Remember all the backlash about Doom 2016?

[MusicallyInspired]

MetroidJunkie said:

That Rise of the Triad remake did a funny thing to subtly make fun of reloading mechanics, it has a reloading button that you don't need but all he does is take the same clip and shove it back in.

That wasn't the first game to do that. I don't remember the name but I've definitely seen that before.

[JohnnyTheWolf]

HellVain said:

If you really just see the story of the new game "Doomguy angry" then you clearly need to listen to the dialogues and read the documents. It's not being told cinematically rather it's up to the player to figure it out. You'll also find out why Doomguy is angry about Samuel. It's telling you a gritty and tragic story subtly, you just didn't listen.

There is nothing "subtle", "gritty" or "tragic" about an angry space marine punching computer screens and killing demons in an over-the-top manner because he is angry. If anything, with its greater emphasis on atmosphere and realism, Doom 3 is far subtler and grittier in that regard.

Shadow warrior 2013 at best was an asian duke nukem toned down.

Still more fun and engaging than playing a silent protagonist with little personality that has to listen to the Crysis Nanosuit spout exposition.

[HellVain]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

There is nothing "subtle", "gritty" or "tragic" about an angry space marine punching computer screens and killing demons in an over-the-top manner because he is angry. If anything, with its greater emphasis on atmosphere and realism, Doom 3 is far subtler and grittier in that regard.

Still more fun and engaging than playing a silent protagonist with little personality that has to listen to the Crysis Nanosuit spout exposition.

Play the game.

Listen to the dialouges.

Read the texts.

Seriously did you even take time to actually analyze the dialougues?
Also the silent protagonist thing has always been in doom. It's a staple. If you want a talking protagonist then this isnt your game. Go play Bioshock or Call of duty or something.

[ChickenOrBeef]

The storytelling in the new DOOM is actually pretty brilliant, but it's subtle. Read this Eurogamer article which explains it quite well:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-05-22-the-guy-youre-playing-as-in-doom-is-playing-doom

[JohnnyTheWolf]

HellVain said:

Listen to the dialogues.

More like the monologues in this case, because again, Doomguy does not say anything.

Read the texts.

Which basically boil down to "Doomguy is angry. Doomguy blows shit up."

Nothing subtle, gritty or clever about that.

Also the silent protagonist thing has always been in doom.

Not a good excuse.

Prior to Doom 3 and by extent Doom 2016, the series had no such thing as cutscenes, neutral NPCs, story logs, voice acting (minus perhaps the brief sound clip used for the Icon of Sin), scripted sequences and so on... Are you suggesting Doom 2016 should not have had those either?

Personally, I think Id should have either not bothered with story at all or gone for something goofier and wittier, a la Serious Sam or Shadow Warrior 2013.

Go play Bioshock or Call of duty or something.

You do realise the protagonists of those series also tend to be silent, right? ;)

Only in Bioshock Infinite does the player-character talk. As for Call of Duty, I have stopped caring after Modern Warfare 2, so I do not know about the newer installments, but back then, the player-characters were also silent.

[LaughingMan008]

....I don't want subtle, gritty, or clever. I want Doom.
The new Doom is actually Doom. Unlike Doom 3, which was System Shock 2.
Don't get me wrong, I love System Shock 2, but, again, I wanted DOOM.

[MusicallyInspired]

I didn't notice these posts beforehand.

JohnnyTheWolf said:

Every Doom game so far has had some elements of platforming, including Doom 64 and Doom 3.

No. Those games weren't near as vertical as DOOM.

Okay, that one is new, but it is the kind of pseudo-RPG crap that has been plaguing shooters for a while, including "retromodern" ones like Shadow Warrior 2013 and The New Order. I do not think it is a worthy addition to Doom at all; in fact, I find it more immersion-breaking than anything.

Ok, so you don't like it. Fair enough. A lot of people do, though, and it's a proven formula that has been working the past couple of years.

And that is what bothers me so much: it is just so unapologetically unoriginal, it is kind of depressing in a way. I mean, I understand RAGE was a flop, but come on... can they not come up with something a little more original than yet another remake of a 23-year old classic?

