nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Doom Eternal

EoinMcLovin

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

Robert ninja

Azza wrote: »

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

Fully aware of what they look like and the issues around Crysis. I use crysis as example purely based on the fact that its minimum requirements in comparison to its looks/gameplay vs minimum requirements for modern titles is so very different. It might run meh but it runs. For modern titles the requirements are exponential but the graphical and gameplay advances are not. For doom specifically, comparing the sequels to the original, this is a huge regression from such a good start.

Azza wrote: »

It is possible to hit that with Doom 2016 and its a better looking game

Also fully aware of this. Supreme Commander suffers from this and it's a shame. Crysis isn't a perfect game, again the only example I was using was its minimum requirements. However, it's not hard to make a better looking game when you've got decades on them, which is huge amounts of time in technology.

Azza wrote: »

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?

There's probably many places where we could measure it objectively (like texture resolution/mapping) but overall if it looks GOOD is indeed subjective. I would say a good screenshot of Crysis and other games that pushed the limits still impresses people today. While many big games from AAA publishers (bethesda's Falllout, Bioware's Mass Effect) can have screenshots that look very bad and like something out of an emulated upscaled N64 game at the worst of times.

Main point is that game graphics and ambitions have been much slower than their requirements. They don't look as better than older games as their requirements have from older games. That make sense? Hard to describe it I think. Oh well.

Azza wrote: »

Doom 2016 does not take it self seriously.

If you say so. I was only responding to the claim that levels in Doom don't make sense... when I don't think they have to make sense.

Azza wrote: »

LAN removal and DRM are the result of piracy.

In the current day they're actually the result of 2 things.

1. Unethical companies who sell DRM and therefore market it with lies and misinformation about piracy (Denuvo arresting some lone hobby hacker in belgium recently)

2. Publishers wanting to control everything about their game to an insane degree. To the point of cheats in single player games practically becoming illegal due to DLC replacing them, save scumming being removed and basic operations being offloaded to the cloud for the sole purpose of data collection and experience tailoring (Hitman :mad:). Any company not run by complete fools knows piracy isn't an issue for them but they may use it as an excuse to regress on features anyway.

Azza wrote: »

So I could understand (and still lament) why these features are gone.

That's not the only reason. There's just good ole laziness. For example modern FPS multiplayer games have some seriously low player limits for servers. Apparently despite decades since LAN FPS technology we just can't get past 6v6 on a server, we don't have the technology. Rediculous, right? Here's a video explaining this malarkey in more detail https://youtu.be/tS9vvF1V1Dc

Azza wrote: »

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

Picture in picture. As seen in things like Swat 4, Supreme Commander which also had it in mutli monitor map overview tech which was awesome... or straight up just any game with split screen. But apparently Halo can't do that anymore because they just can't do it according to the head of xbox. Never mind hundreds of millions of euros they can play with and have the networking links to hire practically anyone they want for anything, nevermind the technology advantage over things like the nintendo 64 which could do 4 player split screen... they just can't get split screen in Halo on modern hardware because it's too fecking hard for them. Boo hoo am I right? There's always an excuse with these modern FPS games, one reason or another to regress further and further. You can accept their excuses or not. I don't.

Azza wrote: »

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

Maybe you misunderstood or I didn't explain precisely what I meant, because I've got no idea what you're talking about with CPU cores n' such.

I'm talking about platforms like Windows and Playstation. Doom runs on practically anything you'd want it to run on and the original released with support for Linux, Mac, Windows and DOS (with even Android now I believe) Has tons of console versions too. How's Doom 2016's platform ambitions? Just standard ass cut and dry Windows 7-10(10 never ending now), PS4, XBO. "Who cares about the other ones?" That's the new attitude the corpse of ID has about these things.

Azza wrote: »

Oh wait that's right the PC platform on its own can't support AAA game development

Well getting slightly off topic, but I will call absolute BS on this. GOG said the same thing with witcher and then spent an insane amount of its budget (I think higher than its development budget) on marketing which was primarily for console. Games can target one system and be profitable, just name any successful console exclusive. There are AAA games that come out for single platforms and are successful, it can be done. It's all about how much they have to spend on development and how much money they can make back. Would Witcher 3 look different if 90% of its marketing budget was rerouted into a single platform only release? Definitely. Would it be better? Who can say for sure. But I'd wager a PC only release probably would've been a better designed experience, at least for my taste.

... or if they just released the damn modding tools they back-pedalled on.

