Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games(theguardian.com) |
Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games(theguardian.com) |
Every time I dip into modern games (usually watching a friend play), the complexity wears me out. So Romero’s point about ‘modern shooters turning into inventory games’ resonated - I’m not sure if I ever completed Doom or Duke Nukem 3D, but both definitely felt like you could just run with them and have fun in a way I don’t feel with today’s AAA options.
Maybe I’m just old. Or having too much sex.
What's actually wrong, I think, is that most FPS's just don't have interesting gameplay. They've failed to learn the lesson DOOM taught: it isn't about the weapons and the shooting, it's about the movement.
What makes DOOM so fun isn't the aiming and pulling a trigger bit, indeed, DOOM can only aim in one dimension anyway. What makes DOOM fun is the way the enemies' behavior and attack patterns interact with your movement and positioning, and how your current weapon's mechanics are best exploited. It's about a complex and dynamic interplay of positioning and distance. Taking on multiple enemy types at once means solving a multiple variable problem in real time. Doom 2016 did a pretty good job getting this right.
This! The complexity of so many modern games turns me off from them. Have to learn a bunch of complicated systems? Sounds way too much like my day job.
Ever seen Lightbot, TIS-100 or Shenzhen I/O?
however we have to acknowledge there many types of players, from those who min max to those who just want to point and click
It becomes complex when you start adding perks to your overall character or class, or when you're able to upgrade weapons. That complexity increases exponentially when you throw in 30 other possible primary weapons that someone can be using, along with their skills and upgrades. That's why when we have a cycle of balance issues, there's always one gun that gets swapped as being the new favorite amongst players.
Of course there's some games that thrive on an uneven balance. There's a reason why the AK and M4 have been the most sought after weapons in Counter-Strike for nearly 20 years.
I’ve heard one of the Commander Keen developers did not like the direction id and gaming was heading with Wolfenstein already. Would be interesting to read a modern day interview with him.
Got mild hopes that streaming will improve things as it won’t only select a market of people who are already very financially committed to this hobby. Very curious about how Stadia will turn out.
Perhaps Tom Hall? There's this recent audio interview [1] with him that seems interesting, thanks for the hint!
[1] https://www.devgameclub.com/blog/2018/1/17/dgc-ep-096-tom-ha...
Anachronox is probably the best example of what he thought was a 'proper' game, and while I've never had the chance to play it, I understand it was a very underappreciated gem in it's day.
I see the same cycle repeating. Anybody wanting to do a story in games should make sure their leadership is secure on that. Big dumb cheesy gameplay is back.
The ludology/narrative split in games is always there even if you pick only one side. Walking sims still have gameplay and multiplayer first person shooters still have lore & world building.
If you play on Windows, it's $5.39 in GOG: https://www.gog.com/game/anachronox
It has a fleshed out world with characters, big green blocks you can touch to get lore and story progression via action. Smashing the argent accumulators opens hell and progresses the story.
You may have ignored all that, but it is there.
'Just gameplay' is beat saber or DDR or a gameplay prototype. Go play them.
John Romero created the original Doom, not 2016.