Am I the only one who thinks the game is a bit over-detailed?

[DooM_RO]

So before I say anything, let me just say that they really nailed the general art style. It's very faithful and they did a great job doing the impossible task of articulating the unique flavor of Doom but I still can't get over the feeling that there are are too many pipes and other small details. My eyes don't really know where to focus a lot of the times. I'm not saying they should return to 1997 or even 2004 visuals but maybe they could learn something from this.

 

 

 

I kind of miss the smooth metal and marble environments of earlier Id titles, even including Doom 3. It looks cleaner and more readable. I think that less is more in the case of Doom and is actually the final piece of the puzzle. When I think of the Doom art style, the first thing that comes to mind are bold, defined and angular shapes. What do you think?

 

 

There are plenty of good examples in the new games though. This one really nails the feeling of E1.

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by DooM_RO

[RonnieJamesDiner]

Some of the stuff they've shown definitely looks a little "busy" for my taste, I'd have to agree. But not everything I've seen. For instance, I thought the entire Phobos section they showed looked really clean and "readable", while still being nice to look at. It was mostly the Earth sections they showed off last year that I found to be a little over-zealously detailed and difficult to look at -- that said, I may feel different about it playing the game, so I'll just wait and see.

 

Curious, where is that third screenshot from? With the creepy, brown-greenish fog-laden town? That looks really awesome.

[DooM_RO]

@RonnieJamesDiner

 

It's from Quake Arcane Dimensions. You have GOT to play it.

[RonnieJamesDiner]

Oooh, I just looked it up. That looks absolutely incredible! I can't even remember the last time I played Quake, but this looks like a damn good reason to change that. Thank you! 

[DooM_RO]

Here's an example of what I liked in 2016 and what I didn't like.

 

This one has plenty of 45 degree sharp edges, bold, defined and chuky shapes. The beauty of this weapon comes from the silhouette and not from tons of small indentations, rivets etc. When I look at this weapon, my eyes are not "suffocated" by tons of small details. There's a few details but they are very tastefully placed. It's perfect, my favorite gun in the game.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by DooM_RO

[DooM_RO]

On the other hand, what am I even looking at here? It's all chaos. Where are my eyes supposed to focus? What are all those small details coming out? There's no breathing room in this model. It's just big hunk of overly-produced nothing.

Edited August 19, 2019 by DooM_RO

[RonnieJamesDiner]

Yeah, those two weapons are perfect examples. I don't know what the hell I'm looking at with the second one either, haha. It reminds me of the kind of thing students would make in 3D modelling class, trying to squeeze every bit of detail out of every square millimeter of space. Which is to say, it looks cool! But it doesn't make me want to pick it up and start killing demons with it. It makes me want to twirl it around in a 3D view space and admire the work that went into it.  

[Mk7_Centipede]

i also love the heavy machine gun.  its look is flawless.  About its only detail is to show you what kind of ammo it uses.  I would trade the doom2 chaingun for it.

 

I am playing the Lost mission and finishing Doom3 right now.  I prefer how 2016 handled Hell, even if it was overwrought with detail.  I guess ebcause there are only so many colors used in hell that a lot of detail in one shade does not bother me too much.

 

So yeah, heaven looks a bit detailed but the colors are simple so I think it will still work according to DOOM style- in that what might have been something abstract is now detailed but its color and other identifiable components are roughly the same.

 

So like, the yellow brick road is not hurt by there being lifelike yellow statues of soaring eagles or whathaveyou.  Those concept pictures of heaven in doom eternal still look like I basically just have to follow a yellow brick road.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Mk7_Centipede

[DooM_RO]

16 minutes ago, Mk7_Centipede said:

I would trade the doom2 chaingun for it.

 

Well, the HAR is basically the real Doom 2 chaingun. It behaves exactly the same, which is a long-range needler. I think it's because the size of the Chaingun in classic Doom is not proportional to the amount of damage it does. It's more like an SMG if you think about it. It works in Classic Doom because it is pixelated and you only see part of the weapon. Because the HAR already occupies the "long-range needler" function of the classic Doom Chaingun, the actual 2016 Chaingun is in a weird spot, like it can't decide what it's place in the dance is.

