Does Doom 3 get any better?

[Homerboy]

This thread reminded me of when I FIRST mentioned duct tape for this game:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=12208717&postcount=27

I swear to God that was the first time I ever saw the duct-tape mod "suggestion"

 

[fixbsod]

I was more hyped for this than HL2 and quickly realized how much better HL2 was and is once I started playing this game. While not bad it was far from a "good" game and it was all the more disappointing by the long wait for it, and the feeling that you really weren't playing a Doom game at all. Doom had huge open levels where you often were taking down enemies at the other end of an arena or whatnot, yeah there were some monster closets but it was 1993 ? Doom 3 had cramped tight little corridors with lots of cheezy obvious scares and more monster closets. Add in the horrible flashlight mechanics and they sure managed to destroy a franchise in a heartbeat.

Most reviewers kept calling it more a display of id's engine than a game if that tells ya much.

But yeah it probably won't get better the farther you play, there is a level (set of levels?) that is interesting but otherwise its pretty much more of the same. HL2 and FEAR were much better shooters from that era.

 

[Renob]

"Does Doom 3 get any better?"

only if you can travel back in time....

 

[Regs]

Isn't that just in name only? Bethesda's parent company bought id Software, so I would think that id Software is still making this.

An argument could be maybe for both. It's never clean cut that the developer always has creative license over a game that is being made with a publishers money. If I was an executive producer of ZeniMax, the parent company, I would make sure Id had all resources available to them from both camps to make the game more appealing to their consumer base. You have to read into the business and in between lines during press releases. If a publisher offers you a "resources" and you don't use them, you better damn well make the best selling game of the decade or heads will role.

---
http://kotaku.com/5302060/id-software-bought-by-bethesda-parent-company-zenimax

Altman laid out a vision for a robust id: "We, along with many others, consider id Software to be among the finest game studios in the world, with extraordinary design, artistic and technical capabilities. They have demonstrated, repeatedly, that rare ability to create franchise properties that are critical and commercial successes. Our intention is to make sure id Software will continue to do what they do best – make AAA games. Our role will be to provide publisher support through Bethesda Softworks and give id Software the resources it needs to grow and expand."

 

[William Gaatjes]

That seems interesting.

Just found out about this teaser :

https://youtu.be/jFSyxguqnbo

Never knew a new doom would come...

 

[Childs]

They should have made Doom 3 like Serious Sam not CoD. Doom 4 though hmmm.

I only played a couple hours of the official Doom 3 game, but there was a mod for it called something like Classic Doom that was just a remake of the first shareware episode. That was a lot of fun.

 

[Man I Suck]

Doom 3 was more of a portfolio to sell the new game engine more than it was a Doom game.

 

[CZroe]

Well it didn't do a good job at that.

 

[Man I Suck]

Correctamundo!

 

[fixbsod]

I feel like that was more the selling point when they realized how disappointing the game at its core was to play. Well buy it to see what our engine can do ! ...

Doom 3 was more of a portfolio to sell the new game engine more than it was a Doom game.

 

[CZroe]

I feel like that was more the selling point when they realized how disappointing the game at its core was to play. Well buy it to see what our engine can do ! ...

Only third party game that I recall using it was Prey. Sounds like it failed as a pitch/tech-demo too.

Doom 3 was two things:
A bad game
A failed sales pitch for the engine tech

No two ways around it. It didn't succeed at one where the other failed. It failed at both being a good game and failed at selling partners on the tech.

 

[shortylickens]

Yeah, the quake 3 engine was used in dozens of games. Doom 3's engine was only licenced for a handful. Unreal 2 and Source ended up being MUCH more popular. ID was hurting.

 

[werepossum]

Except they're not "cinematic". At all.

Walking into a room, hearing the predictable SCREEEECH of an Imp as it, of course spawns directly behind you , and another spawns in front, is not scary. It's not cinematic. And even less so after the, oh, 79th time.

Walk into a room, hearing the screech of the two imps spawning in front and behind you, take a fireball in the back, roll your eyes, kill it, move onto the next spawn point.

That's really the frustrating thing about DOOM 3, it has SUPERB atmosphere and art direction, stellar graphics (for the time, it was the benchmark of benchmarks), wrapped up with mediocre-to-downright-subpar gameplay for much of the game.

The great art direction just wasn't great enough to offset the annoyingly predictable enemy spawning nonsense.

This, exactly. Plus without the duct tape flashlight mod it's just lame.

 

[escrow4]

RAGE failed too. Why doesn't Doom 4 just update the OG Doom from the 90s with DX 12 shiny shiny graphics and some (naturally) new levels? Actually why not remake Wolf 3D too? That would be sensational.

 

[Regs]

RAGE failed too. Why doesn't Doom 4 just update the OG Doom from the 90s with DX 12 shiny shiny graphics and some (naturally) new levels? Actually why not remake Wolf 3D too? That would be sensational.

Too many now offer that type of gameplay.ID was around when there wasn't much competition. Now the market has many developers. Painkiller was basically what you wanted.

 

[BFG10K]

Only third party game that I recall using it was Prey.

Brink, Quake 4, Quake Wars, Wolfenstein.

It failed at both being a good game and failed at selling partners on the tech.

Eh? Doom 3 is ID's most successful game to date in terms of sales and critical reception.

 

[CZroe]

Brink, Quake 4, Quake Wars, Wolfenstein.

