DoomerWorld made me stop caring about what "Classic" fans think of Doom Eternal.

[mrthejoshmon]

6 hours ago, Foebane72 said:

- I've made 12 maps for Doom 2, back in the 1990s. There are some single-player ones and a few deathmatch arenas, too.

- Not Doom, but I reviewed a few maps on Lvl for Quake 3, years ago.

I need links.

 

I neeeeed them, please.

[Tartlman]

17 hours ago, Foebane72 said:

"Doom 64 is tonally the same as Doom 3 and has the same gameplay as classic Doom."

Except that Doom 3 looks fucking GORGEOUS and AMAZING, whereas Doom 64 looks like complete SHIT. My opinion, but then again Doom 3 was part of the next generation of games and helped usher in modern game engine stuff like dynamic lighting and shadow effects, bump mapping and other graphical treats we take for granted in modern games. Doom 64 didn't even innovate, except for coloured lighting, and the maps looked even more basic than PC Doom.

 

I've honestly gotta agree here. Doom 64's sprites all have a weird plastic smoothness and shininess to them, if that makes any sense. They stick out and they look like someone took a paint program and added stickers to the environment. The lighting contrast on the sprites is very high, while the level lighting is quite flat. Additionally, Doom 64's colors are blander than classic doom - gone are the bright reds of a cacodemon. One of the most innovative parts of doom was its use of light and dark, but doom 64 throws most of this out of the window and makes everything the same shade of dark from what i've seen. Why is that? It's because doom 64's sprites don't look good in brightly lit areas. Doom 1 & 2's sprites have mostly the same lighting throughout so that the lights of the level can do their work, but in doom 64 they make the sprites do the work rather than the environment. And it just doesn't look as good.

[seed]

1 hour ago, Tartlman said:

Additionally, Doom 64's colors are blander than classic doom - gone are the bright reds of a cacodemon. One of the most innovative parts of doom was its use of light and dark, but doom 64 throws most of this out of the window and makes everything the same shade of dark from what i've seen. Why is that?

 

Well, D64 did want to take a more horror approach, similar to PSX Doom but unlike classic Doom, so it became darker and felt more hostile as a result. Can't have very bright colors and areas and still feel intimidating, usually, though there are plenty of exceptions to this rule in the later maps.

 

Still, with all the colored lightning I would never say it looks bland by any means though. And enemies blend in with the environment quite gracefully I daresay - the Nightmare Imps do a mighty fine job here.

Edited February 26, 2020 by seed

[Super Mighty G]

The sprites in D64 use 3D models instead of real sculptures. But at the end of the day whether they look good or bad is subjective.

[Taurus Daggerknight]

5 minutes ago, Super Mighty G said:

The sprites in D64 use 3D models instead of real sculptures. But at the end of the day whether they look good or bad is subjective.

 

Didn't they use sculptures for some of them? Could have sworn I've seen some photos of the pinky demon....

[Taurus Daggerknight]

8 hours ago, Foebane72 said:

 

I should stop dissing a method of playing games (consoles) just because my own experience of one was poor. Sorry, everyone.

 

 

Oh, OK :)

 

Apology accepted.

 

See next part.

 

 

This is it, the re-design of the monsters. Sorry I didn't mention it before. My thoughts on seeing them was "why fix what ain't broken?" A redesign for Doom 3 was necessary because of the move from 2D sprites to high-poly 3D objects, but Doom 64 still used sprites. Why change 'em? I mean (and correct me if I'm wrong) but doesn't Doom RPG still retain the look of the original monsters?

 

 

I think Doom RPG uses some of the older designs, yeah, though that's more out of a directional choice I think. Doom 64, as others have noted, was going for a different vibe, so a redesign was kind of necessary. Also (and this is guesswork on my part), I imagine the darker visuals of D64's graphics would simply be too hard to read on a phone screen (for which the Doom RPG's were designed). The more contrasted looks of the classic sprites are easier to see in that sense. Which is to say; I feel like it had more to do with the choice of platform. Again, this is just guessing... for all I know someone is going to turn around and make Doom 64 for Android now, and it'll be just fine... 

 

With that said, yeah, I can see how they'd be hit or miss depending on taste. Personally, I like the gritty feel and look of it all. I won't go as far as to say "It's so much better and I wish classic Doom had it", but it's nice and different. 

[Foebane72]

5 hours ago, mrthejoshmon said:

I need links.

 

I neeeeed them, please.

 

Here are my Doom 2 levels attached.

 

The archives all have the same date, that's cos I use the same date/time throughout all my files, as I prefer not to worry about them.

 

Also, my deathmatch maps have decorations all over them, I made them before I got into deathmatching proper and only then found out that pure DM levels are very minimalist with the decorations, if any at all. If there is a program other than an editor to remove them temporarily, I don't mind.

