Doom Eternal Gameplay
- Thread starter B-Cell_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Source?CoCage said:
I can buy the idea of Capcom trying to appeal to a wider audience (they certainly tried to cater to 3-4 playstyles with RE6), but it makes no sense to court the multiplayer audience with a singleplayer only game (DMC), or a PvE focused one (RE6).
No, they have to be like OTHER games to be successful - it was hero shooters a few years back, now it's battle royale.
So, can I use that excuse when the boot's on the other foot?
"If you don't like the new direction Resident Evil is going in; too bad."
Not that I'm saying that, but if the be all and end all of conversation is "if you don't like X, tough," then Capcom would be entitled to do the same.
Wish I'd thought of that every time some disliked a game I liked. It would have saved so much time...
Here's your sources. Seriously, it ain't that hard to do a simple google search for some of this stuff. It only took me 2 seconds.Hawki said:
https://gamingbolt.com/capcom-looking-to-attract-call-of-duty-fans-with-resident-evil-6-action-route-makes-sense
https://www.destructoid.com/dead-rising-3-designed-to-appeal-to-call-of-duty-fans-256136.phtml
https://www.destructoid.com/opinion-the-decay-of-capcom-261821.phtml
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-23-capcom-survival-horror-market-too-small-for-resident-evil
Feel free to use that excuse I was using; I do not care. The difference being with Capcom was they were screwing themselves and their core audience for people that didn't care for certain genres to begin with. And I made that point about publishers not learning their lessons and chasing whatever trends are popular. I was making a specific example with the unholy trinity.
That's not how citations work. If I make claims, and people contest the claims, it's the onus of the one making the claims to verify them.CoCage said:
None of which verify your claim that the games were aiming for the portion of the Call of Duty audience that focuses on multiplayer and only plays singleplayer casually. The sources only mention Call of Duty as a whole, there's no mention of sub-audiences within the CoD fanbase. So again, while I never contested that Capcom tried to follow Call of Duty, I have to query the idea that Capcom was specifically trying to court the CoD sub-audience. Unless you're equating the sub-audience with the fanbase as a whole.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/05/analysis-player-interest-in-call-of-dutys-campaigns-is-cratering/
Which might have some basis, but the charts show a slight drop off after MW3, then a plunge for BO3, then a sharp rise onwards. The idea that "no-one cares about CoD singleplay" was made iffy by the furore of BO4 dropping it. So I don't think the CoD fanbase is as monolithic as some might claim.
So, did Capcom try to court the CoD audience? Yes. Did they try to court the sub-audience? Doubtful (unless we're talking about Umbrella Corps or Operation Raccoon City, in which case, it makes a lot more sense).
I wasn't trying to break it down in to sub-audience. My point was that they were trying to cater to the COD audience in general. It was a misunderstanding there. Plus, it's the same difference and your're splitting hairs. They tried to cater, and they failed hard. At this point, we're going back and forth reiterating the same thing. I proved my point and I'm done here.Hawki said:
Sorry, what I meant to say was, that is what most franchises do nowadays, in terms of reboots. They rehash the same story again, with maybe a few more details and plot developments. Not talking about sequels and stuff. Literally every reboot/remade movie or game is the same thing told again, in a different flavor (Evil Dead, Resident Evil Remake, Rise of the Triad, shit there are thousands). There are exceptions, such as something like Robocop (I dunno why that example popped into my head) but the vast majority are simply that, remakes.Hawki said:
Yea fair enough that you don't like it. I get tired of a lot of them too, to the point that I would even turn down a potentially fantastic piece of media for that reason alone (groannn, do we have to watch Bruce's parents / Spidey's uncle die again). But it doesn't mean that they can't do it anymore either. The general consensus is that Doom's sparse story is enough to set up a massive hell-spawn killing fest, and that's all it has to do. Maybe a more narrative heavy game, such as Mafia, copying the first game verbatim scene-for-scene would be more of a letdown? (being that the story is one of the strongest points of the game).
