Doom Year Zero coming from Bethesda

[Quasar]

3 hours ago, Rudolph said:

That explains why Cliff Bleszinski pitched the original Unreal as "the anti-Quake".

 

I myself do not remember ever being scared by Classic Doom; as a kid, I thought it looked badass, actually. The same goes for Quake, even as I witnessed a relative get their ass repeatedly kicked by the two Fiends after grabbing the Rocket Launcher in E2M4: The Ebon Fortress.

 

I wonder how I would have reacted to Playstation Doom and Doom 64, however; those, unfortunately, I only discovered much later in life. I do remember noticing Doom 64's box on a shelf at a video rental store, but I did not actually get to play it or even see it in action.

It'll vary in the eye of the beholder. I just know for me, some areas just gave me the creeps. I still dislike that dark maze area of Halls of the Damned, it creeps me out completely.

 

Also, the baron's roar was something else. That corner in Deimos Lab where you see the baron pic and then there's a baron around the corner comes to mind as intimidating/dreadful. Other parts of that level were also spooky, with the flashing lights at the beginning for example.

[Rudolph]

2 minutes ago, Quasar said:

Also, the baron's roar was something else. That corner in Deimos Lab where you see the baron pic and then there's a baron around the corner comes to mind as intimidating/dreadful. Other parts of that level were also spooky, with the flashing lights at the beginning for example.

Incidentally, playing Doom 64 with the Sound Caulking PS1 mod for the first time did cause me to get creeped out when I first heard the replacement active grunt for the Hell Knight: since it sounds nothing like anything I have heard in Doom before, I spent several seconds wondering what it was, if it even came from the game or if some demonic force had taken over the game. XD

[Man of Doom]

8 hours ago, Quasar said:

This was while Hugo was claiming that Doom has always been about the power fantasy and a roid-raging hero who is never afraid of anything.

While I am someone who will defend many of nuDoom’s aspects and why they might work in one way or another, I do admit it’s far from perfect.

 

This got exacerbated with Eternal, but 2016 especially got this weird trend started of “ha ha even the demons fear Doomguy”.

 

The thing with the larger Doom franchise that I feel should be a part of it is that the demons should be scary, and that nuDoom somehow managed to take away so much of their menace.

 

Partially thanks to the meme culture of “LOCAL MAN TOO ANGRY TO DIE” and whatnot, now the demons have essentially been reduced to a literal punchline if that makes sense.

 

At least with Eternal, the demons do put up more of a fight from a gameplay sense, but by the end of 2016, all those super-scary demons pretty much end up turning into cannon fodder.

And to me, that’s about as far from the terrifying creatures they used to be.

 

 

Also, I do admit that Hugo Martin’s take of “Doomguy was always a super-elite badass who makes the demons fear him” is kind of strange, especially given that his first exposure to the franchise was Doom 64 of all things.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Man of Doom

[Rudolph]

47 minutes ago, Man of Doom said:

Also, I do admit that Hugo Martin’s take of “Doomguy was always a super-elite badass who makes the demons fear him” is kind of strange, especially given that his first exposure to the franchise was Doom 64 of all things.

Then again, Doom 64 is the third entry in the series chronologically, so I think it is fair to assume that the demons would have grown afraid of the man who has single-highhandedly thwarted their plans twice. Also, the fact that Doomguy was still willing to face off against the forces of Hell at that point does make him quite the badass. I am still not a fan of making him into gun-toting Kratos, but at least, that portrayal does not come out of nowhere.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Rudolph

[Caffeine Freak]

11 hours ago, Quasar said:

In 1993, Doom was scary as fuck. I know that's impossible for the kids to conceive of these days. People said the same thing about corny old Universal monster films though. People fainted in the theaters back then. Now they look ridiculous to us because our imaginations are blown out from decades of high-fidelity media exposure.

 

Honestly, I don't think it's hard for kids to conceive of though; just take a look at the react video from some years back of teens playing classic Doom in the lead-up to Doom 2016's release. They're clearly engaged with the game in a way where they're tensed up and freaking out in some situations, even while playing it in a well-lit room. Sure, they're not exactly cowering in fear, but the atmosphere and audio feedback of the game are sucking them in. The point is, classic Doom can still bring out this reaction in people today, including young people who are accustomed to state of the art Hollywood CGI. 

 

2 hours ago, Man of Doom said:

Also, I do admit that Hugo Martin’s take of “Doomguy was always a super-elite badass who makes the demons fear him” is kind of strange, especially given that his first exposure to the franchise was Doom 64 of all things.

