I used to play both Doom and Wolfenstein 3D at a local Rec Center when I went there once a week and I loved them as a kid and whilst they were great then I couldn't play them now. Games have evolved so much since then.
Doom 3 doesn't count as a Doom game as far as I'm concerned. Doom and Doom 2 were the same game more or less, but Doom 2 saw a full retail release instead of starting as Shareware. Also, it's part of what I consider to be the modern FPS genre, so seriously playing Doom 3 at any point isn't much different than boasting about playing HL2.rekabdarb said:Why specifically doom 2 in the polls...? Change it so it says doom series.
But no i have not, although i've only played CoD3 and 4... so i'm not really much of a cod player am i
The way I see it isn't so much revolving around its roots so much as just knowing what else is out there. The thing about Doom is not only the FPS roots, but the fact that the FPS genre has evolved to the point where Doom is actually a valid game to play again because it's so simple and different anyone can dive into it like a casual game. And while simplicity can be looked down on, Doom makes up for it by throwing tons of enemies at you in such a way that the simplicity can be appreciated. I don't want to be worrying about getting those headshots to save my ammo when there are 15 other guys surrounding me.tlozoot said:I played Doom 1/2 when I was around eight years old. My dad and I used to play it on system link, which was awesome. Doom games were obviously fantastic for their time, but replaying them now makes you appreciate how far the FPS genre has evolved since then. Not that they're now unfun to play though.
As to question behind this topic - whether people should have a knowledge of older, influential games when playing current titles - I don't think it matters all that much. Not that I'm accusing you of this TC, but the sentiment of "LOL this guy loves CoD but hasn't even played the 'classics'" is pretty elitist and generally unhelpful. While in a scholarly sense it's useful in understanding how genres have evolved over the years, when it comes to having fun and having a great experience with a video game, knowledge of the classics becomes no more than an idle fancy.
I agree with you that it's important to know what else is out there, and what else is available to you - variety being the spice of life and all that jazz. However, I think it all depends on what you want to get out of the medium. If, like many of us here, we hold a deep, bordering on scholarly interest in the medium, it's indeed important to know what's out there. However, if you're simply in it to get the here and now experience, then is wider knowledge really a perquisite? If someone wants to throw down and have fun on CoD, is it really necessary to quiz them on their gaming history?Signa said:The way I see it isn't so much revolving around its roots so much as just knowing what else is out there. The thing about Doom is not only the FPS roots, but the fact that the FPS genre has evolved to the point where Doom is actually a valid game to play again because it's so simple and different anyone can dive into it like a casual game. And while simplicity can be looked down on, Doom makes up for it by throwing tons of enemies at you in such a way that the simplicity can be appreciated. I don't want to be worrying about getting those headshots to save my ammo when there are 15 other guys surrounding me.tlozoot said:I played Doom 1/2 when I was around eight years old. My dad and I used to play it on system link, which was awesome. Doom games were obviously fantastic for their time, but replaying them now makes you appreciate how far the FPS genre has evolved since then. Not that they're now unfun to play though.
As to question behind this topic - whether people should have a knowledge of older, influential games when playing current titles - I don't think it matters all that much. Not that I'm accusing you of this TC, but the sentiment of "LOL this guy loves CoD but hasn't even played the 'classics'" is pretty elitist and generally unhelpful. While in a scholarly sense it's useful in understanding how genres have evolved over the years, when it comes to having fun and having a great experience with a video game, knowledge of the classics becomes no more than an idle fancy.
And don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with loving CoD, but since I've been playing games for years, I've seen what is out there. Instantly loving CoD just because it's the newest thing out is like declaring Lady Gaga the best thing in music ever. New doesn't always mean better when it comes to entertainment. I just want to see people with a far more informed opinion before they jump to a conclusion in any matter, gaming or otherwise.
and Doom 64, Final Doom, Ultimate Doom (and both expansions TNT: Evilution and Plutonia Experiment, but they are already included on Final Doom) and Doom 2 Master Levels, if you want to count itcplsharp said:not flaming just saying there was more than 3 =] theres was doom, doom2, final doom, and then doom 3/expansion pack .L3m0n_L1m3 said:Yes, I've played all 3 dooms.
They were okay, I guess. Somewhat complex level layout for 1, and 3 was way too dark.
much love x
I don't particularly enjoy CoD, but I frickin' LOVE Halo, so I sort of count.Signa said:I just want to know how many people who LOVE today's FPSs