DOOM III INFO - PLEASE READ

[Guest Cold0ne]

=============================================================================
DOOM ]I[ - The Elements Needed To Make This A Great Game v1.0
=============================================================================

After hearing a lot of negative talk about the idea of id's Doom 3, I have
wrote this list of some basic elements the game would need to have so it
would live up to people's expectations aswell as its name.
The following are mostly valid expectations that people seem to want to find
in a game like Doom 3 based on what I have read in chat forums so far.

If these are all met, or possibly surpassed, then Doom 3 will "Possibly be
one of the BEST ideas in the history of gaming"!

(the above quote comes from the title of the first review on Doom 3 here:
http://www.gamespy.com/editorials/doom3_a.shtm
notice I have changed it from "one of the worst" to "best" cause it will be)


=============================================================================
OK on with the list!
=============================================================================


1) Hell

-Textures, fire, bloody walls, guts, demon heads and other freakish things on
the walls, floor, cieling, etc.
-Feel, mood, everything that resembles Hell, the ambience that Doom had.
-Death, dead and half-living bodies hanging from chains, walls, impaled on
poles, severed limbs, all that good stuff.
-Sounds, screaming voices, tortured moans, monsters breathing, frightening
noises coming from shadows, so on, so forth.

Add ingame sequences to give it a feeling of Hell.
An ingame sequence would go something like:
You enter a dark blood-covered room with torn apart humans all over the walls
and floor, some even hanging from ropes on the cieling. There in the middle
you see a large shadow covered figure with its back turned standing there
waiting. A half mutilated marine is on the ground in front him begging for
what is left of his life, but suddenly the beast thrusts his hand right
into his chest and rips out his heart, blood flying everywhere!!
The marine screams and you drop your gun from the sight. The beast hears you
and turns around... its face is the closest thing to the Devil you have ever
seen, it roars in that evil Doom way (with 128 bit sounds this time, you get
the idea). You grab your shotgun and now its your turn as it pops into ingame
and your now battling your first Hell Baron.


Anyways, Hellish feel, the idea that monsters will make you crap your pants
as you run, back turned, for the nearest corner once you run out of shells,
forgetting about all tactical training you got as a marine, just running
from fear. Have you ever only had the pistol and ran gasping for your life,
scurrying around corners and feeling like you are going to die in real life
if that demon got you. This is as much as a game has ever got me scared...
not like when your playing Unreal Tournament and your calmly shooting the
enemy, not even flinching when they blow you up with a flak shell.


KEEP THE WHOLE IDEA AND FEEL OF HELL, PERSERVE IT IN THE SAME WAY DOOM HAS.


=============================================================================

2) Monsters

-Keep the monsters that were in Doom and then add a new horde of even more
Hell-like monsters that have never before been seen. But! They gotta be as
original as the monsters were in Doom, we cant just throw in a 3-legged
freakshow that spits its own head at you now and then. No matter how fun
Quake 2 was, i just cant shake the idea of how stupid and sickening those
half-metal-half-human things were, barely distinguishable from each other,
the only difference being that the bigger guy needed 3 more shots then the
little guy :)

-Perfect shooting amounts. Each monster in Doom was perfect and I mean
*PERFECT* in how many shots they needed to be killed with. What I loved about
that was how I could use a different style of killing them. For one, the imp
needed exactly one shot from the shotgun if you got him good, and the piggy
needed just one double-barrel head on blast to die. This was perfect, I have
not seen one game since where kiling the enemy was in such *style*.

Its more fun if the monsters are easier to kill and there are more of them
instead of having a few monsters that take a million shots to die. I think
everyone knows how it made you sick when a monster as small as the little
rat thing in Quake 2 would take 3 more shots then the larger soldiers do.

Talk about Daikatana (or the original Unreal)! Every monster needs like a
million shots to die, just so they would not need to put as many monsters
into one level. This is due to the fact that 3D engines cant handle lots of
monsters in one area at a time which is one thing that John Carmack will
HAVE to learn how to fix...

-Hordes of Monsters. The new technology that id said they would use in Doom 3
better include a new way to have, oh... say, 100 monsters on a plane in the
middle of Hell so you can, lets say, shoot a rocket at them and watch them
splatter into little pieces (which brings me to my next point by the way).
So anyways, you all know we want LOTS of monsters because thats one of the
elements that made Doom so fun.

-Monster death scenes. Ok here is a revolutionary idea that no game since
Doom has had and could be part of that "new technology" Doom 3 claims to be
using.
Ok get ready for this...ready?...its the "smearing factor" as I call it. Well
I better explain this one. Ok you know how in many games like Quake 2, you
shoot a guy and no matter how you shoot him, unless you splatter him into
guts, he will probably just fall back/over and die. And then you can go onto
shooting his body on the ground until that turns to guts. But no further. Im
sure a body will turn into guts after being shot with a pistol about 20
times...dont think so. Well, ok, if you use a rocket, then it might happen,
but most games havent distinguished between this so far.

Ok then games went on to newer ideas, like Soldier of Fortune, where you can
blow a guy's leg off with a shotgun, but not with a pistol. Also you can keep
blowing off body parts once he's on the ground, but they dont just disappear
if they keep being shot. Im not sure if you can turn them completely into
guts or not, but with the appropriate weapon this should be attainable.

