The Great Immersion Debate

[Panteruh]

D_Runnin through the entire game of Doom 4 would be the most immersive experience possible. 1 constant loop of D_Runnin.

It gets quieter and quieter in more suspenseful parts... and then louder and louder in big fire fights... but always D_Runnin.....

....Or Darude Sandstorm.

[PsychoGoatee]

On some saying "play an RPG for story", that may be true, but there's more to it than gameplay vs story. Plus ideally an RPG has good gameplay as well.

In a great single-player FPS campaign, I'd call it the journey. Or the experience. Immersion is a part of that, amosphere, etc. Those things add a lot to a game even without changing the gameplay.

This game looks like it'll have great atmosphere and great gameplay, so it's really a win/win.

I will say on the subject of storytelling FPSs, we could use a shakeup lately. Everybody is still doing the Half-Life thing, you sit in first person and listen to an NPC talk for five minutes. I'd rather watch a tight cinematic edited 2 minute cutscene when need be, even if it goes against the FPS formula. The idea that you have to do it the Half-Life way is boring, because that was innovative in 98. And it doesn't fit every game.

For Doom 4, I'd love it if it just started with a really cool five minute cutscene, then bam, you're in the game. You never sit around and watch somebody talk. Or it could start in media res, but a badass quick opening could work too.

[Xaero_Four]

PsychoGoatee said:

On some saying "play an RPG for story", that may be true, but there's more to it than gameplay vs story. Plus ideally an RPG has good gameplay as well.

In a great single-player FPS campaign, I'd call it the journey. Or the experience. Immersion is a part of that, amosphere, etc. Those things add a lot to a game even without changing the gameplay.

This game looks like it'll have great atmosphere and great gameplay, so it's really a win/win.

I will say on the subject of storytelling FPSs, we could use a shakeup lately. Everybody is still doing the Half-Life thing, you sit in first person and listen to an NPC talk for five minutes. I'd rather watch a tight cinematic edited 2 minute cutscene when need be, even if it goes against the FPS formula. The idea that you have to do it the Half-Life way is boring, because that was innovative in 98. And it doesn't fit every game.

For Doom 4, I'd love it if it just started with a really cool five minute cutscene, then bam, you're in the game. You never sit around and watch somebody talk. Or it could start in media res, but a badass quick opening could work too.

I agree. Lot of people complain about cutscenes and say stupid nonsense. "Oh if I wanted cinematics and story, I'd watch a movie." All we ask for is a decent intro and ending to give the game a little bit of context, and a few short cutscenes in between lasting maybe like 30-40 secs tops to provide further narrative. Ain't like we're asking for Final Fantasy cinematics.

D3 was like this for the most part and it never got in the way of the games pacing because they were short, to the point and few in number.

[qdash]

Firstly, they must finish multiplayer as complete fun, non as lame circus and people automaticly must be more excited about release - it's how it works with CoD series. FPS game based on singleplayer can't reach real success and I think it's right. How to do? Make tons of content!

Wolfenstein: TNO was a really mediocre game with some great things, especially awesome art design by Machine Games. It's only old school camouflage but nothing compared in feelings, I don't want to see something like this in next Doom. Diaries, audio recordings, few cutscenes - this kind of stuff must be enough. Strong storyline isn't right at all, because this game is about killing demons in hell. At least, Doom is vertcial FPS game and I'm very excited about it. Crysis 2 has complete formula how Doom must be. IMHO. AI in Rage was good and must be enough for new Doom, shooting mechanics too, add some secrets and Doom is here.

[heraklit]

First of all, if someone is looking for cutscenes and a big background story and cinematic effects etc. classic Doom is definitely the wrong place. If we compare silent-movies from the early 1920s with current movies, then we will of course see a huge step forward in terms of technology and effects etc. but that doesn't mean these older movies suck or don't do their job anymore. They still fascinate and are impressive in their own way. It just depends on what one wants.

