Doom Eternal Gameplay

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Seth Carter:

hanselthecaretaker:

Seth Carter:

In the background lore of 2016 (actually in one of the Slayer testament things that were in the main game instead of a codex entry) it mentions he was blessed by Seraphim during his first rampage through Hell with incredible strength and speed, so already had actual magic.

I'm playing through 2016 now and am pretty impressed by the amount of SP content and thought put into it. They clearly seem to get the soul of DOOM and have respect for its legacy, which certainly includes the surreal. I mean, we're talking about opening a portal to hell and demons with rocket launchers for shoulder pads here after all. Why not go all out.

Yeah, there's a lot of service to the idea of Hell just being an advanced alien dimension, but particularly in the second half it drifts back into the fantasy aspects (the codex entries happen to cover that the UEC were the ones who made the various cyborg demons, for whatever reason). Never really does put a hard settle or say that the demons aren't magical (or the overused "Advanced science is indistinguishable from magic" schtick).

I never read it before, but the background behind the original game's development was interesting as well. For example, I never would've thought they were pulling from Aliens and Evil Dead 2, but that's a hell of a combo.

Then there's the Masters of DOOM retrospective that I really want to read through sometime soon. Would be cool to find a hardcover copy if possible because apparently it's such a well written and vital piece of gaming history. There is some good insight in the Talk With David Kushner section here.

CoCage:
I'm excited. This is just proof that Doom is eternal.

Is that why they keep recycling the same plotline over and over?

Hawki:

CoCage:
I'm excited. This is just proof that Doom is eternal.

Is that why they keep recycling the same plotline over and over?

I imagine that's why the doomslayers so angry.

'FFS, would ONE of you f***ing idiots FINALLY learn to NOT F*** WITH HELL!
(mutters)ALWAYS some dumbass who thinks he knows better than the LAST lot who got munched.'

Hawki:

CoCage:
I'm excited. This is just proof that Doom is eternal.

Is that why they keep recycling the same plotline over and over?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Besides, most people don't play for the plot; though D2016 did a fun job with it. Since the Doom Slayer didn't give a shit about the exposition or plot going on in the background. That made the story all the more enjoyable. The closest we ever got to a "complex plot" was when it was just going to be COD4 with demons. Thank Bayonetta's big butt, that did not happened! We got enough COD clones in the seventh generation, no need to see them in the next one. If that were to be the case, you would be even more unsatisfied.

Hawki:

CoCage:
I'm excited. This is just proof that Doom is eternal.

Is that why they keep recycling the same plotline over and over?

Who cares about the story though? Doom 2016 barely had a story at all and it was still a great game because being a pissed off ultra-violent space marine who kills hundreds of demons is fun if done right and they did it right.

Windknight:

I imagine that's why the doomslayers so angry.

'FFS, would ONE of you f***ing idiots FINALLY learn to NOT F*** WITH HELL!
(mutters)ALWAYS some dumbass who thinks he knows better than the LAST lot who got munched.'

That's pretty much the case.

Of course, it might have been better if that was confirmed in the actual game rather than Quake Champions, but hey, what do I know?

CoCage:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Besides, most people don't play for the plot; though D2016 did a fun job with it.

Disagree (in the sense that I think the game had a "fun," let alone "good" plot.

Since the Doom Slayer didn't give a shit about the exposition or plot going on in the background. That made the story all the more enjoyable.

I'm mixed on this. On one hand, the Doom Slayer does have an uncaring attitude to the going-ons around him, and it's a disinterest that's conveyed entirely through body language. However, I take the following issues:

a) The times where this is actually done is few and far between. It isn't a consistent theme, it's a collection of random moments.

b) There's a saying in writing that "if you aren't writing about the most interesting point in your character's life, why?" The backstory of the Doom Slayer is far more interesting than anything happening on Mars itself, even if this wasn't the third time we've seen this plot point regurgetated.

c) Because Quake Champions makes it clear that the Doom Slayer is the same character of the events from Doom 1 to Doom 64, his lack of interaction is far less excusable. My original theory was that he was a native of Argent D'Nur, which would presumably have a language barrier. You could argue that he's lost the ability to speak and/or is simply just that uninterested. However, for him, this is the second time this has happened. Him being of Argent D'Nur could explain a lot, including his disinterest, but him being human, and coming from another Earth and fighting on another Mars (or Phobos/Deimos/Io technically)...it's far too glaring an omission for me. It's systemic of how haphazardly Doom 2016 approaches its plot. I doubt that this revelation was even planned ahead, because a lot in the game comes off as the writers making stuff up as they went along (compare that to stuff like BioShock or even Doom 3, where the worldbuilding feels far more cohesive.

Wouldn't mind so much if the gameplay wasn't so lacking either. Doom 1 is bereft of any plot, but that's easier to forgive, given when it was made, and that the gameplay is enough to make up for the lack of plot. Doom 2016 is lacking in both.

The closest we ever got to a "complex plot" was when it was just going to be COD4 with demons. Thank Bayonetta's big butt, that did not happened! We got enough COD clones in the seventh generation, no need to see them in the next one. If that were to be the case, you would be even more unsatisfied.

I would have loved to see that.

Telling me it would have been a "CoD clone" doesn't mean much as I've only played two CoD games in my life (three if you include demos), and both were in the original WWII era, so I never had any "CoD overload." Likewise, it was set to continue off Doom 3, the novels of which hinted at future developments (e.g. the undersea complex in the second novel and the discovery at the vents). Also, I'd point to Doom 3 itself. I'm hesitant to call its plot "good" or "complex," but it was certainly presented competently. In terms of plot, Doom 2016 is a regression from Doom 3.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:
Who cares about the story though?

Um, I do?

More than Id, probably, considering how haphazardly they've approached Doom's lore and squandered any potential it might have had.

Also, if we're not meant to care about story, then why have a story in the first place? Since CoD has been brought up...okay, I'll play. A common complaint I've heard about CoD is lack of innovation and lack of story quality. I've never heard anyone use the defence "the story doesn't matter." So apparently CoD repeating itself is a sin, but Doom isn't. We're on Mars (or its moons) for the third time, we'll be on Earth for the second time, and apparently that's hunky dory. Far as I can tell, CoD at least offers variety in its settings.

And bear in mind, Doom repeating itself COULD be interesting (in recent times, I've seen the "one Hell, many Earths" theory pop up, and I recently toyed with that theory myself), but it's a theory that comes more off as trying to cover up the cracks of the game. It really makes Doom 3 feel out of place, because while I can reconcile Hell from Doom 1/2 being the same from Doom 2016, it being the same from Doom 3 is much harder to swallow. Maybe Doom 3 is completely separate, maybe it isn't. I wouldn't be thinking about this so much if Id didn't announce their intent for a "Doom universe" recently but right now...well, let's just say you're a bit off from the MCU. You're a bit off even from the DCEU.

And fine, maybe I care about story too much, but I can't help it when there's the seeds of something interesting here that's been squandered (twice, arguably), and when people are so willing to give Doom a free pass, but not extend that free pass to...well, anything else. Certainly not Halo or CoD for instance (which have been brought up in this thread). Even with Halo's lowest story points, it didn't have to twice reboot itself. CoD at least has demonstrated variety in its settings. But nup, Doom gets a free pass.

Doom 2016 barely had a story at all and it was still a great game because being a pissed off ultra-violent space marine who kills hundreds of demons is fun if done right and they did it right.

Well, disagree on both those counts, but I've already said my piece.

Am I the only one who prefers the sleek and blue design of the Gauss Rifle and Pulse Rifle in the 2016 version, I don't know I felt like they have their own identity compared to the grey and militarized weapons from the Doomguy's arsenal.

