DOOM Lives! Teaser trailer inside.

[EternalWolf]

They arent dumb enough, nobody is dumb enough, to make it like DOOM 3.

Personally I dont think the Cyberdemon looks like any monster from DOOM 3, the art style alone is a lot closer to the original than any of the redesigns from DOOM 3 and a lot more colorful.

Also, its a CGI trailer(most likely) which presented one thing and one thing only, the Cyberdemon. The New Orders teaser presented a lot more to us than this one did and it was done by the same marketing team.

Personally I am expecting anywhere from "another solid FPS game" that feels like DOOM or I am expecting to be blown away. I am not expecting a drastic reboot in terms of the universe like DOOM 3 or The New Order were.

I am also 120% positive the engine will be shown off as it was meant to be. The models will be superb and the textures will be of high quality, I have no doubts about this. The lighting and shadows is what I want to see. We dont have to worry about a game with the visual fidelity of RAGE, The New Order or The Evil Within which were all built for last gen.

The Evil Within seems to have incorporated new lighting and shadows into its engine and id Software helped that team along with The New Order's so it should be interesting to see what kind of design we get with DOOM in terms of the game itself as well as the engine.

[doom_is_great]

Maes said:

Not to rain on everybody's parade, but the trailer, art style, etc. looks awfully similar to Doom 3. In fact, it could BE an unused Doom 3.

Let's hope "Doom 4" won't be a kind of "Doom 3: Final Edition".

I honestly wouldn't have a problem if it took after Doom 3 in some ways. There were some things that Doom 3 did that were very awesome. Its atmosphere being number one. I hope that this new Doom has a very dark, foreboding atmosphere like Doom 3. To me, it just wouldn't feel like Doom if it had a very light, unserious atmosphere.

The only thing I don't want it to take from Doom 3 is the combat. The combat in Doom 3 sucked. Oh, and they probably should let players have flashlights and guns at the same time.

[Clusterone666]

When I first saw the trailer I was stoked as hell, the second I heard the shotgun and the door, me and my buddy squeeled like little girls it was fucking great.
So stoked, bought wolfenstein JUST for the Doom beta.
Now, Quakecon starts today, I am going to be going mad in anticipation for the reveal of Doom 4, hopefully someone posts something about it soon!
EDIT: shit, was thinking Quakecon started June for some reason, nevermind. lol

[Kaskaum]

Clusterone666 said:

When I first saw the trailer I was stoked as hell, the second I heard the shotgun and the door, me and my buddy squeeled like little girls it was fucking great.
So stoked, bought wolfenstein JUST for the Doom beta.
Now, Quakecon starts today, I am going to be going mad in anticipation for the reveal of Doom 4, hopefully someone posts something about it soon!
EDIT: shit, was thinking Quakecon started June for some reason, nevermind. lol

We are one month behind quakecon, July 17.

[CaptainW]

Doom 3 had seemingly taken after the Williams/Midway spirit in its atmosphere, which is hardly at all a thing I can complain about because the Williams/Midway atmosphere is effing brilliant. I think if there's one thing Doom 3 lacked it was...probably a few hundred extra monsters. But if there were two, the second's almost certainly a haunting Aubrey Hodges score.

Yet, regardless of all of that, I have to say I believe it downright incorrect to deny the relationship between Doom and heavy metal, because it's an intimate one that extends way beyond the music. id were big into metal and the choice not just of hell, but specifically of its Judeo-Christian interpretation was, I'm willing to wager, done out of love for thrash metal, whose imagery tends to play up the anti-Christian screw-you-mom stuff.

Doom 3's style, on the other hand, was seemingly based on a hell of plain, cultureless horror. This allows non-Westerners to more readily relate to it and that's actually something I'm sincerely down with -- I'm absolutely sure it can work even in the context of Doom given all the types of horror out there -- but letting go of Judeo-Christian imagery is also dropping the relationship with thrash metal, which means a fair bit to the bunch-of-metalheads-with-computers spirit of Doom 1-era id.

