Anyone else liked the original imp better?

[VGamingJunkie]

Seems id just can't please anybody, can they? People are complaining that the Pinky Demon doesn't look realistic enough and that the Doom 3 Pinky is better.



I'm of the sort that thinks it looks fine the way it does.

[JohnnyTheWolf]

Although I like Doom 3's reimagining of the Pinky Demon, I think this looks much better than its Doom 2016 counterpart:

[Jaxxoon R]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

in favour of something more visually striking and unapologetically cartoony like Team Fortress 2.

So be even more generic, then?

[JohnnyTheWolf]

Team Fortress 2's visuals are not generic. Also, it is hard to be generic when you are faithfully recreating iconic monster designs...

[Jaxxoon R]

Then why do so many games look like it?

[JohnnyTheWolf]

Define "so many games"... Even id Software has yet to make a game in that style.

And if I am not mistaken, games that ape Team Fortress 2's aesthetics tend to be multiplayer-only games anyway.

[snapshot]

Ok....

[Jaxxoon R]

By that logic if TF2 is such a special snowflake cartoon game then Doom 4 could easily be considered a [buzzword] striking [buzzword] realismic game.

JohnnyTheWolf said:

Also, it is hard to be generic when you are faithfully recreating iconic monster designs...

Which is what Doom 4 did?

[JohnnyTheWolf]

No. Much like their Doom 3 counterparts, they are "realistic reimaginings"... because apparently, Doom has to be realistic and anything that looks vaguely cartoony either belongs in a Mario game (!) or is [insert 4chan buzzword]. At least, that is what your defensive attitude seems to suggest.

[Jaxxoon R]

Doom 4's designs aren't that realistic, just look at all the hate the pinky gets. How am I defensive, again? You're the one being prodded at. Seems to me like you don't like it when people disagree with you.

[Arctangent]

I think the issue is that he doesn't like the fact that Doom '16 has the same aesthetic that Doom '93 was going for, but with 23 more years of graphical tech making it a lot less hilarious to people 23 years after its release.

Probably. Maybe. Who knows if we've actually hit that threshold where our games' graphics aren't extremely comical a decade or two afterwards?

[JohnnyTheWolf]

Jaxxoon R said:

Doom 4's designs aren't that realistic, just look at all the hate the pinky gets.

I hate the New Pinky because it tries to make a goofy-looking monster realistic and fails, not because it is realistic.

As I said before, I kind of like Doom 3's reimagining of the monster: it is a very different, yet still manages to be intimidating - far more than it actually is - and fits Doom 3's slower-paced, horrific gameplay.

Jaxxoon R said:

How am I defensive, again?

Your disdainful, inflammatory comments and your apparent lack of interest for an actual discussion?

[JohnnyTheWolf]

Arctangent said:

I think the issue is that he doesn't like the fact that Doom '16 has the same aesthetic that Doom '93 was going for, but with 23 more years of graphical tech making it a lot less hilarious to people 23 years after its release.

I am pretty sure Doom '93 was not going for the same style as Doom '16. It is like saying The New Order has the same aesthetic as Wolfenstein 3d...

[Jaxxoon R]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

Your disdainful, inflammatory comments and your apparent lack of interest for an actual discussion?

How is that defensive? If anything those are offensive.

JohnnyTheWolf said:

I hate the New Pinky because it tries to make a goofy-looking monster realistic and fails, not because it is realistic.

That's exactly what the pictures of fan remakes you've posted do, though. Emphasis on the failing part.

[VGamingJunkie]

Do you honestly believe that 1:1 recreations of the Original Doom cast would have gone over well with consumers? You sound like one of those people who doesn't want id to ever evolve or progress, and probably complained about all the new mechanics it had over Classic Doom. I was complaining at first when the colors were muted but not because I dislike change, because muted colors are generic and dull and not a good aesthetic to have for over the top action, I'm actually glad they ended up giving it more vibrant colors.

[JohnnyTheWolf]

MetroidJunkie said:

Do you honestly believe that 1:1 recreations of the Original Doom cast would have gone over well with consumers?

Sure, why not?

You people brought up Mario - even though that Imp model would surely be considered too scary for a Mario game - and they have not evolved all that much aesthetically. If the newer Mario games had followed the same route as Doom 2016, they would be looking like the infamous live-action adaptation...

You sound like one of those people who doesn't want id to ever evolve or progress, and probably complained about all the new mechanics it had over Classic Doom.

I am the guy who wishes they could have released Doom 4 instead of scrapping it in favour of yet another Doom 1 remake. And I have not even brought up the gameplay mechanics in this thread...

[Arctangent]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

I am pretty sure Doom '93 was not going for the same style as Doom '16.

Tell me, have you ever actually looked at the Icon of Sin? The giant, bald goat-like head with skeletal contours and a hole in its forehead stripped of its bloodied flesh by hooks stretching it taught? Kept in place with screw-like pillars piercing right through its horns, and a multitude of pipes and wires penetrating its face, some bloodies and a set nearly going right into its eye? All brought together with milky, pupil-less white eyes whose lids are rimmed with blood?

