D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
Fair enough, I kind of glossed over that. I'd still call it a core game for the reasons I mentioned though.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Doom 3 - 16 Years Later: A Retrospective
- Thread starter erek
- Start date
Fair enough, I kind of glossed over that. I'd still call it a core game for the reasons I mentioned though.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
I actually enjoyed Borderlands and RAGE about equally, but for very different reasons. Borderlands is great for its humor, loot, RPG-like elements, co-op with friends, etc. It's an excellent game. I enjoyed RAGE because it is a very precise single player shooter with great mechanics. It's definitely more simplistic, and if you're not into a pure 90s-style shooter, then I can see why you wouldn't like it. However, the visuals were great, enemies the size of buildings in some places, decent AI, interesting plot if a bit common. It really could have used a bit more time in development to REALLY round everything out nicely, but it's a solid game, and still one of my favorite shooters of this type. I like simple distilled shooters, and I like more complex or at least more RPG+Shooter games as well. The former for pure skill-based play, and the latter for a more relaxed, but thoughtful approach. Like I said, you are more than free not to like it. Doesn't change the fact that I love it. I've gone into detail about this in a million other threads, so I'll leave it alone now.
silentsod
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2010
- Messages
- 638
I did that and I recall the enemy behaviors were different from the release. The commando guys, specifically, were not quite as simplistic.
I'm old now.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
Back in the early gaming, when hey used to make you drive down a mostly empty road while they loaded the next area in the background,it made sense.
But here in 2011 on PC and consoles, companies like Bethesda and Gearbox and Rockstar have all figured-out how to optimize their fully-interactive open worlds, and not ave to make hem nearly so dreary and empty,
RAGE is an open-world game from 2002 pretending to compete with games from 2011 (Skyrim, Borderlands,) by just adding a bunch more unskippable cutscenes than any other previous ID game
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
A bunch of Union Aerospace yes men!
Youn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,973
I wouldn't say it was trying to be open world, at least I never heard that from the devs, more it'll just be more open than their previous games, which it was. I did feel however the world was very static feeling, but the design and texture work throughout was very nice, very memorable (the scene under the bypass where a ritual clearly had been taking place was especially creepy) and IMO better than the more repeated look/feel of Skyrim/Borderlands. The actual gameplay in RAGE, fighting with the enemies, was really fun. It definitely helped to increase FOV, that was my main complaint. And of course, the ending was very anti-climatic (no boss)
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
Agreed. I don't think I ever saw anything saying it was supposed to be open world. It was very much story based, but with the freedom to move around between the towns once you got to each one. The bigger of the DLCs was pretty fun too. It FELT like an id game, which is good. The shooting was spot-on, and still feels good even now. It definitely could have used more dev time to fill out the last chapter, or add another to wrap everything up, and some of the indoor texture work could have been a lot better. However, the outdoors were amazing (still look good by today's standards) and much of the indoors were fine. I find that the worst textures were in darker places like the subway station areas, some of the sewer areas, etc. where maybe the baked in lighting didn't do much for the appearance. It resulted in a bit of a washed-out appearance. Still, in motion the game is beautiful. It's definitely simplistic. For people that like a more complex shooting game, this is definitely not it. This is Doom in the wastelands with buggy racing tacked on. If one can't handle that experience, then sure, it's not going to impress. However, if you're into the classic id experience, it's great. I'm still wanting to give the second one another shot. It felt ok, but just seemed too sparse. However, when you DID get to an action packed area, it felt really nice. I don't think I gave it enough of a chance at the time, as I had a bunch of other things I was playing.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
See, now I know you guys are just trolling me.
Doom 3 was marginal, but acceptable; it's biggest issue was the flashlight apparently being the worst weapon compromise ever to grace an id title.
RAGE was pure shit at-launch (none of the quality-of-life settings they added months later, like AA support or FOV), plus the fukcing texture pop-in was insane unless you had a 250w GTX 480. Even after years of GPU upgrades solved the texture pop-in problems, texture quality varied highly from one location to the next, (giving you a clue into it's five year delay.)