But to get back to the original topic: Immersion. I think immersion is not very depending on technology, at least I see it like that. You find many people who love and play "retro" games (old ATARI, NES games) and find them more appealing than modern games, and also more immersive. The lack of 'perfect' graphics and minimalistic design makes it possible to create the missing content in your own head, in your fantasy (like children who play with sticks and pretend to be a knight). After all, it is a game, if children are playing with LEGOs or adults are playing with video games, it is basically the same.

In many games (or movies) I simply don't want to know everything, because I know, that whatever the creator would bring up, couldn't beat my own imagination, how I picture it. And I think this lack of a deep story and cutscenes etc. made Doom so universal, almost like pacman. You can simply pick it up and play! Concerning the demons, hell, etc. you can make your own ideas and thoughts about how and why everything is happening as it happens in the game. And after all, what matters at the end of the day is the gameplay, if it is bad, nothing can make it up.

So I think that it is pretty subjective what actually 'immerses' you into a game. Again, it just depends on what one wants.

(Oh, and of course the top gameplay in Doom, which simply doesn't tread one as a moron like Call of Duty games do. I had to state that!)

[Gzegzolka]

NoisM said:

Firstly, they must finish multiplayer as complete fun, non as lame circus and people automaticly must be more excited about release - it's how it works with CoD series. FPS game based on singleplayer can't reach real success and I think it's right. How to do? Make tons of content!

Wolfenstein: TNO was a really mediocre game with some great things, especially awesome art design by Machine Games. It's only old school camouflage but nothing compared in feelings, I don't want to see something like this in next Doom. Diaries, audio recordings, few cutscenes - this kind of stuff must be enough. Strong storyline isn't right at all, because this game is about killing demons in hell. At least, Doom is vertcial FPS game and I'm very excited about it. Crysis 2 has complete formula how Doom must be. IMHO. AI in Rage was good and must be enough for new Doom, shooting mechanics too, add some secrets and Doom is here.

You say Crysis 2? Could You give more examples or points to that statement. As far as I remember Crysis 2 got some cool stuff, but also lot of stuff that put me off:
1. aggressive motion blur effect, I move my mouse and screen look like Prophet has just drunk bottle of vodka. It was so much anointing that I download small tool to create own config and turn that effect off.
2. Lack of graphics option. Crysis 1 was perfect in that way, allow to configure many different details for each type of asset, models, textures and post-processing. Crysis 2 got only resolution options and need not-official application to adjust game.
3. Shooting was not fun, weapons do very weak damage and in most cases more effective was to rush and male soldiers rather than shooting them. Crysis 1 wasn't perfect too, but later it was balanced with update.
4. Too long messages between missions. I lost goal of my mission after few levels.
5. Nano-suit equipped with open not protected wi-fi. There was too much ingoing radio transmissions from too many charters like I want to explore that city or just start gun-play but somebody call me with his important to-do information.
6. Crysis 1 was quite good, it point You direction on map and it was up to player to go there. Crysis 2 feels like You travel from one medium-big arena to other one, sometimes there is one or two corridors that You can choose - it feels like You are errand boy, somebody smarter took decisions and You just follow them.

[qdash]

Gzegzolka, I agreed with you. Crysis 2 suffered by stupid AI, weak shooting system and broken nanosuit. I talking about concept of gamedesign only. Non linear levels, demons, brutal finishers, double jumps and no regen is enough for Doom. IMHO.

Shooting system and exploring is much more important things than Hollywood style bubblegum assdrama with tons of scripts and cutscenes.

[Avoozl]

Doom doesn't need intrusive and pointless brutal finishers which yank control away from the player.

[PsychoGoatee]

NoisM said:

Gzegzolka, I agreed with you. Crysis 2 suffered by stupid AI, weak shooting system and broken nanosuit. I talking about concept of gamedesign only. Non linear levels, demons, brutal finishers, double jumps and no regen is enough for Doom. IMHO.

Crysis 2 is an okay game, but for me there's nothing for Doom to learn from it. That kind of open level design is very mainstream right now, but not always inherently interesting.

