Gabrimcr Posted January 6, 2008 My impression is: Half-life has got more storyline, but doom has got better gameplay and was created for first... I think is better DOOM!!!!! What's your opinion? (Sorry for grammar errors, I'm italian ;) ) 0 Share this post Link to post
Patrick Posted January 6, 2008 i really dont compare doom and half life at all, they're both excellent games in their own rights 0 Share this post Link to post
Enjay Posted January 6, 2008 Different games from different times with different levels of technology with very different styles of gameplay and purpose. What's best, an apple or an internal combustion engine? 0 Share this post Link to post
leileilol Posted January 6, 2008 doom is clearly better because it's not bogged down by stupid retarded 'story fluff' which supposedly is the 'most revolutionary' thing half-life has done. 0 Share this post Link to post
Jim Rainer Posted January 6, 2008 There's nothing wrong with story in a shooter. 0 Share this post Link to post
CODOR Posted January 6, 2008 I preferred the one where they open up an interdimensional portal and you have to kill the creatures that come out of it. 0 Share this post Link to post
Coopersville Posted January 6, 2008 What kind of response do you think you're going to get on a forum inside a website called DOOMworld? I still play Doom for an hour or more a day, whereas I've never had the urge to finish Half-Life 1. That's all I have to say. 0 Share this post Link to post
Terra-jin Posted January 6, 2008 I like Half-Life, it's even on my very strict list of all-time classics, but I still love DOOM more. It's just so much fun to play, edit, customize, etc. The only game that's above DOOM is C&C: Red Alert, greatest of games. But DOOM still rules! 0 Share this post Link to post
AndrewB Posted January 6, 2008 Jim Rainer said:There's nothing wrong with story in a shooter. There is everything wrong with stories in video games. 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted January 6, 2008 Coopersville pretty much covered the two things I was going to say. Enjay, an apple is better. 0 Share this post Link to post
Bloodshedder Posted January 6, 2008 This is like the exact opposite of flamebait. 0 Share this post Link to post
Enjay Posted January 6, 2008 myk said:Enjay, an apple is better. Not for powering a truck. :P 0 Share this post Link to post
ZardoZ Posted January 6, 2008 Hal-life not is a bad, game, but Doom is better (What hells think that the people of a Doom forum will respond ?). Even, when i played Half-life for first time and see the story, i thought that was a "copy" of Doom background story (Aka, experiments which transporters -> invasion from other dimension....) 0 Share this post Link to post
baddream Posted January 6, 2008 I think Carmack was a bit soft when he said: "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie." But he was clearly on the right track. That's why people still play Doom, alone, in its more or less original form. If I want to watch a mediocre movie while occasionally pressing some buttons, I'll, umm, go do something else instead. If there hadn't been Counter-Strike, I doubt Half-life would have lived even that long, which is usually what one can expect from story-driven "games". 0 Share this post Link to post
Edward850 Posted January 6, 2008 baddream said:If there hadn't been Counter-Strike, I doubt Half-life would have lived even that long, which is usually what one can expect from story-driven "games". That’s funny, because I play half-life despite of there being counter-strike. (I hate counter-strike. I would rather eat a snail.) This question is next to impossible to answer, but I will answer it the best way I can. Sometimes I want to storm into a room, guns blazing and tones of senseless killing (Therefore, wanting to play doom). Other times I will want to enter a room with some planned strategy, hide behind crates, reload weapons, and see some really nice scripting and action (There fore, I would play half-life). You can’t compare both games to each other. It’s like trying to compare a cat to an Xbox. How the fuck do you choose between the two? In all seriousness, I would like to make a doom mod for half-life. 0 Share this post Link to post
baddream Posted January 6, 2008 Half-life still alive? Well, that's news to me. I don't care for Counter-Strike either. 0 Share this post Link to post
Butts Posted January 7, 2008 here is a question: better food or water? 0 Share this post Link to post
Captain Red Posted January 7, 2008 I just realized Half-life is almost ten years old. God I feel old. On the up side I have a reason to play through it again! 0 Share this post Link to post