So my "smear factor" is where a polygonal monster can literally smear into a
pile of guts, not just into completely red guts, but guts that are actually
made of little pieces of that monster's body.
What Im trying to say is, you take a Cocodemon in Doom and you shoot it twice
with the double barrel and it falls...yes, falls appart, spills its guts, and
then blood seeps out too. This needs to be somehow done in 3D with polygons.
It was easy to draw it with sprites, but id cant just make monsters turn into
red bloody guts cause that would ruin the whole effect of the way the
monsters died in Doom...*SMEARING* appart. After that is done, you should be
able to naturally shoot THAT into guts, but dont skip that part in between
because that is what people want to be seeing all over again.

God, I love the way that cyberdemon or the way the hell baron just freekin
smears into crap...but not just red guts...you can tell its still him.
Basically, every monster cant just turn into the same bloody crap, they all
gotta die differently depending on how you shoot them, and they all gotta die
in their own awesome looking way. Also you gotta be able to distinguish the
dead bodies on the ground, you gotta even be able to tell which monster it is
from the GUTS on the ground! Yes, this *detail* is what we are looking for.

I BELIEVE YOU GET THE IDEA...


=============================================================================

3) Weapons

-Original weapons. The Doom weapons are the original fun-kill weapons of all
time. These weapons should be kept in the new Doom:
The pistol (should be a baretta, a 45 maybe...a BIG pistol), chainsaw,
shotgun, double-barrel (if they dont keep the TWO shotguns, someone's house
will be getting bombed), a grenade/rocket launcher combo would be a nice idea
for Doom, but still, the plasma rifle is also an original futuristic weapon
that no other too space-like weapons have compared to. "Im gonna zap you with
my Super Tazer!". The plasma rifle is the only space gun that doesnt make you
feel like your using the silly over-done pulse rifle in UT.

Basically keep the original weapons Doom had, nothing beats them, and then
add some more original weapons, a new machine gun (somewhat like the minigun
in Unreal) would do cause lets face it, that chain gun was the worst weapon
in Doom.
More original weapons, hmmm, a flame thrower. yeah.
OH! YEAH! You gotta have a sniper rifle... nothing beats that... some people
play games just for the sniper rifle, it has a category of its own unlike any
other weapon, so you GOTTA have that and its gotta be done PERFECT.
Also a gun that would resemble the famous Railgun of Quake... because that
is an original weapon like no other, it shoots right through many enemies,
would be very fun and effective with a lot of monsters that Quake never had.

Now you are going to need something that doesnt shoot bullets, thats still a
weapon acceptable in life today or in the near future. I liked the Ripper in
UT but dont copy that, use something different that doesnt use bullets, and
please no nailguns :)

Last but not least, you gotta have something BIG, something nuclear. Not
something bright and colorful like the BFG, because that shows you ran out of
ideas. Its gotta be a big gun that causes mass destruction and would fit
realistic weapons that a marine would have. It cant be a colorful space gun,
I dont know, but some of the games coming out these days have too many
"colorful beam" space guns (UT's ASMD shock rifle, it's Pulse Rifle, SS2's
Psi-emitter crap, you dont want a marine going MAGIC GUNS on your ass).

OK, SO ORIGINAL WEAPONS, NEW WEAPONS, AND NOTHING TOO FAR STRETCHED.


=============================================================================

4) Map Design


-Cant be old style maps!
I have heard many people talk of the "find the key, find the door, find the
exit" idea that comes to mind right away for some people. Well this is NOT
an element of Doom that needs to be used in Doom 3, this was one factor that
made Doom lame sometimes.
If id is smart, which they tend to be, then they will concentrate on new
ideas for maps, like a story-line added when played in single-player mode.
This could be done with ingame cutscenes, videos, I dont care how, but it
cant be like the original Doom where you run around pointlessly.

Also it shouldnt be like in Quake 2 or Unreal where you are told what to do
through message logs from dead guys. It should be ingame sequences of maybe
a dying marine telling you what to do with his last gasp. As alot of people
say, its content we want, but without ruining the feel of Doom (be creative).
For example, in Half-Life the story goes by too fast without many enemies to
kill in between. Doom does not have the element of going by too fast, and
this is a good thing, the game is longer and the fun lasts longer. Keep this
idea in Doom 3.

Then games like Quake 2 seem too long because its too repetative, and
therefore gets boring too fast. id needs to be very creative and make Doom 3
interesting the WHOLE WAY THROUGH!

-Maps need to be different.
Like in the original Doom, each level is completely different, made by many
different people so each level has a different feel to it.
I can list a whole lot of games that look the same all the way through which
gets very boring really fast. This is because about a handful of people make
all of the levels when they really need to take a larger group of designers
and have maybe one or two work on a map of their own instead of have them all
work on the same map. The way Doom levels were done, seperately, they were as
different as that engine could allow them to be.

Some guys like to make levels with alot of stairs and elevation, others like
long complex levels, some like flat single floored levels with lava, and then
theres the guy who likes to build the poison factory. So, if each one makes
his/her own seperate level it will be unique. If they all make 3 levels
together, they will almost be the same, and thus be repetative and boring.
This is how Quake 1 and 2 must have been done with the same ugly brown and
metal textrues all the way through.

