Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
sheridan

DOOM is getting ripped and torn by negative Steam reviews

Recommended Posts

DooM_RO said:

How is this helpful to anyone?

It isn't, that's why you have the ability to upvote and downvote reviews.

Steam's review system is pretty democratic. There are obvious ups and downs to having a system like that, but when 99% of gamers are not established or accredited in any way, it's pretty much the best you can hope for anyway.

Creating an arbitrary system to try to "enforce" quality is pretty much guaranteed to fail. I mean even if you added an automated 2000 word minimum to the system, what's to stop somebody to fill up the deficit with lorem-ipsum nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post

About 20% of those negative reviews you can take seriously. The rest are from people trolling or are hugely invested in a particular game that any other game would be classed as shit but instead of walking away there jumping on the bandwagon of hate.

Can anyone really take some ones opinion seriously why they trash it after 1 match then uninstalled it. It's takes a good amount of hours to get a feel for the maps and weapons.

I see a lot of people moaning about the demon rune and cannon, but these items are part of what makes doom multi-player unique, if people slagging that off then they really didn't get this MP at all. Also if people worked as a team they could easily kill him the demon but many just treated as DM, so it's the fault of the players in some ways for not getting it. Ofc I'm not saying these don't need some kind of balance adjustments but that is up to us top feed back to the team.

Last thing to mention is mostly negative status, what a load of bollocks. In a time where you got loads of early access shite getting positive reviews over this (minor bugs aside it's very polished and plays extremely well) the you know something is wrong. Valve need to fix this, maybe make the review requirements based on a certain length of time in the game so a proper opinion can be formed rather than have 1-10 review the makes sense and not some fan hate bullshit because they feel the dev pissed on there cornflakes.

Share this post


Link to post
archvile82 said:

About 20% of those negative reviews you can take seriously. The rest are from people trolling or are hugely invested in a particular game that any other game would be classed as shit but instead of walking away there jumping on the bandwagon of hate.

Can anyone really take some ones opinion seriously why they trash it after 1 match then uninstalled it. It's takes a good amount of hours to get a feel for the maps and weapons.

I see a lot of people moaning about the demon rune and cannon, but these items are part of what makes doom multi-player unique, if people slagging that off then they really didn't get this MP at all. Also if people worked as a team they could easily kill him the demon but many just treated as DM, so it's the fault of the players in some ways for not getting it.

Last thing to mention is mostly negative status, what a load of bollocks. In a time where you got loads of early access shite getting positive reviews over this (minor bugs aside it's very polished and plays extremely well) the you know something is wrong. Valve need to fix this, maybe make the review requirements based on a certain length of time in the game so a proper opinion can be formed rather than have 1-10 review the makes sense and not some fan hate bullshit because they feel the dev pissed on there cornflakes.


This.

Share this post


Link to post
archvile82 said:

Valve need to fix this, maybe make the review requirements based on a certain length of time in the game so a proper opinion can be formed rather than have 1-10 review the makes sense and not some fan hate bullshit because they feel the dev pissed on there cornflakes.

Not all games require the same amount of time to develop a "fair" opinion on them. This is why somebody's play time is posted alongside their review. If you don't think somebody's played for long enough to judge the game fairly, downvote them. Their opinions aren't objectively less valid than yours just because you think they didn't play for long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
DooM_RO said:

We need something more like Quora and less like Yahoo Answers.

You should really elaborate on that idea because Quora and Yahoo Answers fulfill a completely different purpose than video game reviews do.

Also, nobody's preventing you from ignoring Steam reviews and just using something like Metacritic instead.

Share this post


Link to post
sheridan said:

You should really elaborate on that idea because Quora and Yahoo Answers fulfill a completely different purpose than video game reviews do.

Also, nobody's preventing you from ignoring Steam reviews and just using something like Metacritic instead.


Metacritic is even worse. You don't even need to own the game to "review" something.

Share this post


Link to post
DooM_RO said:

Metacritic is even worse. You don't even need to own the game to "review" something.

I wasn't referring specifically to the user reviews (which I personally never use) as much as I was referring to the site's main feature: an aggregated and weighted score based on various high-ranking professional reviews.

Why are you so concerned over other peoples' opinions about video games?

Share this post


Link to post
sheridan said:

Extremely unlikely. The game's entire design has been engineered to appease a specific crowd of gamers already, and you just can't make major fundamental changes to a game's design that easily, especially within a month of it getting released to the public.

Consider if they adjusted the movement speed, for example, to make Doomguy 50% faster. Suddenly, every single ledge and gap in the ENTIRE game has to reevaluated by the designers, since you can clearly jump much farther than you could before.

You can't compensate for that and make sure the design is still good all within a month. ESPECIALLY during the month of release.

They're in the midst of shipping the final version of the game across the world already, for christ's sake!


I too doubt they'd even alter the movement, however I do recall when the Alpha was stripped down people found an option called "Quake Movement" or something like that. It might be a server command. Also, I understand what you're trying to say, but keep in mind the maps are designed to work with haste. I'd say it feels pretty good with haste and you don't get stuck on ledges or jump too far and miss a pillar, etc.

