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

Game Theorists "Doom Wasn't 3D" video and my refutation

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I didn't see that one til after I made mine but was glad we addressed the point quite differently. To refer to Doom as a "glorified top-down shooter" obviously irritated him enough to make a response as well!

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoy watching bullshit youtubers that whiz through a few Wiki articles and pass judgement on something they know truly nothing about get the debunk treatment and ridicule they deserve. It's even more humorous watching them try to defend themselves and manifest whatever excuse they can find to justify it, only to be ripped apart all over again.

Doomkid, you have earned my unconditional love and support.
 

Share this post


Link to post

I think Doom's rather peculiar use of dimensionality makes it hard to dissect. 2.5d can be misleading (since as mentioned it can refer to polygonal games with restrictive movement mimicking a traditional 2D game) and 3D implies full polygonal rendering which of course isn't the case in Doom. But calling it strictly 2D doesn't work since it literally has a Z axis. If they had just said, "Doom uses three axes but they are have extreme limitations, particularly in regards to Z," they would have described the engine pretty succinctly.

 

EDIT: I'm watching the original video now, for the first time (d'oh!). The author actually does a really good job of explaining why Wolfenstein isn't really 3D. It's weird that he doesn't understand why Doom sorta is.

Edited by GoatLord

Share this post


Link to post

I find both the Theorist channels to be highly irritating. Faulty research, clickbaity premises, overanalyzing things that aren't important, and completely misinterpreting the most straightforward of things. Alongside Cinema Sins, I've never been able to understand the appeal. 

Share this post


Link to post

Can we call Doom 2.75D or something? I have seen some Doom mods pulls stuff off in the visual department that looks kinda at home with early N64/ PS1 graphics. Though most of the stuff in Doom in terms of architecture is still blocky and consists of rectangles, cubes and slopes.

Share this post


Link to post

Why call doom anything other than what it is: a 3D game? 2.5, 2.75; what? Pretty sure that fireball just went over my head. Pretty sure that other one hit the floor. Where is the lack of 3D? Because the engine handles 3D checks just fine.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the term 2.5D refers to 3D Platformers that have sidescrolling camera to simulate 2D Gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

At minute 4 : autoaim means the game is 2d? Really stupid since he can easily put the imp out of sight and never hit it. On min 8 looking up\down supposedly means the game is 3d, Well good thing heretic can do it with the 2d map format!

 

The movement is in 3d space, that's pretty much what matters the most. The mapping format is limited as fuck (2D) but otherwise the game has the 3 axis for you to navigate in. actors having infinite height yet projectiles and hitscan is mostly free from it (and autoaim makes it playable, Imagine cacos that can't be hit except at player's eye level?). Cacos and Lost souls can fly above\below projectiles and ascend\descend when a wall blocks their path. Arch-Viles send actors flying over ledges at rocket speed, getting killed by a revenant sends you flying down ledges\staircases, trying to run over a gap makes you fall into it (can't believe I am writing that). Next we'd talk about how fake movement in Doom is, Actors move in set amounts of units instead of fluidly doing it, very immersive breaking combined with the shitty 320x240 resolution and sub 60 fps. Or the almighty doors that don't swing and instead move up\down, can't be destroyed, smash corpses and weapons alike, and are generally the strongest thing in existence after walls and crushers.

 

Would love to see the video maker play heretic where a lot of those excuses are unusable, is heretic 2.5D or 3D?!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ajora said:

I find both the Theorist channels to be highly irritating. Faulty research, clickbaity premises, overanalyzing things that aren't important, and completely misinterpreting the most straightforward of things. Alongside Cinema Sins, I've never been able to understand the appeal. 

They're for pricks who want to feel smarter than others without the work of learning anything, which is also why the presenters have such irritating, smug personalities.

Share this post


Link to post

Wait, you could look up and down in Heretic? This is news to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ajora said:

I find both the Theorist channels to be highly irritating. Faulty research, clickbaity premises, overanalyzing things that aren't important, and completely misinterpreting the most straightforward of things. Alongside Cinema Sins, I've never been able to understand the appeal. 

With Game Theory its his voice, while the Game Theorist (different guy on the same channel) he has low mic quality and that's irritating . I used to watch them... then I just couldn't get past their voices, well MattPatt's in general. Wow I would hate to be around that guy just to put up with him more than 30 minutes every week or two.

 

Clickbait works... as does talking about the biggest franchises.

Share this post


Link to post

The Theorist channels (and CinemaSins) and some of the most lackluster content I've seen in a while. As a person who enjoys theories and analysis of different media, they often resort to nitpicking, clickbait, and demonstrable falsehoods to further their claims. It's disappointing to see them become so popular, but their success is expected given the creators' knowledge of YouTube's mechanisms.

 

I respect channels that show things in a new light. They can help change both the individual's and collective's opinion on a specific topic. But the newer Theorists and CinemaSins are not good by any stretch, although their earlier videos were somewhat decent.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I don't really hate the guy and I don't find his voice irritating. I used to watch GT but now... I can't. I don't like the content anymore. But I respect the guy cause he's got good marketing/advertising skills imo.

 

As for theory videos I do enjoy, there's this other channel called Gnoggin which also does video game theories. I find his content much more entertaining and enjoyable.

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
×