Is Doom 3 good?

[Morpheus666]

@hybridial I disagree, i think that they weren't trying to make a "Doom game" Per say, rather a re-imagining of what Doom could have been, (it has many issues not gonna sugar-coat it.) To mention 64 to be better is kinda a insult to the hard work they put into Doom 3, As Doom64 was the beginning of the whole "Dark/Horror Vibe they tried to make that the other games had briefly touched on, Doom 3 to me was a attempt at trying to adapt to the changing Video Game market at that time,( In order to keep doom from being left behind in the 90's) They may have made a semi-sub-par game but Doom 3's importance in continuing the doom Series legacy can't be denied.

 

One major reason as to why people dislike it is because it doesn't fit the other games, it creates it's own mechanics and borrows the story.( you have to remember this also was the first fully 3d doom game) so the game's criticism may be merited in some parts, but to stretch it to be the worst doom game is a bit much. (i can think of at least 2 other ports that are far inferior.)

 

Furthermore, Doom 3 has i will admit a very slow start but once you get adjusted to the difficulty and just chill out and play the game without criticizing it, it actually isn't too bad of a game. (Honestly IMO it's on my top 10 best 2000's games)

[HorrorMovieRei]

I'm gonna echo what I said in this thread, and also add to it that I don't mind slow gameplay so long at it's engaging(for example, the mod Hideous Destructor), but I think Doom 3 falls on the less favorable end of this spectrum. The PDA audio logs don't really slow down the game so much as they bring it to a halt usually. You could leave them playing in the background while you continue the game, but for me that's pretty much like trying to hold a conversation while you're playing. You're trying to pay attention at what they're saying and also concentrate on the game, and not everyone can do that. I often end up missing whatever the cabinet code is by the end of the 5 minute monologue because I got too into the actual gameplay.

 

Despite liking the attempt at bringing more horror into it, I have to say my opinion changed since I made that other post. My experience with the game has always been in short bursts, so much so that I only played through the whole campaing and it's expansion once, and as a teenager around 2007/8 everything new was exciting. But I've started playing it again recently and have freshened my memory, and I don't think I enjoy playing it that much, and as such I have to say that in my opinion it isn't a good game. I think mediocre is a better way to describe it.

 

Say what you will about Doom 2016/Eternal leaning only on the action aspects of classic Doom and mostly ignoring how scary the game was in 1993, but I think the end result is a much more well rounded, fun product. But now that I typed that last sentence I wonder: Was Doom 3 just unrefined or is the concept of a slower, scarier Doom just doomed(heh) from the start? How could it have been a better game?

[hybridial]

Just now, Morpheus666 said:

@hybridial I disagree, i think that they weren't trying to make a "Doom game" Per say, rather a re-imagining of what Doom could have been

 

And that's the root of my problem. They put very little creative effort into that reimagining. Oh, the engine was stellar, the technology was very impressive, but all the tech in the world doesn't make for a good game on its own. I hate that whole era of FPS design, Starting from Half Life and going to... ah, now? I don't think there's been any drastic evolution away from it anyway, but Doom 3 specifically lacked a coherent vision of its own, offering just a linear set of corridors with scripted set pieces most of the way through, it opens up for maybe an hour in the hell section then limps along after having lost what little momentum the trip to hell had given it. No, Doom 3 is a game that was made because id felt they needed to make it. And thats how it comes across, it comes across as a by the numbers dead-of-imagination piece of work. 

[seed]

Good, but not great. The gameplay is much slower than it should be, the combat isn't satisfying, it is clunky and overly dark into some parts, and ultimately tries to be scary way too hard, which goes to waste completely thanks to its highly predictable nature.

 

I think that id did have the right ideas for the game, but where D3 failed was the execution, not the theory. If it wasn't for its issues, it would be much more fun to play, but as it is, a playthrough was enough for me, there's nothing left for me to see. Say what you will about D2016 lacking most, if not all the horror and atmosphere of the OG or D3, but it ultimately is a game that is much more fun to play and feels a lot better than its predecessor.

Edited February 18, 2020 by seed

[silentzorah]

If you're looking for something akin to classic Doom, where you're sprinting at 50 MPH and blasting demons without ever having to reload (save for the Super Shotgun), no, it's not good.  However, if you're looking for survival horror, it's okay.  Not great, just okay.  Inventory management is a non-issue, so it's more horror than survival horror.

 

Jumpscares get predictable after a while.  I only ever had one jumpscare get me, and that was in Lost Mission, where you go into a closet to grab some armor, and turning around to see an imp standing right behind me.  Fuck that imp.

 

Can't really recommend BFG Edition, though.  No mod support.

