Doom Eternal

EoinMcLovin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7cZDoKopkc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC7HNfm6IfI

Mr Crispy

We can take control of a demon and invade other player's games, á la Dark Souls (but will be an entirely optional feature). I'm in.

EoinMcLovin

Full presentation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGSMoMtPmbI

Absolute hype

Game looks like doom 2016 on steroids

bigphil2

I didn't think this was going to be as Jaw dropping as it was..absolutely on board for this..

Potential-Monke

Gah, this looks good. Good enough to make me try the previous one again. Twice i've tried to get into it but lose interest very quickly. Same with the Wolfenstein games for some reason. Something is just not clicking with me.

KilOit

Day 1 purchase for me, last game was insanely good

Liamario

Why isn't there more people talking about this. The game looks amazing. If you've any love for the FPS genre, you need to be excited for this. When he pulls the guy via the red card around his neck- that was bad ass!

verycool

Liamario wrote: »

Why isn't there more people talking about this. The game looks amazing. If you've any love for the FPS genre, you need to be excited for this. When he pulls the guy via the red card around his neck- that was bad ass!

Jeeze we get it, it was awesome! No need to post four times! :P

I like it's maintaining the tongue in cheek, self awareness of the first. Laughed when he started dragging the keycard. Reminded me of the opening scene where Doomguy (or now the "Doomslayer") pushes the screen away.

Which reminds me... severe lack of Hayden being shown... or was he / it? Didn't he

get away in the first one?

How they managed to improve on the first is beyond me. I had the same grin on my face watching the gameplay videos as I had playing the first.

This and RE2make are now on the "defninitely buying" list.

Liamario

It's a shame there's no release date. Won't be seeing it this year anyway ;-(
I'm sure we'll be seeing Hayden as a final boss. I wonder what they're implying with the 'Doom Universe'.

Mr Crispy

I'm wondering will the PC release of this (and Rage 2) be on Bethesda.net only á la Fallout 76, or will they be coming to Steam.

Liamario

Darch Nemesis wrote: »

I'm wondering will the PC release of this (and Rage 2) be on Bethesda.net only á la Fallout 76, or will they be coming to Steam.

I have to imagine they'll be on Bethesda site first.

Antar Bolaeisk

Is it my imagination or does this feel a lot slower than Doom 2016? Maybe it's just because they're demoing it and they want to show everything.

DuckHuntMadra

Super shotgun grappling hook.... Mother o Jaysus. Invasion looks like craic! Also the fact their building the lore and universe is a big deal.

Mr. CooL ICE

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Gah, this looks good. Good enough to make me try the previous one again. Twice i've tried to get into it but lose interest very quickly.

I felt very "meh" about the first two hours of it, but it just got better and better. Try it again and stick with it.

verycool

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Is it my imagination or does this feel a lot slower than Doom 2016? Maybe it's just because they're demoing it and they want to show everything.

Was thinking that too. Maybe it's to emphasise the shotgun-grapple? Definitely feels like it's running at 0.8 speed compared to the first.


I did cringe at the mention of the "extended universe". To be honest I didn't even read any of the lore in Doom (2016)!

K.O.Kiki

Twitter was a mistake :pac:

gizmo

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Twitter was a mistake :pac:

Who would have thought a furry wouldn't have a sense of humour?

verycool

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Twitter was a mistake :pac:

Ah Twitter's not to blame, just gives eejits like this a platform to share their "ideas"... and I also think this is a troll.


As someone who identifies themself as "demonkin", I don't find it in any way offensive.


(P.S. I don't identify as demonkin... that's just f*cking stupid... although now I wouldn't be surprised if it actually existed... and no, I'm not going to search that. Who knows what 4chan board I'll come across!)

Looks the same as the last one?

verycool

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks the same as the last one?

Well... yeah... And that's a good thing! :P



Looking forward to the new mechanics and seeing what else they have to offer with the locations. I'm sure there's a great twist in there somewhere (and the Demon Doomslayer was just a tease).

