They have moved on, they have been more interested in engine technology than making games for the longest time now. Carmack left not to long ago for the Ocullus Rift shores and that's probably for the better too.

Why is this a such a question?
iD was a bit of a one trick pony to be honest, they spearheaded the FPS genre but they became a victim of their own succes as everyone got to make them (even with their engine in their heyday) but now they are totally snowed under by other more succesful FPS's and more importantly the market it using other companies engines, iD just wasn't able to stay on top of their game like often happens in this sort of thing.

Doom 3 was horrible. They had great technology, but the game itself was pretty bad. Probably the worst iD game they'd done in a very long time. A significant step backwards in terms of gameplay.

It is a hip thing to say, and I can see why would some people dislike it, but some people will inevitably dislike just about anything.

Short story: Most user ratings and reviews seem to disagree with you, most people I personally know of liked the game and I personally have finished it three times already, so iD clearly did something right. I don't think anyone is going to say that it's the best FPS out there, but it's exceptional at what it does.

Critics also thought Bioshock Infinite was good. I thought it was putrid. Great interactive sight-seeing, HORRIBLE gameplay.

Regarding Doom 3. Exceptional at what exactly? Beyond having good graphics for the time, it was plain awful. First, the switching between flashlight and gun was a HORRIBLE game decision. Secondly, it was about as scary as the early Kirby games, which is to say not at all. Enter room. Kill Demon. Turn around, and watch demon spawn behind you. Doom 3's scare tactics entirely revolved around the concept that things appearing behind you MUST be scary.

Next you have the pda logs which reminded me of System Shock 2, but failed to actually develop anything resembling a cohesive story. Unlike say, SS2, the logs really didn't add much to the game.

Which leaves... the shooting. Which frankly felt like paintball guns except for the 'special' weapons like the BFG and that wierd end level gun. (I can't even describe it.)

Oh and the final boss was an utter joke.

Sorry, but Doom 3 in my personal opinion was a trashy tech demo that ripped off System Shock 2 rather poorly. Then again, if the critics say its good, then it must be true! Everyone lets go buy Call of Duty!

Ahem. Not to sound like a hipster, but I can't disagree any more strongly. :P

*EDIT*

Ooh. Elmofongo did get me with the lighting. It did that really well. >.>

However, SS2 had MUCH better sounds which make it more scarier in my opinion.

Thank you, though I be honest that I recently played the game (On the BFG Edtion which sadly has inferior grapghics compared to the original and no Mod support) and the game was a little meh the longer I played, but for some reason I kept on playing.

Also the lighting in that game is AWESOME and the ship enviornmet was spooky, much spookier than System Shock 2. Heck I wish someone remade System Shock 2 using Doom 3.
Again I wish someonemade a System Shock 2 mod using Doom 3 as a bases. And I still rather play Doom 3 over Bioshock Infinate, At least Doom 3's story was not as pretentious and up its own ass compared to Bioshock Infinate.

Yes, that's why critics was not the only group I have mentioned.

No, it really wasn't particulary scary. It was quite atmospheric, but not scary. As for the flashlight/gun mechanic, I liked it - it didn't make any sence, but neither do a lot of other gameplay mechanics. And since the game was designed around it, the mechanic never got in the way - when you needed light, there were no enemies to speak of, and the combat areas were lit well enough. I actually thought the mechanic was used quite nicely, like the bit where you've had to follow the glowing vats with captured demons.

Yeah, well you could also ignore them for the most part and just ramp up your attention when you've heard a code.

Which leaves... The shooting. And I loved the shooting. It was much more slow-paced than in most FPS games, but I really liked it because - let's just say I'm not the fastest person ever and the pacing gave me the time needed to actually think about what I was doing, which I liked a lot.

Then there are the weapons themselves, which I felt carried a solid punch - the machine gun was a peashooter with a terrible sound effect, but I loved the shotgun which uses the typical and completely non-sensical mechanic of "Useless at range!", but it made it a very skill-based weapon that became deadly in the right hands.

And that applies to the entire arsenal, actually - every weapon had its use, both situational and 'good against that and that creature'. Weapons were quite balanced, and every single one has seen a use, including the base pistol.