Other than that, this is a must buy for me

Hawki:

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:
Who cares about the story though?

Um, I do?

Well too bad? I guess Doom isn't a series for you then and never really was, except for maybe Doom 3. It's barely a story, there are like 3 characters in the game and one's a mute so there's barely any dialogue at all, the story is just there on the sideline while you gore 100's of demons but I guess players still need some kind of goal.

Some games are built with a story in mind and some are not and that's fine, not all games need to have a complicated story with lots of narrative, Doom was never about that (Except again, Maybe Doom 3 but Doom fans are split-up about that game), people just love a game with awesome gameplay and vistas while being an angry ball of hurt that tortures demons. It's fun to play and pretty to look at.

Hawki:

Windknight:

I imagine that's why the doomslayers so angry.

'FFS, would ONE of you f***ing idiots FINALLY learn to NOT F*** WITH HELL!
(mutters)ALWAYS some dumbass who thinks he knows better than the LAST lot who got munched.'

That's pretty much the case.

Of course, it might have been better if that was confirmed in the actual game rather than Quake Champions, but hey, what do I know?

CoCage:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Besides, most people don't play for the plot; though D2016 did a fun job with it.

Disagree (in the sense that I think the game had a "fun," let alone "good" plot.

Since the Doom Slayer didn't give a shit about the exposition or plot going on in the background. That made the story all the more enjoyable.

I'm mixed on this. On one hand, the Doom Slayer does have an uncaring attitude to the going-ons around him, and it's a disinterest that's conveyed entirely through body language. However, I take the following issues:

a) The times where this is actually done is few and far between. It isn't a consistent theme, it's a collection of random moments.

b) There's a saying in writing that "if you aren't writing about the most interesting point in your character's life, why?" The backstory of the Doom Slayer is far more interesting than anything happening on Mars itself, even if this wasn't the third time we've seen this plot point regurgetated.

c) Because Quake Champions makes it clear that the Doom Slayer is the same character of the events from Doom 1 to Doom 64, his lack of interaction is far less excusable. My original theory was that he was a native of Argent D'Nur, which would presumably have a language barrier. You could argue that he's lost the ability to speak and/or is simply just that uninterested. However, for him, this is the second time this has happened. Him being of Argent D'Nur could explain a lot, including his disinterest, but him being human, and coming from another Earth and fighting on another Mars (or Phobos/Deimos/Io technically)...it's far too glaring an omission for me. It's systemic of how haphazardly Doom 2016 approaches its plot. I doubt that this revelation was even planned ahead, because a lot in the game comes off as the writers making stuff up as they went along (compare that to stuff like BioShock or even Doom 3, where the worldbuilding feels far more cohesive.

Wouldn't mind so much if the gameplay wasn't so lacking either. Doom 1 is bereft of any plot, but that's easier to forgive, given when it was made, and that the gameplay is enough to make up for the lack of plot. Doom 2016 is lacking in both.

The closest we ever got to a "complex plot" was when it was just going to be COD4 with demons. Thank Bayonetta's big butt, that did not happened! We got enough COD clones in the seventh generation, no need to see them in the next one. If that were to be the case, you would be even more unsatisfied.

I would have loved to see that.

Telling me it would have been a "CoD clone" doesn't mean much as I've only played two CoD games in my life (three if you include demos), and both were in the original WWII era, so I never had any "CoD overload." Likewise, it was set to continue off Doom 3, the novels of which hinted at future developments (e.g. the undersea complex in the second novel and the discovery at the vents). Also, I'd point to Doom 3 itself. I'm hesitant to call its plot "good" or "complex," but it was certainly presented competently. In terms of plot, Doom 2016 is a regression from Doom 3.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:
Who cares about the story though?

Um, I do?

More than Id, probably, considering how haphazardly they've approached Doom's lore and squandered any potential it might have had.

Also, if we're not meant to care about story, then why have a story in the first place? Since CoD has been brought up...okay, I'll play. A common complaint I've heard about CoD is lack of innovation and lack of story quality. I've never heard anyone use the defence "the story doesn't matter." So apparently CoD repeating itself is a sin, but Doom isn't. We're on Mars (or its moons) for the third time, we'll be on Earth for the second time, and apparently that's hunky dory. Far as I can tell, CoD at least offers variety in its settings.

And bear in mind, Doom repeating itself COULD be interesting (in recent times, I've seen the "one Hell, many Earths" theory pop up, and I recently toyed with that theory myself), but it's a theory that comes more off as trying to cover up the cracks of the game. It really makes Doom 3 feel out of place, because while I can reconcile Hell from Doom 1/2 being the same from Doom 2016, it being the same from Doom 3 is much harder to swallow. Maybe Doom 3 is completely separate, maybe it isn't. I wouldn't be thinking about this so much if Id didn't announce their intent for a "Doom universe" recently but right now...well, let's just say you're a bit off from the MCU. You're a bit off even from the DCEU.

And fine, maybe I care about story too much, but I can't help it when there's the seeds of something interesting here that's been squandered (twice, arguably), and when people are so willing to give Doom a free pass, but not extend that free pass to...well, anything else. Certainly not Halo or CoD for instance (which have been brought up in this thread). Even with Halo's lowest story points, it didn't have to twice reboot itself. CoD at least has demonstrated variety in its settings. But nup, Doom gets a free pass.

Doom 2016 barely had a story at all and it was still a great game because being a pissed off ultra-violent space marine who kills hundreds of demons is fun if done right and they did it right.

Well, disagree on both those counts, but I've already said my piece.

1. You're in the minority on the COD part. Most people and me would have thrown a huge shit, if Doom 4 became a another COD game. Do you really want to play another realistic, brown, shooter with cover mechanics, regenerating health (the red blurry screen kind), and a squad of three or four people constantly chattering with you? For you and a very few others: Yes. Most Doom fans, PC, and console gamers alike: No.

2. COD may have some different setting, but the gameplay has mostly been the same since MW2, just like gameplay tweeks here and there depending on the mainline series or spin-offs. It doesn't help now that Activision is just chasing whatever trends are popular. I.E, Fortnite. At least Doom Eternal is getting a single-player. BLOPS4 got nothing, but the same multiplayer. Only that it's Fortnite style. Hooray for innovation! .....Not!

3. Doom 3 is pretty much in its own universe at this point. Id more or less implied that Doom 4 takes place after Doom, II, and Doom 64. That makes the story easier to follow. So Doom 3 and Doom 3: Ressurection of Evil are in their own continuity, with the latter being the finale of the Doom 3 timeline. Yes, Doom 3 was meant as a remake of Doom 1, but Id kept on the back burner after its last expansion under delivered and the publisher's financial troubles weren't helping. There is also the fact other shooters were during different things after the hype for Doom 3 died down, or that the game was following Half Life and System Shock. This did not bother me, but it sure did bother people who were really in to Doom II. Despite Doom 3's flaws, it is still better than most of the shooters that tried to be Modern Warfare or Halo during the 7th generation.

4. I'm not giving Doom 4 a free pass. It has flaws with some game play mechanics being the platforming. While the story is retcon heavy, it doesn't interfere with the game that much. If you want to use the alternate Earths theory; go for it. I ain't stopping you. Speaking of story, Halo should have ended at 3, and most of CODs stories are mediocre, Michael Bay, popcorn flicks. Some of it can be entertaining, but most of it's boring, trite, and tries too hard to be "dark" and "edgy"[1] Halo had a decent story, but to get the most out of it, you had to read the side novels, which is a fatal flaw in my opinion.

[1] Looking at you MW2 & MW3!

