Gamer plays Doom for the first time

I love the line about pixels in Doom's visuals:

"Be it dirt, blood, hair or the barrel of a gun, everything I saw was a block. Each block was a tile of a nightmare mosaic."

Neat article.

phi108 said:

Each block was a tile of a nightmare mosaic."

Doom is a nightmare. Out of the monitor, into your face. A virtual reality masterpiece from the masters of id Software. Coming December 10th.

I liked the part where he was actually shocked about the color blue existing in Doom.

It's nice to see that the game still stands up and has something to offer to new players after all these years. Maybe my glasses aren't as rose-tinted as I thought!

It's also refreshing to hear something positive being said about the use of sprites in a '3d' game. It seems hyper realistic grey/brown modelling is all that makes the cut these days. There's something about the abstract nature of sprite enemies that just isn't captured in models... or is that just me?

I was lost and confused in the first level. I was not always sure where to go. I used an online map to help me out.

rofl

My my, so much praise and he got as far as getting the shotgun...

Too bad he hadn't reached the Cyberdemon yet.

Some Butthurt Douche-fag said:

Sounds like you dipped your 'console-itis' infected finger into the greater waters of classic pc gaming for a moment only as if to say 'ooh, look at me!'.

Spending a few minutes playing a game only for the purposes of writing material makes for a pathetically shallow and transparent article wherein your ignorance is revealed.

What would any real gamer actually get out of your writing? You may as well travel to India, ignorant and naive, and proceed to tell everyone about Buddha.

Now go and actually beat it. The real bloody thing this time. No xbox, console controllers, flash version, no cheating, no effing 'online maps'.

And IF you do, keep you inaccurate wordy uncohesive rhetoric to yourself and chalk it up to exploring something more than the most superficial layer of the subject you pretend to write about.

ROFL. Who the fuck are these horrible fanboys and how do I wipe them from my planet?

Oh that was me sorry

Well, it fits your custom title anyway.

Also that was an interesting article although I'm sad he got the Steam release only to go play some terrible Flash port instead... at least he decided to go with the Xbox version later on =p

Kaiser said:

rofl

Hahaha I was five years old when I first beat doom. I don't think I spent more than 15 minutes on any one of the maps either.

I don't like this review. In the past I really appreciated these good statements about Doom, but I think there should be something different now! I'm one of the biggest doom fans and what I saw there was that he didn't speak about the graphics badly. The graphics are bad. Just compare Doom 1 to Quake 3 Arena. Doom 1 is a very great video game, but now after more than 15 years, it should be said that the graphics are bad. And don't speak about gameplay now, concentrate on the graphics. I like the graphics, but they are bad today.

Here is what you should take also into consideration: 3D graphics of today.

Deeforce said:

I don't like this review. In the past I really appreciated these good statements about Doom, but I think there should be something different now! I'm one of the biggest doom fans and what I saw there was that he didn't speak about the graphics badly. The graphics are bad. Just compare http://a.imageshack.us/img576/7360/doom1graphics25d.jpg]Doom 1[/url] to Quake 3 Arena. Doom 1 is a very great video game, but now after more than 15 years, it should be said that the graphics are bad. And don't speak about gameplay now, concentrate on the graphics. I like the graphics, but they are bad today.

Here is what you should take also into consideration: 3D graphics of today.

I wouldn't say that at all. Doom's graphics are comparatively simplistic, but they're by no means "ugly". It's like comparing a cartoon to a CGI movie.

esselfortium said:

[...]but [the graphics are] by no means "ugly"

I didn't say "ugly", I said "bad" for today's standards.

Deeforce said:

I didn't say "ugly", I said "bad" for today's standards.

That's even worse. Be quiet, Deeforce.

Deeforce said:

I didn't say "ugly", I said "bad" for today's standards.

That's essentially saying that abstract paintings are better than landscapes... or photography better than mosaic art. Why should all be the same?

That was an embarrassing read.

Console gamers make me sick to my stomach.

Deeforce said:

I didn't say "ugly", I said "bad" for today's standards.

But there's no blue in the trailer you showed us. That's not very realistic... ;P

PS: Doom graphics are not bad. They are stylised. Through necessity and technological limitations but stylised none-the-less. Do you think Borderlands looks bad? Or TF2?? Or Super Paper Mario??? Black Ops looks like a sharper version of just about every game that's been released in the past 5 years - that, to my mind, makes the graphics in that game 'bad'. No originality whatsoever...and NO blue! :P

Deeforce said:

I don't like this review. In the past I really appreciated these good statements about Doom, but I think there should be something different now! I'm one of the biggest doom fans and what I saw there was that he didn't speak about the graphics badly. The graphics are bad. Just compare http://a.imageshack.us/img576/7360/doom1graphics25d.jpg]Doom 1[/url] to Quake 3 Arena. Doom 1 is a very great video game, but now after more than 15 years, it should be said that the graphics are bad. And don't speak about gameplay now, concentrate on the graphics. I like the graphics, but they are bad today.

Here is what you should take also into consideration: 3D graphics of today.

Stop trolling. Nobody cares.

