Re: They're Making A New Doom

On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:27:13 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

Am 10.06.24 um 02:06 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

I mean, I'd still rather the industry stop relying on old IPs as a
crutch and create new stuff instead, but I can't deny/some/  interest
in this game. But the fact that it's yet-another-sequel does push it
back from instant 'must buy' to 'we'll see, maybe when its on sale or
part of HumbleBundle'.

I stopped playing doom after Doom 1...
I have not missed anything, YMMV, but for me this was a one time event
where a ton of things came together, but shooters are generally not my
favorite kind of thing. I personally from a technical achievement would
rate Ultima Underworld and System Shock way higher, but Doom with its
nob brain shooter elements was longer lasting and spawned more or less
as initial explotion an entire genre of dumb shooters...

I don't know if I'd rank "Underworld" a higher technical achievement
than "Doom". Both games were aiming for different things, after all.

Do not mistake me; I love "Underworld" and I greatly admire it, both
for its technical achievements and for its gameplay. And in some
respects, yes, "Underworld" was superior to Carmack's "Doom" engine.
But in other respects, "Doom" -specifically, its ability to render
full-screen first-person action at a blistering framerate- was
incredibly impressive, and surpassed Looking Glass's (well, Blue Sky
Software, at the time) efforts.

TL;DR: it's an apple-to-oranges comparison and I think both engines
were great at what they did, neither superior nor inferior to the
other. ;-)

That said: there's one game I still play more regularly than the
other... and as much as I love "Underworld", it got a lot less
playtime in 2024 than "Doom".