Hawki:
snip

I understand how some people can get bored with a regurgitated storyline, but that's how most franchises and IPs work nowadays isn't it. I mean, how many times has one heard the Batman/Spiderman/Superman origin story? How many things have been rebooted or remade, not including Doom? It's basically the same story as 90's Doom, bar a few details here and there. The movie itself (not using it as an excuse as it's a poor one) tells the same story, with a bit more characterization, for whatever that's worth.

Point is, Doom has never been much about the story, other than a couple short paragraphs at the end of each episode. Doom 3 I guess started with a bit more fleshing out, what with the audiologs, ambient setting, and giving a bit of background to what everyone's doing there before it all goes to literal hell in a handbasket.

Myself personally, found Doom 2016 to have even less on story than any of the previous iterations, but I wouldn't deduct marks because what's there does just enough to hold up the action, though I can imagine it doesn't for you, or others who place even a bit of importance on story (and I have a few friends who do).

Hawki:

Since the Doom Slayer didn't give a shit about the exposition or plot going on in the background. That made the story all the more enjoyable.

I'm mixed on this. On one hand, the Doom Slayer does have an uncaring attitude to the going-ons around him, and it's a disinterest that's conveyed entirely through body language. However, I take the following issues:

a) The times where this is actually done is few and far between. It isn't a consistent theme, it's a collection of random moments.

b) There's a saying in writing that "if you aren't writing about the most interesting point in your character's life, why?" The backstory of the Doom Slayer is far more interesting than anything happening on Mars itself, even if this wasn't the third time we've seen this plot point regurgetated.

c) Because Quake Champions makes it clear that the Doom Slayer is the same character of the events from Doom 1 to Doom 64, his lack of interaction is far less excusable. My original theory was that he was a native of Argent D'Nur, which would presumably have a language barrier. You could argue that he's lost the ability to speak and/or is simply just that uninterested. However, for him, this is the second time this has happened. Him being of Argent D'Nur could explain a lot, including his disinterest, but him being human, and coming from another Earth and fighting on another Mars (or Phobos/Deimos/Io technically)...it's far too glaring an omission for me. It's systemic of how haphazardly Doom 2016 approaches its plot. I doubt that this revelation was even planned ahead, because a lot in the game comes off as the writers making stuff up as they went along (compare that to stuff like BioShock or even Doom 3, where the worldbuilding feels far more cohesive.

Given the repeated story, time and time again...

Doomslayer probably thinks he's in purgatory or something. Why bother being overly concerned with another version of Earth, when the presence of demons means it may well just be another helping of torment?

How many times does one wipe out hellish invasions single handed, before one goes insane?

And if the same thing keeps happening, do you even recognise the individual victories, or just the seemingly endless cycle at hand?

Hawki:

Since the Doom Slayer didn't give a shit about the exposition or plot going on in the background. That made the story all the more enjoyable.

I'm mixed on this. On one hand, the Doom Slayer does have an uncaring attitude to the going-ons around him, and it's a disinterest that's conveyed entirely through body language.

I think the slayer cared, deeply. Just the people talking to him CLEARLY were messing with stuff they could not handle, were arrogantly thinking they knew what they were doing and they were in control, when they were most definitely not. Moreover, others were paying the price for that arrogance. THAT is what he had total and utter contempt for.

Think the scene in the elevator when Hayden talks about everything being 'for the good of mankind', and the slayer pointedly looks at a mangled corpse. Later, he destroys the filters not out of expediency, but because he knows messing with hell is a REALLY BAD THING and they guy who THINKS he has it under control doesn't.

Heck, he backs up Vega without any prompting from Hayden who doesn't even think to mention its possible.

I'm not fan of FPS games but the recent doom was an exception, it felt like the games I played back in the day like quake 2 which were more about cool fun and less about realism and logic.

Also apparently people are taking issue with a joke in the trailer, which is pretty hilarious. Something about earth being the melding pot of the universe lol. If that type of satire is too much for you then you may need to step away from modern existence and relocate to a cabin in the Himalayas.

My posts were lost twice, so this is going to be an abridged version of what I originally tried to write:

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:

Well too bad?

Gee, thanks. :(

I guess Doom isn't a series for you then and never really was, except for maybe Doom 3. It's barely a story, there are like 3 characters in the game and one's a mute so there's barely any dialogue at all, the story is just there on the sideline while you gore 100's of demons but I guess players still need some kind of goal.

That's some nice projecting you've got going on. As I've stated, bad gameplay/story can be made up for if the other side of the coin pulls its weight. I enjoy Doom 1, and that's bereft of any meaningful plot, even if I'll give it points for storytelling (plot and storytelling are two separate things). But as to the question as to whether Doom is a series for me, I've enjoyed 50% of its installments that I've played (40% if you include The Lost Mission as a separate entry). Doom 2016 is simply average/mediocre in both of its areas. Its gameplay can't make up for its story shortcomings, and its story can't make up for the gameplay's shortcomings.

CoCage:

3. Doom 3 is pretty much in its own universe at this point. Id more or less implied that Doom 4 takes place after Doom, II, and Doom 64.

Not implied. Outright confirmed. By Quake Champions.

...yeah, am I the only one put off by the fact that a key piece of information isn't even in the game itself?

While the story is retcon heavy, it doesn't interfere with the game that much.

I can't think of any actual retcons in 2016 per se. It's a soft reboot, but it's not exactly a retcon.

JohnnyDelRay:

I understand how some people can get bored with a regurgitated storyline, but that's how most franchises and IPs work nowadays isn't it.

Um...no?

I mean, how many times has one heard the Batman/Spiderman/Superman origin story?

Comic books are an extreme example of this. Doesn't mean we have to condone it.

How many things have been rebooted or remade, not including Doom?

I can name a lot, but usually if something's rebooted, there's something to justify the reboot. Doom has had two reboots. Every starting point has had the same location with the same character with the same premise with the same storyline. Off the top of my head, I can name three other IPs that have been rebooted thrice over - Star Fox, Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia. Star Fox is arguably even more narratively bankrupt than Doom at this point, but on the flipside, take Prince of Persia, where each of the three game canons are distinct from each other.

I'm generally iffy about reboots, but my philosophy is that if you're going to do one, you should try and make it distinct from what's come before. And again, if Doom 2016 has to share continuity with the original games, why do the soft reboot at all when there's a plenthora of material that happens in-between Doom 64 and Doom 2016 that you could show?

The movie itself (not using it as an excuse as it's a poor one) tells the same story, with a bit more characterization, for whatever that's worth.

I'd argue that the Doom movie actually diverges from the games significantly on the story front...sort of. However, that's a different conversation, and the movie doesn't deserve to be remembered anyway.

Point is, Doom has never been much about the story, other than a couple short paragraphs at the end of each episode. Doom 3 I guess started with a bit more fleshing out, what with the audiologs, ambient setting, and giving a bit of background to what everyone's doing there before it all goes to literal hell in a handbasket.

Fair enough, but it doesn't change how Doom 2016 tells a lesser story than Doom 3, for all their similarities. Even IPs that generally have a low focus on story tend to improve over time (Mario, Sonic, etc.)

Myself personally, found Doom 2016 to have even less on story than any of the previous iterations,

Um, how?

Doom 3, sure, but Doom 1/2? They're about as bare bones with story as you can get.

Elijin:
[

Given the repeated story, time and time again...

Doomslayer probably thinks he's in purgatory or something. Why bother being overly concerned with another version of Earth, when the presence of demons means it may well just be another helping of torment?

He's only seen two Earths as of Doom Eternal. After Doom 64, he spends time in Hell, is imprisoned in the sanctum, retrieved by the UAC, then wakes up on Mars. Him fighting demons isn't the same as events repeating themselves.

Windknight:

I think the slayer cared, deeply. Just the people talking to him CLEARLY were messing with stuff they could not handle, were arrogantly thinking they knew what they were doing and they were in control, when they were most definitely not. Moreover, others were paying the price for that arrogance. THAT is what he had total and utter contempt for.