Ok how can you take a whole bunch of completely different levels and put em
together into one story? Well thats the hard part. Here is an idea. How about
you as the marine have to clean out certain infected sectors and you are
dropped down with a heli or maybe brought in with an MCV along with a few
marine bots (or with other players in multiplayer) to "clean" that sector.

Ok so my idea should not be used :)
But still, id will have to do some real brain hurting to bring this all
together. Maybe a little more then they did on Quake 3, heh heh, which
considering the time it came out at, still didnt have much of a plot at ALL
which most games have these days.


OK SO LOTS OF *DIFFERENT* MAPS... AND A GOOD STORY TO TIE IT ALL TOGETHER!


=============================================================================

Well thats it, thats all I can say about Doom 3 for now, if you have any
ideas about what else I can add to this, feel free to email me at:
cold0ne@hotmail.com (note thats a zero in the "0ne", not a capital O).
Also any comments, positive or negative, are appreciated (although if too
negative, you can expect a reply you shouldnt read at the computer lab :)

In closing, I hope Doom 3 will kick some serious ass!

/Cold0ne
=============================================================================

[Guest mac10]

Idiot.

I thought I would be able to read just one post containing "a hardcore fan's home-brewed advice" for Doom 3 without being provoked. I was wrong.

It just reminded me of why quality mindproducts is such a rare phenomenon, be it movies, music, graphics, books or... game design - it's just because most people are useless at making good stuff.

Look at any industry that is dependent on creative minds. The crap/good ratio is usually overwhelming (take a trip to your local video store). The reason for this is that while creativity can be an asset, it really requires some cold analytical thought to direct it. And few people (and even few *teams* of people!) possess *both* abilities.

Your Doom 3 advice just reaks of inability to capture *an essence* and incarnate it in a modern form. Essence goes deeper than "many monsters" and "cool weapons" ("..you just GOTTA have the sniper rifle.." - why? just because you love it in some other game? The whole point is to have weapons that contribute to an overall synergy). Bad sequels are made because people fail to see exactly what made the original successful, which usually is along the lines of a special atmosphere or 'nerve' (that often can be reproduced without copying the exact setting itself!). Far too often they merely reproduce a few superficial elements directly and just 'do more of it'.

Seeing why Doom made such an impression on many of us is a psychological exercise, not a 'gore-on-the-walls' analysis.

Every game element must be seen against the background of all the other game elements. A weapon design has no meaning outside the context of the game. The same goes for 'monsters' and every other aspect of the whole.

Another problem with making sequels, is that they tend to be *overdone* because the creators (or amateur "advisors") feel they have to surpass the original in every way - or want to prove that they are able to 'add stuff' (especially if new people are involved) - the illusion of enhancement. Case in point: The original vs the new VW Beetle. Or a zillion brand building screw-ups in advertising, for that matter. Etc etc.

Not all games require a "hard coded" narrative or storyline to work well, even if several games has done this with much success (like Half-Life, which I loved). Actually, I think THAT sort of narrative is very difficult (and time-consuming) to do *well enough*, and the danger of falling into the 'pathetic category' is significant - where the storyline is just there without actually adding anything of value to the game experience. There seem to be an ugly trend going, where gameplayers and -reviewers 'demand' a good storyline from every new game, just because some games in some genres have "raised the bar" doing it. A perfect example of the confused need to copy isolated *elements* from earlier (successful) products.

I think it is perfectly feasible to create a game in this millenium that has simple premises and goals, and where the 'narrative' is an emergent property of the road in between. Far too many developers get tangled up in or trip over the 'must have storyline'-anxiety, where they would have been better off spending time polishing the basic game mechanics. Why were Pac Man, Space Invaders and Galaxians so popular? They probably appealed to some innate part of our psyche (that was casually, not essentially, linked to the fact that the Pac Man looked like a half eaten pizza or that the space invaders made the noises they did). What is that? Is it the feeling of panic, the dealing-with-a-stressful-situation-and-winning, the beating-the-existing-highscore or what? I think Doom had a lot of fear and panic. I couldn't care less about the storyline (in fact, I don't think I even know what it is - more than a vague idea of space-marines fighting evil), and I happen to think that Doom has a lot in common with those early video games. Fear and panic is not proportional to the innovativeness of your gun or the variety of monsters. I have always hated the nerdy monster designs enthusiatically presented along with new game announcements ("and it has a rocket launcher for an arm!") - as if THAT will make the game good.

As all good designers and story-tellers know, the most convincing way to convey a certain feeling is to do it in a sublime / subtle / indirect way - the real message is not in the words, but between the lines. The reason is simply that it tricks/forces the perceiver into *making the conclusions HIMSELF* (which gives those very conclusions all the more authority!), based on clues given by the story tellers.

I have seen people sweating playing simple arcade games, not because of the physical struggle involved, but the mental stress. You don't always have to identify youself with some in-game character or goal to get 'immersed' or experience real emotional stress when playing a game. Sometimes the hook is just the challenge of you - as a real person - playing the computer game.