[whatup876]

I'd say the 2016 chaingun is to the HAR what the SSG is to the combat shotgun: More power at the cost of pacing (reloading times/barrel spinning animation) and maybe ammo usage (two shells being used/bullets being wasted faster). (pretty sure Quake 2 did this)

 

Anyway: focusing on this topic: I like Eternal's art direction that even the stuff that is new and not just throwback looks interesting because it offers cool ideas and even some details are good (like the skull and exposed chamber and chain in the RL).

 

But then you have stuff that doesn't mean a lot, carried from 2016 which is technically present in a lot of sci fi/fantasy media, probably to make designs feel more "realistic"? or maybe because some artists are worried about their designs not being interesting or unique enough even though Eternal and 2016 had a selection of neat designs that didn't really need a lot of details (as in details that don't help something stand out like random bits and pipes etc).

Could also be lore reasons.

 

Could also be because of the engine, so they can talk about how impressive it is, even if it leads to some limitations like dead demons disappearing after a while or enemy count on screen.

 

Funny enough, the 2016 version of Hell feels simplistic compared to the abstract devil's fruit salad of elements that was Hell in 1/2/Final.

We had mostly rocky maps and then one flesh map in the MP.

 

Even the logo is simple and minimalistic compared to the original, detailed, blue and yellow DOOM logo.

 

I guess this also means lore is good if it offers interesting design and visual ideas like levels and enemies etc.

I like how Earth looks because it looks like the first time Earth is a believable place, compared to Doom 2.

 

Edit: something i remember is how we've had mods based off modern Doom games and how they translate the new designs into the pixelated style of the OG games.

 

Some are just model rips being used, others are certain sprites being used as bases but when a certain spriteset looks good, that leads to something in regards to these new looks: you'll have to choose which details are fundamental for the design and which are just noise just for the sake of noise.

Edited September 3, 2019 by whatup876
adding more stuff

[whatup876]

I could have edited the post before but something i realized when it came to simplicity was the new power up designs.

In old Doom, they're all spherical but with different faces and things inside them while 3 had more different designs (only 1 used outside multiplayer, apparently which was Berserk) and 2016 had spheres that were either empty or had skulls inside but they had different effects like flames or energy travelling around them. (and Blursphere was on MP)

 

Eternal has this Arcade items that stand out a bit too much even in Doom standards.

 

The 1 up could have been similar to Doom 64, so it's a Megasphere with a Praetor/Doom helmet.

 

Secrets being a question mark is weak and would fit better as ancient demonic scrolls or UAC tablets with private/classified info.

 

Dash refill items could be argent related spheres or even something with wings to fit the theme of Heaven's inclusion.

 

Then again, some of these might be placeholders if i recall.

[Robo_Cola]

At first I thought it seemed a bit overdesigned (namely Earth) but overtime I've come to see it as actually pretty realistic, a ruined Earth should look cluttered.  I thought the Heavy Cannon was overdesigned initially but overtime it's become probably my second favorite designed weapon after the plasma-rifle.

 

 

 

 

 

Damn that looks good, a worthy successor to the HAR indeed B) Gotta love that Mixom logo in the bottom right as well.

[Loud Silence]

I think it's obvious that constant improvement will lead to the point where is just no way to improve. You might try, but result can be not really improvement.

When it was 90's you could look at, let's say, Quake II and think: "That can look better, that can be improved". And games really improved in these years. I think that 2004 year have reached the best graphics needed for gaming point. Just look at Far Cry, Half-Life 2, Doom 3.

[ReaperAA]

38 minutes ago, Loud Silence said:

I think it's obvious that constant improvement will lead to the point where is just no way to improve. You might try, but result can be not really improvement.

When it was 90's you could look at, let's say, Quake II and think: "That can look better, that can be improved". And games really improved in these years. I think that 2004 year have reached the best graphics needed for gaming point. Just look at Far Cry, Half-Life 2, Doom 3.

 

This is kinda true. Increasing the amount of polygons beyond a certain point leads to diminishing returns in visual improvements.

 

For me, that critical point was reached at around 2011-2012 with games like Crysis 2 and BF3. Things haven't improved much in my eyes since then.

[snapshot]

4 hours ago, Loud Silence said:

I think that 2004 year have reached the best graphics needed for gaming point. Just look at Far Cry, Half-Life 2, Doom 3.