It's unoriginal, yes, but it hasn't been done so unoriginally for a long time. People miss this type of gameplay and it shows. It's killing in sales. It's making an impact. Obviously that's a problem for you but not everyone wants to see something new all the time. Personally for me it was getting tiring. Sometimes a breath of retro fresh air works fine. You don't always need to be pushing the line. I do believe that DOOM implemented glory kills better than any that came before it, though. So it still has an element of that.

Plenty of first-person shooters have been there already: Serious Sam, Painkiller, Hard Reset, Shadow Warrior 2013, Rise of the Triad 2013...

ROTT 2013 sucked so it doesn't count. But I enjoy all of those games! Just because DOOM follows in their footsteps doesn't mean it's bad. It still brings something new to the table that those other "retro" games don't have. I use quotes on retro because I don't believe it is anymore. Whatever was considered retro is clearly "in" again and I couldn't be happier.

Not being clever does not make one clever, especially when it involves a generic-looking mute space marine shooting demons and punching computer screens.

I mean that by not trying to think too hard about new features, they hit a spot people didn't know they had. That was clever. The game is clearly not clever. I just said it doesn't need to be. I don't want it to be clever. What's wrong with just some mindless fun?

I would say it was to an extent: the technology was quite innovative for the time and the horror-inspired gameplay was novel for the franchise.

What I meant was it didn't make much of an impact. I enjoy the game, but I remember a lot more people being disappointed with it. Actually, a proportionate amount to the number of people currently enjoying DOOM.

I honestly would have loved to see a Doom 4 set in the same universe, this time on Earth.

Eh...then I would have started saying what you're saying about having "more of the same" and being disappointed. All depends on what you're looking for, see? That doesn't make either game bad. It's difficult to say but I think it's relatively safe to assume that DOOM as it is certainly is more popular than what your ideal Doom 4 would have been.

I disagree, especially when the game in question is being sold at $60 US without even proper modding support.

Modding support doesn't factor into a game's price. Never has never will. If it's not enough value for your money, that's up to you and obviously the consumer determines value.....speaking of the consumer, though, they're certainly enjoying the crap out of it and paying full price, so.....

Which basically boil down to "Doomguy is angry. Doomguy blows shit up."

There is nothing wrong with this. I and many others find this wonderfully hilarious and perfect.

Nothing subtle, gritty or clever about that.

Agreed.

Prior to Doom 3 and by extent Doom 2016, the series had no such thing as cutscenes, neutral NPCs, story logs, voice acting (minus perhaps the brief sound clip used for the Icon of Sin), scripted sequences and so on... Are you suggesting Doom 2016 should not have had those either?

I like them, but it would have still worked without them. I think it's all the more hilarious that the protagonist ignores any and all signs of exposition and plot, though lol. Which ironically works to its plot! See the cleverness?? I think it's brilliant. It's an excuse to do an old school shooter without plot that still has a plot.

Personally, I think Id should have either not bothered with story at all or gone for something goofier and wittier, a la Serious Sam or Shadow Warrior 2013.

Again, fair enough. That's your opinion. The masses disagree with you, however.

Only in Bioshock Infinite does the player-character talk. As for Call of Duty, I have stopped caring after Modern Warfare 2, so I do not know about the newer installments, but back then, the player-characters were also silent.

I've never cared about CoD. I've always disliked WW2 games so I never got into the series. then when it turned into a "modern shooter" I had more reason to ignore it...

[Jaxxoon R]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

Nothing subtle, gritty or clever about that.

Just because you fail to see the wit in the game's writing (silent protagonist whose thoughts are conveyed entirely through the subtletest of movements, colorful lore and moral questions that are outright brushed off by the same protagonist) doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means you can't appreciate something that isn't at an extreme of either no story or "we're camp please love us."

[HellVain]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

More like the monologues in this case, because again, Doomguy does not say anything.

Which basically boil down to "Doomguy is angry. Doomguy blows shit up."

Nothing subtle, gritty or clever about that.

Not a good excuse.

Prior to Doom 3 and by extent Doom 2016, the series had no such thing as cutscenes, neutral NPCs, story logs, voice acting (minus perhaps the brief sound clip used for the Icon of Sin), scripted sequences and so on... Are you suggesting Doom 2016 should not have had those either?

