carved into their foreheads and their malnourished, skinny appearances give them a grotesque edge, giving an insight into the suffering they've possibly gone through (also, they're a nice Iron Maiden reference).

 

On 9/7/2018 at 3:47 PM, Touchdown said:

Arachnotrons should have been more sinister, as they appear in the teaser. Don't even get me started on the Pain Elemental. All the other enemies suffer from an unnecessary nostalgia-pandering. They're all too faithful to the originals with no regard to the fact that the original game was made with a much more primitive technology. The original designs worked within the graphical fidelity of the first two games. They look comic book like / cartoony when considered without context, yes, but I don't believe they were meant to be silly and ridiculous. Why?

 

Even taking into account the technical limitations of the time, the monster designs of OG DOOM still strike me as leaning more towards a stylized look rather than trying to be all gritty and realistic.

 

However, I do think that the exact original designs would look outdated in the new game, but I feel that Id made enough adjustments to them in Eternal so that they don't look out of place while still being faithful. For comparisons sake, I'll bring up the Arachnotron and Pain Elemental as you mentioned as examples;

 

 

The Arachnotrons and Pain Elementals in classic DOOM look amateurish or even laughable by today's standards. In Eternal, the Arachnotron was given more fleshy, graphic detail in its organic bits, has a more horrific facial structure, and its robotic parts look high-tech and professional yet give off a bit of an uncanny, hellish vibe. For the Pain Elemental, he was given longer and more muscular arms, jaws that unhinge not only horizontally, but also vertically, with rows of sharp, prominent fangs, additional detail on its forehead, and a more prominent pupil that gives it a menacing stare.

 

Yes, obviously they're stylized, but what's stopping them from looking "sinister"?

 

On 9/7/2018 at 3:47 PM, Touchdown said:

Note that id has always been pushing more and more towards an aggressive, gritty visual realism with their games. They went from goofy Wolf3D style to a more realistic approach in DOOM, ramping it up with some really messed up and grotesque monsters in Quake, brutal abominations in Quake2 and later on various horrors in DOOM3. As technology was improving they've been consistently making their worlds and characters more gritty / realistic and less goofy. So I definitely disagree with the argument that just because the original DOOM monsters look cartoony now that means that recreating them 1:1 in a modern engine is commendable. It ignores the original intention.

 

This trend doesn't necessarily dictate the kind of direction Id goes with in all their games considering that this all spreads across multiple IPs and these titles you've mentioned come from a time when Id's games were basically glorified tech demos. Nowadays, while Id Software are still some of the biggest tech guys in the industry, they wish to make fun games first and foremost, if you know what I mean. Not to mention, Quake 3 was Id's most technologically advanced game at release, yet is one of their more over-the-top and silly ones.

 

On 9/12/2018 at 1:04 PM, Touchdown said:

Well, these are nothing new, I'm pretty sure everyone has seen them already. Let's see...

 

by Ben Shafer

This one is probably the least 'faithful' but it's also my personal favourite. I've always seen the Mancubus as an abomination, some sick, twisted atrocity that's been mutilated and deformed. Disgustingly fat with crude cybernetic 'enhancements'. This one captures exactly that.

 

by Mechanubis

This is probably the one that I'd like to see instead of the DE version. It's kind of inspired by the D3 incarnation I think. I love how he's so fat that his guts are literally spilling out.

 

by IzzyMedrano

This is an odd one. It doesn't exactly envoke the same kind of vibe of an abomination... but I like it anyway. Still has a lot those 'crude surgery' / 'crude cybernetic modifications' elements in its design.

 

The problem I have with these designs is that they make the Mancubus look like a creature in pure, withering agony rather than one in bloodthirsty rage.

 

 

When I look at this guy's expression, I can tell how much he's thinking of wanting to bite my face off, not how much he's thinking of wanting to be put out of his misery.

 

 

His new version has the exact same energy IMO. To be honest, a problem I had with DOOM 2016's Mancubus and Cacodemon designs in particular is that they don't really look they want to be in the fight. Obviously, for me that's been solved with the Mancubus here, but also the Cacodemon now seems to grin more often and looks a lot more enthusiastic about wanting to have the Slayer for lunch

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by chemo

[TakenStew22]

18 minutes ago, chemo said:

 

I like the new designs for the basic zombies because while yeah, they don't look all that menacing, I think it's fitting since they're meant to be the most weak and frail enemies in the roster. Yet, aspects such as the pentagrams carved into their foreheads and their malnourished, skinny appearances give them a grotesque edge, giving an insight into the suffering they've possibly gone through (also, they're a nice Iron Maiden reference).

 

 

Even taking into account the technical limitations of the time, the monster designs of OG DOOM still strike me as leaning more towards a stylized look rather than trying to be all gritty and realistic.