I agree on the idea of contempt, but...

Think the scene in the elevator when Hayden talks about everything being 'for the good of mankind', and the slayer pointedly looks at a mangled corpse. Later, he destroys the filters not out of expediency, but because he knows messing with hell is a REALLY BAD THING and they guy who THINKS he has it under control doesn't.

I'm mixed on that. The stuff you describe...yes, that's true. It's certainly a valid interpretation. However, it's about the only time in the entire game where he shows concern for humanity. And no, the filter stuff isn't among them. He's robbing Earth of its power supply. People are going to die, because that what happens when your grid suffers a massive crash. Does he care? Doubt it.

Heck, he backs up Vega without any prompting from Hayden who doesn't even think to mention its possible.

True. But if he cares to save Vega, but no-one else, what does that say about him?

I'll be honest, the Doom Slayer is probably the best handled element of Doom 2016 as a whole. It's everything surrounding him that falls flat.

It looks fun.

I like it. I liked Doom 2016 as well. Not at first because it starts really slow. But after a couple of introductory levels it becomes a really wild ride. This looks like more of the same with sensible improvements. Should be a lot of fun.

Hawki:

I agree on the idea of contempt, but...

Think the scene in the elevator when Hayden talks about everything being 'for the good of mankind', and the slayer pointedly looks at a mangled corpse. Later, he destroys the filters not out of expediency, but because he knows messing with hell is a REALLY BAD THING and they guy who THINKS he has it under control doesn't.

I'm mixed on that. The stuff you describe...yes, that's true. It's certainly a valid interpretation. However, it's about the only time in the entire game where he shows concern for humanity. And no, the filter stuff isn't among them. He's robbing Earth of its power supply. People are going to die, because that what happens when your grid suffers a massive crash. Does he care? Doubt it.

Heck, he backs up Vega without any prompting from Hayden who doesn't even think to mention its possible.

True. But if he cares to save Vega, but no-one else, what does that say about him?

I'll be honest, the Doom Slayer is probably the best handled element of Doom 2016 as a whole. It's everything surrounding him that falls flat.

On the first point, it's my reading that it's a thing of absolutes, at least in the slayers head. It doesn't matter what your intending, messing with hell will always go bad. It's like the alien movies and spin-offs - you stay AWAY from the xenomorphs or bad things happen. A number of them come about The Company or someone else thinking they can control them, that they all know better than everyone else who messed with the alien and got eaten. Inevitably, they get eaten.

Hell is not a toy. You cannot use, contain, harness or package it no matter how careful you are, or how desperate your need. That's where the slayers head-space is. When Hayden is begging him not to destroy the last filter all he's hearing is some 'brilliant' idiot who's got people killed by thinking he's in control of stuff he can't control.

As to the second... well, who else does he have a chance to save? About the only alive humans you encounter are Olivia (explicitly the enemy) and Hayden, whose actions are misguided at best, and you don't really get to physically interact with either in a meaningful way.

Hawki:
snip

I always find the "this isn't for you" argument somehow comptemtuos (a more pretentious "you don't get it"). I mean, sometimes it's right; but when it's a retort for not seeing every aspect of the game as the most appropriate choice, it's just plain dismissive.

OT: Not bad, but I wish a new Doom in the future happens in Phobos and Deimos again (demons invading Mars and Earth sounds more boring than teleporting a whole "moon" to Hell by mistake).

CaitSeith:

Hawki:
snip

I always find the "this isn't for you" argument somehow comptemtuos (a more pretentious "you don't get it"). I mean, sometimes it's right; but when it's a retort for not seeing every aspect of the game as the most appropriate choice, it's just plain dismissive.

OT: Not bad, but I wish a new Doom in the future happens in Phobos and Deimos again (demons invading Mars and Earth sounds more boring than teleporting a whole "moon" to Hell by mistake).

I think it's merely a thing of shifting blame where it belongs. If you dislike a game made for you, that is it's fault while if you dislike a game not made for you that's an obvious thing that isn't in any way, shape or form the game's problem, because not every game need appeal to every person, in fact, attempting to do so is a sure-fire way of ensuring it won't appeal all that much to anybody at all. When people say that something isn't for you, the underlying point is that the game is good as-is and shouldn't change.

Basically, if something does have a significant-enough mass of people who like it as-is and has maintained such status for a significant amount of time, you disliking it means it's for them more so than it is for you. How much you dislike it, how much you have an issue with a component of it, will define how much not for you it is, and you can still enjoy a game made not for you while acknowledging that it isn't made for you without feeling slighted by that fact. For example, Pokemon games are technically made for children, and some of their elements are clearly designed with that calculation in mind, but that doesn't need to mean that grownups can't enjoy them.

The only issue arises when the people for whom the game is not made start demand it be changed to suit them, potentially at the expense of the people already fully satisfied with the game and of the vision of its creators.

Hawki:

That's some nice projecting you've got going on. As I've stated, bad gameplay/story can be made up for if the other side of the coin pulls its weight. I enjoy Doom 1, and that's bereft of any meaningful plot, even if I'll give it points for storytelling (plot and storytelling are two separate things). But as to the question as to whether Doom is a series for me, I've enjoyed 50% of its installments that I've played (40% if you include The Lost Mission as a separate entry). Doom 2016 is simply average/mediocre in both of its areas. Its gameplay can't make up for its story shortcomings, and its story can't make up for the gameplay's shortcomings.

Projecting? The game is literally not for you, you dislike pretty much everything that makes Doom...Doom. You want it to completely change direction and be a different game when tons of people already love it for what it is and being what made people like the series in the first place. I don't go into a thread about Final Fantasy and tell people it's trash and I need it to change its core gameplay/narrative for me to be able to enjoy it, I know that the Final Fantasy series just isn't for me and that's completely fine because it has a huge devoted fanbase that obviously like it for what it is.

CaitSeith:

Hawki:
snip

I always find the "this isn't for you" argument somehow comptemtuos (a more pretentious "you don't get it"). I mean, sometimes it's right; but when it's a retort for not seeing every aspect of the game as the most appropriate choice, it's just plain dismissive.

How's so? Not every game on earth needs to cater your personal taste, you know. If you don't like a game that has a big fanbase you can't possibly expect it to recieve major direction changes just so you can enjoy it, basically screwing people who they made the game for in the first place.

Hawki:
snip

Doesnt matter if you didn't play any of the later COD games or clones, the market was over saturated with FPSs with a two/three weapon limit, super linear level design with little to no exploration or deviation, and regenerating health. A majority of gamers were sick of the genre, and that wouldn't have done the series any favors and would have damaged Doom's reputation in the long run.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:
snip

Stole the words right from my mouth. Your statement is proof of why the DmC reboot failed. They were trying to cater to an audience that never cared or hated the original series as a whole, while alienating their core fanbase. I hate to take joy in a game failing, but I am glad that it did, so the original series can finally get back on track. With DMC5, RE2 Remake, Monster Hunter World, and Mega Man 11, it looks like Capcom is finally getting their act together, and remembering what made them a household name in the first place. All they need to do is bring back some of their older franchises, and do the next Street Fighter the right way, and they'll be good as new.

Windknight:

Hell is not a toy. You cannot use, contain, harness or package it no matter how careful you are, or how desperate your need. That's where the slayers head-space is. When Hayden is begging him not to destroy the last filter all he's hearing is some 'brilliant' idiot who's got people killed by thinking he's in control of stuff he can't control.

It's a fair reading, but just not the one I share.

As to the second... well, who else does he have a chance to save? About the only alive humans you encounter are Olivia (explicitly the enemy) and Hayden, whose actions are misguided at best, and you don't really get to physically interact with either in a meaningful way.