Personally, I think Id should have either not bothered with story at all or gone for something goofier and wittier, a la Serious Sam or Shadow Warrior 2013.

You do realise the protagonists of those series also tend to be silent, right? ;)

Only in Bioshock Infinite does the player-character talk. As for Call of Duty, I have stopped caring after Modern Warfare 2, so I do not know about the newer installments, but back then, the player-characters were also silent.

Ok fine, I may have overthought things. But still Doom wasn't much about story though, sure doom 3 had its fair share of good things and was pretty innovative for its time but it didn't really have much of an impact because it strayed from Doom's fast paced action and incredible level design. The new doom is seeking to be like the old doom so they went with it. Little story, ingenous level design, classic demon designs revamped, and secrets and easter eggs galore. If id didnt bother with even putting a small portion pf story then it wouldve just been stale.

Thats why they went with being subtle about it. Just because the protagonist doesn't speak or have a cutscene every 30 minutes or so, doesnt mean story in this game doesnt exist.

Also that first statement you had, I was not suggesting that doom not have those, how did you even get that idea?Doom isnt some openworld game so it's okay that some events are scripted, I dont mind the new additions except if that addition is flashlight wielding and a limited sprint button.

Lastly I wasnt talking about the old versions of those games. I guess i shouldve been more specific.

[JohnnyTheWolf]

MusicallyInspired said:

No. Those games weren't near as vertical as DOOM.

Still platforming.

It's unoriginal, yes, but it hasn't been done so unoriginally for a long time.

Again, Rise of the Triad 2013, Serious Sam 3, Duke Nukem Forever, Painkiller, Wrack...

Also, "so unoriginally" sounds extremely negative. How can this even be a good thing?

People miss this type of gameplay and it shows.

I suspect it has more to do with branding, actually. Almost everybody has played Doom or at least has heard of it. If the game had been part of a brand-new IP, I am not sure the hype would have been nearly as big. It may also be the reason as to why the game is called "DOOM" instead of Doom 4.

ROTT 2013 sucked so it doesn't count.

I agree it looks terrible, but it does not change the fact that it is a retromodern shooter. Therefore, it does count.

Just because DOOM follows in their footsteps doesn't mean it's bad.

I did not say that either.

I just find it a shame that the series that has once spawned a series of imitators - "Doom clones" - is now content with imitating other games.

What's wrong with just some mindless fun?

Because too often, "mindless fun" has become an excuse to justify mediocrity nowadays: you hear it used to defend crap like Michael Bay movies. Heck, I think even Gearbox used those words to market Duke Nukem Forever!

Also, I do not think expensive AAA titles should be content with "mindless fun".

Eh... then I would have started saying what you're saying about having "more of the same" and being disappointed.

I would have loved to see Doom 3's take on Hell on Earth: Doom II never had a modern remake and it could have been a great opportunity to address Doom 3's issues.

Modding support doesn't factor into a game's price.

It should, though. Especially when it comes to a game like Doom.

speaking of the consumer, though, they're certainly enjoying the crap out of it and paying full price, so.....

You might as well start claiming the same thing about Call of Duty games because of their high sales and the fact that people are willing to pay full price to play them.

I think it's all the more hilarious that the protagonist ignores any and all signs of exposition and plot, though lol. Which ironically works to its plot! See the cleverness??

Not really. It just feels very cynical and self-defeating that they could be bothered to invest time and resources in story presentation (photorealistic environments, choreographed cutscenes, professional voice-acting) only to produce some garbage plot about an angry guy punching computer screens because he does not care about why he is killing demons.

A minimalistic plot would have been fine if the game had been a low-budget independent game, like the original Doom. But the thing is, Doom 2016 is an AAA product sold at $60 US!

I've never cared about CoD. I've always disliked WW2 games so I never got into the series. then when it turned into a "modern shooter" I had more reason to ignore it...

I hear this argument often and I do not think it is fair at all.

World War II/Modern war games spawned a subgenre of their own, the realistic militaristic shooter. They are hardly representative of the first-person shooter genre as a whole. To paint Doom 2016 as some kind of messiah coming to deliver us from Call of Duty is playing right into the hands of cynical marketing experts who tend to think of us as gullible, impressionable neanderthals.