Now I'm getting to thinking, a Doom game that would take after not only Christian mythology, but also Islamic, Greek, Egyptian, Voodoo, native American/African/European/Arabian, Shinto, Norse...Seriously, think about it for a second. Blasting the hell out of satyrs, ghouls, djinn, jiangshi, vampires, youkai and ice giants all alongside each other. Tell me that wouldn't kick all the arse. Hell, we've been killing zombies for years. And I believe we do have one ZDoom monster called an afrit.

As to gameplay, since Doom 3's movement is basically Q3 and Q3's movement is basically perfection, I'm completely down with Doom 3 movement.

tl;dr: HI IM NEW LOL

[Marnetmar]

CaptainW said:

The choice not just of hell, but specifically of its Judeo-Christian interpretation was, I'm willing to wager, done out of love for thrash metal, whose imagery tends to play up the anti-Christian screw-you-mom stuff.

Can someone summon Tarnsman to elaborately list everything that is wrong with this statement?

[Gruson]

WOW!

I love it. Hearing the original shotgun sound and door opening sound made it for me. Plus the Cybderdemon actually looks very good.

I REALLY hope they use a lot of the old school sound effects in the actual game!

SUPER EXCITED about it now. Hopefully Bobby Prince will return too because I loved his level music and will take it over heavy metal any day.

[Guest Unregistered account]

Wouldn't it be great if all the original members of Id joined to make this ultimate game?


(You don't have to tell me that's not going to happen, I guessed) :(

[DooM_RO]

I don't know...read Shaviro's posts about John Carmack. Carmack was the reason Id Tech 5 is such a mess and probably the reason the entirety of Doom 3 was set in cramped corridors and Romero...hasn't made anything of note since the 90s...Do these guys still have it in them? MAYBE if they got together to make a hyper advanced shooter on the Doom engine that's more advanced than any Zdoom mod on the Doom engine with very high quality 2D art? Maybe, but a AAA title?Eeeh, that's debatable. Carmack may be a genius but he is at least partly responsible for the flaws in RAGE, Doom 3 and maybe even the Quake games. People won't agree with me but I think the quality of their games started to decrease right after Doom 1.

The Johns are of course extremely talented but the other guys at Id are also extremely talented. Did you know that Doom 3 was made with under 30 people? It must have taken a lot of talent and dedication to make such a game. Sure, it's not a masterpiece but in 2004 the graphical fidelity and presentation were TOP NOTCH and still are. It was one of the very last true PC games and one of the very last classic shooters. It wasn't perfect but it was better than a lot of people think.

[Kaskaum]

I agree, Carmack can be a good technician but he is no longer a good game designer as he used to be in the 90s. Romero simply disappeared from the radar and hasn't done anything relevant singe he left id.

[Blastfrog]

Kaskaum said:

I agree, Carmack can be a good technician but he is no longer a good game designer as he used to be in the 90s.

Um, Carmack was never a designer. He was always a tech guy.

His designs first enhanced the game design by opening new possibilities in a far more primitive technological landscape, but after he set sensible standards, he went off on a tangent of gimmicks that only hindered game production and design. Stencil shadows only looked good in certain contexts and was too performance intensive for big areas, and megatextures have proven to slow production down to a halt and cause the world to feel far more static, bloat the size of the game to ridiculous levels and makes everything low res and riddled with compression artifacts.

id Software should just ditch idTech 5 after Doom 4 and use Unreal or Crytek. It will only be in their favor.

[DooM_RO]

I agree with you Sodaholic but no matter how resource intensive the lighting system in Doom 3 is, it is always a pleasure to look at it, even after 10 years. That's the sign of a well-wrought game.

Also, if I am not mistaken, isn't Id Tech 5 a reason why the weapons in RAGE and TNO feel so good? If so, they should continue to use it just for that reason and gradually remove the useless stuff.

