What will be Doom 4's appeal?

[_bruce_]

DooM_RO said:

Let me repeat something for you. You will NOT get Doom 2 with better textures and 3D monsters. EVER. Games need to evolve and Doom is no exception.

If they made Doom according to what people like YOU wanted, we would get horrible abominations like this example here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP2IoVkmM3M

Shut up you fickle power bottom.
Maybe you need to evolve too you 'wise cracking' mainstream lemming.

[DooM_RO]

Haha, just listen to yourself. They might as well make the game on the Wolf3D engine to make sure it's classic. If Id had the same mentality as you, they would have made Doom a reskinned Wold3D. Doom was an evolution of the Wolf3D formula and I don't see why evolution is bad.

[schwerpunk]

Easy, chaps. We're all nerds, here. Let's keep it nerdy.

I, too, disagree with you, Doom_RO. Particularly, because of your ill-defined 'evolution' of games. Are we talking about more 'realistic' gameplay and item placement; higher-fidelity graphics; what? Can a game still wear its game-isms prominently (see Wrack) and still advance the genre? More to the point, will people enjoy it? I'd say yes to both. Furthermore, I don't think there's such a thing as stagnation in games; so, even though I'm no fan of CoD's repeated themes, they are definitely trying to explore and perfect a certain type of gameplay.(*) It's kind of shit, but whatever.

Personally, I think a genre can, eh, evolve/explore gameplay/graphics laterally. FPS games are nowhere near done exploring all the possibilities presented from the 90s-00s. Hell, I haven't even seen an open-world game match the richness of Duke3Ds levels yet!

(*Example: If I release a vanilla wad for Doom, am I not 'evolving' Doom maps? I'd say I am, as there's still a lot that can be explored in the vanilla setting.)

[Sergeant_Mark_IV]

_bruce_ said:

Maybe you need to evolve too you 'wise cracking' mainstream lemming.

Being an oldschool fanatic makes you no better. Accepting change is a part of evolution. You are looking like an old man sitting in a wheelchair complaining about heavy metal, saying how the old days when there was only Frank Sinatra playing on the radio were perfect, and guess what, nobody cares about this kind of people.

The main goal of a gaming company is to sell. If they are going to make a game that will only attend to the expectations of 0.5% of the public, they will never make it. Imagine if back in the day, id Software decided to not add teleports, projectile weapons, and tall and confusing elevators because Wolfenstein 3D players would complain?

[DooM_RO]

schwerpunk said:

Easy, chaps. We're all nerds, here. Let's keep it nerdy.

I, too, disagree with you, Doom_RO. Particularly, because of your ill-defined 'evolution' of games. Are we talking about more 'realistic' gameplay and item placement; higher-fidelity graphics; what? Can a game still wear its game-isms prominently (see Wrack) and still advance the genre? More to the point, will people enjoy it? I'd say yes to both. Furthermore, I don't think there's such a thing as stagnation in games; so, even though I'm no fan of CoD's repeated themes, they are definitely trying to explore and perfect a certain type of gameplay. It's kind of shit, but whatever.

Personally, I think a genre can, eh, evolve/explore gameplay/graphics laterally. FPS games are nowhere near done exploring all the possibilities presented from the 90s-00s. Hell, I haven't even seen an open-world game match the richness of Duke3Ds levels yet!

In terms of evolution? Well, in terms of gameplay, it's rather tricky. Even if people don't want to admit it the gameplay in Doom 3 was almost identical to Doom 1's. You can carry all weapons, carry a shitload of ammo, find all weapons faster in secrets. Now you could argue that the gameplay was mediocre and I'd agree but that doesn't mean that it wasn't Doom. If the took what they did in Doom 3 and made everything much much better, from level design, environment variety, monster placement variety, secret variery to combat it would be as close to Doom in a modern game as we'll ever get.

New gameplay possibilities, Episodes with different themes and weapons, alternative fire, upgradeable weapons. These are all features that I see no reason why they wouldn't fit Doom.


