Beta access for the new Doom

[Xtife]

They can take their pre-order and shove it up Todd Howards ass. ID is dead to me.

[printz]

DooM_RO said:

As for the new Wolfenstein, it definitely LOOKS interesting but I really hate this new trend of making cinematic trailers instead of actual, honest gameplay...

Let's be reasonable: how different can Wolfenstein B be from Wolfenstein A? They feel the same, by definition. They're more similar together than Dooms, because Doom is sci-fi fantasy, whereas Wolf is based on real things.

[DooM_RO]

Umm, I was referring to the fact that while the game is WW2, it still has that corny but charming Wolfenstein to it. Funny villains? Check! Crazy and ludicrous technology? Check! A crazy plot and setting? Check! Ballsy weapons? Check!

Now the devs have promised some degree of non-linearity, such as secrets behind walls, semi-regenerating health, armor pickups, what remains to be seen is to what extent these are done. Are they just an exucse? Are they not? How often will the gameplay be interrupted by cutscenes? From the looks of the game, it's going to be often. The question is whether it will be done tastefully.

[Doomkid]

DooM_RO said:

Yay, more copy paste comments...

As for the new Wolfenstein, it definitely LOOKS interesting but I really hate this new trend of making cinematic trailers instead of actual, honest gameplay...

Doom 3 was okay. Not awful, not great. Doom 1 was a fucking game changer. That's why you see 80% of Doomers sharing this opinion, we didn't just pull it put of our asses, the game did not retain the feeling of its predecessors. I noticed you had a discussion with doomguy93 about this same topic. While I don't agree with everything he says, we all were left fairly disappointed for our own reasons - it's hard going from a Ferrari to a Hyundai Getz. You can say they're both good in their own ways and indeed you'd be right.

Long short: Not too excited for Doom 4, hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

Maybe if the dev team are fans of the older titles, they can get things in check. I started a thread quite a while back that was a plea to ID for a "Doom 2: BFG edition" and Phml went on to list tons of ways a new Doom could stick the old conventions and still be a smooth and beautiful experience. Sorry that monotonous maps don't appeal to most players, even with fancy lighting tricks and the VERY rare outdoor moment, that still manages to be, for all intensive purposes, pointless. Doom 3 feels more like pre-dead space than Doom. Fuck it hurts to say that, mainly because it's true.

Nothing against dead space though.

Oh and Doom 3 deathmatch was also disappointing, but less so because I wasn't expecting anything fast/ exciting after the single player campain, which was designed with a slow movement speed in mind at least.

When people say they thought D3 was a worthy sequel, I ask what elements of the old Doom they enjoyed? The two are completely different, and not just because of the difference in age.

Edit: A good way to sum this up for ID fans of old: Quake felt more like the "real" Doom 3, even if the entire game was poo brown and the weapon bobbing was oddly suggestive, the gameplay was still there.

[dg93]

DooM_RO said:

Ok, now that my excitement has burned out, one has to ask the question. Why would Doom need a beta?

Well given the fact that Doom 4 has been in Production Hell for a number of years, it would be wise for ID Software to market a new product through a free demo release before releasing an official version. This was done with Doom: Knee-Deep In The Dead. It's nothing more than marketing strategy and it is a very smart thing to do. The publicity and feedback from playtesters helps give ID an insight on how the product might sell. ID can also focus more on any negative aspects of gameplay (If any) from the demo that would be mentioned from numerous video game journalists/ reviewers/ critics on the internet. Although that might postpone their expected release date, it would be better in the long-run.

I wasn't very pleased with Doom 3 and I was really hoping for the Doom series to end from there. However, I was satisfied with ID Software's release of RAGE. So there might be a little hope left that Doom 4 would be an improvement from Doom 3.

I just only hope that ID doesn't pull a Duke Nukem Forever on us..... I'm sure you all know what I mean about that.

EDIT: I think I adequately answered your question as to why Doom needs a beta. My theory is that ID wants to reboot the Doom series in an attempt to cover up the mistakes from Doom 3... that might be why they are calling it the "New Doom Beta" instead of "Doom 4 Beta." To start 'fresh.'