That said, the atmosphere itself, as communicated through pure in-game design (both structural, aural and visual), is of course a mighty tool for creating a superior game experience. I have screamed out loud playing Tomb Raider, encountering a simple wolf emerging from behind a pillar. A modest 'monster' for your average FPS, but in that otherwise calm setting it freaked me out.

If you want the player to feel afraid because he's supposedly all alone in a vast, hell-infested wasteland, you don't have to make an in-game *movie* telling him so. Just make sure he's all alone in a vast, hell-infested wasteland (it would probably work 10,000 times better, too). But do it well. And to do such things well, you probably should have a deeper insight than just blindly creating 'kick ass monsters'.

And why is button pushing and key finding bad? It is only bad if *that is the game*, because then it's boring. However, those mechanics can also serve as a mere framework for leading the player to all sorts of other challenges - where *the latter* is the real game. Like in Doom. Finding the button is neither the problem nor the fun - getting past all the Imps between you and it IS. This is another example of how people dismiss a whole concept based on some bad implementations...

Anyway - back to you stupid post. Reading is like reading a transcript of a Beavis & Butthead conversation. There are so many particulars to comment on, but so little time so I'll just say this: Fucking nerd.

---

Martin Wardener
Art Director
No Nonsense Advertising

[NokturnuS]

One question:

If monsters blow into million of bloody pieces, and their guts are all over the place, how the hell an Archvile will revive them?

[Guest Cold0ne]

mac10 said:

Mac10 you are a real asshole, instead of being positive about good ideas for Doom 3 which may or may not be used, you have to right away bitch at the whole thing.

Well you are the kind of people that would actually get nothing done in life but complain, bitch, complain, and then bitch some more until you actually RUIN an idea. Maybe this is your goal, to de-advance?

To all others, dont you think some of my ideas are good? Despite what Mac10 here thinks?

I think what Mac10 is looking for in a game doesnt even exist yet! His expectations are simply TOO HIGH!

[Guest BEnT2440]

You're right Cold0ne, (yes, I did use the zero!) Mac10 IS an asshole. He says that games like Asteroids and Pong are fun. Yes, they were fun... for their day. We have seen many incarnations of Asteroids, Pong and PacMan before, and they downright sucked. He is basically saying that the new Doom should be much like the old Doom... just kill, kill, kill. Well I have news for everyone... that formula is old. Games that offer new ideas and views are the ones that become classics. Oh yeah, and the smear factor thing is cool. Keep working on those good ideas.

[Guest Ultron]

What makes you think you're opinion has any merit when you're personality obviously doesn't, Mac10? Here's some of your more inspiring words:

=QUOTE=

Idiot.

I thought I would be able to read just one post containing "a hardcore fan's home-brewed advice" for Doom 3 without being provoked. I was wrong.

Your Doom 3 advice just reaks of inability to capture *an essence* and incarnate it in a modern form. Essence goes deeper than "many monsters" and "cool weapons" ("..you just GOTTA have the sniper rifle.." - why? just because you love it in some other game? The whole point is to have weapons that contribute to an overall synergy). Bad sequels are made because people fail to see exactly what made the original successful, which usually is along the lines of a special atmosphere or 'nerve' (that often can be reproduced without copying the exact setting itself!).

Anyway - back to you stupid post. Reading is like reading a transcript of a Beavis & Butthead conversation. There are so many particulars to comment on, but so little time so I'll just say this: Fucking nerd.

=ENDQUOTE=

Why would anyone listen to your advice when you can't even offer it nicely? You really think anyone actually CARES what you think, coming off like that? LOL! Obviously you have some sort of mental inferiority complex. Don't like smart people, eh?

[Guest Sethsez]

Cold0ne said:

Mac10 you are a real asshole, instead of being positive about good ideas for Doom 3 which may or may not be used, you have to right away bitch at the whole thing.

Well you are the kind of people that would actually get nothing done in life but complain, bitch, complain, and then bitch some more until you actually RUIN an idea. Maybe this is your goal, to de-advance?

To all others, dont you think some of my ideas are good? Despite what Mac10 here thinks?

I think what Mac10 is looking for in a game doesnt even exist yet! His expectations are simply TOO HIGH!

Actually, his idea *have* been implemented. Want to know where? The original Doom. Remember the end of episode 1? That was very cinematic, very scary, and it *did* feel like you were all alone againt all of Hell, all without movies or gore. Mac10 could have been nicer than he was, but his points were good. New games do focus on individual elements seperately, and end up being messes. The games that don't are wonderful. For an example of a new game that lives up to his expectations, play Theif 2.

[Guest mac10]

Well, why did I see this one coming? You guys are obviously so much in love with your own 'community spirit' that you don't see the forest for the trees.

First of all, let's get a couple of things straight. I think we all agree that the original Doom was a great game. And I think it is fair to assume that we all want Doom 3 to be a great game, too. Nothing (in this context) would sadden me more than to see Doom 3 failing to realise its potential.

Now what does it take to make a great game (especially one that has a lot of legacy to live up to)? The answers to this are not obvious, or else there wouldn't be so many crappy efforts out there (and please note that the bulk of those crappy efforts are made by people that themselves are hardcore gamers/fans, with a lot of gaming experience and a lot of ideas and opinions on how to make a 'great' game - just like you - only that they also happen to be in a position to do something about it).

