Sections

Doom 3 BFG Edition reviews: a loss of perspective?

Tuesday, 23rd October 2012 15:21 GMT By Dave Cook

Doom 3: BFG Edition launched last week, and critical reaction was mixed to poor at best. VG247′s Dave Cook calls for a reality check.

Nostalgia’s a funny old thing isn’t it? It can turn the most level-headed person into a frothing fan boy at the drop of a hat, especially if they connect some kind of cherished memory to a particular game.

Everyone has a game from their childhood that they hold close to the heart, and it’s one of those fiercely subjective topics that spurs endless debate on forums.

I’m as guilty of this as the next man, especially when my all-time favourite game Streets of Rage 2 is involved. I’ll foolishly defend that game to the ends of the Earth, just because it signifies a great time in my life.

This is natural, but what happens when we revisit our most cherished titles and find out that they actually weren’t anything special, or say they’ve dated horribly. It’s kind of disheartening.

“It’s like kicking down a kid who’s just fallen off his bike. It’s cheap to savage a studio that has simply reworked one of its games.”

Last week, id Software and Bethesda launched Doom 3: BFG Edition, a remastered edition of the 2004 original. It currently holds an Xbox 360 Metacritic score of 64, with many reviewers commenting on how poorly the game has aged.

Now, I’m not an expert on Doom 3 – because I’ve only played the old Xbox version, and from what I hear, it’s crap compared to the PC build. But isn’t it a bit silly to slam a re-release of an old game in this manner?

What were people expecting? It was never billed as a full remake of Doom 3, similar to last year’s remake of Halo: Combat Evolved. Instead, it was a polishing job, with new textures, slicker frame rate, slightly reworked areas and other tweaks.


Ugh…the zombies in Black Ops were SO much better.

The FPS genre has come a long way since 2004 thanks – like it or not – to Battlefield, Call of Duty and Halo’s influence. id Software weren’t mind-readers back then, they didn’t know that Doom 3 would one day be graded against today’s criteria.

It’s like kicking down a kid who’s just fallen off his bike. It’s cheap to savage a studio that has simply reworked one of its games and bundled it with the first two Doom titles, in an attempt to bring its franchise to a wider audience. They’re fielding opinion for Doom 4, essentially.

”Sometimes critics can lose perspective when revisiting old games, or indeed playing remastered editions. What do you judge them against? Is it a case of stacking them against modern expectations – with frankly have become stupidly high these days.”

Sure, even I’ve had infuriating moments while playing it. The aiming mechanic feels weird to me – I’m a self proclaimed Call of Duty fan, you see – the enemy AI gets tripped up at times, and the textures can look a little tired at points.

But it’s a nostalgia trip, and actually if you think back to what shooters were around in 2004 and compare them to Doom 3, it wasn’t all that bad for its day, and I think a lot of people who missed it first time around will get a kick out if it.

My point is that I think sometimes critics can lose perspective when revisiting old games, or indeed playing remastered editions. What do you judge them against? Is it a case of stacking them against modern expectations – with frankly have become stupidly high these days.


This uses Frostbite 2 right? If not, I’m not playing it.

Maybe we, as purveyors of gaming critique should review them based on older values, ones that give the game a fighting chance. As I said however, retro games are thoroughly subjective, so I’m sure such a consensus can never be reached.

Reviews should be a guide as to whether or not a game is worth your money. That’s the basis of any good product critique so actually, personal feelings shouldn’t sway a retro review too far. If it’s broken, then by all means a review should state that, but Doom 3: BFG Edition isn’t broken, it just like a relic, a slice of history – because that’s exactly what it is.

id Software never marketed it any other way, so I’m still not too sure where all the negativity has come from. Finally, it’s a budget game at £19.99 – for the Doom trilogy – one of the most influential trilogies money can buy.

To be clear, I’m not outwardly defending Doom 3: BFG Edition, because it does have issues that id could have fixed, such as poor checkpoints, the length of time it takes to initiate a quick-save, some naff visuals and other things.

