Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
rescue86k

What did you think about Doom 2016/ Doom Eternal?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, NoXion said:

I wouldn't call its presence in classic Doom insignificant! The Chasm would be a far less frustrating map without it. It's also a key part of the Icon of Sin fight, especially if you're not using freelook, as many do.

It may depend on how low your bar for calling moving in 3d-ish levels "platforming" is :> I hesitate to qualify Chasm's tightrope walking as such, so really only that series of red pillars you run across comes to mind. IoS too, it's a movement-related challenge technically, but if you asked me I'd never call timing the rocket shot platforming.

 

9 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

I do hope more Companies try to replicate Doom Eternal's Gameplay Loop and expand upon it even more. and i'm sure id will be refining it themselves as well.

Personally I would be fine if it was like a split branch of FPS design, so long as it doesn't take over the idea of how all modern FPS should be. I would hate all new FPS games being confined to arenas, as well as go for the resupply off of infinite enemies using cooldown abilities approach to resource management. They can be fun and they were fun in the nuDooms but it also feels like a deviation or a gimmick instead of a straight up evolution of the genre since it nullifies many of its elements that used to exist.

 

Also, when it comes to emphasis on movement and using the right weapon for the right situation, as well as having mostly arena fights, I much prefer the serious sam series :>

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, I Drink Lava said:

Aside from that, I do agree that Doom Eternal makes design sacrifices in the long-run in order to provide a more flashy spectacle for the short-term. Everybody loves Doom Eternal now in 2021, but I have a hard time believing it'll have the same lasting appeal as classic Doom due to its ultimately more repetitive gameplay loop. The pointless platforming represents the zenith of ID Software's capabilities to expand on the core gameplay.

DOOM Eternal's gameplay is extremely in-depth, what are you talking about?

 

Classic DOOM is either comprised of mazes or combat that largely consists of circle-strafing (there's not even a jump button!) and using the one or two most optimal strategies for each battle (which is usually the Shotgun and Super Shotgun since they're the most flexible and have the most plentiful ammo, though sometimes it's better to use something like the Rocket Launcher for large crowds or the Chaingun against Pain Elementals). I'm not saying that this gameplay loop is bad, dull, or lacking in complexity, but still.

 

DOOM Eternal, on the other hand, grants you so many different tools with not a single one being redundant. There's now a wide variety of movement options (jump, double-jump, dash, meathook, Ballista boosting, jump-pads, monkey bars). Equipment items like the Flame Belch and Ice Bomb not only just reward players for not just shooting, but have much greater potential when used in the right situations and in the right hands. Not only are there 7 standard weapons (plus various abilities and "Super Weapons"), but each has two alt-fire modes with plenty of flexibility and utility.

 

Like, I could go on. DOOM Eternal has an extremely high skill-ceiling with tons of ways to approach encounters (don't let the tutorial pop-ups make you think otherwise!). It's pretty much an FPS character action game (think Devil May Cry or Bayonetta, if you're unfamiliar with the term), just without a proper scoring system. In comparison, Classic DOOM is just an FPS, which is fine, but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that DOOM Eternal is nothing more than style over substance in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Antroid said:

They can be fun and they were fun in the nuDooms but it also feels like a deviation or a gimmick instead of a straight up evolution of the genre since it nullifies many of its elements that used to exist.

I completely disagree here sorry. I'm not saying its the end all be all of FPS design, its not. But It is a very unique take on FPS gameplay that I would want to see expanded upon with different developers.

It's more than just a simple gimmick and has a place on the Evolution on the FPS Genre.  I genuinely believe that games should take this approach more.

 

As for serious Sam, It really didn't click with me. I was more engaged with Doom Eternal's arenas and encounters than any of Serious Sam games.

Edited by jazzmaster9

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

But It is a very unique take on FPS gameplay that I would want to see expanded upon with different developers.

It's more than just a simple gimmick and has a place on the Evolution on the FPS Genre.

Honestly it doesn't feel like much of a disagreement here. Assuming I interpret "has a place on the evolution of the genre" not as "leaves a permanent mark on all fps games going forward" but rather as "has a place in the landscape of different styles of FPS games".

 

But then again, I completely stand by my calling it a deviation and a split branch of the design, I guess the word "gimmick" can sound a bit dismissive, but still. I could never consider it the main direction the genre should go because, well, as I said, it simply doesn't keep everything the genre used to offer, it takes some of the aspects of the genre and focuses on them alone. I would say the same about a series like SSam, since it also deviates from the classic formula by focusing more on crowd control and arenas, though it doesn't have many different mechanics beyond that, so to me it's a lesser deviation than Eternal. Another "split branch" would be stuff like bullet-weapon-based cover shooters, which is a more significant deviation than Eternal. Diversity in the genre is good, but I'll have a problem with it if things I dislike about Eternal become the new norm across all new FPS games.

