The common DOOM misconception

[Nine Inch Heels]

20 minutes ago, Szuran said:

Show me one major new game that is simple to control, has you just pick up weapons and shoot (and jump and duck, why not), and at the same time does anything interesting with its levels.

 

So you want to give players only the most basic of abilities, but then you want to put them into levels which are "complex and interesting" yet navigable with only running, jumping, and crouching? How is that supposed to work?

 

And what makes a level "interesting" anyway? Are classic Doom IWAD maps interesting? If so, why? Is Doom 16's "Foundry" interesting? If not, why is that? Is OOT's Deku-Tree interesting, or would you rather have a water dungeon?

 

I think it's a bit too easy to rant about how "new shooters" do nothing interesting, when you don't care to specify what actually is interesting for you personally.

[Szuran]

10 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

 

So you want to give players only the most basic of abilities, but then you want to put them into levels which are "complex and interesting" yet navigable with only running, jumping, and crouching? How is that supposed to work?

 

Like... Doom? Like games used to until the PS3/360 generation got it wind and games changed. It's quite simple, really.

 

I loved how games didn't have just one path to take, how they didn't have overstuffed HUD, how they had inventive and varied aresnal where every weapon had a different use. They just let out in some environment and your job was to find the way out. Even if these levels weren't too complex, you weren't guided too much, mostly by the environment itself. This lasted from Wolf 3D through Half Life, and even Halo and the likes, but when CoD2 and Modern Warfare became the biggest things ever, it changed.

 

Now? One way, compass, HUD waypoint, huge open levels without a real need to find your way, think, navigate. Battles with extremely similar and uninventive enemies - forget about the variety of Doom, DN3D, Quake or Half-Life, where every enemy acts different and requires a different approach. Nope, just guys shooting machineguns at you. Well, slightly different machineguns.

 

Eh, you either get it or not, feel it or not. I don't mind if you don't. If you like something else, that's completely fine, but you can't claim that stuff like weapon, enemy or level design didn't change.

[seed]

7 minutes ago, Szuran said:

 

Like... Doom? Like games used to until the PS3/360 generation got it wind and games changed. It's quite simple, really.

 

I loved how games didn't have just one path to take, how they didn't have overstuffed HUD, how they had inventive and varied aresnal where every weapon had a different use. They just let out in some environment and your job was to find the way out. Even if these levels weren't too complex, you weren't guided too much, mostly by the environment itself. This lasted from Wolf 3D through Half Life, and even Halo and the likes, but when CoD2 and Modern Warfare became the biggest things ever, it changed.

Now? One way, compass, HUD waypoint, huge open levels without a real need to find your way, think, navigate.

 

Mimus the "think" part, I doubt this is a bad thing.

 

In fact, forcing the player to find their way through every damn thing in the world could be very annoying and time consuming, so I'm glad we have games like Oblivion or Skyrim now, with markers and so on - but everything else hidden on the map unless discovered, so if you prefer the old fashioned way, you can still pretty much do that, at least to an extent. I think they nailed open worlds pretty well overall.

 

Time is a finite resource at the end of the day.

[ketmar]

the thing is that if you need a HUD waypoint marker to find your way through FPS, devs failed their level design course spectacularly. ;-)

[Szuran]

5 minutes ago, seed said:

 with markers and so on - but everything else hidden on the map unless discovered, so if you prefer the old fashioned way, you can still pretty much do that

 

But what for, if there's no challenge, no pacing, a lot empty space and slow, slow gameplay?

I know, people like what they like - I don't like this thing. I feel like open worlds waste my time. There's so much nothing, it feels so slow. The one open world I liked was in Crackdown 1, where you actually had to come up with ways of reaching certain places, and there was a reason to do that - to get pickups. It was great, it was a Doom way to make open world, if I ever saw any game coming close to it.

[seed]

2 minutes ago, ketmar said:

the thing is that if you need a HUD waypoint marker to find your way through FPS, devs failed their level design course spectacularly. ;-)

 

Oh yeah, here's a hot take - if the player gets lost in your game regularly, your level design sucks.

 

2 minutes ago, Szuran said:

But what for, if there's no challenge, no pacing, a lot empty space and slow, slow gameplay?

 

Well, because they're not fast paced games I guess *shrugs*.

 

The "empty" space part I don't get, though. The worlds in these games are fairly diverse with plenty of things to see if you take your time to explore it.

[Juza]

Simple does not equal bad or worse, and complex does not equal good or better. That's the true Doom misconception, or a misconception that goes for all games, even.

 

Doom with its base campaign is an easy game, it doesn't require any complex knowledge of its levels or mechanics just to get to the exit and win. You just hold M1 with a gun if you want to kill something, you often don't need to take precautions other than what would be the best gun to use, and to dodge any demon's attack you just strafe left or right -- because all of Doom 1's enemies just have slow, straight-line projectiles, and they're never placed in interesting situations that would require the player to think vastly.

 

Doom 2 would be more complex with the patterns you have to take to dodge enemy projectiles, such as the Revenant's heat-seeking missile, the Mancubus' fireball patterns, the Archvile's fire, etc. But rarely does Doom 2 try to push the player that far with its awesome new additions to the monster list.

