The New DOOM Thread (2016)

[Astral Rag]

Previous gameplay videos clearly showed how slow Doom 4's movement is going to be, ign "journalist" probably never played Quake or the original Doom games.

 

[DraQ]

doom

loadouts

I see no possible way it could go wrong.

Spoiler

 

[Melcar]

Wow, it's like I'm back in college.

 

[Astral Rag]

New-id gave Quake Live the same popamole treatment last year. Everybody hated it so why not do it again..
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/id-software-is-trolling-quake-live-players.93559/
http://www.quakelive.com/forum/showthread.php?37858
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/08/28/quake-for-noobs-quake-live-adds-loadouts-autohopping/

 

[prodigydancer]

ign "journalist" probably never played Quake or the original Doom games.

You can't spell "ignorance" without IGN.

Anyway, Bethesda will sell this to nextgen console kiddies who have no idea about the 90's originals either. The product matches the TA perfectly, so, barring any major screwups, I predict record sales.

 

[Astral Rag]

I predicted this years ago.

Same here

 

[JarlFrank]

I wonder if one could actually re-create the original DOOM levels in this new editor?

It looks based on large predefined building blocks like pre-built rooms and corridors placed on a grid, which you can further dress up with all sorts of clutter, so my guess is no.

DOOM engine, like any BSP based engine was based on arbitrarily shaped geometry decorated with textures, lighting and all sorts of doodads.
Making for example pentagram shaped room required just defining the sectors matching the desired shape with desired texturework. In DOOM 4 you only have premade rooms you can snap together in predefined ways so if none of them is pentagram shaped you're fucked.
You would have better chances of pulling this sort of level design in Skyrim Creation Kit because while still block based it has been designed to allow more organic design accommodating non-discrete bends and including pieces to cover up holes and overlaps caused by going off grid or building different parts of given locations on non-matching grids.

Still, in neither will you be able to build non-euclidean mindfucks and truly arbitrary geometry you could in late BSP based engines and their respective toolsets.
In UT you could build a Tesseract or Poincare's Homology Sphere shaped map and the engine wouldn't give a single fuck in spite of it violating commonsensical geometry with chainsaw-lined dildo.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so fucking sad. Engines of the early 90s to late 00s had so much potential for creating interesting stuff, the creator had full control over the geometry. And nowadays, we have that huge regression to editors that are basically prefab-based and don't allow the designer to think outside the box. Fucking decline, man. If there's anything that really showcases the decline perfectly, it is this.

 

[TripJack]

half the weapons in olddoom were useless dogshit in multiplayer, so this loadout and unlock system sounds like a great improvement

 

[Cyberarmy]

doom

loadouts

does not compute

 

[Astral Rag]

- He played two rounds of Team Deathmatch, 12 vs 12 players
- You notice the PC origins of Doom (as opposed to console gameplay), it's very fast, but not as fast as Quake or Unreal Tournament
- Deathmatch like back in the day, you are in a arena designed for fast action.
- MP gameplay feels arcade-like
- He was allowed to chose two custom loadouts, 2 weapons + handgrenade, out of approximately 8 weapons.
- There is no automatic health regeneration, instead powerups play an important role
- There was some kind of laser super weapon that spawned once in a time in the MP map (not clear if it's a BFG or something else)
- There is a "demon powerup" that turns you in a very strong demon for a limited ammount of time, you are also able to fly with this powerup
- The MP map reminded him to Unreal Tournament. It had a high degree of verticality.

http://www.doomworld.com/vb/doom-4-general/73819-loadouts/

 

[T. Reich]

Is anyone here still expecting a decent DooM game? It's been pretty obvious since the unreveal that it's going to be utter shit.

The mooltiplayer features are pretty hilarious alright.
I hope they keep those retardo melee takedowns for multiplayer as well, that would be so cash!

 

[dunno lah]

I still cannot believe how many people are saying this shit is faithful to Doom. It's unthinkable. Even that guy who made the "Doom done today" video has an optimistic view of this game.

 

[Astral Rag]

 

[DraQ]

I wonder if one could actually re-create the original DOOM levels in this new editor?

It looks based on large predefined building blocks like pre-built rooms and corridors placed on a grid, which you can further dress up with all sorts of clutter, so my guess is no.

DOOM engine, like any BSP based engine was based on arbitrarily shaped geometry decorated with textures, lighting and all sorts of doodads.
Making for example pentagram shaped room required just defining the sectors matching the desired shape with desired texturework. In DOOM 4 you only have premade rooms you can snap together in predefined ways so if none of them is pentagram shaped you're fucked.
You would have better chances of pulling this sort of level design in Skyrim Creation Kit because while still block based it has been designed to allow more organic design accommodating non-discrete bends and including pieces to cover up holes and overlaps caused by going off grid or building different parts of given locations on non-matching grids.