So... Yeah, I just found the guns fun to use and combine, and I really liked the combat a lot, just as I liked the no-bullshit gameplay - it was just pure run and gun, with secrets, slightly mazey levels, that kind of stuff.

Let me wrap this up by saying that you have actually finished a game that you are now calling 'trashy tech demo that ripped off System Shock 2 rather poorly' - and Doom 3 wasn't that short either. So you're either a masochist or you were enjoying the game at some level.

How on earth was Bioshock Infinite's storyline pretentious? It was a beautiful alternate history sci-fi and never pretended to be anything but that.

I already had my misgivings, but this youtube video review just confirms what problems I have with the game, just please, please Fenixp watch this review in its entirety:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdNhwb7iuI4

Yes, there are people who dislike just about anything, but Doom3 was a serious step back to something before the original. Yes, it did have nice graphics and there were some new mechanics, but the game didn't really make use of them to any reasonable degree. The levels were horribly designed and the darkness was ridiculous. It wasn't like in the original where you had areas that were dark, the entire game was dark.

I also get the feeling that they weren't putting the sort of attention into the gameplay design that they had previously put into the games. The first time I loaded up Wolf3D, Doom, Quake and such, it felt like something very new and I've never felt like Doom3 was particularly special. It never felt like I'd be wanting to play it in a few years.

But, I think the most damning thing was that the "improvements" didn't lead to a fun game. They could easily have made the original Doom what they made with Doom3 and resisted the temptation.

Getting back to the ratings, I have a feeling that most of the people giving it positive ratings hadn't actually played any of the FPS during the golden era. People also give high ratings to Halo despite it aspiring to be as good as a flaming pile of dog shit. People who have never played a good game are going to be more generous with their ratings.

I think with the amount of resources that it takes to make a game, it's really hard to dedicate the time and energy to things like iterative game level design and risking the changes necessary to push the game design forward.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I liked RAGE and BioShock Infinite.

I disliked Doom 3, the lighting gave me migraines.

I don't understand why some people dislike the gameplay of BS:I - it's got so much to offer, and riding on the rails is sooo much fun. It's easily my favorite of the BioShock games - though I have yet to play System Shock 2, which is the spiritual ancestor, as everyone knows.

doom 3 BFG edition solved a lot of issues that the original had at a steeper requirements cost .
But yeah doom 3 is the only Id game i have despised , apart from the fear factor it created back in the day when the demo was released there is nothing noteworthy about the game.

As some one who was was an Id fan before they went all "Cult of Gabe" I've always got the feeling that their games were extended demos for the engines.

Bethesda is probably asking the same question themselves.

i keep thinking a lot about it too , we arrive at the same question , is the gaming scenario as the same as 1999 to release quake 5 arena or would be it just quake 5?

would doom 4 really be a good release or another tech demo.

the big thing that hurt id has always been how their competitor unreal engine has become famous with games , whereas there is no interest for the id tech .

as much as i would like wolf to make a comeback i doubt we will ever see it match the grand daddy wolf 3d

I prefer option C actually. I LOVED Doom and Doom 2. They are essential parts of my childhood (which probably says alot about me in retrospect.) so I completed Doom 3 because I paid for it, and I LOVED the series. Which is why it made it so darn painful.

We will have to agree to disagree on the weapons. I hated them. Your acknowledgement of the machine gun is pretty much how I felt about everything but the BFG and whatever the final laser whip thingie was called. (or I remember it as a laser whip/gravity gun thing no idea what it really was.)

Also, it should be noted that I've never played the BFG edition, so all of my whining is directed at the base game. I've never played BFG or that expansion.

Also, I called it a trashy tech demo, because Doom 3 was released alongside Quake 4 to show off the latest ID engine. Kind of like how the elder scrolls uses a different version of their engine each time. (Gamebryo I think.)

Really it boils down to taste, however I will never be convinced that it was a 'great' game.

Deus Ex? Sure. System Shock 2? Sure. Quake? Sure. Doom? Absolutely.

Doom 3? Not even in the same league in my opinion.