Support NeoGAF

[Doom_Bringer]

more screens
http://www.jeuxpo.com/afficher_news-1664.html


video link
http://www.filerush.com/download.php?target=Resurrection-of-Evil-trailer.mov

That Gravity gun like weapon looks hawt! Not bad for an expansion pack!

Too bad I sold my copy of Doom III

 

[Dr_Cogent]

It's too bad the first game was all flash and little depth.

 

[dark10x]

It's too bad the first game was all flash and little depth.

Not quite...

There was quite a bit of depth in the gameplay mechanics (more so than Far Cry and Half-Life 2) which allowed for very skill based play that was entertaining and almost arcade like at times. The problem was the too much of the game was repetitive (the first 1/3 being the largest problem).

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Doom 3 looked awesome, it's just that it got very repetitive. All those dark, cramped tunnels started looking the same after awhile. They needed more levels set in Hell, which is where the game started getting interesting and even more creepy. As it is, I'll pass on the expansion.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Not quite...

There was quite a bit of depth in the gameplay mechanics (more so than Far Cry and Half-Life 2) which allowed for very skill based play that was entertaining and almost arcade like at times. The problem was the too much of the game was repetitive (the first 1/3 being the largest problem).

The poor AI in doom 3 negates any "depth" in the gameplay mechanics. The enemies are no more intelligent than the ones in quake 1.

 

[dark10x]

The poor AI in doom 3 negates any "depth" in the gameplay mechanics. The enemies are no more intelligent than the ones in quake 1.

I'd suggest that games such as Metal Slug 3 and Gradius V actually have quite a bit of depth, yet they have virtually no AI routines to speak of.

The combat you engage in with the foes in Doom 3 is more akin to a game such as Metal Slug. The enemies do not run around searching for you in an intelligent manner, they are simply thrown at you and require that you can dodge the attacks while going in for the best shot. Rushing an enemy while avoiding his physical attacks in order to take him out with a single shotgun blast to the chest is pretty fun.

In a game like Far Cry, enemies can hit you from virtually anywhere. They simply fire their weapons and the bullets almost automatically connect. It's a very different type of combat. Doom 3 is based almost entirely on arcade-like pattern dodging instead, and it's pretty darn fun.

Sadly, like I said, the first 1/3 of the game was so repetitive that most people never bothered to reach the areas which actually manage to throw a larger variety of enemies your way.

The point is, good AI is not a requirement for depth.

 

[Pimpbaa]

The point is, good AI is not a requirement for depth.

That is a good point, I loved Doom 1 and 2 (and still do). If doom 3 had more variety of environments and enemies throughout the game, I probably would have enjoyed it a great deal more.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

The poor AI in doom 3 negates any "depth" in the gameplay mechanics. The enemies are no more intelligent than the ones in quake 1.

Exactly. The game was not deep in the slightest.

 

[dark10x]

Exactly. The game was not deep in the slightest.

Yes, it was (as I have explained).

How do you define depth anyways? Which recent first person shooters would you consider deep?

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Exactly. The reason I gave up on Doom was how repetitive it got. The levels werer just so boring and you could almost tell when the next monster was going to spawn in just by the way things were laid out.

Now imagine if they had designed Doom 3 to be more like the first two games. Levels that have a clearly defined beginning and end. Not overly large or complex, but enough to keep you moving and guessing, and of course, tons and tons of creatures, making it very fast paced and visceral. I know most gamers now want more depth then that, but Doom was genius in it's simplicity. Big guns, interesting environments, and lots and lots of things to kill.

 

[border]

The first 1/3 of the game was very repetitive. As was the last 2/3.

Metal Slug and Gradius are challenges of memory, reflex and dexterity. They have depth because high-skill levels are required and rewarded. Screens are filled with bullet sprays and tons of enemies. Their patterns are simple but they are very fast. Kills are one hit only and there's no energy to be refilled. Doom 3 has a small amount of simultaneous enemies and I don't think it takes much skill and precision to strafe-charge up to them with a shotgun and get a one hit kill (the strategy against nearly all of them).

I really don't get the "arcade" excuse. You spend a bunch of time reading diaries and tediously hunting down ammo locker codes. Enemy encounters are intense only because you can't see what the fuck is going on.....not because it's really challenging your reflexes and reactions, and not because you're ever overwhelmed by opposing forces.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Yes, it was (as I have explained).

How do you define depth anyways? Which recent first person shooters would you consider deep?

I can't agree with your explaination, sorry. It was the same gameplay from beginning to end. Find your way around in the dark, enemies appear to come out of nowhere, drop flashlight, fire, get back flashlight, drop it again, fire. Rinse repeat. Find key, open door, jump here, jump there.

Deep? I think not. Maybe if the game offered more as far as gameplay.