 

I'm particularly proud of the SP maps UAC Bunker and Lethal Traps. Enjoy!

 

Aaron FoebaneMaps.zip

[Tartlman]

23 hours ago, seed said:

 

Well, D64 did want to take a more horror approach, similar to PSX Doom but unlike classic Doom, so it became darker and felt more hostile as a result. Can't have very bright colors and areas and still feel intimidating, usually, though there are plenty of exceptions to this rule in the later maps.

 

Still, with all the colored lightning I would never say it looks bland by any means though. And enemies blend in with the environment quite gracefully I daresay - the Nightmare Imps do a mighty fine job here.

well you know what they say, beauty is in they eye of the beholder. I just personally think that big lighting contrast in environments makes things look better.

[Boaby Kenobi]

On 2/26/2020 at 4:46 PM, Taurus Daggerknight said:

 

Didn't they use sculptures for some of them? Could have sworn I've seen some photos of the pinky demon....

 

 

[Taurus Daggerknight]

6 minutes ago, Boaby Kenobi said:

 

 

 

Yup, that's the one!

[Reaverbot]

I tried really, really hard to get into Doom 2016 and I just couldn't manage it. Some things are really good, I fully admit. The modern iterations of the weapons feel really satisfying, the art direction for the demons is pretty cool. Visually overall I think it looks really nice.

 

But the gameplay? I just kept bouncing off of that. It's somewhere between your average modern shooter crossed with Serious Sam or Painkiller, with you constantly getting locked into static arenas, and I have always really despised that because fighting in FPS games always works best in conjunction with creative level design to better facilitate interesting fights. In Doom 2016, ever fight feels almost identical to me. I'm running in circles, dudes are running and jumping around in boring places, and I just keep shooting them until I stop finding dudes. And that's to say nothing of other nitpicks that bother me about the gameflow like the useless and shallow upgrade system and the constant encouragement to do stupid brutal doom finishing moves.
 

Games like Dusk and Ion Maiden/Fury prove that original concepts with classic fps level design are still attainable. I wish someone would take those design ideas and apply it to something as visually impressive as Doom 4. Until then, I'm probably not going to touch Eternal because it just looks like more of the same

 

 

[jazzmaster9]

3 hours ago, Reaverbot said:

Games like Dusk and Ion Maiden/Fury prove that original concepts with classic fps level design are still attainable.

Attainable, yes. But keep in mind that those games are made to Emulate the Nostalgia of Old shooters, while Doom 2016 aims to be a modernized and bring Doom to new audiences while keep the old guards coming back.

 

3 hours ago, Reaverbot said:

constant encouragement to do stupid brutal doom finishing moves.

here we go again, Brutal Doom didn't create Fatalities.. there is this game from the 90s called Mortal Kombat. I believe there were 4 main games made during that decade.

Edited February 29, 2020 by jazzmaster9

[Foebane72]

4 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

Attainable, yes. But keep in mind that those games are made to Emulate the Nostalgia of Old shooters, while Doom 2016 aims to be a modernized and bring Doom to new audiences while keep the old guards coming back.

 

here we go again, Brutal Doom didn't create Fatalities.. there is this game from the 90s called Mortal Kombat. I believe there were 4 main games made during that decade.

 

Reaverbot is saying he doesn't like Glory Kills, and to be honest, I don't like that you have to perform them to get more health, so I don't like them neither. In fact, I hate the whole "push forward combat" system of Doom 2016, as opposed to what older shooters were doing, and if Doom Eternal is going to be more of the same but much more intense, count me out.

 

Basically, JazzMaster9, NOT EVERYONE likes these new Doom games.

 

[jazzmaster9]

5 hours ago, Foebane72 said:

In fact, I hate the whole "push forward combat" system of Doom 2016, as opposed to what older shooters were doing, 

 

Again Doom 2016's aim is to not just be a  copy-paste of the older games but to modernize it and bring their own spin.

 

5 hours ago, Foebane72 said:

Basically, JazzMaster9, NOT EVERYONE likes these new Doom games.

Really? I didnt notice after you posted 300 times about hating it?

[Reaverbot]

16 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

Attainable, yes. But keep in mind that those games are made to Emulate the Nostalgia of Old shooters, while Doom 2016 aims to be a modernized and bring Doom to new audiences while keep the old guards coming back.

 

here we go again, Brutal Doom didn't create Fatalities.. there is this game from the 90s called Mortal Kombat. I believe there were 4 main games made during that decade.

 

I don't like Doom 2016's attempt to modernize it and find those games immensely more fun than it, which was my entire point. Their level design is smarter, and as a result it's got way more memorable fights even with way simpler enemy AI and attack patterns.

