Destructoid rank Doom games

[Wyrmwood]

https://www.destructoid.com/best-doom-games-ranked/

 

Sure you guys would love to find out the actual best Doom games ranked (according to an asshole who doesn't sound like he's played them). The worst piece of trash journalism I've come across for a while.

[Metal_Slayer]

He literally ranked them in release order (apart from Sigil), but the inclusion of Brutal Doom in this list and in third place is the worst, the author doesn't care about the quality of the gameplay and seems to like only superficial aspects.

[dasho]

Par for the course for game """journalism"""

[baja blast rd.]

Rankings are who cares. Counterfactual: imagine the order is actually good. Now what? No info gained, waste of time. Can't imagine opening a top whatever (10, 20, 50, 100) of anything and caring about what the order is.
 

The only potential value is the actual writing and even from a skim there are plenty of bits that are more contentious on their own than the whole ranked order, like:

 

Quote

7. Sigil (2019)
...

Sigil also introduces new weapons

...

Strengths: This is the original Doom II gameplay at its freshest. 

 

Quote

3. Brutal Doom (2010)

... We also know we would be doing such a mod-friendly series a disservice if we were to ignore its greatest mod

 

[HavoX]

I remember @Julian saying this one time: Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[Wyrmwood]

13 minutes ago, HavoX said:

I remember @Julian saying this one time: Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

Yeah I agree, if someone likes Doom Eternal best that's fine, they are of course entitled to their opinion. It wasn't the rankings that got me as riled as much as the overall writing, the inclusion of Sigil as a game (with incorrect info, I don't recall any new guns or enemies) while failing to mention pwads for Doom/Doom2 but the real biggie was putting a mod for Doom at no.3 when they ranked the actual games at no.9 and 10.

 

It's a lazy filler piece but they could of a least put some effort in and gave the job to a journalist that at least knew what they were talking about.

[Burgish]

Are these... are these just ranked by release date?  I think these are ranked by release date.

 

*Edit: apart from Sigil... but seeing as the bottom is stacked with the OG Doom releases its barely an exception

Edited June 4, 2023 by Burgish_Nilwert

[Doomkid]

17 hours ago, Wyrmwood said:

Sure you guys would love to find out the actual best Doom games ranked (according to an asshole who doesn't sound like he's played them).

LOL

 

god damn he didn’t hold back, he even pulled out the “Doom isn’t 3D” line for shit’s sake..

 

Top shelf trash, stinks to high heaven, thank you for sharing

[Individualised]

I mean the fact that it's mostly just the games ranked in chronological order tells me that this person has indeed, never played these games. The way they talk about the games tells me they have zero experience except for maybe playing the first level. Maybe they've played through the modern Doom games but not so much the classic ones.

 

Also the whole "Final Doom is an expansion" thing. I don't care what id consider it now or what the original box art said, it was a standalone product that did not need any other Doom game to play. Not as much of an offence as "Doom isn't 3D" but still something that irks me.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Individualised

[Rudolph]

18 hours ago, Wyrmwood said:

https://www.destructoid.com/best-doom-games-ranked/

 

Sure you guys would love to find out the actual best Doom games ranked (according to an asshole who doesn't sound like he's played them). The worst piece of trash journalism I've come across for a while.

This sounds unnecessarily harsh and even kind of mean-spirited. :S

 

I do not quite agree with their ranking (I much prefer Classic Doom to the newer Doom titles, although I have learned to respect Doom 3 for what it tried to do and Doom 2016 for doing away with hitscanners altogether, and I would have definitely given Playstation Doom a mention), but their justifications seem fair enough. Plus I too had a Brutal Doom phase where I could only swear by it, so I get why it would mean so much to them.

 

Nothing worth getting offended as far as I am concerned; the author still comes across as someone who loves Doom.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Rudolph

[Andrea Rovenski]

jesus fuckin christ, free speech was a mistake 😭😭🤣🤣

[ICID]

[Individualised]

Also just noticed "Final Doom adds two new episodes which amount to 32 levels". Either their English or their maths are wrong there, who's to say?

[Rudolph]

Personally, I would rank Doom games in this order:

1. Doom
2. Doom II
3. Doom 64/Playstation Doom
4. Doom 3
5. Final Doom

I am excluding Doom 2016/Doom Eternal and Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil because I do not like them very much and I do not plan on replaying them; Doom RPG 1 & 2 because I have not played them, and The Master Levels for Doom II and SIGIL because I do not consider it like a separate game.

[mrthejoshmon]

 

Uh huh.

With a "Technically not 3D" line to boot? Oh fuck yeah that's great.

