No Traditional Multiplayer

[Taurus Daggerknight]

4 hours ago, Doomkid said:

Woah, slow down there cowboy. It’s time for a fact check! Doomguy’s main motivation in Doom 2 is to save the survivors of the initial invasion, clean up any traces of Hell’s presence and start on the road to rebuilding society. They may not be high art but the story fragments in Doom 1 and 2 make this super duper clear. The rabbit is just a funny McGuffin more than anything else.

 

Don’t take this too seriously btw, I know the story of Doom is nothing to write home about, but a lot of people seem to miss the character motivation that the story screens often provide. I know it isn’t much but it adds to a sense of purpose.

 

I would also contest the greater point that a serious tone and guns-blazing gameplay can’t be made to jive. I’m sure it could be done just fine, its a different genre but in some respects GTA bridges the gap of “sometimes silly, sometimes serious and sometimes action packed”. In fact a lot of franchises nail that combo in TV shows and movies, it’s not often achieved in gaming but it’s definitely doable!

 

Oh doable for sure. Half Life did it just fine, as do the Jedi Knight games. I suppose I meant more about the explicit horror and super dark tones. Again, I feel like Quake 1 is kind of a case in point. I always felt like its game play was at serious odds with the atmosphere.

 

And yeah, Doom 2 had a serious plot and all that, but my point was more that in addition to the heavy stuff going on, there was also so much random weirdness permeating it all, including the intermissions that essentially boil down to "bad things happened, but you're so amazingly badass that you pull through anyhow". Mind that I'm not criticizing it here. Just noting that it's usually not the tone that a super serious horror plot takes. 

 

In all fairness, Doom 2 had a little more of this than Doom 1 or any later titles did (though anyone is free to correct me about Doom 1 here, of course). 

 

My perfect world? Doom 3 with elements of 2016's game play. Like I said, I love the serious tones in titles like Half Life, F.E.A.R and even Doom 3, it's just that  I can't for the life of me play the last one for longer than twenty minutes. On the other hand, 2016 plays brilliantly, but lacks any real immersion for me.

[Edward850]

28 minutes ago, Taurus Daggerknight said:

Was not the first release of Doom 3. 

Strictly speaking no, but for some people it was the first/only version they played. And it was still there on a official capacity.

[Taurus Daggerknight]

1 minute ago, Edward850 said:

Strictly speaking no, but for some people it was the first/only version they played. And it was still there on a official capacity.

 

Fair enough, though my point was still more in reference to it's condition on first release. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the XBOX version launch something like a year or so after? In any case, a lot of titles that ship without online modes or type of online modes can get them patched in, or added in for a re-release, as was the case with Doom 3. 

[CyberDreams]

14 hours ago, Taurus Daggerknight said:

 

Was not the first release of Doom 3. 

True but it was my first time playing Doom 3 back in 2005 or so when my buddy first rented it (yeah we still rented a few games back then).

 

14 hours ago, Edward850 said:

Strictly speaking no, but for some people it was the first/only version they played. And it was still there on a official capacity.

This. It was a pretty impressive port, i must say. The co-op aspect was pretty neat as well (although i played co-op a few times i believe).

 

I forgot to quote your last post but i think it came out in 2005 so about a year or so later.

[whatup876]

I wonder if BattleMode would ever get some things that just aren't in the main campaign, considering how 2016's MP had a lot of stuff not used in that game's campaign.

Then again, most D4 MP stuff was just foreshadowing Eternal.

[Edib]

Im pretty sad about there not being a traditional multiplayer. I hope going forward they at least put in a left 4 dead versus 4v4 type mode I think its the best fit for what they are trying to go for. I've been playing vermin tide recently and been having a blast.

[RightField]

On another note, I'm guessing the mp servers for d16 deathmatch are gonna be full right after doom eternal gets released.

[snapshot]

What if they shut down their servers, even bots require an internet connection (no idea why).

[bj25x]

The Slayer’s club just posted the #1 innovation of Doom ‘93 was... Deathmatch! 🤦🏼‍♂️

[qdash]

13 hours ago, bj25x said:

The Slayer’s club just posted the #1 innovation of Doom ‘93 was... Deathmatch! 🤦🏼‍♂️

 

Yeah, looks a bit ironic. Too bad they staying on their position about MP for everyone, not skill vs. skill as most of us waiting for.

