DOOM Eternal - the sequel to the 2016 reboot - now with The Ancient Gods DLC

[Bigg Boss]

If they are retarded like he is.

 

[Lyric Suite]

I think people don't really get what my shtick is. I'm very vocal about the things i dislike, and this game has a lot of things i dislike, but if you get past the raging you can see i've always and consistently been fairly objective about things. Contrary to what people may think, i don't actually let my emotions override my reason.

This game, for me, is similar to Half Life 2, another title that i always shit upon but which i did play and which did have some good elements, despite all the decline compared to the original. As i said, i played some bad shooters in my life how can i justify ignoring a game with this kind of production values, at least for a first play through?

I will say, the only reason i decided to try this nuDoom shit though is that i was surprised that nightmare was actually tough, at least initially. For a modern FPS, that was unexpected. Turns out eventually the game isn't really that hard but that's only because i got so much experience with this type of games nothing is really that hard once i nail the gameplay. Original Doom itself is a walk in the park now but i still play it consistently as it is still entertaining for me.

I have no idea who is behind this nuDoom game and if there's anything left of old id, but my guess is that the developers actually DID try, it's just that we are talking about people whose conception of video games has been molded by the last decade of multi-platform mentality. I have a feeling they actually believe all the retarded arcade elements they shoved into this game was their attempt at doing the original game justice, and while the two guys you see in interviews seem old enough to remember what gaming was like back in the day, they probably have a lot of zoomer types working under them and we don't know how many of the retarded nushit they put on the game comes from the latter.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Lyric Suite]

It's like Halo bro!

(is it? I have no idea read that somewhere that Halo had that customization retardation).

 

[DJOGamer PT]

It had in multiplayer...

 

[Verylittlefishes]

you can see i've always and consistently been fairly objective about things.

 

[Belegarsson]

Man, I really, really dislike this level of customization for a supposedly iconic character. There's a particular reason why Dante's design from DMC varies little from each installment, his leather coat and white hair are one of the key elements that make him look noticable and distinct. He has a lot of alternative costumes with different color palettes but Capcom made sure those always stay "alternative" and never be the selling point of the games. You see a white haired dude chopping off demons in red leather coat, you can be 100% sure it's Dante.

Doom Slayer's design was and still is mocked as Master Chief copycat. Instead of upping his visual flairs, id decided to... dress him in unicorn armor. That's not freedom of choice, that's just showing your lack of confidence towards the character's visually memorability. Leave that poor taste crap to unnamed avatars in multiplayer.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Nothing against skins but the unicorn is completely retarded. Gimme Doom 64, Doom 3, Quake 3 arena skins instead. I am an aspiring 3D modeler and I cringe everytime I think some company will make me butcher a beautiful weapon like the STG 44 with pink, retarded skins just because some spergy Fortnite kid wants them.

Gimme this armor in glorious high definition, not some retarded Fortnite shit.

 

[Melcar]

Can we make a weapon hat shots dicks?

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Updated system requirements:

https://bethesda.net/en/article/5Wx9QeorMSfMZCwLg6VpoS/doom-eternal-launch-details

PC Ultra-Nightmare Specs (2160p / 60 FPS / Ultra-Nightmare Settings) OR (1440p / 120 FPS / Ultra-Nightmare Settings)

• 64-bit Windows 10
• Intel Core i9-9900K or better, or AMD Ryzen 7 3700X or better
• 16GB System RAM
• NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (11GB)
• 50 GB hard drive space

PC Recommended Specs (1440p / 60 FPS / High Quality Settings)

• 64-bit Windows 10
• Intel Core i7-6700K or better, or AMD Ryzen 7 1800X or better
• 8GB System RAM
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (8GB), RTX 2060 (6GB) or AMD Radeon RX Vega56 (8GB)
• OR (1080p/ 60 FPS / High Quality Settings) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (6GB), NVIDIA GeForce 970 (4GB), AMD RX 480 (8GB) Note : On GTX 970 only - set Texture Quality to Medium
• 50 GB hard drive space

PC Minimum Specs (1080p / 60 FPS / Low Quality Settings)

• 64-bit Windows 7/64-Bit Windows 10
• Intel Core i5 @ 3.3 GHz or better, or AMD Ryzen 3 @ 3.1 GHz or better
• 8GB System RAM
• NVIDIA GeForce 1050Ti (4GB), GTX 1060 (3GB), GTX 1650 (4GB) or AMD Radeon R9 280 (3GB), AMD Radeon R9 290 (4GB) or RX 470 (4GB)
• 50 GB hard drive space

Note: HDR is available on PC, hardware permitting

So much powah needed to push so much eye cancer.