 

However, I do think that the exact original designs would look outdated in the new game, but I feel that Id made enough adjustments to them in Eternal so that they don't look out of place while still being faithful. For comparisons sake, I'll bring up the Arachnotron and Pain Elemental as you mentioned as examples;

 

 

The Arachnotrons and Pain Elementals in classic DOOM look amateurish or even laughable by today's standards. In Eternal, the Arachnotron was given more fleshy, graphic detail in its organic bits, has a more horrific facial structure, and its robotic parts look high-tech and professional yet give off a bit of an uncanny, hellish vibe. For the Pain Elemental, he was given longer and more muscular arms, jaws that unhinge not only horizontally, but also vertically, with rows of sharp, prominent fangs, additional detail on its forehead, and a more prominent pupil that gives it a menacing stare.

 

Yes, obviously they're stylized, but what's stopping them from looking "sinister"?

 

 

This trend doesn't necessarily dictate the kind of direction Id goes with in all their games considering that this is all spreads across multiple IPs and these titles you've mentioned come from a time when Id's games were basically glorified tech demos. Nowadays, while Id Software are still some of the biggest tech guys in the industry, they wish to make fun games first and foremost, if you know what I mean. Not to mention, Quake 3 was Id's most technologically advanced game at release, yet is one of their more over-the-top and silly ones.

 

 

The problem I have with these designs is that they make the Mancubus look like a creature in pure, withering agony rather than one in bloodthirsty rage.

 

 

When I look at this guy's expression, I can tell how much he's thinking of wanting to bite my face off, not how much he's thinking of wanting to be put out of his misery.

 

 

His new version has the exact same energy IMO. To be honest, a problem I had with DOOM 2016's Mancubus and Cacodemon designs in particular is that they don't really look they want to be in the fight. Obviously, for me that's been solved with the Mancubus here, but also the Cacodemon now seems to grin more often and looks a lot more enthusiastic about wanting to have the Slayer for lunch

 

 

 

Great post! I 100% agree.

[Touchdown]

8 hours ago, chemo said:

The problem I have with these designs is that they make the Mancubus look like a creature in pure, withering agony rather than one in bloodthirsty rage.

 

That's kind of where I always thought this creature should go when transitioning into photorealistic graphics - though I don't see it as they wanting me to put them out of their misery. More that they're unpredictable killing machines precisely because they're in constant agony. Kevin Cloud said in the Noclip series that he considers both D3 Pinky and D4 Pinky to be valid reinterpretations of the original monster. I disagree about the D4 version because I think it's one of the worst designs ever in any id game but I do share his sentiment.

I think in the grand scheme of things there are different ways you can approach reintroduction of such ancient designs. I personally think that DOOM should lean more into the grotesque / disturbing direction - that's how I have always perceived it. But even though I largely disagree with the current direction I cannot objectively say it's completely invalid. It feels lazy to me, not gritty enough and not serious enough but it is a direction that is still valid for DOOM. Part of the reason is that I'm all for being surprised and I vastly prefer designs that capture the spirit of a creature rather than purely its physicality.

DOOM Eternal in terms of monster designs seems to be more about nostalgia-pandering which I just don't like. I'd much rather have a monster that makes me say "THAT's a new Mancubus? Cool!". But that's not a popular approach. I guess most people just want something that's extremely faithful to what they already know. It's the same with music. A lot of people want a band to do the same thing over and over. But I've never been on that side of an argument.

 

As for specific designs, the new Arachnotron looks cool, though it looks way more menacing in the CGI teaser than in-game but that Pain Elemental is a complete disgrace in my opinion. They should have just used the D64 version.

[seed]

10 hours ago, chemo said:

 

 

The Arachnotrons and Pain Elementals in classic DOOM look amateurish or even laughable by today's standards. In Eternal, the Arachnotron was given more fleshy, graphic detail in its organic bits, has a more horrific facial structure, and its robotic parts look high-tech and professional yet give off a bit of an uncanny, hellish vibe. For the Pain Elemental, he was given longer and more muscular arms, jaws that unhinge not only horizontally, but also vertically, with rows of sharp, prominent fangs, additional detail on its forehead, and a more prominent pupil that gives it a menacing stare.

 

Yes, obviously they're stylized, but what's stopping them from looking "sinister"?

 

Talking about the Arachnotrons, I'm not sure they looked at classic Doom when they recreated them. Their design in Eternal is much closer to their appearance in Doom 64:

 

[-TDRR-]

I honestly love how it's looking, the colorful style of the game really brings me back to Classic Doom, and it's feeling great.

[DooM_RO]

Doom is supposed to be goofy and edgy but still serious every now and then. 

[Xfing]

Well, classic Doom was also a very colorful game, all things considered. Quite unlike Quake which followed it, hehe. 

It's not cartoony, but it can sometimes be grotesque and goofy. But Doom has always been about ultraviolent fun, to be honest. Classic Doom was also about terror and suspense, and could execute either - from slaughter maps to the objectively easy but still pulse-pounding maze of for example E1M2 etc. I can only hope Eternal matches Classic Doom in this regard, as D2016 kinda missed dark mazes a little bit IMO.

[Loud Silence]

Thing is that monsters can't look realistic since they are not real. In original Doom they looked cool, because 2D sprites are much easier to draw than 3D model to create. Original Doom monsters looks best to me, Doom 3 was ok, but already weird. In Doom 2016-Eternal they look very funny and out of place to me.