 

21 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

As for serious Sam, It really didn't click with me. I was more engaged with Doom Eternal's arenas and encounters than any of Serious Sam games.

Different strokes and all that. SS4 on the hardest difficulty for me was a far more entertaning experience than Eternal (and not much easier). I also vastly prefer the SS soundtracks to nuDoom's music, and Eternal's identity crisis in terms of environments makes me rank it lower than most SS games in atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post

I love the combat in Serious Sam, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that it can occasionally reach a point where it overstays its welcome. I feel that I have to be in the mood for a marathon session. Serious Sam is also very fond of the "grab some health/armour/ammo and a whole bunch of monsters spawn in" kind of dickishness that's actually quite rare in official Doom maps.

In fact the mechanical complexity of NuDoom is such that I think comparing it to Serious Sam is a bit silly. You fight in arenas and you shoot guns, but the differences multiply from there. You also don't fight ridiculous numbers of enemies in NuDoom, which is less about crowd control and more about resource management.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, NoXion said:

In fact the mechanical complexity of NuDoom is such that I think comparing it to Serious Sam is a bit silly. You fight in arenas and you shoot guns, but the differences multiply from there. You also don't fight ridiculous numbers of enemies in NuDoom, which is less about crowd control and more about resource management.

The amusing thing is that nuDoom is often called a total callback to classic FPS games while at this point I feel like the Doom series has strayed significantly farther from the classics than SSam currently is. Back in the days of the first SSam games it used to be annoying when people called them the successors to Doom since they were also noticeably different, but the differences pale in comparison to how much Eternal changes the formula, imo.

 

I don't really think comparing the games is too silly, I feel like SSam's depth is often underrated by people playing in coop or on lower difficulties than Serious. If you play it on Serious (and alone, so no respawns), you also have to keep choosing the right gun for the situation, move a lot, and maintain very sharp focus on the battlefield and your toolset on the same level as in Eternal.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Antroid said:

I'm entirely unconvinced that this is impossible to overcome. Navmeshes can be split and connected with good old navigation markers or waypoints or whatever you call them. Collision or level layout data can stay loaded completely independently of the art assets that take up the majority of memory. Enemy behavior can be vastly simplified outside of the player's immediate vicinity.

 

If frickin' Stalker games, known for slavjank, can have enemies simulate navigating and fighting in levels that are completely unloaded (faction wars in Clear Sky), as well as keep the whole respectably big maps loaded well enough for enemies to walk around, pathfind, fight with roaming mutants (who also pathfind), etc, then modern games with bigger and more experienced teams behind them can do it to. I would happily sacrifice some of the excessive movement options enemies have such as climbing on every wall if that somehow makes the AI or the navigation data too complex. But still, they don't need to do all that far away from the player, so unloaded or irrelevant level chunks (excuse my minecraft-inspired terminology here) can very easily be represented with very simplified and primitive data that is just enough for enemies to, like, take the appropriate time to get from point A to point B.

 

I'm more inclined to believe that they don't tend to do whole big levels with roaming enemies because it's a recipe for a much less laser-focused and harder to balance gameplay experience, not to mention likely slower and less flashy. Which is more than fine by me, personally, but they were clearly aiming for exciting action all the time and whatnot.

 

Resident Evil 2 Remake literally has Mr-X moving around unloaded areas, people checked by hacking the camera, his entire AI/movement through rooms isn't altered at all even if he's in the other half of the police station, his AI isn't even altered slightly.

Share this post


Link to post

the new games are honestly too much for my ears and eyes. can't even tell if i like them or not, don't know if I can blame overdesign and clutter cos I loved the overdesign and clutter in, say, Skyrim, but I can't feel the game at all like I can with oldschool stuff. might be a resolution problem, or a being old problem =P

Share this post


Link to post

2016 is by far my least-favorite Doom.  I don't ever want to play it again.

 

Eternal is alright enough.  It has less of an arena-y feel to me, and that was a big plus.  I kinda enjoyed the combat at times as well, especially how there was a lot more incidental combat thrown into the mix.  I did feel the overall experience was far too short, however.  It feels like I bought only half a game considering how quickly you get through the hell priests.  But the story... the story felt all over the place, to the point that it feels almost like bad Bible fanfiction at times.  I feel like the expansions were pretty meh, though I did like the first level of TAG1.

 

I'm kinda glad I'm done with them both, though.  Neither felt very Doom-y to me, especially the character of Doomguy.  Given the option, I'd always choose Eternal over 2016.  Or preferably another game entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Remilia Scarlet said:

Eternal is alright enough.  It has less of an arena-y feel to me, and that was a big plus.

