luj1
You're all shills
RtcW is better no doubt
For a long time it was also my go-to example for weapons with punchy sound design and snappy reloads. Gun porn is everywhere now but back in 2004 only a few AA+ games had the budget to deliver.
Doom 3 was a criminally underused shooter engine.
Eh...I liked Doom 3 quite a bit, but I wouldn't call it a great "shooter". It's more like action-horror in the guise of a shooter.
During that gap id lost the engine market share to Epic and never recovered. The engine was ready years before the Doom 3 release, but id would not license it to anyone before releasing their own game based on that technology.
Eh...I liked Doom 3 quite a bit, but I wouldn't call it a great "shooter". It's more like action-horror in the guise of a shooter.
I don't agree with that, it does have a horror theme, but the game is non-stop action. You can't go five steps without some demon (usually more than one) spawning or crawling around you, zombies coming out of closets or possessed soldiers running to your location. The game even has scripted spawns in case you backtrack.
Of course it also has sections where you need to explore the maps for keys, items, etc but that is just having Doom-style level design (and at a time that most shooters were abandoning this sort of level design approach).
They are opposites in the sense that the people overemphasize Doom 3's shortcomings while underemphasizing those of RtCW perhaps to the same extent.
I'll give RtCW that is has extremely memorable start. It's atmospheric, great looking, has its wow moments like riding the cable tram across misty mountainside. there is a reason why that opening part is what so many people instantly have in mind when they think of Wolfenstein. Problem is that most of them will have time remembering anything after it, save maybe being annoyed by the stealth section.
The first thing that comes to my mind is Bloodrayne. And also that final level in Soldier of Fortune. And probably some other games that are anything except RTCW itself.They are opposites in the sense that the people overemphasize Doom 3's shortcomings while underemphasizing those of RtCW perhaps to the same extent.
I'll give RtCW that is has extremely memorable start. It's atmospheric, great looking, has its wow moments like riding the cable tram across misty mountainside. there is a reason why that opening part is what so many people instantly have in mind when they think of Wolfenstein. Problem is that most of them will have time remembering anything after it, save maybe being annoyed by the stealth section.
Strongly disagreed. There were plenty of good levels past the beginning, and in fact the first thing that comes to my mind when I think RTCW is the secret base in Norway. Then there's the final level, the chateau, the cathedral full of elite guard, the dam, the rocket base. The only ones that I didn't care much for were probably the bombed city before the secret weapons facility, and the facility itself.
That's an exaggeration, but even if it did have that much action it doesn't make it a great shooter. Mechanically, it's downright clunky compared to a lot of other shooters that came both before and after. The difference is especially jarring when you compare it to Doom 2016 or Doom Eternal.
That doesn't mean it's a bad game. It can be mediocre as a shooter and still be a great experience. I'm not saying it's mediocre, but I definitely wouldn't call it great. Not as a shooter anyways.
That's an exaggeration, but even if it did have that much action it doesn't make it a great shooter. Mechanically, it's downright clunky compared to a lot of other shooters that came both before and after. The difference is especially jarring when you compare it to Doom 2016 or Doom Eternal.
That doesn't mean it's a bad game. It can be mediocre as a shooter and still be a great experience. I'm not saying it's mediocre, but I definitely wouldn't call it great. Not as a shooter anyways.
I haven't played Doom Eternal but for me Doom 2016 is worse than Doom 3 for the simple reason where i actually have to look for resources in Doom 3 and the level design is much closer to what i find enjoyable - and closer to 90s FPS games - instead of Doom 2016's arenas (which remind me more of Serious Sam and Painkiller style games than Doom or Quake). Also it doesn't have any sort of XP or weapon upgrades or whatever, it is a pure shooter where you pick up weapons and ammo and kill stuff while you go through levels.
Also I don't understand what exactly do you feel is "clunky"?
That's fine. No one said you couldn't like Doom 3 more. I understand what you mean about the level design even though that has nothing to do with shooter mechanics.
Mechanically, there's no comparison. If I have to actually explain to you why Doom 3 feels clunky compared those games then I can already see this is a hopeless endeavor.