I'll agree with you on that. I'm also iffy on reboots if the story is done well enough in the original that I'm even slightly emotionally invested in it. I don't want to just go through the same experience again with a new coat of paint and engine overhaul. But Doom, to me doesn't fall in that category.
Yes let's not mention the movie again =p
Yes they do tend to improve. Doom is definitely a story that simplified itself. But in a way, it was trying to tell its narrative in a different style, really put it to the player that you're Doom Slayer, and you're not here to fuck around. It's made apparent right from the opening scene how the story is going to be relayed to the player. I'd give them props for that, hell how much did people go nuts for that when the music kicks in and the carnage begins, even from the first reveal. So much so in fact, that they are carrying right on in full steam with this style and tone for Doom Eternal.
Sorry, the only reasonable explanation for that is nostalgia glasses. Because it was the first time you got to warp into hell and chainsaw demons to death. But yea, Doom 3 did indeed have more of a narrative.
So, it's been an interesting few days. In an ff.net story I wrote based on Doom Eternal, I got called a soy boy for saying I didn't like Doom 2016. Also, apparently "SJWs" are "triggered" because people have said that they didn't find the "demons = migrants" joke funny (not finding a joke funny isn't the same thing as being offended, FYI).
Anyway:
All? No.
Most? Debatable.
Not talking about sequels and stuff. Literally every reboot/remade movie or game is the same thing told again, in a different flavor (Evil Dead, Resident Evil Remake, Rise of the Triad, shit there are thousands).[/quote]
So we've gone from "most" to "every. That's far too broad a claim to go into literally every single reboot, but looking at those examples:
-Evil Dead: The only Evil Dead film I've seen is Army of Darkness, but the remake isn't technically a reboot as I understand. While it mimics the events of the first film, it's apparently still in continuity with it. The idea was that Mia and Ash would eventually meet up, but these plans never went through.
-Resident Evil Remake: This doesn't belong in this conversation, since it's still in continuity with the original series. It didn't start a new continuity, it updated existing continuity.
-Rise of the Triad: No idea.
I'm nitpicking, but while I can entertain the notion that potentially "most" reboots are simple retoolings of the original, I'm not sure if that's something to be excused, because again, you can do a reboot and make it distinct from its predecessors - Batman Begins, Sands of Time, Casino Royale, etc.
Maybe people don't care about this (actually, scratch out "maybe," a lot clearly don't), but while I'm fine with Doom 2016 having a different tone from Doom 3, it's a far more haphazard depiction of it. It's telling that (for me) Doom 2016 has far more tonal whiplash (e.g. the holograms) vs. Doom 3 (which had jokes, but far more down to earth, more relatable ones, such as the accidental mass chainsaw ordering instead of requested jackhammers).
Anyway:
Some? Yes.JohnnyDelRay said:
All? No.
Most? Debatable.
Not talking about sequels and stuff. Literally every reboot/remade movie or game is the same thing told again, in a different flavor (Evil Dead, Resident Evil Remake, Rise of the Triad, shit there are thousands).[/quote]
So we've gone from "most" to "every. That's far too broad a claim to go into literally every single reboot, but looking at those examples:
-Evil Dead: The only Evil Dead film I've seen is Army of Darkness, but the remake isn't technically a reboot as I understand. While it mimics the events of the first film, it's apparently still in continuity with it. The idea was that Mia and Ash would eventually meet up, but these plans never went through.
-Resident Evil Remake: This doesn't belong in this conversation, since it's still in continuity with the original series. It didn't start a new continuity, it updated existing continuity.
-Rise of the Triad: No idea.
So, we've gone from "most" to "exceptions."
I'm nitpicking, but while I can entertain the notion that potentially "most" reboots are simple retoolings of the original, I'm not sure if that's something to be excused, because again, you can do a reboot and make it distinct from its predecessors - Batman Begins, Sands of Time, Casino Royale, etc.
