Thanks for posting this. It's great. Made my day.

I don't think we played the same Doom games. Doom 3 had nothing in common with the previous Doom games. The atmosphere was shit, the gameplay was astonishingly linear with very little exploration in the portion I played. Everything was about predictable monster closets and it was a slow game.

I have to admit that I totally agree with what Romero was saying in that earlier video. Doom 3 was slow and boring. It could have been a great game had they some good level design like they had in Quake and Doom, but the level design itself didn't feel like anything that iD had done previously. And it felt that way in a bad way rather than in a revolutionary way.

A good question. Just 2 games over a span of 10 years and some rereleases of their older games. Even Blizzard and Valve can do better than that.

Well, it's a matter of personal opinion, really. Doom 3 feels like a slower Doom to me and the gunplay, just as the enemies, satisfies me. I played through it's entire campaign quite a few times, probably the modern game I finished the most up until today.

To an extent it is, but I tend to think the speed that one played Doom with was an essential feature. Being able to dodge things and try have the manic action is something that feels essential to the game. Not to mention the relatively wide open areas and abstract areas designed to be fun rather than to simulate a real place.

I liked it a lot to be honest. It's definitely not as groundbreaking as previous Doom games, but it's still a pretty solid shooter, at least for me.
Well, that's your opinion, not a fact. Many people enjoyed it (me included).


And again that's your opinion, not a fact. I personally enjoyed having to switch between the flashlight and the gun. I think it added to the game's tense atmosphere.

I get the feeling that this is a FO3 situation. A game that would probably be decent, but they gave it a name that ensured that people would evaluate it to the highest possible standards, then failed to execute it properly. I'm guessing that most of the positive reviews are from people who don't remember or never played the previous iterations of Doom, because Doom3 was a pretty large step backwards. The levels were even more linear and the level design didn't really grab me the way that it did with Doom and Doom 3. I think the levels felt a lot more like Wolf 3D did in terms of scope. I think that Romero's comments in that long Doom play through do a pretty good job of explaining why. I just don't think they put the sort of thought into it that they should have.

Had the game been marketed as a survival game, I'm not sure I'd be criticizing it the way that I'm criticizing it. But it was really and truly a lousy FPS game when compared with Doom or Quake, and giving it the name of Doom 3 just made matters worse. Wolf had less trouble with the reboot. as it didn't represent quite the revision that Doom 3 did. They added new technology, but they didn't change genres and they kept the silly supernatural stuff that was always in the game. I didn't like RtcW, but it didn't seem to be as much of a skull fuck to the previous games as Doom 3 was.

Hah. Wolf 3D was already reboot. Those assholes at id took hardcore stealth action games with random maps, and a feature list worthy of several Metal Gear Solids, and made a "navigate maze, collect points, shoot Nazis" joke out of it. The people liked it. History finds way of repeating in ironic ways.

I'm not sure you can call that a reboot. About the only thing those games had in common was the name and being set in Nazi Germany.

Or they're from people who are trying to be objective as opposed to let other games ruin the experience :-P

There was also that killing Hitler thing.

And it's not far from the way Wolf 3D, RTCW and that green Wolfenstein are connected.

Objective? This is a case where I'm not so sure that there is an objective PoV to take. In the context of iD games, Doom 3 was horrendous. For a different developer more noted for survival games, I think people would have come into the game with different expectations. What ruined the experience is iD lieing about the game they were selling and failing to deliver the kind of game that people who know them would expect.

The other issue is that the FPS genre has yet to recover from the damage that Halo did to it. Regenerating health, lack of really clever level design. Cheap gameplay. I love a good arena shooter from time to time, but there's been an absolute dearth of games that continue in the vein of Doom.

But, even as far as survival games go, it felt really, really cheap compared with good survival/horror games like Amnesia.

I dunno, it just feels like a stretch too far. The games were in different genres completely, with completely different engines and a completely different way of playing. The Fallout games at least were all RPGs, the Mario games were mostly all platformers. (Obvious exceptions for the puzzle games that just used Mario as a character)

I call BS on that. Do you really believe that not even one single reviewer played the first Doom before Doom 3? I had played Doom, Doom 2 and even Doom 64 before playing Doom 3 and i still think it was a good game. I don't really see how someone who played the first Doom games can't enjoy Doom 3 or even consider it a good game. Stop trying to turn YOUR opinion into a fact, please.

And i don't agree that Doom 3 was a large step backwards. Doom 3 was just different to the first Doom games, that's all. Being different doesn't mean it's automatically a step backwards.

Oh, Fallout 1 and 2 are my favorite western RPGs of all time and i did enjoy Fallout 3. Of course i would prefer it if it had kept the isometric view and turn-based combat, but it just won't happen in a AAA game in the current market. I'm happy Bethesda was the one who got the Fallout franchise, it could have been much worse. At least they do know how to make a decent open-world first-person action RPG. I think Fallout 3 was a good game for what it was. Not better than the first Fallout games by any means, but still good.

Yes, objective, as in rating the game for what it is as opposed to what you expect it to be. I honestly don't see how a sequel which is worse than its predecessors is lying about anything - with that line of thought, any sequel which tries to change anything is lying because people were just expecting more of the same.

The way I see it, Doom 3 was a very good game, and from the AAA release lineup of its time (Half-Life 2 and Far Cry) the most oldschool one, i. e. one that was the most similar to the original Doom games, so even there it doesn't quite fail to deliver. Was it worse than the originals? No idea, I feel there are things the originals did better, while there are also things Doom 3 did better - I'm not willing to discuss this as we'd just get into 'But I think...' It was far from being a bad game tho, and well above the average, so as far as I'm concerned, it fully deserves the ratings - as opposed to "0/10, Doom was better!"

id Software has been making iOS games for a few years. It is currently making Wolfenstein: The New Order for the next-gen consoles.