[Da Werecat]

Doomkid92 said:

Doom 3 was okay. Not awful, not great. Doom 1 was a fucking game changer. That's why you see 80% of Doomers sharing this opinion, we didn't just pull it put of our asses, the game did not retain the feeling of its predecessors.

Being a "fucking game changer" has nothing to do with "retaining the feeling of the predecessors", btw.

Doomkid92 said:

Hyundai Getz

More like Mercedes CLR.

[Doomkid]

I didn't mean to imply that every game has to be as revolutionary as the first Doom. From a technical standpoint, Doom 3 actually was very impressive, I had never seen graphics and lighting so impressive at that point.

The gameplay, however, was radically different in ways that seemed to be a downgrade. Doom 3 didn't feel like Doom. It didn't even feel like D64, which was both dark and ambient while still holding on to those same tried and true gameplay mechanics. Why is it so far out for me to hope that Doom 4 will do the same? Doom 64's graphics were dated on release, but because the gameplay was there, I didn't mind a bit. In retrospect, D64 sticking with sprites, weird as they were, makes it look better than most games from that time. (blocky polygons are ew.)

I don't care if the marine running at 100 mph is unrealistic, it's fun damnit. I don't care if colorful monsters are less "dark and angsty" than the pastel browns and greys, they're better on the eyes and about a million times more memorable. I'm far from being the only one to feel this way. Those other newer FPS games like serious Sam and painkiller take things too far in the opposite direction, in contrast to Doom 3.

You know how it's tedious to take down room after room of Barons with a single barrel shotgun in Doom WADs? To me, Doom 3 felt like that over and over and over, but more graphically impressive and to be fair, much higher on the creepy scale. That's just not what I think of when I recall fond memories of classic Doom gameplay. Give me a plasma rifle and 50 imps to take down with shotgunners sniping at me all the while, and just enough medkits to make it to the exit. That's my vision of a "perfect" Doom 4.

Abstract level design was also one of my favorite elements of classic doom. Doom 2 was really strong in this respect, though I know some will disagree.

EDIT: I'd really like a game that plays a lot like Doom, but has really nice modern graphics. No such game exists, but I think many gamers/Doomers would really enjoy it. Quake 3 sorta does that in terms of deathmatch, but that was quite a long time ago.

[Da Werecat]

Yeah, yeah. 10 years, nothing new.

[Shaviro]

Doomkid92 said:

I didn't mean to imply that every game has to be as revolutionary as the first Doom. From a technical standpoint, Doom 3 actually was very impressive, I had never seen graphics and lighting so impressive at that point.

Yeah, but the revolution is over. Never again will you see a graphical leap as big as the one Doom3 took over Quake3. Never. The same goes for "gameplay". The "biggest" steps are taken early on.

It didn't even feel like D64, which was both dark and ambient while still holding on to those same tried and true gameplay mechanics. Why is it so far out for me to hope that Doom 4 will do the same? Doom 64's graphics were dated on release, but because the gameplay was there, I didn't mind a bit.

Graphics matter a crapload for a AAA developer. First of all the scope of a project such as Doom(4) is so big that you'll need to sell a lot of copies just to break even. One of the most important factors for a game in this spectrum is the visual presentation of the game. Eyecandy sells. Second, these guys are artists. It's their passion to make beautiful worlds. It's right there at the top of the list.

EDIT: I'd really like a game that plays a lot like Doom, but has really nice modern graphics. No such game exists, but I think many gamers/Doomers would really enjoy it. Quake 3 sorta does that in terms of deathmatch, but that was quite a long time ago.

You can't have really nice modern graphics and Doom gameplay in the same game and make it work. "Graphics" and "Gameplay" are intertwined all the way. You can't have a nice realistic looking location and still have it be abstract. You can't have convincing visuals and still run through it by 100mph. It does not work together. That's the reason such a game does not exist.

You could make a heavily stylized beautiful game with abstract visuals and gameplay, but this is traditionally not a AAA project. It would be better suited for an indie project with a lower budget.