How come then, that only a small minority of those game developments turn into a successful - or dare I use the subjective term 'great' - game..? I would guess that there are some valuable lessons to be learned by looking at previous success stories for hints... But since everybody in the industry probably is doing this already, again, the answers are obviously not easily recognized - for reasons already explained.

So why do people make the same mistakes over and over again? Why can't they just make good games instead of crappy ones? I think it is because they simply are not capable of distilling the essence from a successful product, of appreciating just what made it great. It really does not surprise me, because the required level of analysis is probably out of reach for most people (and even if you do 'get it', it must also be *implemented* (well) in the new product - in a way that appeals not only to yourself, but also to the target audience - which is a pretty serious task in itself, and one that also requires understanding of the underlying concepts).

The true gameplay mechanics - or appeal - is often hidden below several layers of story, special effects and superficial gameplay features. Getting to them is not easy, and the effort is probably not half as fun as having 'Beavis and Butthead'-conversations about 'how much a gun rocks' or the 'bloodiness of a death animation'. And even though I understand that this social interaction is what keeps the community flowing, it is just not (or shouldn't be!) enough for a professional developer. They need more precision.

So my post was all about METHOD. What provoked me about your post (and still does - including, now, most of the other comments in the thread as well) was that it so represents the stupid, all-too-common way of approaching not only game design, but most other forms of creative expression as well - especially sequels and follow-ups. You start in the wrong end! First you determine what the essence of the game should be, and THEN you nail down the specifics. It just seems so stupid and shallow to nag about the amounts of gore and the colour of plasma beams at this point.

Also provoking is the way you seem to be unable to appreciate potentially good thoughts just because they are wrapped inside a negative vibe against one of your friends in spirit. Scary and limiting.

As for my expectations, I don't really see how they are too high. If anything, they are too low! And I can point out several games that I enjoy and that probably has done something right. Often, however, it is the sequel that reveals whether a success was a result of 'getting it' or just plain luck! There are a lot of one-trick ponys out there.

One thing you might consider (especially that BEnT2440 brickhead), is that if you make Doom3 like a totally new game, following today's gameplay trends and technologies, the danger is that it will not be Doom anymore - it might as well be Quake4 or whatever - and I bet that would upset the Doom community - even you. So at some level, for there to be any point (besides the brand name piggybacking) of MAKING a Doom3 in the first place, there need to be the ESSENCE of Doom in it! And the way to accomplish that (GIVEN today's gameplay trends and technologies) might just not be to simply add more blood and a sniper rifle to the old Doom!

And as a matter of fact, Ultron, I really really like smart people. That's why it's so frustrating to see so few of them. Thankfully, though, I happen to think John Carmack is a very insightful guy (from years of reading his musings on both technical matters and the bigger picture(s) of being a game developer, company executive and a smart person).

Martin Wardener
Art Director
No Nonsense Advertising

[stphrz]

mac10. First off, just let me say, I agree with you in principle. You make a lot of very valid points. So what. None of the people on this board, including you, are going to have anything whatsoever to do with the development of the new Doom game. The people here are just having some fun exchanging whatever ideas they have with each other. There is no reason for you to be so cynical and condesending. There is no reason for you to be insulting either. Your ideas are good enough to stand on their own merits. You don't need to make fun of others to elevate yourself.

[Guest mac10]

Just a little recap:

To just 'suggest' every conceivable cool idea you have seen in a computer game (or maybe even come up with all by yourself) is really meaningless. The difficulty in making a great computer game is not to come up with a million ideas, but to select the few that fits the formula. And that requires that you define the formula first. Which, in turn demands a well defined goal of the experience you want the gamer to have.

That is the essence of bad design - not being able to separate the relevant ideas from the distracting ones (however cool they may be in their own right). As a designer myself, I know how wrongly a project can turn out if you *start out* by saying "I want this and that to be in the design, because those elements are so cool!".

First you define goals, then the framework - or conceptual rules - needed to accomplish those goals. FINALLY, you fill in the details, the actual elements that when combined make up the finished product. Then it is possible to constantly compare prospective game elements to the framework and determine whether they work for the project or against it. Of course, it is completely allowed to be *inspired* by certain ideas underway, if you just have the professionality to NOT include them unless they are pro-goal.

It's the same thing for all projects, it's just harder to see when the results are judged on an emotional basis rather than a strictly rational one. But that is why we invent rules and mental tools for working with these things.

[Guest mac10]

Stphrz said:

mac10. First off, just let me say, I agree with you in principle. You make a lot of very valid points. So what. None of the people on this board, including you, are going to have anything whatsoever to do with the development of the new Doom game. The people here are just having some fun exchanging whatever ideas they have with each other. There is no reason for you to be so cynical and condesending. There is no reason for you to be insulting either. Your ideas are good enough to stand on their own merits. You don't need to make fun of others to elevate yourself.

Well, the guy just happened to be in the way.

Taken the attention id is actually paying to its fan base and extensive grass root movement, I actually think it is highly appropriate to stir up some relevant discussion on this topic - if not for anything but kick-start some self-education of the community.

I have always felt that blind positivity (naivity) is a bad thing, and it is this that allows under-par products to exist in the long run. We would all be better off if we were more critical to all kinds of creative output, in the same way that competition is good for the achievement level in almost every other conceivable area.

