I do not mean in the sense of conformity to the discussion's environment. What I mean is that the game just does everything so…well that there is little to nothing you personally find negative about the title.
Perhaps one of the most overused examples of this is the original Doom, but what other games have anons had this experience with.
You can criticize Doom II pretty easily though. It has worse level designs and new shotgun isn't that great addition.
I love doom but I would argue that it has really flawed and confusing level design, especially for a time when mouselook wasn't a thing
That's just because you are just too young and stupid to either: know what it felt like playing Doom back then, both in the positive and the negative; or detect when it's actually the nostalgia glasses talking, slash retrokids masturbating.
Backlash against Doom 2's more arcade nature was already mentioned by
so here's some criticism fresh off christmas 1993.
1. Mouse + keyboard only got standardized in Quake 2, after 1's multiplayer scene made it mandatory to keep up perormance. So both Doom, Descent and System Shock had their own interpretation of what a FPS should control like. All were cumbersome to a degree and none even considered the mouse: back then pc gaming was flight simulators, mechwarrior and rpgs. So what you were guaranteed to own a JOYSTICK, not necessarily a mouse and certainly not a gamepad ("what are you playing, nintendo???"). In short, there were no ideal control systems to play Doom.
2. You've been splurging memes about old FPS labyrinthine maps for all your life, but guess what? We never asked for it: that was what it was like, so we made the most out of it. But no one ever liked the keyhunts and massive, forced backtracking: if you count the minutes you spend fighting, and the ones spent sorting your path, I'd say Doom and Duke were made at least of 50% downtime, where you run around desperately looking for something new to kill.
3. No one ever liked the last 3rd of the game, set in hell. "Let's play a game of Doom… starting from Inferno" just never happened. Id Software had a very weird idea about what people found fascinating in their game, and they insisted memeing the demonic realm through disastrous results in Doom 3 and NuDoom. But the truth was that we liked scifi with a dash of horror monsters, while outright hell was uninspired and random (considering the Inferno levels are the most abstract and arcade).
4. Fake geeks touch themselves at that video explaining the "orthogonal gameplay" of Doom, or whatever it's called. The one mentioning how every monster and weapon has a different attack partner. That's a bit of an exaggeration: in Doom you fight fire with fire, it's all about having more firepower than the barrage of bullets flying at you. Every new enemy type and weapon is just a stronger projectile spitter, which you need to match. By the time Unreal 1 introduced the skaarj, which acted like hybrid melee-ranged multiplayer bots, we were chanting halleluja.
5. Doom is formulaic and sings a distinct tune. Over time, it gets repetitive. Eventually, you grow bored and are willing to take bets to try out something that's novel, but not necessarily better overall than the original. Interesting but unbalanced, so to say. That's a big no-no however, because in 20 years you'll have the neighbours' children shitposting at you that he's a leet conneisseur of ye olde gaming, while you are only playing babby's toys that are way worse than dad's favorite.
I'm sure I could find flaws but I can't think of any.
Pretty sure Doom95 had mouselook as an option. Competitive players were using them for sure.
No game is perfect but most games are garbage. There is something definitely wrong with you if you can't see how a game could be better.
Tetris?
Too new, actually. Simply put, I just haven't had any reason or want to play the original Doom until earlier this month after beating Doom 3.
No, I usually tune out that conversation because of how little I've played of games released prior to '99. I do talk shit at times, but I know where to draw the line of where I really do know nothing about it.
Ah, haven't gotten to that point in the game yet.
Then, thank God, I haven't seen that.
Is that a BTTF reference? Also, we have idiots already spouting that stuff now? Heck, you even have this LW (First pic related) who's a self-claimed "Game writer and designer" spouting that gaming was becoming a "peak and mature medium" until Doom came along and destroyed it, and he also declares that Myst was the last "intellectual" game released until the past couple years.
Yes, and no. Yes, there is always something somewhere one can improve upon, but the problem stems from having to figure out what needs to be improved. As the previous user that I'm replying to pointed out, you spend a large amount of the game's downtime looking for the next thing to do after you've cleared out the level of all enemies, but that raises the question of if that is a good or bad trait in the game. If it's bad, then you have results such as Doom II and nuDoom which are more arcade-like, but seem to miss the point (Going by what I heard). However, if you see it as a good thing, then the result is Doom 3, which emphasized the horror elements while downplaying the arcade elements. And, I can point to problems that I have found with Doom 3 being that the game starts becoming dull and anti-climatic during and after you go through "Hell" (Which could probably be attributed to the fact that it loses all mystic at that point) and that the enemy AI can be dispatched with the same three tactics (But, that doesn't help at all with relieving the tension or making the game any easier), but I've yet to have any critiques with the original Doom that could be hand-waved away as "The game came out in 1993."