You wander through some big areas, sure this is better than the walk in a straight line narrow path Call of Duty or Killzone games, granted. But it's not interesting level design. No area is memorable. You're on an open rooftop shooting people, you're in a forested area shooting people, etc.

I'd rather the new Doom has small well thought out areas than big Crysis style areas, if anything. Linear and nonlinear are two words that don't really sum up FPS level design philosophy very well.

Doom to me should have some smaller or medium-ish "hub" areas where you can go in a few directions. But more important than the non-linearity is how fun and well thought out the maps are.

[Obzen]

Action games USED to be really good at letting the setting and atmosphere tell the story. A good modern example of this is Demon's Souls / Dark Souls. The story for those games is really sparse and vague, but rich atmosphere and environment tell a much deeper story. This sort of thing works very well in the original Doom.

Clever, stylistic representation of the game world that inspires the player to think about stuff like "I wonder what happened here" and really lets the player slip into their suspension of disbelief to just enjoy and be immersed in a game is something that is lacking in modern games, IMO.

Nothing is implied anymore, everything is given to us through cutscenes and dialogue. We are being told exactly how we are supposed to interpret what we are playing. You ever wonder why people have such wildly different views of what kind of game Doom was? Because it was vague enough to let the player's creativity fill in the voids.

[Gzegzolka]

NoisM said:

Gzegzolka, I agreed with you. Crysis 2 suffered by stupid AI, weak shooting system and broken nanosuit. I talking about concept of gamedesign only. Non linear levels, demons, brutal finishers, double jumps and no regen is enough for Doom. IMHO.

Shooting system and exploring is much more important things than Hollywood style bubblegum assdrama with tons of scripts and cutscenes.

Thanks for understanding my point of view. Crysis 2 was too linear in how You move throe levels. I'm sure if devs just cut the number of those "phone calls" by half You will start to feel better while playing this game, like Your progress is Your own accomplishment because You find way by yourself rather than by following someone's other plan. Just like Half-Life 2, when You meet NPC he spoke few worlds and for the rest of act You are on Your own way to destination, if You find obstacle or puzzle is up to You to sort it out, nobody should tell You how to do it (maybe just give some small hints). Doom3, FEAR, Farcry, first Halo, Prey was good at that.
AI was standard, they all act as typical bad-guys, even aliens (for opposite in Crysis Warhead You can see aliens that explore human houses and examine different stuff like giant alien play with digger car). As for nanosuit concept was good, but battery runs out too fast for me (just my own opinion).

Still Crysis 2 got some areas where it shine. Characters models are very pretty. Graphics and sound are awesome. On small scale those streets-arenas allow for different way of playing - You can go full frontal with dismounted heavy gun or stealth or mix of both. Environments are cool, got lot of great vistas for devastated city, good architecture, there are nice vivid colors for different buildings and weather sometimes changes, You have different times of day, very good lighting. City looks great and I like to see how it's fall in front of Your own eyes. Foliage is only bit worse than in first crysis.

As for cut-scenes I do not mind to have few short ones. One cut-scene for one level and maybe very short first level to learn basic where You see different people doing their jobs or run for their lives like in Halo or Doom3. There could be few other well developed characters ( female survivor scientist who decide to stay, other marines that do their tasks in other parts of base, Your high rank military supervisor etc) that You could meet between levels, people who close doors behind You when You start level or call You when You reach exit. And that's all, no need for Quake4 like NPC's that follow You for half game, no escort mission, no sniper mission, or being stooped by NPC in the middle of level because he have something important to say.

[Noiser]

(sorry my english mistakes)

This is a interesting post. I think that modern games don't need to be equal to a oldschool one, but they can learn some good things with them.

Changing subjects a liltle bit: the main difference that I see between a retro\small company and a giant\modern is that the language that was unique to games was substituted for the cinematographic one (you know... arcade things like points, flying coins\collectibles, unreal movements, colourful blinking bullets and lasers, etc).

Beforetime, a game had not the needs to explain themselves to much or be focused on realism\narrative all the time. So they do not had to always "make sense". Thinking about that, I can say that they were more akin to abstract art (for example), in the sense of being what they are by themselves and with a exclusive type of language.

