paragonpro
Banned
Why is the multiplayer "bad"? I really enjoyed the beta
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DOOM Review Thread - The Fury Road of Shooters
- Thread starter The Flash
- Start date
Not really at this point the single player is the main focus when i started playing it,it brought me back to what doom is in 1993 and now in 2016 i see the same thing but in a new coat of paint with enchanted stuff more replayability as a huge fan of the old one the references to the old game are hugely present in the single player..non linear levels,secrets everywhere,badass demons,brutal combat kills,metal music just like in 1993. I feel young again because of this while i am playing with a huge grin on my face.
Seems like you are, so instead of drive by shitposting try to elaborate why?
It wouldn't, but a competent critic should be able to discern that the single player is Doom's focus.
No part of "ratibg the whole package" innately requires docking points for subpar elements; reviews aren't a mechanical science. Since the multiplayer in no way impedes or undermines the single player, there's no reason to weigh it negatively in a holistic review.
People were wanting something that felt more like Doom than the multiplayer currently feels like.
It lacks purpose or direction. Player movement is comparatively slow and restricted, so firefights between half-competent players just straight dps races. Removal of static power ups removes map control as well - there's no flow beyond walking in arbitrary directions looking for foes.
It's far from the worst thing ever, but it ain't great.
This is a very valid point. Agreed.
Do you think it might be a case of them not really knowing what they had? Or maybe just not realizing that there is a market for a straight forward single player shooter?
Yeesh I forgot about that. No wonder I was worried this wouldn't be a game I liked. The glory kills actually don't look slower to me, despite me remembering different. Maybe it's because it looks like he's holding the walk button down when going through the level, it's so much slower.
Dammit critics, you're tearing me apart!!!
I don't agree with this because they're both part of the same game you buy.
Speaking of MP, I had a lot of fun during the beta. I haven't had the itch to play it that it's now released though. I'd like it so much more though if there was a mode with no melee and no demons (and friggen' Deathmatch, c'mon guys!).
This doesn't make sense. They're selling you the whole package. If it was piecemeal I'd agree with this, but the $60 price tag is for all 3 components of this specific game--so why shouldn't part of the whole be considered in the review?
If you think the multiplayer is bad it's important to call that out and explain why. People would be ranting and raving about "boosting the score" or whatever if the MP was totally ignored because the reviewer didn't like it.
You don't know what the consumer is buying the product for. Some people like games purely for their MP, so it's just as important for them to get information about both aspects. Maybe they'll try to SP because the review said good things about it! Maybe they don't care. Unless you're running a niche review site it's pretty important to capture all elements of the game and factor them into the review.
Saying someone isn't competent because they focused on the entirety of the package instead of the "focus" of the game is asinine and a little bit rude.
NullPointer
Member
Its primal, elemental, fuckin' metal, and as a return to a classic series it bucks modern trends to its glory.
Its damn apt a comparison, even if you don't enjoy Fury Road.
Because reviews shouldn't be mechanical evaluations, as if we're looking at tools or furniture.
There's no innate mandate to negatively weigh portions of the game. Reviewers do, of course, since it's an easy way to write than taking a real holistic view of the package.
And you're perpetuating the same incentive against including additional content. If the multiplayer was removed, they've now sold me less but gain additional points. This makes no sense, a buzzard product of overly simplistic reviewing.
I honestly get the impression that the execs at Bethesda are really, really bad at reading the marketplace. Wolfenstein and Doom both felt like smaller projects that gained a lot of momentum due to internal forces as opposed to an order from on-high. They're nothing like anything else Bethesda is putting out, much less the rest of the industry.
From top-to-bottom, Doom was pretty much mishandled outside of the SP gameplay itself. Marketing was absolute garbage, the MP doesn't have nearly the same punch the SP has and SnapMap has seemingly arbitrary limitations due to the MP it's tied to.
Are you sure you're using holistic correctly? The definition itself says it's a view of the whole as opposed to the individual parts--and if those individual parts contribute to the whole being damaged it impacts the whole itself.
A review that sets out to speak to the entirety of the package isn't going by mechanical rote--it's looking at the whole package and marking the entirety of what's been sold to them instead of bisecting the SP and MP. That in itself isn't necessary, but it's absolute dictated by what the reviewer sets out to do. What you're asking for is someone cater to what you want to read. What if someone didn't care about the SP and focused on the MP despite the game's "intent"?
If the multiplayer impacted how much I enjoyed the entire package, should I not include that?