I would consider Chronicles of Riddick deeper because of the varied gameplay that it has in it. Doom 3 was just run and gun - that's it.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

The whole "dropping the flashlight" thing god old really really fast. I know the duct tape mod helped with this, but that was really a stupid design element of Doom 3 and probably the single biggest part of the game play that I hated. They should have had the flashlight on the weapons all along, and made you collect batteries to keep it juiced up, giving you an element of strategy in deciding which times you wanted to use the light and which times you didn't. Very annoying!

 

[Dr_Cogent]

The whole "dropping the flashlight" thing god old really really fast. I know the duct tape mod helped with this, but that was really a stupid design element of Doom 3 and probably the single biggest part of the game play that I hated. They should have had the flashlight on the weapons all along, and made you collect batteries to keep it juiced up, giving you an element of strategy in deciding which times you wanted to use the light and which times you didn't. Very annoying!

You would think a space marine would have night vision or at least what you suggested. What sort of space marine has jack diddly for equipment? At least give him it and take it away somehow as some sort of excuse as to why he doesn't have it.

 

[dark10x]

You would think a space marine would have night vision or at least what you suggested. What sort of space marine has jack diddly for equipment? At least give him it and take it away somehow as some sort of excuse as to why he doesn't have it.

Why do I get the feeling that you equate "features" with depth?

No point in attempting to argue this point, though. I've already presented my feelings on the matter...

 

[golem]

the middle levels of DOOM3 were stupid filler... but the first few levels (initial cool factor) and last few levels (hell) were fun..

thanks for the movie link... can get out of this stupid fileshack queue

 

[Borys]

While I found D3's gameplay b-o-r-i-n-g I loved its shadows and bumpmapping. Can't wait to check this "HL2 rip-off" gun and can't wait for Quake 4 either!

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

While I found D3's gameplay b-o-r-i-n-g I loved its shadows and bumpmapping. Can't wait to check this "HL2 rip-off" gun and can't wait for Quake 4 either!

I agree with you. The graphics were just stunning and the lighting was excellent. The gameplay and level design were what ultimately did it in for me.

 

[HokieJoe]

I agree with you. The graphics were just stunning and the lighting was excellent. The gameplay and level design were what ultimately did it in for me.

I have to agree with you on this. While I think that HL2 has better textures, or art style, I think that D3 has better lighting effects.

 

[COCKLES]

The farcry enemies should have all been equipped with Eraser railguns....then at least the game would have a plausible reason for their amazing accuracy, shooting you dead from long distances through thick foilage.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Why do I get the feeling that you equate "features" with depth?

No point in attempting to argue this point, though. I've already presented my feelings on the matter...

I was responding to Kung Fu Jedi there, so I don't understand you quoting my post and then commenting.

Run and Gun != Deep gameplay

Splinter Cell, now that's deep gameplay. More is involved than running and shooting. It takes more than reflexes to win. Doom was great back in the day, but gameplay has evolved since then. Doom 3 didn't have much in the way of innovation and didn't offer that much as far as varied gameplay. There were a few puzzles, but they were pretty lame as well.

 

[dark10x]

Run and Gun != Deep gameplay

I COMPLETELY disagree with that...

I'd still like to know how you define depth.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

I COMPLETELY disagree with that...

I'd still like to know how you define depth.

Actually, I would like to know how you define depth myself.

Don't have time to define it at the moment, code beckons.

 

[border]

Run and Gun != Deep gameplay

Splinter Cell, now that's deep gameplay. More is involved than running and shooting. It takes more than reflexes to win.

Doom 3 is lame, but this sort of attitude is ruining games. I'd rather have reflex action than stealth trial n' error. Sitting in the shadows for a minute waiting for some sentry running an obviously scripted patrol route to turn around.....now that takes real skill =\

 

[dark10x]

Actually, I would like to know how you define depth myself.

Don't have time to define it at the moment, code beckons.

Depth can vary per genre, but the form of depth I speak of pertains to non-surface gameplay features. Essentially, when a game offers mechanics that force the player to become very familiar with the options available to them and using them to the best of their ability. I mentioned Metal Slug 3 above and I believe that is a good example. The game can be finished in a couple hours or so, but can takes months to really "master". It's not simply a case of memorizing enemy locations so much as it is becoming so skillful with a control and tool set provided that you can handle any situation that may be thrown your way. Do you think that you could easily blast your way through the first four stages, with all Greats, and no deaths after only a few hours of play? No chance.

As noted above, depth can vary from game to game and be defined differently as a result. It seems to me, however, that you selected very specific types of games to backup your idea of depth and refuse to consider other options. I'm not attempting to argue that Doom 3 is incredibly deep here. No, I'm simply suggesting that its combat system and general progression plays out like a 3D arcade shooter in some ways and allows for a similar approach.

Doom 3 is a flawed game, but it is not flawed due to its lack of gadgets or advanced AI.

