Says the one who said that the OG doom 2 level were actively trying to reproduce real environments.edit: to the suggestions of excessive realism in Doom 3s level design. fucking hilarious.
Says the one who said that the OG doom 2 level were actively trying to reproduce real environments.edit: to the suggestions of excessive realism in Doom 3s level design. fucking hilarious.
Maybe its a openworld RPG. We dont know any details.
I agree, there's not much we can say from these screenshots. The general direction ID has already taken is something one can talk about though. That's where my own skepticism comes from. The screenshots look nice imo.
hah. i never said such things. i said that levels in Doom 2 were supposed to be cities, and they were... and the level layout i posted looked like city blocks with streets. but because this is the internet people think everything is argued in extremes, and that obviously, because i was saying that the reason Doom 2 didn't look more like actual city streets was because the engine couldn't do it, meant that i obviously thought they were trying to do an exact recreation of a suburb of new york with zero thought to gameplay.Says the one who said that the OG doom 2 level were actively trying to reproduce real environments.
Always-honest
Often-wrong
it's not just uncanny...it's...her !
Maybe its a openworld RPG. We dont know any details.
You mean like RAGE? Hope not.Maybe its a openworld RPG. We dont know any details.
You mean like RAGE? Hope not.
If it's anything like 3, I'll pass...Every room had an invisible pressure pads that activated monster closets...just awful.
First: I never talked about any assumed gameplay; if I ever used a term which could be referred to CoD, it was still confined in the aesthetic topic.Doom 3's level design is gameplay first, aesthetics second. it doesn't remotely care about what a real mars base would like like when it comes to laying out its spaces. most machinery serves no obvious function beyond set dressing or interactive gameplay elements. does it look more like a real mars base might? pretending i even know what that means, let's say, okay, it might. but that doesn't mean the level design put realism before gameplay. it blatently didn't. hell it gets criticised for it regularly. why do you think people bitch about monster closets?
but in Doom 1-2...
We've moved on.
Wouldn't be acceptable today if they came out as new games either. We've moved on.
you mean making the levels more memorable and distinct from a visual standpoint? i suppose so, but i don't get the sense that people who i was talking to before were purely talking about the visual 'tone' of the levels. they were talking about level design from a gameplay perspective, arguing that Doom 1 and 2's levels were all about gameplay and nothing else, and that Doom 4's levels were obviously about realism first, just because the handful of screenshots show realistic looking environments.First: I never talked about any assumed gameplay; if I ever used a term which could be referred to CoD, it was still confined in the aesthetic topic.
About doom3 mars base: I think that they still chose to make it look ultimately believable and cohesive in its look, sacrificing part of the potential which could have helped to make the levels more memorable.
Look at Classic Doom 3 Mod, which reproduce the "unbound" levels from doom 1.
iD just can't win either way.
Imagine the righteous indignation on here if Doom 4 took place in the same setting as Doom 3. The mockery would probably be even more intense.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Seriously, if you want Doom on Mars, play Doom 3. Forget all the negative jibes you've heard people mindlessly parrot about the game and the black square "screenshots".
Install Falken's Light mod, turn out the lights, put on a pair of good headphones and immerse yourself. It's a damned good gaming experience.
Stop repeating the blubber that game reviewers spout. It would be more than acceptable if the came out today even with the exact same mechanics and updated graphics.Wouldn't be acceptable today if they came out as new games either. We've moved on.
Why is it that some of you see things in such black and white? You can have it set on Mars or something and not in that exact same space station. Or if they are going to do it on Earth, make it far more Hellish looking. I didn't even realize til this thread that Doom 2 took place on Earth.
The setting shown so far just doesn't look like a Doom game. It should be nightmarish.
how much of Doom 2 : Hell on Earth did you play?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5nDBZRcG9M < this is level 13. if you look at the full leak you will see stuff which is much more hellish looking than the crumbling cities in the screens posted in this thread. i can only presume that people aren't posting those shots because they aren't in colour.