Pretty much. The only "improvement" (If you want to call it that) I found was when they added the "Cascade" game variant in Worlds.
The only thing I really hate in Doom are hitscan enemies and Incubus since those give you a need to take cover like a little bitch and kill the combat pacing.
I'm retarded, I meant Arch Viles
Hitscan are okay if used sparingly. Archviles are shit though, I wouldn't mind them as much if thy weren't so spongey but they take a fair bit of abuse before going down.
There's a lot of shit wrong with Doom, you just can't say it because niggers will come out to defend it until death no matter how well articulated your opinion is
Doom is ugly boring and repetitive as fuck and its entire sound track is literally plagiarized off of shitty Metal songs.
Somehow, some way, Holla Forums will shit up the thread.
The biggest problem I can think of is the inability to bind the menu button on a gamepad but you go into the menu when you press the restart button so it doesn't really matter.
They're mostly inoffensive if they're used sparingly but they aren't good, so criticizing the game for it is fine.
Compared to what exactly?
DooM level desing is overrated(doesnt matter if you make big maps with a lot of corridors conected if it all looks like the same shit) and the gunplay was trash before being modded
Quake and Doom are the pinnacle of FPS. They have flaws, plenty of flaws, but there are no superior alternatives.
*are at the pinnacle of the FPS genre
Lol no
Unlike Doom 2, the sequel actually improves on the original. But like Doom 1 and Doom 2, it's for the best to experience these 2 games as 1 game.
Can't honestly think of any real flaw to the playstation version. Not forces to stay with 1 love interest. Can mix and max other character endings. No shit boss fights. Great new game+. No boring characters. Great side quests. A negative? Too many voices to try to unlock.
Name a single game that's better in every aspect. From gameplay, to longevity.
you are full of it. I was using M+K back with wolfenstien 3D. Granted its wasn't solid until Doom and wasn't fully "3D" until Quake 1 but the bull you are spewing is pure shit.
See? It's not hard to find the flaws OP.
...
I guess with X2 the case being that re-uses Magna Centipede's stage for the the 2nd Sigma stage
That and the X hunters were kinda bullshit
Devil Daggers
It has the best replay value of anything I've ever played.
I think when you make this kind of thread you're treating criticism like it's an objective measurement of the quality of a game. If you treat a game like a boxed product like a pair of shoes or a car and you just judge it on a technical level the perfect games would be the most simplistic. I could make a game in five minutes about a two square boxes and you win when you move one square box into another. Critically there would be nothing wrong with it, it would be dull, though. So the more complex and interesting a game is the more flaws it will have and the more criticisms you could levy against it from a technical perspective but I think the more complex game would be the more interesting game.
But if you want to treat a game like a creative work, like literature, film, or music, there's no limit to what you could criticize about a game because creative works require the player to think creatively on what to critique. Even Doom what critiqued for it's satanic imagery and violence, and how you couldn't stop to have a conversation with the demons. You could say that Doom was a technical masterpiece but creatively stunted by relying on reference to popular culture without adding anything significant or meaningful.
So basically, games that you'd have the hardest time finding meaningful criticism would be simple games that have no connection to some zeitgeist or creative interpretation. Think something like Tetris or Pong.
I've never played that game, but from its description it sounds like yet another Serious Sam influenced wave-based shooter that pours a bunch of monsters at you with no attention given to level design.
There is no level design, the game is pretty much a first person bullet hell and it's much better than Serious Sam.
The original System Shock didn't have mouselook.
It did. SS basically standardized mouselook.
So where's the longevity? There are plenty of wave-based .wads/.pk3s for Doom which actually have levels. What's the point in fighting on an infinite blank plain? You can just circlestrafe endlessly, there's no progression, no exploration, no point. It would be better to have randomly generated levels than to have no levels whatsoever.
Because the gameplay is significantly better and the enemy design is built around fighting on a flat plane. They would be much less consistent and predictable if the terrain wasn't flat, and they need to be predictable so you can mentally manage hundreds of them floating around outside of your FOV.
The point of the game isn't progression or exploration, it's perfecting your skill by surviving as long as possible.
If you don't believe me try playing the game then telling me that having levels or progression would improve it.
That guy is a fag and his game has none, but Doom doesn't have much longevity either due to the lack of long term progression. Exploration in Doom has much less point than, say, Morrowind where exploration of the game's items and mechanics can make you spend the rest of the game as a literal god.
lmao. Doom is shit because the gunplay is dull and the gameplay itself is repetitive, not because of that crap. I think Devil Daggers is even more repetitive.