The fps with smooth transition to vehicles didn't feel very special anymore 10 years after Halo and Battlefield 1942 had done it (and Borderlands, the other game ID was trying to copy here did it it in 2009 with a better storyline). If you pretend that adding this to an id software game is somehow innovative, then I know you're just trolling.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,028
No one is saying the game was special, just that it was a good game. Yes, the game felt consolized at launch, but it was improved with patches. Regardless of the tech involved and graphical quality, the gameplay was always solid. And I thought that gameplay always trumped graphics.
Youn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,973
I didn't play it at launch, which I never do with games anymore. I had the DLC, but didn't know for sure at the time what it added. I think it was a cave level with some chick that saves you? Saw barely any texture pop-in on my budget (~$500 2012-ish) pc, so was maybe lucky...
fps to vehicles? I guess I never noticed or cared. The driving wasn't terrible, but I think was only required once, maybe twice, with the rest being optional. I agree the story was meh though, but I guess I didn't expect more going in.
also never really got into Halo, Battlefield, or Borderlands (just played them a little) so yea, compared to those games I can see why some folk crap on Rage.
fps to vehicles? I guess I never noticed or cared. The driving wasn't terrible, but I think was only required once, maybe twice, with the rest being optional. I agree the story was meh though, but I guess I didn't expect more going in.
also never really got into Halo, Battlefield, or Borderlands (just played them a little) so yea, compared to those games I can see why some folk crap on Rage.
Chris_B
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 29, 2001
- Messages
- 5,357
I still have the leak on a dvd somewhere, at the time trying to run it on my pc was hard to say the least. Mad to think it was 16 years ago.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
I always found Halo to he boring as fuck. I even worked hardware QA on the PC version with access to the best machines and cards of the time. The game just bored me to tears. The most fun I had was having contests with coworkers to see what the weirdest resting positions we could get flipping warthogs.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
Difference of opinion = Trolling. Learned something new today.
Personally, I like any game that I enjoy playing. I've never not enjoyed an id game. Even Doom Eternal which I rank among the lower ones because I don't like the chainsaw mechanic. It's a great game even, I just don't like playing it the way they want me to play it. I still chip away at it though from time to time because I know it's a good game, even if I don't like one portion of it. I like my games to be games. I'm not into tactical reality simulators, not into multiplayer war games, etc. They just don't give me the feel I'm looking for in a game. Some of my favorite franchises are System Shock, Doom, Quake, RAGE, Mario, Zelda, Ultima, Castlevania to name a few. I've never enjoyed Battlefield, I had a little fun in CoD 3 or 4 Can't remember which, but it was more because it was single player campaign, and more like a pure action game. I like hard games like Hollow Knight. I like shooters like Quake where it's all speed, skill, dexterity. RAGE had all those components, and it pulled them off well. Hey, if you don't like it, I'm not going to change your mind. However, there are people like myself that do, so why try to pretend that there aren't, or that we're trolling you?
I've read people saying Mario games aren't good. Well, there are those that aren't into Mario games. Maybe never were. Maybe like a certain vintage, etc. However, almost objectively, Mario games are the pinnacle of platform genre. They are polished more than any other game in existence. May not be your style of game, but they are good games regardless.
Other games get a rough start like RAGE. Many people weren't forgiving, didn't go back and try later, or just wanted to keep on hating because it's fun I guess? If it's not your style of game, or if you don't enjoy playing it cool. Personal taste and all that. I'll be the first to admit that it DID have a rough start. It could have had more depth. It could have finished in a less rushed to market sort of way in the third campaign. You know what though, it has its charm, and the game play that is there, IMO is pretty top notch. I had an absolute blast shooting my way through that world. You can't tell me I didn't, and that I'm trolling. I've never once wavered on this opinion. You can probably search back through my posts, and find me saying the same things back in 2011. I like RAGE. A lot.
I actually did start back up on RAGE 2 again last night, and while I'm not getting the same feeling from it, I am actually enjoying it now, so I'll probably put more hours into it.