Edited June 4, 2023 by mrthejoshmon

[Noiser]

Who cares. Here's my stupid list

By gameplay: 

Doom 2
Doom Eternal

Doom 2016
Doom 64

Doom 1
Doom 3

By presentation:

Doom 1
Doom 2016
Doom Eternal
Doom 64
Doom 3
Doom 2

Edited June 5, 2023 by Noiser

[baja blast rd.]

1 hour ago, Rudolph said:

Personally, I would rank Doom games in this order:

1. Doom
2. Doom II
3. Doom 64/Playstation Doom
4. Doom 3
5. Final Doom

I am excluding Doom 2016/Doom Eternal and Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil because I do not like them very much and I do not plan on replaying them; Doom RPG 1 & 2 because I have not played them, and The Master Levels for Doom II and SIGIL because I do not consider it like a separate game.

This might as well be a randomized list. I'm looking at it and there's no logic there that immediately presents itself. Also, separately, it has no info about the relative gaps, which matter a lot more than the order. For all I know you could have your #1 Doom 9.5/10 and #5 Final Doom 8.5/10, or have them all tightly in the same 0.5/10 band, or have Final Doom as a 4/10 or a 6/10 (each of which would read very differently) that lags way behind the rest, who knows. 

 

I'm just saying that because that's sort of the problem with how people engage with these ranked lists, where they fixate on the list and are like "I disagree with their ranking. My ranking is such-and-such," and don't realize (?) that rankings convey very little info without context so their own "correction" is even worse. (And yes ordered rankings are a problematic format because of the way they fool people who don't know better into thinking they are saying something. But that people inevitably fixate on the rankings part alone shows why it's such a popular format. Engagement bait. :P) 

 

The linked piece's ranking, minus Brutal Doom which makes no categorical sense to include, is whatever. For all we know, Doom could be an 8.5/10 to them and Doom Eternal could be a 9.5/10 (which is a pretty reasonable spread based on the tone of the descriptions), and that ordering would be fine. Not how I'd order it but who cares.

 

The real issue, what tanks that piece's value to nil, is all the misinformation (and misleading information) in the blurbs. 

[Chesspionage]

You’ll never find a ‘top 10 rankings’ list where everyone agrees with the order, however where I take issue with this list is the select treatment of certain WADs, Mods and Episodes as standalone games.

 

Quote

Worry not, though, as our ranking of the Doom games is 100% correct.

I’ve always thought of there being 6 official games in the franchise, but then again that’s also up for debate! (In my mind it’s Doom, Doom 2, Doom 64, Doom 3, Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal.) I’m not trying to start a debate about what constitutes an official, standalone game, just pointing out that the Destructoid list seems to cherry pick what it wants to include. 

[Individualised]

Doom 2 is better than Doom 1. I said it.

Edited January 30 by Individualised
my IWAD opinions have since changed and this post annoyed me when i saw it again

[banjiepixel]

What is Brutal Doom doing in that list? I wish Complex Doom and Hideous Destructor could get some similar attention. My opinion is also that unofficial stuff should be honorable mentions in these kinds of lists.

[Kwisior]

the fuck is a destructoid lmao

[Mr Masker]

This article does not align with my personal beliefs, I will now be sending violent threats to the writers house. That'll show em!

 

But really though, I stopped taking game journalists seriously a looong time ago. Too much water, Kayne and Lynch Gamespot, Giving FIFA's broken mess a 7 EVERY YEAR, the list of crap goes on and on.

[Rudolph]

2 hours ago, Individualised said:

Doom 2 < Doom 1 < Doom 64 < Final Doom. I said it.

Why do you feel that way? Genuine question.

 

2 hours ago, baja blast rd. said:

I'm looking at it and there's no logic there that immediately presents itself.

That is because there is none. Talking about our favorite games and mods is pure feelings, after all. ;)

 

Even the article did not take itself very seriously, so why should we? Not everything has to be a complex introspective essay.

[Individualised]

16 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Why do you feel that way? Genuine question.

Final Doom has my favourite level design out of them all (including Evilution; sorry but it's just not as bad as people say it is), and has much nicer looking levels than Doom 2. Doom 64's atmosphere is awesome but it does have some things I don't like. Doom 2 has the most boring levels in terms of how they look, feel and play to me, Doom 1's levels are much nicer and I also may prefer that game for nostalgia reasons (I'd always get bored of Doom 2 quickly when I was younger but always came back to Doom 1, which is the game that mainly received my attention.)