But if the studio had touched it up even more, would it even have felt like the same game people remember? You don’t go mucking up people’s fond memories for the sake of making a vocal minority happy. That’s no better than design by committee, something the industry at large needs to cull.

There’s no right or wrong answers here but it’s an interesting debate, and one that I hope you’ll contribute to. Should our nostalgia be exploited, tampered with or left alone? Share your thoughts below.

Breaking news

67 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Moxifool

    Surely that’s the point though; why should Doom 3 get an easy ride just because its being re-reviewed now in 2012?

    Doom has been rightly credited as the effective genesis of the genre, but that doesn’t mean its immune to the effects of qualitative deprecation over the years. Such deprecation is exacerbated by not only the superior output seen in the genre in the intervening years, but also its new peerage of today.

    Its not a case of kicking a kid who has fallen off their bike; its much more akin to throwing cabbages at a decrepit stage performer who is still running the same old tricks and routines for the audience, and who still wants some of your money which could be better invested in more forward thinking and progressional entries in the genre.

    Thank you for the fish Doom but your time is up, leave us with our memories and not an unneeded and unwanted cash-in. Screw em’. And don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Dave Cook

    @1 This is the thing, there are no right or wrong answers here because of the personal engagement with nostalgia.

    “who wants some of your money which could be better invested in more forward thinking and progressional entries in the genre.”

    I agree, but they’re clearly doing this to form opinion for Doom 4 right? To remind people that the franchise exists and to try and get newcomers on board.

    Thanks for chipping in though, I’m keen to see what the readership feels on this issue, which is pretty much why I wrote this :)

    #2 2 years ago
  3. Moxifool

    @2 No worries. Surely not buying it and critically crapping all over it counts towards forming opinion for Doom 4 too? As would, I imagine, the general direction of the market right now?

    #3 2 years ago
  4. Dave Cook

    @3 maybe it will, this will surely send some kind of message to them – but only if they’re willing to take it on board.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Lord Gremlin

    Sorry, but there is already clear evidence (aka compared file sizes) that BFG Edition is a cheap and quick port of xbox port of Doom 3 and NOT the PC version.
    In honest world it should have gotten 0 review scores and iD shamed to death, but the sheer amount of free-riding and butt-licking is astonishing. No matter how shitty botch job it is, if it’s shit by iD it can’t get 0. Idiotic.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Moxifool

    @5 Yeah, there’s that too. Being a fucking hash-job doesn’t exactly help to keep the nostalgia fresh and nice smelling.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. absolutezero

    Doom 1 and 2 are still fantastic. Comparing them to todays output I think Doom comes off looking even better than it deserves to.

    Same goes for Quake 3.

    Black Mesa is a pretty good nod for what re-released old games should be, it might be a mod and released for free but its updated Half Life 1 to a level that it can easily stand up to whatever modern military boredom has been pumped out. Its a better game than almost everything released today and its more or less a prettier version of the original.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. Dave Cook

    @5 But what’s wrong with a port with some option extras? Not everyone has played this already Why does Sega get away with hash-job ports of Dreamcast games when id doesn’t?

    There are all honest questions, just trying to keep the chat going :)

    Just to reiterate, I’ve said in my piece that I’m not taking sides, and I agree with both sides of the argument. So Im not disagreeing with you guys.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Neuromancer

    @5 Amen to that.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. DaverJ

    Good article Dave.

    Doom 3 was a near-perfect PC shooter back in the day – simple, scary, and looked great. I’ve played through it and the expansion numerous times on the PC. Today it still looks good, still scary, and – this is key – is still a perfectly simple shooter. So enjoying it today comes down to whether the player likes a tight, focused FPS.

    It’s not COD or Borderlands 2, and shouldn’t be compared to them. However, when I’m playing the BFG edition on the 360, I find myself wishing I was playing Borderlands 2. So what does that say about Doom 3?