Azza wrote: »

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

You quoted yourself and are replying to yourself I think? Was that just a correction?

johnny_ultimate

Robert ninja wrote: »

For example modern FPS multiplayer games have some seriously low player limits for servers. Apparently despite decades since LAN FPS technology we just can't get past 6v6 on a server, we don't have the technology. Rediculous, right?

Except currently the trend is to in fact get large amounts of players on the same server... the two biggest hitters boast 100 player counts as standard, and most of the big-name multiplayer titles are rushing to hop on that bandwagon. Even if you don't like the Battle Royale games, it's clear technology isn't holding them back from bigger-scale multiplayer titles.

Let's also not forget the fact that many games are purposely balanced for small player numbers... Not some technical limitation (although surely the case in some examples), merely the fact the designers have carefully, well, designed the game mechanics to work within specific player limits. Plenty of multiplayer games which are hellish messes when you put loads of players in there, and are typically much more enjoyable when the scope is limited by design.

I'm talking about platforms like Windows and Playstation. Doom runs on practically anything you'd want it to run on and the original released with support for Linux, Mac, Windows and DOS (with even Android now I believe) Has tons of console versions too. How's Doom 2016's platform ambitions? Just standard ass cut and dry Windows 7-10(10 never ending now), PS4, XBO. "Who cares about the other ones?" That's the new attitude the corpse of ID has about these things.

I mean, to a very large degree... yes? The game is available on all three major consoles (the Switch being an unlikely candidate to host a full-featured version of the game, incidentally, and a bit of a technical marvel in its own modest, 30 FPS way) and the largest *by far* PC market - the vast, vast majority of people interested in the game are able to play it, and very likely have a choice of hardware to play it on. These four biggest platforms (four is not exactly a small amount!) are the obvious focuses for any developer - big or small - to get their game into as many hands as possible, and all boast the infrastructure to fully support it.

I'm all for developers supporting Mac and Linux, let me stress, but it's no surprise whatsoever for all manner of reasons (technical, commercial) that they're relatively under-served gaming wise.

Incidentally, you could get Bioshock on a phone less than a decade after it was released. I'm sure Doom 2016 could well show up on Android and iOS (or their future equivalents) in the not so distant future too

As an aside, I was so-so about Doom 2016. I thought its mechanics were magnificent and immensely satisfying, basically becoming the FPS equivalent of DMC / Bayonetta at its best. Even purer in arcade mode. But sadly the game's level design let it down and it ran out of ideas well before the end though. Those basic mechanics though *chef's kiss*

Azza

Robert ninja wrote:

Fully aware of what they look like and the issues around Crysis. I use crysis as example purely based on the fact that its minimum requirements in comparison to its looks/gameplay vs minimum requirements for modern titles is so very different. It might run meh but it runs. For modern titles the requirements are exponential but the graphical and gameplay advances are not. For doom specifically, comparing the sequels to the original, this is a huge regression from such a good start.

Be honest, are you really fully aware of what both games look and run like on minimum spec requirements. What resolution and frame rate did the developers have in mind when the said minimum spec?

Also is a 2016 PC 1000% more powerful than a a 2007 PC.

Robert ninja wrote:

Also fully aware of this. Supreme Commander suffers from this and it's a shame. Crysis isn't a perfect game, again the only example I was using was its minimum requirements. However, it's not hard to make a better looking game when you've got decades on them, which is huge amounts of time in technology.

Odd you go to another game with severe performance issues after criticizing Doom 2016 for being un-optimized. You aware of the memory leak/bug that caused the game to continue calculate A.I pathing of destroyed units which effectively crippled performance over time when playing against the A.I in skirmish mode and was never fixed. Could never have a proper comp stomp in that game...tragic. You also complained about narrow FOV in Doom, well I'll take the liberty of bashing SupCom for cropping the vertical axis when in widescreen

Robert ninja wrote:

There's probably many places where we could measure it objectively (like texture resolution/mapping) but overall if it looks GOOD is indeed subjective. I would say a good screenshot of Crysis and other games that pushed the limits still impresses people today. While many big games from AAA publishers (bethesda's Falllout, Bioware's Mass Effect) can have screenshots that look very bad and like something out of an emulated upscaled N64 game at the worst of times.

Texture mapping in Crysis?, Go back to Crysis, its textures are now somewhat hit and miss. Its why when the game was released on PS3/Xbox 360 they went back and improved a lot of the textures. As for other games what are you referring too? And as creaky as Fallout 4 and ME are looking, no one who isn't taking cocaine would compare them to N64 games. Also screenshots don't capture frame rate!