[Juza]

It's great. I love the greater emphasis on horror than Doom 1 and 2 had. Albeit slower, it's still a Doom game, you're a marine and you still kill loads of demons while holding nearly a dozen guns and a lot of ammo for all of them (which is why it is far from a survival-horror game) and I see inspirations from the original games in its levels, such as monster closets ala Knee Deep In The Dead. It was an attempt to modernize Doom, just like Doom 2016, which is also a very different game than the classic entries in the series. I think they managed to keep the Doom in it whilst making it unique.

[Cruduxy Pegg]

You are better off playing FEAR, Dead Space or Bioshock. 

[mrthejoshmon]

Doom 3 is an amazing shooter, everyone likes to rag on the gameplay because it wasn't classic Doom (which is justified I guess) and had more modern conventions, however in terms of (at the time) modern shooters it was one of the best.

 

The game has solid shooting mechanics (and probably THE best plasma rifle in all of Doom) and interesting lore and world building, the combat is also still quite fast paced (especially on Veteran difficulty) and will have you ducking, dodging and weaving (especially against Hellknights and Vagary) and I'd say that the ROE expansion is probably one of the best for the time too.

 

My only advice is to just play Doom 3 and find out for yourself, don't go in playing like Doom 2 or you'll just not have fun.

[Boomslang]

yeeeess.

 

[nname]

I feel like a lot of people didn't like Doom 3 just because it didn't fit in with the other Doom games. Yes, it is different but it definitely achieved exactly what it was supposed to achieve. But in the end, everyone likes something different. I personally think that D3 is an excellent game, no need to hate on it just because it isn't similar

[hybridial]

4 minutes ago, xzotikk said:

I feel like a lot of people didn't like Doom 3 just because it didn't fit in with the other Doom games. Yes, it is different but it definitely achieved exactly what it was supposed to achieve. But in the end, everyone likes something different. I personally think that D3 is an excellent game, no need to hate on it just because it isn't similar

 

or maybe people disliked it for other reasons. Just throwing that out there :p 

[nname]

Just now, hybridial said:

or maybe people disliked it for other reasons.

That's dark

[snapshot]

17 minutes ago, xzotikk said:

no need to hate on it just because it isn't similar

I don't hate it, I just think it's boring.

[xdarkmasterx]

I enjoyed it, in fact, I think its (relatively) pwoerful monsters and lower time to kill suit its sparsely populated levels better than the enemies of the original doom (E1 - E3). the biggest problems i saw are:

 

1- it's linear, even more so than 2016 doom is. The only part of the game I saw more than one ways to approach the situatoin was the tram at the end of communications transfer. It's not such a big problem (indeed a lot of "classic FPS" are much more linear than people give them credit for, not doom in particular but games like duke nukem or quake)

 

2- Bosses suck, are way too easy and simple (however, there's very few FPS I can say this isn't the case, so meh :p). Cyberdemon was the biggest anticlimax fight in Doom history

 

3- various small things slow the game down unnecessarily - sprint stamina (why, ID? >_<) and having to wait for random machines to move in order to progress are the biggest problems. Having to listen to PDAs to get codes could be too, but honestly the game gives you so much ammo you should never actually need to open those lockers in the first place :p

 

4- Environments are indistinct and blur together, especially once you hit delta labs

 

there's a lot to like about it, but sadly a few "small" issues prevent it from reaching the heights of its predecessors.

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by xdarkmasterx

[instagib]

No. the weapons feel weak it's very dark and the enemy placement is odd, really odd

[Rathori]

I'd say it's a shitty horror, but an okay shooter. IMO it plays much better if you just pretend it's Doom 2016 and rush towards the enemies and blast the crap out of them, rather than play cautiously and run from the monsters.

[SuperCupcakeTactics]

Yes, though I'd recommend the original game and its expansion over the BFG edition and you'll have access to more mods too.

[Spectre.Charles]

It's a mixed bag. It's got really good level design, story telling, and atmosphere, it's very campy and scary at the same time like an old horror movie. That being said it can also be boring at times and the weapons and enemies are really weak.

[Slipgate Tourist]

No it is not. It's an average game at best and a bad Doom game. It looked good at the time but the gameplay was and is garbage IMO. It's slow, dark and boring, enemy and weapon design are uninspired, the environments are samey and cramped, the shotgun and many of the other weapons are trash, the weapons also sound weak, the corpses of enemies disappear into thin air a second or two after you shoot them, you rarely encounter more than a few monsters at a time,.... Meh/10.

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Slipgate Tourist

[SilverMiner]

Doom 3 is the game of my childhood and of course IMO it's good

[snapshot]

9 minutes ago, Slipgate Tourist said:

*sad romero noises*

he's just mad cause he didn't help make it lol.