Also, you don't have to look for resources in Doom 3. What are you even talking about? The only resources are ammo and armor, and the game is saturated with them. I've played through Doom 3 multiple times, and I never once had to go out of my way to look for more ammo.
I honestly can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse at this point. I think it was pretty obvious from the beginning that I wasn't talking about level design, and yes, you absolutely can separate that from what I'm talking about.
I honestly can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse at this point. I think it was pretty obvious from the beginning that I wasn't talking about level design, and yes, you absolutely can separate that from what I'm talking about.
You yourself wrote that you don't want to explain what you are even talking about... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And no, you can't separate level design from the game mechanics, the greatest FPS mechanics (whatever those might be) inside single empty 4 wall room are worthless and level design is built around the game mechanics, you can't have good level design without good game mechanics.
A game can have great level design and still have poor mechanics in other areas or vice versa.
To pretend that great level design automatically means that it's good in all other areas mechanically is just silly, and I highly doubt you're actually dumb enough to believe that.
A game can have great level design and still have poor mechanics in other areas or vice versa.
No it cannot, for an FPS (which is what we're discussing here, though this applies to any game whose mechanics have to do with their levels), level design is built on top of game mechanics - you can't have good level design without good game mechanics for the levels to rely on. Level design isn't just the shape of the levels or where to put enemies but also - and way more importantly - how these shapes affect what the player can do, how the player and the AI will react to the level shapes, other objects in the levels and how these will interact will each other. You can have better levels than others in a game with bad game mechanics but ultimately the bad game mechanics will drag everything else down and put a limit in what a level design can be about and be done in it.
As an extreme example that should hopefully make it clear, you can load any Quake map on Godot using Qodot but without the game mechanics to go along with it, the maps will be useless for anything beyond just looking at them. If you add a mechanic to collect skulls or whatever wherever monsters would be and go to the next map when you collect them all, you'd even have a working -if primitive- game but a game that wouldn't take advantage of the maps at all and the maps wouldn't be designed with that hypothetical game in mind either.
I hope this makes clear that you can't separate game mechanics from level design.
I wouldn't call it clunky as it's obvious that Id intended to make it that way and everything about the player's movement, animations, and how everything connects in terms of combat is very polished. It just seems like the designers wanted to make the player feel more vulnerable, exposed, and somewhat awkward, to make the combat feel more harrowing. It works to an extent, but often it just feels incongruous with the way the action gets ramped up as the game goes on.
I'm talking about the shooting mechanics here. That has NOTHING to do with level design. I'm referring to things like movement, control, speed, aiming, fluidity, etc. There's no comparison.
It's pretty amazing that you can't admit this despite how obvious it is.
It makes me question if you've ever actually played the other Doom games.
Doom 3 feels like you're controlling a crippled snail after playing those games. On its own it isn't bad, but it's slow and clunky compared to the later titles. It's really not even debateable.
Yeah. Lke I said, it's not bad on its own. It's when you compare it to games that have much tighter & faster movement and shooting
I'm talking about the shooting mechanics here. That has NOTHING to do with level design. I'm referring to things like movement, control, speed, aiming, fluidity, etc. There's no comparison.
What you seem to describe isn't mechanics but feedback and -unless done horribly wrong- feedback is largely subjective. Also aiming and fluidity are among the best in Doom 3, the camera has instant feedback with mouse motion which is something that doesn't exist in pretty much any modern title (i don't remember how it was in Doom 2016 though). But again that is subjective, some people like their mouse aiming to be smoothed out.
Regardless...
...it'd be much easier if you were explicit in what you were talking about from the beginning since, no, i didn't see anything obvious in what you were referring to.
...i never argued about Doom 3's speed, the game is indeed slower paced than the Doom 1, 2 and 2016 (and probably Eternal) though that slower pace is fits the claustrophobic horror theme and the levels are designed with Doom 3's speed in mind. But i never compared it with the other Doom games anyway, i only wrote that for me Doom 3 is better than Doom 2016 due to having to explore the maps more and not liking Doom 2016's arena-based encounters.