Doom Eternal

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 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.