[DooM_RO]

You could also argue that his race for 3D graphics was a mistake. Don't get me wrong, I am a graphics whore and I love beautiful 3D but maybe 3D graphics came too early? Let's look at a few reasons why he should have waite.

1. 3D graphics are expensive to make which in turn makes developing games riskier. This in turn stifled creativity in a time when gaming was still in its formative years.

2. Related to point 1, because of costs, this led to developers becoming more and more dependent on publishers and we all know why publishers are bad for gaming in general.

3. Early 3D graphics are butt ugly. I am serious, just look at the ugly, blocky graphics of Quake 1 and 2 that look shit-brown. My point is that early 3D graphics are far inferior to earlier quality 2D graphics. I think Doom is a better looking game than Quake.

4. The 3D craze stifled the development of 2D graphics. As I said before, I love 3D but I also love 2D, which was sadly dominated by 3D. 2D has the potential to be timeless but during the 90s they were still held back by technology but by the late 90s 2D graphics advanced enough that they were almost timeless. I think Curse of Monkey Island is proof of that. Hell, even earlier 2D games could look amazing if done right, just look at this

http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/4413-the-legend-of-kyrandia-dos-screenshot-don-t-mess-with-this-guy.gif

and this

http://www.sierrahelp.com/Misc/Screenshots/Screens/QfG4/QfG4-01.gif

I think these are extremely beautiful graphics and it's a shame that in the late 90s they replaced painterly 2D graphics with ugly, blocky models like in Grim Fandango. 2D is making a resurgence and has the capacity to be timeless now but it makes me sad that 3D is the "good way" of making games. Here is an example of modern 2D.

http://www.mygamesfile.com/vampyrestorygame/img/2l.jpg
http://gallery.techarena.in/data/1/medium/A_Vampyre_Story_4.jpg
http://hardydev.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/avs04.jpg


3D graphics, no matter how good inevitably age but 2D graphics, if well-wrought become timeless

In conclusion, while many people believe Carmack's race for 3D graphics in the 90s to be a good thing, while I certainly agree to some extent I also have the feeling that maybe we got 3D too early, like stencil shadows and megatextures. 3D has led to AAA gaming industry and while I like AAA games, maybe game developers should have evolved in a time when they didn't have to devote so much time to the fidelity side of graphics. It's like giving a 16 year old alcohol and expecting him to be responsible about it. It makes me sad that 3D is considered to be the only good way to make a game, I miss the painterly style of 2D and I think the race for 3D was in many ways damaging even if revolutionary.

I hope my post makes sense. I am in a hurry.

[Shaviro]

I don't think they need to ditch making their own engine, they just need to make more sensible decisions. Everyone and his brother are making engines these days. While game engines today are much more advanced than they used to be, it's no longer the rocket science that it was. That sounds self-contradictory, I know, but the reason it's more approachable today is because the documentation, samples and exposure of the field has skyrocketed exponentially. At the same time, API's, tools and "best practices" get better and more accessible.

If I were pulling the strings at id, I would definitely continue on with idtech, but roll back megatexture. I'm sure there are things they can learn from it and bring forward with them. I'd then go, almost in the extreme, towards dynamic solutions which would include things like weather systems, day/night cycles with atmospheric scattering and procedural clouds. I'd research into general procedural algorithms and see how far I could go with that. Games like "No man's sky" and Minecraft are almost entirely based on proceduralism. That's not what I'm talking about and I don't really think that would work in the AAA shooter, but there is much to learn from those games. Let the computer do all the heavy lifting.

I personally think having a dozen artists going around a level and painting everything (decals or megatexture painting) is a waste of time and money when a procedural algoritm paired with general rules about the environment could do 90% as good a job. Let the computer do that, then have a couple of artists brush up a few key areas or correct any mistakes made by the algorithm. Not to overly bash RAGE, the artistry was for the most part great, but some times the artists went over board with "detailing" until it reached ridiculous heights. The garage clan arena for instance. It may just be me, but when you have this high amount of clutter, it starts detracting from the experience. Setting up general rules for something like this for a machine forces you to make design decisions.