For sure, that change is not necessarily bad, in fact some great things can be made with the cinematographic approach. But it could be better if the old one weren't almost extincted in the mainstream market.

By the way, I agree with Doom RO about the doom music. And I think the first game is really atmospheric for the nineties. Hell, even the gameplay is slower, with cramped corridors and monsters with straight-foward attacks. the game became more fast-paced in Doom II, having more expansive maps (like the city ones) and monsters that practically forced the player to run all the time.

quakke said:

Call me whatever, whatever but i didn't enjoy the new Wolfenstein and frankly i expected more from my Swedish neighbours who also brought us that awesome and epic Riddick (2004), sequel of riddick (2009) was only an "eh" game. But new order was 10 times more cinema-heavy than riddick games ever were. Shame on you Machine Games, you are nothing like the good old Starbreeze..

I agree with this. Sincerely, I do not see anything really new or interesting in NO. The game is focused on narrative (as every modern shooter), and have that exaustive color scheme (cyan\orange) along all the playthrough.

[Nanomen]

PsychoGoatee said:

On some saying "play an RPG for story", that may be true, but there's more to it than gameplay vs story. Plus ideally an RPG has good gameplay as well.

In a great single-player FPS campaign, I'd call it the journey. Or the experience. Immersion is a part of that, amosphere, etc. Those things add a lot to a game even without changing the gameplay.

This game looks like it'll have great atmosphere and great gameplay, so it's really a win/win.

I will say on the subject of storytelling FPSs, we could use a shakeup lately. Everybody is still doing the Half-Life thing, you sit in first person and listen to an NPC talk for five minutes. I'd rather watch a tight cinematic edited 2 minute cutscene when need be, even if it goes against the FPS formula. The idea that you have to do it the Half-Life way is boring, because that was innovative in 98. And it doesn't fit every game.

For Doom 4, I'd love it if it just started with a really cool five minute cutscene, then bam, you're in the game. You never sit around and watch somebody talk. Or it could start in media res, but a badass quick opening could work too.

Yeah, I don't think dialogue would work either. I was talking about the other parts of Half-Life that didn't use any NPCs at all, only the environments to tell the "story". As much as I love Half-Life 2, I will admit replaying it wasn't as fun the second time; even though the writing is superbly written and masterfully voice-acted, sometimes I just wish NPCs would just shut the hell up and let me through.

Let me give an example of what I meant; remember in the E3 demo where you see the Renevant walk through a hallway and rip that one dude's arms off? Or what about that hologram thing showing a Baron of Hell(?) tearing some guy in half? I want to see more of that. Though, it would be best only to use one or two scripted events like that each level/chapter near the beginning to introduce/foreshadow new enemies; it would be a great way to instill dread or fear into the player, and would add to the overall atmosphere tremendously.

As for what you said about Doom 4 having an opening cutscene, sure. I loved Quake 2's intro, and I have no objections if they tried to replicate something similar. I just don't want them to be all over the entire game.

[PsychoGoatee]

Nanomen said:

As for what you said about Doom 4 having an opening cutscene, sure. I loved Quake 2's intro, and I have no objections if they tried to replicate something similar. I just don't them to be all over the entire game.

For sure, in Doom with the surreal feel of the levels you can transition anywhere without really needing cutscenes. But a maybe two or three quick ones in the middle could be fun if that helps give the game an "episodes" feel like the 90s FPS games had.

Like how Duke 3D had cutscenes when Duke beats an episode, or the text at the end of Quake episodes etc. And I'd love a memorable ending like Doom's ending. That music, the bunny... glorious.

[Ixnatifual]

I think cutscenes and cinematics would be fine in-between the levels. That way they don't interrupt the gameplay.

[Nanomen]

NoisM said:

Firstly, they must finish multiplayer as complete fun, non as lame circus and people automaticly must be more excited about release - it's how it works with CoD series. FPS game based on singleplayer can't reach real success and I think it's right. How to do? Make tons of content!

