Where Does Doom 2016 Rank in the list of Greatest of all time FPS?



  • So my friends, New Doom is released and raise the bar high for FPS genre recently. but where do you think it will rank? Will it be classic in future? will it consider to be revival of FPS genre? lets discuss the influnce of this masterpiece.

    I personally think its Best AAA FPS since Crysis 1. it is the game that open the door for other games in FPS genre and success of this game will lead to better future of FPS instead of same stale coll of doty and Battlefeelds.

    Lets Discuss



  • Nah. While Doom is a good game, It didn't do anything so revolutionary that could be considered to significantly raise the bar or to be considered the revival of the genre. And while it may not become a classic by itself, it may bring that title to it as a franchise. It is in my opinion a franchise with the best overall FPS games, above COD, Battlefield etc.

    Why I don't praise it so high is because, I am not sure it would even be best shooter or even FPS of 2016. Compared with last year when the genre was very stagnant indeed, this year it has a severe competition. Just look at the list: Overwatch, Titanfall 2, Deus Ex (debatable), Shadow Warrior 2.
    And even Battlefield and COD are doing something new. Hate it all you want (understandably) but I was very impressed by the Infinite Warfare gameplay at E3. And I have played Battlefield 1 open beta, and honestly, I have enjoyed it more than Doom. The sheer map size and its openness and strategy required for it makes it fun, even to play that single map over and over again. So calling these two franchises "same stale coll" is understatement. Both are trying something new, and the way I see it they are succeeding.

    If last year was the year of the RPG genre, this is the year of the FPS. And while Doom was released as the first one of the bunch, it's not like they started to develop all these other games after they saw how Doom looked, so Doom cannot be considered like a sort of Messiah of the FPS. it's a great game, but it's not nowhere revolutionary as it was its predecessor and compared to its competition now.



  • It's a throwback to the good old times released in not as good times for the genre and polished up to today's production quality. It'll be remembered as the new game that did what the old games did, but without some of the little niggly things that you forget about when remembering the old ones. I think it owes a lot of the fame and attention it gets to being refreshing, however, because I can't imagine it gets nearly as much praise in a world where the ice skate run and gun gameplay didn't skip almost 2 generations due to Halo and CoD forcing every other game into their styles.

    The only thing "revolutionary" about it is that it proves to publishers that the old style can still succeed, which is a really good thing in the sense that a broader spectrum gives more opportunity for good games that wouldn't have been made to exist. I still wouldn't herald its greatness based on that fact alone, though, since it's really just opening a door in a house that its predecessor built 20 years ago.



  • @Nillend I think recent FPS's have lowered the bar in terms of average quality. (Level design, weapon balancing, pacing, etc.)

    DOOM 2016 was a return to form. Plain and simple. The only other singleplayer FPS that even came close recently is Wolfenstein. (I'm not intimately familiar with Wolfenstein though).

    Comparing it to older games performed isn't really fair to me. It's apples and oranges because the market wasn't saturated, there wasn't nearly as much competition, so making something that "raises the bar" isn't all that difficult, it just requires creativity.



  • @Stormcrownn True, it was return to form, but it didn't raise it huge amount.

    Edit: By recent FPS's you mean games from last year? True, while it outperforms shooters from last year, and could potentially "raise the bar" this way, it's not special compared to the games that have/will come out this year. And there were great FPS's not long before that.
    And to me it seems controversial to correlate Doom and creativity. Sure, the game needed to capture legendariness (yes, that's a word now) of its predecessor, which does require innovation and they definitely succeed, but it's because of that same Doom-like gameplay they strived for, that makes creativity here questionable.

    My point here is though, that if Doom came out after some of the FPS's I listed before, we probably wouldn't have this conversation, because all of those games are at least on par with Doom, some even surpassing it. When the bar was set so low last year, it was only a question of time before it would get back up again. It just so happened that Doom was at the right place at the right time.



  • @Nillend I edited that post...didn't like the way it read before.



  • @Nillend said in Where Does Doom 2016 Rank in the list of Greatest of all time FPS?:

    Why I don't praise it so high is because, I am not sure it would even be best shooter or even FPS of 2016. Compared with last year when the genre was very stagnant indeed, this year it has a severe competition. Just look at the list: Overwatch, Titanfall 2, Deus Ex (debatable), Shadow Warrior 2.

    Huh? Overwatch is a casual multiplayer class based shooter while Doom is an extremely well polished and designed single player shooter. Even if you want to factor in the MP aspect of Doom it is not the focus or what makes that game good. Even so Doom is a more "complete" game, especially when you factor in Snapmap.
    Titanfall 2 and Shadow Warrior 2 isn't out yet so assuming that they will outlcass one of the best FPS games in years is extreme optimism.

    And even Battlefield and COD are doing something new. Hate it all you want (understandably) but I was very impressed by the Infinite Warfare gameplay at E3. And I have played Battlefield 1 open beta, and honestly, I have enjoyed it more than Doom. The sheer map size and its openness and strategy required for it makes it fun, even to play that single map over and over again. So calling these two franchises "same stale coll" is understatement. Both are trying something new, and the way I see it they are succeeding.