Seriously, take a look at all of that. That detail in the machinery it's built into, how the head itself is actually drawn - the only thing remotely cartoony is the flesh pulled by the hooks, which is just a detail-less red blob for some reason.

And have you ever given a close look to the giant skull switch textures? The assortment of fairly realistically proportioned human bodies mauled and maimed in various ways, with wires going in and through them in various spots and presumably being the sole thing keeping the mass together? Have you looked that the sheer amount of detail quite a few sci-fi textures have, even none of it seems to serve an actual purpose? Considered how much of the graphics were taking from photographs of various things, including almost all of monster and weapon sprites? One of the skin textures was actually photographed from a bruise on a developer's leg. And consider how a lot of the hanging bodies look - they actually look like they come from another game!

And with all of this, the bright colors weren't really meant to be bright - a lot of the game was actually pretty dark, dulling the colors quite a bit.

Yeah, it's pretty evident that while the game wasn't going for a 100% realistic art style, it wasn't exactly going for a notably stylized art style either. Sure, if you look at it nowadays, you wouldn't see a gloomy, ambient game that goes for an exaggerated but still fairly believable art style, but if you take a step back to the time and compare it to everything else? Man it must've felt so much more real-to-life than anything else before it.

[JohnnyTheWolf]

Gore and goofiness are not mutually exclusive.

A Doom game with a stylised Team Fortress 2-esque aesthetic could have been just as gory as Doom 2016. As someone who is very much used to realistic gore in video games, I would have found it refreshing - especially from a company that has done nothing but gritty-looking shooters for a while.

[Arctangent]

gj not reading but like fifteen words of my post

[VGamingJunkie]

You want generic and gritty? See it looked earlier on when people (myself included) took fault in the muted color scheme:



Compared to that, the final release is much more vibrant and stylized, while still retaining that grittiness that Arctangent pointed out.



If you're complaining about the final release, then look at what probably would have been had negative feedback not convinced id to modify it a bit.

[JohnnyTheWolf]

It seems like the exact same model as in the early screenshot, only with more vibrant colours. In fact, it reminds me of the way Doom Reborn reskinned the monsters to make them look more like their original counterparts.

This further reinforces my belief that id Software could have indeed gotten away with faithful recreations of the classic monsters.

And speaking of the Cacodemon, this one is not from s13n1 and is nowhere near as polished, but it still looks alright as far as 3d recreations go:

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=108320

[Arctangent]

Which they did.

Of '93, 64, and 3 tossed in the blender.

[Jaxxoon R]

I'm amazed someone could be so unpleasable. It's almost like they're acting this way on purpose~.

[JohnnyTheWolf]

Arctangent said:

Which they did.

Of '93, 64, and 3 tossed in the blender.

Three games with (totally, in D3's case) different visual styles "tossed in the blender"... What an unfortunate metaphor!

I suppose it explains why the result is so insipid.

[Jaxxoon R]

Milkshakes are made in the blender, so this only goes to show that you have awful taste anyways.

[Arctangent]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

Three games with (totally, in D3's case) different visual styles "tossed in the blender"... What an unfortunate metaphor!

I suppose it explains why the result is so insipid.

honestly are actually trying to say that you're incredibly creatively bankrupt

because you seem literally unable to imagine a Doom monster that isn't the exact same as its '93 version, garish colors and absolute lack of texture / weird nonsense texture and all

[JohnnyTheWolf]

No, I am just saying Doom 2016 monsters are visually forgettable and I am convinced Doom '93 monsters can look good in high poly 3d.

Arctangent said:

because you seem literally unable to imagine a Doom monster that isn't the exact same as its '93 version, garish colors and absolute lack of texture / weird nonsense texture and all

I am going to respond to this obvious strawman with: "gj not reading but like fifteen words of my posts".

[Jaxxoon R]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

obvious personal attack

Wut. She didn't like, call you a sub-human over your religion or threaten to dox you or anything. Unless Doom is your religion, in which case seek therapy.

JohnnyTheWolf said:

No, I am just saying Doom 2016 monsters are visually forgettable

Most of them are the same as the originals, though. So the originals are visually forgettable too, then.

[Arctangent]

Actually, I think he was calling himself a sub-human. Y'know, saying that he was the obvious strawman or something. Kinda poor self-esteem, I guess, unless he's literally some sort of straw homunculus. Then again, a strawman might not even be sub-human to begin with, aside from maybe physical strength and definitely in ability to not go instantly up in flames

Either that, or I've read his posts better than he has and he hasn't realized he's actually said anything that would lead anyone to believe otherwise.

[VGamingJunkie]

The only design I'd say is really forgettable is the zombies and I guess that's the point, they're non-threats, just things to rip into.



The Cyclops Zombie Scientist from the intro is pretty cool, though.