Jaxxoon R said:

It just means you can't appreciate something that isn't at an extreme of either no story or "we're camp please love us."

Or maybe it just means I do not think Doom 2016's story is very good at all.

silent protagonist whose thoughts are conveyed entirely through the subtletest of movements

Like punching computer screens and ripping off a corpse's arm!

colorful lore

Doom 2016's lore is super bland, actually, and just feels like a heavily watered-down version of Doom 3.

moral questions that are outright brushed off by the same protagonist

How very subtle and profound. I have not seen so much wit since Cannon Films went out of business!

[Jaxxoon R]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

Or maybe it just means I do not think Doom 2016's story is very good at all.

You somehow think Doom 3 has better lore and story than 4, what with CartoonMcBadguy Betruger and the Mission to Mars human origin?

JohnnyTheWolf said:

I just find it a shame that the series that has once spawned a series of imitators - "Doom clones" - is now content with imitating other games.

And your suggested solution is that it should mimic other games.

[snapshot]

I Hate it when games protagonists are completely "shut up" .

[MusicallyInspired]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

Still platforming.

Yes, but it's a different type of platforming so it brings something new. With that logic you could just say it's just another shooter because it's in first person and you're holding a gun. Or heck, it's just another video game because you're using your hands and interacting with a virtual environment translated via monitor display and audio speakers.

Again, Rise of the Triad 2013, Serious Sam 3, Duke Nukem Forever, Painkiller, Wrack...

These are the types of shooters I like to play. They're all different in their own way and all have something unique to give. Except Duke Nukem Forever. That is absolutely not a retro shooter and doesn't even belong in this list.

Also, "so unoriginally"? How can this even be a good thing?

You're missing my point. "So unoriginally in a long time" means it's not unoriginal anymore. Modern shooter conventions are now unoriginal.

When it all comes down to it there is nothing new under the sun anyway. Every game is a variation of Pong. I guess we should have thrown in the towel back in the 70s.

I suspect it has more to do with branding, actually. Almost everybody has played Doom or at least has heard of it. If the game had been part of a brand-new IP, I am not sure the hype would have been nearly as big. It may also be the reason as to why the game is called "DOOM" instead of Doom 4.

Going to have to just agree to disagree here. DOOM offers something other games do not. That's why people are playing it and having fun at the same time. You're forgetting the horrible marketing campaign this game had and how awful both beta tests went. People didn't expect much from this game and were pleasantly surprised. So no, it's not brand. We were prepared to despise it. Or at least be disappointed. Especially after Doom 3.

I agree it looks terrible, but it does not change the fact that it is a retromodern shooter. Therefore, it does count.

It's not fun so it doesn't count. All those other games you listed are fun.

I did not say that either.

I just find it a shame that the series that has once spawned a series of imitators - "Doom clones" - is now content with imitating other games.

You're one of those guys who hates looking back aren't you? I gather you're not a fan of sequels, indie games, or remakes.

Because too often, "mindless fun" has become an excuse to justify mediocrity nowadays: you hear it used to defend crap like Michael Bay movies. Heck, I think Gearbox even used those words to market Duke Nukem Forever!

Again with DNF. DNF was a badly designed game and is the farthest thing from being a retro shooter. That's why it's despised so much. It tried to be progressive and, surprise, that's not what anyone wanted.

DOOM seems to be anything but mediocre. If I'm having fun it's not mediocre. CoD is mediocre. Every game is the same. Same with Halo, Battlefield, and Rainbow Six.

Also, I do not think expensive AAA titles should be content with "mindless fun".

Again, agree to disagree. I don't see the problem.

I would have loved to see Doom 3's take on Hell on Earth: Doom II never had a modern remake and it could have been a great opportunity to address Doom 3's issues.

Maybe. But judging from the immense lack of interest in Doom 3, I can't imagine it would have drawn a very large crowed. Besides, wasn't the original rejected version of Doom 4 a CoD clone shooter based on Earth? Talk about mediocre.

It should, though. Especially when it comes to a game like Doom.

As much as it sucks, it's not the developer's responsibility to release tools for modding their games (unless they promised them beforehand...looking at you, DNF). We've been spoiled (specifically by id) with source releases and modding tools which they didn't have to provide and involve quite a bit of work to get released in a stable form, not to mention support depending on the way it's released. But modding has never factored into the publisher's chosen price tag. It's always been a free extra to the best of my knowledge.

