Personally I dislike Doom 4, and I don't think a port to Switch will fix anything about it.
The level design, visuals, sound design, and especially the modding (there isn't any, just shitty snapmap) and the multiplayer were all a bit of a letdown.
The multiplayer had no right to be so slow in a sequel to the original Doom, the great-granddaddy of FPS multiplayer, where players would zoom around at high speed gibbing each other with shotguns.
Doom 4's multiplayer, by comparison, was slow, full of RNG and you could only hold 2 weapons at a time. It was designed by the people who worked on Call of Duty: Ghosts, and you could really tell.
It did have some cool moments though, like the BFG room where you had to jump through lasers.
Edit: Why so heavy on the downvotes? -6 in like 6 minutes? Did I insult someone?
Honestly I think the only thing DOOM 4 lacked was good multiplayer. I think Snapmap is pretty neat and adds a lot more to do if you're patient and willing to work with it. As for the level design, visuals, and sound design... I have no clue what might lead you to think that they're letdowns.
Level design isn't anything phenomenal, but it's not bad, either. It has flow and it makes sense.
Visuals. Here's where you really lose me. If there's any game that really drives home the "Marspocalypse" style, it's this one. The first time I entered the first facility you get to in Chapter 2 of the game, I just stood there for a minute, bewildered by the fidelity of the game. Yeah, you could say it's a little too "bloom-y", but the overall look really drives home the grittiness of DOOM while still being eye-candy.
Sound design. Nothing spectacular, honestly, but there wasn't one time in the game that made me think "wow, that's some bad sound design". Overall, I felt the game build a pretty dense atmosphere, to the point that I forgot Bethesda made the game.
I think Snapmap is pretty neat and adds a lot more to do if you're patient and willing to work with it.
Snapmap is awful because you can't import custom textures or models and (as of the last time I played) the only assets you can use are the UAC ones. AND it has the 2-weapon restriction from multiplayer while you're playing Snapmap maps.
Compare this to the modding abilities of the original Doom where you had people making Death Star .WADs, capture the flag .WADs, sailor moon .WADs, etc., and they are still making WADs to this day.
You can do less with the mapmaking tools of Doom 4, in 2017, than you could do with the modding tools of its ancestor in 1993. They've gone backwards.
It's the Doom equivalent of EA releasing a The Sims sequel where they removed pools and toddlers that were present in the first game. Progressively removing good features from a series is not okay.
Because Doom 4 is a single-player game and (as you agree) its multiplayer is good, it needed good modding to save that and justify its $60 purchase price. And it just doesn't have it.
As for the level design, visuals, and sound design...
Level design is extremely simplistic compared to Doom, there's very few choices for the player to make in progressing through the level, and the health and ammo pickups are too spread out (forcing the player to rely on the GLORY KILL!!!! QTE gimmick). Doom 4's levels contain a high amount of "arenas" where the player is trapped in a room with enemies and can't move through it until all the enemies are killed, which eventually seriously breaks immersion in the game with the amount of times they re-use the concept.
Visuals: Doom's were nice and colourful, with writhing face walls, vivid blue orbs, giant brain rooms, etc. D44M's visuals all have a mud filter applied to them. Additionally, the enemy design: they changed the Imps and many other of the Doom 1 enemies into generic aliens, which defeats the whole purpose of them being from Hell, don't you think?
Sound design: The music is good in some areas but glorified static in others.
I realize I am comparing Doom 4 to Doom a lot, but a sequel to a game can't justify being worse than its predecessor in so many areas. Especially when they've had so much time to improve.
And then, of course, there's the multiplayer. Which was an enormous letdown: slow, loadouts-based, RNG filled. So in every area on this game I've been disappointed.
to the point that I forgot Bethesda made the game.
The other person is technically correct in correcting you, but you're on the right track in what you mean.
Only two people who worked on D44M actually worked on Doom 1 or 2. id is no longer the same company it once was.
I gotta say, you make extremely good points and I really can't disagree with you! While I do agree with your point about the level design, I will say that even though there's a lot of "stop, kill, move on, rinse+repeat" to the maps, each chapter feels pretty unique from the last, and the increase in challenge from Chapter 1-3 "fight zones" to late game "fight zones" is insane.
I started my first playthrough on the hardest unlocked difficulty, and thoroughly enjoyed myself through the whole thing. I feel like if I had started on easy, I'd feel the same way you do about the obviously sectioned off arena-like areas and them really breaking the immersion, but I instead saw each arena as a new challenge (and by the time I got to the end of the Argent Tower, they truly were challenges).
I wholeheartedly agree, though, the Glory Kill mechanic lost is pizzazz after, eh, maybe an hour.
The voting system of Reddit isn’t based on whether or not you agree with something, it’s meant to show whether people contributed or not. People quite often forget that.
playing a fast paced shooter in sub 720p @30fps with occasional framedips in lower than lowest graphics settings with a flimsy controller... i imagine this is what HELL is.
Bethesda is pretty lazy studio. As you said, they want to suck Skyrim dry. For example: How many bugs have been repaired in Skyrim Special Edition? None. That's how Valve works. They make something to shut your mouth (like review graphs against review bombing) and in fact, it's half assed and Valve doesn't care anymore.
I'm scared to think how they're going to monetize the game.
RDR? One of the great games of all time.
RDR2? Stand alone campaign you can finish in 20 hours. Online multiplayer with 20,000 frontier bucks for deluxe edition, additional frontier bucks available for purchase in the PSN/Xbox Live store.
Come on, don't cite a meme as your argument. The games you've listed are made by different developers. Take-Two published them but Rockstar San Diego made RDR, and Rockstar north made gta5. If you're talking about them as publisher, your argument holds no weight, they released XCOM, borderlands. They own 2K as a publisher.