Still, in neither will you be able to build non-euclidean mindfucks and truly arbitrary geometry you could in late BSP based engines and their respective toolsets.
In UT you could build a Tesseract or Poincare's Homology Sphere shaped map and the engine wouldn't give a single fuck in spite of it violating commonsensical geometry with chainsaw-lined dildo.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so fucking sad. Engines of the early 90s to late 00s had so much potential for creating interesting stuff, the creator had full control over the geometry. And nowadays, we have that huge regression to editors that are basically prefab-based and don't allow the designer to think outside the box. Fucking decline, man. If there's anything that really showcases the decline perfectly, it is this.

The awful part is that it didn't have to end like this.

Instead of rigid building blocks we could have parametrizable prefabs or ones applied to geometry similarly to textures, we could have all the wonders of portals even with a lot of grebbling, at the very least by pasting prefabs over old school BSP.
Etc.

Is anyone here still expecting a decent DooM game?

An entertaining trainwreck. It's an important distinction.

 

[JarlFrank]

The awful part is that it didn't have to end like this.

Instead of rigid building blocks we could have parametrizable prefabs or ones applied to geometry similarly to textures, we could have all the wonders of portals even with a lot of grebbling, at the very least by pasting prefabs over old school BSP.
Etc.

Yeah, I've been playing around with the Dark Mod editor which is based on the Doom 3 engine, and it's pretty awesome. Some nice community-made prefabs available to save you time doing complex shit like stairs, but you can do anything you want by just building blocks shaped however you like and texturing them. I'm not an expert on engines but that's how most of those I tried do it, Thief's toolkit isn't that much different either. And this is just perfect. Build level geometry however you fucking like, import prefabs for fancy stuff you wouldn't wanna create in-engine. Why the fuck did this approach ever change?

The move away from flexible editors might be one major reason why modern level design is so shit.

 

[vonAchdorf]

I hope they keep those retardo melee takedowns for multiplayer as well, that would be so cash!

They are in multiplayer (no invulnerability).

 

[Angthoron]

The awful part is that it didn't have to end like this.

Instead of rigid building blocks we could have parametrizable prefabs or ones applied to geometry similarly to textures, we could have all the wonders of portals even with a lot of grebbling, at the very least by pasting prefabs over old school BSP.
Etc.

Yeah, I've been playing around with the Dark Mod editor which is based on the Doom 3 engine, and it's pretty awesome. Some nice community-made prefabs available to save you time doing complex shit like stairs, but you can do anything you want by just building blocks shaped however you like and texturing them. I'm not an expert on engines but that's how most of those I tried do it, Thief's toolkit isn't that much different either. And this is just perfect. Build level geometry however you fucking like, import prefabs for fancy stuff you wouldn't wanna create in-engine. Why the fuck did this approach ever change?

The move away from flexible editors might be one major reason why modern level design is so shit.

It probably is. You can see a lot of people that designed levels as a hobby eventually making a transition into the industry, since they knew their ways around tools and limitations, could work with different editors and generally be creative. The new breed of designers pretty much knows two things - how to design boxes and corridors or how to drop SpeedTree shrubbery and rocks around the OPEN WORLD!!! landscapes.

 

[JarlFrank]

Talking about those new designers, I really wonder what people are taught at game design universities. I think thesheeep studied game design so... anything you learned there about proper level design?

 

[thesheeep]

I did study Game Design, yes, but only one year. Switched to programming after.

IMO, good designers act by intuition, not by book. This, you cannot learn. You have it, or you don't. It is an art.
That said, there are of course certain techniques and design principles that you can use and should adhere to (which ones exactly depending on lots of factors). There are books about it and theories, etc.
Because, while it is an art, it is also a craft.
And, at the end of it all, it is based on common sense, which surprisingly many people lack - studied game designers or not.

Now, in the courses I know level design is a part of, but in one to two years you can only learn that much and level design is only one part of the picture. I know of no school/university specifically teaching "level design". At least not here in Berlin. Then again, this is Germany, the digital stone age, so who knows.
Myself, I probably had two level design courses, not more. But that was just my study, I know other schools (like the one I hold lectures at now, ahem) have a more focused approach here.

One rule that I learned there, and which applies not only to level design, is that things have to make sense in the context of their world.
If there is a broken crate somewhere, why is broken? What lives in that level that could leave such a mark, etc.?
Don't just put a bunch of crates somewhere because you need cover for your shooter, put them there because they make sense there and put enemies there because it makes sense in the context.
A level has to support the gameplay of course, but a level falls apart immediatly if that is the only thing it does. And it may even be harmful (see Final Fantasy or other corridor games).