A lot Doom 3's models look so low-poly and not "smooth or round" enough in some areas^heh, the character models especially, not to mention they look like they're made of Plastic. HL2 looks a bit better, but still no where near as good as some games from the last 10 years or so, and a lot of textures look blurry and low-res.

Edited September 7, 2019 by tempdecal.wad

[seed]

5 hours ago, tempdecal.wad said:

A lot Doom 3's models look so low-poly and not "smooth or round" enough in some areas^heh, the character models especially, not to mention they look like they're made of Plastic. HL2 looks a bit better, but still no where near as good as some games from the last 10 years or so, and a lot of textures look blurry and low-res.

 

HL2 was basically more consistent in terms of overall texture/model quality and detail, there's few that were noticeably lower res than others, and in general, those were small things, some originating from the days of the beta, which had some really crappy-ass models and textures. In Doom 3 however, they were all over the place. I remember some caves from RoE having some extremely low res ground textures for instance. Some tech stuff was also hideously under-detailed. And yes, character models in Doom 3 also looked like plastic.

 

8 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

This is kinda true. Increasing the amount of polygons beyond a certain point leads to diminishing returns in visual improvements.

 

For me, that critical point was reached at around 2011-2012 with games like Crysis 2 and BF3. Things haven't improved much in my eyes since then.

 

Agreed.

 

For me, the critical point was Crysis 3. Anything going beyond that is just overkill.

Edited September 7, 2019 by seed

[Taurus Daggerknight]

I like the look of Eternal so far. If anything, I think Doom 3 was going into the "over-designed" side of things with its monsters, as cool as they were. I also tend to associate Doom with a very busy, Geiger-esque world anyhow, which is exactly what I'm seeing from Eternal thus far. 

[whatup876]

Something i realized seperated pre Doom 3 Doom and the series ever since is how levels are handled.

 

Levels in older video games were abstract locations where you could get the idea of what assets are used, as if they're less about being actual places and more about presenting a theme.

Think like worlds in other older games or the likes of Mario or Sonic games even.

 

Because then we started having more sophisticated levels that present actual places but you never get the feeling of it having modular assets to built something with.

 

In a game like Doom it worked because it's a first person game were levels are expected to be mazes, so one rule Romero suggested for level making is making "landmarks" so players are likely to know where they are, without always needing the automap.

 

I think that is one of the reasons why Hell in the original games is what it is too.

[snapshot]

I've seen worse.

[Tetzlaff]

On 8/19/2019 at 8:01 PM, DooM_RO said:

On the other hand, what am I even looking at here? It's all chaos. Where are my eyes supposed to focus? What are all those small details coming out? There's no breathing room in this model. It's just big hunk of overly-produced nothing.

I honestly thought this is a weapon from Unreal Tournament 3. They went through the ceiling with cluttered detail on their weapons.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Tetzlaff

[Siegeguss]

I think it does a good job. Doom was known for its complex level design and the style was really just copying design trends (cyberpunk and h.r. giger)

That's not to say I don't like the doom aesthetic, I'd take it over any style any day. I just believe ID's using the same design philosophy for this game as they did back in the 90s

[sleepiii]

new screen - called cultist possession 

[thewormofautumn]

Image doesn’t load for me on my phone... direct link?

[whatup876]

https://twitter.com/DOOM/status/1171845836977901574

 

Probably related to that piece.

[whatup876]

I'm bumping a dead thread because i had some theory about demons and aliens being "overdetailed".

Perhaps the intention is to make their anatomy weird, to indicate how otherwordly they are.

But the problem can be when they still look tame or not weird enough.

Like, you wonder if the designer could have settled for more "abstract" looking creatures, even if they look too "eldritch" to some degree. (which as a term, is probably being ran to the ground at this point)

[⇛Marnetmar⇛]

Welp this is as good an excuse to contribute to this thread as any.

 

I think there's something to be said for Doom 2016's more streamlined and elegant aesthetic compared to Doom Eternal. But I think that it'd be thematically incongruous if Doom Eternal went for a sleeker aesthetic, since the game is meant to be deliberately over-the-top in every regard. The crazy overdesigned art style might be a little much in a vacuum, but as part of a whole it makes perfect sense.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Marn