Reckoner Posted January 7, 2008 There's nothing wrong with having story in video games, including shooters. It just depends on where your interests lie. Half-Life's story wasn't that great or original, but the way it was presented and delivered was truly innovative. The story unfolded throughout the game through the player's eyes, rather than consisting of a few paragraphs in the manual like we saw in Doom and similar games. For me, Half-Life offered more immersion and a stronger sense of progress, but Doom doesn't really need these things because it has great gameplay. With risk of being branded a heretic, I would say that I may have actually enjoyed my first playthrough of Half-Life more than my first playthrough of Doom, simply due to the immersion and atmosphere, but Doom offered a level of replayability that put Half-Life to shame. Half-Life is a great game to play through a couple of times, but Doom's gameplay never gets old. Of course, when it comes to multiplayer, things are a bit different. Half-Life, with all of its mods, offers some much better multiplayer options, but it is hardly fair to criticize Doom for this considering that it pretty much pioneered online FPS multiplayer. So, overall, I would say Doom is better for gameplay and longevity, while Half-Life is better for story and immersion. 0 Share this post Link to post
40oz Posted January 7, 2008 Id probably be posting in this thread from halflifeworld if i liked half life more. 0 Share this post Link to post
Prince of Darkness Posted January 7, 2008 The thing many of us are forgetting here is the span of time between the two games; Half Life is nearly 11 years old, but Doom was made almost 16 (!). Thus, it is hard to compare the two because they are so radically different- while yes, it IS true that we sometimes want a different style of gameplay, the factor still remains. So, sadly, I think this post is a bust :/ 0 Share this post Link to post
BJ Blazkowicz Posted January 7, 2008 Doom was better in 1993. Half-Life was better in 1998. 0 Share this post Link to post
baddream Posted January 7, 2008 Reckoner said:There's nothing wrong with having story in video games, including shooters. It just depends on where your interests lie. Half-Life's story wasn't that great or original, but the way it was presented and delivered was truly innovative. The story unfolded throughout the game through the player's eyes, rather than consisting of a few paragraphs in the manual like we saw in Doom and similar games. For me, Half-Life offered more immersion and a stronger sense of progress, but Doom doesn't really need these things because it has great gameplay. With risk of being branded a heretic, I would say that I may have actually enjoyed my first playthrough of Half-Life more than my first playthrough of Doom, simply due to the immersion and atmosphere, but Doom offered a level of replayability that put Half-Life to shame. Half-Life is a great game to play through a couple of times, but Doom's gameplay never gets old. Of course, when it comes to multiplayer, things are a bit different. Half-Life, with all of its mods, offers some much better multiplayer options, but it is hardly fair to criticize Doom for this considering that it pretty much pioneered online FPS multiplayer. So, overall, I would say Doom is better for gameplay and longevity, while Half-Life is better for story and immersion. That seems to me like a good, unbiased analysis. It's just that some of us look for story and immersion in better places, such as literature and cinema. ;) 0 Share this post Link to post
baddream Posted January 7, 2008 BJ Blazkowicz said:Doom was better in 1993. Half-Life was better in 1998. And now in 2008, Doom is better once again. :P 0 Share this post Link to post
Captain Red Posted January 7, 2008 baddream said: And now in 2008, Doom is better once again. :P Not really. More people liked Half-Life 2 then Doom 3. 0 Share this post Link to post
leileilol Posted January 7, 2008 Captain Red said:Not really. More people liked Half-Life 2 then Doom 3. Only for the free counter-strike source sausage offer and the engine yeah like as if an engine makes a bad game the greatest ever Doom > Half-Life 2 0 Share this post Link to post
baddream Posted January 7, 2008 Captain Red said:Not really. More people liked Half-Life 2 then Doom 3. Doom 3? Isn't it more like Half-life than Doom? Haven't played it, so can't say for sure. I was talking about the originals (I haven't played Half-life 2 either). In any case, democratic vote was never the best way to evaluate the true value of anything anyway. And frankly, this is Doomworld, I should be able to say that Half-life is puerile puppy food compared to Doom, without incurring the wrath of more than a couple of overly sensitive tourists. Peace!! 0 Share this post Link to post
Jodwin Posted January 7, 2008 Half-life sucks. Not because of the story, but because the gameplay isn't fun at all. Good gameplay can make up for the lack of a story, but a story can never make up for bad gameplay. Or then it isn't a game anymore, but some flashy interactive multimedia book-thing like the whole Final Fantasy series. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. 0 Share this post Link to post