Wolfenstein: TNO was a really mediocre game with some great things, especially awesome art design by Machine Games. It's only old school camouflage but nothing compared in feelings, I don't want to see something like this in next Doom. Diaries, audio recordings, few cutscenes - this kind of stuff must be enough. Strong storyline isn't right at all, because this game is about killing demons in hell. At least, Doom is vertcial FPS game and I'm very excited about it. Crysis 2 has complete formula how Doom must be. IMHO. AI in Rage was good and must be enough for new Doom, shooting mechanics too, add some secrets and Doom is here.

Looking back on it, I think the reason I mentioned Wolfenstein is because I was thinking about it's level design and some gameplay elements at the time. When I said "making the levels a little less linear" in my conclusion, I wasn't referring to Doom 4--I was referring to TNO. I have no idea why I didn't think about that and clarify beforehand. Still, I probably could've used a better example of how to handle scripted events in non-linear level design than TNO, Shadow Warrior being one of them.

Anyway, I never said Doom 4 needed a good story. Going back to what I said about Half-Life's story, it's basically the same thing--you shoot aliens in a research facility. Seem familiar? If such a simplistic premise can spawn such an awesome universe, I don't see why it couldn't work with Doom; I mean, it's mixing hell and sci-fi--how could that not make for some awesome lore? I think what I want more than anything is some more of that; I want to see how the writers can explain Doomguy's superhuman abilities, how the suit and all the other technology works, why the fuck people decided it would be a good idea to experiment on hell, how they even got access to hell in the first place, ect, ect. Personally, I find that kind of stuff interesting. Even though Doom 3 is most likely the worst when it comes to being a "Doom" game, I loved how it expanded upon the universe using detailed environments and would appreciate some parts of Doom 3 being mixed in with Doom 4.

Also, "Doom 4 must be like Crysis 2"? Ehhhh---no; isn't Doom 4 all about being non-linear? If they did semi-linear, that would kill the whole point of trying to be a classic FPS game; sure, it can have some parts that are linear, but it would really piss allot of Doom fans off if id just pussied out on the whole idea of classic level design and stick to what's already been done before. Yes, the AI shouldn't be completely brainless; but, if you're expecting F.E.A.R level AI, no--just no. Even though I've literally beaten that game three times through and savored almost every moment of it, I'm not expecting to face the smartest of foes.

[Woolie Wool]

Why don't you just play Unreal, because that seems to be the game you're expecting Doom to be.

[Doomkid]

[MAG]Nathan said:

The fact is, the things that made Doom great back in the day, don't hold a candle to the new shit.

You're right. A game where you have to run n' gun through a sweet variety of enemies, observe your surroundings and think on your feet to avoid waves of projectiles, and abstract and colorful world that is also somehow gloomy, dingy and decrepit all at the same time, an aresenal where no two guns are the same, and a stellar sountrack consisting of many moody, memorable tracks alongside heavy metal-ish tracks to set the pace for each map.. Those elements that made (make) the old Dooms so awesome don't just hold a candle to slow ass movement + sniper beats all + 2 gun limit + all the other modern convetions... It fucking burns them down.

EDIT: Just want to clarify something, in terms of immersion, Doom3 was simply stellar. In terms of gameplay, it surely wasn't as good as classic Doom, but was still leagues ahead of (most) of it's contemporaries in the fun department.

Panteruh said:

D_Runnin through the entire game of Doom 4 would be the most immersive experience possible. 1 constant loop of D_Runnin.

It gets quieter and quieter in more suspenseful parts... and then louder and louder in big fire fights... but always D_Runnin.....

....Or Darude Sandstorm.

+1

heraklit said:

First of all, if someone is looking for cutscenes and a big background story and cinematic effects etc. classic Doom is definitely the wrong place. If we compare silent-movies from the early 1920s with current movies, then we will of course see a huge step forward in terms of technology and effects etc. but that doesn't mean these older movies suck or don't do their job anymore. They still fascinate and are impressive in their own way. It just depends on what one wants.