    I dunno.

    #10 2 years ago
  11. absolutezero

    Doom 3 was already pretty easily available. The Xbox version is backwards compatible and the PC version was easily and rewardingly modable.

    Playing a Dreamcast title is a little bit more difficult. If you do choose to release something as an “HD update” at least try and make sure that it does not come out the other end being worse than the original.

    Just like Doom 3 and just like the Silent Hill HD collection.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. Dave Cook

    @12 that’s a proper embarrassment isn’t it? I’m also not a fan of remakes in that manner. At one point GRIN was working on a remake of Streets of Rage and it looked bloody terrible. So glad it din’t happen.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. Erthazus

    Back in the day Doom 3 on the PC was a mediocre game no matter how good graphics there were.
    It was a linear experience that had corridors worse than in Call Of duty. There was no sense of exploration like in previous games, cheap AI spawn system and boring story. Shooting mechanics were okay.

    Engine was also not really That impressive. John Carmack said that it was because the game was “dark”… But to be honest even their RAGE is not That impressive.

    @Dave Cook,

    “The FPS genre has come a long way since 2004 thanks – like it or not – to Battlefield, Call of Duty and Halo’s influence.”

    Dave cook, you are absolutely incorrect in every possible way there is.

    If you started playing FPS games in 2004 it’s your Only problem. FPS genre has not come from CoD for F sake or “God/Jesus/Christ NO! NO! F NO!” Halo or Battlefield no matter how good the Battlefield games were.

    If you don’t know that Unreal tournament series, Quake 3:Arena, Half-Life or Counter-strike existed before it’s your freakin problem.

    It’s your problem if you started playing FPS games on your XBOX 1 but stop saying that FPS revolution or FPS genre came in 2004. That is the biggest bullshit ever and it is not true at all.

    P.S. Also, these two games (CoD or Battlefield) were not so popular compared to any game I listed and they were not even near Halo sales that were 6 or 7 million if i’m not mistaken.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. KrazyKraut

    The funny thing is that no one reviewed Sonic 2 for PSN or XBLA (i mean the old one from Sega Genesis/Mega Drive). But here everyone is shitting on it. I am satisfied. Paid 23 GBP/28 Euros for my PS3 Version and I am happy as hell.

    Could it be better? Yes, I am sure with more time and effort the could have made a better port, with sharper textures and so one. And a better save system.

    Is it a bad port and package overall? No, its not, Multiplayer works (even in Doom 1 +2),it looks not bad and I mean overall…I can play the game.

    I think some ppl had to damn high expectations.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. Dave Cook

    @14 are you insane? Yes, I’ve never heard of Unreal Tournament. Read what you’re saying there.

    Also, I’m 29, I’ve played my fair share of FPS games over the years. I was talking about those three because they are the big three that console reviewers and gamers always reference when talking about shooters.

    I – in no way – said the big revolution came in 2004, that’s what I’m saying other people think, and they’re wrong. I played FPS on PC before consoles as you say and yes I have played a lot of Unreal Tournament, particularly the original.

    Are you honestly suggesting I haven’t played Half-Life? Just seriously think about what you’ve just written there.

    Calm down and think before you type.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. Dave Cook

    @15 “I think some ppl had to damn high expectations.”

    I think expectations have become stupidly high. It’s sad to see at times.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. Erthazus

    @16, CoD or Battlefield were not that big in 2004 even on consoles.

    Halo on the other hand was big with 6 or 7 million units sold.
    BF series on consoles had stupid spin off series for example.

    #17 2 years ago
  18. Dave Cook

    @18 yes, that is true. What is the point here?

    #18 2 years ago
  19. KrazyKraut

    @14
    At first I thought you are insane, and then I still thought it…and lol’ed.