As for stagnation, I still maintain my belief that in terms of single player, both Quake games were pretty much just exact replicas of Doom (now with MOAR brown) and that they were the reason for Doom 3's mediocrity. Had they tried harder with Quake 1 and 2, they would have accumulated more experience and the result on Doom 3 would have been better. With Doom 3 the jump from the 90's design to 2004 was too long and it suffered for it. Because of Half Life, People could no longer be impressed just by graphics which were the only thing impressive (in terms of single player) about the Quake games. Had the Quake games come out during 1998 with the same design principles but better graphics, Half Life would have flattened them but they came out during a time when people could still be impressed just by graphics. It was not just the graphics but also the fact that there was a change in perspective in terms of graphics, they were not necessarily beautiful (they were not). Id could have made something the same complexity as Duke3D in 1994 and 1995 but they didn't.


As for your open-world argument, I totally agree. Duke 3D flattens wanna be open world games like Far Cry 3.

[Koko Ricky]

I also agree that Doom 3's gameplay was, fundamentally, nearly identical to the original. Very little plot with lots of gunplay, scary moments, creepy lighting, etc. It was the shit layouts and incredibly unbalanced gameplay mechanics--along with an underwhelming art style--that kept it from being anywhere near as immersive and re-playable as the originals. I think id's smart enough to know where they dropped the ball and smart enough to know that a slick looking engine isn't enough to sell a game anymore. I still have faith they'll at least TRY to make the gameplay and general design more engaging.

[Sergeant_Mark_IV]

GoatLord said:

I think id's smart enough to know where they dropped the ball and smart enough to know that a slick looking engine isn't enough to sell a game anymore.

No. Uh... remember Rage?

[DooM_RO]

I COMPLETELY disagree with your opinion on art style. It was hands down the best part of the game. It was unique and very wholesome to look at and it was a vision of the future.

It still had problems though. While the game had tons of variety, the visual progression had some problems.

While Doom 1 had lots of cramped areas, Doom 3 had ONLY cramped areas due to the engine.

There were only techbases with just a taste a hell.

Visually, as I said it had quite a lot of variety BUT the progression was gradual so we didn't notice it and the sections of the game were quite homogenous.This is made even worse by how long the game was. Alpha Labs was blue, Recycling green, Delta Labs gray, Central Processing was a more direct homage to Doom, Hell was...Hell with a touch of Quake here and there. There was variety but the levels themselves were homogenous and I think this is why people thought it was "samey"

Sergeant_Mark_IV said:

No. Uh... remember Rage?

RAGE at least had fantastic guns.

[Shaviro]

As much as I love classic Doom, I'd be bored out of my mind if all Doom4 had to offer was fast paced well balanced shooting at demons from hell. There is an inherent paradox surrounding the desire for a modern awesome looking Doom game that plays more or less exactly like the classics.

The popular definition for awesome graphics in a video game has historically been graphics that strive for some sort of realistic look. This does not mean grey in grey, dull and boring. It has more to do with the graphics serving the context; Detailing the world and making it believable. Classic Doom hit a sweet spot where you could have your cake and eat it too. It was both abstract and defined at the same time. If you have just an ounce of artistic talent, you can throw almost any odd level into Doom and it will look good. As graphics hardware has progressed, we have come to expect a much more defined experience where computers aren't just flat textures on a wall. The fidelity of everything has increased. I would dare to say it's no longer possible to have a game with a "realistic" approach to graphics and retain the same gameplay as classic Doom. It just doesn't match.

You could go into a more stylistic approach where you mimic the classic look, but this brings us to a problem. It's no longer a 200-man job. They would have to fire the vast majority of their staff. They could do that. Keep the best, make the game. Ready to sell 5 million copies! Wait a minute. I've already played this game. It was fun, but so much has happened since then. It would entertain most people for 10 minutes. We have lots of casual, yet challenging, free games today. Why play this?

I just don't see the point.
The only viable route I see for a modern Doom game would be to find its footing in the modern world and compete on terms that people actually care about. It doesn't have to play like Call of Duty to be a modern shooter you know.

[DooM_RO]

Shaviro said:

It doesn't have to play like Call of Duty to be a modern shooter you know.

Of course not, if they made Call of Doom, it would be a massive cop-out and I would never forgive them. One thing I expect from id is innovation. ALL of their games, regardless of their quality have brought forth some form of innovation and that is why I expect it from them. Id has to make a game that respects classic Doom BUT also brings something new.