Words of wisdom. Another +1.

[keiyakins]

There's lots of great games built around immersing you in an experience. The Call of Duty single player stuff, Dear Esther, the Myst series... but why does every game need to be like that? You might as well say every game needs to be completely story-free because Bejeweled was popular. Pick the aspects you want to push for a game, and then let everything else serve that, I say.

[Orchid87]

I completely agree on the lack of ambient sounds. That's why I can barely stand Jaguar Doom. Quake 1 was the first id game that included ambient soundscapes so that it is completely playable even without the CD tracks (which were ambient too anyway). Doom 3 is brilliant in this regard. Take some good headphones, big monitor, switch the light off -> immersion to the max. That said the game does not have to be like Call of Duty to have teh immersion. In fact I believe CoD-style games are not very good in this regard. They don't give a feeling of being there. You just have sceneries and friendly characters that quickly change around you and you can barely rest much less enjoy the environments. In Doom 3 you walk alone at your own pace, you can stop, listen to the ambience, humming machinery, appreciate the artistic work that went into building all this mechanic stuff - it is a more intimate experience. I would like new Doom to be more like this.

[quakke]

Orchid87 said:

I completely agree on the lack of ambient sounds. That's why I can barely stand Jaguar Doom. Quake 1 was the first id game that included ambient soundscapes so that it is completely playable even without the CD tracks (which were ambient too anyway). Doom 3 is brilliant in this regard. Take some good headphones, big monitor, switch the light off -> immersion to the max. That said the game does not have to be like Call of Duty to have teh immersion. In fact I believe CoD-style games are not very good in this regard. They don't give a feeling of being there. You just have sceneries and friendly characters that quickly change around you and you can barely rest much less enjoy the environments. In Doom 3 you walk alone at your own pace, you can stop, listen to the ambience, humming machinery, appreciate the artistic work that went into building all this mechanic stuff - it is a more intimate experience. I would like new Doom to be more like this.

Not to mention, it is never you, who in cod makes the decisions or anything. Everytime something happens in cod is because of this. "Hey! Player, go do this". You are always in a leash of the developer in Call of Duty. Most on-rails game ever created. Funny thing how people keep saying "was the best cod was the best cod". I recently looked a playthrough of the supposebly "PC Exclusive" Call of Duty 1 (2003) and it's just the same unrealistic scripted turret-sections in some car that is moving away from the enemies.. Pretty much a real meh of a game, afaic.

[Nanomen]

Orchid87 said:

I completely agree on the lack of ambient sounds. That's why I can barely stand Jaguar Doom. Quake 1 was the first id game that included ambient soundscapes so that it is completely playable even without the CD tracks (which were ambient too anyway). Doom 3 is brilliant in this regard. Take some good headphones, big monitor, switch the light off -> immersion to the max. That said the game does not have to be like Call of Duty to have teh immersion. In fact I believe CoD-style games are not very good in this regard. They don't give a feeling of being there. You just have sceneries and friendly characters that quickly change around you and you can barely rest much less enjoy the environments. In Doom 3 you walk alone at your own pace, you can stop, listen to the ambience, humming machinery, appreciate the artistic work that went into building all this mechanic stuff - it is a more intimate experience. I would like new Doom to be more like this.

Definitely; I would love to see those aspects of Doom 3 return in Doom 4. I hate to make myself sound like a broken record at this point -- as I already said this several times in my other replies -- but I wasn't thinking about total COD/Half-Life-style immersion before. Doom 3 is most certainly a good example; no NPCs, just you all alone by yourself. If you require some more detail as to what I have in mind, I'd suggest you read the conversation I had with gamul312. I've also been considering the possibility of closing this thread and re-writing it; I think I can make my thoughts a little more clear than I did previously.

[Chezza]

Late to the party here. And forgive me for not reading everyone's replies so I will make this post directly to the OP's thread.

I think by now your point and those who differ are clear by now.