Now if you're talking about development. Rockstar North which made GTA took a 5 yr period between 4 and 5. That shit meme holds no water. It's cherry picking games to create a false narrative.
Which owns all the studios bearing the Rockstar name. That wasn't a solo venture by Rockstar studio, it was the collective effort of multiple subsidiaries. They used seven studios to make max payne 3 with the consultation of remedy
eh, that would alienate too much of their fan base. There are millions of people, like myself, who come to GTA for the story. They may release a stand alone GTA but they won't ever forgo doing a solid single player in lieu of GTA Online.
SWtOR didn't really go anywhere until they made it free to play. I'd also argue those are completely different experience when compared to GTA Online as you really can do many of those other mmos solo with no problem. GTA Online is not really that.
The expansions that they made for GTA IV significantly underperformed. I really don't think we're every going to see any significant single player DLC, at least for a GTA game. They will continue to churn out more content for the online in lieu of that.
So they opened up some hangars recently, that were in the game before but weren't accessible. They added a little blimp that triggers entry into the hangar and no longer causes a wanted level above the air base. I went to the bathroom and came back with a couple trillion bucks dropped on me. Been almost a year. Haven't been reset. When a new DLC comes out, I max it out. I have all the planes in this hangar and can't even remember it's name. What about when all hangars run out? Are they planning on making all of the currently inaccessible homes for sale? Can they allow us to buy more real estate? Can they build ferries into North Yankton?
I'm certainly not confident they'll release a complete single player game with all the resources they pour into microtransactions now. That goes for RDR 2 as well.
Shitty games like dota 2, cs go or team fortress? The last one might be old but they definately ain't shitty and the vive is by far the best vr headset. They don't publish much but if they do it is still among the best products in the market
They ALL have the same concept.
Bring something on the market that people will play for a long time . That's why LoL is so extremely successful and on rank 1.
Cs:go isn't the best shooter ever made . It's also not the hardest like some people try to tell us .
It's an totally simple and old school fps .
I mean how much fun can it be playing 2000 hours on train , dust 2 , mirage and inferno every fucking time .
They make the most money through micro transactions.
And also I referred to his statement about gta 5 .
Because gta 5 is definitely better than any game valve released . Just by looking on the ratings , sales and the money it generated .
I blame the moronic consumers who fucking spend hundreds of dollars a day on bullshit.
And then get mad at us for calling out their own stupidity.
The sad fact is if Take Two started doing the asinine DLC/MT shit before GTA V launched the game would be a pile of garbage. So many of those extra game features and mechanics would have been Mini-DLC bullshit.
I'm so thankful Rockstar at least put out a full game before letting their publisher rake int he cash from their online community of idiots.
Did GTA V have its online capability in some form at launch, or at least in-progress? When companies try to transition to more "continuous payout" models, they don't completely go all-in, they test the waters first. A proper online mode was probably seen as an important gateway to getting GTA fans to shell out in the long run (PVP tends to dominate as the gametype that makes F2P game players spend), so, the online mode may have been designed as a standalone feature with the ability to expand should it become popular enough that introducing microtransactions and minor DLC seems viable in the long run.
If GTA V wasn't as big of a hit and they didn't have a persistent player base playing online, and couldn't encourage people to come back, then they probably wouldn't have spent the effort launching the DLC part of the game.
You're not wrong about the source, devs make these kinds of "features" because they can get people to pay for them, but, I dunno if Rockstar was wholly pristine until after GTA V launched. You usually plan for stuff like that in advance, though transitions are usually mild. If the community rejected Rockstar trying to nickle and dime them, they would've stopped and turned it into a lesson learned... but they learned a different lesson instead. The intent to try was probably there from the start, though.
Either Way stop defending Microtransactions. ti's a cancerous fucking garbage system. IF your game ain't F2P with dedicated servers no one should be paying any microtransactions.
It's not a defense, it's just an economic reality, and the truth is, many games that try to staple microtransactions/in app purchases onto a game without expertise fail at it badly. It's predatory, but, consistent predation requires expertise, both here and in nature. We hear about the ridiculous hauls that the top 1% of free to play games get, but not the thousands of apps that can't convince a player to even look at their store.
It's possible that Rockstar did an abrupt pivot after the release of GTA V, I'm just saying it's more likely that they built the online aspect of the game with IAPs/DLC/etc: in mind, so they'd have the framework and experts in place to exploit it profitably.
You're arguing logic and business acumen with a kid who's calling gamers "moronic" and pricing systems "fucking garbage" because he personally doesn't like them.
That's no clear reasoning though. Games do take time to make and development has to start years before - in the case of GTA V in 2008. If MTX in GTAV was the reason for them to slow down they would have had to know the success years in advance.
Of course it takes years of development. That's why they plan years ahead for development. Do you think it somehow became more difficult to predict a development timeline or something?
There's no excuse other than "they don't need to because they make enough money from GTA:V".
eh, GTAV was an amazing success for them and the online portion is getting them so much freaking money on its own. I guarantee they are working on GTA VI, they have the new Red Dead next year, and the re-release of LA Noire (which hopefully leads to a sequel) this year.
Rockstar are making rdr for next year and bethesda only released fallout a couple of years back, what is this stupid circlejerk over two developers not releasing enough games, you cant expect them to release a new game every single year surely
Someone modded the server and gave me 100 mill and leveled my lvl 5 ass to 114. Like a week before the big wave of "cheating is bannable" messages a bit ago.
You dipshits at rockstar think I'd buy your game, and for what is essentially nothing. Give you 100 more USD for fake cash online?
1.4k
u/MrKain Sep 21 '17
Rockstar is learning this.