Should Doom 4 be "appropriately" futuristic?

[Xeros612]

Redeemer812 said:

When I first played Doom3 five years ago I set the gamma to the max. Explain to me how I still couldn't see anything.

Sorry buddy, but the *fact* that Doom3 was too dark is something everyone else has already admitted to, including id software. So who are you defending?

Try not playing on a shit monitor then. I think I have my gamma at default and I can see everything perfectly fine. Area's too dark? Use flashlight. Weapon swap speed with pretty much everything is fast enough that unless you're awful at the game you shouldn't have trouble dealing with it at all. Unless you're playing the xbox port on component cable, that is; the game seems extra dark in that setup.

[geo]

I turned on gamma and I could always see things unless they spawned right behind me or attacked me from above. Yet people complain about not being able to see anything. Sure alone in the dark is scary... but for a game it gets to be too much.

[AirRaid]

Can we stop the "Doom 3 was dark" threadshitting please? Yes, It was dark in a lot of place. There were various reasons for this, get over it.

[geo]

Indeed.

[40oz]

We could but now we have nothing to talk about.

[TheEndOfUs]

So, what if they went wih the D3 formula? Same art-style, enviroments & atmosphere... but expanded the gameplay & "made it better" ? Doom 3 was very cramped & isolated gameplay wise... but if it was open ended & non-linear, would it be so bad?

[Xeros612]

Considering I'm loving the hell out of my current Doom 3 PC playthrough, I'd love that sort of gameplay to return in a more open, less linear matter.

[AirRaid]

Doom 3 gameplay was pretty poor, though. It's a lot of very contrived monster spawning/closet opening stuff. When an imp spawns in, you get 3 or 4 seconds warning, then it spawns, screams at you, and then starts to move. In all you have enough time to put 2 or 3 shotgun shells into it before it ever attacks.

Something else we're aiming to address in Phobos.

[Megamur]

I didn't mind the scripted ambush attacks in DOOM 3. I just wish they were more varied. I see stuff like in the old E3 demo, where a pinky tears through a wall to get at you, and wonder where that sort of thing was in the final game.

[Face23785]

Megamur said:

I didn't mind the scripted ambush attacks in DOOM 3. I just wish they were more varied. I see stuff like in the old E3 demo, where a pinky tears through a wall to get at you, and wonder where that sort of thing was in the final game.

I'm a big Doom 3 fan and defend it on most instances, but I agree with you here. 9 times out of 10 when something spawned in it was an imp, and it was the same circumstance majority of the time. Where was the badass stuff that they showed off?

It didn't really bother me though, there were alot of other monster encounters that mixed it up.

[bcwood16]

I played Doom from the first release and also really enjoyed Doom3.

I always thought of Doom as a good shoot everything that moved blood bath. When they announced Doom 3 I loved the new direction. I thought of this was a 'how it would have been if it really happened', because obviously Doom games are over the top unbelievable and finding keycards were not logical, but made good gameplay. Doom 3 made it more realistic!

Again, obviously due to tech limitations with the first Doom engine engine they could not put high poly meshes in the game and have computer consoles and desks and high tech network rooms everywhere, so it could not be realistic.

So getting back on topic, I thought Doom 3 was done perfectly from a technology point of view. It really felt like the Doom universe and looking out at the harsh surface of Mars blowing around outside was fantastic. It had bulky Armour and felt like the machines were state of the art technology that the current date could offer, something UAC was the leading edge off.

Sure the game its self had a few problems, mainly no lights on weapons and being a bit too dark, but it worked fine.

My main complaint about the game was how bad the weapons sounded and I did not like the look of the shotgun, but a few small mods and tweaks and its fixed (to my personal tastes)

Oh I did like the new plasma gun, I hated that gun in Doom, it looked so pants, but so much better and fun to use in Doom 3.

For Doom 4, just dont know enough about what sort of direction they are going in, dont want or need too much high tech equipment if its faster paced. Though Doom 3 was slow, so having a blood bath again would be sooo cool!

[dsm]

If it takes place on Earth, I want it to be gritty and low-tech - sort of to suggest (or maybe the plot will scream it at us) that societies on Earth aren't always as well-off as Corporate organizations like the UAC, so while the UAC bases could look "techy" (to the casual viewer at least) and innovative, the general environment looks old and worn and not very sophisticated (but with several signs of it being in the future, with low-tech devices that aren't in existence today, but are used then because they're cheap and easy to make or somesuch).

And while not as post-apocalyptic as Rage (people aren't wearing rags), we're still supposed to be in the middle of the Apocalypse. My imagination is currently failing me in that regard, so I'll leave some of that to you.

[terminator44]

I say don't bother showing off too much future tech that the player won't use. Most won't pay attention to it anyway. Stick to updating the models of the classic weapons, maybe have some nice pop up GUI interfaces like in Dead Space to open doors, and that's it. Focus on what the real draw of the Doom series has been: the old Ultra-Violence.

[dlawrence]

I may sound mad here, but I always liked to think of the middle of Doom II as being actually set in the mid-nineties, and would really get a kick out of it if Doom 4 featured some kind of time-travel scenario.