[Guest mac10]

Ultron said:

> What makes you think you're opinion has any merit when you're
> personality obviously doesn't, Mac10?

Well first of all because the two has nothing to do with each other...

[stphrz]

mac10 said:

Well, the guy just happened to be in the way.

Taken the attention id is actually paying to its fan base and extensive grass root movement, I actually think it is highly appropriate to stir up some relevant discussion on this topic - if not for anything but kick-start some self-education of the community.

I have always felt that blind positivity (naivity) is a bad thing, and it is this that allows under-par products to exist in the long run. We would all be better off if we were more critical to all kinds of creative output, in the same way that competition is good for the achievement level in almost every other conceivable area.

I like to think of all this as a massive brainstorming. I have every confidence that id software knows what they are doing. While id's recent games have not been groundbreaking, they are far from bad. In the end they will do what they think is best, and won't be distracted by all the conflicting ideas comming from the community. Also, you can be critical of another person's input without resorting to namecalling. You also have a much greater chance of converting them to your way of thinking if you disagree with a measure of respect.

[Hellbent]

This is going to be fun... :)

First, I agree with recapturing hell in the next DOOM, but not too the extent you have described - it's just too overkill, it would quickly become dull.

-Feel - agreed!

I don't know about ingame sequences - unless this is done very, extremely, mindblowingly well, it holds the potential to ruin the entire game. Your ingame sequence is very good! - I was picturing E3M4 - this would work great as the intro to DOOM 3 (I can hear the the oiginal DOOM intro music as the Baron turns around and reveals his ever familiar self - "I'm back!" - but I wouldn't want it as an ingame sequence - I don't like the idea of ingame sequences - one of the reasons DOOM was so great because it gave you just enough information for imagination to fully embelish in your head Phobos and Diemos (thanks again Myk, for this great point) and the rest of the story setting the scene for when you enter E1M1.

I agree with fear factor (I think it was more prevalent in Quake - damn Fiends scared the bejeezus out of me!)
And, yep, I have (running around with pistol) on E3M7! ;)

Boy, you and I must be sharing the same brain waves - 100% agreement w/that whole monster paragraph.

No, really, we are - again, right on w/ "-perfect shooting amounts" ... -um, and again - monsters too tough - need fix...

Yep - monsters dying *SUCK* in quake and beyond.

(if they dont keep the TWO shotguns, more than one person's house will be getting bombed) ;)

Grenade launcher would have been great in DOOM! - agreed about not overdone plasma rifle. Yep, I made the same suggestion about sniper rifle.

I'd like to go on but can't - my finger got banged today and is out of service.

[Guest paladinl2]

Jesus fucking Christ people.

Can't you all just simply think of it as a fucking game that will be good since Id isn't stupid enough to make a bad game since it's got the name to live up to.

I am also sure of the fact that they aren't gonna make it so people gotta find the key and shit since that is the way it was in every single one of their 3d games and it might just be a little boring. Aside from all of your fucking bullshit mac10, you are a fucking NERD!!!!! Fuck you, go make your fucking games if you are a game designer and I'll be suprised if I ever see your fucking name on any game I like.

Cold0ne is right about one thing, your negative ideas and bitching isn't the kind of quality game companies look for when hiring.

The game will be the game it will be, I say thank god they used the idea, I was kinda thinking about how cool it would be if they made a doom 3.

I do like all the ideas that Cold0ne had, and of COURSE, the people that have brains would probably know all of it can't possibly be put in a game. This is why people like mac10 think too fast. It is also people like you MAC10, that irritate me. Those people that hate everything and make themselves seem all superior, like quoting lots of philosophical ideas and think they are all smart, and then just simply dis everything they see. They gotta be a little more Optimistic.

Ahhh.... Fuck you all... fuck your confusing words too mac10.

By the way, do you use a mac, cause if you do, then the reason you still agree with how doom should be kept the same is cause doom just like came out now on the fucking mac and you still think its the best thing. Fuck macs.

Oh, now all that put aside, I'd like to say that i do agree with some of mac10's points, the parts with how the experience of doom is the originality of doom. Some people seem to think that the key thing is the "classic element" of doom.

[Hellbent]

mac10 said:

Well, the guy just happened to be in the way.

Taken the attention id is actually paying to its fan base and extensive grass root movement, I actually think it is highly appropriate to stir up some relevant discussion on this topic - if not for anything but kick-start some self-education of the community.

I have always felt that blind positivity (naivity) is a bad thing, and it is this that allows under-par products to exist in the long run. We would all be better off if we were more critical to all kinds of creative output, in the same way that competition is good for the achievement level in almost every other conceivable area.

I have to say I agree with everything you've said so far - especially the bit about constructive criticism and dismissing blind posativity - there have been very few well-thought out, intelligent posts and discussions throughout the "new DOOM" forums. (I'm also guilty of some pretty dumb comments)

Perhaps you could instigate some good discussions?

[Hellbent]

Cold0ne said:

Mac10 you are a real asshole, instead of being positive about good ideas for Doom 3 which may or may not be used, you have to right away bitch at the whole thing.