[Gez]

Shaviro said:

You can't have really nice modern graphics and Doom gameplay in the same game and make it work. "Graphics" and "Gameplay" are intertwined all the way. You can't have a nice realistic looking location and still have it be abstract. You can't have convincing visuals and still run through it by 100mph. It does not work together. That's the reason such a game does not exist.

Very true. Realistic graphics means a lot more distracting clutter and smaller key elements, which necessarily slows down the action. Even if the character can run 100mph, it'll just end disorientating and confusing so the players will have to walk instead of run. (The characters being too fast has been a complaint about ROTT 2013.)

Doom has high-contrast cartoony graphics, switches are gigantic, and there is basically no clutter (like trash, misc. office supplies, dead leaves, etc.): everything is either a corpse, an obstacle, a pickup, or a target (monster, barrel, and Commander Keens included). It makes scenes simpler to understand quickly so that you can blaze through them. A game like Hexen is already a lot more visually encumbered and the action is much slower, despite the engine and controls being the same.

[Shaviro]

Exactly. Running 100mph in a game that's MADE for it is fun. Running 100mph in a game that is not is frustrating.

[darkreaver]

Bullshit. Of course a game can have "nice, modern graphics" and still play like Doom. You guys (Gez, at least) used big switches as an example. So you cant make big switches if you have nice, modern graphics? The maps dont have to be cluttered with tiny micro detail like leaves and shit, you know.

Shaviro: who said the locations had to be realistic looking? And exactly what do you mean by realistic? Are you saying you cannot make abstract locations with modern graphics? Me thinks thinking the way you guys are thinking is why there are just shit FPS games around these days.

edit: rushed post, probably flawed in many ways.

[Phml]

Good thing the Crysis series went for cartoonish looks, otherwise we couldn't have handled all that Maximum Speed!

[Shaviro]

darkreaver said:

Shaviro: who said the locations had to be realistic looking?

I did. In my post.
I also said another route would be a more stylized world that allows for more free rules, but this would not be the traditional AAA route. You should have read the post before replying :)

And exactly what do you mean by realistic? Are you saying you cannot make abstract locations with modern graphics?

Realistic? Realistic to the context. If you're not going a heavily stylized route, but instead are going the more sensible route for AAA shooters (they have to make a profit after all), it has to look like what you're trying to convey with the story and setting of the game. If we for instance say it's hell on earth, we need the setting to actually look like earth. The higher the resolution of everything (textures, models, sounds), the more accurately you have to mimic the features of the real world. This does not mean gray and dull, but it does mean you'll have to add a lot of what Gez called "clutter". And yes it means leaves and crap. Let's say the first screenshot shows an imp. What is next to it? Random non-identifiable abstract crap? Good luck pulling that off. You have definitely have abstract parts of the game. Hell would be great for that, but for the context of earth you have to play by the rules or you'll end up with disconnected parts (the sauce separated).

Doom wasn't stylized when it came out, but it hit the sweet spot where realistic graphics were still undefined enough to leave a lot of room for your imagination. Those days are gone.

Me thinks thinking the way you guys are thinking is why there are just shit FPS games around these days.

Either that or you don't have a clue what you're talking about/stuck in the 90s. I won't claim that shooters these days are perfect and awesome - in fact I'm often the first in line complaining about them. However, none of that means you can just ignore some of the basic principles behind creating games or visual mediums today.

Anyway, I'd rather have 10 years of bad shooters that leads to something good than getting Doom re-released forever. If you want to create an extremely imaginative shooter with stylized graphics, 100mph running and constant gunning there's nothing stopping you, but you probably won't be able to pull it off with a 200-man team.

Phml said:

Good thing the Crysis series went for cartoonish looks, otherwise we couldn't have handled all that Maximum Speed!

Being able to run very fast for a very limited amount of time between extended distances is not the same as having an insanely high basic movement speed. Even then, the developer approved cheat codes of Crysis only served to lessen the experience of the game in my opinion.

[Gez]

darkreaver said:

Bullshit. Of course a game can have "nice, modern graphics" and still play like Doom. You guys (Gez, at least) used big switches as an example. So you cant make big switches if you have nice, modern graphics?