You might as well start claiming the same thing about Call of Duty games because of their high sales and the fact that people are willing to pay full price to play them.

Now we're on the same page. We just have different opinons. Some people like CoD games, some people like heavily plot-driven games that also push the envelope with regards to interactivity and new game mechanics, and some people like just shooting things. It doesn't mean any of these games are bad.....objectively, anyway. As much as I hate to admit it, CoD works on some level or it wouldn't be an ongoing cash cow. Doom has not had near as much success. There are only 4 titles in the entire franchise! How many does CoD have again? Which one is more likely to be guilty of mediocrity?

Not really. It just feels very cynical and self-defeating that they could be bothered to invest time and resources in story presentation (photorealistic environments, choreographed cutscenes, professional voice-acting) only to produce some garbage plot about an angry guy punching computer screens because he does not care about why he is killing demons.

This is exactly what so many people love about it. It works. It's selling. People are parading it, again despite the terrible marketing campaign it had and the bafflingly isolated choice of a MP only beta test. I'm sorry you can't see it or look down on it, but it's true.

A minimalistic plot would have been fine if the game had been a low-budget independent game, like the original Doom. But the thing is, Doom 2016 is an AAA product.

I wholeheartedly disagree again with this sentiment. A AAA game doesn't have to be anything but something that is fun and sells. Putting AAA games in a box like that is what leads to constant mediocrity. That's why I love the indie scene which is full of developers who create whatever they want and are rewarded for it. I wish AAA developers would be allowed to do the same thing. You have a skewed perception of what the industry should be. The majority of the consumer bas will decide what it should be. And, oh look, it did.

I hear this argument often and I do not think it is fair at all.

It wasn't an argument, it was my opinion.

World War II/Modern war games spawned a subgenre of their own, the realistic militaristic shooter. They are hardly representative of the first-person shooter genre as a whole. To paint Doom 2016 as some kind of messiah coming to deliver us from Call of Duty is playing right into the hands of cynical marketing experts who tend to think of us as gullible, impressionable neanderthals.

Nevertheless, the realistic militaristic shooter has dominated the market for more than a decade. You can believe we're being manipulated all you want, the fact is for years I've not seen much of anything interesting worth spending my hard earned on (and yes, I've played CoD and its various iterations and clones) until games like Serious Sam 3, Shadow Warrior, The New Order, and DOOM came along. These are things I enjoy and I want to see more of so I'll spend my money on it. Are you saying my tastes are bad or wrong? Just because the market isn't going your way doesn't mean you can say these are poor or outdated design decisions. If people are playing it it's not outdated. People still play Doom to this day. People still play Duke Nukem 3D to this day. People stilll play Serious Sam Classic to this day. How many people are still playing Modern Warfare? Halo 3? Rainbow Six Rogue Spear? These types of games are still popular. Just because a louder voice says it's outdated doesn't make it so if people are paying for it.

Or maybe it just means I do not think Doom 2016's story is very good at all.

It's not. Does it need to be? My answer is a resounding no. Games are not all about story. I personally believe games have become so obsessed with storytelling that they've forgotten about gameplay. Even adventure games, one of the biggest staples of which is storytelling, have concentrated too much on story delivery while forgetting that it's supposed to be something you actually play as well. Modern adventures don't hold a candle to the golden age of Space Quest, King's Quest, Monkey Island, and Day of the Tentacle because there was more gameplay in those games than there are in the cinematic-driven drivel Telltale Games turns out these days.

Like punching computer screens and ripping off a corpse's arm!

Isn't that awesome!?

Doom 2016's lore is super bland, actually, and just feels like a heavily watered-down version of Doom 3.

No, it feels like Doom with a heavy dose of steroids pumped into it. Who cares about lore? I just want to shoot things. How do you feel about the lore in Call of Duty? Is it any better? Is it even close to even DOOM's quality level?

But I'm assuming CoD is your favourite game which is probably a grossly incorrect assumption. What are your favourite kinds of shooter games? I gather you enjoyed Doom 3, of course.

How very subtle and profound. I have not seen so much wit since Cannon Films went out of business!