If I were in charge, the first thing I would do is make it an Oculus-Rift first experience. The same way they demanded people they get 3D Accelerators in the 90s and forced them to upgrade for Doom 3.

[_bruce_]

Sergeant_Mark_IV said:

Being an oldschool fanatic makes you no better. Accepting change is a part of evolution. You are looking like an old man sitting in a wheelchair complaining about heavy metal, saying how the old days when there was only Frank Sinatra playing on the radio were perfect, and guess what, nobody cares about this kind of people.

The main goal of a gaming company is to sell. If they are going to make a game that will only attend to the expectations of 0.5% of the public, they will never make it. Imagine if back in the day, id Software decided to not add teleports, projectile weapons, and tall and confusing elevators because Wolfenstein 3D players would complain?

There is no oldschool or newschool, there are good games and bad ones. I do not accept change just for the sake of it - it has to make sense and heighten the experience.
Your comparison is void - Doom wasn't Wolfenstein and hence contained new elements and tech.
If you remake something than you ought to have the dignity to keep it like the original, core wise, and add "enhancements" in spurs and only if they better the product.
If you do not want that burden then just start a new franchise - problem solved.

[Sergeant_Mark_IV]

_bruce_ said:

There is no oldschool or newschool, there are good games and bad ones. I do not accept change just for the sake of it - it has to make sense and heighten the experience.
Your comparison is void - Doom wasn't Wolfenstein and hence contained new elements and tech.
If you remake something than you ought to have the dignity to keep it like the original, core wise, and add "enhancements" in spurs and only if they better the product.
If you do not want that burden then just start a new franchise - problem solved.

And that's the problem with enhancements. You just can't enhance Doom into modern gaming standards. It wouldn't work. Sorry if I didn't made the comparison clear, but what I mean is: Doom 4 will be as much different from Classic Doom than Classic Doom was different from Wolfenstein. Yes, it will be this much different. It will look like a completely different franchise.

I will give you an example: the level design.
Doom's originally intended experience heavily relied on its non-linear and abstract level design. This can't work on modern times. Of course, you can make the later city levels (when the world is seeming to be corrupted by hell) and actual hell levels (if there will ever be hell levels) pretty abstract and give some oldschool level design fell, but at the beginning of the game, everything will look like any other modern game, your standard modern game city level design will be obligatory. But this still is not a big issue if compared to level non-linearity. The modern players were born in an era of linear level design. Looking at Metacritic's user comments on Rise of the Triad reboot will give you an idea of what modern players would think of a modern game with 32 levels that requires you to pass thru the same place multiple times to find 3 keys to open locked doors in a sequence. Making a rail shooter like Call of Duty isn't the solution either. In my opinion, I think there should be a mix of level design. You have one linear level when you are running in the streets of a large ruined cities from hordes of demons and exploding everything Michael Bay style, and on other level, you are stuck in an abandoned factory, solving puzzles to progress to new rooms (I picture some puzzles that usually doesnt requires keys, but something that would fit the role of a key. For examplle, going from A to B to find a locked unpowered door, then having to go to C and find a power generator but it lacks the fuel, then you go to D and get some gas, while getting back to C, new enemies have appeared, walls have broken, and the general layout changed a bit, then you power up the generator, unlock the door, and go back to B and fight more monsters that showed up, then proceed to E (area behind the locked door) where you face a final showdown before the level exit). This would add non-linearity to some levels, and make both parties happy, add to variation and prevent the campaign from becoming boring and keeping the players on their toes, always expecting something different from the next level. But seems like the problem is a bit more complicated than this.

And of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, but I just don't want to write another wall of text right now.

[DooM_RO]

Sergeant_Mark_IV said:

And that's the problem with enhancements. You just can't enhance Doom into modern gaming standards. It wouldn't work. Sorry if I didn't made the comparison clear, but what I mean is: Doom 4 will be as much different from Classic Doom than Classic Doom was different from Wolfenstein. Yes, it will be this much different. It will look like a completely different franchise.