Why should enemies be predictable or consistent? Fighting something in a video game shouldn't become fucking muscle memory.
The longevity comes from its ease of level design and modding. I've played Morrowind, the lack of dungeons is fucking dogshit and I have no desire to play it again because of that.
Their AI is predictable meaning you can mentally keep track of them when they're out of sight if you're good enough. If they moved around randomly it would lower the skill ceiling since the ability to keep track of them wouldn't exist for anyone.
I'd try reading posts before arguing with them since at no point I mentioned verticality.
Devil Daggers is repetitive in the same way Tetris is, it's simple but never gets old.
Violen fight #1 in particular. Also wire frame Sigma has a bit too much health.
It doesn't live up to the hype not sure if that's an argument considering most things don't live up to the hype anyway
Hmmm.
Resident Evil 1
Other than "I can't handle tank controls" fags.
Like fucking clockwork.
We're talking from gameplay perspective.
What do dungeons have to do with longetivity? Longetivity is about how many new things can be found throughout the game. Doom doesn't have enough of that.
Okay, fair point.
Tetris gets boring after 10 minutes.
Original Alone in The Dark is better. Tank control actually suits AiTD because most of the weapons are melee, RE is just a garbage clone. The inventory management, puzzles, writing, and lore are so much inferior too.
Then you're not the kind of person who would like this game.
Doom does have that, from custom levels and mods. Dungeons actually give substance to the gameplay, they're the RPG equivalent of levels in any other genre of game.
Faceball
I've never seen anyone shit on Plok except me cuz it's too hard
Nigger, it didn't fucking have mouselook. Why do you think people made mouselook mods for it? The mouse was originally only used for interacting with objects and shooting, you looked with the keyboard.
That, but I meant bullshit in the way that a) You have to beat them before killing a certain amount of Maverick bosses and B) They don't really have THAT much of an impact in the game as a whole aside from Serges who may or may not be one of Wily's new bodies
Understandable, but Sigma's boss fight in X3 is much more bullshit
Then we're not talking about Doom anymore, but some heavily modded zDoom game.
The complexity of Morrowind's world design gives more exploration and progression than any traditional dungeon could ever be. And there are still a lot of dungeon exploration in Morrowind fag, and even more so with the expansion packs.
Must be an Enhanced Edition thing only then, never bothered to play the vanilla original. If so, then it was Terminator Future Shock that invented mouselook.
Sigma is can be killed by a shoryuken though.
On a 2nd to 3rd playthrough when you learn most of the secrets, no one is gonna get the shoryuken on their first try unless they have a guide or password
ZDoom didn't invent custom levels and mods. Dehacked predates ZDoom's Decorate by 5 years. Custom levels were coming out before ZDoom was even being developed.
No it doesn't. Exploring bland wilderness is boring, there's no treasure for killing wildlife. Good RPGs are all about dungeon exploring, fighting monsters, leveling up and collecting treasure. Most of the time in Morrowind you'll be walking from point A to point B to read more pointless exposition, only occasionally running into a dungeon. The majority of the game should be spent in dungeons, only leaving to buy and sell goods and find more dungeons.
Not just too many, it's impossible to complete because you can't have certain characters in the same party, and physical characters chanting spell names.
And you would know because you played it for an hour and moved on to the next game, right? What's your record?
...
That's not the point. You're still talking about Doom's modability, not Doom as a game itself.
Who tells you to do so? You can levitate, run like flash, or just jump around and skip every wildlife or even all travelling time for that matter.
And Morrowind has better leveling methods and loots than any RPG ever made if you know what you're doing.
Most Morrowind addicts don't even bother to do the quests, so your point is invalid. Morrowind is a game about discovering sheer upgrades and making your own way into becoming the most powerful character in the game through exploration. People explore Morrowind to find daedric arsenal, azura's star, level 100 trainers, master alchemy tools, gold, exploits, and so on. You don't fight enemies, you coerce people into a fighting against you. I don't think you've played it long enough.
Probably a minute, or maybe less. Don't know, I really don't care about that kinda stuff.
That is the median completion time, yeah, I think the average is barely higher. If you haven't cleared at least the 120 mark you haven't even seen every basic enemy type. You don't have to be one of the hundred people in the world who have actually completed it, but I would personally say if you don't at least have the gold dagger you don't know enough about the game to talk about it.
That much is obvious, but you do understand the substantive difference between "there is no replay value" and "I don't care"
No it isn't. I love this game, I've been playing it for over a decade and I can tell you about a hundred things wrong with it.