Stop repeating the blubber that game reviewers spout. It would be more than acceptable if the came out today even with the exact same mechanics and updated graphics.
Rose-tinted bullshit. If it came out as you described, it'd be given a 4/10 by most publications at best and sold for $10 on Steam. And about 7 people would care. All of whom post in this thread.
The closest a modern FPS gets to old style Doom is the Serious Sam series, which has a dedicated fanbase but doesn't pull very big numbers. It certainly doesn't pull the kind of numbers id/Zenimax want, not for the amount of money they're spending on this game.
Serious Sam is not Doom, though.
Day one.Medal of Doom
Rose-tinted bullshit. If it came out as you described, it'd be given a 4/10 by most publications at best and sold for $10 on Steam. And about 7 people would care. All of whom post in this thread.
The closest a modern FPS gets to old style Doom is the Serious Sam series, which has a dedicated fanbase but doesn't pull very big numbers. It certainly doesn't pull the kind of numbers id/Zenimax want, not for the amount of money they're spending on this game.
No, but it's possibly the closest modern series to it in playstyle. Certainly the only one that isn't an indie or completely unknown FPS. Name me something closer?
I'd be interested to hear what you think separates the gameplay of a Call of Duty campaign from a Doom one. Personally, I find that I am not required to think beyond combat at all to progress in a CoD game versus a Doom one. Is it the minutiae of modern military-themed bits, like reloading or planting charges where the game tells you to on the radar with an on-screen single-button or analog stick rotations prompt, really replacing the spatial puzzle solving and exploration found in Doom?
Hard Reset
It isn't about not having "planting charges where the game tells you to on the radar with an on-screen single-button or analog stick rotations prompt"; it's about things on a far lower level than that, such as how it feels to play, the weight of your movement, the second-to-second feel, the weapon mechanics, and the coherance and relatability of the world.
People simply expect more detail and complexity in these things than Doom provided nearly 20 years ago. If you played it back then, you know what to expect and you can slip back into it, but you could not release a game on that level today and expect it to compete in todays wider global marketplace. Release it on the indie circuit or something and you might have a chance with people such as yourself, but that's not the kind of thing id makes and it's not what Bethesda want to pay money for.
as for Hard Reset the main complaint was its length, not gameplay. Also I mentioned it not in context of sales or popularity, just to remind of its existence since you have asked.
While I agree with you on a certain level, I think it's too narrow a view on how this could work. There's nothing stopping them from tweaking the behavior of the old game while still retaining the core gameplay loops. The difference in themes will automatically separate the audience, so I don't think a classic Doom 4 will pull a bait 'n switch on any hardcore CoD/BF3/TF2-focused fan. People adjust their expectations based on how something presents itself, just like people adjust immediately for game conventions based on visual similarities alone, like wanting a base level of CoD combat controls in a modern military-themed FPS. This doesn't have to sell anywhere on the level of one of those other titles, anyway, which is part of the advantage of going with the older, 'simpler' (and less expensive to produce) game style. That had to be understood from the start since those franchises have all easily eclipsed Doom series sales in total, anyway.Doom is an incredibly light, fast, and frantic FPS across abstract environments. It has a very high cap on movement speed, places emphasis on constantly moving around to avoid bullets/projectiles, and throws ammo and health at you at pretty a constant basis with a large, consistent weapon loadout. It ramps up from some tighter, smaller environments with fewer enemies to quickly opening up to larger areas with many enemies and scales up the weaponry to match.
Notice that at no point did I describe any of that with negative terminology. That's ultimately the playstyle of Doom (and I'd point out that it's a good enough descriptor of Serious Sam too).
But if you give that to John Everygamer, it doesn't matter how pretty you make it: they will see the high motion cap as strange, the motion model as amateurish, the environments ugly and nonsensical, the large, constant weapon loadout as outdated, the simplistic AI as undercooked or lazy, and the health system as old-fashioned. The whole package would feel archiac and simply out of touch to them.