[jazzmaster9]

3 hours ago, qdash said:

 

Yeah, looks a bit ironic. Too bad they staying on their position about MP for everyone, not skill vs. skill as most of us waiting for.

yeah only a select elite are allowed to enjoy play games online...

 

[seed]

1 hour ago, jazzmaster9 said:

yeah only a select elite are allowed to enjoy play games online...

 

Yeah, how dare those filthy casual step in multiplayer.

[snapshot]

PvP Multiplayer is good, it appeals to a wide audience, mainly normies and casuals. a good selling point.

EDIT: nvm, Battlemode looks too gimmicky.

Edited June 22, 2019 by tempdecal.wad

[MrInternational]

What we need to do is to go on ID's, and doom's social media and let them know how we truly feel on "no traditional multiplayer". Now I'm not saying we should fill their Twitter page with hate, anger, and warning of pre-order cancellation, but with positive, constructive feedback, on how we the diehard community feel about their decision on removing Arena style multiplayer.

[qdash]

Positive constructive feedback - any MP mode with Doomslayer vs. Doomslayer possibility, where you can prove your skill against your friends. Everything else is just a gimmick. End of story.

[jazzmaster9]

12 hours ago, qdash said:

Positive constructive feedback - any MP mode with Doomslayer vs. Doomslayer possibility, where you can prove your skill against your friends. Everything else is just a gimmick. End of story.

Being A gimmick isn't bad tho, Its a fun gamemode, not everything needs to be Competitive especially in an era where EVERYTHING is Hyper Competitive and riding the coat tails of the ESports Trend.

Oh wait you are still hiding behind that Ignore Button.

[xvertigox]

1 hour ago, jazzmaster9 said:

Being A gimmick isn't bad tho, Its a fun gamemode, not everything needs to be Competitive especially in an era where EVERYTHING is Hyper Competitive and riding the coat tails of the ESports Trend.

Oh wait you are still hiding behind that Ignore Button.

 

I agree. I mentioned this earlier but Quake is for competitive play, Doom is just for fun. If there's no duel/dm then eh, I'm not really fussed. It'd be cool but whatever.

[qdash]

It's compromisses. They already ripping Doom '16 fanbase by the parts. It's fact. Gimmicks is always bad because if multiplayer will die fast this game will be dead in months and nothing good here. Today's standart is 8 hours for singleplayer campaign - everybody knows it, for real. People always asking for more, some devs love to tell lies about how long their singleplayer campaign is, but in real life it's still about 6-8 hours of pure gameplay. If you believe in something special here, you are very naive guys.

Edited June 25, 2019 by qdash

[Taurus Daggerknight]

5 hours ago, qdash said:

It's compromisses. They already ripping Doom '16 fanbase by the parts. It's fact. Gimmicks is always bad because if multiplayer will die fast this game will be dead in months and nothing good here. Today's standart is 8 hours for singleplayer campaign - everybody knows it, for real. People always asking for more, some devs love to tell lies about how long their singleplayer campaign is, but in real life it's still about 6-8 hours of pure gameplay. If you believe in something special here, you are very naive guys.

 

How is anything they are doing "ripping the Doom '16 fanbase"?

 

Your entire argument there is predicated on the notion that multiplayer was the big show in '16. It wasn't. Most everyone universally agrees on the single player being the spotlight attraction of that episode, and it's the thing most people still talk about when bringing up Doom '16. It's single player campaign was also  a pretty decently long adventure, one that was fairly replayable (not due to rewards or whatever, just for it's basic game play loop). 

 

Which is all to say... Doom '16 survived mainly due to it's single player, -not- the strange notion that it's multiplayer was just that great. (Not a dig at those of you for whom it really was great. Kudos to you for enjoying it!).  So I highly doubt the success or failure of Eternal's multiplayer is going to be the deciding factor over how long it survives. 

[snapshot]

If it weren't for those rewards and arcade mode I probably wouldn't even have bothered to replay it. I played it twice and after that those rewards were basically all that kept me coming back to it. But I'm sure they have SP DLCs planned this time.