Chris_Heilong

A funny take on the whole "controversy"

Mr Crispy

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

A funny take on the whole "controversy"

A funny take on the word "funny".

kunst nugget

Christ, can I not just kill demons with a chainsaw without a bunch of fookin' kunts indulging in their culture wars over it. Those people that wrote those tweets are too precious to exist on this planet but the guy that made that video is an unbelievable penis.

gizmo

kunst nugget wrote: »

Christ, can I not just kill demons with a chainsaw without a bunch of fookin' kunts indulging in their culture wars over it. Those people that wrote those tweets are too precious to exist on this planet but the guy that made that video is an unbelievable penis.

Every single one of them...

johnny_ultimate

A gaming ‘controversy’ explained:

1. Rando(s) on twitter makes silly, oversensitive comment.
2. Right-wing reactionaries (e.g. AngryGamerLad69) have a disproportionate freak out about it.
3. 99.99% of people will either a) never encounter the ‘controversy’, or b) give not a single solitary **** about it.

And the world spins madly on, but with a grappling hook this time.

Sonics2k

Sigh, yet another generic disgusting, testosterone fueled gore-fest full of more over-the top pointless murders and violence.

I can't fúcking wait

Chris_Heilong

meh, I thought it was funny but I guess it depends on where you hear the story first.

circadian

Ah here.

It looks like a **** ton of fun. Can't wait.

Shred

It looks amazing, I’m lucky enough to be still working my way through the first one 20 months later – what a game.

Robert ninja

Looks like more of the 2016 game which I played briefly. I thought it was outright inferior to the original doom (especially with a couple of mods). I'm also guessing the map creator will have all those ridiculous design and console limitations again. Probably a solid FPS for the current desperate market but still far from anything that makes me even consider shelling out €60.

verycool

Robert ninja wrote: »

Looks like more of the 2016 game which I played briefly. I thought it was outright inferior to the original doom (especially with a couple of mods). I'm also guessing the map creator will have all those ridiculous design and console limitations again. Probably a solid FPS for the current desperate market but still far from anything that makes me even consider shelling out €60.

Jaysis, you must be a hit at parties! :P



I mean I played the originals Doom / Doom 2, then Final Doom on the psx exhaustively....without mods... and I still enjoyed the frenetic shoot first, think later action. This looks like it's more of the same just modernised.



For those saying it's like the 2016 version. That's like comparing Uncharted and Uncharted 2. You still limited to building on the same "world" with the same mechanics.

Robert ninja

verycool wrote: »

This looks like it's more of the same just modernised

Sure it's more modern but that doesn't equal quality. It's modernised in ways that make it inferior to what the original doom was and has become due to community support and being open source. It's slower to an amazing degree. Armour is just a second lifebar instead of actual armour. Enemy count is extremely limited. Melee is a button to see an animation while there are mods that greatly expand melee and chainsaw use in gzdoom.

Graphical fidelity new doom wins out sure... but at the same time my favourite mod project brutality may not have the fidelity but it has much, much better physics and gore. Blood will stick and stretch to an opening and closing door, drip from ceilings, splat upon your face which you can wipe off (visor mods), leave bloody footprints behind, have practically endless amounts of bullet holes, cartridges and corpses that never vanish. It's an amazing spectacle that is more entertaining and immersive. Larger selection of weapons and incredible amount of customisability in options menu with regards to enemy spawns, game rules etc

verycool wrote: »

For those saying it's like the 2016 version. That's like comparing Uncharted and Uncharted 2. You still limited to building on the same "world" with the same mechanics.[

Oh I've got nothing against more of the same as long as it's more of something good.

verycool

Robert ninja wrote: »

Sure it's more modern but that doesn't equal quality. It's modernised in ways that make it inferior to what the original doom was and has become due to community support and being open source. It's slower to an amazing degree. Armour is just a second lifebar instead of actual armour. Enemy count is extremely limited. Melee is a button to see an animation while there are mods that greatly expand melee and chainsaw use in gzdoom.