From what we've seen there isn't even a lot of that anyway, Doom seems to be a lot of wide hallways and the odd ramp that looks over said hallways. There really isn't much things to "trip" over if they did increase movement speed. And of course, with loadouts, things like weapon pickups we wont really need to worry about. Now if they change THAT...then we're talking major level design changes.

Your point about them in the midst of shipping the final version is a bit weak. They haven't gone gold yet, and fixes can be done via Steam updates anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

You're right, it's more accurate to say they're preparing to ship than to say they've shipped already, but the point stands that if they're a sane group of developers they won't make any fundamental changes to the product before it lands in the consumer's lap next month.

Problem with you mentioning haste is that if the player's default movement speed goes up 50%, then the haste powerup will have to increase in potency too, so there's still an opportunity for things to go wrong that you wouldn't expect. It's easy even when you're in the design seat to make hand-wave judgments and say, "this change couldn't possibly break anything, and I know it will result in a net-positive addition to the game!" but in practice, the change often does break something, and then everybody on the team has to scramble to put the game back together so it can ship in a working state as originally planned.

You do make a fair point with the asynchronous update model, as we saw Bethesda use that a lot post-release for Skyrim. For example, horse combat and a ton of other cut features ended up worming their way into that game after release because the developers were basically given free reign to work on whatever they wanted once the game had shipped and cemented itself as a successful title. But even they refused to let their team make any serious changes in the days leading up to release because they needed everybody's concentration to ensure that the game hit its mark on day 1 of public release.

Share this post


Link to post
sheridan said:

You're right, it's more accurate to say they're preparing to ship than to say they've shipped already, but the point stands that if they're a sane group of developers they won't make any fundamental changes to the product before it lands in the consumer's lap next month.

Problem with you mentioning haste is that if the player's default movement speed goes up 50%, then the haste powerup will have to increase in potency too, so there's still an opportunity for things to go wrong that you wouldn't expect. It's easy even when you're in the design seat to make hand-wave judgments and say, "this change couldn't possibly break anything, and I know it will result in a net-positive addition to the game!" but in practice, the change often does break something, and then everybody on the team has to scramble to put the game back together so it can ship in a working state as originally planned.

You do make a fair point with the asynchronous update model, as we saw Bethesda use that a lot post-release for Skyrim. For example, horse combat and a ton of other cut features ended up worming their way into that game after release because the developers were basically given free reign to work on whatever they wanted once the game had shipped and cemented itself as a successful title. But even they refused to let their team make any serious changes in the days leading up to release because they needed everybody's concentration to ensure that the game hit its mark on day 1 of public release.


True about haste. Other things they can do is increase movement speed while scoping and little things lIke that which aren't ruining map design, more of a weapon balancing issue.

Cause seriously that shit is way too fucking slow, bad enough my location is given away cause the laser pointer, and now I can't even dodge when scoping.

Share this post


Link to post
DMGUYDZ64 said:

Are my eyes fooling me ? Looks like rates are getting better .

They are, actually. Doom's record minimum to my knowledge was 35% but it's since climbed to 37%. The worst of the backlash seems to be over. :)

Share this post


Link to post
DMGUYDZ64 said:

Are my eyes fooling me ? Looks like rates are getting better .


Beta is nearing am end, perhaps there was a silent majority that is only now starting to review it.

Share this post


Link to post
DMGUYDZ64 said:

Are my eyes fooling me ? Looks like rates are getting better .

I guess that we are finally getting more and more reviews from people who actually bothered to put some time into game and haven't rushed onto bandwagon in order to get some delicious upvotes for their review.

Share this post


Link to post

I showed the Doom beta to a good friend of mine today. He even played a round. But he never got into classic Doom nor any classic FPS.

I told him that it's getting mostly negative reviews on steam due to feeling similar to Halo, not having fast side strafing, a 2 weapon limit load-out and no rocket jumping among other smaller things.

He said:
"I'm not sure why, I don't find this game offensive". This is from someone who never had any nostalgia for the classics nor any interest in the new installments. It's a very good point too, as the game does runs well, looks good and offers a fast engaging experience. No major FPS issues on my above average PC, no notable bugs and no complicated controls. Even if this game isn't your cup of tea there is very little to justify an emotionally negative response to this potential reboot.

Of course, this is what many of us already think. I just wanted to point that out.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the multiplayer isnt this bad after all :D I tried it for a hour maybe and it was fun, i am not this positive about the multiplay player base going huge tho. I think the doom multiplayer is what old doom always was for multiplayer. Meaning its easy for new players to jump in and get some frags easy. In doom 2 you have ssg in new doom you have loadouts and stuff.

edit: i think it should get way worse than how it is now, and doom was always mainly for singleplayer purposes and quake for multiplayer, so lets judge when doom and singleplayer campaign release. heh

Share this post


Link to post

It's good but nothing outstanding. I'd give it a 7/10. It definitely doesn't deserve this kind of vitriol though.

Share this post


Link to post

Ye ofc its really very hard make game great for single and multiplayer too. If you dont count cod which release dumb "improved" versions every year and they are succesfull, there is simple not any other game like this. I think the whole doom mp beta was kinda unfortunate. They should prob release short singleplayer demo too. heh

Share this post


Link to post
DooM_RO said:

It's good but nothing outstanding. I'd give it a 7/10. It definitely doesn't deserve this kind of vitriol though.