 

I would argue that one's impression of who Doomguy was or wasn't in the classic games depends on what aspects of the games you paid most attention to. Some of the text screens certainly paint the protagonist in a way where you could conceive the demons were afraid of him(why else would the Spider Mastermind send forth its legions of Hellspawn?), and the small amount of inner dialogue in Doomguy's head is one of a vengeful person who is going to make Hell sorry it ever heard of him and doesn't care what he has to go through to do it. They definitely don't stretch it to the extent of the modern games, but the 'elite badass' element is still there.

 

Now, depending on how much the story of the games mean to you, I think that *really* has an impact on how the overall tone of those games stands out in your mind. It could be that it was always much more of an intimidating horror experience for some folks when they first played it(although I agree more with @Murdoch in that I never regarded the game as particularly scary, just extremely intense and immersive). For that category of Doomers, I think it's likely they never had the sort of 'badass' mindset the modern Dooms really force you into when they initially played the old games, and so that's how those older games stand out in their minds today. 

[Quasar]

4 hours ago, Caffeine Freak said:

I would argue that one's impression of who Doomguy was or wasn't in the classic games depends on what aspects of the games you paid most attention to.

It's true and a good point. Sometimes he was a badass. Sometimes he was threatening to crack and go crazy. And sometimes I'd imagine he had to be frightful, because courage isn't the absence of fear, it's the willingness to act despite it.

 

The problem is how a selective attention turned into a feedback loop which eliminated any room for competing interpretations or alternate perspectives from the game's aesthetics and playloop. What were previously spooky or atmospheric moments can no longer fit in because everything must be amped to 11 at all times. It's just an unfortunate set of blinders from my POV.

[BGreener]

The way one interprets the original cover art feels pretty indicative of the identity of “Doom”. Some see the cover marine as valiantly holding back demons, others think he’s absolutely going to die in a few moments.

 

You can see the scars from that encounter while playing the newest Doom title. This is fairly indicative of them steering into that “badass” direction and away from my ideal “awesome/uh oh” balance.

[Rudolph]

Doom is in more or less the same situation as Evil Dead (which was most likely an inspiration): should it be horror, splatstick or badass action? I guess it really depends on who is directing at that time.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Rudolph

[Lila Feuer]

23 hours ago, Rudolph said:

Then again, Doom 64 is the third entry in the series chronologically, so I think it is fair to assume that the demons would have grown afraid of the man who has single-highhandedly thwarted their plans twice. Also, the fact that Doomguy was still willing to face off against the forces of Hell at that point does make him quite the badass. I am still not a fan of making him into gun-toting Kratos, but at least, that portrayal does not come out of nowhere.

 

D64 has the best ending in the entire series, it is not corny at all, it was unironically fucking metal that he stays behind to ensure no demon will ever escape from hell again. Actually badass. That would make sense now as to why they would fear him after that. I imagine this is why Hugo has this image of Doomguy.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Lila Feuer

[Caffeine Freak]

1 hour ago, Lila Feuer said:

 

D64 has the best ending in the entire series, it is not corny at all, it was unironically fucking metal that he stays behind to ensure no demon will ever escape from hell again. Actually badass. That would make sense now as to why they would fear him after that. I imagine this is why Hugo has this image of Doomguy.

 

I specifically recall Hugo saying pretty much this exact thing in an interview somewhere---though it's hard to say where, seeing as he did a lot of interviews both with the press and with Doom Youtuber channels. Something along the lines of 'at the end of Doom 64, the Doomguy literally stays behind in hell to make sure nothing else comes out. I mean, what could be more badass than that?'

 

17 hours ago, Quasar said:

It's true and a good point. Sometimes he was a badass. Sometimes he was threatening to crack and go crazy. And sometimes I'd imagine he had to be frightful, because courage isn't the absence of fear, it's the willingness to act despite it.

 

The problem is how a selective attention turned into a feedback loop which eliminated any room for competing interpretations or alternate perspectives from the game's aesthetics and playloop. What were previously spooky or atmospheric moments can no longer fit in because everything must be amped to 11 at all times. It's just an unfortunate set of blinders from my POV.

