Games you learned to love. - by gunsmoke
BlackCapedManX on 29/9/2008 at 22:57
Quote Posted by dethtoll
First of all calling Counterstrike a tactical shooter at all is laughable, and second of all if it weren't for Doom you wouldn't have your precious Tom Clancy game.
To begin with, if you look at the time period between which Doom and SS1 came out, it's probably safe to say that SS1 started developement before Doom was released (and wasn't simply a Doom clone.) Or Ultima Underworld, which was released
before Doom. Hence if it weren't for Doom we'd probably have a
significantly higher class of FPS. If you want to be accurate about it you could probably say "if it weren't for Wolfenstein 3D I wouldn't have my precious Tom Clancy game," but if you're a diehard Doom fan (for some ridiculous reason or another) I can understand why you wouldn't want to be accurate.
Quote Posted by dethtoll
It's okay to not like FPS. It's not okay to somehow judge Doom because it's not a tactical shooter.
I'm not judging Doom because it's not a tactical shooter, I'm judging it because it's a bad game. Sure, it's a landmark game, it represented an important milestone in gaming history, but there were similar games at the time that were much more in depth and capable that got glazed over because of Doom's popularity (TES: Arena, and SS1 for example). If I were to look back and ask myself if I'd like to play Doom, or instead something like say, Magic Carpet, Doom would get a big "hell no." It's bland, repetitive, has essentially no story, and a really undeveloped mish-mash of themes which totally collapse the atmosphere. Plus the controls are pretty miserable. Being unable to look-strafe in an FPS that action-intensive causes it to suffer incredibly. Quake at least had +mlook as a console command, making it infinitely more playable.
june gloom on 29/9/2008 at 23:29
Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX
To begin with, if you look at the time period between which Doom and SS1 came out, it's probably safe to say that SS1 started developement before Doom was released (and wasn't simply a Doom clone.) Or Ultima Underworld, which was released
before Doom. Hence if it weren't for Doom we'd probably have a
significantly higher class of FPS. If you want to be accurate about it you could probably say "if it weren't for Wolfenstein 3D I wouldn't have my precious Tom Clancy game," but if you're a diehard Doom fan (for some ridiculous reason or another) I can understand why you wouldn't want to be accurate.
First of all, Doom began in development in 1992. System Shock began development in 1993 after Ultima Underworld II was finished. Do your research before you say stupid shit.
I love the elitist attitude you've adopted that if not for Doom, FPS games would be of some "higher" class. I've often wondered what would've happened if Doom had been more like what Tom Hall had envisioned, but it didn't happen, and the genre is what it is. You can blame John Carmack for Doom's relative simplicity, but the point is that Doom was what revolutionized a genre that up until then was mostly Wolfenstein 3D and a load of dungeon crawler RPGs. The truth is, PC gaming did not begin coming into the mainstream until Doom was released- and a big part of that was deathmatch and the (relative) ease of setting it up.
Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX
I'm not judging Doom because it's not a tactical shooter, I'm judging it because it's a bad game. Sure, it's a landmark game, it represented an important milestone in gaming history, but there were similar games at the time that were much more in depth and capable that got glazed over because of Doom's popularity (TES: Arena, and SS1 for example). If I were to look back and ask myself if I'd like to play Doom, or instead something like say, Magic Carpet, Doom would get a big "hell no." It's bland, repetitive, has essentially no story, and a really undeveloped mish-mash of themes which totally collapse the atmosphere. Plus the controls are pretty miserable. Being unable to look-strafe in an FPS that action-intensive causes it to suffer incredibly. Quake at least had +mlook as a console command, making it infinitely more playable.
You're perfectly allowed to complain that Doom is too simple (even though it earns you an airplane), but... are you seriously attacking a
15-year-old game- from an era, I might add, before WASD and mlook were standard- for having shitty controls (which are moot in the face of source ports and no less typical of games at the time,
System Shock included) and no mouselook, even though at the time such a thing was not technically possible? That's not a joke?
You're a bigger idiot than I thought.
BlackCapedManX on 29/9/2008 at 23:52
Quote Posted by dethtoll
First of all, Doom began in development in 1992. System Shock began development in 1993 after Ultima Underworld II was finished.
Okay, and? So it started developement, what, 10 months before Doom was released? My point is, it isn't a "Doom-clone" the way contemporary reviews have painted it. If Doom hadn't been released, we'd still have SS, and it would possibly be a good deal more renowned, which I would tend to think (probably because I'm not a huge fan of most multi-player, deathmatch-esque, FPS games, for their repetitive and unimaginative nature) would have been a good thing.