You could argue that if they remove certain elements that frees up time and/or money to ship the game in a different state--or it reduces the cost of making games that's ballooning to ridiculous sizes. I'm totally down for people removing elements of a game that seem to be dragging down the rest of it. Might No. 9 anyone?
Hot damn! That's one glowing review!
Hellshingu
Member
Exactly my thoughts on the game. I am also really glad that he separated the SP from the other 2 modes as I think it stands alone from the rest of the package.
If you're mostly into single player, a good game being given a reduced score due to bad multi gives the impression that you're better off giving the game a skip in favor of other games that might very well have a worse single player component.
On the other hand, if you're mostly into multi, the score could still be misleading by being too high.
I think the only way to go is to base the score on your own personal enjoyment of a game, regardless of where you might have found it, and not try come up with a one size fits all score based on some arbitrary mathematical formula.
I'd agree. I might go far as to say the best stories in gaming aren't even a patch on the ass of the greats in other more established narrative forms. (smoke grenade)
It incentivizes removing redundant and worthless features. As noted, the way the game is presented (down to not providing advance copies) clearly shows that the publisher considers these features important.
lol what. Overwatch feels great to play. Doom's multiplayer is amateur hour in comparison. Don't even get me started on UT4.
I've put plenty of matches in because it seems like they at least tried to emulate arena shooters and I want to give it a fair chance. I've had some fun with it, namely dropping rockets on people who don't look up. Mouse and keyboard controls were certainly an improvement over the PS4 beta I previously played and hated.
But there's a lot fundamentally wrong with it. Feedback, sound in general, loadouts mean there's no reason not to just camp power weapons (which are autoaim idiot proof no skill bullshit). Spawn system is bonkers, it just drops people wherever, combined with the demon nonsense and aforementioned lack of feedback it just feels like deaths come unfairly and out of nowhere. It just annoys the hell out of me.
I guess I don't have a lot of experience with modern console-focused shooters (aside from Halo and Destiny), maybe other people are used to this kind of thing. But even Destiny's supers and OP exotic weapons weren't this obnoxious and it was actually fun and satisfying to play for the most part.
All that said I don't think the multiplayer should bring down the overall score at all. At worst, it sucks and you don't touch it. At best, you actually enjoy it and that's a plus. I mean, it's so separate from the main game that the game actually has to relaunch itself to play it.
The perfect Dark
Banned
i don't care what reviews say about the MP. It's oldschool and super fun to me. Just because there are weapon loadouts doesn't mean it's modern.
Eh, reviews will be reviews. I think the positive word of mouth will put in plenty of work in selling people on the game.
Agree, I'm really enjoying the MP, at least as much if not more than the SP.
Seems like PC players knows where it's at.
If that was truly the case, then sure. And I'm not complaining about the IGN review here.
But you can't make me believe that a theoretical best multiplayer game ever would suddenly become an average game just because they decided to include the worst single player campaign ever.
If if it's a great game that you think is worth playing, the score should reflect that, regardless of whatever undercooked additional content the game might have on offer.
I'd agree with this if you could buy them separately.
Lan Dong Mik
And why would I want them?
I agree too, but it does annoy me to see a site like IGN slap a 7.1 on this when I truly feel it's well beyond just "good" or whatever 7.1 is on their scale. This feels like the best FPS of the year, and a total surprise. I understand it's just an opinion, but it's disappointing to see since I usually agree with IGN's reviews.
keltickennedy
Member
Finally got to play it for an hour over the weekend. Man, that is probably one of the best openings I have seen in a shooter in a while. Mick Gordon is on point. Wolfenstein now this? They have found that special sauce again.
Comrade Crunch
Member
Since when is an 80 on open critic and a 79 on metacritic considered "mixed"?
Some of the reviews may be kind of low, but I'd say it's getting a pretty warm reception, which is far more than I could have hoped for prior to release.
Hellshingu
Member
I think it mainly has to do with the praise the game is getting from some. There are multiple reviews and people calling it the best FPS they have played in a long time and many claiming that it will probably be the best FPS experience they will get all year.
With that kind of praise a high 70's metacritic doesn't really reflect that all reviewers and players share that same opinion hence him saying it is 'mixed'. If people were throwing around the aforementioned praise I am sure many people would expect high 80's to low 90's to represent it. Either way the word of mouth has done this game well and hopefully will prove to some people to not put all their stock in a number off a website for all their gaming interests.
