DOOM 4 and Perks

[quakke]

So recently there started some discussion about DOOM 4 and it having possible Perk system. I thought it would be good idea to now create a topic for speculating this this area.

I personally hope there won't be any perk systems since they make gameplay dull. You always start with everything being just sort of squirtgun level of powerful and only in the last 5minutes of the entire game will you be rocking with full firepower. Lame.

id Software seems to be wanting to make a doom what would capture the original doom experience. If they do include perks to this, then it's the first big Con for this game to show and would also very highly be against that original doom experince. Because in the classic doom there was no perk system holding you back from experiercing it all, instead if you found the secrets, you got the power weapons earlier than supposed to and you also go the powerweapon ammunition mostly through secrets.

The kinda perk systems im describing , can be seen in Wolfenstein The New Order (2014) or Shadow Warrior (2013).

[qdash]

Completely bullshit. IMHO.

[GuyMcBrofist]

The only real beef I would have with perks would be consistency. Like, would they be on your profile? After beating the game would you restart with all your perks and be totally overpowered at the start? Or if you were to warp in at some of the later levels would you be without perks and totally screwed? How would this be handled for something like speed demos?

Aside from that, a multiplayer mode with COD-style perks sounds fun.

[qdash]

a multiplayer mode with COD-style perks sounds fun.

Sounds shit to me, because it will be another fucking CoD.

[quakke]

NoisM said:

Sounds shit to me, because it will be another fucking CoD.

Completely agree with this.

I mean, i thought the purpose was to make a game unlike cod. Wasn't this why the previous Doom 4 (code name Call of Doom) was scrapped in the first place? Because it started being more cod than doom.

Seriously, i think this should share nothing with cod because then only will it be a true doom experience. I understood that id Software wanted to bring back that feeling we got from original doom games. Imo including anything that cod has popularized, is a sure way to again go further away from that real doom feeling.

edit: Literally every triple a fps in the last few years has played and felt exactly like cod. How about it's enough already?
If this is just gonna be more of the same, i'm outta here..

[qdash]

If this is just gonna be more of the same, i'm outta here..

This.

[Ixnatifual]

I hope for no perks. Keep things simple.

[TheGamePhilosophe]

Is there any reason to believe there will be a perk system? Has id said anything about it?

[Tetzlaff]

I largely ignored those modern military styled FPS from the last decade. So could anyone explain to me what Perks are?

Nevermind, I looked it up at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_point#Perks

[Jaxxoon R]

Ha ha, the joke's on you. Doom 64's Unmaker had infuriatingly hard-to-find upgrade modules that turned it into an OP pimpslapper of a weapon by the end of the game.

[winjig]

[illYay1337]

I'm not a huge fan of perks/loadouts in games nowadays. Well it's cool if it's more like Counterstrike and you gain money in the current round to buy more. And in the next round you start from 0 again instead of permanently unlocking things like you do in CoD.

It ruins the whole, find the cool rocket launcher/rail gun/bfg/ etc... If everyone just starts with some powerful weapon, it becomes a mindless killfest. No more thinking about items, powerups, etc...

[wheresthebeef]

A lot of misconceptions and different ideas of what perks are.
If perks as in the stuff in Call of Duty, don't do it, and definitely don't do perks of any kind for multiplayer. Multiplayer should be pure and fair from someone who just bought the game compared to someone whose had the game for years (besides the personal experience)
No progression system or loadouts either. Leveling up is not something I'd want in Doom, especially when it typically means you won't get access to certain features until you reach a specific level.
Now if we are talking about perks like whats found in The New Order/The Old Blood, I can see that being fun. You can start over or keep them when starting a new game, and they can be tiny improvements like increasing your total ammo capacity for specific weapons. It has some satisfaction to get progression beyond just reaching the next level or finding a new weapon.
I also think the game will be perfectly fine without it. I replay all the Doom games annually and don't mind starting completely from scratch everytime

[illYay1337]

Oh yeah. Those perks.

I guess it's sortof cool. I myself am kinda meh about them in TNO. I barely think about having them as I play, but they don't really take anything away. I guess it's pretty cool to randomly have more knives for example.

It's possible someone cares and likes to have improved headshot accuracy or whatever perks there were.