I will give you an example: the level design.
Doom's originally intended experience heavily relied on its non-linear and abstract level design. This can't work on modern times. Of course, you can make the later city levels (when the world is seeming to be corrupted by hell) and actual hell levels (if there will ever be hell levels) pretty abstract and give some oldschool level design fell, but at the beginning of the game, everything will look like any other modern game, your standard modern game city level design will be obligatory. But this still is not a big issue if compared to level non-linearity. The modern players were born in an era of linear level design. Looking at Metacritic's user comments on Rise of the Triad reboot will give you an idea of what modern players would think of a modern game with 32 levels that requires you to pass thru the same place multiple times to find 3 keys to open locked doors in a sequence. Making a rail shooter like Call of Duty isn't the solution either. In my opinion, I think there should be a mix of level design. You have one linear level when you are running in the streets of a large ruined cities from hordes of demons and exploding everything Michael Bay style, and on other level, you are stuck in an abandoned factory, solving puzzles to progress to new rooms (I picture some puzzles that usually doesnt requires keys, but something that would fit the role of a key. For examplle, going from A to B to find a locked unpowered door, then having to go to C and find a power generator but it lacks the fuel, then you go to D and get some gas, while getting back to C, new enemies have appeared, walls have broken, and the general layout changed a bit, then you power up the generator, unlock the door, and go back to B and fight more monsters that showed up, then proceed to E (area behind the locked door) where you face a final showdown before the level exit). This would add non-linearity to some levels, and make both parties happy, add to variation and prevent the campaign from becoming boring and keeping the players on their toes, always expecting something different from the next level. But seems like the problem is a bit more complicated than this.

And of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, but I just don't want to write another wall of text right now.

Doom 3 was already reasonably non-linear...at least by modern standards.

There is another problem with nonlinearity though. Back in the day, a room was made with two or three textures and maybe some clutter and was considered realistic. However, you can't just increase the texture resolution and poly count and still call it realistic and not looking jarring and weird. When you increase the quality of any asset, each other asset has to be the same quality. I am not an artist but I've noticed this and is something I call "pixel ratio" meaning things the number of polygons and texture variety a room should be made of should be directly proportional to the number of pixels textures have. I'm not sure if I've explained myself clearly but in essence when you make better textures for instance, you have to improve everything else too.

Now this fine and dandy but adds a problem. Because of all the clutter and extra stuff that is needed, it is harder to make landmarks. It is no longer enough to give a room a weird shape to make it look stand out. And the fact that it is realistic, makes it harder to give rooms weird shapes without them looking weird. Therefore making landmarks would be harder which is why it could be really easy to get lost. In Doom maps I rarely get lost but I have recently played Metro: Last Light, a linear game with just a few secrets and nonlinearity and I found myself lost during the game and the actual layout of the level is not very complex.

The way you described how nonlinearity could work reminds me a LOT of how Machinegames said the levels would be in Wolfenstein: The New Order. Basically some levels will be cinematic and some will be open for exploration. There was this really cool and classic secret in one of the trailers. You were in a room with a big painting and besides the painting there were 2 statues. If you used one if the statues, the player would turn its sword sideways and the painting would open, leading the way to a secret.

[Shaviro]

_bruce_ said:

If you remake something than you ought to have the dignity to keep it like the original, core wise, and add "enhancements" in spurs and only if they better the product.

I see three main reasons to go back and bring something to the modern age.

1) The original was crap. The idea was good, but it was poorly carried out.
2) The original was good, but time has left it inaccessible to the crowd.
3) To put a completely new spin on it.

#1 is obviously not the case. Doom is a classic and it changed the medium forever. #2 seems to hit the spot. It's accessible to the mainstream in the literal sense as it's on (for instance) steam, but it's inaccessible because it doesn't speak the language of modern gamers. So we actually end up somewhere in between #2 and #3. If you remake Doom to be Classic Doom with great textures it will flop as it's not of this age. It could be profitable for a 5 man team, but not for a 200 person AAA powerhouse.

You have to put a new spin on it for it to be relevant.

[Deleted_Account]

Was it ever clarified if Doom 4 would be a continuation of Doom 3 or the original series?

[Shaviro]

According to Kotaku it was initially meant to be a rework of Doom2, which was what everybody was guessing anyway. What it is today is completely unknown though. It could have changed a lot of times since then. Like Carmack said when he left, they had problems trying to find the core of the game.

[DooM_RO]

Considering the kind of discussions we have here, I'm not surprised.