Another thing I would look into would be the good old brush vs. model thing. While they shouldn't make a modelling suite for the game, I do believe that the more geometry you can keep *inside* the editor and the game, the better. There will always be complicated models that just isn't suited for an editor, but with models you quickly end up with an obvious separation between the truly dynamic and the prefabricated modules. If creating the general geometry is kept inside the editor, it's much easier to create general rules for everything that will be added as metadata, automatic texture selection via motifs etc.

That's one area where they could distinguish themselves from the rest.

Anyway, long wall of text done. Important to note that I'm no expert. My experience in the field is limited to a couple of test engines; procedural minecraft world, but with rolling hills (triangle grids, not boxes) and an x-wing engine. I have a few ideas on how to implement all of these things, but obviously I could be wrong about everything.

[Blastfrog]

DooM_RO said:

I agree with you Sodaholic but no matter how resource intensive the lighting system in Doom 3 is, it is always a pleasure to look at it, even after 10 years. That's the sign of a well-wrought game.

Yes, Doom 3 looked fantastic. However, my point was that for general development purposes for making a whole new game in the engine that it limits your design possibilities immensely. The engine should be subservient to the designer's needs, not the other way around, and that's where the most recent two iterations of idTech fail, and fail hard.

DooM_RO said:

Also, if I am not mistaken, isn't Id Tech 5 a reason why the weapons in RAGE and TNO feel so good?

I don't even understand this, and you've stated it multiple times. The weapons were satisfying because they looked cool, had good animations, had good sound effects, had just the right timing and other delay factors, caused just the right amount of damage and stunned the enemies just the right amount.

None of that has anything to do with a game engine, and everything to do with design choices made in the gameplay mechanics. Do you even understand what a game engine does?

[geekmarine]

If anything, I'd say the Doom 3 engine hampered the feel of the weapons in the game. Not from a design perspective, but what I mean is that that ragdoll model felt a little floaty and so corpses looked kinda goofy as they flew away after a well-placed shotgun blast. I always kinda got the impression that I had just slaughtered a balloon animal whenever I killed an enemy in Doom 3 (that wasn't helped by the fact that enemies tended to dissolve).

But yes, other than that, the engine has nothing to do with how the weapons felt when you used them. Purely design choice - aside from the physics model (which in a way is itself a design choice, but it's more a part of the engine itself).

[Koko Ricky]

Yeah, the satisfaction of the relationship between weapons and how they affect enemies/environments is dependent mostly on good design choices; arguably, any relatively modern engine should be able to create satisfying gunplay if the developers know what they're doing.

Getting back to the trailer, I'm still questioning if it's pre-rendered. I've seen demos from some of the latest incarnations of engines such as Crytek, Unreal, Frostbite, etc., which are so impressive as to nearly look pre-rendered. However, the official Doom 4 wikipedia entry states that idtech5 is the engine being used, so unless it's been insanely updated and optimized to produce graphics of the caliber we see in the trailer, then it's very likely not real time.

In either case, the trailer seems to be suggesting that id wants implement some of the complex shader/particle/lighting effects that haven't been present in their recent games, and this can only be a good thing. Whether they will put forth the effort to create compelling, non-linear environments, a decent story and interesting gameplay is hard to say.

[Kaskaum]

2D graphics have reached their limit, it can go nowhere anymore since the end of 90s.

While 3D games still have a full road to improve the same way hardware improves, I still want to see a game with similar graphics to Avatar before dying.

Just compare the first 3D games from PS1 era to 3D games now, and 10 years later, in 2024, if WWIII doesn't destroy the world, 3D games will reach another level without reaching their limit.