I just wanted to say I understand where you are coming from. In fact I like where Doom 4 is going (besides the concerning lack of PC modding, the average Plasma Rifle, lack of limb dismemberment and the aesthetics may be more of a mix of Quake 2, and Doom 3 as oppose to he Hellish, gory environments of the original Dooms).

Your Half Life examples are great ones and again I agree with them.

What I wanted to contribute is the possibility of the original Doom fans gradually developing the wrong perception of Doom. Most of us, especially those with gameplay enhancements mods know the levels and monsters like the back of our hands. We modify the music with updated heavy metal, sprint, shoot constant headshots and jump/kick in brutal doom, and add about 497% more gore than the Vanilla Doom.

This renders Doom an extremely fast paced action packed shoot em up with the Nostalgic monsters and levels we loved.

But I don't believe that was the experience we all had the first few times we played Doom. Since so much of the game mechanics were new with features breaking industry standards with controls we all were trying to adjust to we took it much slower with caution. Potentially 70% of the game would of been spent very slowly approaching corners, hearing the noises of distant monsters, gathering the courage to walk into the dark room with flickering lights, wondering if we should of taken the other direction first instead of the current one etc. During all this the midi music was far more subtle and not overpowering much of the environmental sounds (that is, the monster sounds, doors, elevators).

Only until you mastered Doom and the art of strafing would you take it fast and increase the difficulty.

So regarding Doom 4. People want it faster paced with constant loud metal playing with an irrational lack of armor on Doomguy. Fair enough but that probably pays better tribute to Quake 2.

Doom had plenty of atmosphere and a great mix of slow paced exploring with tactical planning to take on the next challenge in additional to the fast paced action. Well I think Doom 4 is going to offer a good mix of both. Unlike Doom 3 which was more focused on repetitive dark corner scares and small skirmishes.

I have no reason to believe an adept player can't play Doom 4 extremely fast (excluding the super human sprint) to the extent where spectators could lose track on what's going on. I could already imagine what stunts I would be doing with the double jump addition alone.

Finally, I think your points are true. And I think there will be excellent atmosphere in Doom 4 in addition to excellent fast paced action. Some fans just need to step back, replay vanilla doom for 5 minutes and soak in the real nostalgia.

[quakke]

Chezza said:

Rosetinted glasses

I hate these kinda comments because they usually come from people who think people play older games just because they are old, while infact most people who play them, play them because they offer depth, variety and challenge.

You keep talking about vanilla doom. Why on earth should i be playing the game all the sudden with keyboard only autoaim movement? Zdoom and gzdoom offer ability to have mouselook with quite good mouse accuracy, so why would i instead opt for a slower style gameplay with arrowkeys that is more clunky imo, why? Even wolf3d is less boring with mouse+kb than to be plain played with just kb only.

By the time of quake 1 (1996) already, keyboard + mouse playingstyle started to be much more popular than before, so why would i have to now play doom 1 with just keyboard when it's imo more boring because being so primitive. With mouse you can aim yourself and thus it's more dynamic, since you have to do the target spotting. If it's now possible to play doom with mouse + keyboard and it holds up with that way, why would i play it the old way instead?

Brutal Doom isn't really doom, it's just a mod and imo not so good mod..

[Chezza]

quakke said:

I hate these kinda comments because they usually come from people who think people play older games just because they are old, while infact most people who play them, play them because they offer depth, variety and challenge.

You keep talking about vanilla doom. Why on earth should i be playing the game all the sudden with keyboard only autoaim movement? Zdoom and gzdoom offer ability to have mouselook with quite good mouse accuracy, so why would i instead opt for a slower style gameplay with arrowkeys that is more clunky imo, why? Even wolf3d is less boring with mouse+kb than to be plain played with just kb only.

By the time of quake 1 (1996) already, keyboard + mouse playingstyle started to be much more popular than before, so why would i have to now play doom 1 with just keyboard when it's imo more boring because being so primitive. With mouse you can aim yourself and thus it's more dynamic, since you have to do the target spotting. If it's now possible to play doom with mouse + keyboard and it holds up with that way, why would i play it the old way instead?

