Doom was a mediocre game that people only played because it had blood and demons in it during a time when that was edgy, new, and cool. So it makes sense that he'd be mad at anything that threatens that crutch. Violent games are no longer pushing boundaries, they're the status quo. That shit is boring now and no amount of pandering to the anti-woke crowd will make you good at making interesting video games.
This is the most wrong statement that has ever been made in history.
I was around in 1993. Doom was a phenomena. The music, the graphics, the gameplay. Nothing like it had existed before. It created measurable harm to the us economy.
Nightmare reaper does a cool job of combining old school shooter mechanics with more modern looter shooter weapons and some other neat ideas. It's fun.
At the time it came out Doom was pretty revolutionary.
True. It can't be overstated how much people just did not know how to design control schemes at all back then, and past that Doom required the creation of a bunch of innovative math to make its graphics work.
Also the gameplay hold up surprisingly well for how old it is,
No, that style of game is painfully awful and clunky, even with the later improvements that fixed absurd things like mouse-based movement.
there’s a whole sub genre of indie games replicating it.
Things being a genre isn't necessarily good. "There is a linear sequence of pictures and you press forward and that's it there's no mechanics or interactivity" is a genre. "Clone of a dogshit phone game that was a clone of a dogshit flash game from the early 2000s" is a genre. "RPGMaker game" is a genre.
I mean bad as they are boomer shooters aren't as bad as VNs, mobile games, or RPGMaker games, but still.
No, that style of game is painfully awful and clunky, even with the later improvements that fixed absurd things like mouse-based movement.
You’re wrong. Doom specifically had what would become the default version of non clunky controls. It wasn’t the first, but it was the first time the majority of people experienced something other than using key look.
The game itself was also notably faster in play than anything else. It made build engine games look slow for Christ sake.
Doom would be the fastest, slickest experience until quake came out and actually felt buttery.
What are you comparing doom to that it comes out clunky?
Doom specifically had what would become the default version of non clunky controls.
I did say it was innovative specifically because of how there just was no actual established knowledge of how to design a control scheme yet, for all that it was still awful.
The game itself was also notably faster in play than anything else. It made build engine games look slow for Christ sake.
Doom would be the fastest, slickest experience until quake came out and actually felt buttery.
My argument is that it hasn't aged well and the entire boomer shooter genre is shitty nostalgia bait, not that the standard when it came out wasn't even worse.
What are you comparing doom to that it comes out clunky?
Things that aren't shitty antiquated sprite shooters with like 3 fps animations and mouse-based movement?
Like Half Life slaps the piss out of Doom style games, and Half Life is unplayably clunky now. Half Life 2 was another massive step up, and is unplayably clunky now. Hell, even Halo was seen as groundbreaking for its time, and Halo is an awful game with shit core gameplay.
On account of it being a bad game with shit core gameplay. Like yeah it did this or that new and introduced such and such mechanical concepts, but it's just not good. It's got that thing old games did where bullets leave the barrel at a 45 degree angle at random so the standard bloom is physically larger than the enemy models, it's janky af, and the levels are repetitive and bland. And before you go "well clearly you just don't remember it very well" I played it again last year, it took two hours to run through the whole thing, and it was a miserable experience. It's just a bad game both design-wise and mechanically.
Like it's everything I hated about FPSes back in its era, and playing it again reminded me how much the general body of game design knowledge has improved in the past twenty years.
I don't know. Crysis of all things held up reasonably well when I played it five or six years ago, though its sequels were kind of shit (and its plot is pure Bush-era chauvinist lunacy). Any "bullets go where you point them and bloom happens after sustained rapid shots" game necessarily does gunplay better than Halo did. Ironically Destiny 2 has very good core gameplay, despite ultimately coming from Halo and for all its other problems.