 

Yeah, it could easily be argued that they made a similar mistake as what Doom 3 made (leaning too heavily into horror), but going in the opposite direction. I personally don't like that there's no room for horror in the modern games---even though I prefer Eternal and 2016 over Doom 3, I really dig the atmospheric richness of D3. 2016 hit a pretty sweet spot in the atmosphere department(though it never went quite into horror mode), thanks in part to the more moody, balanced lighting and overall slower pace when compared with Eternal. By contrast, Eternal amped up the environmental lighting in service of the combat, attached individual lighting rigs to all the enemies to ensure the player could see them, and subsequently toned down the atmosphere. It was a calculated sacrifice that, having personally talked to a good number of the team members, I know id were fully aware they were making. They chose a direction and went full force in that direction. I love the results---Eternal has a way of sucking you into the combat in a way no other Doom game does, IMO---but there's elements of the game that suffer as a result. 

I remember Hugo saying in a livestream that it would be impractical for id to expect to go further in the combat direction that Eternal has, simply because Eternal pushes it about as hard as a game reasonably could. Hopefully, they're ready to expand and explore some different directions with future Doom titles. Fingers crossed.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Caffeine Freak

[BGreener]

1 hour ago, Caffeine Freak said:

Something along the lines of 'at the end of Doom 64, the Doomguy literally stays behind in hell to make sure nothing else comes out. I mean, what could be more badass than that?'

It’s also kind of bittersweet to me: He’s literally doomed to stay in hell to fight demons forever. No future, no kids, no break, no more pet bunnies, no chance of anything else - this is his life now.

[Rudolph]

1 hour ago, Caffeine Freak said:

I remember Hugo saying in a livestream that it would be impractical for id to expect to go further in the combat direction that Eternal has, simply because Eternal pushes it about as hard as a game reasonably could.

They could always team up with Capcom and make a Mega Man X first-person shooter. :P

 

I mean, why not? Many of Iguana Entertainment went from brutal, gory Turok to family-friendly Metroid Prime, so it would not be too much of a stretch to have Id Software start making Mega Man games! XD

Edited September 27, 2023 by Rudolph

[Lila Feuer]

2 hours ago, Caffeine Freak said:

I personally don't like that there's no room for horror in the modern games---even though I prefer Eternal and 2016 over Doom 3, I really dig the atmospheric richness of D3. 2016 hit a pretty sweet spot in the atmosphere department(though it never went quite into horror mode), thanks in part to the more moody, balanced lighting and overall slower pace when compared with Eternal.

 

Yeah Doom 3 is too horror for action fans and Eternal specifically is the opposite end of the same issue. 2016 was still sharing a lot of DNA with D3's aesthetic while still being faster with action but not too fast. It was honestly the sweet spot for a nu-Doom. Although I still lament never getting to see Doom 4 as a side game.

 

Eternal does have fantastic combat though, it's my favorite thing about that game.

[Gez]

On mardi 26 septembre 2023 at 9:38 PM, Caffeine Freak said:

I would argue that one's impression of who Doomguy was or wasn't in the classic games depends on what aspects of the games you paid most attention to. Some of the text screens certainly paint the protagonist in a way

I'll just not in passing that Doom E4 postdates the original Doom and Doom II, and you can see a very clear tonal shift. That E4 end text is just goofy. "Potential pain and gibbitude", really? As well as the whole Daisy thing where they decided to retcon the dead bunny from the E3 end screen into having been Doomguy's pet. It's not serious, they just had fun writing some silliness. One could say the same thing about the NRFTL end text for Doom II, where Doomguy apparently interprets all those levels he just went through as having been a theme park for demons; and ending that brings to mind that of Monkey Island 2 more than that of a Doom game.

[129thVisplane]

i will stop my "haha doom 2016 sequel when" shitposting for just a second to say that if this game does come out someday, and its gameplay is anywhere near the speedfuck insane movement shooter loop of the 2020 series entry, i will be very sad and will only consider acknowledging its existence if it has a game speed accessibility slider like ultrakill, if even then. i really, really dont like the direction doom has gone and how a lot of modern indie games take the exact cues from it that ruined it for me, at least gameplay wise.

 

anyway haha doom 2016 sequel when. cmon id im still waiting on getting that sword back

[Jayextee]

If a new DOOM game is anything like Ultrakill then it can get the fuck away from me.

 

3 hours ago, Caffeine Freak said:

remember Hugo saying in a livestream that it would be impractical for id to expect to go further in the combat direction that Eternal has, simply because Eternal pushes it about as hard as a game reasonably could.

Nah, I pretty much agree 100% here. I enjoyed Eternal, but not at first due to this. Game really took its time sweetening me on its whole deal where 2016 was a more love-at-first-play affair. If the 'Zero' part of 'Year Zero' indicates a move backwards in this respect I'll be one of the (few? :P) people who won't mind that one bit.