Well you are the kind of people that would actually get nothing done in life but complain, bitch, complain, and then bitch some more until you actually RUIN an idea. Maybe this is your goal, to de-advance?

To all others, dont you think some of my ideas are good? Despite what Mac10 here thinks?

I think what Mac10 is looking for in a game doesnt even exist yet! His expectations are simply TOO HIGH!

If you've read my reply - you know then that I did like most of your ideas very much. But Mac10 has made some very good points that everyone should acknowledge, even if he is a FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT! He does *not* have too high expectations - he's right-on about what makes a good game and how we need to get some more intelligent discussions going, which makes it a *real* shame that he is such a fucking dickhead... you're right, personality and ideas/intelligence don't have anything to do with each other.

[Guest Sethsez]

Stphrz said:

I like to think of all this as a massive brainstorming. I have every confidence that id software knows what they are doing. While id's recent games have not been groundbreaking, they are far from bad. In the end they will do what they think is best, and won't be distracted by all the conflicting ideas comming from the community. Also, you can be critical of another person's input without resorting to namecalling. You also have a much greater chance of converting them to your way of thinking if you disagree with a measure of respect.

I agree. Being condescending doesn't help you with your cause, which is sad, since you are, on every aspect, correct. Remember, attack the idea, not the person. Also, as others have stated, the Quake series was _not_ bad, it was just different. I personally jumped out of my chair the first time I met the Fiend in Quake (you know the scene :)), and I never had that feeling in Doom. On the other hand, Doom had much more action, and was spookier, if not scarier, than the entire Quake series. I have some faith in id, and as long as they follow your idea, Mac10, we will have a great game, even if it isn't legendary. However, if they just focus on individual elements, it won't work. This has been proven with the jumping puzzles in recent FPS games. Just because it worked in Mario doesn't mean it will work in Turok. And as for the sniper rifle, well, no. You can't have a game with non-stop action AND have tactical weapons that will allow you to kill enemies without them ever seeing you. This is Doom, not GoldenEye or Rainbow Six.

[Guest mac10]

paladinl2 said:

Did I see you on Ricky Lake?

[Guest Sethsez]

Of course you didn't. Ricki Lake is WAY to high-class for him. :P

[pming]

Sethsez said:

Actually, his idea *have* been implemented. Want to know where? The original Doom. Remember the end of episode 1? That was very cinematic, very scary, and it *did* feel like you were all alone againt all of Hell, all without movies or gore. Mac10 could have been nicer than he was, but his points were good. New games do focus on individual elements seperately, and end up being messes. The games that don't are wonderful. For an example of a new game that lives up to his expectations, play Theif 2.

At the risk of being BFG'ed...

Just about everyone is makeing some good and some bad points. This is what would be called the "brainstorming" phase of a games design. This is good. The only problem we seem to have here is the lack of respect for others and our own inflated sense of superiority.
What I think should be a serious focus of DOOM3: Evironmental interactivity. I think everyone would agree that one thing that makes DOOM so great is it's atmosphere. You *feel* like you are alone, against insurmountable odds, that you are in Hell or some other 'otherworldly place'. The monsters added to that environment. I would like to see the environment (re: levels) play more of a part in the success/failure of the player. I want to be able to use my surroundings to defeat the baddies...I don't want to be told by a dieing marine/computer readout/transmission from HQ/etc. I want to have to use my own brain in figuring out how to survive. As soon as I got the "do this" message in Unreal/Quake2/etc., I didn't feel alone anymore. In DOOM, you are alone. Period. A 'story' is ok, as long as it isn't too hard-coded into the game itself.
Oh, darkness. We need darkness. Quake2 was too bright for my liking. Quake was better, I thought. DOOM kicks ass in the lighting/mood division. I like it when I walk around a dark corner into a dark room and hear that dreaded "urr-rumph!" from a mancubus, or the scream of a revenant, or even the hiss of an imp. Better yet, hearing *several* of them...from all directions.
Right now, everything is up in the air. Lets wait a few months and see what happens.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

[Hellbent]

Sethsez said:

It is sad: one of the smartest person I've bumped into in these forums, he really was right-on about everything he said, but he's gotta be the biggest loser as well.

"Quake series was _not_ bad, it was just different. I personally jumped out of my chair the first time I met the Fiend in Quake" - agreed. Actually, the weapons in DOOM were _somewhat_ tactile -Doom needed a "sniper rifle" type weapon (no scope or anything like that - just like a shotgun but with no spread and not as much power and should use shells), for levels like MAP15, the shotgun just spread too much for long distance shooting. But DOOM shouldn't have too many weapons - I can't really see it having more weapons than it already has. And completely redoing the arsenal wouldn't really work - unless all the "new" weapons were more or less based on the ones from DOOM, but retaing the appropiate feel to the game. id definately still knows how to make a good game, although the "feel" of each game of their games since DOOM were slightly worse than the previous title - buthat's to be expected when you're using up all the good atmospheres: it's hhard to come up with ever better atmospheres from one game to the next, which is one reason id should resume the DOOM atmosphere

[Guest mac10suxass]

hey coldone completly agree on u with almost all the stuff that u said,except for the sniper rifle.U said there shud be railgun in it but u just cant have a sniper rifle in doom it just wud not work.What they shud add though is a zoom feature where u cud snipe with any weapon and also get better view of diferent places that are hard to see.one more thing he had better be able to swim not walk on water or whatever that was truly gay.also,when the doomguy falls in slime or lava and dies,he shud melt like real lava or acid wud do in real life not just lay down and die or gib after a cuple seconds like in quake2.ONE MORE THINGIE......MAC10 SUXASS

[Guest Blain Newport]

pming said:

I didn't realize I was waiting for someone to say what you said until you said it, Paul. :)

Brainstorming is definitely what's going on here.

