Quake3World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn0IMQIlUMQ

I quite enjoyed this video. An interesting perspective just before the release of Doom 4

That had to be the longest winded, pompus, whiney "leave my favourite game alone!" In history...

*golf clap* well f*cking done.

It was nothing like that, but ok

Doom 3 sucked dude, just let it go

Rage sucked too.

What are the odds the new Doom will suck?

Doom 3 was excellent.

I enjoyed the video - cheers Feedback

Don Carlos wrote:I enjoyed the video - cheers Feedback

Me too. Thanks Feedback.

I still remember playing and how dark & scary it was and yes, even frustrating at times trying to find something. I might even reload and run about just for old times sake

It's not bad, it's just not great. Some of the things he says are debatable. By the time the game came out it didn't look as good as when they first showed it off, that shit was in development forever. Rose colored glasses. Boring monster design, and lazy level design. There should never be a moment in a game where you stand next to a monster spawner shooting enemies as they come out 1 by 1, and the fact that Id didn't know any better was pretty fucked up

DooMer wrote:By the time the game came out it didn't look as good as when they first showed it off, that shit was in development forever.

Sure, but I think that idea mainly stems from the fact that when Doom 3 was released, Epic were already showing off technology preview videos of Unreal Engine 3, which wouldn't see a release until 2006.

I enjoyed it at the time. Found it very atmospheric and scary, but the atmosphere alone could only take it so far.

Part of the problem was also perspective. The expectations of Doom 3 were so incredibly high that the criticism was unfairly harsh. People have talked each other into believing Doom 3 was a shit game, while when you give it a fair chance, it's not a bad game at all. It may not reach the heights or be as revolutionary as the original Doom or Quake, but calling it a bad game is completely unfair.

I enjoyed the fuck out of this game, as well as Rage. Both have issues, but both are also amazing when they do what they do best, respectively.

As for the odds of Doom 2016 sucking, I'd say pretty low. Everything they've said publicly about the game gives me the impression that they mechanically understand what made the first games so good, and how they're trying to bring that to the new game. I'm talking about the mechanics of making decisions about movement and weapon usage in response to enemy behavior. Some of this made its way into the third game, but I think this next time around, they're really trying to copy it.

I'd never say they could live up to the greatness of the original, because the circumstances then are not reproducible and they never will be. But I get the sense that they still understand what was good about that old gameplay and they're intelligently bringing it back.

I really hope I'm not wrong about that and that I'm not reading too much into it.

DooMer wrote:It's not bad, it's just not great. Some of the things he says are debatable. By the time the game came out it didn't look as good as when they first showed it off, that shit was in development forever. Rose colored glasses. Boring monster design, and lazy level design. There should never be a moment in a game where you stand next to a monster spawner shooting enemies as they come out 1 by 1, and the fact that Id didn't know any better was pretty fucked up

Quoted for truth.

The fast hardcore game element that made the previous titles what they where was gone, instead it was a slow paced horror style shooter with one hell of an impressive game engine behind it... And that's why i usually agree when people just call it a tech demo.

Cant wait for the new doom, it seem they've nailed down the ( updated ) recipe of the classic games where your required to keep going and think SO far ahead to plan your route/attack.