This is a bit strange to me because I've always found Eternal to be more explicitly arena-y. I don't remember 2016 having the same amount of blatant orange forcefields (it at least pretended a bit with the "demonic infestation" intercom messages and locked doors and such...), and 2016 also has the levels 3 and 4 that are the only properly nonlinear levels with incidental enemies here and there. Eternal has not a single level like Foundry or whatever the next level after Foundry was called, not even super gore nest is like that.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't play 2016. Finished Eternal and the ancient gods. it has some stupid parts but I found it good. Too bad there is no mapping or multiplayer - no am not counting the 2vs1 stuff- for this game.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, chemo said:

In comparison, Classic DOOM is just an FPS, which is fine, but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that DOOM Eternal is nothing more than style over substance in comparison. 

You missed the point of my post. The differences between classic Doom and Doom Eternal don't lie in the "complexity" or "skill ceiling" but rather in the nuances of the overall design.

 

Classic Doom is very much a "building blocks" kind of game like Minecraft, Super Mario, or Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Weapons, enemies, and linedef actions serve the most rudimentary functions, which synergize with the hand-crafted level geometry to create an infinite number of possibilities for players to experience. The simplicity of Doom's design is what allows this limitless level design potential to be possible. Contextualizing functions any more than "shotgun that deals up to 105 damage but dissipates with distance" or "large spider with 500HP that acts as plasma turret" would ruin the flow of everything. The only real objective of classic Doom set by ID Software is to reach the exit linedef. Everything up to that point is in the hands of the level authors.

 

Doom Eternal, as you've said, is not unlike a character action game in terms of constant weapon switching against aggressive, specialized foes. The combat loop is very much set in stone, arguably to the point of being rigid and overtuned. Weapons and enemies now have so many different functions that the lines between hierarchies have been completely blurred. Due to the highly contextualized weapons and enemies in Doom Eternal, level design has devolved into a string of Unreal Tournament 99 arenas with the most basic platforming, punch or shoot switches, and "secrets" telegraphed by 8-foot tall wall cracks to connect them. Every level in Doom Eternal feels exactly the same as the last but with more enemies and different textures.

 

The fact that most of the Master Levels (aside from unique gimmick rooms like in the SGN ML) barely play any different from the original versions aside from just taking longer and requiring more chainsaws and glory kills to survive shows how superficial Doom Eternal's gameplay loop ultimately is compared to the classics. Pretty much everything except the most extreme contextualized enemies like Marauders can be taken down with Precision Bolt-Super Shotgun/Ballista/Rocket Launcher swaps until you run low on ammo/health/armor and need to perform a context-sensitive function with cooldown on an infinitely-respawning zombie.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, I Drink Lava said:

Classic Doom is very much a "building blocks" kind of game like Minecraft, Super Mario, or Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Weapons, enemies, and linedef actions serve the most rudimentary functions, which synergize with the hand-crafted level geometry to create an infinite number of possibilities for players to experience. The simplicity of Doom's design is what allows this limitless level design potential to be possible. Contextualizing functions any more than "shotgun that deals up to 105 damage but dissipates with distance" or "large spider with 500HP that acts as plasma turret" would ruin the flow of everything. The only real objective of classic Doom set by ID Software is to reach the exit linedef. Everything up to that point is in the hands of the level authors.

Uh... DOOM Eternal's weapons, enemies, pickups, power-ups, hazards and level triggers don't count as "building blocks"? Doesn't DOOM Eternal's only real objective boil down to "get to the end of the level" as well? I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

9 hours ago, I Drink Lava said:

Doom Eternal, as you've said, is not unlike a character action game in terms of constant weapon switching against aggressive, specialized foes. The combat loop is very much set in stone, arguably to the point of being rigid and overtuned. Weapons and enemies now have so many different functions that the lines between hierarchies have been completely blurred. Due to the highly contextualized weapons and enemies in Doom Eternal, level design has devolved into a string of Unreal Tournament 99 arenas with the most basic platforming, punch or shoot switches, and "secrets" telegraphed by 8-foot tall wall cracks to connect them. Every level in Doom Eternal feels exactly the same as the last but with more enemies and different textures.

"Weapons and enemies now have so many different functions"? Uh, yeah? Doesn't that show the sheer amount of possible combinations DOOM Eternal has? How on earth does that "[blur] the lines between hierarchies"? Can you not tell the difference between the Prowler and the Arch-Vile?

 

And like, if you simplify things, then yeah DOOM Eternal's level design does devolve into a "string of Unreal Tournament 99 arenas with the most basic platforming, punch or shoot switches, and "secrets" telegraphed by 8-foot tall wall cracks to connect them". That's like saying Classic DOOM can be accurately summed up as "mazes and monster closets".

 

To explain my counter-argument, just look at the Cultist Base. While the prior two levels are relatively straight-forward (though aren't exactly lacking in their own quirks), the Cultist Base introduces various new elements aside from new enemies and textures, some of which aren't seen anywhere else in the game. There's button-activated swinging blades; a "jail" room with "cells" that either release monsters or give items and can be opened in any order; the Cueball (which is more of an environmental tool than an enemy) is first introduced in the "Blood Pit", which is an encounter unlike anything else in the game; I could go on...

