I think I understand the constant arenas in single player.

[Koko Ricky]

id were trying to find a balance between the hordes you faced in the original games (which, thanks to Ling's tireless research, could sometimes reach 10, 20, even 30 or 40 in terms of individual enemies) and the compromises that come with using high-end graphics. I think that if the maps had been completely and totally non-linear, with no closing-off points, then you could potentially have quite a few enemies running around at once if you act passively and just rush past most of them. This would have slowed down the game significantly. The only way to maintain the target framerate/resolution would have been to reduce polygon counts, or have less enemies.

Thus, having large amounts of enemies in an enclosed area--with many of them spawning at different intervals rather than all at once--is probably the best solution for this era of technology. I imagine that, if a Doom 2-esque sequel is in the works, we will probably have the kind of hardware that could support dozens of monsters at once in very large, expansive areas.

[MusicallyInspired]

Serious Sam gets away with it.

[Tetzlaff]

It's a design choice, not some compromise because of technical limitations.

[Koko Ricky]

Well then.

[StevieWolfe]

However, that said...on certain machines, the quantities of monsters we saw in the original would totally BOMB out the system. As is, it really pushes my computer even though I pounded damn near 2 grand into this thing. I wouldn't mind though playing a slaughter map in the new engine. That would be pretty fucking interesting. Lol, something like Go2It.

[DooM_RO]

GoatLord said:

id were trying to find a balance between the hordes you faced in the original games (which, thanks to Ling's tireless research, could sometimes reach 10, 20, even 30 or 40 in terms of individual enemies) and the compromises that come with using high-end graphics. I think that if the maps had been completely and totally non-linear, with no closing-off points, then you could potentially have quite a few enemies running around at once if you act passively and just rush past most of them. This would have slowed down the game significantly. The only way to maintain the target framerate/resolution would have been to reduce polygon counts, or have less enemies.

Thus, having large amounts of enemies in an enclosed area--with many of them spawning at different intervals rather than all at once--is probably the best solution for this era of technology. I imagine that, if a Doom 2-esque sequel is in the works, we will probably have the kind of hardware that could support dozens of monsters at once in very large, expansive areas.

I came to the exact conclusion. I am happy that I am not the only one. Despite the fact that there are fewer enemies, individually they are a lot more dangerous and agile. 6 imps are nothing to scoff at in this game.

MusicallyInspired said:

Serious Sam gets away with it.

True, but you have to ask yourself what compromises they made to accomodate those monster counts and whether those compromises are appropriate for a game like Doom.

[HorrorMovieRei]

I might get some flak for this, but I kind of like these kind of arena segments in FPS games. Granted, I prefer it when they're only a part of a level as opposed to them being the whole level like in Serious Sam and Painkiller. I think Doom pulled it off well enough, most of the time anyway.

[TheWizard]

Tetzlaff said:

It's a design choice, not some compromise because of technical limitations.

So you're saying you think it's possible to have 50 enemies on the screen at once on consoles with the current graphics? Lol.

[TAPETRVE]

In most arena-style shooters, you backpedal and kite around clustered hordes of enemies. I'd argue that DOOM's arenas are more comparable to those you find in hack 'n' slash games such as Ninja Gaiden. The only thing missing is a high score and rating at the end of each fight.

[Almonds]

There's still the combat rating system and the intermission screens, though :P.

[TAPETRVE]

Of course, but it doesn't rate how quickly and efficiently you dispatch your enemies. Just the plain numbers. Anyway, I think you get my point :-) .

[Chubzdoomer]

MusicallyInspired said:

Serious Sam gets away with it.

This.

[Almonds]

TAPETRVE said:

Of course, but it doesn't rate how quickly and efficiently you dispatch your enemies. Just the plain numbers. Anyway, I think you get my point :-) .

... Yeah, come to think of it, some part of me deep inside kinda actually -was- expecting to see a score system of sorts ala Doom Alpha/Wolf 3D to make a comeback in the new game, I can't shake the notion that it would've been pretty cool to see something along the lines of that in a modern FPS.

I mean, the game gets away with some pretty silly stuff of all sorts such as doomguy collecting wobblehead figurines, something like satanic blibles, demon hearts, soulspheres and all kinds of sacrificial toolware would add more to the overall arcadey feel of it rather than hurting immersion I find. They could've found all sorts of creative ways to implement the score system into how the game plays, like a certain amount of pickups grant you extra praetor tokens, some others upgrade points, maybe even a couple of runes solely dedicated to, I don't know, making it so that the player is able to add their power to his own, like, the more he picks up, the stronger/faster he becomes, what have you.