Graphical fidelity new doom wins out sure... but at the same time my favourite mod project brutality may not have the fidelity but it has much, much better physics and gore. Blood will stick and stretch to an opening and closing door, drip from ceilings, splat upon your face which you can wipe off (visor mods), leave bloody footprints behind, have practically endless amounts of bullet holes, cartridges and corpses that never vanish. It's an amazing spectacle that is more entertaining and immersive. Larger selection of weapons and incredible amount of customisability in options menu with regards to enemy spawns, game rules etc



Oh I've got nothing against more of the same as long as it's more of something good.

Well I know I can't make you like it! But I loved the 2016 Doom so there's bias in my replies (with a hefty dose of sarcasm).



But I get where you're coming from.



This is going to sound pretentious, but I think it's one of those titles that showing gameplay really doesn't do it justice. You have to be holding the controller to truly get it.

I didn't think it was possible to compare the first doom and doom 2016

verycool

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't think it was possible to compare the first doom and doom 2016

Well... it's core anyways. That run and gun aspect of it being as frenetic as each other, no?


Or as they put it in the noclip documentary "push forward combat".

Robert ninja

verycool wrote: »

Well I know I can't make you like it! But I loved the 2016 Doom so there's bias in my replies (

Good for ya. It's nice to have modern games that you can enjoy. They're far and few in between.

verycool wrote: »

This is going to sound pretentious, but I think it's one of those titles that showing gameplay really doesn't do it justice.

Not pretentious at all I'd agree with that completely, which is why I encourage anyone to get into the other dimension that is the doom modding scene. I've played doom 2016 though. Not much of it since I thought it was boring and I went back to doom 1995 w/ mods, but I did play it.

verycool wrote: »

You have to be holding the controller to truly get it.

Mouse all the way :pac:

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't think it was possible to compare the first doom and doom 2016

They're the same IP, from the same company with literally the same name (because companies hate numbers now or something), I think it's pretty fair and expected to compare them. The shocking thing is finding out that the 1995 version is more fun and better designed. I think even one of the the original devs said they had sympathy for the new devs since they're in an awful place of having to try and be better, keeping an IP on life support while probably never being able to improve it in any meaningful way.

Doom 2016's success, in my estimate was due to it being just a decent FPS in a saturated market of mediocrity, good soundtrack, straightforward violent action when everything else interrupts you every 5 minutes with a cutscene or pay F to pay respects nonsense.

In vacuum or surrounded by modern FPS games, Doom 2016 is pretty good I'd say. But pretty good is shallow to the masterpiece of the original. There's the technical side of things too. Doom 2016 accomplishes practically nothing in terms of technology. Just another bloated requirements, console shooter with low FOV, targeting windows and the 2 big consoles. Compared to doom, released as shareware, open source, indistinguishable from magic in how it ran on underpowered computers thanks to incredibly ambitious and skilled development. Its platform support is also second to none. I think USA's workplace productivity took a recorded dip due to the amount of people playing doom during work hours... it was that influential.

Here's some footage I captured of my fave mod FYI in case anyone was curious https://youtu.be/wEvkJ9jM12Y?t=159

verycool

Robert ninja wrote: »

Good for ya. It's nice to have modern games that you can enjoy. They're far and few in between.

Well (as I'm going to mention later), I'm a console scrub (still saving for a gaming PC), but I've enjoyed Prey, Dying Light, both the latest Wolfensteins... to name but four!

Robert ninja wrote: »

Not pretentious at all I'd agree with that completely, which is why I encourage anyone to get into the other dimension that is the doom modding scene. I've played doom 2016 though. Not much of it since I thought it was boring and I went back to doom 1995 w/ mods, but I did play it.