Really I just think most games from the Bush era were just plain bad. They were overwhelmingly fascist wank with mid mechanics: the bizarre and experimental mechanical complexity of some of the late 90s games (not FPSes; 90s FPSes were all awful) was being abandoned in favor of a more standardized and basic form with shitty early 3d graphics eating up progressively more of their labor budgets and needing to be accommodated. And the shitty, shitty FPSes of that era were almost all following directly in Halo's footsteps creating bland linear corridors with bad gunplay and Fascist plots.
imo the dude sucks but doom is great. the newer ones also really changed the current shooter landscape. since doom 2016 a bunch of games have tried to ape its style/execution in some way or another
doom rules but fuck this dude. i personally don't like to do the "all the shit this chud made sucks" now thing cause i feel like a baby throwing a tantrum doing that. not that i'm saying that's what you're doing-- maybe you just never enjoyed doom and that's your genuine perspective
Uh, Doom was ground-breaking in a way that no game had ever been ground-breaking before. It was high-tech and it played on any crappy 386 with a VGA card. It was deliberately, over-the-top violent. It deliberately included demons and Satanic imagery as a "fuck you" to the no-fun crowd of the time.
Violent games are no longer pushing boundaries, they’re the status quo. That shit is boring now
There are certain works that you can safely assume most people have enjoyed. These shows were considered fantastic when they were released. Now, however, these have a Hype Backlash curse on them. Whenever we watch them, we'll cry, "That is so old" or "That is so overdone".
The sad irony? It wasn't old or overdone when they did it, because they were the first ones to do it. But the things it created were so brilliant and popular, they became woven into the fabric of that work's niche. They ended up being taken for granted, copied, and endlessly repeated. Although they often began by saying something new, they in turn became the new status quo. It's basically the inverse of a Grandfather Clause taken to a trope level: rather than being able to get away with something that is seen as overdone or out of style simply because it was the one that started it, people will unfairly disregard it because it got lost amidst its sea of imitations even though it paved the way for all those imitators. That is, a work retroactively becomes a Cliché Storm.
There may be a good reason for this. Whoever is first to do something isn't likely to be the best at it, simply because everyone that comes after is building on their predecessors' work.
Named after Seinfeld, which many people won't watch anymore because everything about it has been copied.
Doom was a mediocre game that people only played because it had blood and demons in it during a time when that was edgy, new, and cool. So it makes sense that he'd be mad at anything that threatens that crutch. Violent games are no longer pushing boundaries, they're the status quo. That shit is boring now and no amount of pandering to the anti-woke crowd will make you good at making interesting video games.
This is the most wrong statement that has ever been made in history.
I was around in 1993. Doom was a phenomena. The music, the graphics, the gameplay. Nothing like it had existed before. It created measurable harm to the us economy.
:troll:
Oh no i am owned!
This thread just makes me want to play some more custom WADs.
:dril: :corn-man-khrush:
:downbear: bad take, doom is still fun, one of the creators is just a dipshit
deleted by creator
Indeed, first person shooters were called "doom clones". Though, in hindsight..
deleted by creator
Nightmare reaper does a cool job of combining old school shooter mechanics with more modern looter shooter weapons and some other neat ideas. It's fun.
I heard that call of duty series has a few fans.
(I think I know what you mean? There's a 40k doom clone doom clone)
deleted by creator
True. It can't be overstated how much people just did not know how to design control schemes at all back then, and past that Doom required the creation of a bunch of innovative math to make its graphics work.
No, that style of game is painfully awful and clunky, even with the later improvements that fixed absurd things like mouse-based movement.
Things being a genre isn't necessarily good. "There is a linear sequence of pictures and you press forward and that's it there's no mechanics or interactivity" is a genre. "Clone of a dogshit phone game that was a clone of a dogshit flash game from the early 2000s" is a genre. "RPGMaker game" is a genre.
I mean bad as they are boomer shooters aren't as bad as VNs, mobile games, or RPGMaker games, but still.
deleted by creator
You’re wrong. Doom specifically had what would become the default version of non clunky controls. It wasn’t the first, but it was the first time the majority of people experienced something other than using key look.
The game itself was also notably faster in play than anything else. It made build engine games look slow for Christ sake.
Doom would be the fastest, slickest experience until quake came out and actually felt buttery.
What are you comparing doom to that it comes out clunky?
I did say it was innovative specifically because of how there just was no actual established knowledge of how to design a control scheme yet, for all that it was still awful.