On Mars? No-one.

On Earth? Billions.

If your reading is right, then it means he's thinking of them. In mine, he's uncaring of the damage that robbing Earth of its power supply will cause.

CaitSeith:

OT: Not bad, but I wish a new Doom in the future happens in Phobos and Deimos again (demons invading Mars and Earth sounds more boring than teleporting a whole "moon" to Hell by mistake).

Part of Doom Eternal takes place on Phobos.

Which actually looks a bit like the actual Phobos this time. 0_0

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:

Projecting? The game is literally not for you, you dislike pretty much everything that makes Doom...Doom. You want it to completely change direction and be a different game when tons of people already love it for what it is and being what made people like the series in the first place. I don't go into a thread about Final Fantasy and tell people it's trash and I need it to change its core gameplay/narrative for me to be able to enjoy it, I know that the Final Fantasy series just isn't for me and that's completely fine because it has a huge devoted fanbase that obviously like it for what it is.

Okay, where to start with this...

First of all, you claim I dislike "pretty much everything that makes Doom Doom. Not sure where you got that idea from per se when I've stated to like 40/50% of it, so by definition, that isn't "everything."

Second of all, you've stated that I want it to "completely change direction." Not sure where I've stated that exactly, unless disliking elements of a game means I want it to change completely.

Third of all, your Final Fantasy analogy is flawed. You've stated that "Final Fantasy isn't for me" (me, as in you - pronouns are fun). I've never stated that "Doom isn't for me," because by the sound of it, you've never played Final Fantasy and have no interest in the series. Which is fine, but is different from me and Doom, and the quote you chose is demonstrative of it. An equivalent would be if I played, say, FF1-4, didn't like 4, criticized 4, then have someone tell me that "well, you just don't like Final Fantasy" despite enjoying 1 and 3. So taking this to your conclusion, either you have to like all of a series, or none of it.

How's so? Not every game on earth needs to cater your personal taste, you know. If you don't like a game that has a big fanbase you can't possibly expect it to recieve major direction changes just so you can enjoy it, basically screwing people who they made the game for in the first place.

You keep bringing up "major directional changes." Can you point to my call for, ahem, "major directorial changes."

Have I called for a change in publisher? Developer? Have I called for everything in Doom 2016 to be overhauled to suit my whim?

Right now, it's coming off as a strawman, the notion that I have to like everything in a series, and if I don't, I should abandon said series and/or keep my mouth shut.

CoCage:

Stole the words right from my mouth. Your statement is proof of why the DmC reboot failed.

Except in this analogy, Doom 2016 is more akin to DMC than you might admit. Both are (soft) reboots and both have significant deviations in gameplay (I think? Haven't played any DMC games except some of the first) from their predecessors (that includes Doom 1/2). By the argument being postulated, if I'd played Devil May Cry, liked some of it, disliked some of it, then disliked DMC, the argument could be made that "well, you just don't like DMC." I haven't encountered anyone who likes Devil May Cry 2, so if they dislike that and DMC, by the same arguments being postulated, one could say that Devil May cry isn't a series for them, despite liking 1, 3, and/or 4.

If Doom has a counterpart to DMC, I supposed it would be Doom 3, but Doom 2016 is still a soft reboot with major changes from its contemporaries. I'll also point out that its status as a soft reboot (as opposed to a hard one) wasn't even clarified until after its release, but hey, go figure.

Hawki:

Windknight:

Hell is not a toy. You cannot use, contain, harness or package it no matter how careful you are, or how desperate your need. That's where the slayers head-space is. When Hayden is begging him not to destroy the last filter all he's hearing is some 'brilliant' idiot who's got people killed by thinking he's in control of stuff he can't control.

It's a fair reading, but just not the one I share.

As to the second... well, who else does he have a chance to save? About the only alive humans you encounter are Olivia (explicitly the enemy) and Hayden, whose actions are misguided at best, and you don't really get to physically interact with either in a meaningful way.

On Mars? No-one.

On Earth? Billions.

If your reading is right, then it means he's thinking of them. In mine, he's uncaring of the damage that robbing Earth of its power supply will cause.

CaitSeith:

OT: Not bad, but I wish a new Doom in the future happens in Phobos and Deimos again (demons invading Mars and Earth sounds more boring than teleporting a whole "moon" to Hell by mistake).

Part of Doom Eternal takes place on Phobos.

Which actually looks a bit like the actual Phobos this time. 0_0

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:

Projecting? The game is literally not for you, you dislike pretty much everything that makes Doom...Doom. You want it to completely change direction and be a different game when tons of people already love it for what it is and being what made people like the series in the first place. I don't go into a thread about Final Fantasy and tell people it's trash and I need it to change its core gameplay/narrative for me to be able to enjoy it, I know that the Final Fantasy series just isn't for me and that's completely fine because it has a huge devoted fanbase that obviously like it for what it is.

Okay, where to start with this...

First of all, you claim I dislike "pretty much everything that makes Doom Doom. Not sure where you got that idea from per se when I've stated to like 40/50% of it, so by definition, that isn't "everything."

Second of all, you've stated that I want it to "completely change direction." Not sure where I've stated that exactly, unless disliking elements of a game means I want it to change completely.

Third of all, your Final Fantasy analogy is flawed. You've stated that "Final Fantasy isn't for me" (me, as in you - pronouns are fun). I've never stated that "Doom isn't for me," because by the sound of it, you've never played Final Fantasy and have no interest in the series. Which is fine, but is different from me and Doom, and the quote you chose is demonstrative of it. An equivalent would be if I played, say, FF1-4, didn't like 4, criticized 4, then have someone tell me that "well, you just don't like Final Fantasy" despite enjoying 1 and 3. So taking this to your conclusion, either you have to like all of a series, or none of it.

How's so? Not every game on earth needs to cater your personal taste, you know. If you don't like a game that has a big fanbase you can't possibly expect it to recieve major direction changes just so you can enjoy it, basically screwing people who they made the game for in the first place.

You keep bringing up "major directional changes." Can you point to my call for, ahem, "major directorial changes."

Have I called for a change in publisher? Developer? Have I called for everything in Doom 2016 to be overhauled to suit my whim?

Right now, it's coming off as a strawman, the notion that I have to like everything in a series, and if I don't, I should abandon said series and/or keep my mouth shut.

CoCage:

Stole the words right from my mouth. Your statement is proof of why the DmC reboot failed.

Except in this analogy, Doom 2016 is more akin to DMC than you might admit. Both are (soft) reboots and both have significant deviations in gameplay (I think? Haven't played any DMC games except some of the first) from their predecessors (that includes Doom 1/2). By the argument being postulated, if I'd played Devil May Cry, liked some of it, disliked some of it, then disliked DMC, the argument could be made that "well, you just don't like DMC." I haven't encountered anyone who likes Devil May Cry 2, so if they dislike that and DMC, by the same arguments being postulated, one could say that Devil May cry isn't a series for them, despite liking 1, 3, and/or 4.

If Doom has a counterpart to DMC, I supposed it would be Doom 3, but Doom 2016 is still a soft reboot with major changes from its contemporaries. I'll also point out that its status as a soft reboot (as opposed to a hard one) wasn't even clarified until after its release, but hey, go figure.

DmC (2013) ain't even close to a soft reboot. It was a full on, hard reboot, that no one asked for and went nowhere. Capcom was going through a dork age starting in late 2010, and didn't end until 2017. That was 7 years. 7 years of trying to appeal too much to Westerners and straying from their Japanese root (a lot of big AAA Japanese publishers were doing this at the time), catering to the COD/3rd-person cover shooter crowd/casuals[1], bad DLC practices for many of their titles, and trying to please everyone with Resident Evil 6.