[Caffeine Freak]

35 minutes ago, Lila Feuer said:

 

Yeah Doom 3 is too horror for action fans and Eternal specifically is the opposite end of the same issue. 2016 was still sharing a lot of DNA with D3's aesthetic while still being faster with action but not too fast. It was honestly the sweet spot for a nu-Doom. Although I still lament never getting to see Doom 4 as a side game.

 

Eternal does have fantastic combat though, it's my favorite thing about that game.

 

You can also really see a lot of Doom 3's influence in the atmosphere of 2016, with the Martian skies and deep, resonant soundtrack in the slower sections. Not only that, but if you go back and watch the 2015 E3 Doom reveal, you'll see a much slower-paced combat experience and darker, moodier moments in between the fighting that are contain even MORE of Doom 3's DNA. I love all of that, but at the same time, I'm also glad 2016 found it's own voice in the end and wasn't just 'Doom 3, but with better graphics and a better shotgun'.

 

Eternal's combat is really on another level, and on that note, I agree with @Jayextee in that it was something you had to grow into. 2016's combat was intense as well, but a lot more accessible. I was fully immersed in 2016 within 20 minutes. With Eternal, I played the game for several hours, then stopped and asked myself 'okay, why am I not enjoying this as much as I know I should be?' And it was really because I was trying to play it the same way I had played 2016. Once I stopped doing that and played the game the way it was meant to be played, was when I really fell in love with it.

[OpenRift]

I think if id really is making a new Doom game, then I hope they've learned from community feedback on Eternal and steer moreso back towards the "easy to pick up, hard to master" approach that stands at the core of Doom's design. The problem that this can run into is that from the perspective of being a AAA game, the gameplay could end up being a bit too basic for it to stand out. Doom's formula has to evolve to some degree in order for it to be successful, while also retaining some of the core design ideas that made the original games so good to begin with and forged the franchise's identity. Doom 2016 I think had some pretty good ideas that made the game fresh while still feeling like a Doom game. Doom Eternal, while there are some aesthetic elements that feel somewhat more Doom-esque than 2016, felt like a very ambitious departure from what Doom is as a shooter. Like the zeitgeist is retained, at the cost of simplicity and player freedom. This in turn has a large effect on replay value, making subsequent playthroughs feel a lot more samey than they would otherwise be under a simpler design philosophy.

 

Hopefully they've been listening and make the right choices, assuming this game does happen.

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

1 hour ago, OpenRift said:

I think if id really is making a new Doom game, then I hope they've learned from community feedback on Eternal and steer moreso back towards the "easy to pick up, hard to master" approach that stands at the core of Doom's design. The problem that this can run into is that from the perspective of being a AAA game, the gameplay could end up being a bit too basic for it to stand out. Doom's formula has to evolve to some degree in order for it to be successful, while also retaining some of the core design ideas that made the original games so good to begin with and forged the franchise's identity. Doom 2016 I think had some pretty good ideas that made the game fresh while still feeling like a Doom game. Doom Eternal, while there are some aesthetic elements that feel somewhat more Doom-esque than 2016, felt like a very ambitious departure from what Doom is as a shooter. Like the zeitgeist is retained, at the cost of simplicity and player freedom. This in turn has a large effect on replay value, making subsequent playthroughs feel a lot more samey than they would otherwise be under a simpler design philosophy.

 

Hopefully they've been listening and make the right choices, assuming this game does happen.

I agree completely. It's hard for me to have faith in modern id when it comes to listening to their customers. In fact, they seem to spite them sometimes - people who complained about the marauder, the lack of freedom overall, having to use specific weapons, etc. in Doom Eternal had their cries answered with DLC that doubled down on everything id knew they didn't like.

[Lila Feuer]

17 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

In fact, they seem to spite them sometimes - people who complained about the marauder, the lack of freedom overall, having to use specific weapons, etc. in Doom Eternal had their cries answered with DLC that doubled down on everything id knew they didn't like.

That's pretty egregious, but still not as bad as what MachineGames did to Wolfenstein. "TNO is way, way too hard for all the wrong reasons." "Okay, we'll completely ignore this feedback and make our next game even harder, for the wrong reasons yet again."

[OliveTree]

i think this commentary kind of misses how a lot of the adjustments in Doom Eternal itself come from player reactions to Doom 2016 (like having a better final act)

[OpenRift]

6 hours ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

I agree completely. It's hard for me to have faith in modern id when it comes to listening to their customers. In fact, they seem to spite them sometimes - people who complained about the marauder, the lack of freedom overall, having to use specific weapons, etc. in Doom Eternal had their cries answered with DLC that doubled down on everything id knew they didn't like.