My argument is that it hasn't aged well and the entire boomer shooter genre is shitty nostalgia bait, not that the standard when it came out wasn't even worse.
Things that aren't shitty antiquated sprite shooters with like 3 fps animations and mouse-based movement?
Like Half Life slaps the piss out of Doom style games, and Half Life is unplayably clunky now. Half Life 2 was another massive step up, and is unplayably clunky now. Hell, even Halo was seen as groundbreaking for its time, and Halo is an awful game with shit core gameplay.
Wait hold on a second. How are you saying that halo is a bad game with shit core gameplay?
On account of it being a bad game with shit core gameplay. Like yeah it did this or that new and introduced such and such mechanical concepts, but it's just not good. It's got that thing old games did where bullets leave the barrel at a 45 degree angle at random so the standard bloom is physically larger than the enemy models, it's janky af, and the levels are repetitive and bland. And before you go "well clearly you just don't remember it very well" I played it again last year, it took two hours to run through the whole thing, and it was a miserable experience. It's just a bad game both design-wise and mechanically.
Like it's everything I hated about FPSes back in its era, and playing it again reminded me how much the general body of game design knowledge has improved in the past twenty years.
Okay so what would you say is a good shooter with good core gameplay?
I don't know. Crysis of all things held up reasonably well when I played it five or six years ago, though its sequels were kind of shit (and its plot is pure Bush-era chauvinist lunacy). Any "bullets go where you point them and bloom happens after sustained rapid shots" game necessarily does gunplay better than Halo did. Ironically Destiny 2 has very good core gameplay, despite ultimately coming from Halo and for all its other problems.
Really I just think most games from the Bush era were just plain bad. They were overwhelmingly fascist wank with mid mechanics: the bizarre and experimental mechanical complexity of some of the late 90s games (not FPSes; 90s FPSes were all awful) was being abandoned in favor of a more standardized and basic form with shitty early 3d graphics eating up progressively more of their labor budgets and needing to be accommodated. And the shitty, shitty FPSes of that era were almost all following directly in Halo's footsteps creating bland linear corridors with bad gunplay and Fascist plots.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
:geordi-no: splattering demon brains everywhere
:geordi-yes: scattering turnip seeds everywhere
What if you could have both :sicko-blur:
i think that's called rune factory actually. or sakuna: of rice and ruin
Stardew Valley to a lesser extent, too.
imo the dude sucks but doom is great. the newer ones also really changed the current shooter landscape. since doom 2016 a bunch of games have tried to ape its style/execution in some way or another
doom rules but fuck this dude. i personally don't like to do the "all the shit this chud made sucks" now thing cause i feel like a baby throwing a tantrum doing that. not that i'm saying that's what you're doing-- maybe you just never enjoyed doom and that's your genuine perspective
I probably would have agreed with this post 100% before Doom 2016 came out.
Uh, Doom was ground-breaking in a way that no game had ever been ground-breaking before. It was high-tech and it played on any crappy 386 with a VGA card. It was deliberately, over-the-top violent. It deliberately included demons and Satanic imagery as a "fuck you" to the no-fun crowd of the time.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny
There are certain works that you can safely assume most people have enjoyed. These shows were considered fantastic when they were released. Now, however, these have a Hype Backlash curse on them. Whenever we watch them, we'll cry, "That is so old" or "That is so overdone".
The sad irony? It wasn't old or overdone when they did it, because they were the first ones to do it. But the things it created were so brilliant and popular, they became woven into the fabric of that work's niche. They ended up being taken for granted, copied, and endlessly repeated. Although they often began by saying something new, they in turn became the new status quo. It's basically the inverse of a Grandfather Clause taken to a trope level: rather than being able to get away with something that is seen as overdone or out of style simply because it was the one that started it, people will unfairly disregard it because it got lost amidst its sea of imitations even though it paved the way for all those imitators. That is, a work retroactively becomes a Cliché Storm.
There may be a good reason for this. Whoever is first to do something isn't likely to be the best at it, simply because everyone that comes after is building on their predecessors' work.
Named after Seinfeld, which many people won't watch anymore because everything about it has been copied.
hold on, not my treat >:(