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

Sir Squidly

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sir Squidly

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sir Squidly

    Doom and Horror

    This is an odd little topic I have been wondering about for a bit. There have been a few games in the Doom franchise to attempt horror interpretations, such as the PSX Doom, Doom 64, or Doom 3. I cannot help but find myself extremely interested in these adaptations, primarily due to the strong sense of atmosphere they hold, with great use of lighting, and redesigns of the classics. These have stirred many thoughts up, but now I am wondering what others may this of this: 1. Do Doom and Horror mesh well? 2. What are some examples/instances of good horror? (Any Doom games,maybe other Old FPS games, or even other games) 3. How would you do horror in Doom? (EDIT: While I list PSX as a Doom horror adaption, I mainly do this as it places emphasis on the atmosphere and tension more so than the originals did.)
  2. I respectfully disagree, and here's why: Horrible Graphics is an opinion, so you cannot argue that. Here is the the enemy average of Doom 1 Episodes, on Hurt me Plenty, and no secret levels included: Knee Deep: 58.5 per map Shores of Hell: 68.875 per map Inferno: 55.5 per map Flesh Consumed: 79 per map Those are no numbers to scoff at, quite a bit of demon hide per each episodes 8 (non-secret) maps! Seeing numbers like this better help see how such a belief started. I mean, 58 per level on the FIRST episode? Sounds ridiculous, until you play it. On the keycard hunting, I think that one has some merit, as they aren't on the minimaps, and sometimes have rather odd placement. Nothing terrable, but just odd. Doom isn't a game I would say is mindless, but is rather a zone of sorts. You quickly get into the zone, and decisions become fluent and natural, which may sound mindless, but is more of a zen like state, where there is a harmony behind unloading a Super Shotgun into the Archvile the milisecond it appears. Doom doesn't demand too much, but doesn't let you go wild either. A good example is in the encounter designs, which I will agree with you on are well thought out (most of the time). Also, the puzzles in doom most of the time were the keycard hunt (because not everyone knows were they are instantly), or flipping switches in hopes of not opening the wall behind you filled with Imps. This isn't to call them terrable or anything, but considering what kind of game Doom is, it works. Now, the main meat of this post I disagree with, the attacks on Dusk. The level design of Duck is far from terrible, giving a healthy dosage of variance and setting, making levels stand out. Comparing it to Half Life is a good example, where you can see the loops of design, and the mixing of tight halls and open arenas. Also, a small team is behind Dusk, not ID software, fully of vets' who pumped out the 3 most recognizable FPS of all time, so of course setting up to such a standard won't end well. Also, while the models may not look as good (personally, the enemies look the oddest, but the weapons and that god damn atmosphere is perfect), it needs to be kept in mind that Dusk probably doesn't have professional artists behind it, and doesn't look so bad I need to beach my eyes. At minimum it is passable. Also, a tad bit ironic that you don't like people judging the graphics of older games, then make a point to rail on Dusk's own? Also, your opinion that Dusk would fail if released in the 90's is based off so many factors it would take a whole new discussion to explore. Ultimately, the misconceptions of older FPS is simply due to common belief and ignorance, but isn't materialized from nothing. Also, I'll have you know I have never played Dusk myself, but have seen enough to make form opinions on it.