 

9 hours ago, I Drink Lava said:

The fact that most of the Master Levels (aside from unique gimmick rooms like in the SGN ML) barely play any different from the original versions aside from just taking longer and requiring more chainsaws and glory kills to survive shows how superficial Doom Eternal's gameplay loop ultimately is compared to the classics. Pretty much everything except the most extreme contextualized enemies like Marauders can be taken down with Precision Bolt-Super Shotgun/Ballista/Rocket Launcher swaps until you run low on ammo/health/armor and need to perform a context-sensitive function with cooldown on an infinitely-respawning zombie.

I agree that the first two Master Levels are pretty much just the original versions but harder (though I don't think they were trying to be anything more than that), but what the hell are you talking about with the SGN ML? Many rooms like flesh teleporter area, the lobby unlocked by the first gore key, and the first sewer/toxic waste section are completely re-contextualized and play out completely differently compared to the base mission while being more than just "gimmicks". Hell, immediately in the first big arena you're introduced to a once-sparse hallway now populated by Arachnotrons and a Tyrant, making what was once a simple dash down a path into a test of good movement and aiming in tight spaces.

 

If a level can be remixed to this extent while keeping the same geometry, then I think that's a testament to this game's accomplishments.

Edited by chemo

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

To me, with my preferences and tastes, classic FPS feel like games with a much greater variety of circumstances and experiences, while the gameplay in Eternal feels much more samey the whole way through. I imagine that which style of game is more memorable and feels richer in unique experiences depends on what aspects of the games you're more perceptive to, interested in and engaged by. In Eternal, the expanded toolset and mobility and whatnot gives some people a much cooler experience, while for me it, if anything, serves to diminish the uniqueness of every new situation.

 

I'm the type of person who, for example, would rather play a platformer than a fighting game. If asked, most people probably would (not without basis) say that Street Fighter is a much deeper and complex game than Super Mario World, right? However, to me SF is a boring game and every match is essentially the same. Meanwhile Super Mario World is a memorable adventure. Of course, the genre difference between Doom Eternal and Doom 1/2 is much smaller than the genre difference between Street Fighter and Super Mario World, so I would actually compare Eternal to Smash Bros in this metaphor, especially if you play as Mario, lol. Think about it: in Smash you still move around and jump and have enemies, much like in Mario, and in Eternal you still move around and shoot at demons, much like in the OGs. And just like Smash puts you, instead of full length levels, into smaller arenas where you fight much more intense battles using mechanics that come from fighting games, Eternal is pretty much a series of arenas where you fight much more intense battles using mechanics that come from character action games (or some other genre, I dunno). Playing Eternal to me as a fan of specific aspects of classic FPS games is like playing Smash Brothers for the platforming. It's a game that has a lot to offer but it has much less of what I want.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Antroid said:

However, to me SF is a boring game and every match is essentially the same. Meanwhile Super Mario World is a memorable adventure.

 

I think this, along with your Classic Doom and Eternal comparisons, highlights that you prefer the modular approach of "environmental variety" over the interconnected systems of "ability variety". While I'm not familiar with the specifics of Super Mario World, I can say that nobody in the fighting game community would agree that "every match is essentially the same".

 

If you examine Street Fighter from an "environmental variety" perspective, I can see why you think it's essentially the same in every match - a boxed room that just differs by two characters of choice (among just 30+ characters usually). From an "ability variety" perspective however, Street Fighter (or any other fighting game) is highly complex. In Street Fighter games, you typically have eight directional movements, nine attack buttons, and several combination abilities (throws, projectiles, anti-airs, etc.). Each output has unique frame data, hitboxes, hurtboxes, pushback, and other properties that distinguishes the same "light punch" between Ryu and Chun-Li or Zangief and Sagat. Then there are abstract fighting game concepts and theories regarding pressure, footsies, meaties, set-ups, cross-ups, shimmies, etc, what they are, how to use them, or how to counter them. YouTube channels such as Core-A Gaming go into excellent detail regarding fighting game theory. And when you're fighting against another player (arguably the best way to appreciate Street Fighter or any other fighting game), the complexity and interconnectedness of these systems is really highlighted.