Look at the relative size of the Doom switches. They're gigantic.
http://i.imgur.com/QNgqSsd.png

Now look at the nearest light switch. Imagine its size in Doom pixels. It'll be less than one.

With high resolutions, you can have realistically-sized switches in games, but they'll still be somewhat too small to detect quickly from the other side of a warehouse, like the Doom switches can. You'll need to look for the switch specifically instead of just seeing it behind a crowd of demons upon opening the door to the room.

[Shaviro]

Yes and with modern graphics it becomes comical

[Da Werecat]

A faithful Doom successor with blazingly fast gameplay and photorealistic graphics is perfectly possible. Everything is possible in your imagination.

[darkreaver]

Gez said:

Look at the relative size of the Doom switches. They're gigantic.
http://i.imgur.com/QNgqSsd.png

Now look at the nearest light switch. Imagine its size in Doom pixels. It'll be less than one.

With high resolutions, you can have realistically-sized switches in games, but they'll still be somewhat too small to detect quickly from the other side of a warehouse, like the Doom switches can. You'll need to look for the switch specifically instead of just seeing it behind a crowd of demons upon opening the door to the room.

I know, I know...but the switches dont have to be like regular light switches you know. How about a huge stone obelisk with a huge skull in it which works like a switch? The stone obelisk can look as real as fuck with modern graphics.

About the "hell on earth" so everything should look like earth, yes I agree, BUT personally I'd hate that. I'd prefer other worldly/hellish/alien environments, you know, where you can have 3 metres high switches ;)

AND, as Da Werecat says, I dont think ultra high def, realistic, detailed environments would make ultra fast gameplay impossible. it would probably look and feel kinda weird somehow, and make it very chaotic, but hey, thats exactly what I want ;) So basically: IMO all the way.

[Quasar]

http://www.nrel.gov/news/features/images/20091023_large_wind_switch_large.jpg

[Da Werecat]

darkreaver said:

AND, as Da Werecat says, I dont think ultra high def, realistic, detailed environments would make ultra fast gameplay impossible.

Well, I didn't say it was possible in practice. I won't say that it's definitely impossible, but it's easier said than done.

One of the things to consider is a very specific set of environments. They should give the player lots of space to maneuver without falling into the "stylized" category. Basically, everything should be big without looking silly.

[MajorRawne]

Well, I've said before that Doom 3 was bollocks compared to the previous Dooms, just utter bollocks. it wasn't a bad game, just boring and repetitive with some good moments, mainly the Hell section, which itself was disappointingly short and linear. It only sucks major balls when compared to its predecessors - or other games in Doom 3's genre, like Resident Evil 4.

It's not rocket science to know why Doom was successful. It was fast, frenetic and simple, with the emphasis on people having a lot of fun. You can't say any of those things about Doom 3, nor can it be said of many modern shooters. Nobody can make games like they used to, gaming has become bloated and lives off its own hype now. It's become almost smug, self-loving, creating ever bigger and more exciting trailers for its fawning audience, yet providing a gameplay experience that can be completed in less time than it would take John Matrix to destroy the entire Columbian military.

[Phml]

Even then, the developer approved cheat codes of Crysis only served to lessen the experience of the game in my opinion.

Ya, but every single one of your posts about video games shows you hate fun and only play them for screenshot purposes.

Just as well, one could name Sgt. Power Colt impressive running, jumping and swimming abilities, or Sanctum 2's double jump + running perk boost letting you cross half of the map in one go, or Maya's running ability with shields depleted, or Tribes Ascend's jetpacks, or Shadow Warrior's dash, etc. etc.; but no doubt someone determined to make the facts fit their theory rather than build a theory based on the facts could find ways to nitpick each of these examples.

[Da Werecat]

Saying that Doom 3 is in the same genre as Resident Evil 4 would be a stretch, really.

[mrthejoshmon]

To be really honest, I would be happy with another Doom 3 expansion set more towards the martian surface than hell or the UAC labs...

It's just so unexplored and underused...

Well unless we count that one piss take part with the trites in the outside maze with airlock elevators... None of that tedium please or better yet: No more trites please.

