I've played the award winning alpha.
Which does not represent the game properly.
I realize that there are many ppl with incredibly low standards but noone can reasonably deny that Doom 3's core gameplay is essentially similar to that of the 1993 release Wolfenstein 3d (and that goes for any id game released since then for that matter). It's tired, unimaginative and not deserving of any praise.
While it is certainly somewhat basic, the gameplay is certainly beyond Wolfenstein 3D. The game is more of a Half-Life clone, if anything (remember, Half-Life was primarily a shooter infused with lots of special sequences). Doom 3 does not present room after room of similar enemy placements and maze like environments. There are many unique scenarios present throughout which are very similar to what you might have found in Half-Life. You have tram rides (which you control), you operate pieces of machinery (full control), take part in escort missions (which are well designed), etc. Half-Life offered similar types of sequences throughout its gameplay. Doom 3 is full of interesting segments which deviate from standard shooting, just as HL was. Wolf 3D featured NONE of those elements. Doom 3 is a scenario/experience based FPS extended by some repetitive sequences. The claims you make against Doom 3 are not representative of the entire game by any means. There is much more variety than you have been led to believe.
There is also more interaction with the environment and lots of additional information to digest (whether you find that interesting or not is subjective...but its inclusion can not be ignored). Once again, Wolf 3D failed to present anything of this sort.
I will not ignore the flaws, however. There are plenty of segments that involve simple shooting, similar to many other FPS games (though still much more complex than Wolf3D simply due to varying tactics per enemy and the variety of situations in which you encounter them). In Wolf3D, enemies would often be standing in a room awaiting your arrival. This is not necessarily the case with Doom 3.
I would also suggest that it is unfair to ignore the intensity of each encounter. The enemies attack in a fashion that is quite rare in the world of FPS games. They do not act as cannon fodder. They move and attack in perhaps the most brutal methods possible and require you to react very quickly.
Placing Doom 3 in the same category as Wolfenstein 3D suggests that, in your opinion, the vast majority of FPS titles fail to differ in any significant ways. The only FPS games that could stand apart from your stereotype would be those that offer signifcantly different options (such as RPG-like elements ala System Shock 2 or wide open vehicle based combat ala Halo or Far Cry).
Doom 3 is clearly attempting to copy Half-Life, and it really doesn't quite compare, to tell you the truth. However, it is an enjoyable attempt despite the flaws. A clone of Wolf3D this is not, and your suggestion that it is only proves that you really have no idea how Doom 3 actually plays out.
I would never classify Doom 3 as a AAA game. It has some major shortcomings, but that doesn't mean I am not still enjoying it. You want people to admit that the game is crap when it is, in fact, not a bad game...it's just average (well, a bit above average I'd say). Half-Life 2 and Halo 2 will both crush Doom 3 from a gameplay standpoint, but that does not mean one can't enjoy Doom 3. I mean, I enjoyed and played games like RtCW, Red Faction, and Undying. They each had their "themes", but they were very simple games (more so than Doom 3).
I fail to see the relevance. Sure I gave RSIII a chance if you want to call it that (bought it and kept it) but I also acknowledge its shortcomings.
You are bashing people who are enjoying Doom 3 and have accused them of having bad taste. Is this not the case? The point is that YOU have pimped RSIII many times before despite the fact that it is even more average than Doom 3! The fact that you enjoyed an average title does not mean you have bad taste...and that should extend to those enjoying Doom 3.
Scores are irrelevant. Doom 3 only gets high scores because it's Doom and has pretty graphics.
I agree. However, I feel that RSIII recieved the scores it did as a result of the visuals...who's to say I'm wrong? I believe it would have scored less without the visual impact, just like Doom 3.
It also had some missions that were done to perfection. But whatever you think about RSIII it doesn't excuse Doom 3.
As does Doom 3. You would not know that as you have not played it, however...and that's part of the problem. You judge a piece of work without having the proper experience. Why do you do that?
It's not so much what I want from the game as what I want from those who play it: to admit that it's mediocre.
It is somewhat mediocre. There ya go! It's a mediocre game that I am having some fun with...just as you did with RSIII.