[doom_is_great]

GoatLord said:

Getting back to the trailer, I'm still questioning if it's pre-rendered. I've seen demos from some of the latest incarnations of engines such as Crytek, Unreal, Frostbite, etc., which are so impressive as to nearly look pre-rendered. However, the official Doom 4 wikipedia entry states that idtech5 is the engine being used, so unless it's been insanely updated and optimized to produce graphics of the caliber we see in the trailer, then it's very likely not real time.

In either case, the trailer seems to be suggesting that id wants implement some of the complex shader/particle/lighting effects that haven't been present in their recent games, and this can only be a good thing. Whether they will put forth the effort to create compelling, non-linear environments, a decent story and interesting gameplay is hard to say.

My hope, although it may be a vain hope, is that they will surprise us at Quakecon by revealing that it wasn't a prerendered teaser but an in game teaser. That would be sick. I hope that they keep up the tradition of making Doom with cutting edge graphics.

I read on Gamespot that Bethesda trademarked a new engine a while ago that is powered by IdTech called the Void engine. Perhaps they are using this engine instead of IdTech 5? I can only hope that Doom will be powered by the latest and greatest tech that that company has to offer!

[DooM_RO]

It's funny that back in 2004 people commonly said that devs only cared about graphics but nowadays people complain when Watch Dogs looks slightly worse...

Doom 3 was one of the last true PC titles and surprisingly enough the hardcore PC fans I've talked to still think it sucks.

[Touchdown]

The teaser was obviously pre-rendered. Don't fool yourselves.

[EternalWolf]

The teaser was pre-rendered but the model itself still retained the feel/art style of what we have seen from id Tech 4 and id Tech 5. One of the things I love about these engines is the universal look of all the models that dwell within them. They all contain that clay/solid but realistic look, with none of the wet/glossy look that comes from your standard Unreal Engine game.

The Cyberdemon in the trailer contains exactly that and the model itself looks very well like something that could "easily" be done in id Tech 5. The effects, such as the heat coming from the launcher, all but confirms that it's pre-rendered but I would not be surprised at all to see the model coming very close to that of what was seen in the trailer.

---------------------

Excessive Posting

Like I mentioned before, id Tech 5 IMO got a very bad/poorly managed break. The engine was in development for what seem like forever and it's first game came out when the last gen was starting to top off. Whereas Wolf3d, DOOM, QUAKE and DOOM 3 where all visual showcases, id Tech 3 and 5 seemed to target performance, versatility and stability. id Tech 5 is a long term engine and it's Dynamic Scaling, Virtual Textures and most importantly Performance to Visual Fidelity ratio(right word?) are a testament to that.

RAGE, while not the best looking game on release, was one of if not the best looking game to maintain 60FPS on consoles, excluding games with art-styles that make a game look far better than it should. Wolfenstein upped that quality in most areas but the textures remained the same quality for the most part and unfortunately for id Tech 5 textures are the first thing people grade when it comes to visual fidelity. The models and animations in The New Order are near suberb, especially in the cutscenes but unless the animations are really bad and combine with poor AI(Wolfenstein 2009), people really dont notice good animations in a FPS game.

The limits to the visual fidelity of textures in id Tech 5 are currently unknown to us, but I think the only thing stopping them from looking better or as good as any other game is the developers themselves. RAGE, The New Order and Wolfenstein 3d all contained the same amount of pop-in in id Tech 5 and while comparisons of Wolf3d(old) to The New Order(last-gen) doesn't really give us insight into the future of id Tech 5's texture detail, I am really to bet that Virtual Textures are designed to where texture fidelity is only a hardware limit and pop-in is unrelated to how the engine performs with varying levels of texture quality.

Shadows and Lighting are id Tech 5's greatest issue right now IMO, but The Evil Within appears to have implemented Dynamic shadows into the engine. Currently the game is at 30FPS but it's also "complete", so we will see just how easy it is to polish a game under id Tech 5 if that is indeed what Tango is doing these next few months. So far, outside of the shadows, the visual fidelity appears to be on the same level, even worse than RAGE and Wolfenstein.