And why is this a bad thing?

[JohnnyTheWolf]

Jaxxoon R said:

You somehow think Doom 3 has better lore and story than 4, what with CartoonMcBadguy Betruger and the Mission to Mars human origin?

Yes. For a Doom game, it was quite good.

It also helps Doom 3 does not actively discourage you from caring about the story.

And your suggested solution is that it should mimic other games.

Since it is pretty much what Doom 2016 does already, why the hell not?

Except Duke Nukem Forever. That is absolutely not a retro shooter and doesn't even belong in this list.

Sure, but it is about as unoriginal as Doom 2016. Which, in the latter's case, is apparently a good thing...

"So unoriginally in a long time" means it's not unoriginal anymore.

A cliché is still a cliché, even if it has not been used all that much lately.

It is especially with a game like Doom, which influence on the genre has yet to wane.

When it all comes down to it there is nothing new under the sun anyway.

Not an excuse to remake Doom 1 for, like, the eight time.

It's not fun so it doesn't count.

If you are going to go with such a childishly subjective criterion, some people do think RoTT2013 is fun. Therefore, it counts.

DOOM offers something other games do not.

No, it does not. It just takes popular ideas and repackages it under a well-established brand.

People didn't expect much from this game and were pleasantly surprised.

It is easy to be "pleasantly surprised" when your standards have become so low. Id's previous game RAGE was and, as you said yourself, Doom 2016's beta tests had not been well received.

I think something similar happened for Shadow Warrior 2013: few really cared about Hard Reset and Duke Nukem Forever has been such a disaster that it became basically impossible for the Shadow Warrior reboot to fail.

Although to be fair, its surprisingly funny and engaging story did set it apart from other first-person shooters.

You're one of those guys who hates looking back aren't you?

No, but I do dislike being told by overly defensive fanboys that I should love a $60 AAA remake of a game that has been remade so many times over the last few decades.

DNF was a badly designed game and is the farthest thing from being a retro shooter.

I used the game as an example as to why the "mindless fun" argument is flimsy and is way too often used to deflect criticism.

DOOM seems to be anything but mediocre.

I would say it is: the gameplay in itself looks alright, but everything else is just so bland and forgettable.

If I'm having fun it's not mediocre.

I had fun playing plenty of mediocre games. Do not be so elitist.

As much as it sucks, it's not the developer's responsibility to release tools for modding their games

Unless of course, the game they are remaking is Doom, which enduring legacy is in part due to its modding community. Heck, as we speak, modders are already trying to recreate Doom 2016 for Classic Doom. Is it not quite telling?

Besides, wasn't the original rejected version of Doom 4 a CoD clone shooter based on Earth?

No idea, I have yet to see any actual gameplay footage.

If anything, it looked far more like RAGE.

There are only 4 titles in the entire franchise!

If you ignore the mobile spin-offs and the Quake games, there were actually six titles prior to Doom 2016: Doom, Doom II, Final Doom, Doom 64, Doom 3, Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil.

Which one is more likely to be guilty of mediocrity?

Both, considering Id Software is nothing but the shadow of its former self.

You have a skewed perception of what the industry should be.

You refuse to acknowledge games you do not like, yet you have the audacity of accusing me of having a "skewed perception". Interesting...

Nevertheless, the realistic militaristic shooter has dominated the market for more than a decade.

[...]

Just because a louder voice says it's outdated doesn't make it so if people are paying for it.

I find the opening and closing sentences of your paragraph to be quite contradicting.

Games are not all about story.

It is not what I am saying it.

Doom 2016's story is too "in your face" to be ignored, but it is too tame to be enjoyable. That is why I would have rather taken no story at all or something witty a la Shadow Warrior 2013.

Isn't that awesome!?

It is not the early 90s anymore. Over-the-top gore is no longer that cool or shocking. I do not even think it is what made Doom good in the first place...

Who cares about lore?

The developers, apparently, because they felt it was a necessary addition to a game.

Again, they should have either not bothered at all or gone all campy. There is nothing worse than middle of the road.

What are your favourite kinds of shooter games? I gather you enjoyed Doom 3, of course.

I liked Doom 3 alright. It is not my favorite game, but I can appreciate Id's attempt to do something different with the franchise.