Doom 3 is lame, but this sort of attitude is ruining games. I'd rather have reflex action than stealth trial n' error. Sitting in the shadows for a minute waiting for some sentry running an obviously scripted patrol route to turn around.....now that takes real skill =\

Splinter Cell's single player portions are terrible. Completely linear, trial and error based gameplay at its worst. Bleh.

 

[Sergenth]

Two types of gameplay depth in games:

Depth of Choice

&

Depth of Possibility

Possibility x Choice = Total Gameplay Depth

When you confront a lone Hell Knight in Doom 3, you are usually confined to the room or you can choose to retreat back into a previous room (sometimes). Therefore, the choices you can make are limited.

The depth of choice is in choosing the optimal path of progression. Sure, you could try to punch the demon to death, but the game makes this hard and it would take a long time. I don't even know if you can attempt it... the hell knights always position themselves to face you and the fist is a useless weapon if you want to avoid collateral damage.

In the old doom games, one could position two different monsters in line so as to make one shoot the other, and then you watch them fight. I don't even remember if this was possible in Doom 3... the corridors are to tight for such strategic maneuvering and the monster spawn spread was usually limited to 1 type of monster or 2 types of monsters with wildy different speed or height variables or melee attack styles.

The depth of possibility in Doom 3 is therefore lower than the depth of possibility in the older Doom games, quantitatively. The depth of choice is still there, but many of the choices that were beneficial in the older Doom games lead to sub-optimal results in the new one.

Total gameplay depth in Doom 3 is significantly lowered because of the missing possibilities and the hollow capacity for choice that follows from that. Not only is it less deep, it is also frustrating.

An example of this frustration arises from the use of the Doom 3 berserk powerup. Unlike the old games, Berserk now makes you invincible, and it is only available in "Berserk-friendly mazes", where the mini-game goal is to merely find and punch all of the enemies in an area before time is up.

In previous games, Berserk power-ups were rewards for exploration, and they allowed you to conserve some ammo if you dared to go up close to the swarming hordes of monsters. Since Doom 3 has no swarming hordes, id decided to change the function of berserk I guess. Depth of possibility and choice were removed because hordes were not part of the game design.

All of Doom 3's problems really do stem from the lack of monster hordes. A real shame they removed that integral Doom element.

edit: improved definitions:

Depth of Choice: The options and capabilities given to the player (movement, attacks, special moves) to overcome problem areas. Some choices you make in Doom 3 are move, attack, look, open, retreat, shoot, explore, collect, dodge, and etc

Depth of Possibility: The open action pathways through a situation, made by selecting an option or capability given to the player. Example possibilities in Doom 3 are strategies for dealing with monsters like shotgunning Imps in the face (most optimal), choices to make in conserving ammo, clearing areas smartly, taunting enemies through choke-points, or simply running around the room avoiding the Hell Knight swiping attacks. Level design directly affects possibility. The more properties and characteristics monsters, items and the environment possesses, the more possibility arises as long as interactions between these characteristics and properties are numerous and complex.

Emergence: The more options and possibilities there are in a game, the more depth of gameplay emerges.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Doom 3 is lame, but this sort of attitude is ruining games. I'd rather have reflex action than stealth trial n' error. Sitting in the shadows for a minute waiting for some sentry running an obviously scripted patrol route to turn around.....now that takes real skill =\

Hmmmm, I had that feeling sometimes when I played Splinter Cell - but for the most part, I enjoyed the the challenge of figuring out how to get farther. There were many ways of dealing with an enemy. Do I kill them? Do I knock them out? Use a tazer round? Completely ignore him and just sneak around? It takes skill, especially in the later levels. You're example, I find weak to begin with.

Essentially, when a game offers mechanics that force the player to become very familiar with the options available to them and using them to the best of their ability.

Hmmm, lets see, what were your options in Doom 3? Not many from what I remember. Just different guns and a flashlight. Oh, and grenades. Give me examples that reflect the statement above in Doom 3.

I will have to say I agree with Sergenth. I will let his post above speak for me.

 

[border]

Do I kill them? Do I knock them out? Use a tazer round? Completely ignore him and just sneak around

All this boils down to is a binary choice of disable or avoid. The difference between kills and knockouts is nonexistent in SC, since knocked out guys never get up anyway. The game is so linear and passageways are so tight that it seems like you end up having to disable most guards anyway.

My example completely takes into account all the stuff you said. It's just that SC most often boils down to a waiting game. Either you are waiting for the opportune time to slip past someone or waiting for the right moment to grab/shoot them.

Games like SC require you to think about what you're doing, but don't require much skill to actually execute your plan-of-action (the main problem is that discovering the proper plan is a trial and error process).

Games like Doom 3 don't require much thought about your plan of action, but its execution requires some skill.