Cyberpunk had a rougher start than RAGE in some ways, but it's pretty indisputably a cool game. It's only going to get better too as CDPR polishes it up, and adds content. It would be stupid to just keep hating it for another decade because it pissed a few people off at launch.
I've never understood holding grudges over a botched release. Almost inevitably the games improve later. No Man's Sky is good example. Try it again later. If you still don't like it, let it go. I guess to be fair though, I still do hate EA for fucking up Ultima Ascension. It wasn't the dev's fault though, it was the publisher, and they never let them go back and make it what it should have been. Even THAT was a decent game despite a lot of its obvious shortcomings. People liked to hate it too. I guess if I can see the vision, and can play the game through, and enjoy some or most aspects of it, I just let myself have fun, and stop nitpicking. I know a lot of people can't let go enough to just allow themselves to have fun with something though.
On the original topic of Doom 3 though, I feel like it's pretty nearly perfect. There's not much I would change about it. A few minor things here and there, but for me, it was a pretty flawless experience.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,028
"The way they want me to play it."
I do not understand this phrase. A game is made up of mechanics and rules designed by the game creators. A game, by definition, requires you to play by its rules.
I do not understand this phrase. A game is made up of mechanics and rules designed by the game creators. A game, by definition, requires you to play by its rules.
twonunpackmule
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,700
My biggest issue with DOOM 3 is that I find it too long. Which, is really just a pacing issue. I think it loses some steam in the middle of the game. I think the opening and ending are rather solid. The middle is just where the game becomes a bit samey.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,028
I think the game is solid throughout, but some of the *gasp* platforming sections that close out the first third of the game do feel like a slog. I think the game does do a decent job at keeping the game fresh with the way it introduces new demons and weapons, though, and the story helps to move things along a bit. The environments do blend together, but unfortunately that is just a product of what the facility is and where the game takes place. Doom 2016 has a similar issue, just adding in more longer treks outside that were not limited by a depleting oxygen supply. It also throws you into the hell plane more often to break up the monotony of the environments.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
I think this is something that a lot of people don't tend to grasp. They complain about "corridor shooters". Well, what the hell else do you expect on a Mars-based science installation? There's no way in hell
that people don't know that Doom is going to be fairly corridor( y ) or Quake, or whatever. That's actually the style of game they are, and always have been, even with the more open feel of say Eternal. It's still an id corridor shooter, and that's how they always should be. That's what Doom is. There are more than enough open world shooters, or shooters that by their nature have much more variety in locations. Doom is science gone wrong with some stints in hell. One is entirely free to not care for this genre, but complaining that a game IN this genre adheres to its sensibilities is kinda silly IMO.
twonunpackmule
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,700
I think the combat loop in 2016/Eternal is more exciting. Part of that is the weapons in 3 kinda feel...meh. I don't hate the game, but it certainly is the black sheep and I don't think it's worse than people say, but I also don't think it's much better either. It just is a slog.
I know you don't feel that way, but I know a few people that have gone back to it because of Reviewer types on YouTube and they say the same thing as me. Basically, it starts to drag rather hard in the middle. For me, it's around the time you meet the first Pinky Demon.
Youn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,973
I do agree Doom 1 and 2 offered more variety than Doom 3, so that complaint is valid IMO. I especially like Doom 1, showing us how we're progressing with the overworld map, and some of those ending levels are very abstract, moreso than anything in Doom 3. Doom 2 kinda got repetitive for me (but I typically play through these games in one-go, so probably just burned out at a certain point) and it taught me that to simply try and model the real world would make for a very boring game, unless "open world" is the intent. I do some work in architecture, and walking around buildings trying to find shit get very annoying very quick.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
I pretty much love it all the way through. There is ONE part that gets a bit sloggy for me though, and that's the sewer-type area with the little baby monsters. I lose interest in that place pretty easy. The rest though, I enjoy.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,028
The first pinky encounter in Doom 3 is really early in the game. It occurs on level 4 of 27.