Brutal Doom isn't really doom, it's just a mod and imo not so good mod..

I'm not that old I'm 27.

And for the record I love the modern mechanics and also agree with most of your viewpoints. But what I say is still valid.

I'm not entirely sure if you're even arguing against my points here. But I'm simply defending Doom 4 and its potential for immersion saying it can in fact offer the same early experiences and gameplay style as the original dooms did but with modern mechanics. It doesn't have to both begin and end with super fast paced action with loud metal music. Horror, Terror and Atmosphere has a part to play like it did in the original dooms.

[Noiser]

quakke said:

I hate these kinda comments because they usually come from people who think people play older games just because they are old, while infact most people who play them, play them because they offer depth, variety and challenge.

You keep talking about vanilla doom. Why on earth should i be playing the game all the sudden with keyboard only autoaim movement? Zdoom and gzdoom offer ability to have mouselook with quite good mouse accuracy, so why would i instead opt for a slower style gameplay with arrowkeys that is more clunky imo, why? Even wolf3d is less boring with mouse+kb than to be plain played with just kb only.

I like to play both ways. I prefer the zdoom mouselook scheme for sure, but the traditional one (with arrows) is cool if you want to challenge yourself or play in a more stealthy, suspenseful way. (because it's more slower indeed) I mean, I have fun playing a atmospheric map with it.

But even with WASD + mouse, the gameplay changes a little without the mouselook. So it's a different experience anyway.

[esselfortium]

quakke said:

You keep talking about vanilla doom. Why on earth should i be playing the game all the sudden with keyboard only autoaim movement? Zdoom and gzdoom offer ability to have mouselook with quite good mouse accuracy, so why would i instead opt for a slower style gameplay with arrowkeys that is more clunky imo, why? Even wolf3d is less boring with mouse+kb than to be plain played with just kb only.

By the time of quake 1 (1996) already, keyboard + mouse playingstyle started to be much more popular than before, so why would i have to now play doom 1 with just keyboard when it's imo more boring because being so primitive. With mouse you can aim yourself and thus it's more dynamic, since you have to do the target spotting. If it's now possible to play doom with mouse + keyboard and it holds up with that way, why would i play it the old way instead?

Doom has supported mouse+keyboard control from the very beginning. The built-in demos included with the game are recorded with mouse control.

[Xaero_Four]

quakke said:

Not to mention, it is never you, who in cod makes the decisions or anything. Everytime something happens in cod is because of this. "Hey! Player, go do this". You are always in a leash of the developer in Call of Duty. Most on-rails game ever created. Funny thing how people keep saying "was the best cod was the best cod". I recently looked a playthrough of the supposebly "PC Exclusive" Call of Duty 1 (2003) and it's just the same unrealistic scripted turret-sections in some car that is moving away from the enemies.. Pretty much a real meh of a game, afaic.

To be fair the original COD was ALOT of fun and very simple. It was one of those games that was very immersive and made you feel the intensity of a WWII battle. No game came quite as close to making you feel apart of the fighting until power houses like D3 and HL2 came with state of the art engines.

CoD has become bastardized due to over exposure, literally releasing a game EVERY single year since 2003. This doesn't ruin the memories I've had with the classics though, and I'm willing to bet you would've had a blast had you been apart of it.

[Avoozl]

Honestly I enjoyed MoH:AA and its expansions much more than CoD 1 and its one expansion. The part of WWII that they based the story for CoD 1 on was a pretty much underwhelming part. Finest Hour was probably the only CoD game which I even remotely enjoyed.

[Xaero_Four]

Avoozl said:

Honestly I enjoyed MoH:AA and its expansions much more than CoD 1 and its one expansion. The part of WWII that they based the story for CoD 1 on was a pretty much underwhelming part. Finest Hour was probably the only CoD game which I even remotely enjoyed.

Of all the earlier COD installments to choose from you went with a console game? Different strokes for different folks, it's just hard to compute that someone would prefer that over one of the PC installments.

That being said I did like MoH quite a bit.