I'm not sure if it's really a different style per se - Doom 3 and Doom 2016 both rely on a format of most of the story being optional codex entries/PDAs, with a few key cutscenes occurring. Now, the tone is like night and day between the two, but the style of delivery is reasonably similar. However, I'd argue that a key difference (and this is very subjective) is that with Doom 3, when I was reading the PDAs, I got the sense that this was a planned, thought out setting. That everything was written within the context of a setting that existed by its own rules. BioShock is another example of this (one done even better). Doom 2016 however, the codex feels extremely haphazard. For instance, compare Argent D'Nur to the Ancients. With the latter, there's hints of them well before they're revealed in the excavation site, and the revelation of their existence leads to a second one (that you're doing the same thing as a Martian hero, following in his footsteps, adding further contextual weight to your use of the Soul Cube). With the former, Argent D'Nur is really just thrown in there towards the end. Like, "yeah, there's these guys who worshipped Wraiths and got conquered by Hell, or something. Um...Spider Mastermind is up ahead." Any connection the player might have with this is reduced with the revelation that the Doom Slayer is from the Doom 1-D64 era, so when the Night Sentinels appear before you, it looks pretty, but unlike Doom 3, it doesn't have any real meaning behind it.
Maybe people don't care about this (actually, scratch out "maybe," a lot clearly don't), but while I'm fine with Doom 2016 having a different tone from Doom 3, it's a far more haphazard depiction of it. It's telling that (for me) Doom 2016 has far more tonal whiplash (e.g. the holograms) vs. Doom 3 (which had jokes, but far more down to earth, more relatable ones, such as the accidental mass chainsaw ordering instead of requested jackhammers).
This looks fucking awesome. I liked DOOM but this makes it look like nothing more than a proof of concept. I could watch that animation on the pump shotgun all day.
Thank you for poking holes in my syntax (I mean it, no sarcasm), clearly shows how easy a statement can fall apart if one's not careful. I had actually written a whole reply, but forgotten to back it up (have to nowadays) so when I clicked 'post' I lost the entire thing. Fark's sake. Anyway, I'll try to reiterate briefly:Hawki said:
Yes, I know of games that have been rebooted very well. I'll limit it to reboots to be fair, because remakes are obviously meant to tell the same story. But reboots only, successful ones include Tomb Raider, XCOM, God of War, Wolfenstein, Prince of Persia. They maintain the same universe, main character, and base story. But add so much more, sometimes to the point of changing or adding to the base story. It's admirable, shows respect to the source material, and not so many have a problem with that.
Now something like Batman, the origin story is almost verbatim the same. No one (ok maybe some people) takes issue with this, because it's not a focal part of the game or series, and the main character. But that's my point - Doom wasn't the heaviest on story. Doom guy, apart from his face in the bottom of the screen, wasn't an integral part of the game's narrative. Recycle everything you want, demons, guns, setting, just make it the same, but better. That's what games get criticized for, unless it's what people actually want. Now you're argument is it's fine they don't do that, as long as it doesn't decline. But despite it going down in story-telling, I don't think it declined, it was more of a tonal shift that just didn't agree with you, as you say yourself....
So what it really comes down to, is not even the tonal shift, as we both stated, it's the haphazard depiction of it. But that's entirely subjective. It rubbed most critics the right way, and although different, I myself was equally entertained by both Doom 3 and 4. Would I have liked a Doom 4 with more narrative in it? Maybe, maybe not. Wolfenstein was a run-n-gun game for me, but I found the reboot to be fantastic. I wouldn't care if it was improved or not, as long as it was done well. And Doom 4 was done very well. My best buddy would most likely share your opinion though, he plays games for the story as much as anything else in it.
This forum is still active? What a world to live in. Game looks good but knowing Bethesda something should go horribly wrong.