[Touchdown]

"Oldschool" / "Classic DOOM" -styled non-linearity is absolutely possible now. This type of level design is present in games like Deus Ex (more recently Human Revolution), BioShock 1/2, Dishonored. Though I don't quite understand why nowadays it's reserved for hybrid games. The only difference would be that instead of stealth-shooter-hack routes there'd be shooter1-shooter2-shooter3 routes (and all would be interconnected at one point anyway).

That'd also let the AI shine a lot more. Most people probably don't know this but RAGE has actually a pretty well designed AI along with dynamic search / 'lost the target' modes, awareness, cover and such. The reason people don't notice it is because RAGE has this typical one-direction type of level design which renders a lot of the effort that went into AI pointless. But with more interconnected spaces the AI would leave much better impressions.

[Avoozl]

Games like that today with that sort of non-linearity tend to be short though due to the extra effort required it would seem.

[Shaviro]

I agree that non-linearity is indeed very possible today.
It doesn't have to be more expensive though. In some cases you could save time and effort on it actually. Consider this.

a) You build a long series of "hallways" with beautiful backdrops along the way.

b) You build a well-defined set of areas surrounding a beautiful backdrop.

In A everything is unique, in B you can reuse the same areas several times. Puzzles will come more naturally for the B case whereas A doesn't allow for much wiggle-room and a puzzle will often contain the solution in the same spot or effectively the solution to the puzzle will be yet another hallway acting as a detour.

Sure if it's a self-contained A, B or C thing you have at worst thrice the amount of work to do, but this solution is at best only marginally better than strict linearity. Good non-linearity comes from a different design philosophy where you have a well-defined area in which you craft obstacles that can be - or at the very least gives the illusion that it can be - dealt with in more than one way. Actually, even though there might only be one way to deal with a problem, the mere fact that the route of the player isn't predetermined is enough to call it good non-linearity in my book. I don't see how two or three obvious options are much better than only one. Example: Doom3 Alpha4. Well-lit dangerous route or unlit but safe. What did that bring to the game? The train puzzle in commoutside was much better executed and probably at a lower "cost".

[schwerpunk]

Shaviro said:

I see three main reasons to go back and bring something to the modern age.

1) The original was crap. The idea was good, but it was poorly carried out.
2) The original was good, but time has left it inaccessible to the crowd.
3) To put a completely new spin on it.

#1 is obviously not the case. Doom is a classic and it changed the medium forever. #2 seems to hit the spot. It's accessible to the mainstream in the literal sense as it's on (for instance) steam, but it's inaccessible because it doesn't speak the language of modern gamers. So we actually end up somewhere in between #2 and #3. If you remake Doom to be Classic Doom with great textures it will flop as it's not of this age. It could be profitable for a 5 man team, but not for a 200 person AAA powerhouse.

You have to put a new spin on it for it to be relevant.

I like to bring up Mario 64 when people talk about modernizing games: It definitely doesn't fit your first two points, and I don't think it even fits your last point, since Mario 64 remains undeniably a challenging platforming game about saving a princess and jumping on turtles. But I'll agree that the move the 3D was a big change.

As Touchdown mentioned, there's no reason why level design has to be boring and linear just because it's in a 'realistic' setting. Just pick more interesting settings.

For instance, if your job is to create a level where the protagonist moves through an office building being invaded by demons, there's no excuse for creating a central staircase, and copy-pasting each 'floor' of the building on top of each other - even though that's perfectly realistic!

I'm sure, even old traditionalists like ourselves could think of ways to spice up something as boring as an office building. For instance, you could have key-locked elevators to certain floors; or have several floors collapsed together to form grand 'chambers;' or cubicle walls arranged into a vague 64x64 maze, complete with flashing lights and Spectres. And even if the demons haven't invaded yet, there's no excuse for boring level design* - you could say there are renovations, or spraying to insects, or whatever 'realistic' excuse you have to come up with to fuck with the basic layout of a level.

*unless the dev is just using that part of the game for exposition, in which case fuck them for not making it skippable.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the game should present new ideas. After all, this is a numbered sequel, not an expansion pack, or a piece of DLC. But I really hope id can find a 'core' of the original and stick to it (even if it's not the same core that I enjoyed), rather than trying to make another poor man's Borderlands.

