Re: They're Making A New Doom

On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 06:55:11 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 6/10/2024 3:55 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 18:35:18 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
 

Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:27:56 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

>
Oh man, I forgot about all those clones.  All those you mention were
great.  Doom has a special place as it was the thing that really
launched that type of play, but actual game-play wise I lied all those
better.

There were a lot of TERRIBLE clones though. Games like "Island Peril"
and "Corridor 7". "In Pursuit of Greed" or "Shellshock". "Terminator:
Rampage" and "Zephyr" and "The Fortress of Dr. Radiaki".

So, so many bad riffs off the "Doom" formula. It wasn't that they none
of them had good ideas; many of them pushed the genre forward a little
bit. But a lot of them were just poorly designed and programmed, with
either terrible art, horrible gameplay, or horriffic optimizations.

For every "Dark Forces", there were three "Chemical Warfares". Looking
back, though, we only remember the good games and not the many, many
terrible ones.

But even with the successful games, I have a hard time saying they
were necessarily BETTER than "Doom". Most of them were "Doom... but
more". "Dark Forces" was "Doom... but in the Star Wars Universe and a
bit more story, puzzles, and 'realistic' map design." I'm not sure
that makes it BETTER than "Doom". Id's game had a purity to it (not to
mention novelty) that has stood the test of time a lot better than
many of its successors. I'm not saying "Doom" is the better title
either. Just that I've a hard time comparing them as equals.

TL;DR: I love "Doom". But I love a lot of its imitators too ;-)