I actually really hope something like that to be touched upon in either a new doom game (whenever/if that is), or another title they announce.

[Riccardoman]

TAPETRVE said:

In most arena-style shooters, you backpedal and kite around clustered hordes of enemies. I'd argue that DOOM's arenas are more comparable to those you find in hack 'n' slash games such as Ninja Gaiden. The only thing missing is a high score and rating at the end of each fight.

You got the point, the latest AAA title I remember with this SP progression system was DMC4.
I always loved arcade scores, they give you a clear objective and keep you interested and challenged

As far as the upgrade system can go, is only a cherry on the cake, useless from the second playthrough and onwards. Dark Souls 3 handles upgrades and rewards really well by making you play from beginning to end multiple times both in terms of NG and NG+(until +++)

[AirRaid]

MusicallyInspired said:

Serious Sam gets away with it.

Serious Sam is kinda specifically designed for it. Also, SS has:

a) much lower fidelity game worlds (and a clever engine to handle LODs at distance)
b) REALLY basic AI (run toward player, shoot, repeat) which makes it a lot easier to have lots of them spawned at once.

Same with Painkiller, the AI for those enemies is reaaaallly basic.

[Riccardoman]

And it's not only bound to hardware limitations. If in painkiller the AI was more complex, the hordes would obliterate you, no matter the difficulty

[Arctangent]

This is one confusing thread.

I feel like people either forgot Painkiller and Serious Sam were heavily arena-based, too, or they thought this was strictly about monster limits and not the fact that the monster limits probably were considered when making Doom 2016 heavily arena-based. Which ... is probably why Painkiller and Serious Sam don't have many loose monsters, either, although they'd definitely handle it far better considering how simple the AI in those games are.

[DooM_RO]

AirRaid said:

Serious Sam is kinda specifically designed for it. Also, SS has:

a) much lower fidelity game worlds (and a clever engine to handle LODs at distance)
b) REALLY basic AI (run toward player, shoot, repeat) which makes it a lot easier to have lots of them spawned at once.

Same with Painkiller, the AI for those enemies is reaaaallly basic.

This, this, this and this.

[Tetzlaff]

TheWizard said:

So you're saying you think it's possible to have 50 enemies on the screen at once on consoles with the current graphics? Lol.

No, I am saying that the more vertical and deathmatch map inspired arenas in the new Doom are a deliberate design choice. Serious Sam has spacious arenas that are mostly purely horizontal, and the combat evolves around hordes of monsters coming in multiple waves. Doom's arenas are more deathmatch-like, and the monster behaviour with them being able to follow you around in the vertical structures is tailored to this gameplay style.

Classic Doom didn't have arenas with 50 enemies on screen at once, and that slaughtermap gameplay you see in many custom levels isn't everyones cup of tea. I don't have the impression that the new Doom was created with slaughter or Serious Sam gameplay in mind and just somehow dumbed down because of technical limitations.

[TAPETRVE]

Arctangent said:

This is one confusing thread.

I feel like people either forgot Painkiller and Serious Sam were heavily arena-based, too, or they thought this was strictly about monster limits and not the fact that the monster limits probably were considered when making Doom 2016 heavily arena-based. Which ... is probably why Painkiller and Serious Sam don't have many loose monsters, either, although they'd definitely handle it far better considering how simple the AI in those games are.

Again, see above. Painkiller and Serious Sam are what I like to call "herding shooters". It's all about kiting and crowd control. DOOM is a game about moving forward, about zigzagging and bouncing in between individual enemies, and keeping that invisible combo meter going. The glory/chainsaw kills that give you back health and ammunition are basically the same as the finishers in spectacle fighters such as Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, and, to a lesser extent, God of War, where enemies drop coloured orbs that recharge your health in the middle of fights. DOOM could easily have a score meter running that gives you a grade from D to S at the end of each fight, and it wouldn't feel out of place.

[40oz]

I dont know about you guys but I don't think the "limitations" of the game are very obvious. You have to fast, unpredictable, and acrobatic in this game to be good at it. It's super dynamic, which is what classic doom mappers strive to do when they make fights with tons of dumb monsters at once, and it gets your adrenaline pumping, which kinda gives you that panicky survival feeling you get when playing things like Plutonia -- you really don't know what's going to happen next.

I'm not really sure if there is a real issue here. To date I haven't played a game that is quite like Doom 2016. I consider the arena fights to be the highlights of the game. Face it, people. Intermittent monsters in areas are not that fun. I don't even like to use them in my own doom maps.

[Riccardoman]

Listen to Tetzlaff and 40oz I'm pretty sure they know what they are saying.
The only problem here are the snapmap limitations concerning the limited assets and the lacking of an import tool