Edited September 1, 2019 by tempdecal.wad

[qdash]

Wolfenstein II: New Colossus, who remember this game now? When campaign is finished - "ok, next one". It's future of Doom Eternal "singleplayer is only matters".

[Erick]

8 hours ago, qdash said:

Wolfenstein II: New Colossus, who remember this game now? When campaign is finished - "ok, next one". It's future of Doom Eternal "singleplayer is only matters".

Nevermind that Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus wasn't a very well-received game compared to it's predecessor, you're more likely to hear people talking about their personal best moments in The New Order than anyone mentioning Wolfenstein II at all. If people find a single-player to be enjoyable and dare I say replayable, then they'll get more than just "8 hours" of game time as you been trying to put out. Yes, I would have liked a traditional deathmatch mode myself, but going around saying "no multiplayer means no content" is not really helping.

[whatup876]

A lot of games that don't have MP can still be played, remembered and talk to this day and Wolfenstein TNC had a lot of other problems besides no MP.

I think a problem with MP games is that unlike single player, they're dependent on player counts, which means if only at least 10 people are playing a game, then technically nobody is and when there's too many MP games in the market, that can be more difficult (Unless something like devs giving players control of the game happens, which is barely a thing).

 

I mean, we had Overwatch being hyped, then PUBG, then Fortnite, then Apex Legends... it makes you wonder if their players would miss these games.

 

At least it might be a big case with shooters, because with something like fighting games, a lot of people into that genre will still play a variety of FG's.

Fighting games also have like 2/3 minutes rounds, probably less chances of bad business techniques, tournaments, a different skill ceiling and maybe a lesser focus on "wide appeal". (i might be incorrect on this one, so if anyone knows more about this or anything else, correct me if possible)

 

Also didn't help that Doom '16's MP had a two weapon limit, which considering Doom/FPS history is kind of a sin.

 

I haven't checked the MP in a while but in case it dies, i still think players should be allowed to set personal matches or even offline matches with bots, because during the current state of the topic of video game preservation, nobody wants to see a game die.

Specially when Doom 2016's MP had some interesting assets and lore pieces.

 

Speaking of bot matches and offline, i hope BattleMode at least has that in case we never get a horde mode.

[DoomSpud]

No sleep lost here...

[jazzmaster9]

On 6/26/2019 at 4:40 PM, qdash said:

Wolfenstein II: New Colossus, who remember this game now? When campaign is finished - "ok, next one". It's future of Doom Eternal "singleplayer is only matters".

Yeah everyone has Forgotten about Horizon: Zero Dawn, God of War or Red Dead Redemption...

 

Still hiding behind that Ignore button?

[whatup876]

I've also seen people talking about Japanese titles like Persona 5, Nier: Automata and even Gravity Rush 2.

I think a theory of why some people think SP games are useless might be because a lot of them are story focused and cinematic, making them think that multiplayer is "the gameplay space", when a game like Doom 2016 and its upcoming sequel prove that you can still do great with a single player gameplay focused experience, compared to other AAA games in the western side of the industry.

I guess some people think a game only has single player for the story, so they only play the MP and watch the SP on Youtube.

Might also be a problem when some stories aren't that well written or even good enough to justify being a video game.

 

It's also weird when single player is like the most normal and basic thing put in a video game, that it applies to plenty of video games: Ocarina of Time, Deus Ex, Chrono Trigger, Tetris, Crash Bandicoot.... almost ANY game can be a single player.

[A Nobody]

Well that's disappointing. Battle Mode seems very sweet, but no old-school multiplayer is a step back. At least we have Doom 4 and Zandronum for normal death match and other modes.

[snapshot]

Won't be playing it for more than 2 or 3 rounds anyways just out of curiosity, much like D'16s Multiplayer.

[zen4040]

why is it people only talk about pvp when it comes to multiplayer, my favourite gameplay mode is coop and especially (the original)doom is really fun when playing with a friend. I love games like vermintide and killing floor and would love to see doom have it's own coop campaign it's a simple concept that has allways been a part of doom so why not finally do one?

[seed]

1 hour ago, ([zen3001]) said:

why is it people only talk about pvp when it comes to multiplayer

 

That seems to be the "big thing" these days, isn't it...