Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games

#11

Post by severine »

lisptw102019 wrote: post #8
severine wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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...

Probably Tom Hall. The breaking point for him was Doom; When you look at the level of interactivity/story in Doom 3, consider that it was 'closer' to his vision for the original than what was released in 1993. 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.

Thanks, I'm having a great time reading about Anachronox!

If you play on Windows, it's $5.39 in GOG: https://www.gog.com/game/anachronox

Re: Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games

#12

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

JacobAldridge wrote: post #2

My gaming never really evolved past the golden year of 1998, when Age of Empires was greater than Command and Conquer, and Goldeneye on the N64 with three friends was better than sex (not that anyone gave me that option). 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…

As another comment pointed out, modern shooters have actually become simpler overall since Halo popularized the limit on how many guns you could carry and regenerating health.

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.

Re: Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games

#13

Post by pathartl »

esyir wrote: post #4
JacobAldridge wrote: post #2

My gaming never really evolved past the golden year of 1998, when Age of Empires was greater than Command and Conquer, and Goldeneye on the N64 with three friends was better than sex (not that anyone gave me that option). 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…

I'll strongly disagree there on the shooters though. Old shooters has a plethora of weapons with inventory (perfect dark, goldeneye, half life) modern shooters have primary, secondary and sidearm. That's simpler, if anything. The shooter experience has been heavily streamlined.

I think the article addresses this. It calls into question the disposable nature of guns in games now and how balance affects gameplay. We've seen this with the new CoD Modern Warfare where the over-under is way unbalanced and is being abused. When you're only given a primary and a sidearm, every other gun in the game becomes useless.

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.

Re: Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games

#14

Post by netrap »

Just finished Doom (1993) for the first time on switch the other day. I really enjoyed the soundtrack, but the main thing that caught my attention was the absolutely dark rooms where a monster would jump out. Funny about the secret rooms, I didn't get in any until the later levels.

Re: Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games

#15

Post by codesushi42 »

friendlybus wrote: post #9

Romero always wanted a better story and got beaten out by Carmack's appreciation for simply quantity inside id. 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.

I want gameplay, I could care less about some big dumb story.

Re: Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games

#16

Post by friendlybus »

codesushi42 wrote: post #15
friendlybus wrote: post #9

Romero always wanted a better story and got beaten out by Carmack's appreciation for simply quantity inside id. 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.

I want gameplay, I could care less about some big dumb story.

Billion dollar franchises have always included a big dumb story, CoD, Warcraft, Diablo, Elder Scrolls ect. Even Doom has a story it's just there to be pushed aside, but still is a story. Pushing aside the story is part of what makes that game great fun.

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.

Re: Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games

#17

Post by codesushi42 »

friendlybus wrote: post #16
codesushi42 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want gameplay, I could care less about some big dumb story.

Billion dollar franchises have always included a big dumb story, CoD, Warcraft, Diablo, Elder Scrolls ect. Even Doom has a story it's just there to be pushed aside, but still is a story. Pushing aside the story is part of what makes that game great fun. 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 hav…

You are wrong. Dead wrong. Doom does not have a big dumb story, dialogue, cut scenes etc. It has great gameplay, pure and true.

Re: Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games

#18

Post by friendlybus »

codesushi42 wrote: post #17
friendlybus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billion dollar franchises have always included a big dumb story, CoD, Warcraft, Diablo, Elder Scrolls ect. Even Doom has a story it's just there to be pushed aside, but still is a story. Pushing aside the story is part of what makes that game great fun. 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 hav…

You are wrong. Dead wrong. Doom does not have a big dumb story, dialogue, cut scenes etc. It has great gameplay, pure and true.

It literally has scenes where you do not shoot things, are not allowed to shoot things and cannot shoot things so that you can listen to Samuel Hayden tell you what you have to do. Or Vega. Or Olivia. You have passageways in levels that are empty of gameplay with voice over that cleverly looks like gameplay but is the same as a walking simulator. It has rooms that lock you in and give you 30sec of voice over and visuals to tell you what's happening and you get a power up at the end.

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.

Re: Doom creator John Romero on what's wrong with modern shooter games

#20

Post by Shivetya »

donatj wrote: post #3
JacobAldridge wrote: post #2

My gaming never really evolved past the golden year of 1998, when Age of Empires was greater than Command and Conquer, and Goldeneye on the N64 with three friends was better than sex (not that anyone gave me that option). 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…

> the complexity wears me out 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.

quite a few strategy games, looking at you PDX, are so damn close just being excel/access with pretty graphics they end up as a slog instead of fun.

however we have to acknowledge there many types of players, from those who min max to those who just want to point and click

Post reply on HN