 

Every match isn't "essentially the same" because a player's approach is different depending on their opponent's playstyle or their character. A Ryu player has to approach a fight differently against Zangief (avoiding throw set-ups and using fireballs effectively) than they would against Dhalsim (creating openings to burst in and focusing on pressure when they try to escape). Even if a Ryu player fights against two Chun-Li players, the Ryu player would approach them differently. Maybe one Chun-Li player fights aggressively and likes to use shimmies. Or maybe the second Chun-Li player relies more on mid-range fireball set-ups and is very consistent with their anti-airs. The Ryu player has to use their toolset of abilities and effectively use them in different situations and set-ups. Maybe the Ryu player notices the second Chun-Li doesn't handle cross-ups really well and begins to use that more often. Or maybe the Ryu player will change their jumping patterns to bait anti-airs and punish that playstyle. Maybe the Chun-Li player realizes this after a few punishes and begins to use anti-airs less often. And maybe the Ryu will jump in at the least expected time when that habit is discouraged for the most unexpected attack. And all these back-and-forth decisions between the players are happening within seconds. That doesn't even cover how these two players would have back-and-forth psychology regarding throws, fireball pressure, footsies, etc. Once you understand and apply these concepts in fighting games, they become a whole lot more engaging and fun to play. There's a whole lot of complexity when it comes to fighting games, which is why there's a whole "fighting game community" (or FGC) around these games (and even some still for 30+ year old games like Street Fighter II), because every fight feels unique and engaging.

 

From what I understand, the uniqueness of Super Mario World (or any platformer) comes from how the environment and puzzles are changed up, become more advanced, and are interconnected in their own way across the various stages. Mario himself only has a few "tools" per game - the variety comes from the world and how it's designed with pieces that engage the player to think. Similarly, you could say the same for Classic Doom - Doomguy (comparatively to Doom Slayer) may not have a lot of tools himself either, but the complexity comes from how the levels are designed, where the enemies are placed, what weapons/ammo are accessible and where, etc. That "environmental variety" is what makes Classic Doom (as well as Super Mario World) engaging to play. Conversely, Doom Eternal engages the player using "ability variety" - thirteen weapon mods, grenade faltering, ice bomb freezing, Blood Punch and its properties, dashing movement, chainsaw/glory-kill/flame-belch mechanics, 2-3 super weapons, etc. While the majority of fights can be described as "arena fights" (stuck in a large arena with jump pads and waves of enemies), the uniqueness and engaging factor to Doom Eternal comes from utilizing that toolset of abilities against different compositions of enemies. If a player Ice Bombs an Arch-Vile early in the fight, they might rely on grenade falters to approach a Cyber-Mancubus for a Blood Punch. If they're out of Blood Punch, they might toss a grenade into a Cacodemon for the guaranteed stagger or maybe they'll charge a level 2 Destroyer Blade against a nearby Whiplash instead (depending on what's available and what situation the player is in). Similarly, these decisions are made in split seconds and depend on the environment, what's available, and what's the situation (is this the start of an arena, the middle wave, or the final wave?). Outside of the arena battles, you can also find more unique encounters (mostly in the DLC or Master Level maps) - Spirit-buffed Tyrant fight from The Holt, Marauders + Screechers fight from Immora, fog arenas from The Blood Swamps, the goo + fodder fight from The World Spear, Marauders in a small goo space from the Super Gore Nest Master Level, etc.

 

While there is certainly less "environmental variety" in comparison to what community-driven Classic Doom WADs have developed and offered for decades, the "ability variety" of Doom Eternal is what makes its gameplay engaging in its own way. Similarly, Super Mario World has more "environmental variety" in its world and encounter design, but Street Fighter has more "ability variety" in its interconnected character systems. Both examples enjoy variety in their own ways in order to engage the player and make encounters feel unique and fresh. A fan of Classic Doom might see Doom Eternal as more restrictive because of the arena layout design, fighting waves and waves of enemies, and a reliance on resource/cooldown management. Conversely, a fan of Doom Eternal might see Classic Doom as more restrictive because of the fewer tools/mechanics available, fewer degrees of movement and ways to move, and a lower number of monster types. Both games offer variety in their own ways, which appeals to different people depending on what they're looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/24/2021 at 3:40 PM, Antroid said:



Mechanically, the dozen or so cooldown-based abilities all feel like gimmicks to me. I don't like having them. I don't like having canned animation finishers. I don't like having to farm small mobs for resources, a system which necessitates the small mobs being infinite, making killing them pointless and not needed most of the time (I can't tell you how refreshing it is after Eternal to play a shooter where the trash mobs stay dead). I don't like having to resupply from enemies in the middle of the fight instead of finding resources in the world and making do with whatever you have. I don't like enemies having arbitrary optimal ways to deal with them with one particular tool that don't come naturally from how all the mechanics work (for example, grenades vs cacodemons, or auto shotgun vs stone imps). It all feels like it's desperately piling on more and more things for you to do and keep track of because the basic shooting, dodging and moving is not fun and challenging enough by itself. I don't like levels being structured like strings of small deathmatch arenas that lock you in and get flooded with handicapped bots. I want more open levels allowing for different approaches, running away (risking to bring the horde with you and get overwhelmed by alerting more and more monsters), having to look around to find all your resources, exploration, etc.