    @17
    Agreed! I didn’t play Dishonored, but so far Binary Domain is my GOTY.
    You know…saying something like that is really dangerous in these times.^^

    #19 2 years ago
  20. Erthazus

    @18, point is that what Battlefield or Cod has to do with… “The FPS genre has come a long way since 2004 thanks – like it or not – to Battlefield, Call of Duty and Halo’s influence.”

    ???

    What influence?

    #20 2 years ago
  21. Dave Cook

    @21 because they are massively influential shooters that influence how console shooter exist today. That is a fact, regardless of the foundations the pioneers like UT or HL have laid.

    Most devs want in on CoD, BF and Halo’s success, and it’s simply getting dull. I want things to go back to the PC days, but that implies risk, and that’s just sad to see.

    But to say I haven’t played UT, CS or Half-Life. Come on man seriously?

    #21 2 years ago
  22. KrazyKraut

    @21
    For example…why was the No1 Reason why the single-player of the MoH 2010 wasn’t that hyped?
    Ppl called it boring. And now think why they thought it. Because they have some of the big FPS in their minds.

    Thats whats he more or less wants to say.

    #22 2 years ago
  23. Dave Cook

    @23 agreed, and what about the glut of military shooters that appeared after Call of Duty got big? Were they influenced by UT, HL or CS? No, they were influenced by Call of Duty = influential.

    Not saying that it’s right, but CoD is indeed influential, like it or not.

    Well…I guess Erth doesn’t like it.

    #23 2 years ago
  24. Erthazus

    “because they are massively influential shooters that influence how console shooter exist today. ”

    I’m not really sure about that Dave. 2004!?? Come on… I think massively influential shooter was Modern Warfare 1 with it’s modern setting, meta gaming and other stuff that Infinity Ward created.

    I don’t see how Battlefield or Halo were influential today. As much as i hate Halo games I wish games had the same running and gunning style like in Halo but faster and with better mechanics (Unreal Tournament, Tribes or Quake for example) but so far not a lot of games that are Halo today in my opinion so I don’t know where do you see Halo from 2004 had any influence for FPS games that are today.

    “But to say I haven’t played UT, CS or Half-Life. Come on man seriously?”

    You are awesome if you played these games. :D

    #24 2 years ago
  25. Moxifool

    @25 You are absolutely fucking insane.

    How on earth have you not been certified yet?

    #25 2 years ago
  26. Erthazus

    @Dave, CoD is indeed influential, but not it’s 2004 part. That is what i’m saying.

    MW1 is very influential. It was the first decent Modern Military running and gunning game on consoles with meta gameplay (killstreaks, experience points).

    #26 2 years ago
  27. Dave Cook

    @25 ah I see, this is the crossed wires we’re having. I’m talking about today, not 2004.

    Forget 2004 for just a second. I’m saying that CoD, BF and Halo are big ‘today’ and are informing opinion ‘today’.

    I think that’s where this misunderstanding has come from. Those games have made modern gamers shift their values when looking at shooters today, when the old values of games like Half-Life, UT and CS have been largely forgotten by the younger or more casual populace.

    That’s what I’m talking about :)

    I have played them all yes. I’m terrible at CS though.

    #27 2 years ago
  28. Ireland Michael

    A game should be reviewed entirely on a standard of quality.

    There are plenty of old games that are just as playable now as they were when they were originally released. If a game doesn’t age well, that’s entirely the fault of its owm design, and it should be judged as such.

    A truly great game stays great.

    I distinctly remember this Doom 3 getting a lot of negative criticism when it was originally released anyway. I don’t see why that should change now.

    #28 2 years ago
  29. Dave Cook

    @29 that is a true test isn’t it? If a game can resonate for so long without becoming tainted, then you truly have a classic. They’re a rare breed, but so brilliant when they come along.

    #29 2 years ago
  30. Ireland Michael

    @30 Doom 3 is definitely not one of those games.

    It wasn’t particularly good the first time around, honestly.

    #30 2 years ago
  31. Dave Cook

    @31 yeah, I’m feeling that after playing through BGF Edition again.