[Avoozl]

Bethesda seems to have an obsession with their own game mechanics that they also want them in the ID games, they started doing perks with Fallout 3 and moved on to TES by adding them to Skyrim, then they added them to TNO and now they have moved to adding them to Doom 4.

Honestly I do not like the idea of perks in Doom at all especially since they can make the game so much easier than it needs to be, the Doom games never had perks to begin with and I feel they will spoil the Doom experience in Doom 4. with perks the game will likely be a walk in the park, demons aren't supposed to be easy to kill weaklings.

[Jaxxoon R]

From a conceptual level, as I've said before if these weapon addons are found by exploring the levels, then it only really serves as an evolution of the Demon Keys from Doom 64. The actual thing hinges on the execution, are these addons fun or useful enough to encourage exploration now that health and ammo can be acquired from fallen enemies? Is there ever a scenario where you'd best use one over the other? Why does everyone seem to ignore Doom 64 when talking about the "classic doom experience?"

[Obzen]

Jaxxoon R said:

Why does everyone seem to ignore Doom 64 when talking about the "classic doom experience?"

I guess because id software didn't develop it?

[Jaxxoon R]

To be fair, did id software as it was during Doom 1/2 really develop anything afterwards? They kind of threw out all the hearts of the company after Carmack's stranglehold on the engine was established.

[wheresthebeef]

Avoozl said:

Bethesda seems to have an obsession with their own game mechanics that they also want them in the ID games, they started doing perks with Fallout 3 and moved on to TES by adding them to Skyrim, then they added them to TNO and now they have moved to adding them to Doom 4.

Honestly I do not like the idea of perks in Doom at all especially since they can make the game so much easier than it needs to be, the Doom games never had perks to begin with and I feel they will spoil the Doom experience in Doom 4. with perks the game will likely be a walk in the park, demons aren't supposed to be easy to kill weaklings.

Perks aren't confirmed for new Doom; they might not even be in the game at all. This is all speculation.

[[LeD]Jake Crusher]

Jaxxoon R said:

Why does everyone seem to ignore Doom 64 when talking about the "classic doom experience?"

Because it was not for PC - for a console. Some people dislike that - in their opinion, Doom is PC-only series (also, not all monsters are present, different visual style, lack of multiplayer/metal music...). Me? I'm fine with D64 EX. And I do like it very much.
What surprises me as well - not many of these people are accepting the fact that id did supervise D64's development.

[Nineball]

Should i feel bad that D64 was actually my favorite out of all the doom games?

[[LeD]Jake Crusher]

Nineball said:

Should i feel bad that D64 was actually my favorite out of all the doom games?

Dunno. Ask those who dislike it :)
ATST - was D64 your first DOOM or not?

[wheresthebeef]

LeDJake Crusher said:

Because it was not for PC - for a console. Some people dislike that - in their opinion, Doom is PC-only series

Which is ironic considering the number of things Doom gets ported to, including a calculator, a printer, etc etc.

[Mogul]

Yes, the game should have perks. Game design has evolved to be far more interesting than it was 20 years ago, while still maintaining a visceral action experience. To not include some kind of progression system in 2015 would be a missed opportunity. I think the the crowd that literally wants a game where you just move from level to level picking up guns and killing enemies and unlocking doors is an extreme minority at this point, thankfully.

Ten years ago, I would have taken a far more conservative stance but tastes evolve. Making a game that can generate enough dopamine/endorphins to keep you playing for more than a few hours requires rewards beyond the audio/visual feedback you get from shooting and killing things (which I'm sure they'll nail as awesomely as they did in Rage). Without an interesting progression system that offers choices that directly affect what your character is able to do, we're going to have another bland, uninspired shooter, with which the market has been flooded for like 15 years.

[quakke]

Mogul said:

To not include some kind of progression system in 2015 would be a missed opportunity. Making a game that can generate enough dopamine/endorphins to keep you playing for more than a few hours requires rewards beyond the audio/visual feedback you get from shooting..

So.. sounds to me like you really only just want this then.

[Ixnatifual]

Your reward is adrenaline pumping, getting a big effin gun and then watch as it explodes a demon from the inside out. And then beating the level with two hell knights breathing down your neck. I disliked the perks in Wolfenstein: TNO because it they not only took you out of the gameplay to find them out but also annoyed your gameplay by forcing you to change it so you could unlock them. It really disrupted the rhythm of the gameplay and made for a worse experience.