Robert ninja wrote:

Main point is that game graphics and ambitions have been much slower than their requirements. They don't look as better than older games as their requirements have from older games. That make sense? Hard to describe it I think. Oh well.

Before I could categorically say your wrong I would need to do some research but my gut feeling tells me your being overall biased towards older games.

Robert ninja wrote:

If you say so. I was only responding to the claim that levels in Doom don't make sense... when I don't think they have to make sense.

They don't have to make sense sure but it helps if they do. Doom gameplay would be still be in good in completely blank corridor's but it doesn't hurt to have some variety in the scenery. Take Wolfenstein 2 or F.E.A.R good game play, but bland level design. Can we have both please?

Robert ninja wrote:

In the current day they're actually the result of 2 things.

1. Unethical companies who sell DRM and therefore market it with lies and misinformation about piracy (Denuvo arresting some lone hobby hacker in belgium recently)

Ah the DRM debate. A complex topic that I don't want to get into here as it would completely derail the thread, but from what I've read on gaming forum and websites many gamers are more than happy to lie and spread misinformation about it. Same thing happened with Starforce back in the day.

Robert ninja wrote:

2. Publishers wanting to control everything about their game to an insane degree. To the point of cheats in single player games practically becoming illegal due to DLC replacing them, save scumming being removed and basic operations being offloaded to the cloud for the sole purpose of data collection and experience tailoring (Hitman :mad:). Any company not run by complete fools knows piracy isn't an issue for them but they may use it as an excuse to regress on features anyway.

I agree cheats should not be restricted and charging money for DLC to offer the same features as what previously offered as a bonus should not be condoned.

I don't care if save scumming is being removed, learn to live with consequences ala "Thats X-Com Baby!"

Hitman was one of my favorite games recently. Its online component did cause me some minor inconveniences when I couldn't connect for an hour or so. Wasn't a huge thing but I'd rather saves where not located online. Data collecting (of in game activity and nothing else)for experience tailoring doesn't bother me though sounds like a way to improve the game. I rolled my eyes when the game was blinded criticized for being episodic when it actually really suited the game very well. That and the "OMG I don't have the ability to wield Duel Silver Ballers" or "where is my weapons briefcase" therefore this is the worst Hitman ever! "Ah guys a weapons hiding briefcase would render alot of the gameplay mechanics redundant"...."bah it doesn't matter no briefcase= this is not a true hitman game!"

Sorry rant over....gamers really get on my nerve sometime. I should stop reading game forums!

As for piracy not having any affect. I can honestly say I have no idea if it does or not but I have no idea how you can say it doesn't unless you have access to evidence I don't. I do recall seeing 3.5 million downloads of Crysis on bittorrent back in the day and similar numbers for Call of Duty games. I don't have evidence but I have a hard time imagining that none of those downloads are a lost sale.

Robert ninja wrote:

That's not the only reason. There's just good ole laziness. For example modern FPS multiplayer games have some seriously low player limits for servers. Apparently despite decades since LAN FPS technology we just can't get past 6v6 on a server, we don't have the technology. Rediculous, right? Here's a video explaining this malarkey in more detail https://youtu.be/tS9vvF1V1Dc

No comment for now I'll watch later.

Robert ninja wrote:

Picture in picture. As seen in things like Swat 4, Supreme Commander which also had it in mutli monitor map overview tech which was awesome... or straight up just any game with split screen. But apparently Halo can't do that anymore because they just can't do it according to the head of xbox. Never mind hundreds of millions of euros they can play with and have the networking links to hire practically anyone they want for anything, nevermind the technology advantage over things like the nintendo 64 which could do 4 player split screen... they just can't get split screen in Halo on modern hardware because it's too fecking hard for them. Boo hoo am I right? There's always an excuse with these modern FPS games, one reason or another to regress further and further. You can accept their excuses or not. I don't.

I remember PIP in Swat 4 now. Cool game. SupCom was multi monitor not PIP. The question is do those modes work in all games or are needed.
As for Halo I have no comment because I don't know anything about Halo. Don't play the games.

Robert ninja wrote:

Maybe you misunderstood or I didn't explain precisely what I meant, because I've got no idea what you're talking about with CPU cores n' such.

Sorry I thought you where criticizing consoles for holding back video game development and where referring to them as limited platforms. My mistake.