Quote:
The truth is, PC gaming did not begin coming into the mainstream until Doom was released- and a big part of that was deathmatch and the (relative) ease of setting it up.
Sure, I understand that it's important, historically. I have said it and will say it again. That doesn't mean it's good. A lot of popular things aren't worthwhile, and for some reason people seem to want to defend them for their
formal merits rather than recognizing that all they have is
contextual importance.
Quote:
are you seriously attacking a
15-year-old game- from an era, I might add, before WASD and mlook were standard- for having shitty controls?
Can you
read?
Quote Posted by BlackCapedManX
It's bland, repetitive, has essentially no story, and a really undeveloped mish-mash of themes which totally collapse the atmosphere. Plus the controls are pretty miserable.
I stated a number of reasons why the game was bad, then my own personal gripe about controls at the end. You just nitpicked something to death, ignoring the main gut of why I don't like the game (clearly if a game is worthwhile enough, it's possible to get around the controls, I play the old AC games, so I've managed.) My point with the bad controls was that if a game doesn't give me a reason to play it to begin with, if it's also
annoying to play then that seals the deal. Plus, what's this "era" bullshit? Magic Carpet came out a year later, had, effectively, WASD and mlook, 3D movement, deformable terrain, and was all around much more innovative. Doom is just an overpopularized poor excuse for a game. It's typical of any kind of product, Doom is just a really good example that so many people dress up with a golden halo and praise even though it's
actual merits are in short supply. Trust me, I understand that it's historically important, that doesn't mean it's good, or worth attention now, especially when there are much more worthwhile games, even from the time period.
june gloom on 30/9/2008 at 00:08
I can read. Can you? All I'm seeing is that you've had your experience coloured by later games and thus you can't help but compare one to the other, when Doom came out of a different era, when games tended to be simpler. That's perfectly understandable- happens all the time. I can't get into some older games when there are other similar games that do things just so much better.
Yet you keep insisting that Doom is universally bad because, what, it's not complex enough for you? That's dumb. It is what it is- an action game of the purest sort. You can take it or leave it. You don't like it? Fine. That doesn't make it, or any other game, bad. I say a lot of shit about Crysis. I hate the game, I hate the gameplay, I hate the story, so on and so forth. You know what that's called? AN OPINION. Some people think the game is fucking awesome. I'm allowed to think they're crazy, and you're allowed to not like Doom. The difference here? I don't insist that my opinion is somehow fact.
BlackCapedManX on 30/9/2008 at 00:13
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Get out.
Oh?
june gloom on 30/9/2008 at 00:16
TTLG: serious business.
BlackCapedManX on 30/9/2008 at 00:29
Also, of course I'm comparing Doom to later games (and, if you haven't noticed, contemporary games also, mostly, in fact). If Doom were the only game that existed, and I had nothing to compare it to, it would be a good game. But it isn't the only game, and thus, by force of reason, I am capable of saying: "look, these games are better, also, I don't like Doom." Of course it's my opinion, but any good writing instructor will tell you to write opinions as though they are fact, because in subjective arguements, most intelligent readers are capable of understanding that they are opinions, and by simple stating what they are, as opposed to saying "I think that..." it lends more weight to your writing.
And, comparative to other games of the time, I think that Doom is a poor game for the popularity it has accrued. If you hadn't gathered, I also think pure action games that have little else to offer aren't worth the time to play them, nor the monetary credence they are lent by the gaming industry as a whole, just like high budget stupid-action movies take a lot of weight from much more brilliant cinema that should be appreciated by a wider range of people. The masses are shaped by our media, especially those who don't think about it enough to argue otherwise. I would argue that a higher quality of media would lead to more interesting and engaged masses. But this is all a wide tangent to explain my reasoning because you seem to need a little hand holding to get outside the context of the thread. I don't take Doom as a just "an action game of the purest sort", I take it as an example that has colored the industry since, and that's something I'm disconcerted by.
(person opinion qualifiers italicized for your convenience.)
Scots Taffer on 30/9/2008 at 01:16
... but they can't put out the fire.
Digital Nightfall on 30/9/2008 at 01:26
Can you two just pick one thread to fight in?
icemann on 30/9/2008 at 05:41
Specially since BlackCapedManX is the odd one out on these forums where Doom is concerned. That game kicks ass, and is still damn fun as hell to play today even (through a sourceport ofcourse). And for the record I`d choose Doom over Magic Carpet anyday.
To quote RetroGamer:
We all remember the first time we played Doom. It's like the assassination of JFK. Everyone knows what they were doing, exactly where they were and what the experience was like.
Because the game was that awesome. Enough said. Now lets get back to point of this thread rather than bitching at each other over one game.