Quake 4, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, and Wolfenstein are not 3rd party. They are id Software properties, so they are 2nd party when another developer makes a game for them. Don't know anything about Brink. Edit: Brink is by Splash Damage, which typically works for them as a 2nd party dev. I doubt it is an example of them licensing the engine at the full value another dev would have to pay.

Eh? Doom 3 is ID's most successful game to date in terms of sales and critical reception.

The critics are idiots.

 

[BFG10K]

Quake 4, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, and Wolfenstein are not 3rd party. They are id Software properties, so they are 2nd party when another developer makes a game for them. Don't know anything about Brink. Edit: Brink is by Splash Damage, which typically works for them as a 2nd party dev. I doubt it is an example of them licensing the engine at the full value another dev would have to pay.

This is nothing more than semantics. Game engines are made to make money. If ID didn't get the money upfront from licensing, they got a cut of the profits instead. Money is money.

The critics are idiots.

But we're supposed to bow to your opinion? Cool story, bro.

 

[CZroe]

This is nothing more than semantics. Game engines are made to make money. If ID didn't get the money upfront from licensing, they got a cut of the profits instead. Money is money.


But we're supposed to bow to your opinion? Cool story, bro.

It's not semantics when the whole point of that conversation thread was that they were unable to sell other devs on the engine. Commissioning games from second parties is not the same thing. They did that with the Quake III Arena engine too and yet it was still licensed to a ton of other devs. The fact remains that Doom 3's engine, idTech 4, was not licensed to many other devs. Bethesda/Zennimax owns id Software and used idTech 5 for The Evil Within. This is another engine over 10 years later (derivative though it may be) and they STILL can't sell it. I hope that changes, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to reality just because I like what they used to be.

And it's pretty interesting how "Doom 3 was a bad game" is somehow an opinion that only I share. Have you even read this thread?

I'll say it again: if it was successfully received by critics, then the critics are idiots. They were clearly wooed by it's technical prowess and not its gameplay or lasting appeal. As we've established, its technical prowess didn't get it very far with other devs, which is what matters as far as that goes.

 

[Tweak155]

I'll say it again: if it was successfully received by critics, then the critics are idiots. They were clearly wooed by it's technical prowess and not its gameplay or lasting appeal. As we've established, its technical prowess didn't get it very far with other devs, which is what matters as far as that goes.

That's like, your opinion, man. I loved the game and still re-play it from time to time.

 

[Squeetard]

Doom 3 was a boring assed tech demo. And not a good tech demo at that. Endless pitch black corridor crawl with monsters popping out of closets behind you.

 

[BFG10K]

It's not semantics when the whole point of that conversation thread was that they were unable to sell other devs on the engine. Commissioning games from second parties is not the same thing. They did that with the Quake III Arena engine too and yet it was still licensed to a ton of other devs. The fact remains that Doom 3's engine, idTech 4, was not licensed to many other devs. Bethesda/Zennimax owns id Software and used idTech 5 for The Evil Within. This is another engine over 10 years later (derivative though it may be) and they STILL can't sell it. I hope that changes, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to reality just because I like what they used to be.

It doesn't matter. While it's true that not as many games used it as the Quake 3 engine, the fact remains that it made ID the most amount of money. The primary goal of any business is to make money.

That and there were more games than Doom 3 and Prey that used it.

And it's pretty interesting how "Doom 3 was a bad game" is somehow an opinion that only I share. Have you even read this thread?

It's cute how you think this thread somehow matters, or somehow changes reality.

I'll say it again: if it was successfully received by critics, then the critics are idiots. They were clearly wooed by it's technical prowess and not its gameplay or lasting appeal. As we've established, its technical prowess didn't get it very far with other devs, which is what matters as far as that goes.

No, what matters is how much money it made for ID, and in that regard it's their most successful engine to date.

The critics liked it.
It made ID the most amount of money.

Impact on reality based on what you think of that: 0. Nil. Nadda. Zip.

 

[CZroe]

It doesn't matter. While it's true that not as many games used it as the Quake 3 engine, the fact remains that it made ID the most amount of money. The primary goal of any business is to make money.

That and there were more games than Doom 3 and Prey that used it.

Not sure where you got that. Doom 3 being more profitable than any of their previous games doesn't make the engine or the company more profitable. Pretty sure id Software was significantly less profitable per year from from the launch of idTech 4 (2004-2011) than they were from 1999-2004 (Quake III Arena engine) and that it is directly attributable to their engine failing to gain traction. It's not like they didn't have any hits before Doom 3.

It's cute how you think this thread somehow matters, or somehow changes reality.

Thread matters to the thread participants. Conversation points matter for the conversation. Reality is that Doom 3 engine was a failure while Doom 3 was a financial success despite fans generally not liking it. You're trying to spin the sales success of a title as the success of an underlying technology and company. Who's trying to change reality here? I didn't deny that the game sold well. Hell, I built a whole system around it when it launched.

No, what matters is how much money it made for ID, and in that regard it's their most successful engine to date.

I highly doubt the sales of one successful game made more total money for id Software than the games and engine license success it enjoyed the previous generation.

The critics liked it.
It made ID the most amount of money.

How do you conflate making more than any other title with making more total money for the company than the collective success of all of their Quake III Arena engine games and engine licenses? It has to sustain them, so profits per year is the only proper way to look at it and Doom 3's engine BOMBED HARD between 2004 and 2011.

Doom 3 failed to live up to our gameplay expectations, critics be damned, and the engine technology failed to provide a continuous secondary income stream from third parties.