• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

robin2
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:38 PM)
robin2's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

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.
Masakari666
Banned
(03-01-2012, 01:39 PM)
Don't like these screens. The art direction screams "current gen modern combat shooter", and not something with a personality. Everything is "next-gen brown and grey", also another point against it.

I liked Doom 3, but I'd like to see a return to a more fun, chaotic, DooM-style gameplay and asthetic. Don't be afraid of colour and creative level design. Don't make Generic Shooter #357
maniac-kun
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:44 PM)
maniac-kun's Avatar
Maybe its a openworld RPG. We dont know any details.
subversus
I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
(03-01-2012, 01:47 PM)
subversus's Avatar

Originally Posted by maniac-kun

Maybe its a openworld RPG. We dont know any details.

I would totally play this.....
plagiarize
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:47 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by msv

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.

well, I enjoyed Rage personally, and would be happy if the shooting in Doom 4 played like Rage did. these screenshots are slightly strange to me in how current the world looks, and in how none of the screens seems to showcase the more hellish destruction seen in the model shots in the zip file. i look at the 'buildings eaten' and 'nest' shots and i see the kind of 'hell on earth' imagery i want to see from Doom 4.

hell on earth is a really cool video game concept, and in the untextured model shots it looks like they're going int he direction i would like. it's the other shots that leave me scratching my head somewhat about the direction, but again, it's hard to say what we're looking at, and if we just look at the environment shots and ignore the model shots and pretend that we know which is more representative of whatever Doom 4 actually is, then i think we're being over presumptive.

i wouldn't like the game if it turns out to be what a lot of people in here are presuming it is based on a small selection of what has been leaked... but that's all i'm trying to point out... people are jumping to some extreme conclusions here based on a fraction of what's been revealed.

a city block layout or an industrial layout in Doom 2 (even if they didn't look much like a city block or an industrial area) didn't hamper Doom 2's gameplay on those levels. so i don't personally think we can talk about anything other than the themes of a couple of areas, which may or may not even still be in the game.

i think they are appropriate areas for 'Hell on Earth' but the blue sky looks weird, and the lack of any hellish set dressing looks weird too, but then we know that such set dressing was intended for the game at least at some point... and we can't say that any of what we're seeing is close to finished.

Originally Posted by robin2

Says the one who said that the OG doom 2 level were actively trying to reproduce real environments.

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.

which isn't what i thought, which when i saw people thought that was what i was trying to say, i thought i clarified with my comments on Duke 3D and Rage.

Doom 3's level design is gameplay first, aesthetics second. it doesn't remotely care about what a real mars base would look 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?

after Doom, stuff in games started to look more like real places, but because a building is textured with a shop front rather than just bricks... has no baring on the level design from a gameplay standpoint.

does Serious Sam 3 suddenly play like Modern Warfare 3 just because the canyons you are funnelled down now have building facades? of course not.
Last edited by plagiarize; 03-01-2012 at 02:06 PM.
Always-honest
always-end-with-a-swirl
(03-01-2012, 01:50 PM)
Always-honest's Avatar

Originally Posted by eso76

Always-honest
Often-wrong

:P

it's not just uncanny...it's...her !

haha, well my name isn't Always-right afterall :P.

And i think she looks like her, but not uncanningly so.
I wouldn't be surprised if her face was used as primairy inspiration though.
Last edited by Always-honest; 03-01-2012 at 01:52 PM.
RPGCrazied
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:55 PM)
RPGCrazied's Avatar
Not really a shooter fan, but DOOM has been one of the few that I like. I guess its the SciFi element. Anyway. I guess they are going for a hell on earth vibe, but doesn't seem very DOOM to me. Though I do like post apocalyptic settings, so it could be good I guess.
Tesseract
Banned
(03-01-2012, 02:00 PM)
Tesseract's Avatar

Originally Posted by maniac-kun

Maybe its a openworld RPG. We dont know any details.

man, dude. this would be fucking rad.
raphier
Banned
(03-01-2012, 02:06 PM)
Wow, just saw the screenshots..Episode Three, hell yeah!
vio
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:09 PM)
vio's Avatar

Originally Posted by maniac-kun

Maybe its a openworld RPG. We dont know any details.