    I don't see how Battlefield or CoD is pushing the genre forward. They still play like they always did. It's mostly just some changes smaller changes to the settings and guns. For example while Black Ops 3 was a very solid shooter, it's still stuck in this rather tired old design.
    From a game design perspective Doom is actually very impressive. Not only because it modernized a classic shooter but in terms of level design, weapon balance and the unobtrusive storytelling, but how it changed the way you play.
    A ton of shooters (almost all of them) nowadays are cover based with regenerating health and with aiming down the sights, creating a very defensive way of playing that can often result in a pacebreaking gameplay experience.
    So what Doom did might not seem like a big deal to some, but it IS. In this day and age making a big budget shooter that plays very differently from almost every other game on the market is a huge risk. But Doom took that risk and actually delivered far beyond people's expectations.
    Something I also feel is noteworthy is how Doom made you think strategically while you played, something I can't even remember the last time a shooter actually did. From having to change weapons (not only to suit the sitation but because the designers designed it so you actually ran out of ammo and were forced to not stick to 1 gun) to resource management (powerups, health pickups, armor pickups, etc.). Even the chainsaw and how it functions is great because it is organically integrated into the aggressive playstyle as a way to recover ammo and not just a 1 hit kill. The weapon itself is a resource.

    From a pure game design perspective, Doom is actually brilliant. So when you say stuff like CoD or Battlefield are doing more impressive stuff I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    What Doom did IS special. The fact that even Deus Ex (HR and MD) have been tainted by modern game design makes this especially clear.
    I would easily rank this Doom in the 20s of top FPS games, probably even in the top 10s. While most big shooters today are merely iterations, Doom was actually a reinvention of what shooters can be.
    It's your opinion yes, but it actually blows my mind how some people can so nonchalantly handwave away this Doom.



  • @suplextrain I'm good at blowing people's mind :D
    Speaking of mind blowing (smooth transition), aside from visually extreme visual effects like exploding demons' heads, I don't see Doom moving genre much forward the same way you don't see Battlefield, COD, Overwatch... doing it. To me, Doom doesn't represent something I would call innovative. You have demons, another form of undead, that you have to shoot. That praise that you give to the constant movement necessary in Doom: I don't like it, it's not my playstyle. After a while, the pattern gets repetitive: enter the room, run for your life, shoot on sight, watch same animations as you bash heads all over again, repeat. The design of Demons and levels is great, as is game overall, but to me, it's not that miraculous almighty titan of the industry. People will probably remember this game for quite some time, but I forgot about it completely, and was just reminded it existed by this thread.



  • @Nillend said in Where Does Doom 2016 Rank in the list of Greatest of all time FPS?:

    @suplextrain I'm good at blowing people's mind :D
    Speaking of mind blowing (smooth transition), aside from visually extreme visual effects like exploding demons' heads, I don't see Doom moving genre much forward the same way you don't see Battlefield, COD, Overwatch... doing it.

    I think the problem here is that you're looking for something that is too easily noticable. Like the change between auto-regenerating health and non-regenerating health is something you notice instantly, while game design, resource management are things you don't notice instantly (some people don't even think about it at all).
    You think about Doom on a more shallow level. As in "Well there's no cover and auto-regenerating health, ok" and just play the game. Nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean that all the smaller changes and design decisions are irrelevant, because together they form a pretty significant change.
    It's easy to see how different Doom actually is from most shooters of today by simply doing something like changing the health system to an auto-regenerating one. The entire game would be broken. The level design, enemies, weapons and so on are all designed around not having auto-regen health.

    Now when we look at a game like Battlefield 1... what exactly is pushing the genre forward here? There are no big shifts in how you play, the level design, game design or anything like that. It's the same old Battlefield with a different coat of paint and with minor additons/tweaks that are more like gimmicks. They do not alter the foundation of how you play the game or an FPS in general.
    So I really want to hear why you think Battlefield 1 for example is so much more innovative and pushing the genre forward.

    To me, Doom doesn't represent something I would call innovative. You have demons, another form of undead, that you have to shoot.

    What the...? Are you implying that the Demons move and behave like zombies or something? Because they distinctly don't. They all have very different approaches to how they try to kill you and they're all not mindlessly running in a straight line towards you. The Imps do not behave like Hell Knights, the Summoner does not behave like the Mancubus, the Cacodemon does not behave like the Hell Razer, the Revenant does not behave like a Possessed Security.
    Or are you saying that the type of enemy isn't innovative? That because they're not some wierd alien race or something that we've never seen before that somehow makes them boring or bad? Then what are normal humans like in CoD or Battlefield if not bland?

    That praise that you give to the constant movement necessary in Doom: I don't like it, it's not my playstyle. After a while, the pattern gets repetitive: enter the room, run for your life, shoot on sight, watch same animations as you bash heads all over again, repeat.

    .... what? How does freedom to approach combat however you want become boring/repetitive? How is sitting behind cover taking potshots at enemies ad infinitum more engaging and less repetitive? In most modern games it's not even satisfying to shoot enemies since they barely react to your attacks. It's not like games like Binary Domain is the standard where you see bits of the enemies flying off with every shot and you literally shoot them to pieces by blowing their limbs off.
    I can understand if you've played so much modern shooters (or maybe exclusively?) that playing something different is out of your comfort zone, but I really can't wrap my head around it being repetitive/boring? It's even less repetitive overall than say CoD since the game actually gives you room to explore the enviroment (which is more open) for collectibles, powerups and more. It also has challenges and challenge rooms.
    Meanwhile in a game like CoD it's literally just a string of chained together scripted combat engagements along a very linear path that gets closed off behind you as you proceed along the level. Even areas where you think are more open you'll run into invisible walls or have 5 seconds to "return to the combat zone". It's a very directed experience with little freedom. In most cases there are specific triggers required for you to progress, like enemies will infinitely respawn until you blow up that one tank (for some reason) or walk up a hill.
    Yes going on guided tours can be fun, but isn't the freedom to look at and do whatever you want refreshing?

    Well whatever, it's clear we're very very different in how we approach games and what our opinions on games are. I don't think we'll be able to see eye to eye.