While DmC (2013) was better than 2, and arguably 1[2] (who's only crime is being one of the first of its kind), that was really not much of a milestone. You had games like Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden (it later got its own problems when 3 came out), Metal Gear Rising, and others more enjoyable than that thing. DmC was just a less refined version of 4 that was running on an inferior engine, aesthetics that don't fit a Devil May Cry game[3], glitchy as hell , limited move sets compared to 3 and 4, poor enemy AI even on Dante Must Die mode, and a story really far up its own ass and treating the audience like thundering dumb asses. DmC sold less than DMC4 (2.9 million in sales), while the reboot made a million after a year and a half. The game bombed hard in all regions; especially Japan.

Had the game have been called something else and been advertised as a DMC-like game, it might have fared a lot better. DmC (2013) may be better than most single-player hack n slash games by Western developed studios, and is Ninja Theory's best game (gameplay wise), but can't hold a candle to most Japanese Hn'S titles. DmC is a 6/10, a 5 if you're that cynical, while its Definitive Edition is a 7.5/10. The upgraded version sold even less than DMC4 Special Edition. That shows you why aesthetics and style are important for a long running franchise are important. Change for the sake of change or "innovation" is not a surefire way to make lots of money or succeed.

Doom 4 respected its audience and knew never to insult them and challenge their audience in terms of gameplay. Even on the default difficulty, Doom 4 can be tough. DmC didn't challenging until after its updated re-release, which fixed all of the problems and added features that should have been in the base game to begin with. Doom 4 encourages exploration, while DmC only partially does this. It does not help that you can't backtrack to certain rooms, if you missed a collectible, meaning you have to restart level, if you want to get all of the collectibles. And it is hard to tell where the next path to complete level or where the off beaten path is on your first time or without a walkthrough. When you get all of the collectibles, all of the levels are a straight line. Now the other games are no less linear, but you were given option to explore and were awarded for it. The only thing DmC had over any of the other games were platforming and better level design over DMC4. The latter had the huge problem of rushed production and was filled with lazy backtracking.

On the final note, Doom 4 has a sequel now as you have seen. DmC....has nothing. It was failed "experiment" that is a stillborn franchise, following dated trends, and was another tragic case of rebooting for the sake of rebooting. At the time of announcement of the reboot in 2010, the DMC franchise was only 9 years old, and many fans like myself felt that the reboot was unnecessary. We were proven right as most of the voted with our wallets. While that casual audience Capcom was banking on, abandoned them as soon as they finished their first playthrough and immediately back to their COD, Madden, or whatever mobile game was out at the time. Hopefully, they'll never make a mistake like that again, but the industry has a habit of not learning their lesson. Though things are looking up for Capcom, I am still going to call them or anyone else out for shady screw ups.

[1] Who happily abandoned DmC (2013) when they had their fill
[2] I find it more enjoyable than the reboot despite the originals problems
[3] The game looks like something you would see in a straight to DVD late 90s/early 2000s Blade/Crow knock-off

Hawki:

Okay, where to start with this...

EDIT: Fuck it, I don't care enough for internet arguments any more.

Then I just want to ask, if you don't want the game to change direction, then what do you want? I really don't understand what you want, you said you wanted them to put more emphasis on the story but apparently that doesn't count a directional change, so what do you want?

CoCage:

7 years of trying to appeal too much to Westerners and straying from their Japanese root (a lot of big AAA Japanese publishers were doing this at the time), catering to the COD/3rd-person cover shooter crowd/casuals

While that casual audience Capcom was banking on, abandoned them as soon as they finished their first playthrough and immediately back to their COD, Madden, or whatever mobile game was out at the time.

Don't you think that's a lot of projecting?

I can buy the idea that Capcom had DMC made to appeal to a wider audience. However, "casual" refers to time spent on an activity, not the type of activity. You could easily be a "hardcore" player and play CoD based on the amount of time played.

Also, if someone doesn't have a second playthrough of DMC, I'm not sure how it's an issue since it's a singleplayer game with an up-front payment.

BabyfartsMcgeezaks:

Then I just want to ask, if you don't want the game to change direction, then what do you want? I really don't understand what you want, you said you wanted them to put more emphasis on the story but apparently that doesn't count a directional change, so what do you want?

Okay, I'll play - no doubt more words will be put in my mouth again, but in the context of Doom Eternal (I'm not going to bring up Doom 3, because it's now a given that its dangling plot threads will never be concluded), I'd ask for:

-Cut out the whole "locked in a room until you kill all the demons" thing. It gets very tedious, very fast.

-Do something new. By the time of Doom Eternal, we've been on Mars (or its moons) four times, and on Earth twice (three if you include Doom 1's bonus episode). While I can appreciate that Phobos and Earth actually look like, well, Phobos and Earth, doesn't change how cyclical the settings have become. In other words, have your fun with Doom Eternal, then stop playing it safe. Argent D'Nur, Io, Tei Tanga, something else, fuck, ANYTHING other than the same recycled locations. Even a prequel wouldn't be awry, if we had something to bridge the gap between Doom 64 and Doom 2016.

-Carry out better worldbuilding. You did it with Doom 3, you fell short with Doom 2016, in that a lot of the story/lorebuilding felt like it was being made up on the fly. I admit that "do better" is a nebulous request, but a lack of cohesion permeates the codex in Doom 2016 that Doom 3 didn't suffer from. If you're committed to doing a "Doom universe" (Id's words, not mine), make it cohesive.

-Pick a tone and stick with it. Doom 2016 has significant tonal whiplash between the holograms (cultists are fun!) and the more serious tone picked for the history of the Doom Slayer and the history of Hell. Not saying that you can't have levity/seriousness without its counterpart, but you need a better balancing act. Again, Doom 3 did this better, with a sombre tone with levity scattered throughout it, rather than one tone smashing into the other.

There's other things (ones that would be far less likely to be acted upon), but I don't think any of those suggestions would really shake up the gameplay too much bar the first, and from what I can tell, that was a pretty common complaint.

Hawki:

CoCage:

7 years of trying to appeal too much to Westerners and straying from their Japanese root (a lot of big AAA Japanese publishers were doing this at the time), catering to the COD/3rd-person cover shooter crowd/casuals

While that casual audience Capcom was banking on, abandoned them as soon as they finished their first playthrough and immediately back to their COD, Madden, or whatever mobile game was out at the time.

Don't you think that's a lot of projecting?

I can buy the idea that Capcom had DMC made to appeal to a wider audience. However, "casual" refers to time spent on an activity, not the type of activity. You could easily be a "hardcore" player and play CoD based on the amount of time played.

Also, if someone doesn't have a second playthrough of DMC, I'm not sure how it's an issue since it's a singleplayer game with an up-front payment.

That is not projecting because that's what happened. Either you are ignorant of the situation, or you have not been paying attention. It's fact. If that were the case, DmC2 would have existed, and DMC5 wouldn't be a reality. Second, I wasn't implying that "hardcore gamers" don't like COD, but Cacpom was trying very hard to appeal the COD audience that only does multiplayer or does single-player casually. They admitted this for DmC and RE6. Remember, this when nearly every big AAA publisher wanted to make dat Call of Duty money, instead of doing what works. Most of them failed to a disastrous degree saying either this genre is "dead" or blamed the people not buying the game, instead of taking responsibility for short sighted greed and trend following. What I am happy about this gen is that most Big developers/publishers realized you don't have to be like COD to be successful. A lesson some should have learned earlier. Though you still have problems with EA's "single-player is dead" or games should be "live services" rhetoric from Ubisoft and Activision. All have been proven to be full of shit.