I think Martin (mac10) is concerned that some people think they're designing a full game and know what that entails. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) But we're really just BSing and talking about smaller things that we think would be cool if they could be worked into the next DOOM.

A discussion of the most basic elements of the game, it's *essence* as Martin put it, isn't a bad idea. In fact, I think we've already done some of that when we talk about things that _have_ to be included (lots of enemies, the fear factor, etc.)

Martin wants each new suggestion to be evaluated against that backdrop.

For example, say you put a sniper rifle in DOOM. If you actually give the player situations where they can pick off hellspawn at a great distance, that isn't very scary or immediate, two of DOOM's essential design elements. So, unless the proponents of the sniper rifle can explain how it either doesn't break those design elements or how adding it in adds so much other good stuff that it's okay to break those design elements, the sniper rifle is out. The debate over a sniper rifle could go on for weeks.

But that kind of analysis becomes more work than fun for most people. It almost becomes easier to actually _add_ the rifle to one of the source ports to see how it plays. I don't consider these message boards a second job (although I probably spend an hour a day on them), so I don't think I'll be engaging in that type of full analysis any time soon. If I'm gonna do that much work, it'll be on a game of my own. :)

Thanks for the clarification, Paul.

Thanks for the reality check, Martin.

[Guest Sethsez]

Hellbent said:

True, the Doom weapons were somewhat tactical, but not as much as a sniper rifle. I just want to kill things mindlessly, and have fun doing. Not being some pussy hiding with a sniper rifle. Oh, and by the way, am I a loser because I can type right, or what?

[Marauder]

Okay I'm not as "smart" and use big words as some of you but I think that (probably because of engine and technology limitations of the old Doom engine)Doom lacked in some areas of "being alone".

I like the idea of starting out being thrown into a full fledged all out battle at a space station being invaded by demons and such AND looking around seeing your "buddies" (as the storyline always went) desperately fighting vigilantly at your side, dying and being ripped apart by imps etc. you could even have them crawing on the floor gasping for air while holding their insides in their hands. And you know as they die off (because you are a better marine than they are of course) and as you plunge further into a hellish nightmare and in a place no mortal has ever been (except you, the marine, many times.) . . .you become alone and so on and so forth.
Being alone in a earth defense space station is one thing and being alone in HELL is another. Now which would be creepier?

I guess what I'm trying to say is the idea of having characters throughout the game is lame, But it would add an interesting experience to have a few other marines yell profanities at you for not blasting the Imp that is ripping him apart.

Hell, maybe i'm just expecting to much and should be posting stuff for a Hollywood movie instead of a game.

[Marauder]

Blain Newport said:

Okay I'm not as "smart" and use big words as some of you but I think that (probably because of engine and technology limitations of the old Doom engine)Doom lacked in some areas of "being alone".

I like the idea of starting out being thrown into a full fledged all out battle at a space station being invaded by demons and such AND looking around seeing your "buddies" (as the storyline always went) desperately fighting vigilantly at your side, dying and being ripped apart by imps etc. you could even have them crawing on the floor gasping for air while holding their insides in their hands. And you know as they die off (because you are a better marine than they are of course) and as you plunge further into a hellish nightmare and in a place no mortal has ever been (except you, the marine, many times.) . . .you become alone and so on and so forth.
Being alone in a earth defense space station is one thing and being alone in HELL is another. Now which would be creepier?

I guess what I'm trying to say is the idea of having characters throughout the game is lame, But it would add an interesting experience to have a few other marines yell profanities at you for not blasting the Imp that is ripping him apart.

Hell, maybe i'm just expecting to much and should be posting stuff for a Hollywood movie instead of a game.

[Guest Sethsez]

Marauder said:

You're right. Characters do not belong in a Doom game. I think, if they have any interaction, it should not be with the characters themselves. The perfect example of what I mean is System Shock 2. You get to really know the characters, and yet you never meet tham because they are dead from the beginning.

[Marauder]

Yeah I know what you mean. One more thing I'd like to add, even though the list has died down, I was listening to the music downloads for Doom and D2, (on this site) and the music and sound effects have a MAJOR impact on the mood and atmosphere in Doom. Go and download the Demon Waltz mp2 if you dont beleive me.

All I ask is please GOD dont put technoish industrial crap in the new Doom, keep the good old creepy stuff.

[Guest JudgeDooM]

YOU'RE RIGHT!!!! I agree with you on everything that you say. Especially on the HELL paragraph. I was about to post a message similar to yours but then I saw what you wrote...man, I'm so happy. Finally someone who has the same thoughts than me for this - and possibly the greatest - game!!! Fuck anyone who has said that Doom is dead and it's a shitty game!