Defending DOOM 3
I’ve read this on a few sites, but I’ll start with some nested quotes from EvilAvatar:
From EG:
Quote:
Id Software CEO Todd Hollenshead has defended Doom III’s reputation, pointing out that the four-year-old first-person shooter is “the most successful game in id’s history.”
Asked by Kikizo whether there were any ‘weaknesses in Doom III that need to be corrected’ for upcoming multiformat racing/shooting hybrid Rage, Hollenshead rejected the premise completely. “I think there are three people on the internet that keep making these posts that Doom 3 was ‘bad’, and they get no credibility from any other people… there’s some mass-misperception out there,” he said. “I get this occasionally - why don’t I think Doom III was successful? We sold over three million units! It’s the most successful game in id’s history.”Read the full article.
How can 3 people create ‘Mass Misperception’? Sorry Todd… but I think Doom 3 was Doom 2 with new textures and real time shadows.
As I’ve said, I’ve read similar views on a few different sites in the past day or so. Can anyone tell me where this is coming from all of a sudden? All the people I talked to who played DOOM 3 when it was new agreed that it was a pretty frightening experience, though maybe it eventually becomes a little repetitive. I remember reading all these articles about how revolutionary the graphics were and how they were actually attached to a good game. Now all of a sudden everyone remembers it as being a festering piece of pewp? I remember thinking it was the scariest game I’ve played in the dark at 2AM since Silent Hill.
DOOM 2 but with better graphics? DOOM 3 had an actual story with actual characters. DOOM 2 was just run-shoot-shoot-shoot-run-shoot-grab key-shoot-shoot-…oh, and by the way you’re now in Hell!! Fun, but not really a completely immersive experience. They felt like completely differnet games to me. Is it just that I’m the only one with rose-colored hindsight glasses?