 

And I never said Brutal Doom created fatalities, so i don't know why you're giving me a hilariously condescending lecture about mortal kombat. Even if the fatality system wasn't inspired by BD (and I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn't considering how much BD had blown up around that time), it's still pretty annoying that the game is pushing you to watch the same couple dozen canned animations over and over again if you want to keep topping off your health and ammo. Honestly there should have been a mode or option to switch those off.

[jazzmaster9]

1 hour ago, Reaverbot said:

 

I don't like Doom 2016's attempt to modernize it and find those games immensely more fun than it, which was my entire point. Their level design is smarter, and as a result it's got way more memorable fights even with way simpler enemy AI and attack patterns.

 

Smarter Memorable. Thats really super subjective. I think Doom 2016 struck a great balance for Old and modern. I would have been disappointed if it was just Doom 1 with HD textures.

 

When it comes to glory kills.

"You choose the buttons you press". - id Software

Edited February 29, 2020 by jazzmaster9

[Nine Inch Heels]

To be honest, the glory kills weren't something I was a big fan of. And there was no option for gaining the health you would have gotten from from glory kills, but without having to actually do those glory kills in the game. Glory kills felt a bit "disruptive" due to their stop-and-go nature, to me anyway.

 

As much as the constant complaints by the same people are getting on my nerves, "you control the buttons you press" is a seriously weak and hollow argument, and I'm honestly surprised people are buying into it as much as it seems to be the case. There is an incentive for pressing these buttons (gain health), and a downside to not pressing them (not gaining health in a game where staying alive depends on health). Likewise, there are going to be incentives for using DE's arsenal at certain times in certain ways, and downsides to not using it, because the game is designed around these mechanics. It's the nature of every game to reward players for doing something right, as much as it is the nature of every game to put players in a worse spot for doing something wrong. Developers and game designers spent a good amount of time on new mechanics. Would they spend time and money on gameplay mechanics that don't make any difference for the player? I seriously doubt that.

 

No sane person would defend a "pay 2 win system" in a game by way of saying "You control what you spend money on", at least I wouldn't do that, because there is an incentive for spending that money, sometimes even a pretty big one at that. The same principle applies to glory kills, they provide players with an advantage that will make a huge difference over time, and if you don't like those glory kills, you're either making life much harder for yourself by not doing them, or you do them in spite of how you feel about them, since you want to eventually beat the game.

Edited February 29, 2020 by Nine Inch Heels

[Taurus Daggerknight]

19 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

To be honest, the glory kills weren't something I was a big fan of. And there was no option for gaining the health you would have gotten from from glory kills, but without having to actually do those glory kills in the game. Glory kills felt a bit "disruptive" due to their stop-and-go nature, to me anyway.

 

As much as the constant complaints by the same people are getting on my nerves, "you control the buttons you press" is a seriously weak and hollow argument, and I'm honestly surprised people are buying into it as much as it seems to be the case. There is an incentive for pressing these buttons (gain health), and a downside to not pressing them (not gaining health in a game where staying alive depends on health). Likewise, there are going to be incentives for using DE's arsenal at certain times in certain ways, and downsides to not using it, because the game is designed around these mechanics. It's the nature of every game to reward players for doing something right, as much as it is the nature of every game to put players in a worse spot for doing something wrong. Developers and game designers spent a good amount of time on new mechanics. Would they spend time and money on gameplay mechanics that don't make any difference for the player? I seriously doubt that.

 

No sane person would defend a "pay 2 win system" in a game by way of saying "You control what you spend money on", at least I wouldn't do that, because there is an incentive for spending that money, sometimes even a pretty big one at that. The same principle applies to glory kills, they provide players with an advantage that will make a huge difference over time, and if you don't like those glory kills, you're either making life much harder for yourself by not doing them, or you do them in spite of how you feel about them, since you want to eventually beat the game.

 

Big issue though; the whole "you control the buttons you press" argument was only originally issued out to a nag about how ice grenades are bad. The iD response was basically to just not use it if you don't like it. They didn't use the statement as applies to glory kills as far as I know, so... yeah, people bringing that up in response to GK feelings is a bit odd. 

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 minute ago, Taurus Daggerknight said:

Big issue though; the whole "you control the buttons you press" argument was only originally issued out to a nag about how ice grenades are bad.

Same principle as glory kills: Devs put them in for a reason, they provide an advantage when used correctly, not using them is going to make certain situations more difficult.

[Taurus Daggerknight]

2 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Same principle as glory kills: Devs put them in for a reason, they provide an advantage when used correctly, not using them is going to make certain situations more difficult.

 

Oh sure. I 'm just saying the argument of what buttons you push was never used on the Glory Kill system by ID. They've been pretty clear that Glory Kills are necessary in Eternal. 

 

I feel like in 2016 they were a tad more optional though.