What's lame is that people have read too many extremely hyperbolic game reviews that talk about how a game 'evolves' and completely nonsensical terms like that. Evolving doesn't apply to a game, all the games from 20 years ago were fun as is. It's lame to claim that a game with the same mechanics wouldn't be just as fun now, as it was then. It's like saying all boardgames are shit, because games have evolved onto the PC and with 3D graphics, and instead of dice rolls we can have iron sights now, and sprinting. People are following the jibber jabber of nonsensical reviewers too much. Games aren't 'evolving', yeah they're trying out new game mechanics, adding stuff, changing things, but that does not make it better, it does not make it an evolution, it's not a better game just because you think that these older games were so limited that you think even the game mechanics like iron sights weren't possible at the time and that it would've been a better game with it implemented.
There is no need to modernize Doom besides the looks of the game. We don't need to change it to current day 'modern' mechanics, just like we don't need to change football every year. Changing the most interacted with game mechanics is just that, changing it, not 'modernizing'. Just because 'it couldn't be done before' is applicable to some game mechanics, doesn't make them more modern, and it sure as hell doesn't make em any better. Sounds like that handball tazing sport would be something for you, it's new and evolved and all you know.