Halo (Legendary) melds both forethought and skill in execution, while the excellent AI encourages on-the-spot improvisation. I think that's where the most depth is to be found.

 

[dark10x]

Hmmm, lets see, what were your options in Doom 3? Not many from what I remember. Just different guns and a flashlight. Oh, and grenades. Give me examples that reflect the statement above in Doom 3.

You really do love your gadgets, don't you? That's probably why you said Splinter Cell...

 

[Late Stage Marxist]

I enjoyed Doom III a great deal more than Far Cry. It's not the most complex game, but that has never really mattered in the shooter genre. Also Far Cry had some serious clipping problems (impenetrable foliage) that made the game nigh impossible for me to play.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

All this boils down to is a binary choice of disable or avoid. The difference between kills and knockouts is nonexistent in SC, since knocked out guys never get up anyway. The game is so linear and passageways are so tight that it seems like you end up having to disable most guards anyway.

My example completely takes into account all the stuff you said. It's just that SC most often boils down to a waiting game. Either you are waiting for the opportune time to slip past someone or waiting for the right moment to grab/shoot them.

Games like SC require you to think about what you're doing, but don't require much skill to actually execute your plan-of-action (the main problem is that discovering the proper plan is a trial and error process).

Games like Doom 3 don't require much thought about your plan of action, but its execution requires some skill.

Halo (Legendary) melds both forethought and skill in execution, while the excellent AI encourages on-the-spot improvisation. I think that's where the most depth is to be found.

No, your example does not take it all into account, because the execution is all different. Also, the ramifications can vary as well. Like I said, I think your example is weak to begin with. I can use your general level of examples on any game and make it seem that there isn't much to them as well. Being vague, or not going into detail, doesn't constitute as proof of your claim.

I think it all just boils down to - you don't like Splinter Cell as a game.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

You really do love your gadgets, don't you? That's probably why you said Splinter Cell...

It's not about the gadgets. In Doom 3, you have to kill or be killed. Splinter Cell involves more than just that.

 

[Great King Bowser]

Is it wrong I got too scared to play any further like an hour into the game? :lol

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Is it wrong I got too scared to play any further like an hour into the game? :lol

Keep playing, that wears off after you come to expect the same thing over and over again.

 

[Cold-Steel]

Is it wrong I got too scared to play any further like an hour into the game? :lol

Man, if that's the case I recommend you don't play the original Aliens Versus Predator for PC or any Silent Hill game.

I love DOOM III. I know it's wash-rinse-repeat gameplay but I dig these games.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Man, if that's the case I recommend you don't play the original Aliens Versus Predator for PC or any Silent Hill game.

I love DOOM III. I know it's wash-rinse-repeat gameplay but I dig these games.

I found Fatal Frame to even be the scariest game I ever played.

But Silent Hill 2 was pretty scary too.

 

[border]

No, your example does not take it all into account, because the execution is all different.

It doesn't take the entire game into account, I'm just pointing out that a fair amount of time is spent sitting around waiting for a script to play itself out to your advantage. You act like there's a ton of possibilities but it's just a set of mostly-similar tactics to accomplish the same goal (disable or avoid).

Obviously there is more than sitting around, but then again even Doom 3 is more than running and shooting....so let's not even pretend that your own generalization takes that entire game into account.

 

[EekTheKat]

perhaps the most amazing thing in all these screenshots is that there appears to be more than 4 people in a multiplayer game on one screen.

Wonder if they finally worked it out where it's actually playable now.

 

[Tain]

Personally, I think trying to rate a game's depth is an absolute joke. Too many variables, I suppose.

Doom 3 was just run and gun - that's it.

So were the first two Dooms, and they still hold up as two of the best singleplayer FPSes you can play today.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

It doesn't take the entire game into account, I'm just pointing out that a fair amount of time is spent sitting around waiting for a script to play itself out to your advantage. You act like there's a ton of possibilities but it's just a set of mostly-similar tactics to accomplish the same goal (disable or avoid).

Obviously there is more than sitting around, but then again even Doom 3 is more than running and shooting....so let's not even pretend that your own generalization takes that entire game into account.

Uh, what more did Doom 3 have in it other than running and shooting? I find the options were pretty limited on the whole.

Seriously. I can't think of anything - except for maybe the moving of the toxic waste.

So were the first two Dooms, and they still hold up as two of the best singleplayer FPSes you can play today.

I wouldn't want to touch Doom or Doom 2 with a ten foot pole today. BORING! At the time it was sweet - now it's old crap.

 

[Tain]

I wouldn't want to touch Doom or Doom 2 with a ten foot pole today. BORING! At the time it was sweet - now it's old crap.

They're still the fastest singleplayer FPSes out there, and while the level design can be spotty, the enemies and weapons are perfect. I love 'em. Different strokes, I guess.

 

[Evenball]

I liked Doom3 and I'm sure I'll like this one too.