[Rudolph]

49 minutes ago, Individualised said:

Final Doom has my favourite level design out of them all (including Evilution; sorry but it's just not as bad as people say it is), and has much nicer looking levels than Doom 2. Doom 64's atmosphere is awesome but it does have some things I don't like. Doom 2 has the most boring levels in terms of how they look, feel and play to me, Doom 1's levels are much nicer and I also may prefer that game for nostalgia reasons (I'd always get bored of Doom 2 quickly when I was younger but always came back to Doom 1, which is the game that mainly received my attention.)

I am fairly indifferent about Final Doom in the sense that I neither love nor hate it, which is why I rank it so low, but I pretty much agree with you about the rest. I mostly rank Doom II this high because of all the memorable additions that it brought to the Doom formula; the levels might not be great, but without Doom II, there would be no Doom 64 - even though most of said additions did not make the cut, ironically enough - and definitely no Final Doom! :)

Edited June 4, 2023 by Rudolph

[DeafPixel]

7 hours ago, baja blast rd. said:

Rankings are who cares. Counterfactual: imagine the order is actually good. Now what? No info gained, waste of time. Can't imagine opening a top whatever (10, 20, 50, 100) of anything and caring about what the order is.
 

The only potential value is the actual writing and even from a skim there are plenty of bits that are more contentious on their own than the whole ranked order, like:

 

 

 

Was this article generated by AI?

[Trustanus]

AI? Maybe, but it isn’t far fetched to imagine someone wrote this themselves. This sounds like a quota article, written simply because there needed to be something posted to meet a deadline. That’s usually how freelance game site writing goes. You have to write X amount of articles with X amount of words in X amount of time. This doesn’t feel like a true best of list, just “content”. It reminds me of YouTubers who turn a 2 minute discussion into a 20 minute video to get all the ad revenue they can muster from one subject. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Trustanus

[LexiMax]

10 hours ago, HavoX said:

I remember @Julian saying this one time: Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

Every person is entitled to their good-faith opinion.  It's the kind of argument you use to defend Civvie 11 not liking Redneck Rampage, or James Stephanie Sterling giving both Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom a 7/10.

 

But I think it's clear to the thread that what was linked is either AI-generated or an SEO clickbait article that was rushed out to meet some sort of deadline, which is evident by the fact that it was ranked in release order and hardly makes sense as English.

 

Which just goes to show - if you want good long-form content, you need to pay for it.

Edited June 5, 2023 by LexiMax

[Biodegradable]

This is rather sad since I always held some level of respect for Destructoid as one of the few decent gaming publications. This falls way below their old standards from what I remember anyways. Then again, I stopped reading most of the old gaming news sites like Destructoid, Kotaku and The Escapist many years ago. I learned about this particular style of article at university: Listicles like this are just made to keep the lights on. They're produced to farm clicks and hope those who were baited into viewing it might stick around long enough to read any of the more substantial articles they have to offer, which is why they're usually very poorly made like this one. They don't believe you'd actually read it, so they don't bother putting in the effort. It's the next level up from using ridiculous headlines that barely correspond with the actual articles they're attached to, you know, just to get your attention.

 

It sounds like a terrible idea, but it unfortunately works and has been standard procedure for online publications for the past decade. Once they've got your click, they couldn't care less what you think. The internet is run on The Attention Economy. Your engagement, no matter how brief, is all that matters.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Biodegradable

[baja blast rd.]

21 minutes ago, Biodegradable said:

This is rather sad since I always held some level of respect for Destructoid as one of the few decent gaming publications. This falls way below their old standards from what I remember anyways. Then again, I stopped reading most of the old gaming news sites like Destructoid, Kotaku and The Escapist many years ago. I learned about this particular style of article at university: Listicles like this are just made to keep the lights on. They're produced to farm clicks and hope those who were baited into viewing it might stick around long enough to read any of the more substantial articles they have to offer, which is why they're usually very poorly made like this one. They don't believe you'd actually read it, so they don't bother putting in the effort. It's the next level up from using ridiculous headlines that barely correspond with the actual articles they're attached to, you know, just to get your attention.

 

It sounds like a terrible idea, but it unfortunately works and has been standard procedure for online publications for the past decade. Once they've got your click, they couldn't care less what you think. The internet is run on The Attention Economy. Your engagement, no matter how brief, is all that matters.

 

Yeah, it's also a common tactic among some to deliberately get stuff wrong, exploiting the fact that people love correcting others on the internet, for more engagement. 

 

Top 10 Doom monsters

 

10. The revenant 

 

 

9. The shotgunner

 

 

8. The pain elemental

 

 

(etc.)