I mean realistically I don't think they could course-correct the game like that. The reception for the game from launch to its last DLC (aside from the ever-present boomer grumbling) was actually pretty good, so they didn't really have much of a reason to change direction. I don't really have much of a problem with modern id itself, but I think some of the studios they associate with aren't really the best. Namely Machine Games with their most recent Wolfenstein games and Saber with that god-awful engine they used for Quake Champions. Despite these shortcomings, I still have some faith in id (and Machine Games), especially with the recent Quake remasters (I know that was also Nightdive as well, but that's another topic). There hasn't been much else that they've done after Doom Eternal besides those two, and if the waves that Quake II remastered has made are any indicator, I speculate there might be a creative shift in their design. But we'll have to see, come December 10th. Either way, I'm still interested to see what they're working on.

 

...It better fucking not be Rage 3. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by OpenRift

[Lila Feuer]

Impossible, Rage was Tim's IP and the sequel iirc was a commercial failure. That "series" is over.

 

He also left id.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Lila Feuer

[Rudolph]

1 hour ago, Lila Feuer said:

Impossible, Rage was Tim's IP and the sequel iirc was a commercial failure. That "series" is over.

 

He also left id.

Was the original Rage also not a commercial failure? I do not even understand how it got a sequel in the first place.

[Quasar]

13 hours ago, OliveTree said:

i think this commentary kind of misses how a lot of the adjustments in Doom Eternal itself come from player reactions to Doom 2016 (like having a better final act)

They were not, I would argue, the adjustments that were necessary to fix that particular problem. That could have been done with more enemy variety alone, for example, or additional weapons. After the Argent Tower, the only new enemy to appear is the Baron IIRC.

 

Changing the entire combat formula in the way it was done was done because that's what they wanted, not because of external feedback. Whether you think it's good, bad, or something in between, that's for id to own.

[Lila Feuer]

41 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Was the original Rage also not a commercial failure? I do not even understand how it got a sequel in the first place.

 

Okay yeah that's right, and just the thing, how the hell did it get a sequel? It was also doing a very brief trend with this pink and yellow "fun post-apocalypse" that one other game copied (some FarCry sidegame) and then that was it.

 

@Quasar Yep it was a direct response to their own internal design, they saw how they handled things in 2016 and sought out to "do better."

[Jayextee]

12 hours ago, OpenRift said:

...It better fucking not be Rage 3. 

I wouldn't mind this.

That's it, you just found the one person here (probably) who liked both RAGE games.

[Rudolph]

3 hours ago, Lila Feuer said:

Okay yeah that's right, and just the thing, how the hell did it get a sequel?

Now, to be fair, I am not against unsuccessful IPs being given a second chance and RAGE is not a bad concept in itself.

 

It is just that in this industry, it is so uncommon to see that happen. Heck, we are at a point where even successful games do not get sequels!

Edited September 28, 2023 by Rudolph

[OpenRift]

5 hours ago, Quasar said:

  

Changing the entire combat formula in the way it was done was done because that's what they wanted, not because of external feedback. Whether you think it's good, bad, or something in between, that's for id to own.

While I'm sure that the expicit changes weren't based on feedback (I don't think anyone was suggesting anything like what they decided to with Eternal lol), the positive feedback of Doom 2016 probably bolstered their confidence in making these changes. While Eternal's reception has been good, I think it is comparatively more mixed than that of 2016 from what I hear from people, so they may be taking some of this feedback into consideration this time around. At least, I hope so. I'd really hate for id to get cocky in their design decisions.

[Man of Doom]

21 hours ago, Jayextee said:

 

If a new DOOM game is anything like Ultrakill then it can get the fuck away from me.

 

Hugo Martin has also confirmed that their next game will play more like “driving a monster truck” whereas Eternal’s gameplay was like “driving a Ferrari”.

 

I suspect that this next title will be less about unrelenting speed and more about destructibility.

 

5 hours ago, Quasar said:

They were not, I would argue, the adjustments that were necessary to fix that particular problem. That could have been done with more enemy variety alone, for example, or additional weapons. After the Argent Tower, the only new enemy to appear is the Baron IIRC.

From what I remember, these enemies popped up after the Kadingir Sanctum:

 

Pinky (destroyed Argent Facility)

Cyber-Mancubus (Advanced Research Complex)

Spectre (Necropolis)

 

Even so, both the Cacodemon and Lost Soul showed up around the same time as the Baron.