There is nothing more to tell you. If you don't like the new direction Doom is going in; too bad. Id and Bethesda can't please everyone. Trying to please everyone makes a product worse in the long run. Again, see RE6. And yes, RE6 sold slightly more than RE5, but there was an immediate backlash afterwards. Doom Eternal looks great and is improving on whatever flaws the last game had. My suggesting, buy the game or don't. I don't mind them doing something different setting wise, I and many other just don't like idea of turning Doom into a COD clone. Thankfully, ID realized the same. Now maybe for the next game they can go to a different planet, but I am not worried about that. I am happy the last game did well, despite Bethesda stupidity in advertising, and now embracing what makes Doom Doom.

CoCage:
Second, I wasn't implying that "hardcore gamers" don't like COD, but Cacpom was trying very hard to appeal the COD audience that only does multiplayer or does single-player casually. They admitted this for DmC and RE6.

Source?

I can buy the idea of Capcom trying to appeal to a wider audience (they certainly tried to cater to 3-4 playstyles with RE6), but it makes no sense to court the multiplayer audience with a singleplayer only game (DMC), or a PvE focused one (RE6).

What I am happy about this gen is that most Big developers/publishers realized you don't have to be like COD to be successful.

No, they have to be like OTHER games to be successful - it was hero shooters a few years back, now it's battle royale.

There is nothing more to tell you. If you don't like the new direction Doom is going in; too bad.

So, can I use that excuse when the boot's on the other foot?

Id and Bethesda can't please everyone. Trying to please everyone makes a product worse in the long run. Again, see RE6. And yes, RE6 sold slightly more than RE5, but there was an immediate backlash afterwards.

"If you don't like the new direction Resident Evil is going in; too bad."

Not that I'm saying that, but if the be all and end all of conversation is "if you don't like X, tough," then Capcom would be entitled to do the same.

Wish I'd thought of that every time some disliked a game I liked. It would have saved so much time...

Hawki:

CoCage:
Second, I wasn't implying that "hardcore gamers" don't like COD, but Cacpom was trying very hard to appeal the COD audience that only does multiplayer or does single-player casually. They admitted this for DmC and RE6.

Source?

I can buy the idea of Capcom trying to appeal to a wider audience (they certainly tried to cater to 3-4 playstyles with RE6), but it makes no sense to court the multiplayer audience with a singleplayer only game (DMC), or a PvE focused one (RE6).

What I am happy about this gen is that most Big developers/publishers realized you don't have to be like COD to be successful.

No, they have to be like OTHER games to be successful - it was hero shooters a few years back, now it's battle royale.

There is nothing more to tell you. If you don't like the new direction Doom is going in; too bad.

So, can I use that excuse when the boot's on the other foot?

Id and Bethesda can't please everyone. Trying to please everyone makes a product worse in the long run. Again, see RE6. And yes, RE6 sold slightly more than RE5, but there was an immediate backlash afterwards.

"If you don't like the new direction Resident Evil is going in; too bad."

Not that I'm saying that, but if the be all and end all of conversation is "if you don't like X, tough," then Capcom would be entitled to do the same.

Wish I'd thought of that every time some disliked a game I liked. It would have saved so much time...

Here's your sources. Seriously, it ain't that hard to do a simple google search for some of this stuff. It only took me 2 seconds.

https://gamingbolt.com/capcom-looking-to-attract-call-of-duty-fans-with-resident-evil-6-action-route-makes-sense

https://www.destructoid.com/dead-rising-3-designed-to-appeal-to-call-of-duty-fans-256136.phtml

https://www.destructoid.com/opinion-the-decay-of-capcom-261821.phtml

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-23-capcom-survival-horror-market-too-small-for-resident-evil

Feel free to use that excuse I was using; I do not care. The difference being with Capcom was they were screwing themselves and their core audience for people that didn't care for certain genres to begin with. And I made that point about publishers not learning their lessons and chasing whatever trends are popular. I was making a specific example with the unholy trinity.

CoCage:

Here's your sources. Seriously, it ain't that hard to do a simple google search for some of this stuff. It only took me 2 seconds.

That's not how citations work. If I make claims, and people contest the claims, it's the onus of the one making the claims to verify them.

https://gamingbolt.com/capcom-looking-to-attract-call-of-duty-fans-with-resident-evil-6-action-route-makes-sense

https://www.destructoid.com/dead-rising-3-designed-to-appeal-to-call-of-duty-fans-256136.phtml

https://www.destructoid.com/opinion-the-decay-of-capcom-261821.phtml

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-23-capcom-survival-horror-market-too-small-for-resident-evil

None of which verify your claim that the games were aiming for the portion of the Call of Duty audience that focuses on multiplayer and only plays singleplayer casually. The sources only mention Call of Duty as a whole, there's no mention of sub-audiences within the CoD fanbase. So again, while I never contested that Capcom tried to follow Call of Duty, I have to query the idea that Capcom was specifically trying to court the CoD sub-audience. Unless you're equating the sub-audience with the fanbase as a whole.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/05/analysis-player-interest-in-call-of-dutys-campaigns-is-cratering/

Which might have some basis, but the charts show a slight drop off after MW3, then a plunge for BO3, then a sharp rise onwards. The idea that "no-one cares about CoD singleplay" was made iffy by the furore of BO4 dropping it. So I don't think the CoD fanbase is as monolithic as some might claim.

So, did Capcom try to court the CoD audience? Yes. Did they try to court the sub-audience? Doubtful (unless we're talking about Umbrella Corps or Operation Raccoon City, in which case, it makes a lot more sense).

Hawki:

CoCage:

Here's your sources. Seriously, it ain't that hard to do a simple google search for some of this stuff. It only took me 2 seconds.

That's not how citations work. If I make claims, and people contest the claims, it's the onus of the one making the claims to verify them.

https://gamingbolt.com/capcom-looking-to-attract-call-of-duty-fans-with-resident-evil-6-action-route-makes-sense

https://www.destructoid.com/dead-rising-3-designed-to-appeal-to-call-of-duty-fans-256136.phtml

https://www.destructoid.com/opinion-the-decay-of-capcom-261821.phtml

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-23-capcom-survival-horror-market-too-small-for-resident-evil

None of which verify your claim that the games were aiming for the portion of the Call of Duty audience that focuses on multiplayer and only plays singleplayer casually. The sources only mention Call of Duty as a whole, there's no mention of sub-audiences within the CoD fanbase. So again, while I never contested that Capcom tried to follow Call of Duty, I have to query the idea that Capcom was specifically trying to court the CoD sub-audience. Unless you're equating the sub-audience with the fanbase as a whole.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/05/analysis-player-interest-in-call-of-dutys-campaigns-is-cratering/

Which might have some basis, but the charts show a slight drop off after MW3, then a plunge for BO3, then a sharp rise onwards. The idea that "no-one cares about CoD singleplay" was made iffy by the furore of BO4 dropping it. So I don't think the CoD fanbase is as monolithic as some might claim.

So, did Capcom try to court the CoD audience? Yes. Did they try to court the sub-audience? Doubtful (unless we're talking about Umbrella Corps or Operation Raccoon City, in which case, it makes a lot more sense).

I wasn't trying to break it down in to sub-audience. My point was that they were trying to cater to the COD audience in general. It was a misunderstanding there. Plus, it's the same difference and your're splitting hairs. They tried to cater, and they failed hard. At this point, we're going back and forth reiterating the same thing. I proved my point and I'm done here.

Hawki:

JohnnyDelRay:

I understand how some people can get bored with a regurgitated storyline, but that's how most franchises and IPs work nowadays isn't it.

Um...no?