Basically, they're very fun games but to me they represent a complete deviation and dead end of the series' evolution and FPS design in general and I hope nobody else decides to follow them. I hope future classic-style FPS games try to evolve the classic FPS formula in a more natural way, instead of mangling it and rebuilding it into some sort of frankenstein monster. The mishmash of mechanics and design choices ended up creating a gameplay exprience that is challenging and fun, but very limited and missing a lot of what the classic FPS games usually have. I prefer 2016 in nearly every way, and I had a blast playing both games, but they are my least favorite Doom games, and I would much rather play, say, Quake 1 with Arcane Dimensions or Serious Sam 4 or Ion Fury or something.

this exactly this ... The game is like a wave mod but eventually, you get too over-powered (even on nightmare) …And it is not about id software balancing the abilities in-game or creating tougher enemies to keep the player challenged, or getting good at the game and learning the loop, near the end of eternal it felt like a chore a hybrid action slash 'em up shooter a SFPS!

Edited by Ziad EL Zein

Share this post


Link to post

@AtimZarr1 You've more or less hit the nail on the head. I'm definitely more interested in "enviornmental variety" than "ability variety" in how you've phrased and defined it, and that's what I was trying to convey. I was kinda struggling to compose that post (embarassing number of rewrites for something so insignificant, lmao) because, for one, anyone could claim that Eternal has no less environmental variety than old dooms and I would not be able to refute that, so what's important to note is that the ability variety takes away from the significance of environmental variety because with your greatly expanded abilities the environmental factors influence things much less, you're less at the mercy of level-related circumstances and more at the mercy of, well, your own quick thinking and usage of tools.

 

Also, just to make sure it's clear, I didn't mean in any way to dismiss the complexity and mind games and all those things in fighting games and street fighter in particular, I just meant to say that I don't really get any entertainment from it, even though I somewhat understand them. I've always said that I'm way more into games with simple rules and expansive/complex environments to use those rules in than the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, AtimZarr1 said:

 

Every match isn't "essentially the same" because a player's approach is different depending on their opponent's playstyle or their character. A Ryu player has to approach a fight differently against Zangief (avoiding throw set-ups and using fireballs effectively) than they would against Dhalsim (creating openings to burst in and focusing on pressure when they try to escape). Even if a Ryu player fights against two Chun-Li players, the Ryu player would approach them differently. Maybe one Chun-Li player fights aggressively and likes to use shimmies. Or maybe the second Chun-Li player relies more on mid-range fireball set-ups and is very consistent with their anti-airs. The Ryu player has to use their toolset of abilities and effectively use them in different situations and set-ups. Maybe the Ryu player notices the second Chun-Li doesn't handle cross-ups really well and begins to use that more often. Or maybe the Ryu player will change their jumping patterns to bait anti-airs and punish that playstyle. Maybe the Chun-Li player realizes this after a few punishes and begins to use anti-airs less often. And maybe the Ryu will jump in at the least expected time when that habit is discouraged for the most unexpected attack. And all these back-and-forth decisions between the players are happening within seconds. That doesn't even cover how these two players would have back-and-forth psychology regarding throws, fireball pressure, footsies, etc. Once you understand and apply these concepts in fighting games, they become a whole lot more engaging and fun to play. There's a whole lot of complexity when it comes to fighting games, which is why there's a whole "fighting game community" (or FGC) around these games (and even some still for 30+ year old games like Street Fighter II), because every fight feels unique and engaging.

 

But such games (Tekken/Streetfighter etc.….) are much deeper than Doom Eternal in terms of gameplay design and re-playability! It is not even comparable!  

Fighting games are basically PVP duels… which sadly is not truly applicable in Eternal. Even in the Multiplayer segment, they had to have PVE elements and couldn’t make a direct PVP (duel) work. It just didn’t click. The abilities are too messy to be balanced out in a PVP (1vs1)! so it had to have players controlling monsters vs a player controlling the Doom slayer! It can be fun for a while but no ... no way near a Tekken match! 

 

Look at Quake Champions for Duels (Rapha and the likes) this is a deep gameplay level, combat, and arena design at its finest… a display of the 25-year evolution of classic FPS multiplayer dueling!(Movement +Aiming+ Item control + Map control + Anticipation & Positioning)  Not Eternal!!! No way …Eternal has simpler movement mechanics … yes you can double dash and double jump but anyone can do it. While less than 5% of the quake live players completed the obstacle course!

I mean yes fighting games have unique and engaging fights but this fact has nothing to do with Eternal which doesn't have Duels in the first place. Fighting games can be compared to Quake champions if you truly want to make this comparison! 

