Single-Player Doom 3 Details Discussed

MohitKhanna writes "GameSpy has posted a new preview of Doom 3, along with a couple of new screenshots from the game. The article gives an insight into what the single-player story mode of Doom 3 will be like, and also introduces a few new monsters." Blue's News has a good round-up of the other Doom 3 articles released today, also including a new Tim Willits and Todd Hollenshead interview at GameArena, and this 2004-due FPS is also previewed at Eurogamer and checked out via GameSpot.

Comments

What is it about Doom

[rekkanoryo]

What I've always wondered about the Doom series is what is it about the series that appeals to so many people? I admit I haven't given the game a chance, but every time I see an article on Doom or Duke Nukem or several other titles, I always have to wonder what people see in the games. Are they really unique (as in different from other games in the genre instead of being cookie-cutter titles)? Or do they retain popularity because they were unique to begin with and just have a loyal fan base? Am I entirely missing the point?

My intention is not to be a troll or to start a flame war--I am geniunely curious as to what makes a game/series like Doom so popular.

Re:What is it about Doom

[fredrikj]

For me, personally, it's really the atmosphere of the original Doom. Particularly Knee-Deep in the Dead (the first episode), with its brilliantly laid out levels, the suggestive misty sky (its impact is more important than you might think :), hunting for secret areas, and the awesome surreal design in general. Besides, the gameplay is top notch. And you can make levels for the game.

Re:What is it about Doom

[gl4ss]

doom was 'really something else' when it came, the '3d' of it all was quite something. even though it was basically just a rehash of wolfenstein 3d, it had enough new things to be really cool(area lighting for example, blinking lights and stuff). also the gameplay was quite good, dodging fireballs and shooting demons, you could choose a tactic in most places too.

(though, ultima underworld does have more elegant engine for most parts, doom is still so arcade in it's approach(no friendly npc's, no story to talk about, most levels being honest 'get 3 keys' missions) that it works for far bigger audience and is quite excellent for short gaming sessions as for longer sessions as well)

Re:What is it about Doom

[Kwil]

One thing both I and my wife agree on is that the original Doom is still, to this day, the most *satisfying* gameplay experience of any of the first person shooters. It's nowhere near as pretty, complex, scary, or even interesting as the newer ones when you get right down to it, but it's still the most satisfying.

This is for a number of reasons. The first and most common one that we can recount is the "one shot, one kill" effect that you can get as soon as you pick up the shotgun. And in fact, the level design emphasized this effect as the first level had a place where you open a door to be confronted by an imp at close range. Your first reaction is to jump and pull the the trigger - BOOM! Imp flies backwards, dead. It's immensely satisfying..something just scared the bejeebers out of you and you killed it, just like that. Talk about your instant gratification. And you could do this with basically all of the lower class enemies.

It seems most of the more recent FPS games require you to unload quite a few shots, even of some of the higher level weapons, before anything at all will fall down. Sure, they all have their one-shot, one-kill weapons, but typically these are specialized like a sniper rifle, which requires using a scope or aim-bot like abilities, or a rocket-launcher type of weapon, which you dare not use in close quarters because you'll likely take yourself out with it as well.

A second reason, though less obvious, is that the first few weapons in Doom are all simply more powerful versions of the previous one. Even Quake messed this up somewhat, in that one of the early weapons you pick up is the nail gun. While more powerful, it's also more specialized -- it works better with some enemies than others. Doom didn't make you think about that until you got quite a few levels in and picked up your first rocket launcher.

Together, these two things worked to make the game simple, satisfying, and gave it a great flow. You could run through the game and if you were good, you'd never have to stop to finish killing something. Your first shot was enough.

The one shot, one kill effect also had other bonuses in that when you started running into guys that you couldn't do that with, you inherently understood that you were dealing with something nastier. It felt more like a difference in kind, rather than (as with most of the newer games) a difference merely in degree.

The final thing about Doom was that the control was *smooth*. Unless you were playing on a bottom of the barrel computer, there was no question of what framerate you were getting, because you were getting enough.

All in all, it combined to make Doom a classic.

Re:What is it about Doom

[DarkZero]

What I've always wondered about the Doom series is what is it about the series that appeals to so many people? I admit I haven't given the game a chance, but every time I see an article on Doom or Duke Nukem or several other titles, I always have to wonder what people see in the games. Are they really unique (as in different from other games in the genre instead of being cookie-cutter titles)? Or do they retain popularity because they were unique to begin with and just have a loyal fan base? Am I entirely missing the point?

Besides the nostalgia factor, there's also the fact that Doom is just... a pure gaming experience, I guess you could say. Just like many people prefer Super Metroid over Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow or Megaman Zero, or Time Crisis over Vampire Night or Ninja Assault, Doom just has a purer FPS core than most newer FPS games. Doom has no stealth levels, no plot, no puzzles, no platform jumping, no points where you're stripped of your weapons for the sake of the story... just guns, ammo, and targets that can really fuck you up if you're not careful.

There are also things that Doom got right that have simply been lost in the genre since then. In recent FPS games, the enemies move in one of two distinct ways: they patrol an area or hunt you down. Doom chose neither of these. In Doom, the enemies just wander around wherever they want. Thus, the levels begin to change in structure as you open doors and/or run from enemies. Based on the order in which you open the doors, certainly areas could be relatively calm or complete death traps, and it's so random that you can't even catalogue it well in an FAQ. The result creates much tougher AI than most scripted games.

And I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't seen an FPS in quite awhile with traps as effective or fun as Doom. Return to Castle Wolfenstein had nothing like the ambushes in Doom, which took place in total darkness with an army of zombies coming at you from the ground and imps sniping from above. Those were awesome.

Unattributed rumors of Tool doing music for Doom 3

[waaka!]

...according to IGN.

Mentioned on the Blue's News link, but not here, since I imagine that not everyone will read all the articles. Seeing as they were all from Willits and Hollenshead's demonstrations at QuakeCon, I'm not surprised that most of the articles are similar, if not identical, in content.

Carmack is Graphics

[ChopsMIDI]

Why is Carmack working towards vertical development, better graphics, instead of horizontal development (non-graphical development). I understand there are certain advancements in Doom III in terms of physics, but the main thrust is graphics. Why? Oh, because that's where the money is (-cough- ATI/NVIDIA -cough-). I forgot.

Carmack has never claimed to be a content designer. He's a graphics programmer, arguably the best in the world. Why on Earth would you take the best graphics programmer in the world and ask him to work on design and concept or AI. He doesn't care about design, he doesn't care about AI, he cares about graphics.

Additionally, Carmack doesn't do it for the money, he's not Bill Gates.... He doesn't want a massive corporation that runs the gaming industry, he just wants to make his engines(both in the virtual and real worlds) and be left alone.

And since he's the boss, he can prety much do whatever he wants. I'm sure if he wanted to do AI, he's jump full steam into that (and he could probably be one of the best AI guys around), but he likes advancing graphics. Imagine where the industry would be graphics-wise without him.

I'm not suggesting that Doom 3 is gonna be packed with mind-blowing content. I wouldn't expect that from id, and niehter would anyone else. But having played the leaked Alpha, I can attest that it was the first game by which I was ever startled enough to actually physically scream. So they are doing something right.