It isn't about not having "planting charges where the game tells you to on the radar with an on-screen single-button or analog stick rotations prompt"; it's about things on a far lower level than that, such as how it feels to play, the weight of your movement, the second-to-second feel, the weapon mechanics, and the coherance and relatability of the world.
People simply expect more detail and complexity in these things than Doom provided nearly 20 years ago. If you played it back then, you know what to expect and you can slip back into it, but you could not release a game on that level today and expect it to compete in todays wider global marketplace. Release it on the indie circuit or something and you might have a chance with people such as yourself, but that's not the kind of thing id makes and it's not what Bethesda want to pay money for.
Which came out to mostly average reviews and didn't sell very much. Certainly not the levels id and Bethesda want.
Right, but it's another example of what I'm saying. id could never make a game like that in the company's current form, and they couldn't make a Doom game like that without essentially tarnishing the brand within the mass market. (Although I'm not saying Doom 3 did the brand many favours either...)
If the only option is to make the 255th reskinned CoD, then I'd prefer that there is no Doom 4.
Gaming-site review tinted bullshit. There's no reason at all to assume such a game wouldn't work. The evidence supports my argument; Doom has already been sold and played a lot, a lot of people like it and love it. You have nothing to support your argument. There haven't been any comparable games in a long, long time. Hard Reset, Serious Sam, they're both very different games.Rose-tinted bullshit. If it came out as you described, it'd be given a 4/10 by most publications at best and sold for $10 on Steam. And about 7 people would care. All of whom post in this thread.
And that's my point. There are no games to support this ridiculous idea that a game with the same mechanics as Doom wouldn't work in the current market.The closest a modern FPS gets to old style Doom is the Serious Sam series, which has a dedicated fanbase but doesn't pull very big numbers. It certainly doesn't pull the kind of numbers id/Zenimax want, not for the amount of money they're spending on this game.
The original Doom has a lot more depth than modern shooters.
- Level design was often not linear. You could go to different places. You could do every playthrough in a different way. (Do I got for that weapon first, or first for keycard?)
- A player could often choose to skip monsters to deal with them later with a stronger weapon, or to preserve ammo.
- To preserve ammo you could cause monsters to fight with each other (infighting)
- Most enemy attacks were slow fireballs/rockets and you can dodge them. This is more interesting than enemies with hitscan attacks you can't dodge.
- Lot's of secrets makes replaying the same level multiple times fun. In modern shooters it's not fun to die because replaying a section twice is boring because there is nothing new. Also in modern shooters you get stuff like cut scenes and dialogue which are not interesting, and when you have to go through that stuff multiple times, it's boring.
- It's common to try to finish a Doom map from start to end without saving. Finishing a level means you can BEAT the level. Modern shooters have checkpoints and autosave, so when you finish a level you haven't accomplished anything because you have done everything in small pieces.
And that's my point. There are no games to support this ridiculous idea that a game with the same mechanics as Doom wouldn't work in the current market.
The original Doom has a lot more depth than modern shooters.
- Level design was often not linear. You could go to different places. You could do every playthrough in a different way. (Do I got for that weapon first, or first for keycard?)
- A player could often choose to skip monsters to deal with them later with a stronger weapon, or to preserve ammo.
- To preserve ammo you could cause monsters to fight with each other (infighting)
- Most enemy attacks were slow fireballs/rockets and you can dodge them. This is more interesting than enemies with hitscan attacks you can't dodge.
- Lot's of secrets makes replaying the same level multiple times fun. In modern shooters it's not fun to die because replaying a section twice is boring because there is nothing new. Also in modern shooters you get stuff like cut scenes and dialogue which are not interesting, and when you have to go through that stuff multiple times, it's boring.
- It's common to try to finish a Doom map from start to end without saving. Finishing a level means you can BEAT the level. Modern shooters have checkpoints and autosave, so when you finish a level you haven't accomplished anything because you have done everything in small pieces.
I would pay money to a kickstarter to make the OG Doom team kiss and make up and work together on a Doom 4. Like force Mcgee and Romero to design an episode worth of levels each and maybe let them have an artist to help with textures.
