More new info here.

[TheGamePhilosophe]

DooM_RO said:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/interviews/a655477/doom-interview-its-bruce-lee-on-a-skateboard-with-a-shotgun.html#~phyN7Y5QdnJCIj

Looks like the finishers ("glory kills," as they are called apparently) will be an integral part of the gameplay and not something you'll want to skip:

Stratton: "So the way the glory kills work is that you can get an enemy into a state where he's a bit stunned, and you do that just through normal combat, but it's at a state just before death and they're completely optional. You don't have to run over there and do it, you can just blow them away with a gun, but at that point you're using more ammo and when you do run over and do glory kill them, you get a little bit more health, because you actually get health through killing enemies."

[esselfortium]

Yeah, that part seemed a bit odd. They're "optional", but not doing them affects the item balance? So they're about as "optional" as shooting at monsters or picking up items...

[wheresthebeef]

I wonder if getting gorier kills yields more items than a regular kill; as in, if you killed an enemy with the shotgun and they fall down vs you killing an enemy with the supershotgun up close and their body gibs into a thousand pieces.
The finishers might just yield the most amount of items overall; if you aren't getting hit and using all your weapons wisely you probably won't ever have to use them.

[MrHofmann]

TheGamePhilosophe said:

Looks like the finishers ("glory kills," as they are called apparently) will be an integral part of the gameplay and not something you'll want to skip:

Not every execution drops out ammo and health and not every normal kill drops ammo and health either. Only 42% of the executions dropped if you don't count the chainsaw executions. If you count the chainsaw then only 28% of the executions dropped health and ammo, while normal kills have 17% chance to drop something. Barrel kills on the other hand have 75% chance of dropping stuff, and i bet that raising the difficulty lowers the drop percentage, and i think that the gameplay that was shown at E3 was on one of the lowest difficulties. So executions are not the optimal strategy considering the risk you have to take to perform them when more enemies are around, therefore executions are optional. If you don't like them, or they become boring despite the fact that there are many different executions for each enemy(i counted 7 for the imp and there could be more), then perform them only when you have to, that is when you're low on ammo and/or when you're low on health and no other enemy is around.

[Ixnatifual]

I would prefer the glory kills to be merely a method of saving ammo while looking badass. I don't think monsters should drop health. I'm fine with them dropping ammo if they use guns, but they should drop them regardless of how they got killed.

[TheGamePhilosophe]

Hofmann said:

executions are not the optimal strategy[...]therefore executions are optional.

None of your statistics support this. If finishers are 2.5 times more likely to give ammo and health than simply shooting enemies, then they are a far more efficient means of dispatching enemies. You should also factor in that you don't use ammo performing them.

If you want to speculate that the "risk" involved with finishers makes them less optimal, feel free. But the gameplay we saw gave no indication that finishers were particularly risky moves. The player had no problem performing finishers in front of multiple enemies in the demo. Given the way id is touting the finishers as one of the "new" features, this makes sense. It would be strange to design them to be ineffective in mid-combat.

Your baseless speculation that the demo was set on one of the lowest difficulties doesn't mean much either. But just for argument's sake, let's say it was. Seems to me that higher difficulties, with limited health and ammo, would make the finishers even more integral to the gameplay. Maybe you won't be able to perform finishers in front of other enemies quite so easily (who knows?). But making sure you get to perform them as often as possible would definitely be a priority. Playing any differently would simply be disadvantaging yourself.

[ChickenOrBeef]

Yeah, since finishers will be encouraged, I think players will have to accept they're a big part of the game. With that said, there's still a big difference between being encouraged to melee kill and being 100% forced to melee kill.

[MrHofmann]

TheGamePhilosophe said:

None of your statistics support this. If finishers are 2.5 times more likely to give ammo and health than simply shooting enemies, then they are a far more efficient means of dispatching enemies. You should also factor in that you don't use ammo performing them.

Efficient doesn't mean necessary. Like i said, don't do them if you don't have to, that is when you have health and ammo.

TheGamePhilosophe said:

If you want to speculate that the "risk" involved with finishers makes them less optimal, feel free. But the gameplay we saw gave no indication that finishers were particularly risky moves. The player had no problem performing finishers in front of multiple enemies in the demo.

Executions may or may not be risky, there weren't many enemies in the demo anyway. If there would be a greater number of enemies and if it would be more crowded i think it would be a different story. If you want to judge the game based on a very limited alpha demo, go ahead, i will reserve my judgement at least until beta is released.

TheGamePhilosophe said:

Given the way id is touting the finishers as one of the "new" features, this makes sense. It would be strange to design them to be ineffective in mid-combat.

I never said they are ineffective, i said that they may be risky to perform. And it wouldn't be strange to make them risky, it would in fact make more sense to make them more risky if they are more effective.

TheGamePhilosophe said:

Your baseless speculation that the demo was set on one of the lowest difficulties doesn't mean much either. But just for argument's sake, let's say it was.

It would make sense to think that the demo was on one of the lowest difficulties cause the enemies were too retarded and the players health was godmoded at around 10, unless you are a cynical pessimist and are expecting this game to be the worst game ever.

TheGamePhilosophe said:

Seems to me that higher difficulties, with limited health and ammo, would make the finishers even more integral to the gameplay.

Yes, your baseless speculation would be true if there were no pickups at all, and of course if you are invulnerable while performing executions.

TheGamePhilosophe said:

Maybe you won't be able to perform finishers in front of other enemies quite so easily (who knows?). But making sure you get to perform them as often as possible would definitely be a priority.Playing any differently would simply be disadvantaging yourself.

Yes it would be a priority if you would want to play it easy, but if the game is easy even on harder difficulties you always have the choice of not performing them, which i think is a cool thing. Maybe it will even be a better gameplay with executions, Stratton said it's fun and challenging and i have no reason not to believe him.

[MrHofmann]

More info at QuakeCon 2015:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/07/06/the-next-big-doom-update-is-coming-soon

http://www.vg247.com/2015/07/07/no-new-doom-info-till-quakecon-this-month/

[MrHofmann]

Saturday, July 25th
DOOM Panel 3:00pm – 4:00pm | Streaming Live from the Ventrilo Main Stage

http://www.quakecon.org/blog/2015/07/09/2-weeks-to-quakecon-schedule-of-events/

[TheGamePhilosophe]

It appears they are. From the program: "DOOM Panel 3:00pm – 4:00pm | Streaming Live from the Ventrilo Main Stage"