You mean like RAGE? Hope not.
subversus
I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
(03-01-2012, 02:10 PM)
subversus's Avatar

Originally Posted by vio

You mean like RAGE? Hope not.

Rage is definitely open, like Skyrim for example. Or Far Cry 2.
3rdman
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:15 PM)
If it's anything like 3, I'll pass...Every room had an invisible pressure pads that activated monster closets...just awful.
subversus
I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
(03-01-2012, 02:20 PM)
subversus's Avatar

Originally Posted by 3rdman

If it's anything like 3, I'll pass...Every room had an invisible pressure pads that activated monster closets...just awful.

but in Doom 1-2...
vio
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:20 PM)
vio's Avatar
In my opinion Rage is nothing like Skyrim. Not in terms of scale, or content or anything else.
Rage did have big environments but not as big, and they were only used for driving.
I like the idea of Doom rpg alot! I just don`t want another RAGE.
robin2
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:24 PM)
robin2's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

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?

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.
Dachande
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:28 PM)
Dachande's Avatar

Originally Posted by subversus

but in Doom 1-2...

Wouldn't be acceptable today if they came out as new games either. We've moved on.
subversus
I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
(03-01-2012, 02:31 PM)
subversus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dachande

We've moved on.

not everybody as this thread shows!
Insane Metal
Dispensed Internet Salt
(03-01-2012, 02:36 PM)
Insane Metal's Avatar
Please don't be real. Those don't look good.
MightyHedgehog
Welcome to the Wasteland.
I hope you're wearing your flak vest!
(03-01-2012, 02:52 PM)
MightyHedgehog's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dachande

Wouldn't be acceptable today if they came out as new games either. We've moved on.

If they slapped some modern audio-visual wallpaper on it, but the gameplay was the exact same, I think it would do more than fine as classic Doom smokes most FPS campaigns for length, replay value, and challenge. Sure, it doesn't feature 'realistic' features of modern FPS games, like forced weapon reloads or ballistics simulation, nor the ability to crouch or jump or snap to cover. All or just some of those things could be added without changing the core of Doom, but it would still cease to be like classic Doom because of those changes to the formula. However, there's just no reason to believe that a classic-styled Doom 4, even with moderately updated mechanics, couldn't be successful. If people think technical obsolescence in gaming defines what can sell or what can be found to be fun, I simply don't know what you're talking about it. Until id tries and fails on the commercial level with a game closer to Doom, I don't believe that a 'simpler' FPS game, relative to the 'complexity' and 'depth' found in newer AAA FPS titles, anyway, is flatout undesired or destined to fail. The overall presentation is almost all it need to be updated with, IMO.
plagiarize
Member
(03-01-2012, 03:29 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by robin2

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.

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.

i tried to point out that maps in Doom weren't just about being abstract fun spaces, and that just because a screenshot of an area looks realistic doesn't mean that that level isn't about being fun. the Build engine, for example, would have allowed a level like downtown to maintain the same gameplay, but look more realistic ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5nDBZRcG9M for anyone that doesn't remember the map). watch that video and tell me with a straight face that it isn't supposed to look like a city. that was the point i was trying to make.

if you feel the 'tone' of the world is wrong in some of these screens, i'm not going to disagree with you... but then what are we arguing about? Doom had an incredible diverse tone from one level to the next, and what's wrong with wanting a good realisation of 'Hell on Earth'. i don't think these screens demonstrate that, but i don't think the issue is that the world looks 'realistic' rather than being abstract play spaces as Doom 1 and 2 featured.
Last edited by plagiarize; 03-01-2012 at 03:41 PM.
Seanspeed
Banned
(03-01-2012, 03:55 PM)
Seanspeed's Avatar

Originally Posted by Demigod Mac

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.