Does anyone know the best place to get a key for Doom on PC? In the Hitman thread a few weeks ago someone referred me to a reliable/trusted Ebay seller, and steamgifts.
Steamgifts really confused me and I'm not too sure how it works exactly, but the Ebay seller worked great and I got a copy for an amazing price.
Does anyone have any suggestions for Doom? Feel free to please reply here or PM me.
Thanks!
Steamgifts really confused me and I'm not too sure how it works exactly, but the Ebay seller worked great and I got a copy for an amazing price.
Does anyone have any suggestions for Doom? Feel free to please reply here or PM me.
Thanks!
I just went GMG with their 20 percent off special.
store.steampowered.com
TheCanisDirus
Member
I don't understand it either. I feel like the movement is dialed in... the maps are very well designed with multiple paths high/medium/low... the weapons are all fairly balanced now and there a plenty of game modes. It's a LOT of fun. I think some wanted it to be a UT-esq arena clone but it's a neat, modern-hybrid. The MP is not Overwatch-good... but it's def COD/Halo good.
mixed, to me, would be some 6s, 7s, 9s, some 8s, etc. If they're all around the same score it's hardly mixed. an 80 would be considered 'good' these days, but mostly a pass imo. Problem is, a lot of the way games are reviewed these days tends to favor samey experiences and trends, whereas games that try something new but have some flaws get rated lower even though they might be a lot fresher of an experience. doom isn't really either, funny enough, but it does rekindle that long lost fps feel that made shooters so great to begin with, and brings it into the modern age with a rip and tear
I think the best thing to do is find 1-3 review outlets that tend to have similar taste to you so you can trust their input and use them as reference
Best FPS I have played in a long ass time.
I didn't play any of the alpha/beta tests, pretty much decided I wasn't buying it on what I'd seen from the gameplay trailers. I am so glad that I changed my mind.
The multiplayer is really fucking fun, I still have a few levels to go in the campaign but I keep finding myself loading the MP instead - I genuinely thought I would not like it, it's sweet F.A. like Halo etc. as I keep seeing it compared to. I have my feet firmly placed in the "old school" camp, but this game did it. Hats off to id software.
I didn't play any of the alpha/beta tests, pretty much decided I wasn't buying it on what I'd seen from the gameplay trailers. I am so glad that I changed my mind.
The multiplayer is really fucking fun, I still have a few levels to go in the campaign but I keep finding myself loading the MP instead - I genuinely thought I would not like it, it's sweet F.A. like Halo etc. as I keep seeing it compared to. I have my feet firmly placed in the "old school" camp, but this game did it. Hats off to id software.
ShadowSoldier89
Member
If review scores would disappear these reviews could simply "Great single palyer, shitty MP" and everyone would get everything they need out of them
freethoughtbubble
Member
Legit in love with this game. Put me in the camp of those legitimately surprised that this impulse red box rental turned out so wonderfully. Gonna buy it asap. Really hoping that the stellar word of mouth is enough to propel this game up the charts. It deserves it.
Version 3.0
Member
I'm really enjoying it.
As a big Doom fan, I wouldn't say this really captures the feel of the original Doom all that well - Serious Sam is still the full 3D Doom experience, IMO. This game has Doom's setting, but it plays more like Quake, I think.
That's not really a complaint, though, just an observation. It's incredibly well crafted and I can't get enough.
As a big Doom fan, I wouldn't say this really captures the feel of the original Doom all that well - Serious Sam is still the full 3D Doom experience, IMO. This game has Doom's setting, but it plays more like Quake, I think.
That's not really a complaint, though, just an observation. It's incredibly well crafted and I can't get enough.
RedAssedApe
Banned
reviewing about the same as W:TNO
i'll probably rent it to check out the campaign. wish they didn't go the loadout route for MP. poor rocket launcher
i'll probably rent it to check out the campaign. wish they didn't go the loadout route for MP. poor rocket launcher
Quake is such a slow game though. And it favors caution and being passive more so than old or new Doom.
Don't get me wrong, I love Quake. I just don't see this.
Broadbandito
Member
I played multiplayer for 10 hours this weekend on ps4. Can't get enough of it. So simple and old school and 60 fps on console is so good.
Vire
Member
You underrated Hyper Light Drifter, but it's okay... I can forgive you.
(cool, thanks for the write up.)
Yeah, the multiplayer is really just a bonus. It's actually quite fun and is not bad at all.