I much prefer Classic Doom, mostly because it is now dirt cheap, easy to pick up and play, has aged well and has virtually endless replayability thanks to mods.

And why is this a bad thing?

Someone claimed Doom 2016's writing was witty. I compared it to Cannon Films, which were not witty. Unless Charles Bronson or Chuck Norris indifferently and effortlessly mowing down groups of bad guys is supposed to be considered witty nowadays...

[Trycon]

This thread is interesting....

[Jaxxoon R]

Holy shit just fucking stop, do you really need to quote and reply to every fucking sentence? There should be a limit to how many times the [quote] tag can be used in a single post.

So here's an idea, why don't you break down and explain precisely why Doom 4 is so objectively mediocre and not keep on going:
[quote]
oneliner
[quote]
oneliner
[quote]
oneliner
[quote]
oneliner
[quote]
oneliner
[quote]
oneliner
[quote]
oneliner

[snapshot]

Trycon said:

This thread is interesting....

It's boring, and "Quotes" infested .

[Dragonfly]

Spoiler

[MusicallyInspired]

Hey JohnnyTheWolf. Don't play DOOM 2016 ;). I have a feeling you'll be happier for it.

Jaxxoon R said:

Holy shit just fucking stop, do you really need to quote and reply to every fucking sentence? There should be a limit to how many times the quote tag can be used in a single post.

So here's an idea, why don't you break down and explain precisely why Doom 4 is so objectively mediocre and not keep on going:

I'm probably the one that started the micro-quote trend here. I take full responsibility for that. But that's how I'm always used to responding specifically to certain separate statements. If you just make a large broad statement, things get missed (you should see some of the threads on Duke4!). But anyway I'll stop. There's not going to be any convincing going on anyway between people who are on two completely different pages.

[Tritnew]

*Sigh*

Well, this thread turned out to be... Interesting.

Quote.
Quote.
QUOTE.

[Deleted_Account]

So, do you guys remember all the backlash about Doom 2016? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[Almonds]

tangentially related to the topic, but I just remembered how the sole thought of someone, somewhere out there genuinely wanting the canned Doom 4 to be a real thing instead of this game would make me die a little inside.

And, well, I just died a little inside today.

[RUSH]

Nobody feels stupid now because all the backlash was for multiplayer. Nobody had said anything negative about the single player experience which (thankfully) turned out to be great. And id/Bethesda listened to the negative feedback and used suggestions to improve the multiplayer experience. So it wasn't a bad thing at all really.

[JohnnyTheWolf]

Almonds said:

tangentially related to the topic, but I just remembered how the sole thought of someone, somewhere out there genuinely wanting the canned Doom 4 to be a real thing instead of this game would make me die a little inside.

I am not saying I really want it; I just think it would have been an interesting curiosity.

[HellVain]

Double post.)))

[HellVain]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

I am not saying I really want it; I just think it would have been an interesting curiosity.

Your earlier posts contradicts that.

[JohnnyTheWolf]

Not quite.

I did say I would have liked a direct sequel to Doom 3 set on Earth, but judging by the leaked Doom 4 footage, it does not look like it was going to be the case.

MusicallyInspired said:

Hey JohnnyTheWolf. Don't play DOOM 2016 ;). I have a feeling you'll be happier for it.

Nah, I plan to get it once it gets much cheaper. As I said before, the game looks decent, but it just does not look like it is worth paying full price.

But feel free to not read my comments if they bother you.

[Almonds]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

I am not saying I really want it; I just think it would have been an interesting curiosity.

Too late, I just came back from the gathering at the graveyard in my local hometown in Minesotta where they dug my pancreas. Now my pancreas is dead and I'll have to live my entire life through without my pancreas. I really miss my pancreas. Today is a sad day.

[MusicallyInspired]

JohnnyTheWolf said:

But feel free to not read my comments if they bother you.

Trust me I'm not abstaining from commenting for your sake or mine, but for theirs. I've read all your comments. And they don't bother me, they're just confusing. Like I said, two different pages. Agree to disagree.

[TheMightyHeracross]

"If I'm having fun it's not mediocre."
"I had fun playing plenty of mediocre games. Do not be so elitist."

How was the first quote elitist in any way at all?