    #31 2 years ago
  32. Moxifool

    @31/32 It didn’t exactly help that Half-Life 2 released a couple of months later either.

    #32 2 years ago
  33. Dragon246

    @Dave
    Let me offer a different perspective. The money which would be spent by customers on this would be the money they would have spent on any other FPS you mentioned. Reviews are essentially a buying guide. So isnt it the responsibility of reviewer to provide his readers a view of how a “insert game name here” game fares along with other choices people have to spend their money right now?
    Just my 2 cents. (Who started this 2 cent idiom anyway :P)

    #33 2 years ago
  34. Dave Cook

    @34 yeah that’s true, absolutely, although I genuinely believe that – to a mad degree – you can’t 100% nail down solid criteria for reviews. Some games defy that criteria, especially retro games. There are solid rules sure, but like I said, nostalgia can make people crazy.

    #34 2 years ago
  35. ManuOtaku

    #34 Dragon on this site was OG, if i dont recall wrong and then kerplunk use it to mock him in his posts

    #35 2 years ago
  36. KrazyKraut

    @Erth
    The first Call of Duty came 2003 out and was extremely influential. Enough said.

    #36 2 years ago
  37. Dragon246

    @36
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_two_cents
    I love this idiom now :)
    I was thinking of the complete origin.
    I guess this is why wikipedia is the 2nd best site on the net.

    #37 2 years ago
  38. DeyDoDoughDontDeyDough

    Dave, you could not be more wrong on this one. It’s being released again NOW, and a reviewer’s job is to tell us whether it’s worth our money NOW, in 2012. If it’s shit now that it’s set against everything else out there, they need to say so. It’s competing for exactly the same money.

    #38 2 years ago
  39. Dave Cook

    @38 Yeah man, I didn’t say that Doom 3 shouldn’t be reviewed by today’s standards. I said that there’s no solid criteria and I said there was no right answer.

    That bit about giving old games a fighting chance at review today was purely an open question to you guys, a ‘maybe’, not my solid opinion on it. I didn’t say that this is how it should be done.

    Cheers for the feedback at any rate.

    #39 2 years ago
  40. Stardog

    If they’re charging money for it then they should be held to todays standards. End of.

    #40 2 years ago
  41. absolutezero

    Its not full price though, so should it be compared to titles in a comparitive price range?

    Obviously its never going to stand up next to a brand new Triple A $60 game.

    What about one thats $20 instead? Theres alot more game than most XBLA titles, it looks better in comparison to games that are a similar price.

    Should Minecraft be compared to say Halo 4 because they are out during the same generation?

    #41 2 years ago
  42. Dave Cook

    @41 that’s a very interesting idea actually. Ever been on the site Hookshot? They only review games within a certain price range, and I think that levels the playing field somewhat.

    #42 2 years ago
  43. DeyDoDoughDontDeyDough

    @39

    Is that why the title is “Doom 3 BFG Edition reviews: a loss of perspective?”

    Seemes to me the whole piece is a critique of games criticism about a game you yourself confess to not having played.

    It’s a bad game, Dave. Really, really bad. And it doesn’t deserve your defence, even a fence-sitting one. That’s all me and the other Daleks are saying.

    #43 2 years ago
  44. Dave Cook

    @43 See that thing after the word ‘perspective’? It’s called a question mark, which means the title is not a statement. It’s a talking point ;)

    I didn’t defend Doom 3 either, I said it had problems, and I am playing it currently. The piece is merely to get some debate and discussion going about the nature of reviewing HD re-releases, remasters and remakes.

    #44 2 years ago
  45. SplatteredHouse

    “What do you judge them against? ”
    I have to agree with @38 here. You’re probably best to judge it against the perception/interest of the audience to whom the article is intended. Is it worth paying money asked for item/service offered seems to be a sound criteria, using your own experience with the offering to inform the reader, and enhance the article.