1. While the first episode is amazing, the second episode is good but inferior, and the third episode is just absolutely horrid.
2. Keycard/switch hunting is tedious and frustrating.
3. The sequel only had a single new weapon and most of the new enemies are more frustrating to fight than satisfying.
I've a hard time finding any brutal criticisms of the first Time Crisis. The only things I can think of are;
As for the short length of the game, the PS1 version solved this by adding a 'Special' story mode with different paths you could take and different endings depending on how well you played.
I'm gonna screenshot this and post it in every doom thread so that I'm never gonna need to explain my points anymore and in a few months time everybody will have saved it and will agree doom is bad
With this one it's especially hard, as most criticisms I've seen about this game stems from people just not liking this type of game and misplaced expectations for what constitutes a FPS
I find it very creepy and unsettling to play.
"It's not finished" and "Where is the game" are not good enough criticisms?
No, they're pretty stupid criticisms.
It was built around keyboard controls dude
It's only downtime if you get lost, moreover these kind of non-linear levels simply wouldn't work without color gating (try figuring out for yourself why that is) and your ridiculous movement speed. Exploration is still a key aspect of Doom's style of level design, as evidenced by its many secrets and non-linear level design. On the other side of the spectrum we have a linear gauntlet of arenas like in Painkiller and Hard Reset, yet people seem to prefer keycard hunting over that. It's as if levels designed around keycard hunting can have varying degrees of success and aren't inherently flawed or something. The better levels are the one where the required path throughout the level comes naturally.
It's bad because it doesn't have the sense of aesthetics like in the first two episodes or Build Ending games?
that only really concerns imp -> hell knights -> cacodemons -> barons of hell, however the rest of the enemies do have different roles in battle who when mixed together with different level layouts can produce a myriad of unique situations
I find it ironic that you mention fake nerds as you consider Unreal as the revolutionary game to introduce AI-reliant enemies in the FPS genre while completely disregarding Descent, despite mentioning it in the same post
what did he mean by this
last time I checked on Steam it was there and it was finished
It's like a modern tetris game but it's a FPS instead. It's understandable people don't get it since tetris type games are never FPS.
Mazy doesn't mean confusing. It's very clear, specially with the map, and very easy to find your way through, unlike Doom 2016 where the maps are perhaps not as complex but the visibility makes it harder to find your way through since the walls and textures are so complex everything just blends together.
Not saying any Doom is exempt from criticism, just saying it's not confusing.
1 is BS, 4 is strawman, 5 is not an argument.
2 and 3 contradict each other (No one ever liked the labyrinths but then people hated ep3 for not being ep1 or ep2, what is it?).
I'd say 3 is true, and some enemies could have more variety, like hell knights. Also the game is easy even on UV. But most of this like said is because the game came out in 1993. Modding can polish this game to modern standards.
HOLY SHIT HOW WRONG CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE
If that's the longevity you're looking for, it's alright, but for me seeing new enemy types doesn't always add replayability to the game. First and foremost I'm looking for the player's own development, not the enemies. Player's progression is more important because it's you who play the game, not the enemies.
MOSTLY, I said.
Toxic masculinity and too violent.
I'm proud of Holla Forums for not mentioning deus ex in this thread. That game is rife with issues anyone with a brain should be able to spot.
Spyro The Dragon has great platforming and movement mechanics, the animations blend into each other very well for a PS1 game. Plus the music is interesting and while not all the worlds are planned well (lookin' at you Peace Keepers), I don't recall a single level just flat being not fun to play. And I liked exploring the worlds, each one brought something new to the table.
Fucking children.
There's nothing masculine about metal kiddies.
Massacring non-humans isn't violent at all.
retard
Just to strengthen my argument.
Threats are different from violence according to both my Oxford and Merriam-Webster. Your quote just shows how retarded Jews and globalism are in reality.
My only real critique with Dark Souls is that it could be a couple hours longer.
Bad voice acting, but that was standard in the 90s.
Doom is a movement based game, hitscan enemies when the rest of the game is all about moving around projectiles and shit is pretty bad.
It was possible, but it didn't become truly popular until Quake and DN3D.
you are missing the point of the hitscan enemies. Doom is a game about prioritizing targets while managing projectile targets from others. A revenant is potentially more deadly, but a chain gunner can build up small damage into large damage if you don't take them out quickly. However, you can dodge the revenant. Learning this is the brilliance of Doom.
The only problem I have with DOOM 2 is that archvilles have a bit too much health and that level design is fucking ass.
Dark Souls and Super Metroid