[seed]

19 minutes ago, Rimantas said:

Thing is that monsters can't look realistic since they are not real.

 

Anything can look believable if enough effort is put into it.

[rampancy]

og doom was a stylized pixel art depection of a fantastic scenario (as opposed to a realistic depection of actual events). imho this allows the audience to read into the material and flesh it out to their hearts content. for some people the experience became more sinister and dark because of this. and so that is what they are looking for in a sequel. for others the premise was cheesy fun, and so that is what they are looking for.

 

it all comes down to different people liking doom for different reasons. we do all agree that doom is awesome though.

[DestroyerNori13]

On 12/21/2018 at 5:15 PM, chemo said:

The problem I have with these designs is that they make the Mancubus look like a creature in pure, withering agony rather than one in bloodthirsty rage.

 

 

Lost souls should be an exception to that. All the other enemies should look like they want to tear you apart.

 

 

 

[Linguica]

On 12/22/2018 at 3:26 AM, Agent6 said:

 

Talking about the Arachnotrons, I'm not sure they looked at classic Doom when they recreated them. Their design in Eternal is much closer to their appearance in Doom 64

 

I think the biggest source of inspiration for designing the arachnotron was the Doom 2016 spiderdemon. It looks basically like a miniature version of that and even includes a similar secondary attack where it draws itself up and launches bombs all around.

[Zemini]

Not sure how I feel about the Arachnotron having its main gun on top of its head.  I guess that would be more practical though.

[Spectre.Charles]

Honestly I love Doom Eternal's artstyle, it looks like some 90s edgelord's notebook doodles come to life, which is what classic Doom's style reminds me of as well. It fits the ridiculous B-movie horror/action style perfectly.

[Adahn]

I like the "soft", "cartoony" look personally. Why do things always have to be so dark and grim? I would prefer a more cartoony, less serious art style tbh.

[VGamingJunkie]

I don't get why people seem to equate colorful and vibrant with cartoony. Contrary to popular belief, a game doesn't have to be saturated in yellow/brown since the real world tends to be quite colorful.

 

[Tea Monster]

The sprites are cartoony. Just look at the Doom Guy in relation to a real human. Once you model an accurate representation of that, it will look cartoony. Why the same people don't look at the sprite and think it's cartoony, I have no idea.

 

We had the same problem over on the Duke Nukem HRP. The original pig cop sprite is VERY cartoony. Nobody mentions it ever. Someone makes a very accurate in proportion model, and suddenly that is cartoony. 

[Koko Ricky]

That's because increasing the level of detail and adding a third dimension reveals the limitations of the sprite.

[⇛Marnetmar⇛]

Gritty, horrific monster designs generally don't translate well into something that's actually fun to shoot and look at on screen. 

 

In addition, the novelty of the creep factor is going to wear off after a while. Scorn and Agony tried to keep everything turned up to 11 the entire time and suddenly 11 didn't mean anything anymore. Makes more sense to have an easily recognizable over-the-top cartoon character than some poor slow moving sap that wants to be put out of his misery.

[Tetzlaff]

That's just your personal taste, Marn. For me gritty, horrific monster designs are lots of fun to look and shoot at. Silent Hill series or Clive Barker's Jericho are just two examples.

 

Agony also has some good creature designs.

[Jaxxoon R]

Silent Hill isn't exactly a series known for having good combat; it's usually praised for the exact opposite reason.

[VGamingJunkie]

By its very nature, it’s going to appear a little cartoony. Doom 3 tried to be realistic and gritty, it produced in my opinion the most generic and forgettable of the designs. Doom 64 had a better approach, added detail but the same vibrant and exaggerated tone.

 

They’re demons from Hell, something we don’t exactly see roaming around in our world, so it’s easy to justify the silly appearances, like a top heavy Pinky that has trouble lifting its own head up.

[snapshot]

Something interesting and somewhat related I read:

 

Quote

"we don't want games to be realistic, we want games to be entertaining and fun to play. Realism is good so we can relate things, such as physics, lighting, sound, but too much of it ends up disconnecting you from the game; if you want realism... well... you got reality for that. We like games udderly exaggerated or bland and simple, we want something different, we want to escape reality for a few hours to entertain ourselves".

 

[Space Marinara]

For myself it's not about escaping reality but simulating an alternate one. You can combine fantasy and realism- Doom did that for me as a kid playing on a CRT. It's modern computer screens that give it that cartoonish feel by flattening the colour ranges while brightening them out the wazoo.

When considering that id used photography of real objects for a lot of the design it seems obvious that they were at least trying to get life-like results (just not of stuff that anyone's encountered before).

When I think of realism being bad for a game it's more of a contextual thing. Lack of imaginative situations is what causes a disservice to one's enjoyment, not believable graphics. Believable graphics/physics (if truly done well) can only heighten the immersion of encountering something other-worldly in an Earth like setting. I prefer having a familiar ground from which to compare the unfamiliar against.