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.
msv
Member
(03-01-2012, 03:55 PM)
msv's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dachande

Wouldn't be acceptable today if they came out as new games either. We've moved on.

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.
plagiarize
Member
(03-01-2012, 03:58 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Seanspeed

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.
Seanspeed
Banned
(03-01-2012, 04:17 PM)
Seanspeed's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

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.

I played the whole thing. I just never noticed it was on Earth. Maybe its just the technical limitations, but it certainly never felt like I was roaming a city or anything(especially the interiors). At least not an Earth city.

I'll check out more of the leaked pics, though.

EDIT: Ok, some of the things look a bit more nightmarish, but just the models of buildings and corners of rooms and stuff. I still dont like what I've seen of the wholly modeled environments. There's fricking daylight in half the photos......
Last edited by Seanspeed; 03-01-2012 at 04:34 PM.
Dachande
Member
(03-01-2012, 04:53 PM)
Dachande's Avatar

Originally Posted by msv

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.
Seanspeed
Banned
(03-01-2012, 04:54 PM)
Seanspeed's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dachande

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.
mf.luder
Member
(03-01-2012, 04:55 PM)
mf.luder's Avatar
Hmmm, seems like id got their light shaders working after previous Doom.
Dachande
Member
(03-01-2012, 04:56 PM)
Dachande's Avatar

Originally Posted by Seanspeed

Serious Sam is not Doom, though.

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?
WrikaWrek
Banned
(03-01-2012, 04:57 PM)
WrikaWrek's Avatar
Call of Doom

Doomfield

Medal of Doom
Deadbeat
Banned
(03-01-2012, 05:04 PM)
Deadbeat's Avatar

Originally Posted by WrikaWrek

Medal of Doom

Day one.
MightyHedgehog
Welcome to the Wasteland.
I hope you're wearing your flak vest!
(03-01-2012, 05:11 PM)
MightyHedgehog's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dachande

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.

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? Of course, CoD is all about multi, but so was Doom...and that's maybe where CoD or many other FPS titles will always win. Considering how common it is to fail to sustain and grow an online community, though, a lot of console and PC FPS titles simply don't see much life or benefit to those advanced MP modes leading one to ask if those modes mean anything to most, anyway.
Last edited by MightyHedgehog; 03-01-2012 at 05:17 PM.
subversus
I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
(03-01-2012, 05:19 PM)
subversus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dachande

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?

Hard Reset
Dachande
Member
(03-01-2012, 05:32 PM)
Dachande's Avatar

Originally Posted by MightyHedgehog

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?

Doom [edit: 1 and 2, obviously] is an incredibly light, fast, and frantic FPS across very abstract and ultimately simple environments, involving key-hunting gameplay to pass discrete levels and pixel hunting obscure secrets. 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.

Originally Posted by subversus

Hard Reset

Which came out to mostly average reviews and didn't sell very much. Certainly not the levels id and Bethesda want.
Last edited by Dachande; 03-01-2012 at 05:36 PM.
subversus
I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
(03-01-2012, 05:36 PM)
subversus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dachande


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.

totally agree with this.

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.
Dachande
Member
(03-01-2012, 05:39 PM)
Dachande's Avatar

Originally Posted by subversus

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.

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...)
robin2
Member
(03-01-2012, 05:45 PM)
robin2's Avatar
If the only option is to make the 255th reskinned CoD, then I'd prefer that there is no Doom 4.
MightyHedgehog
Welcome to the Wasteland.
I hope you're wearing your flak vest!
(03-01-2012, 05:49 PM)
MightyHedgehog's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dachande

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.

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.
subversus
I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
(03-01-2012, 05:50 PM)
subversus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dachande

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...)