Yep, I NEED to get Brutal Doom! Looks fantastic.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Mouse all the way :pac:

See comment about me being a console peasant above! :pac:

Robert ninja wrote: »

Compared to doom, released as shareware, open source, indistinguishable from magic in how it ran on underpowered computers thanks to incredibly ambitious and skilled development. Its platform support is also second to none. I think USA's workplace productivity took a recorded dip due to the amount of people playing doom during work hours... it was that influential.

Also recommend reading Masters of Doom. I'm not sure how much is Chinese Whispers as some of the stories are a little hard to believe.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Here's some footage I captured of my fave mod FYI in case anyone was curious https://youtu.be/wEvkJ9jM12Y?t=159

That looks amazing. Like the addition of the FF15 battle theme.

CatInABox

The number of enemies in Doom 2016 eventually ramps up pretty large, and when it does, then the genius of the melee kills starts to be apparent. It's not just a button to see an animation, it get strategic once the fights start getting tougher, as you've got to balance the risk/reward of it. Do you go for the glory kill, hoping that the projectiles that are inbound will hit while you're invulnerable, and that the health boost afterwards is worth it, or do you just shotgun it and hope that you can finish the fight on the sliver of health you've got left?

verycool

CatInABox wrote: »

The number of enemies in Doom 2016 eventually ramps up pretty large, and when it does, then the genius of the melee kills starts to be apparent. It's not just a button to see an animation, it get strategic once the fights start getting tougher, as you've got to balance the risk/reward of it. Do you go for the glory kill, hoping that the projectiles that are inbound will hit while you're invulnerable, and that the health boost afterwards is worth it, or do you just shotgun it and hope that you can finish the fight on the sliver of health you've got left?

Good while until Pinky is introduced from what I remember.


I think I mentioned this before, but I would highly recommend watching the noclip documentary on Doom.


Makes me want to go for a few scoops with Hugo Martin. Gas fella.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS6SBnccxMA

gizmo

CatInABox wrote: »

The number of enemies in Doom 2016 eventually ramps up pretty large, and when it does, then the genius of the melee kills starts to be apparent. It's not just a button to see an animation, it get strategic once the fights start getting tougher, as you've got to balance the risk/reward of it. Do you go for the glory kill, hoping that the projectiles that are inbound will hit while you're invulnerable, and that the health boost afterwards is worth it, or do you just shotgun it and hope that you can finish the fight on the sliver of health you've got left?

A decision which becomes incredibly important when you jack up the difficulty to Ultra Violence and Nightmare. Add to that the Rune and Weapon Mod systems and I think it's a testament to how well designed the core mechanics are that they can scale up so well at higher difficulties. It's probably the most fun I've had at those later levels oustide the likes of the Ninja Gaiden / DMC / Bayonetta series.

Robert ninja

CatInABox wrote: »

The number of enemies in Doom 2016 eventually ramps up pretty large

12 enemies. This is the new standard for 'pretty large' NPC counts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss8SyOhqk1I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh261nfSn3E

Now I'm not saying you need spams and spams of enemies to be good or fun, but a dozen is laughable limitation in design and technology. Bloody goldeneye on the N64 had more variations than that. And sometimes overwhelming numbers in a certain location are actually not that hard to fight, especially when demons can friendly fire each other.

CatInABox wrote: »

hen the genius of the melee kills starts to be apparent. It's not just a button to see an animation, it get strategic once the fights start getting tougher, as you've got to balance the risk/reward of it.

Fancy way of explaining standard health management. Nothing new and Doom did it better with actual armour instead of 2 lifebars. I don't mind animations playing as long as they're optional but they're not. In my fave mod you can switch between smash or rip & tear melee modes. One is similar to doom 2016 (but with better animations) and the other doesn't make melee something that will interrupt moving momentum (smash) but both strategically are for ammo conservation, the invulnerability state which you mentioned, pure fun or to dismember enemies in ways that you can use their body parts as weapons, flesh shields or even just grab the fire skulls. If you're skilled enough to go fully hand-to-hand with demons it's an awesome experience and heart pounding knowing you can get turned inside out if you mess up your rhythm or fight yourself into a certain death position. Much more exciting action experience than pressing a single button on an NPC that is quite literally flashing to tell you to kill it... at least to me anyway.