It would have been cooler if the author was a kid (read 20 years old or so) who did not play doom because he simply was too young.

But the author actually was a dude who grew up owning a C64 and just missed out on doom. Actually kinda pityful.

There is something on this article I don't like. I partially agree with that angry reaction although only in the context not in the arrogant way.

It's like the article is too sensational, crowd pleasing, "look I played doom for one hour in flash and I liked it", the way the article is written with all the excessive descriptions, I have seen this style somewhere else and I don't like, which makes it look cheap and not convincing, it's like the dude said "Wow, I have never played doom, that would make for a great headline, let's put some sensational stuff there!"

Oh and about Doom gfx. It's a matter of perspective. If you are prepared to play a game with low res non-filtered textures and billboards for sprites, then the graphics of Doom are so well designed. Hell,. I even today play Zdoom with nearest-pixel (non-filtered) because filtered personally makes them so blurry and I hate (especially the sprites) and I stand there and adore the graphic design on the textures. I love those textures and how nice they look in such an old game. I have seen textures in later games that look worse.

p.s. But don't ask me, sometimes I play very oldschool 8bit games without wanting to puke. In fact there are some wonderful 8bit graphics if one can see them as wonderfully designed mosaics. Personally I don't mind about graphics, there are other people who will see a very modern game and say "Wow, it's awfull. I puke now. Antialiasing is not very good.." which I cannot relate to.

I was disappointed that he played FLASH and XBOX ports...

Seriously, the first thing that should hit you playing is the music. And he missed that =[

tbh, i´ve been using hi-res doom ports for years now and i can barely discern any details when going back to 320x200 software. strangely, i didn`t have problems doing so back then. guess it`s all in our imagination.

I'm not really sure how any professional game critic could justify playing a FLASH port of the original shareware when dosbox is around, or *gasp* a modern port!

Then again, it's kotaku.

Needs more chocolate doom. Not seeking out a proper way to play the game is just lazy. Article was okay... but I dunno... dude could've done better.

Yeah, I find it strange that he couldn't play the Steam version. It's even set up to use WASD and mouse controls by default, without having to use the setup program (which they didn't even include for some reason). I've never had any trouble running Doom in DOSBox, I was even able to run it find on my eight year old laptop. If he had actually tried Chocolate Doom that would've run fine too, since it'll find the Steam release automatically.

Also, getting lost in E1M1...that's just sad. It's about as linear as a Doom map can get. Only thing I can think of is maybe he didn't know the doors didn't open by themselves?

For someone who claimed to play other modern shooters, he's about as ignorant as a blind monkey describing what the sun looks like, when it comes to a simple game as Doom. This is one of the shallowest journalism I ever came across.

Playing Doom on Flash is an instant red flag to his credibility and status as a human being in general. If you haven't seen Doom on Flash in a tiny little window surrounded by ad banners, here it is:

http://www.kongregate.com/games/mike_id/doom-1

Is that any way to experience an FPS that as meant for fullscreen? The guy is already sweating balls from not finding the shotgun in what is the FIRST LEVEL!? Everyone who had actually actually played the game can tell you that the first level takes no more than 1-5 minutes to complete. As far as I can remember, all you had to do is open ONE fucking door and walk into the next room and... tah dah! There's the shotgun in FRONT OF YOU. He's a fucking idiot.

The way that he wrote it is just awful in a flowery, touristy kind of way. The article itself is littered with hyperbolic ignorance, evidencing that he never bothered to actually play it or is too busy thinking about the sensational BS that he was gonna write to attract attention, cheating included:

"I found it funny that the items littered in the game that ostensibly could heal my character's wounds only raised his health a single percentage point."

EXPLANATION: I couldn't see those 10pt or 25pt medkits that was laying around all over. Oh, that and I never got past the first level.

"Eventually I found the cheats, of course, and unlocked all the weapons."

EXPLANATION: I couldn't find my way out of a paper bag but somehow opened up another browser, and Googled up "Doom + Cheats"

"Not everything was right with this game. I wondered, more than once, why bad guys on staircases could shoot down at me, but I could not shoot up at them."

EXPLANATION: If I played Doom for an hour as I actually claimed, I would've understood how the vertical autoaim worked, but since I didn't play for an hour... or maybe I was playing it while typing this article on another browser.

I don't believe for a second that the guy who wrote the article went beyond the first level, and the first level needs only 1-5 minutes during the first playthrough, max. The article is pretentious at worst, and shallow at best.

Gamer plays Doom for the first time

Heh, am I the only one seeing an oxymoron here?

He didn't play the game long enough to really experience everything, and he also got some facts wrong. The original controls weren't the WASD/mouse combo, like he said in the article. Did he just play the first level and make the rest up. Most of the writing is just filler anyways, it doesn't take an entire paragraph to describe how the gun bobs when you walk. The whole article... just seems overly dramatic, and lacks any real content.

Also, how could you possibly spend 5 minutes on the first level?

A quick Googling of the author shows that he's a gaming journalist for the mainstream abomination known as MTV.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/author/stephentotilo/

Question remains, does he even play games?

Doom Marine said:

MTV.

play games?

Heh.