However, The Evil Within appears to be something we just dont see anymore, a video game opposed to a cinematic experience. It appears they are aiming to perfect Resident Evil 4/5/Dead Space as opposed to going beyond and making something that "changes" the genre such as Uncharted/The Last of Us. From what I have seen, the game's goal from a design perspective was to port Resident Evil 4 to id Tech 5 in gameplay, art style, level design etc... and work from there as opposed to "starting from scratch".

What this means is that id Tech 5 will once again be bashed as engine when it comes to visuals because the game that was made with it was not designed to be a game to push the engine to it's limits visually. They have a title for that and it's the IP that throughout gaming history has always pushed graphics to it's current limits.

I don't know if DOOM will be a good, fun game. id Software never really was good at that outside of Classic DOOM and QUAKE, which was as much a puzzle game as a FPS. QUAKE II, III and DOOM 3 were all just another FPS game outside of the visuals and performance whereas Half Life(modded QUAKE II) and RTCW MP/ET(modded QUAKE III) changed the way SP and MP FPS games are played. I don't know if DOOM will be able to accomplish that but I do believe people will be questioning what engine it's running on if gameplay is revealed and the name of the engine isnt.

[EternalWolf]

DooM_RO said:

It's funny that back in 2004 people commonly said that devs only cared about graphics but nowadays people complain when Watch Dogs looks slightly worse...

Doom 3 was one of the last true PC titles and surprisingly enough the hardcore PC fans I've talked to still think it sucks.

DOOM 3 has always "sucked" though. It did absolutely nothing notable outside of the visuals and in reality was just another solid FPS game. Unless you love DOOM, horror games or visuals you probably didn't see anything great about DOOM 3.

The level design alone is really what killed the game. There was just no room for action/enemies and the entire game felt like one long scripted fight.

[Guest Unregistered account]

doom_is_great said:

I hope that this new Doom has a very dark, foreboding atmosphere like Doom 3. To me, it just wouldn't feel like Doom if it had a very light, unserious atmosphere.

Dayum, whenever people mention atmosphere in Doom, along with the words "dark" and "forboding/forbidding", Halls of the Damned immedietely enters my head.

The music. Oh god, the music.

The hanging bodies suspended in midair. The dark hallways. The Baron of Hell opening up. The lonely, sinister mountains pitted against a dark, blood red space sky.


Halls of the Damned. Halls of the Damned.

0_0

We need this in Doom 4. Not generic dark hallways lined with pipes and populated by jumpscares but a map with dozens of neat touches like this. Out of the blue. Serioualy, E2M4 and E2M5 were a warning, but this...

[EternalWolf]

Sodaholic said:

I don't even understand this, and you've stated it multiple times. The weapons were satisfying because they looked cool, had good animations, had good sound effects, had just the right timing and other delay factors, caused just the right amount of damage and stunned the enemies just the right amount.

None of that has anything to do with a game engine, and everything to do with design choices made in the gameplay mechanics. Do you even understand what a game engine does?

I think he is just referring to the way id Tech weapons feel, it's as if it's the standard for where the weapon should be placed and how fluid it should be. I dont know how to describe it. A lot of FPS games just dont seem to have the same.... feel... to them that id Tech games do. Maybe the word solid would be correct? It's more than coincidence that nearly every FPS game developed from id Tech 3 onwards feels the same no matter the developer. It feels different then Medal of Honor, Killzone and Goldeneye/Timesplittes/Perfect Dark for example but no matter what game is built on id Tech, it feels like it's always in the same "universe" which is because of engine.