There's also flying and sliding kicks which I bloody love, just had to mention that. So satisfying.

kunst nugget

I'll be honest, and it's probably blasphemous to say it but that clip put up of the original Doom with the mods looks like dogshít. I'm probably being the shiny bauble guy here that they purists loathe but I'd much prefer to play the new iterations of the game on me big telly. I got Doom 1 and Doom 2 when I got the fairly crappy Doom 3 and while I had a cursory play of them and they were fun enough, they didn't do a whole pile for me.

Dave_The_Sheep

Well, it is nearly 25 years old, mods or not.

Robert ninja

@kunst nugget you mean graphically looks bad? If you can't stand anything less than modern graphics then that's unfortunate. I'm glad I can play a game from practically any period... the oldest to the newest and not be bothered by its technical/graphical limitations. They usually don't influence my enjoyment of a game although it depends on the type of game and how it's trying to be fun I guess. If Doom 2016 was photo realistic I'd still think it was boring to play. That's not to say I'm not entertained by visual spectacles because I really, really enjoy the gore in project brutality, and blood splatters in Hitman Blood Money... but that's because they're reactive of gameplay I think rather than just being shiny themselves.

Bad graphics by design or presentation (telltale!) can put me off for sure, though.

Azza

Robert ninja wrote: »

Doom 2016's success, in my estimate was due to it being just a decent FPS in a saturated market of mediocrity, good soundtrack, straightforward violent action when everything else interrupts you every 5 minutes with a cutscene or pay F to pay respects nonsense.

In vacuum or surrounded by modern FPS games, Doom 2016 is pretty good I'd say. But pretty good is shallow to the masterpiece of the original. There's the technical side of things too. Doom 2016 accomplishes practically nothing in terms of technology. Just another bloated requirements, console shooter with low FOV, targeting windows and the 2 big consoles. Compared to doom, released as shareware, open source, indistinguishable from magic in how it ran on underpowered computers thanks to incredibly ambitious and skilled development. Its platform support is also second to none. I think USA's workplace productivity took a recorded dip due to the amount of people playing doom during work hours... it was that influential.

Here's some footage I captured of my fave mod FYI in case anyone was curious https://youtu.be/wEvkJ9jM12Y?t=159

I reckon its a bit harsh to criticize a game for not reinventing the wheel technology wise. Do you criticize all modern games for this failing?, overall Doom 2016 engine is great looking with all the bells and whistles.

I mean Doom was technically a marvel at the time and virtual invented the FPS genre but it had its fair share of limitations. It wasn't actually true 3D, can't look up, was capped to 35fps and its a bit strange to complain about narrow field of view (which can be changed) when at the time of the original Dooms release we were stuck with 4:3 monitors.

Bloated requirements? Doom 2016 is considered very well optimized, many reviews online show this.

I like both the original games and Doom 2016. I consider the first two Dooms to have better more skillful, challenging gameplay but you could still call it shallow, the maps are pure abstract random mazes where you go back an forth looking for keys. I personally find it can get tedious after a while but in short dozes the gameplay is still brilliant.

Doon 2016 is obviously much more graphically advanced, the levels actually look like something that could exist, like the levels do look like research labs and workshops and blast furnaces, instead of random sprawls of maps interlaced with exploding barrels and and toxic slim streams that are suppose to represent factories or research labs?

I did feel with Doom 2016 on the other hand the concept of collectibles and weapon upgrades did somewhat get in the way of gameplay. The lack of mod support and bland multiplayer are another knock against it, but overall it was a good game.

From what I've seen of Doom Eternal have to say I am impressed.

Robert ninja

Azza wrote: »

Bloated requirements? Doom 2016 is considered very well optimized, many reviews online show this.