I mean, it was fucking unreal how good Doom 1's level design was.
Serious Sam 3 is great. One of the best fps in recent times but it's not really like Doom. And it's not like there's been a whole lot of non CoD-style fps in recent times so I'll take all the old school style fps I can get.Serious Sam 3 made the making of any future Doom completely irrelevant, anyway.
Why does it have to be some blockbuster AAA multiplatform game with a 30 million dollar budget? They could make something similiar to modded Doom with some modern touches.Rose-tinted bullshit. If it came out as you described, it'd be given a 4/10 by most publications at best and sold for $10 on Steam. And about 7 people would care. All of whom post in this thread.
The closest a modern FPS gets to old style Doom is the Serious Sam series, which has a dedicated fanbase but doesn't pull very big numbers. It certainly doesn't pull the kind of numbers id/Zenimax want, not for the amount of money they're spending on this game.
Hard Reset has extremely linear levels. And the secret are piss easy to find. Not really compareable at all.Hard Reset
The original Doom has a lot more depth than modern shooters.
- Level design was often not linear. You could go to different places. You could do every playthrough in a different way. (Do I got for that weapon first, or first for keycard?)
- A player could often choose to skip monsters to deal with them later with a stronger weapon, or to preserve ammo.
- To preserve ammo you could cause monsters to fight with each other (infighting)
- Most enemy attacks were slow fireballs/rockets and you can dodge them. This is more interesting than enemies with hitscan attacks you can't dodge.
- Lot's of secrets makes replaying the same level multiple times fun. In modern shooters it's not fun to die because replaying a section twice is boring because there is nothing new. Also in modern shooters you get stuff like cut scenes and dialogue which are not interesting, and when you have to go through that stuff multiple times, it's boring.
- It's common to try to finish a Doom map from start to end without saving. Finishing a level means you can BEAT the level. Modern shooters have checkpoints and autosave, so when you finish a level you haven't accomplished anything because you have done everything in small pieces.
The original Doom has a lot more depth than modern shooters.
- Level design was often not linear. You could go to different places. You could do every playthrough in a different way. (Do I got for that weapon first, or first for keycard?)
- A player could often choose to skip monsters to deal with them later with a stronger weapon, or to preserve ammo.
- To preserve ammo you could cause monsters to fight with each other (infighting)
- Most enemy attacks were slow fireballs/rockets and you can dodge them. This is more interesting than enemies with hitscan attacks you can't dodge.
- Lot's of secrets makes replaying the same level multiple times fun. In modern shooters it's not fun to die because replaying a section twice is boring because there is nothing new. Also in modern shooters you get stuff like cut scenes and dialogue which are not interesting, and when you have to go through that stuff multiple times, it's boring.
- It's common to try to finish a Doom map from start to end without saving. Finishing a level means you can BEAT the level. Modern shooters have checkpoints and autosave, so when you finish a level you haven't accomplished anything because you have done everything in small pieces.
Those images have nothing to do with what you're gonna see in Doom4. When we officially show things you'll see awesome
The original Doom has a lot more depth than modern shooters.
- Level design was often not linear. You could go to different places. You could do every playthrough in a different way. (Do I got for that weapon first, or first for keycard?)
- A player could often choose to skip monsters to deal with them later with a stronger weapon, or to preserve ammo.
- To preserve ammo you could cause monsters to fight with each other (infighting)
- Most enemy attacks were slow fireballs/rockets and you can dodge them. This is more interesting than enemies with hitscan attacks you can't dodge.
- Lot's of secrets makes replaying the same level multiple times fun. In modern shooters it's not fun to die because replaying a section twice is boring because there is nothing new. Also in modern shooters you get stuff like cut scenes and dialogue which are not interesting, and when you have to go through that stuff multiple times, it's boring.
- It's common to try to finish a Doom map from start to end without saving. Finishing a level means you can BEAT the level. Modern shooters have checkpoints and autosave, so when you finish a level you haven't accomplished anything because you have done everything in small pieces.