Robert ninja wrote:

I'm talking about platforms like Windows and Playstation. Doom runs on practically anything you'd want it to run on and the original released with support for Linux, Mac, Windows and DOS (with even Android now I believe) Has tons of console versions too. How's Doom 2016's platform ambitions? Just standard ass cut and dry Windows 7-10(10 never ending now), PS4, XBO. "Who cares about the other ones?" That's the new attitude the corpse of ID has about these things.

That's great they got support for all those platforms. I have nothing against MAC, Linux or Android (but I'd never want to play Doom on a mobile device...ughh). But at the end of the day games development a business out to make money and I don't begrudge them that. With Doom 2016 have covered off probably 96+% of the market (you forgot the switch version). What is the Lunix gaming market, less than 1% is it? Its a cost vs profit calculation. Also not being on Android or Linux or Mac doesn't make the gameplay any worse anyway. Infact if its anything like X-Com 2 which I tried recently on Linux your better off on Windows and not losing a third of your frame rate.

Robert ninja wrote:

Well getting slightly off topic, but I will call absolute BS on this. GOG said the same thing with witcher and then spent an insane amount of its budget (I think higher than its development budget) on marketing which was primarily for console. Games can target one system and be profitable, just name any successful console exclusive. There are AAA games that come out for single platforms and are successful, it can be done. It's all about how much they have to spend on development and how much money they can make back. Would Witcher 3 look different if 90% of its marketing budget was rerouted into a single platform only release? Definitely. Would it be better? Who can say for sure. But I'd wager a PC only release probably would've been a better designed experience, at least for my taste.

... or if they just released the damn modding tools they back-pedalled on.

Would you mind linking to evidence that indicate CDPR spent more on marketing than on game development.

Secondly do you believe marketing has no effect on sales. If they spent nothing on marketing and pumped into all into game development would the sales have been better, the same or worse?

This is what I don't get. Game developers/publishers have an aversion to losing money. You constantly hear from gamers how developers are throwing money hands over fist away on useless things like marketing or DRM or are being hoodwinked by shaddy publishers/DRM developers. Of course its extremely rare that anyone can ever backs up these claims or accusations with evidence. But maybe just maybe, they publishers/developers have access to information/sales figures the general gaming public does not!

Robert ninja wrote:

You quoted yourself and are replying to yourself I think? Was that just a correction?

The original Doom and Doom 2 engines are not true 3D games was the point I was making

Anyway sorry for wall of text gone way off topic.

Doom 1 Great
Doom 2 Great
Doom 3 A technical marvel for its time and I understand it went for horror over shooting gameplay which I was fine with but its the weakest game in the series.
Doom 2016 a good modern take on a classic formula that's so under used it feels fresh.
Doom Eternal, looks great, really capture classic Doom spirit IMO. Looking forward to it.

Robert ninja

Azza wrote: »

Would you mind linking to evidence that indicate CDPR spent more on marketing than on game development.

http://next.gazeta.pl/pieniadz/1,136158,18087407,_Wiedzmin_3__z_rekordem_sprzedazy__4_mln_sztuk___Trzyletnie.html

Azza wrote: »

SupCom was multi monitor not PIP

It had both. Split screen, mini map PIP and secondary monitor. Not sure if you could have minimap in split screen so if not that leaves 3 full renders at any one time at least.

ProvableGrub

Is it even fair to compare Doom (Original) and Doom 2016? The two games feel, play and look (obviously) completely different. I havent played much of the original Doom, but the 2016 version was fantastic so I’ definitely escited for this. I just hope that the multiplayer is better than the previous one however.

[Deleted User]

This lad hits the nail on the head. Applies to quite a lot of outrage these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63nY0AYebI

Billy86

I'd never even heard of any 'outrage' about this game. Farcical to say the least, but a good video.

J. Marston

Billy86 wrote: »

I'd never even heard of any 'outrage' about this game. Farcical to say the least, but a good video.

I don't think I've ever even heard the term "SJW" in real life. You just hear it used by two tiny but annoyingly loud pockets of the internet.

Robert ninja

J. Marston wrote: »

I don't think I've ever even heard the term "SJW" in real life. You just hear it used by two tiny but annoyingly loud pockets of the internet.

The term isn't used much outside of the internet because the kind of people it refers to have the biggest influence on the internet and when talking in person, resonable people usually focus on the topic/points rather than labels.

K.O.Kiki

Have you ever tried to say "Ess-Jay-Double-U"?

Just mouthing the term makes you realise you're a plonker! :pac: (admittedly, I was a plonker for a while too)