Those are some basic rules I got from that time, and I think they make sense. So, at least the schools I know do teach the right stuff.
But there were other people in the classes which I know were just not good designers.
In the end, it all comes down to the person listening to the lessons. So we are at "it is an art" again, based on talent, supplied by craftmanship which you can learn.

Uhm... did that answer your question at all? :D

 

[thesheeep]

Oh, and the one major problem (IMO):

People do not learn to be good developers any more.
They just learn how to use Unity/Unreal/Whatever and think that is what makes a good developer. It is sad, really.
Unity, etc. should be the last thing students learn, not the first.

And even more sad?
Studios want people who can use Unity/Unreal/Whatever, and don't care about good developers, at least large studios.
And schools need to deliver what the market wants, so there goes the vicious circle.

 

[JarlFrank]

Uhm... did that answer your question at all? :D

Somewhat, I guess. From what you're saying, at least in Berlin the actual design is a bit neglected then. You probably learn about game theory and system design too, and yeah, it's important to design a solid system to base your game on - but, thing is, in practice good level design is the one thing that makes or breaks the game. A mechanically simplistic game can still be fun with good levels, even a mechanically broken game can. But when the actual design sucks, it doesn't matter how good the underlying system is: think D&D games, some are good because of encounter design, others suck because of encounter design, even though they all share the same system.

What I'd expect from a course in game design would be to be taught how to create engaging levels which use the strenghts of the medium. I've learned a lot about level design by playing several fan missions for Thief and Tomb Raider and playing around with the editors myself. At some point, you are so familiar with the engine you will spot obvious design mistakes in the fan missions, while recognizing good design when you see it. The key to good level design is, in my opinion, using the major strength of the medium: interactivity and non-linearity. Multiple approaches for your character to tackle the mission. Optional areas to explore that give the player rewards for exploring. Storytelling by implying things through room design and item placement.

It's things like these that should be taught in game design classes. How do you design level architecture that is fun to play through? Show examples of levels done right and levels done wrong. What makes a dungeon crawler's dungeon fun? What makes a stealth mission in Thief fun? What makes a Doom level fun? Have the students learn what works in level design and what doesn't, and have them reproduce the craft in their own assignments. Don't just base teaching level design on teaching how the modern industry standard is, teach it as the art that it is.

But I guess that's not really the goal of these schools, they just want to feed new workers into the existing industry. Eh.

 

[bylam]

I did study Game Design, yes, but only one year. Switched to programming after.

IMO, good designers act by intuition, not by book. This, you cannot learn. You have it, or you don't. It is an art.
That said, there are of course certain techniques and design principles that you can use and should adhere to (which ones exactly depending on lots of factors). There are books about it and theories, etc.
Because, while it is an art, it is also a craft.
And, at the end of it all, it is based on common sense, which surprisingly many people lack - studied game designers or not.

Pretty much. I've been interviewing and hiring designers for at least 5 years and experience only matters when it comes to avoiding obvious mistakes. I've worked with veterans who have been in the industry for years and are terrible designers, and I've worked with people fresh out of design school who just *get it*.

In that sense, it is like writing. There is a craft and anyone can learn the tools and the tricks but while that will get you to the status of "good", without talent you will never be one of the "greats".

I've refined my interviewing technique down to a pretty simple process at this point. The first question is always "So what does a Game Designer do?". The number of people who simply cannot answer that correctly is amazing.

 

[Great Deceiver]

I still cannot believe how many people are saying this shit is faithful to Doom. It's unthinkable. Even that guy who made the "Doom done today" video has an optimistic view of this game.

A vast majority of people saying that this is faithful to Doom have either never played Doom for more than five minutes and/or haven't got the slightest idea of what makes Doom work. This whole "hur shoot DEMUNZ in da FAEC is what DOOM is about" shit is ridiculous, people think if you repeat it enough that makes it true. Level design and pacing go so far over the top of their heads that it's actually pretty sad.

 

[pippin]

I know for a fact there are people who are excited for Doom 4, have never played any Doom game, and are older than 20. All three, at the same time.

 

[sexbad?]

Now, in the courses I know level design is a part of, but in one to two years you can only learn that much and level design is only one part of the picture. I know of no school/university specifically teaching "level design". At least not here in Berlin. Then again, this is Germany, the digital stone age, so who knows.
Myself, I probably had two level design courses, not more. But that was just my study, I know other schools (like the one I hold lectures at now, ahem) have a more focused approach here.

That would make sense if someone has no prior experience designing or programming but wants to get into game design. You have to start at square one, understanding how to use programs, communicate with coworkers, detect bugs, and so on. I imagine schools would focus on that first, and then follow up with actual principles of design and whatever won't eat up memory on consoles. You probably can't focus much on judging each individual's attempts at level design in just two semesters, especially if they're lecture classes. Most lecture experiences I've had haven't given me much in-person feedback on my work.