Why havent you played Doom 2016?

[Phml]

What little free time I have for video games I would rather use on better options. It looks reasonably entertaining as a weekend playthrough then trashbin type of thing, so it'll be a good Steam sale buy in a few months.

[ArchangelOfHell]

Why the lack of faith in new Doom? If your a fan of any Doom you will most likely enjoy the hell out of it. There's plenty of gameplay in the campaign & multiplayer seems to be improving better than ever-

[dsm]

DooM_RO said:

You know what I find a bit frustrating about the new Doom?

The multiplayer levels all have these very unique and detailed maps. Now I wouldn't mind if the MP was good but sadly it's kind of garbage.

It frustrates me because although the Hell sections in the game are INCREDIBLY authentic, visually they never progress beyond what you see in the first level.

The MP has this really cool-looking level called Perdition that is full of huge, dead trees and some kind of flesh tube that looks straight out of Doom 1. You never see those environments in the single player. Wasted potential there...

I mean I love brown rocky wastes and puke-green walls just as much as everyone else and again, it's all incredibly authentic but I would have liked to see more variety. A flesh, blood and bone themed level, a huge, gothic cathedral

I agree, the singleplayer Hell levels are not bad maps, but after the first Hell map, they end up feeling samey: bunch of stonewalled dungeons linking up to more rock caves and floors covered in gore.
There are a few individual features that I do appreciate (Necropolis has those emanciated corpses heaped and sometimes fused together, which I don't believe you'll find elsewhere), but the overall visual theme is kinda samey.

Titan's Realm was a wasted opportunity to have a Hell level consisting solely of bones, rotten flesh and green muck (nukage included), but they couldn't stay away from stone dungeons. Fun level otherwise, some really nice combat arenas in it.

Well, it's not a generic modern military FPS, it's generic "cool oldschool" FPS.

I do not remember having seen a modern FPS that incorporates a "glory kill" system as well as Doom 2016 does. While not perfect, it's incredibly satisfying to pull off a specific animation, due to the skill and timing needed to aim at the right body part and press the button at the right time and then succeeding.

Please, explain to me how that is "generic"?

[MFG38]

Because four-year-old laptop isn't powerful enough... ;_;

[mrthejoshmon]

I'm poor so I usually get shit a year later.

[Ancalagon]

40oz said:

the expense of buying new hardware

[40oz]

For those who haven't bought it, is that definitely the only reason? Don't know anyone who owns it?

[Mechazawa]

Who is boycotting bethesda or zenimax? Did they do something bad I didn't hear about?

[snapshot]

^ It is because of the "Mod theft" in Skyrim and Fallout communities that Bethesda contributed to, And some other users having issues and not getting support / help from bethesda .

[qdash]

The MP has this really cool-looking level called Perdition that is full of huge, dead trees and some kind of flesh tube that looks straight out of Doom 1. You never see those environments in the single player. Wasted potential there...

It's looks like they working on art design and their today's progress is really awesome. I like every map from Unto The Evil DLC and now more than ever exciting about future expansion pack.

Who is boycotting bethesda or zenimax? Did they do something bad I didn't hear about?

As for me, Bethesda one of few really good publishers and I don't know how someone can hate them.

[Sokoro]

Give me 1000$ for new computer and then I will buy the game, easy.

[CyberDreams]

Well i only have an AMD FX-6300 and the game needs at least an 8 core but i might be able to pull it off. Who knows. I could overclock i suppose. All of the other specs i meet according to game-debates site (my 4gb 960 might have a hard time on high).

Personally, I just don't think the game is worth $60.00. I've heard its pretty short and i've seen reviews and play-through's (partially) and from what i can tell the multi-player kinda sucks, so i doubt i would play that part of the game very often anyways.

So $60 for a game i MIGHT be able to run, definitely not maxed out though AND a crap multi-player....its not looking too good right now. I do want to play the single player though so...i guess i'll just wait for a sale.

[Agentbromsnor]

GmanZero said:

Well i only have an AMD FX-6300 and the game needs at least an 8 core but i might be able to pull it off.

Are you being serious with this? Most games are just getting around using two cores, let alone eight. Modern games are all about GPU, which brings me to my reason why I haven't played Doom 4 yet:

I downloaded the demo (for which I have to commend Bethesda, because it is extremely rare for a developer to release a demo these days), and the game refused to start and gave me a big phat error. What's kind of hilarious is that the error generated a TXT file in which the program couldn't even recognize what kind of CPU I'm running (it read something like "Generic CPU").

I'm sorry, but it cracks me up when a big budget developer can't even retrieve the information on a player's CPU, which is just one line in command prompt...

Anyway: I'm currently running only my internal GPU (Intel Iris Pro 6200), and apparently this game doesn't support that because it's modern trash.

[shotfan]

id Software is the developer of the game, not Bethesda.

[Gez]

40oz said:

For those who haven't bought it, is that definitely the only reason? Don't know anyone who owns it?