    “It’s cheap to savage a studio that has simply reworked one of its games.”
    In a value for money consideration, is it though? I think this is a hazard of reducing games to access codes, actually. As ease of availability rises, prices go in to freefall – just ask Steam, come sale time. It becomes more like a stock market, than anything else.

    eg: Doom 3 BFG can be said to be composed of Doom 3/exp, plus Doom Collector’s Edition – that’s the part of the package in question. So, in a digital world, today, how much does it cost me to replicate, well, actually surpass that standard…Not £20. Come to think of it, I don’t remember any level of calling out for this release, in the first place. I think it first appeared as a by-line alongside news of a Q4 re-issue.

    #45 2 years ago
  46. DeyDoDoughDontDeyDough

    @44

    Unless you have a time machine in which to zip back in time and review it now that it’s all 2004 again (and shit), the point is moot. It’s today, and you can only review games that release today as a product of today. Otherwise you shouldn’t bother reviewing it at all.

    As Daleks, we don’t have time machines. That’s the Doctor’s thing and all he does is try on hats.

    #46 2 years ago
  47. Dave Cook

    @44 Alas, one day we may have time machines.

    I’d use one to get Sega to make Streets of Rage 4.

    I can dream.

    #47 2 years ago
  48. andymonza

    I think it’s also a matter of price. As a fellow colleague in VG journalism, I’m not saying that the first thing you should consider when judging a game is its price, but there’s ALSO that. Here in Italy, BFG edition is sold for 29.99 euros on PC (39,99 on console!!), and for the same price you can find games that aged much much better (or even games that were released less than 6 months ago, considering special offers). That’s a dealbreaker, to me (and let’s not forget that the only original content, the so called Lost Mission, ain’t original at all, since it’s been mostly recycled). Let’s not forget, last but not least, that they gently pulled the original Doom bundle from the market, along with MOD supports, even if that’s not direclty related to the game’s review per se and shouldn’t be taken into account when assigning the score.

    #48 2 years ago
  49. DanWhitehead

    “Reviews should be a guide as to whether or not a game is worth your money. That’s the basis of any good product critique so actually, personal feelings shouldn’t sway a retro review too far.”

    Oh, wow. I really couldn’t disagree with this more. In fact, this is one of things that really gets me down about games reviews in general – the idea that we’re writing consumer product recommendations rather than critiquing a vibrant creative medium (artform, if you want to be controversial).

    Criticism – of any medium, be it games, film, music or whatever – should be an end unto itself. It should be the start of a conversation, about that particular creation or the medium as a whole. Whether people take that as a recommendation or not is secondary.

    Reviewing something based on “value for money” assumes everyone has the same criteria for what that means. It’s like reviewing a toaster – “This game has X features, it lasts for Y hours and is worth £INSERT PRICE”. Ugh. I want reviews that explore whether a game succeeds creatively, if it moves its genre forwards, if it tells us something about games as an evolving entertainment medium. I want reviews I can disagree with, passionately, not just an indication of whether it warrants its RRP at launch.

    That’s why retro games are perfect for reappraisal. If a game gets 6/10 because it’s not good value for money when it launches, what happens when the game comes down in price? Does the score change? Retro games have passed that period. We can approach them purely as games, judge them on their merits, not their commercial appeal.

    #49 2 years ago
  50. Ireland Michael

    Quality is quality, no matter the price.

    Some of my best gaming experiences this year have been downloadable budget titles. A game doesn’t have a right to be less critiqued just because it costs less.

    #50 2 years ago
  51. Da Man

    What, a comment section featuring Erthazus going about superior PC players and how he played Quake in the days of non existent internet?

    People went from art to computer toys and from faith to corporate zealosy. Shocker.