For the current standards of the market, perhaps. But overall every modern AAA game has exorbitant requirements when compared to older games and the graphical leaps. Take Crysis 1's minimum requirements, the size of the maps, NPC count, graphical fidelity, and compare it a modern FPS. It doesn't add up. The requirements are like 1000% higher but the games don't look 1000% better, bigger or do anything particularly more interesting in processing. It's all just heavier technologies used inefficiently and for no good reason.

Azza wrote: »

instead of random sprawls of maps interlaced with exploding barrels and and toxic slim streams that are suppose to represent factories or research labs

I think they're just made to be good levels, not represent anything particularity aside from textures and a few props. There's areas in Master levels, TNT that don't make a lick of sense in terms of reality but are good levels to fight and explore. That's that difference I guess between the development attitude of Doom and Doom 2016 - One was just trying to be the best game it could be, while the other takes representing more seriously. I don't play Doom for any kind of seriousness. That's just me, though.

Azza wrote: »

I reckon its a bit harsh to criticize a game for not reinventing the wheel technology wise. Do you criticize all modern games for this failing?

If they share the exact same name, are the same IP and from the same company... yeah. I do in fact compare them to their previous releases. I don't compare every FPS to doom in its entirety, but I'll usually reference something back. As you said yourself, it pretty much invented FPS genre... and it's super old so it's not unfair to compare them. Most people would say it's unfair to the older game to compare it to modern games/standards, but we're actually discussing it as it being unfair to modern games to compare them to Doom. Just shows how well it really stands up Like how it's unfair to demons to fight Doomguy :pac:

As for the technology side. They don't need to reinvent the wheel but most of the FPS (and games in general) released these days don't push anything except hardware requirements. They've either stagnated or even regressed in a lot of important ways. LAN removal, limited platforms, no mod support, DRM, no PIP. If Doom 2016 had any of this I probably wouldn't be so tough on it. Hell if it could be modded to the same degree as Doom then I think we could have mods that make it as good as it, much like there's Doom 2016 mods for doom

Azza wrote: »

It wasn't actually true 3D, can't look up

That's actually a design choice, not a limitation. My sis loves classic doom because of this actually and doesn't like mods that change that. I like both

Azza wrote: »

35fps and its a bit strange to complain about narrow field of view (which can be changed) when at the time of the original Dooms release we were stuck with 4:3 monitors

4:3 doesn't have an FOV issue. I know some people who still prefer it for some games.

SirLemonhead

Robert ninja wrote: »

Looks like more of the 2016 game which I played briefly. I thought it was outright inferior to the original doom (especially with a couple of mods). I'm also guessing the map creator will have all those ridiculous design and console limitations again. Probably a solid FPS for the current desperate market but still far from anything that makes me even consider shelling out €60.

Yeah, 2016 is basically more like Serious Sam than Doom - it's an Arena shooter now. Go in, doors close, stuck in the same area until you kill everything.

Which is grand and all, but I'd like something more like the original myself.

Agricola

Been thinking about trying the 2016 game as I havent got around to it yet but seeing as Eternal is more of the same, Im not sure if its for me. It just looks to be a manic arena shooter. I actually preferred the slower paced, horror approach of Doom3.

Azza

Robert ninja wrote: »

For the current standards of the market, perhaps. But overall every modern AAA game has exorbitant requirements when compared to older games and the graphical leaps. Take Crysis 1's minimum requirements, the size of the maps, NPC count, graphical fidelity, and compare it a modern FPS. It doesn't add up. The requirements are like 1000% higher but the games don't look 1000% better, bigger or do anything particularly more interesting in processing. It's all just heavier technologies used inefficiently and for no good reason.

Curious you would pick Crysis in a comparison when's its renowned for being un-optimized or at least the developers misreading future technology trends. Crysis was designed with the assumption that CPU clock speed would keep growing and growing, instead of ever more expanding CPU cores. As a result it doesn't take advantage of more than 2 CPU cores. Its actually not possible to achieve 60FPS at 4K in Crysis in 2018 with the highest spec CPU and GPU available due to its CPU bound limitations. It is possible to hit that with Doom 2016 and its a better looking game.