I think game design has taken a step backwards in many ways and have added complexity in the wrong places (like carrot on a stick rewards, often as a greed-driven engine for microtransactions) and simplified it where they shouldn't have. (Simplistic level design and no challenge)

[Obzen]

Mogul said:

Yes, the game should have perks. Game design has evolved to be far more interesting than it was 20 years ago, while still maintaining a visceral action experience. To not include some kind of progression system in 2015 would be a missed opportunity. I think the the crowd that literally wants a game where you just move from level to level picking up guns and killing enemies and unlocking doors is an extreme minority at this point, thankfully.

Tetris
Pac-Man
Ridge Racer
Super Mario Bros.
Street Fighter
Doom

What do these game series have in common, despite all being from completely different genres?

- They are games that hinge almost exclusively on the mechanics of their gameplay. They are all institutions of simple yet addictive game design. Games for the sake of it. You can make an argument that gameplay alone can't keep someone interested in a game these days, to that I say: Either the game's core mechanics were not solid enough, or you simply do not truly enjoy the game.

There is absolutely no reason to convolute a rock-solid design in an arcade-style game with RPG elements. It's completely counter-intuitive to the goal of the gameplay. Your "reward" in these types of games is to hone your skill and to continually take on harder challenges to test your skill. By introducing a progression system that constantly changes the rules of the mechanics of the game, you are diluting the satisfaction of using your mastery and understanding of the game's mechanics and ruleset.

Of course, in moderation, it can add a bit of spice. I understand that in the modern era people expect a certain amount of "fluff". I'd rather there be something more akin to the consumables from Quake II, but more fleshed-out of course. This could facilitate exploration as well, searching for secrets.

[Mogul]

A good progression system IS better gameplay, though. If the progression you earn consists of interesting, hard choices, and those choices directly impact the way you play the game, you have something that can be as fun as pac-man or whatever, but infinitely more interesting. Consider Borderlands. Too RPGish in its systems to apply to the new DOOM, for sure, but choosing a class, specializing in a talent/perk tree, and making choices within the tree you chose empowers the player to tackle each combat situation in the game differently. A pretty black and white, made-up (but probably existing) example might be that your character has a straight up high damage tree or a stealth tree, or a low-damage, high-mitigation tree to choose from. And within those trees there are tons of compelling choices to make between upgrades to this or that ability. When the choices are somewhat mutually exclusive, and the options on offer are significantly different from one another, and there are long tails to increasing your power in any given one, gameplay is enhanced, made far more interesting, and ultimately more value for your box price is applied.

Now that we live in a world where systems like this exist, I think it's naive to dismiss them and point to classics as examples of gameplay that holds up today. None of those examples hold up today, imo, save maybe Street Fighter because at its core, it's a multiplayer tournament game, or DOOM because it has a multiplayer component. But I don't think many people in 2015 play more than a couple of hours of DOOM per year. I enjoy the instantaneous rewards from weapon sounds, enemy damage feedback, gore, and movement speed, but that's nowhere near enough to keep me playing for more than a couple of hours every few months. I think I've logged maybe one hour or so in Brutal Doom (imo the best thing that's happened to Doom in 10 years) after waiting for the newest version for a year. I need an experience far more interesting to keep me playing into the dozens or hundreds of hours. Call me obsessive, but I devour every aspect of the games I play. Even "innovative" gameplay to me feels like a gimmick at this point. Super Mario 3D World might be one of the best platformers of all time, but I think I played it for like 15 hours and I'll probably not touch it again for years, if ever. It's just not interesting. Meanwhile, there exist games with incredible action, great gameplay, alongside long-tailed reward systems and interesting rewards/unlocks. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. And in our world where people play LoL, WoW, Skyrim, Fallout, Borderlands, and so on for hundreds of hours in the tens of millions, it's just not ok to take good gameplay as it is and call it a day. Many of us want more and recognize we can have both awesome gameplay and awesome rewards.

[Mogul]

Tetzlaff said:

I largely ignored those modern military styled FPS from the last decade. So could anyone explain to me what Perks are?

Nevermind, I looked it up at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_point#Perks

mmm this isn't really what I'm talking about. I mean "perks" in the Bethesda sense. Play Wolfenstein: The New Order for (probably) the best direction for a perk system in the new DOOM.