 

 

Quote

 Doom Eternal engages the player using "ability variety" - thirteen weapon mods, grenade faltering, ice bomb freezing, Blood Punch and its properties, dashing movement, chainsaw/glory-kill/flame-belch mechanics, 2-3 super weapons, etc. While the majority of fights can be described as "arena fights" (stuck in a large arena with jump pads and waves of enemies), the uniqueness and engaging factor to Doom Eternal comes from utilizing that toolset of abilities against different compositions of enemies. If a player Ice Bombs an Arch-Vile early in the fight, they might rely on grenade falters to approach a Cyber-Mancubus for a Blood Punch. If they're out of Blood Punch, they might toss a grenade into a Cacodemon for the guaranteed stagger or maybe they'll charge a level 2 Destroyer Blade against a nearby Whiplash instead (depending on what's available and what situation the player is in). Similarly, these decisions are made in split seconds and depend on the environment, what's available, and what's the situation (is this the start of an arena, the middle wave, or the final wave?). Outside of the arena battles, you can also find more unique encounters (mostly in the DLC or Master Level maps) - Spirit-buffed Tyrant fight from The Holt, Marauders + Screechers fight from Immora, fog arenas from The Blood Swamps, the goo + fodder fight from The World Spear, Marauders in a small goo space from the Super Gore Nest Master Level, etc.

 

 

Yes, it is unique and challenging for a while, but I felt overpowered halfway through (playing it on nightmare) and that feeling didn't go away... towards the end, it was a chore!  It offered a nice experience that was fun and engaging but ultimately it burned me out! In combat, my internal dialogue was like this: Switch to the ice bomb ...Now to the grenade...Now do a glory kill... Oh, wait one second it is time for a blood punch ...low on ammo let me use the chainsaw on this imp I shall burn it first to get the shards ...My ice bomb is recharged let's repeat.

 

On the other hand, playing something like project brutality(the old version) kept me much more engaged. I discovered new monster variations on every level! I found a new weapon on almost every level,  I felt that I had more choice & freedom and the levels kept me hooked!

 

In Eternal, I saw many monster variations in the purple areas early on in the game which felt like an anti-climax! Plus the fights in the purple areas felt better than the ones in the levels just odd… 

 

It is a great game but in my eyes, but the classics are much more superior and offer more ground to build on. They allow for more gameplay scenarios for the player overall. Using the classical approach the powers can be replaced by many different timed pickups and an arena fight in Eternal can be easily replicated and surpassed using the good old tools of the originals, without losing the environmental richness and variety that I felt lacking in Eternal. 

 

 

Edited by Ziad EL Zein

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Eternal puts 2016 to shame gameplay wise, all the tools you have to use and increased mobility make it feel much more exciting and less braindead to play, 2016 felt a bit more immersive though.

 

And #FuckBattleMode

Edited by sluggard

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/25/2021 at 4:27 AM, chemo said:

Classic DOOM is either comprised of mazes or combat that largely consists of circle-strafing (there's not even a jump button!)

I have to disagree with you here sir. Doom 1 largely consist of circle-strafing combat, Doom 2 not. D2 enemies were created exactly to prevent this (at least on mildly constrained areas): Arachnotrons can lead you to a dead end, revenants can ambush you with homing missiles, mancubus fires in a way that need clever manuver, pain elementals launch enemies that can take you from behind and arch-viles\changunners have hitscan attacks. I would say there's a lot in Doom 2 that doesn't rely on mindless circle-strafing.

Also I never understood why some people call maps in Doom as "mazes". Doom have non-linear design, but they are made for navigation. E1M4 E2M6 and E3M7 are the only maps with actual mazes (and it's just one area on each map). Doom 2 have a single maze in Courtyard iirc and Hunted is the only full-fledged maze through the entire map. It's not even 10% of each IWAD and it is even less common on custom content.

Edited by Noiser : better readibility

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Noiser said:

I have to disagree with you here sir. Doom 1 largely consist of circle-strafing combat, Doom 2 not. D2 enemies were created exactly to prevent this, at least on mildly constrained areas: Arachnotrons can lead you to a dead end, revenants can ambush you with homing missiles, mancubus fires in a way that can't be avoided without clever manuver, pain elementals create enemies who attacks from different angles and arch-viles\changunners are completely "immune" to circle-strafing. I would say there's a lot of variety in Doom 2 combat.

Also I never understood why some people call maps in Doom as "mazes". Doom have non-linear design and interconnected areas, but they are made for navigation. E1M4 E2M6 and E3M7 are the only maps with actual mazes (and it's just one area on each map). Doom 2 have a single maze in Courtyard iirc and only Hunted is a full-fledged maze through the entire map. It's not even 10% of each IWAD and it is even less common on custom content.

My summary isn't meant to be completely literal. None of what you said is untrue. My point is that Classic DOOM has its own fair share of repetition and limitations, and if those games can still have longevity in their vanilla forms, then I fail to see why DOOM Eternal would be different.

Share this post


Link to post

2016 is good fun for the first few hours but it got really repetitive for me later on. It's FPS 101.

 

Eternal is IMO the best Doom game and one of the most exciting games I've ever played. There isn't really much for me to criticise here (aside from the weak ass boss battles).

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/19/2021 at 12:51 PM, I Drink Lava said:

If you fire a weapon and press the hotkey for another weapon while holding the fire button down, it'll automatically fire the next weapon when it switches out.