That's to say nothing of the memory leaks that plagued the last level of Crysis as well.

Tell me when you refer to the minimum requirements of Crysis and Doom 2016, do you actually know what Crysis and Doom 2016 look like when run on the minimum requirements or are you picturing max Crysis and max Doom 2016 settings in your head. Do you remember what frame rate and resolution Crysis 1 targeted at release versus the targeted resolution and frame rate of Doom 2016. I can tell you for sure that Crysis at release was realistically only targeting a 30FPS and a max resolution of 1280x1024 and that was at the 2nd highest graphics settings not the highest, the game highest settings where designed with GPU's that where yet to be released. Even with the highest end GPU released a few months after Crysis release you could not consistently achieve 30FPS, and instead have to depend on motion blur to keep things looking smooth in the 24-30+fps range

I don't know if you could say Doom 2016 looks 1000% better than Crysis, but then again I don't know how you could actually rate that and say a game looks 10x better than another, its all subjective. I'm also not sure if 2016 computer hardware is 10x better than 2007 hardware. Perhaps Doom 2016 is twice as good looking and runs 3 times faster?

Robert ninja wrote:

I think they're just made to be good levels, not represent anything particularity aside from textures and a few props. There's areas in Master levels, TNT that don't make a lick of sense in terms of reality but are good levels to fight and explore. That's that difference I guess between the development attitude of Doom and Doom 2016 - One was just trying to be the best game it could be, while the other takes representing more seriously. I don't play Doom for any kind of seriousness. That's just me, though.

Doom 2016 does not take it self seriously. It keeps its plot as brief as possible while still having one. Its very much aware of the fact that Doom has always had minimum plot, the opening sequences demonstrate this very cleverly where the player character smashes up the communications system while the plot is being explained to him. It covers both the fact that the UAC reasons in game for experimenting with taping an energy source in hell are bat**** insane but also a nod to the players who are long time fans of Doom who know that plot has always been postage stamp short and couldn't give a toss about it and are just hear to kill monsters.

Robert ninja wrote:

If they share the exact same name, are the same IP and from the same company... yeah. I do in fact compare them to their previous releases. I don't compare every FPS to doom in its entirety, but I'll usually reference something back. As you said yourself, it pretty much invented FPS genre... and it's super old so it's not unfair to compare them. Most people would say it's unfair to the older game to compare it to modern games/standards, but we're actually discussing it as it being unfair to modern games to compare them to Doom. Just shows how well it really stands up Like how it's unfair to demons to fight Doomguy

As for the technology side. They don't need to reinvent the wheel but most of the FPS (and games in general) released these days don't push anything except hardware requirements. They've either stagnated or even regressed in a lot of important ways. LAN removal, limited platforms, no mod support, DRM, no PIP. If Doom 2016 had any of this I probably wouldn't be so tough on it. Hell if it could be modded to the same degree as Doom then I think we could have mods that make it as good as it, much like there's Doom 2016 mods for doom

LAN removal and DRM are the result of piracy. I'm not a person who equates 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale, but piracy on PC occurs on such a large scale its hard not to imagine having some effect, even 1-5% lost sales would be significant number. So I could understand (and still lament) why these features are gone.

I actually don't know what you mean by PIP.

Limited platforms?. That's just PC gaming elitism talk, if a game doesn't use 100% of all 4/ 8/16/32 CPU cores or all of 8/16/32GB of DDR4 or scale 100% across SLI/Crossfire X3 its not pushing the boundaries and should be criticized for such an offense . Oh wait that's right the PC platform on its own can't support AAA game development (which was not the case at the time of the original Dooms release) but developers should go out of business catering for that 0.5-1%?

Robert ninja wrote:

It wasn't actually true 3D, can't look up

The original Doom game engine is not actually truly 3D but uses binary space partitions to simulate 3D.