[Obzen]

Mogul said:

Consider Borderlands. Too RPGish in its systems to apply to the new DOOM, for sure, but choosing a class, specializing in a talent/perk tree, and making choices within the tree you chose empowers the player to tackle each combat situation in the game differently. A pretty black and white, made-up (but probably existing) example might be that your character has a straight up high damage tree or a stealth tree, or a low-damage, high-mitigation tree to choose from. And within those trees there are tons of compelling choices to make between upgrades to this or that ability. When the choices are somewhat mutually exclusive, and the options on offer are significantly different from one another, and there are long tails to increasing your power in any given one, gameplay is enhanced, made far more interesting, and ultimately more value for your box price is applied.

It's funny that you mention Borderlands, which is pretty much the antithesis of Doom. Loose sluggish gunplay set in levels that are designed with a complete lack of consideration when it comes to gameflow, with an arsenal that lacks punch or balance. The only redeeming aspect of that game is the "fluff", not the mechanics themselves. It is a terrible action game. Par for course when it comes to Gearbox, though... just look at their track record.

As far as an id software game that incorporates modern incentive-based tropes into an FPS base, we have that already. It's called Rage. IMO, that game is good DESPITE the RPG-light elements and progressions, not because of them.

It seems to me that you just dislike arcade-style games. Which is strange considering what forum you are in, because it has been stated by Romero and Carmack that Doom was designed as an arcade-style game.

[Mogul]

I'm here now because I've been here for nearly 15 years. That doesn't mean my tastes can't mature, and they certainly have. The new DOOM is not the 20-year old game that Carmack and Romero designed to be an arcade style game. I'm here to discuss the new game, not that one.

re: Borderlands
I think by "mechanics," you mean only movement and shooting, and you're ignoring the robustness of the rest of the game's systems. The movement and shooting feedback, etc, of Borderlands isn't what I'm trying to highlight. My point about Borderlands is that you have a wealth of options that significantly change how your character plays, and that's interesting. The existence of the systems that enable those options isn't mutually exclusive to fast gameplay with tight controls and good weapon feedback, even if you don't think Borderlands has that kind of gameplay. Again, I point to Wolfenstein TNO as a different flavor of the same idea. That game is pretty fucking great and its perk system has a lot to do with that. It exists alongside pretty awesome, fast-paced gameplay.

re: Rage

I love Rage, and it was good in spite of its rpg-ish elements... not because they exist in the game at all, as you'd argue, but because the game didn't go nearly far enough with them. It gave us a character progression system that was watered down to the point of almost being inconsequential. You didn't have to make any exclusive choices outside of which armor you picked, which was an inconsequential choice anyway, the "open world experience" that many people expected was practically on rails and comparatively tiny to real open-world games, and item use was stupid because it was practically unlimited. There wasn't a cooldown period for bandages, for example, so you could just spam them and stay alive indefinitely, like in Diablo 2. Pretty dumb.

The solution to making the game more compelling isn't cutting these features, though. The right move would be to expand those systems so that they actually confronted the player with compelling, interesting choices, and rewarding the player in unique ways based on the choice that was made. Going back to the armor example, if you pick the stealth suit, it should drastically change the way you have to play to succeed, by both giving you fun, new abilities to sneak, but also by raising your vulnerability. Whatever the other armors are (I forget, despite having cleared the game on Ultra Nightmare and having most of the achievements), they should have also offered more compelling, exclusive experiences. Rage didn't give you much choice. It sort of handed you some of these rpg mechanics on a platter and you kind of dabbled in them and none of it was important. The shooting in that game is superb, and the driving was a fun diversion. Both could have been enhanced by building out the rpg systems better; neither would be improved by the removal of the rpg systems. There's no reason that it couldn't have been a much more interesting, empowering experience if the designers had a clue what they were doing. Reminder: games that spend that long in development are often design-confused.

Do I dislike arcade games? No, but there's no reason that fun gameplay can't also be couched in systems that give the game more depth. If I'm not periodically making interesting decisions, the game gets dull fast. I've been playing shooters for over 20 years at this point. I was more or less tired of feature-less, vanilla gameplay concepts before the turn of the millennium. And that was before Blizzard taught me how to design game systems.

Again, I point to Wolfenstein TNO as probably the current gold standard for what I'm looking for in a shooter today. That said, I don't think their version of a perk system is ideal, either. But the proof of concept is definitely there.