Holy crap I didn’t know that.... haha wow 

Share this post


Link to post

It's a bit hard to compare Doom 2016 & Doom Eternal. Both of them are very distant from the originals, to the point where they have no chance of aging as well.

 

2016 was really good & I enjoyed it, but the game-play felt like a new Quake game with Doom levels & weapons. I'm fine with that because I enjoy the Quake games, but other combat aspects had me wondering "why?"

 

The blue/orange "this target is ready for glory kill" highlight was unnecessary, and kind of insulting considering monsters already had a temporary incapacitated animation. People can see the creature dying, it never needed the over-powered highlight for that animation in my opinion.

 

Lets make the player trapeze!.. Seriously a jetpack does the same thing and would have been way cooler. The Doomguy from 93 never did gymnastics at high-school to my knowledge.

 

Doom Eternal though, it's like the design team went to town to make it look absolutely incredible and have the monsters true to the original. The detail is a sight to behold... But I'm with John Carmack as far as story is concerned.

Doesn't anybody else think a chainsaw creating a massive plume of multi-colored confetti is a bit weird for a Doom game? How many of these funtastic fountains must be created to finish the game? Soooo many that this visual effect is a bit overpowering, somewhat detrimental to the feel of the levels at times.

 

They're both great games, apples & oranges really.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/25/2021 at 1:27 AM, chemo said:

Classic DOOM is either comprised of mazes

wrong

On 5/25/2021 at 1:27 AM, chemo said:

or combat that largely consists of circle-strafing

wrong

On 5/25/2021 at 1:27 AM, chemo said:

and using the one or two most optimal strategies for each battle

wrong

On 5/25/2021 at 1:27 AM, chemo said:

(which is usually the Shotgun and Super Shotgun since they're the most flexible and have the most plentiful ammo, though sometimes it's better to use something like the Rocket Launcher for large crowds or the Chaingun against Pain Elementals)

wrong

On 5/25/2021 at 1:27 AM, chemo said:

I'm not saying that this gameplay loop is bad, dull, or lacking in complexity, but still.

wrong, you just did

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/29/2021 at 6:57 PM, Noiser said:

I have to disagree with you here sir. Doom 1 largely consist of circle-strafing combat, Doom 2 not. D2 enemies were created exactly to prevent this (at least on mildly constrained areas): Arachnotrons can lead you to a dead end, revenants can ambush you with homing missiles, mancubus fires in a way that can't be avoided without clever manuver, pain elementals launch enemies that can take you from behind and arch-viles\changunners have hitscan attacks. I would say there's a lot of variety in Doom 2 combat that doesn't rely on mindless circle-strafing.

Also I never understood why some people call maps in Doom as "mazes". Doom have non-linear design, but they are made for navigation. E1M4 E2M6 and E3M7 are the only maps with actual mazes (and it's just one area on each map). Doom 2 have a single maze in Courtyard iirc and Hunted is the only full-fledged maze through the entire map. It's not even 10% of each IWAD and it is even less common on custom content.

i feel people say that because on their first atempts they will usually get pretty lost on doom maps before they understand how level design works in doom and maybe it also has something to do with how much better non linear design on fps games got since doom released i think quake has a vast improvement on levels i never got lost on them even on my first time playing but i do have memories from years ago about spending hours on doom's levels before i understood them

 

TLDR people who say its all mazes dont fully understand how the levels work

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, omalefico32x said:

i feel people say that because on their first atempts they will usually get pretty lost on doom maps before they understand how level design works in doom and maybe it also has something to do with how much better non linear design on fps games got since doom released i think quake has a vast improvement on levels i never got lost on them even on my first time playing but i do have memories from years ago about spending hours on doom's levels before i understood them

 

TLDR people who say its all mazes dont fully understand how the levels work

if we're talking exclusively about the original games, then that's definitely a part of it, yeah. layout design improved pretty rapidly once people started figuring out the do's and don'ts of the fps genre, especially once it moved into the realm of the maps themselves being 3d instead of just linedefs and sectors. the original doom games (excluding final doom) had layouts that were rougher around the edges and a bit more experimental, so people coming from modern games are gonna have to adapt. i know i had to when i first played doom 1 and 2.

 

however, to say it's just a maze is essentially ignoring all that and just insulting it because they don't wanna spend the time to actually learn. sure, learning the logic behind the maps can be difficult at first, but it really isn't all that bad once you get the hang of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Christ guys, I wasn't being completely literal with my summary. Did you not read my previous post in this thread? No need to get this riled up.

Edited by chemo

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, chemo said:

Christ guys, I wasn't being completely literal with my summary. Did you not read my previous post in this thread?

yes, but there's a difference between figurative language and what your post was, which was vast oversimplification. the former is used in order to spice up everyday language with nonliteral phrasing, while the other is done either out of ignorance (which i assume is the case here) or in order to deliberately make something seem like something that it's not.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×