[Doomkid]

I don't get why the new Doom has to take itself so seriously. I'm all for enormous light switches, because games are meant to be a different reality, not our reality. As stated, it doesnt have to be a literal enourmous switch like in a house - naturally, since thats not what they were in the old Doom games anyway. Make abstract art out of it.

The world of gaming has definitely become bloated and over the top with its emphasis on realism: good graphics and realism are not one in the same, not by a long stretch, really. here we have clear examples that people are afraid to try something wacky or different because of the arguments you guys are posing. Maybe Nintendo should make the next Doom game. (joking of course, but in a way not.) The original Doom games actually ARE hilarious because of the exaggeration. A simple example is the corpses sliding down stairs, that was clearly programmed in for humor. Carrying 100 rockets? Unrealistic yet amazing.

Hopefully programmers won't be swayed by these small-minded visions of what modern FPS gaming "must be" because of the impressive graphics. Doom is more visually appealing than most recent titles for the sole reason that it's colorful yet still dark. Much, much more interesting. I'd like to see that in 1080p with fully rendered 3D polygons. For people who say its "impossible" I call BS. I also don't think it has to be another underrated, under appreciated "indie" game. The divide between AAA and "indie" comes from this small minded perspective. Also, by this logic, Mario games should be classed as "indie" since they're abstract and colorful and dare I say it, they're FUN.

Good graphics are irrelevant to gameplay speed. Build the levels around the player speed rather than the other way around. I don't think it's too hard a concept to grasp. You guys need to let go of the conventions laid down by COD and Battlefeild. They're fun in their own way, but vastly, vastly different from a Doom like experience.

Open mindedness is sorely lacking in modern design.

[Da Werecat]

Doomkid92 said:

The original Doom games actually ARE hilarious because of the exaggeration.

They're mostly hilarious for the people who played them in the 00s for the first time.

[Doomkid]

I vividly remember me and my dad laughing at the bodies sliding down the stairs way before the year 2000. I was just a young kid, but still. Reading through old text files accompanied with wads of yesteryear will show we were not the only ones who saw humor in the way that Doom works - I personally find that to be a good thing.

Sure it's a scary game, but it's over the top in all the right ways. It's not "100% pure horror no fun allowed" type scary, more the "wow, this place is WEIRD, and I want to carefully explore every inch" kind of scary.

Judging by these responses, and assuming they're the common opinion, the OS players who want something that plays like Doom will be dissappointed. It will be more bland stop n' pop crap rather than run n' gun goodness.

Oh well, at least we have the old games.

[Shaviro]

darkreaver said:

....thats exactly what I want ;) So basically: IMO all the way.

Well that's fair ;)

MajorRawne said:

It's not rocket science to know why Doom was successful. It was fast, frenetic and simple, with the emphasis on people having a lot of fun.

But it wasn't really back then. To be honest I think Doom became popular for the same reasons AAA games today become popular.

Phml said:

Ya, but every single one of your posts about video games shows you hate fun and only play them for screenshot purposes.

Running out of arguments? Maybe my definition of fun is not as narrow as yours or perhaps it's just plain different. You obviously don't read the posts.

but no doubt someone determined to make the facts fit their theory rather than build a theory based on the facts could find ways to nitpick each of these examples.

My arguments are based on general observations and knowledge on the visual medium, the developers and the potential audience for the game as well as keeping the range of the required sales number in mind. You bring nothing to the table other than a simplified attempt at "You're dumb".

DoomKid92 said:

I don't get why the new Doom has to take itself so seriously. I'm all for enormous light switches, because games are meant to be a different reality, not our reality. As stated, it doesnt have to be a literal enourmous switch like in a house - naturally, since thats not what they were in the old Doom games anyway. Make abstract art out of it.

It doesn't. You could make a Duke3D styled game out of it with lots of humor, references, the works. It would be a departure for the series though, Doom was obviously not meant to be comical (nor was it in 93), but of course there are comical things present. Huge light switches kinda fall into the spoof movie category. What ever the equivalent would be for games. Sure you could make abstract art out of it, but what do you mean exactly? What kind of impact does it have on the game? It's easy as hell to dream up "awesome graphics with 100mph running. It looks like something but it's also abstract! The textures are amazing and crisp, but they're still vague and not realistic."