 

[DalekFlay]

It's weird they're so high since the id engines have typically been easy to run, and the consoles its running on are so old. Willing to bet the consoles are using "lower than low" settings like they mostly did in Control, Red Dead, etc. Still... weird. I'm so used to 100+fps nowadays I have to say that maybe not being able to run it that well on my 2070 is kind of a turnoff.

 

[Melcar]

I call BS. Game requirements are usually just marketing ploys and you end up being able to run the game with lesser hardware just fine.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

I was worried my GTX 970 wouldn't be able to pull it off beyond the lowest settings. I don't want to replace it yet. Maybe I can even put the textures on high, despite what they say.

I still have a venerable i5 2500k from 2011. I wonder how it will perform. Doom 2016 performed admirably well at 1440p.

 

[Biscotti]

Official specs are almost always overblown. I don't get why people still use them as a benchmark after all these years.

 

[vortex]

D:E may be be the first nextgen-ish game.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Official specs are almost always overblown. I don't get why people still use them as a benchmark after all these years.

I imagine they are for worst case scenarios, meaning what you need to achieve 60 FPS in the most intense and detailed fights.

 

[Lyric Suite]

I get 170-200 FPS on Ultra at 1440p on Doom 2016 with a 5700 XT. No way Doom Eternal justifies those demands given that it barely looks any different from the 2016 game. Something wrong here.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

I get 170-200 FPS on Ultra at 1440p on Doom 2016 with a 5700 XT. No way Doom Eternal justifies those demands given that it barely looks any different from the 2016 game. Something wrong here.

The developers said the levels are much larger and much more expansive and the geometric detail is 10 times higher in Id Tech 7. The game is also less reliant on arena gameplay (or so they say) so they can't really fine tune the performance of each encounter like they did in 2016 I think. I suspect that was a reason for the abundance of arena fights in 2016. There also seem to be more monsters in each fight. And all that is before considering stuff like higher res textures.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Well, if they say so.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Well, if they say so.

Think of it this way. You have the classic Doom levels with primitive-looking levels that can run on 1993 hardware and then you have modern Doom WADs, even vanilla WADs such as BTSX that run on the unmodified engine but such a WAD would not run on 1993 hardware due to much more complex geometry. I realize the comparison is a bit stretched but I was making a point.

I don't think all that extra detail is necessarily worth it. I'm more of a less is more kind of guy, but I generally like how the game looks. For me, more detail is just a nice thing to have. I just think all those resources could have been allocated elsewhere maybe.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

D:E maybe be the first nextgen-ish game.

idTech 7 certainly is made for next-gen in mind already.

 

[DalekFlay]

I get 170-200 FPS on Ultra at 1440p on Doom 2016 with a 5700 XT. No way Doom Eternal justifies those demands given that it barely looks any different from the 2016 game. Something wrong here.

Games have barely improved visually the last handful of years, but specs keep going up. Either because they throw a thousand processing effects in there or because they want to sell GPUs, you decide.

 

[passerby]

Most of technical visual improvements require exponentially more processing power and memory, while generate exponentially decreasing visual improvements.

For example, consider a jump from 800x600 resolution to 1920x1080 and another to 4k, both jumps quadrupled the number of pixels, but the first one is a giant improvement, while the second is barely noticeable.
This applies to everything, draw distances, polycount, particlecount, texture resolutions, etc.

Developers try to fully utilise available hardware, but perceived difference between what few years old and new GPU can render is very small, so nothing wrong here, just physical limitations.

 

[OctavianRomulus]

Official specs are almost always overblown. I don't get why people still use them as a benchmark after all these years.

I imagine they are for worst case scenarios, meaning what you need to achieve 60 FPS in the most intense and detailed fights.

Like I suspected. He might still be wrong though.

https://twitter.com/billykhan/status/1237479281871204352?s=20

 

[Multidirectional]

It's often not that the gameplay itself is frustrating, it's things like having to repeat a bunch of trivial actions and scripted stuff every single time because of bad checkpoints.

I've stopped playing quite a few modern games just because of shit like that.