I agree, for now I perfer UT4, but when the game releases that could change. I don't know what it was, I just felt like I'v played it (doom4 beta) already, you know what I mean? it was kinda been here done this experience for me.

Share this post


Link to post
capodecima said:

I think the multiplayer isnt this bad after all :D I tried it for a hour maybe and it was fun, i am not this positive about the multiplay player base going huge tho. I think the doom multiplayer is what old doom always was for multiplayer. Meaning its easy for new players to jump in and get some frags easy. In doom 2 you have ssg in new doom you have loadouts and stuff.

edit: i think it should get way worse than how it is now, and doom was always mainly for singleplayer purposes and quake for multiplayer, so lets judge when doom and singleplayer campaign release. heh

SP is basically where 90% of my interest in new Doom lies, but that doesn't mean that I don't intend to put decent time into MP. Here's hoping that it will have active and healthy playerbase on PC, it deserves that.

Share this post


Link to post

they just confirmed that the PAX east show is going to be multiplayer centric.

again.

just fucking kill me already.

Share this post


Link to post
DooM_RO said:

It's good but nothing outstanding. I'd give it a 7/10. It definitely doesn't deserve this kind of vitriol though.

I think I agree with that high of a score. Will give it points for trying to go some hybrid route. Though long run wise I think it will need more than snapmap to stay relevant (this is assuming they never release idstudio/something like it, or do something we didn't think they would do with the snapmap updates).

Share this post


Link to post
Glaice said:

Found a reasonable negative review, and it's the most helpful one.

This is...actually quite fair...a very good observatipn actually. He's pretty spot on. The ones that piss me off though is the reviews which state doom ripped off halo, a call of duty clone, and a counsterstrike clone. Even those ones who say that the armors were directly ripped from halo reach.

Share this post


Link to post
HellVain said:

This is...actually quite fair...a very good observatipn actually. He's pretty spot on. The ones that piss me off though is the reviews which state doom ripped off halo, a call of duty clone, and a counsterstrike clone. Even those ones who say that the armors were directly ripped from halo reach.


Really? This to you guys is considered a reasonable negative review?

He is essentially saying "It's not true classic Arena therefore it's an abomination to Doom and no one should ever buy the game". Because he doesn't like the arguably insignificant portion of Doom's MP, it's reasonable to tell everyone to not buy the game and how it's a disgrace to the series?

So listing multiplayer features that don't match the classic arena games totally justifies advising everyone to not even bother with the rest of the game? I think not. I believe "reasonable" people wouldn't jump into conclusions without considering SP, Snapmap and the other modes available before judging the product in its entirety. No one can say if the game is worth a purchase yet, they can only discuss their played portion of MP what they think of it.

Hey look at this, he played 173 hours of Fallout 4 and 184 hours in New Vegas. But those games are good since they aren't titled Doom or classified as Arena...

Share this post


Link to post
Chezza said:

Really? This to you guys is considered a reasonable negative review?

He is essentially saying "It's not true classic Arena therefore it's an abomination to Doom and no one should ever buy the game". Because he doesn't like the arguably insignificant portion of Doom's MP, it's reasonable to tell everyone to not buy the game and how it's a disgrace to the series?

So listing multiplayer features that don't match the classic arena games totally justifies advising everyone to not even bother with the rest of the game? I think not. I believe "reasonable" people wouldn't jump into conclusions without considering SP, Snapmap and the other modes available before judging the product in its entirety. No one can say if the game is worth a purchase yet, they can only discuss their played portion of MP what they think of it.

Hey look at this, he played 173 hours of Fallout 4 and 184 hours in New Vegas. But those games are good since they aren't titled Doom or classified as Arena...

Well you dont have to agree to MY opinion. Its just that to me its a fair review.

Share this post


Link to post

It's takes a good amount of hours to get a feel for the maps and weapons.


User has <10 hours on record: "you didn't give the game a fair shake, it takes more time than that to properly appreciate it"
User has >10 hours on record: "seeing as you played it for so long, you had to like it somewhat, stop pretending you don't"

Share this post


Link to post
HellVain said:

Well you dont have to agree to MY opinion. Its just that to me its a fair review.

I wouldn't call review that criticizes MP on basis of what it isn't, instead of reviewing what it is.
And that isn't even going into him recommending that people don't buy Doom despite not even trying its SP, which is the reason why most people will be buying this game in the first place.

Phml said:

User has <10 hours on record: "you didn't give the game a fair shake, it takes more time than that to properly appreciate it"
User has >10 hours on record: "seeing as you played it for so long, you had to like it somewhat, stop pretending you don't"


You are intentionally simplifying it. People react in that manner when someone gives a scathing review either after playing no more than hour of some game (which is NOT enough to form a reasonable opinion), or after playing dozens and dozens of hours (amount of time someone never would spend on a game he trully loathes, it's like those "FALLOUT 4 SUX" user reviews with 200 hours of recorded playtime).

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×