Sorry, what I meant to say was, that is what most franchises do nowadays, in terms of reboots. They rehash the same story again, with maybe a few more details and plot developments. Not talking about sequels and stuff. Literally every reboot/remade movie or game is the same thing told again, in a different flavor (Evil Dead, Resident Evil Remake, Rise of the Triad, shit there are thousands). There are exceptions, such as something like Robocop (I dunno why that example popped into my head) but the vast majority are simply that, remakes.

I mean, how many times has one heard the Batman/Spiderman/Superman origin story?

Comic books are an extreme example of this. Doesn't mean we have to condone it.

Yea fair enough that you don't like it. I get tired of a lot of them too, to the point that I would even turn down a potentially fantastic piece of media for that reason alone (groannn, do we have to watch Bruce's parents / Spidey's uncle die again). But it doesn't mean that they can't do it anymore either. The general consensus is that Doom's sparse story is enough to set up a massive hell-spawn killing fest, and that's all it has to do. Maybe a more narrative heavy game, such as Mafia, copying the first game verbatim scene-for-scene would be more of a letdown? (being that the story is one of the strongest points of the game).

How many things have been rebooted or remade, not including Doom?

I can name a lot, but usually if something's rebooted, there's something to justify the reboot. Doom has had two reboots. Every starting point has had the same location with the same character with the same premise with the same storyline. Off the top of my head, I can name three other IPs that have been rebooted thrice over - Star Fox, Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia. Star Fox is arguably even more narratively bankrupt than Doom at this point, but on the flipside, take Prince of Persia, where each of the three game canons are distinct from each other.

I'm generally iffy about reboots, but my philosophy is that if you're going to do one, you should try and make it distinct from what's come before. And again, if Doom 2016 has to share continuity with the original games, why do the soft reboot at all when there's a plenthora of material that happens in-between Doom 64 and Doom 2016 that you could show?

I'll agree with you on that. I'm also iffy on reboots if the story is done well enough in the original that I'm even slightly emotionally invested in it. I don't want to just go through the same experience again with a new coat of paint and engine overhaul. But Doom, to me doesn't fall in that category.

The movie itself (not using it as an excuse as it's a poor one) tells the same story, with a bit more characterization, for whatever that's worth.

I'd argue that the Doom movie actually diverges from the games significantly on the story front...sort of. However, that's a different conversation, and the movie doesn't deserve to be remembered anyway.

Yes let's not mention the movie again =p

Point is, Doom has never been much about the story, other than a couple short paragraphs at the end of each episode. Doom 3 I guess started with a bit more fleshing out, what with the audiologs, ambient setting, and giving a bit of background to what everyone's doing there before it all goes to literal hell in a handbasket.

Fair enough, but it doesn't change how Doom 2016 tells a lesser story than Doom 3, for all their similarities. Even IPs that generally have a low focus on story tend to improve over time (Mario, Sonic, etc.)

Yes they do tend to improve. Doom is definitely a story that simplified itself. But in a way, it was trying to tell its narrative in a different style, really put it to the player that you're Doom Slayer, and you're not here to fuck around. It's made apparent right from the opening scene how the story is going to be relayed to the player. I'd give them props for that, hell how much did people go nuts for that when the music kicks in and the carnage begins, even from the first reveal. So much so in fact, that they are carrying right on in full steam with this style and tone for Doom Eternal.

Myself personally, found Doom 2016 to have even less on story than any of the previous iterations,

Um, how?

Doom 3, sure, but Doom 1/2? They're about as bare bones with story as you can get.

Sorry, the only reasonable explanation for that is nostalgia glasses. Because it was the first time you got to warp into hell and chainsaw demons to death. But yea, Doom 3 did indeed have more of a narrative.

The most hype part is the fact he used the Plasma Gun from Doom 1.

Samtemdo8:
The most hype part is the fact he used the Plasma Gun from Doom 1.

Agreed. Looks much better than the plastic toy plasma gun from the last game.

So, it's been an interesting few days. In an ff.net story I wrote based on Doom Eternal, I got called a soy boy for saying I didn't like Doom 2016. Also, apparently "SJWs" are "triggered" because people have said that they didn't find the "demons = migrants" joke funny (not finding a joke funny isn't the same thing as being offended, FYI).

Anyway:

JohnnyDelRay:

Sorry, what I meant to say was, that is what most franchises do nowadays, in terms of reboots. They rehash the same story again, with maybe a few more details and plot developments.

Some? Yes.

All? No.

Most? Debatable.

Not talking about sequels and stuff. Literally every reboot/remade movie or game is the same thing told again, in a different flavor (Evil Dead, Resident Evil Remake, Rise of the Triad, shit there are thousands).[/quote]

So we've gone from "most" to "every. That's far too broad a claim to go into literally every single reboot, but looking at those examples:

-Evil Dead: The only Evil Dead film I've seen is Army of Darkness, but the remake isn't technically a reboot as I understand. While it mimics the events of the first film, it's apparently still in continuity with it. The idea was that Mia and Ash would eventually meet up, but these plans never went through.

-Resident Evil Remake: This doesn't belong in this conversation, since it's still in continuity with the original series. It didn't start a new continuity, it updated existing continuity.

-Rise of the Triad: No idea.

There are exceptions, such as something like Robocop (I dunno why that example popped into my head) but the vast majority are simply that, remakes.

So, we've gone from "most" to "exceptions."

I'm nitpicking, but while I can entertain the notion that potentially "most" reboots are simple retoolings of the original, I'm not sure if that's something to be excused, because again, you can do a reboot and make it distinct from its predecessors - Batman Begins, Sands of Time, Casino Royale, etc.

Yes they do tend to improve. Doom is definitely a story that simplified itself. But in a way, it was trying to tell its narrative in a different style, really put it to the player that you're Doom Slayer, and you're not here to fuck around. It's made apparent right from the opening scene how the story is going to be relayed to the player. I'd give them props for that, hell how much did people go nuts for that when the music kicks in and the carnage begins, even from the first reveal. So much so in fact, that they are carrying right on in full steam with this style and tone for Doom Eternal.

I'm not sure if it's really a different style per se - Doom 3 and Doom 2016 both rely on a format of most of the story being optional codex entries/PDAs, with a few key cutscenes occurring. Now, the tone is like night and day between the two, but the style of delivery is reasonably similar. However, I'd argue that a key difference (and this is very subjective) is that with Doom 3, when I was reading the PDAs, I got the sense that this was a planned, thought out setting. That everything was written within the context of a setting that existed by its own rules. BioShock is another example of this (one done even better). Doom 2016 however, the codex feels extremely haphazard. For instance, compare Argent D'Nur to the Ancients. With the latter, there's hints of them well before they're revealed in the excavation site, and the revelation of their existence leads to a second one (that you're doing the same thing as a Martian hero, following in his footsteps, adding further contextual weight to your use of the Soul Cube). With the former, Argent D'Nur is really just thrown in there towards the end. Like, "yeah, there's these guys who worshipped Wraiths and got conquered by Hell, or something. Um...Spider Mastermind is up ahead." Any connection the player might have with this is reduced with the revelation that the Doom Slayer is from the Doom 1-D64 era, so when the Night Sentinels appear before you, it looks pretty, but unlike Doom 3, it doesn't have any real meaning behind it.

Maybe people don't care about this (actually, scratch out "maybe," a lot clearly don't), but while I'm fine with Doom 2016 having a different tone from Doom 3, it's a far more haphazard depiction of it. It's telling that (for me) Doom 2016 has far more tonal whiplash (e.g. the holograms) vs. Doom 3 (which had jokes, but far more down to earth, more relatable ones, such as the accidental mass chainsaw ordering instead of requested jackhammers).

This looks fucking awesome. I liked DOOM but this makes it look like nothing more than a proof of concept. I could watch that animation on the pump shotgun all day.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here