[Cynical]

The original edition is somewhat underrated, it's a pretty solid FPS with some cool ideas (screw the haters, the Flashlight mechanic is great, and it's got the best boss fights of any game with "Doom" in the title).  BFG edition is awful.

[The Nate]

Yes, unless it's BFG Edition.

[Ashley_Pomeroy]

In my opinion it's more interesting to write about than play. Back in 2004 it was Id Software's big comeback after the multiplayer-only Quake III Arena, but by 2004 most of the people who made the original Doom had left the company and Id Software itself didn't command the same kind of respect it did in the late 1990s. The rest of the gaming world had moved on - the new trends at the time were military shooters and tactical games along the lines of Rainbow Six. Noways a four-year gap doesn't sound like a lot but it felt a lot longer in the early 2000s.

 

Furthermore it came out in the same year as Half-Life 2 and Far Cry, which felt like "the future" - they had open maps, smarter AI and occasional non-linear aspects. Doom 3 has a couple of interactive bits near the beginning but after the first few levels all of that seemed to get forgotten about. I remember that the early E3 demo of Doom 3 showcased some clever monster AI and a bit of stealthy creeping, but in the actual game the monsters either jump at you or run straight for you. Almost the entire game takes place in narrow corridors, or open-looking environments that box you in.

 

In its defence it has some genuinely good jump-scares and a couple of neat lighting effects. I remember one sequence where you have to follow an illuminated machine as it moves through a pitch-black chamber, and a bit where you see the silhouette of an imp through some stairs. But again about a third of the way through the game all of that stops, as if they needed to wrap it up quickly. The environmental audio is very good.

 

Against it, the design is incredibly formulaic. The environments are almost interchangeable. All of the characters appear to be made of modelling clay, even the human characters. Dr Betruger is so cartoonishly evil he sounds like a villain from Scooby Doo. The PDA voice messages are dull and flat, and the pacing is all wrong - three-quarters of the way through the game people are still complaining that their screwdrivers have gone missing. Not only are your guns weak, but there's almost no visible indication that the enemies are taking damage. My recollection of the gameplay is of constantly having to reload.

 

I mean, I'd like to enjoy it. Every time I play it I'm prepared to give it a fresh try. The basic idea sounds great - an uncompromisingly dark horror shooter - but every time I play it I'm just reminded of why it irritates me. And as time goes by the graphics look less special and it gets harder to run with modern PCs. It's a bit like digging up your ex-wife and re-animating her. You quickly realise why you broke up and after eight years buried underground her physical and mental condition have decayed. At least she doesn't smell any more. I'd be grateful if you don't talk about this.

 

Off the top of my head it was the first major A-list title that didn't run on Windows 98 - I took the opportunity to upgrade my PC at the time. To this day I've never actually finished it - every time I play it I give up in boredom around the time you get the soul sphere. I remember thinking it was a tragedy that the team behind System Shock 2 didn't have access to the Doom 3 engine.

[unerxai]

My problem with it is that the levels all look the same until you reach hell. It makes the game feel very repetitive. The gameplay was ok for me and even the boss fights I think are better than the ones in Doom/II (I guess that's not saying much though). The PDAs were uninteresting to listen to.

 

Quake 4 was more enjoyable. Speaking of idtech4, isn't it sad that two idtech4 games can't be bought anymore? (Wolf, Prey).

[Arl]

Yes.

[seed]

12 hours ago, Ashley_Pomeroy said:

I remember that the early E3 demo of Doom 3 showcased some clever monster AI and a bit of stealthy creeping, but in the actual game the monsters either jump at you or run straight for you.

 

No, that was definitely fake. It was solely done for the presentation and to show the player that some enemies, notably the HKs, are much more dangerous and powerful this time around. It was a fully scripted sequence.

 

Stealth was more likely than not never seriously considered. Since they both came out around the same time, some HL2 E3 videos also showcase some stealthy things, but Source is, in reality, not good at this (and D3's engine likely isn't designed for this either), so another aspect faked for the sake of the presentation. Always take what you see in tech demos with a grain of salt.

[ketmar]

7 minutes ago, seed said:

and D3's engine likely isn't designed for this either

The Dark Mod authors managed to do it, tho. ;-)

[seed]

2 minutes ago, ketmar said:

The Dark Mod authors managed to do it, tho. ;-)

 

Of course, I never said it was not doable, just that the engine itself is probably not optimal for this :p . Some Source mods, such as Entropy Zero, also have stealth sequences, and it is there where it shows the engine is not up for the task, it feels very controlled.

[ketmar]

yeah, i just wanted to inject TDM mention here, because it is very impressive work. ;-)