• 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

CantTrickMe

Neo Member
Seems like you are, so instead of drive by shitposting try to elaborate why?

First of all, I dont owe you, nor anyone for that matter, an explanation as to why I dont like something. Second, regardless of what I say, you and horde of other "white knights" will defend the games honor until death do you part. I was genuinely wondering if I was the only only who thought the game was bad.

To entertain you, here are a few things I thought were bad. Campaign with a small amount of viable story or lore. Instead of feeling like I was in hell or hell was on Earth, I felt like I was on Mars. To add to my list of dislikes, I found myself going through repetitive motions when fighting enemies: Shoot until a blue outline shows up then execute(which became sorely repetitive quickly), I found pvp to be a very bad, wannabe CoD/Halo and there are many more I could get into but for sake of time I wont.

If you, or anyone else likes the game, then good for you. I dont like the game. To reiterate, I am genuinely wondering if I was the only one who disliked it.
 

seph1roth

Member
Those reviews make me sad and angry at the same time.

This is the best FPS i've played since HL2, i don't understand this, gaming has changed definitively, even for the press.
 

winstano

Member
Well it looks like id/Bethesda made the right choice, SP is brilliant but the MP seems to drag the score down. Word of mouth is basically selling the game right now before the reviews hit.

But the reviews are hitting and they're almost universally positive...
 

K' Dash

Member
I can think of only ONE game comparable to Doom and thats FEAR, everything else is just filler.

Any score below 8 should be ridiculed and the site should be banned from now on.
 

The Flash

Banned
There is a 7.1 from ign and a 50 from some other site, I mean it's not too bad but word of mouth probably got this game a decent chunk of sales

It's pretty inconsequential but a big YouTuber named Markiplier is doing a full playthrough of the game. He's a huge Doom fan and he's enjoying the new one so far. Might convince a few of his 12+ million subscribers to get the game.

NX Gamer just put up their tech analysis. Haven't read it but the subtitle for it is "A demonic display of technical mastery".
 

jennetics

Member
Is that Polygon quote about the control scheme for real? I can't access the review at work, but I'm assuming that's not real...

It can't be real...right??
 

Slixshot

Banned
Thinking about buying the season pass to support the game more. I don't want bullshit reviews leading to poor income for this game :(
 

Reebot

Member
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.

My use is correct; holistic, viewing each part only as it relates to the whole, not in isolation. Doom's multiplayer is harmless, at worst without merit but not detracting from the core of the game. There's no purpose in holding it against the final score, unless one feels compelled to equally weight all aspects of a game - which is mechanical, arbitrary, and foolish.
 
Thinking about buying the season pass to support the game more. I don't want bullshit reviews leading to poor income for this game :(

Your season pass money won't make a difference. Don't buy it, please. It's all multiplayer stuff anyway, and you and I both know the multiplayer isn't going to last long enough for you to see the full value of the content the season pass promises.
 

FireRises

Member
I disagree with IGN's review, but again, that's just one person's opinion. People put too much weight into these scores, they're arbitrary at best.
 

Neiteio

Member
My use is correct; holistic, viewing each part only as it relates to the whole, not in isolation. Doom's multiplayer is harmless, at worst without merit but not detracting from the core of the game. There's no purpose in holding it against the final score, unless one feels compelled to equally weight all aspects of a game - which is mechanical, arbitrary, and foolish.
I don't want to see this game get anything less than a 10. That being said, since multiplayer is there, someone might buy the game for the multiplayer. In that sense, I think it's fair to bake an assessment of the multiplayer into the game's overall score.

Ideally, though, score-based reviews would feature two scores: One for single-player, one for multiplayer, since often gamers are interested in one or the other.

I do share your concern that penalizing a great single-player game for a bonus multiplayer mode is poor incentive for devs to include such extras.
 

ISee

Member
Thinking about buying the season pass to support the game more. I don't want bullshit reviews leading to poor income for this game :(

I'd buy a singleplayer DLC (or season pass) without hesitation. But the multiplayer season pass? no, thank you.

Keep in mind that the original Doom received similar complaints from some of the critics. For example, EDGE magazine gave the original Doom a 7/10, saying it was just "kill, kill, kill".

from the article said:
lf only you could talk to these creatures, then perhaps you could try and make friends with them, form alliances… Now, that would be interesting.