Originally Posted by robin2

If the only option is to make the 255th reskinned CoD, then I'd prefer that there is no Doom 4.

as I said before I see no reason why iD couldn't release a downloadable short game in vein with Doom 1-2 with a strong focus on multiplayer (including wave-based coop) and ship it with an editor on PC. And make a mainline "modernized" Doom at the same time.
spcd
Junior Member
(03-01-2012, 05:57 PM)
spcd's Avatar
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.
msv
Member
(03-01-2012, 06:21 PM)
msv's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dachande

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's exactly the same as when the industry (and reviewers etc.) started going (favoring) 3D, and ditched 2D gameplay almost completely. 2D gameplay is so outdated right? No one wants that.

Your negative assessment is simply a rehash of the nonsense that most all gaming review are always spouting. Extreme (untrue) hyperboles to make their reviews sound more interesting.
Last edited by msv; 03-01-2012 at 06:27 PM.
nextgeneration
Member
(03-01-2012, 06:26 PM)
nextgeneration's Avatar

Originally Posted by spcd

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.

Well said. Doom is a classic and beats most modern games today. Level design and gameplay are unrivaled.
Zeliard
(03-01-2012, 06:29 PM)
Zeliard's Avatar

Originally Posted by msv

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.

Not to mention, likening Doom to Serious Sam and Hard Reset in terms of potential mass market appeal is just comically off-base. Doom is one of the biggest IPs in gaming and would sell far more (and far more effortlessly) than Serious Sam ever could, regardless of what type of gameplay it chooses to go for.
Dai101
Banned
(03-01-2012, 06:56 PM)
Dai101's Avatar

Originally Posted by spcd

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.

Obligatory:

Spectacular Dr Dawg
Member
(03-01-2012, 07:13 PM)
Spectacular Dr Dawg's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stallion Free

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.

I would too. They would have to call it something else to bypass Bethesda though, like Saint Vitus or Burning Witch.

Originally Posted by TucoBenedictoPacifico

Serious Sam 3 made the making of any future Doom completely irrelevant, anyway.

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.

Originally Posted by Dachande

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.

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.

Originally Posted by subversus

Hard Reset

Hard Reset has extremely linear levels. And the secret are piss easy to find. Not really compareable at all.

Originally Posted by spcd

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.

Exactly!
Ifrit
Member
(03-01-2012, 07:32 PM)
Ifrit's Avatar

Originally Posted by spcd

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 agree completely with this post

<3 Doom 1 and 2, I play them to this day and I'll keep doing it in the future
NBtoaster
Member
(03-01-2012, 07:45 PM)
NBtoaster's Avatar
http://twitter.com/#!/id_Hooper/stat...67484506570752

Those images have nothing to do with what you're gonna see in Doom4. When we officially show things you'll see awesome

He's the design director at id.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
(03-01-2012, 07:54 PM)
Stallion Free's Avatar
Oh goody. They best show it off at Quakecon this year.

Also, can we get some Rage DLC confirmation?
Last edited by Stallion Free; 03-01-2012 at 07:56 PM.
plagiarize
Member
(03-01-2012, 07:55 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by NBtoaster

http://twitter.com/#!/id_Hooper/stat...67484506570752



He's the design director at id.

massive surprise. you mean these screenshots didn't confirm ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT WHAT DOOM 4 IS ACTUALLY LIKE? i am so shocked.
MightyHedgehog
Welcome to the Wasteland.
I hope you're wearing your flak vest!
(03-01-2012, 07:57 PM)
MightyHedgehog's Avatar

Originally Posted by NBtoaster

http://twitter.com/#!/id_Hooper/stat...67484506570752



He's the design director at id.

By "fans", I hope means fans of the first two.
TUROK
Banned
(03-01-2012, 08:23 PM)
TUROK's Avatar

Originally Posted by spcd

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.

You're exaggerating Doom's depth, and this coming from someone who finished Alien Vendetta the other day.

Thread Tools