Just because you can think it does not make it probable. What kind of game are we talking about here? It's not as easy to make a fps as it was in the "golden" days of the 90s. You don't have the advantage of low-res graphics anymore. This doesn't mean you can't have games with low-res graphics OR abstract locations, but they won't be automatically accepted anymore. Minecraft benefits heavily from its low-res visuals. I usually say it's one of the most professional graphical achievements of any game.

However if you turned Doom low-res you would have to fire the majority of the team and expect to sell a lot less copies. Zenimax would probably disallow this or shut them down though. Not to mention that Id Software is a company full of people with personal ambitions for creating great art. I really doubt they want to throw out 10-20 years of graphical progress to satisfy an extreme minority of people.

Okay so let's turn Doom abstract. Doom/2 had abstract locations right? Sure. Mostly due to constraints back then, but yes. So what are awesome graphics in abstract settings? What are the artists going to work on and how will they market the game? I'm sure you could get something really interesting out of this concept, but I don't think id will (or should) gamble with their biggest franchise and (probably) their last shot as a AAA developer. Abstract definitely has its places, but it's really difficult to pull off and usually the result is more of a niche game.

I'm all for having abstract elements in the game though. Hell would be a wonderful opportunity to have a little more free reign. If we assume that it's hell on earth, the game could start out on earth pre-invasion. Everything normal and recognizable. Slowly over the course of the game hell corrupts the environment and warps it to its own rules. Once you're actually in hell all bets are off. It's possible to make any kind of game you want, but you can't break the context you've set up and this context is what you market to people.

Hopefully programmers won't be swayed by these small-minded visions of what modern FPS gaming "must be" because of the impressive graphics. Doom is more visually appealing than most recent titles for the sole reason that it's colorful yet still dark. Much, much more interesting. I'd like to see that in 1080p with fully rendered 3D polygons. For people who say its "impossible" I call BS. I also don't think it has to be another underrated, under appreciated "indie" game. The divide between AAA and "indie" comes from this small minded perspective. Also, by this logic, Mario games should be classed as "indie" since they're abstract and colorful and dare I say it, they're FUN.

Hopefully designers won't be swayed by these small-minded visions of what moden FPS gaming "must be" because of a 20 year old game. You can call BS all you want and you can keep igoring some of the basic facts and principles of game design today as well as the inherent requirement of a 200-man title to sell a lot of copies. You can keep living in a fantasy world, but the bubble will burst once Doom(4) is presented. You're setting yourself up for a letdown.

Good graphics are irrelevant to gameplay speed. Build the levels around the player speed rather than the other way around. I don't think it's too hard a concept to grasp. You guys need to let go of the conventions laid down by COD and Battlefeild. They're fun in their own way, but vastly, vastly different from a Doom like experience.

You're the one bringing up COD and Battlefield. I personally don't want Doom to be much like that at all. You need to break out of your shell and see a little past your own Doom sphere. Perhaps then you'll see that these aren't conventions set by those two games, but general logic. Good graphics is a vague term and of course you could have a game that looks amazing and plays like a race car. It just won't be looking good in the sense that everybody expects and it probably won't catch a whole lot of flies.

Open mindedness is sorely lacking in modern design.

That I agree with to some degree. I'm not a big fan of most modern shooters, but I don't see how freezeframing 1993 is any better. It's worse in my opinion.

[Jon]

Sicamore said:

Considering the fact that they scrapped the first vision of Doom 4 to make room for something better , this should be good when it does come around!

You are totally right because that's exactly what happened with Duke Nukem Forever :)

Edit to add something faintly positive. I did try a mental exercise, to try and figure out what Doom 4 should be like, if it were to have anything like the impact Doom did. I couldn't come up with an answer. I guess "not be like doom 3" is a start. D3 had it's moments, mind. I thought the hell bits were pretty good. Big switches are not the missing magic ingredient, that much is certain.

[Avoozl]

If not be like Doom 3 means the features unique to Doom 3 alone then I guess that helps.