[Shaviro]

Don't know anything about Mario 64, so can't comment.
As for the rest of the post I'm not sure it's directed at me? Either way you're basically arguing my view so can't say I disagree.

[EDIT] I will say though that Mario in general isn't a proper reference for how you would modernize a shooter like Doom. Mario is a kiddy game with kiddy visuals for a kiddy console. There is a huge market for this sort of game and the genre is inherently much less demanding; the gap between then and now much smaller. Angry Birds and candy crush don't adhere to the same rules as Wolfenstein or Half-Life either. The Wii (for instance) has proven to be a lucrative market for comparatively cheap games. Modern shooters are huge productions with extreme budgets.

Check out the best selling games for all consoles.

Call of Duty almost doesn't make the top 28, but the budget is insane. The window for profit created by sales and cost for the shooter genre is pretty narrow. You can't make a barebones simple "Here be monsters. Shoot them. Win!" FPS that is still AAA *and* be even close to break even on the cost/sales side.

I'm not saying that's what you want out of Doom4, but it's the explanation as to why Mario64 really doesn't make much sense as a reference for modernizing shooters.

[schwerpunk]

I goofed, quoted the wrong person, and ended up making an argument for no reason.

Anyway, my point with Mario 64 could just as easily be made with Half-Life 2, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, or Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

EDIT: Basically, it's all about narrowing down what you consider as a dev 'core' to your game, and running with that. Moreso than trying to copy what others in the same genre have done, but even that's by no means unacceptable, as long as it serves the first purpose.

imho, obv

[Shaviro]

Hehe no worries.
I accept your Mario argument on the higher level of abstraction you mention about finding the core. That core could be pretty different from person to person, though. I actually wrote something about that in this very thread. My own definition of the core would be to base it on the experience of a man trying to survive the world's end. To back that up I would try to base the new visual and audio style as close to the original as possible while keeping it on the more realistic side. Not realistic as in grey and dull, but realistic as in a higher fidelity that properly supports the context of the story and setting.

While the leaked Doom4 screenshots are now completely irrelevant and outdated by 1, 2 or 3 restarts, I actually think they were pretty close to home. They grew on me over time. I can totally see colorful (not cartoonish, but colorful) monsters in this location: http://thegamingaddiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Doom4-Leak-022812-15.jpg
Yeah it's not the most interesting artwork ever, but it would be wise to start off with a bit more mundane settings before going crazy with the hell invasion.

[schwerpunk]

Shaviro said:

Hehe no worries.
I accept your Mario argument on the higher level of abstraction you mention about finding the core. That core could be pretty different from person to person, though. I actually wrote something about that in this very thread. My own definition of the core would be to base it on the experience of a man trying to survive the world's end. To back that up I would try to base the new visual and audio style as close to the original as possible while keeping it on the more realistic side. Not realistic as in grey and dull, but realistic as in a higher fidelity that properly supports the context of the story and setting.

While the leaked Doom4 screenshots are now completely irrelevant and outdated by 1, 2 or 3 restarts, I actually think they were pretty close to home. They grew on me over time. I can totally see colorful (not cartoonish, but colorful) monsters in this location: http://thegamingaddiction.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Doom4-Leak-022812-15.jpg
Yeah it's not the most interesting artwork ever, but it would be wise to start off with a bit more mundane settings before going crazy with the hell invasion.

Re finding the core: I don't even think what is identified as 'core' is all that important, as long as its kept succinct (as in your 'lone survivor' example). I'll mention that I think Doom 3 did a good job of running with the more horror aspects of Doom's core -- I was just speaking last week with some classmates, and we all agreed that Doom was pretty scary back-when, mostly because of the strange enemies and weird lighting. Reminded me instantly of a summary of Doom 3.

Now, I don't think Doom 3 is the best Doom game possible, but I considered it a success as a Doom game.

What I'm most concerned about, as I've mentioned in a post somewhere above, is id trying to make a something for everybody, and inelegantly mix in too many genres and/or 'cores.' I think that's what I liked least about RAGE. Even thought it was an enjoyable game, the sandbox elements and driving were completely useless, and I felt deleterious to my enjoyment of an otherwise good FPS game.