That's definitely the main reason. There's also a secondary reason that I don't especially want to play that game. It's not that I think it's bad or that I couldn't have fun with it, and more that I have several hundred games on GOG/Humble Store/Steam and most of them I have yet to even play once.

[Agentbromsnor]

shotfan said:

id Software is the developer of the game, not Bethesda.

I'm aware of this, but since Zenimax owns id Software, do you really think they would let them publish a demo without their permission?

[Wild Dog]

GmanZero said:

Well i only have an AMD FX-6300 and the game needs at least an 8 core but i might be able to pull it off. Who knows. I could overclock i suppose. All of the other specs i meet according to game-debates site (my 4gb 960 might have a hard time on high).

Personally, I just don't think the game is worth $60.00. I've heard its pretty short and i've seen reviews and play-through's (partially) and from what i can tell the multi-player kinda sucks, so i doubt i would play that part of the game very often anyways.

So $60 for a game i MIGHT be able to run, definitely not maxed out though AND a crap multi-player....its not looking too good right now. I do want to play the single player though so...i guess i'll just wait for a sale.

You don't need 8 cores to run Doom and with the 960 you are going to be able to play at Ultra 1080P.
Look i bet that Doom 2016 can run with a first gen phenom x4, new games need good CPU. Most quad core are good to go.
Look this..

Same GPU, older CPU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MijLZ4curxk

[Almonds]

Agentbromsnor said:

modern trash.

how nice.

[Jaxxoon R]

Help I can't run top-of-the-line visuals that the PS4 struggles with on my integrated GPU. That clearly means it's bad.

[snapshot]

Agentbromsnor said:

modern trash.

"My Potato GPU sucks and it's the fault of the game developers" .

[Varis Alpha]

Jaxxoon R said:

Help I can't run top-of-the-line visuals that the PS4 struggles with on my integrated GPU. That clearly means it's bad.

all of the footage of Doom on PS4 i've seen has had it run at 60FPS constant though.

[Agentbromsnor]

Jaxxoon R said:

Help I can't run top-of-the-line visuals that the PS4 struggles with on my integrated GPU. That clearly means it's bad.

"Top of the line visuals"? Meaning, "graphics from 2009"? Give me a break. I've seen indie projects sport better graphics than Doom 4.

Besides: it's not like my GPU can't run it. Doom 4 currently just doesn't support it.

DMGUYDZ64 said:

"My Potato GPU sucks and it's the fault of the game developers" .

Haha. My "Potato GPU" wipes the floor with some of the more current ATI cards, and it runs GTA 5 just fine on higher settings (reaching way into the 50 FPS).

Intel integrated GPU's have been a thing for quite a while now, so there's no excuse for not supporting it. It just shows a lack of dedication from the developer.

[Jaxxoon R]

I don't know in what world Left 4 Dead 2 is on par with this game but okay.

[Agentbromsnor]

Left for Dead 2 is a bit of an odd example, seeing as it has a multiplayer focus. However, I can give you plenty of arguments as to why for example a game like Mirror's Edge (released in 2009) looks much better than Doom 4 does.

Take a game like Crysis 3 for example then. Not quite 2009, but it was released a good three years before Doom 4 and it looks infinitely better in the graphics department. Take note that it doesn't just take a high resolution to create good graphics; it's a combination of art direction, tone, colour-pallette and (optionally) attention for detail.

So yes: graphically speaking Doom 4 is nothing special.

[Chest Rockwell]

Yea no fucking shit a game thats sole puropse is to look pretty looks better than a game that tried to run at 60 on everything

[Almonds]

Hey, wanna know a thing or two about Mirror's Edge and Crysis 3

huh

their gameplay isn't even remotely remarkable

but they look pretty so that sure must account for something at the very least r-right

[Jaxxoon R]

It says a lot about someone's posts when they head to doom_txt at an extra special express rate.

[Doomkid]

I got a PC powerful enough to run it early this year, but I was mostly excited for the multiplayer until I actually saw it. Really couldn't be further from classic Doom/Quake duel and deathmatch. I've only played a few hours of the campaign at a buddy's house and really liked it though so I will definitely have my own copy soon.

jazzmaster9 said:

Its kinda like how the original Doom was a generic run and gun shooter.

Doom was pretty much anything but generic in it's day, unlike many of the clones that followed. That's like saying the Beatles were just another generic rock group. It's easy to say that looking back but it was essentially unexplored territory back then.

[Agentbromsnor]

Almonds said:

Hey, wanna know a thing or two about Mirror's Edge and Crysis 3

huh

their gameplay isn't even remotely remarkable

but they look pretty so that sure must account for something at the very least r-right

Where did I mention anything about gameplay? At least make an attempt at reading before jumping to conclusions.

Jaxxoon R wrote that Doom 4 has "top-of-the-line visuals", which I replied to because I find that statement to be very silly.

[Agentbromsnor]

mistercow said:

Yea no fucking shit a game thats sole puropse is to look pretty looks better than a game that tried to run at 60 on everything

So you agree with me that Doom 4 does not have "top-of-the-line visuals" then.