I laughed.
 

A-V-B

Member
The multiplayer mode isn't bad. Like, it functions.

But it's just not interesting. It's like drinking skim milk at a Christmas party after finishing a cup of egg nog.
 

Sylas

Member
My use is correct; holistic, viewing each part only as it relates to the whole, not in isolation. Doom's multiplayer is harmless, at worst without merit but not detracting from the core of the game. There's no purpose in holding it against the final score, unless one feels compelled to equally weight all aspects of a game - which is mechanical, arbitrary, and foolish.

I'm 100% misunderstanding what you're getting at. If you want to examine something as it relates to the whole, examining the component that potentially taints the whole is just as important.

Doom's multiplayer is, subjectively, harmless. Some people may find it absolutely atrocious and that's well within their right. If it colors their perception of the whole product because the multiplayer is a part of the entire package they're well within their right to rate the entire product.

You really shouldn't call something arbitrary and foolish in such an authoritative manner when someone's enjoyment of an aspect of the game can color their enjoyment of the overall product. It's entirely subjective (not that it makes it not worth discussing) but telling someone they're "wrong" for saying the game would've been better with a stronger MP mode/is made a lesser product due to it's weak MP is ridiculous.

I do share your concern that penalizing a great single-player game for a bonus multiplayer mode is poor incentive for devs to include such extras.
Again, I point at Might No. 9 as an example of how removing certain features can be a good thing. The multiplayer aspect of the game may be good... but is it going to be so good that it makes up for the ruined good-will Inafune generated? I'm not entirely certain; But I do think many fans would be happier without a multiplayer component as it led to a massive delay several times.
 

Spoo

Member
The game is damn good. I'm having a blast playing this right now.

Why Bethesda had no confidence in it whatsoever ?

There might be a difference between having confidence in your game, and having confidence in critics to understand what they did here -- I mean, letting players make their own decisions here, and word of mouth spreading, has actually created more excitement surrounding Doom than I think a few 7/8/9s would. People are comparing this games combat to FEAR, some think it's the most fun they've had with an FPS for a decade... I don't think a number motivates people in the same way just hearing impressions from other players have. It's been a lot of fun so far without the number fights.
 
The multiplayer mode isn't bad. Like, it functions.

But it's just not interesting. It's like drinking skim milk at a Christmas party after finishing a cup of egg nog.

Eh, to each their own. I love the MP. There is nothing else like it on the market right now.
 

A-V-B

Member
Eh, to each their own. I love the MP. There is nothing else like it on the market right now.

Yeah, to each to their own. It comes across to me as the exact opposite. It feels like a mish-mash that doesn't excel at any one particular element. Except maybe skin customization, but even then it's not as if you can make your own models like in the old days. No one's gonna be rocking Homer Simpson with a chainsaw.
 
I don't care about review scores but those scores affect sales.

Are there any factual numbers or evidence to prove this, though? People say this a lot, with nothing to back it up. A good game will sell on word of mouth alone. Your average gaming consumers make up the majority and are casuals. They don't even go online and look at review scores/things like Metacritic. They just buy what looks interesting, or what their friends and family are talking about.

Dying Light has a score that a lot of us nerds on the internet would second guess at first glance because it's not 90+. We're in the minority, and the game still sold over 5M copies.(and I think that's just for physical)

Quick edit:

I do think you could be correct. Review scores may affect sales, but the majority of gamers don't even care about review scores and if sales were affected, it wouldn't be by much.
 
The vast majority of good games don't sell much, word of mouth or otherwise.

That's because the marketing for a lot of those titles was piss poor or next to none at all. That being said, good game or bad game is all subjective. Hard to really say one way or the other if the vast majority don't sell.
 

Ixion

Member
I predicted this game would get an average in the low-80s. This just isn't the type of game that receives universal acclaim. If you're not an open-world game, a cinematic story-based game, or some type of charming/artsy indie game, you won't get universal acclaim.

I predicted low-80s because while this doesn't fit the above criteria, I knew it would be top-notch at what it's trying to achieve. And low-80s is the ceiling.
 
Top Bottom