Carmack even stated he went overboard with the gunplay and input of id Tech 5 to make sure it was as close to perfect as possible. They all just feel solid and smooth to the point where if you were to hold competitions to find out the best FPS player in the world, you would have to use a game built on id Tech, provided that game is actually designed to do be something like that(which most werent outside of QUAKE III deathmatches on release).

[DooM_RO]

EternalWolf said:

I think he is just referring to the way id Tech weapons feel, it's as if it's the standard for where the weapon should be placed and how fluid it should be. I dont know how to describe it. A lot of FPS games just dont seem to have the same.... feel... to them that id Tech games do. Maybe the word solid would be correct? It's more than coincidence that nearly every FPS game developed from id Tech 3 onwards feels the same no matter the developer. It feels different then Medal of Honor, Killzone and Goldeneye/Timesplittes/Perfect Dark for example but no matter what game is built on id Tech, it feels like it's always in the same "universe" which is because of engine.

Carmack even stated he went overboard with the gunplay and input of id Tech 5 to make sure it was as close to perfect as possible. They all just feel solid and smooth to the point where if you were to hold competitions to find out the best FPS player in the world, you would have to use a game built on id Tech, provided that game is actually designed to do be something like that(which most werent outside of QUAKE III deathmatches on release).

Yes, that's what I was referring to. For instance, I've noticed that FPS games made on Cryengine have weapons that have similar feel to them. I really like how Id Tech 5 weapons feel.

And yes, that Carmack quote is why I think the engine is partly responsible for how the weapons feel.

[Face23785]

Shaviro said:

If I were pulling the strings at id, I would definitely continue on with idtech, but roll back megatexture. I'm sure there are things they can learn from it and bring forward with them. I'd then go, almost in the extreme, towards dynamic solutions which would include things like weather systems, day/night cycles with atmospheric scattering and procedural clouds. I'd research into general procedural algorithms and see how far I could go with that. Games like "No man's sky" and Minecraft are almost entirely based on proceduralism. That's not what I'm talking about and I don't really think that would work in the AAA shooter, but there is much to learn from those games. Let the computer do all the heavy lifting.

I personally think having a dozen artists going around a level and painting everything (decals or megatexture painting) is a waste of time and money when a procedural algoritm paired with general rules about the environment could do 90% as good a job. Let the computer do that, then have a couple of artists brush up a few key areas or correct any mistakes made by the algorithm. Not to overly bash RAGE, the artistry was for the most part great, but some times the artists went over board with "detailing" until it reached ridiculous heights. The garage clan arena for instance. It may just be me, but when you have this high amount of clutter, it starts detracting from the experience. Setting up general rules for something like this for a machine forces you to make design decisions.

I think you're looking at this too much from a developer's standpoint and not enough from the player's standpoint, which is understandable if you're working on your own stuff. While what you're saying does make sense, in my opinion the end results of having all that individual work more than justifies the extra time and money. Even the most complex algorithms are still going to produce the bland, boring levels you see in most FPS games. Granted there's going to be a degree of inconsistency when you have different individuals doing all the detailing, I'd much rather have that than the same old crap everywhere because 90% of it was built on procedure. That's just me, and I could be totally misunderstanding what you're saying.

Joe667 said:

Halls of the Damned. Halls of the Damned.

This, and alotta this.

[Shaviro]

Face23785 said:

That's just me, and I could be totally misunderstanding what you're saying.

You are.
The point is not to make the computer design the game. The point is to make the computer aide in the design of the game. The individual touch of an artist is great, but make no mistake; game design is a job like any other and a large percentage of your work is going to be slave work that could be shipped off to the computer. Not by generating random crap, but by having careful algorithms perform tedious duties using sets of rules set up by the designers. The reason why you have bland boring FPS levels is because there is way too much work on nothing.

[Touchdown]

DOOM Reveal will be an event exclusive for people at QC.

[DooM_RO]

THIS IS BULLSHIT!!AAAAAARGHHH!! RIP AND TEAR!11!!

Why did they even make that fancy trailer then???