 

Doom levels can be made difficult and complex to play: When those enemies are in combinations, requiring you to dodge those multiple projectiles, each requiring a different pattern to avoid, while at the same time managing the weapons to use and where you should go, that's when Doom 2 becomes comparable to a first person bullet-hell game, for it requires complex knowledge of its works along with split-second decisions. That's only really visible in user levels.

 

I think Doom's complexity is possible not only through its mechanics, but with what the level design can force a player to do with them, something which is sadly not explored vastly with the original levels. But fortunately, fans can make their own levels.

 

Edit: I couldn't give less of a crap to those modern games... either they're simple or complex doesn't matter to me, because they don't interest me at all. But regardless of what they are, Doom is what it is.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Juza : grammer mistakes

[TheNoob_Gamer]

I honestly think this video sums up perfectly about the "easy to learn hard to master" aspect of Doom 1. 

 

4 hours ago, Szuran said:

I feel like open worlds waste my time. There's so much nothing, it feels so slow.

That's because good open world games have their world filled with tons of interesting stuff for players to explore. Case in point, Witcher 3 or even Postal 2.

 

4 hours ago, Szuran said:

One way, compass, HUD waypoint, huge open levels without a real need to find your way, think, navigate. Battles with extremely similar and uninventive enemies

The point is, singleplayer is dying in AAA FPS; in favor of multiplayer.

Spoiler

 

Look at recent games' campaign mode. They may have great narrative, yeah; but their level designs are geared JUST to support that narrative.

That's why you got the compass. The waypoint. The handholding.

 

You want smart enemies? Play multiplayer.

You want decent level design? Play multiplayer.

You want fast pacing? Play multiplayer.

You want gun variety? Play multiplayer.

 

Seriously, coop and multiplayer games are the norm now. All of you have to admit it.

 

Then again...

11 hours ago, TheNoob_Gamer said:

I'm glad that NEW indie FPSs exist.

 

[Szuran]

I think we have a misunderstanding, @Juza. I don't associate simple with easy, and complex (Doom) with hard. I think Street Fighter is simple and super hard. However, I don't think Doom is hard. Let me rephrase my thought: I think modern shooters are mind-numbing, and Doom and the likes are engaging. This is the difference between two approaches:

 

1. here's the level, the exit is somewhere, have at it.

2. become an actor in our fantasticly directed set pieces!

 

There are also open world shooters and games in general, but about them...

 

@TheNoob_Gamer I can almost agree on the open world aspect, but one thing ruins it for me. I stopped playing The Witcher 3 when I noticed I'm going from a question mark to a question mark. There wasn't any surprise in discovering this world, because I always knew where something was waiting for me. This game would've been fun if I actually explored the world, but it was more like busywork: reveal this question mark, reveal this question mark... I prefer the Morrowind approach, or even Oblivion's, which had player play a bigger part in exploration.

 

A game I've been enjoying lately is Darksiders. I like how semi-open it is, although it too has elements of "long straight lines of nothing" in it. But the way it leads you is smart, there's exploration, there's teasing of places you will be able to reach later, and I'm genuinely interested in finding out what they hide. I like that if I'm not sure what to do, I can summon Mark Hammill and listen to his clue. I love it! The combat is a bit boring, but the in-game stats show I've been fighting 2 hours out of 10. Good proportions.

 

Anyway, let's stick to shooters, I'm really not into RPGs etc., I'm talking just about shooters and their level/weapon/enemy design.

[jazzmaster9]

11 hours ago, Szuran said:

This game is basically a straight line, and it could've been so much more. Level design DOESN'T EXIST anymore in shooters, often even in those that try to emulate old school games.

I don't see whats wrong with a game being a straight line. Even a game like Doom is basically Start Here ===> Exit there. 

 

This thread just ended up being Old games good, new games bad as i suspected. Level design still exits in FPS, it just so happens its the type YOU don't like. 

[ketmar]

7 hours ago, TheNoob_Gamer said:

The point is, singleplayer is dying in AAA FPS; in favor of multiplayer.

yeah. creating MP is easier than creating SP. much easier. actually, most of the time you don't even have to create a full-featured game, you only need tho throw in some basic mechanics and some arena-styled levels. and i'm not even joking here...

 

don't get me wrong, tho, i have nothing against MP. but i myself absolutely not interested in multiplayer. i understand that i will buy the game once, will play it, and won't do lootboxes/microtransactions, so creating good SP campaign for me (not idioitc bot training or other half-assed crap) is wasted effort. so i simply stopped caring about AAA projects. after all, there are alot of indie games, and they're often much more interesting to play.

[banjiepixel]

5 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

I don't see whats wrong with a game being a straight line. Even a game like Doom is basically Start Here ===> Exit there. 

 

This thread just ended up being Old games good, new games bad as i suspected. Level design still exits in FPS, it just so happens its the type YOU don't like. 

 

Game being a straight line can work if it is designed well. For me, Doom 2016 being very linear wasn't a problem. I like rail shooters so I am also able enjoy very linear first person shooters. It's a different style of a game than classic FPS games but is not worse at all if done well. I am very tired of people thinking that open level design is always better than linear level design.