    #51 2 years ago
  52. andymonza

    @49 A review should take into account many factors, and price should be at the bottom of the list, but it can’t be completely ignored, especially if an 8 years old game comes out at more than half the price it was originally sold at, and at a higher price than the previous collection that was there for everyone to buy it, until they pulled it. We’re not talking about “value for money” on a new title. We’re talking about an old game that gets the HD treatment and gets sold at 40 euros…

    #52 2 years ago
  53. absolutezero

    @Dan

    All those big ideals and fancy words count for naught when you shove a numerical value on the end of whatever critique you’ve penned.

    “I want reviews that explore whether a game succeeds creatively, if it moves its genre forwards, if it tells us something about games as an evolving entertainment medium.”

    8/10

    #53 2 years ago
  54. Ireland Michael

    @53 That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    Journalists aren’t responsible for other people’s laziness. If a person can’t be fucked to read a review, take in the opinion presented to them and come to their own personal conclusions as to whether it’s good value for money for *them*… that’s their issue. Not ours.

    #54 2 years ago
  55. absolutezero

    So why bother?

    If you feel that strongly about the words that you pen then why appeal to those that don’t care about the content at all?

    #55 2 years ago
  56. Da Man

    He’s not a journalist so anyway. It’s not his issues, and noone reads his reviews.

    A person editing his posts from 2010 can’t be trusted in regards to software purchases.

    #56 2 years ago
  57. Ireland Michael

    @55 Scores have existed in critique for decades, long before the Internet and the realization that most people have non-existent attention spans. They’re not about “appealing” to any sort of person. They’re just a summary at the end of the review.

    #57 2 years ago
  58. absolutezero

    Which is there for…

    Informing an opinion about spending money!

    Which is nothing to do with a review apparently!

    Huzzah!

    #58 2 years ago
  59. SplatteredHouse

    “However you felt about Doom 3 when it came out, BFG Edition isn’t the best way to play it today.” – isn’t that all that needs saying, if that’s your view, and the experience with the game – http://www.giantbomb.com/doom-3/61-14537/reviews/?review_id=535 – informs on that.

    @49: “I want reviews that..”
    I want those reviews as well. I’d like to see considerations as to the art behind a game’s creation, but I think it’s preferable as its own feature.
    In a review, I want to know what a game brings to the table, major shortcomings that harmed the experience (if any), and places where it differs from its peers, tries a different approach. But, I also need to know whether the reviewer had fun playing, were they entertained throughout, etc.
    I like to see talking of that person’s time with the game included. Then, there’s the point of its achievements on its own and in its genre. Reviews can tell a lot.

    Does a review of a re-release of Doom 3 need to, though? How much does that flavour coverage express, that’s not already been covered.

    #59 2 years ago
  60. Edo

    A loss of perspective for Id?I absolutely agree.

    #60 2 years ago
  61. Old MacDonald

    This is a kinda weird article. It’s being released as a new product and should be reviewed as a new product, simple as that. And let’s not forget, Doom 3 was always a highly flawed game. It is no classic. Take away the then awesome graphics, and it’s a decent shooter with extremely predictable (and questionable, at times) level design, that gets old long before it’s over.

    #61 2 years ago
  62. TheWulf

    There are three major factors which cannot be denied. These three factors show why PC users should avoid this like the plague.

    - They flubbed the engine.

    It’s basically a port of the console version for the PC, which is bizarre. The original game had more options. The only real addition options-wise was widescreen, but that could be added to the original with a five-second edit to a file, so that’s not a big addition.

    Worse, the major feature of Doom 3 was dynamic lighting. You could use your torch and the dynamic lights and shadows would shift around in a believable manner, which would create a very atmospheric feel. Even the original XBox version had dynamic lights/shadows, at least at lower resolutions.

    In BFG this was removed in favour of baked shadows, which loses almost all of the atmosphere and visual dynamism. It was obviously done so that on perhaps one console they’d get a better framerate, but for the PC this is absolutely meaningless.

    - They’ve broken compatibility with all prior mods.

    Due to the deep system changes (most of which were completely unnecessary and benefited only the consoles), the BFG edition of Doom 3 is incompatible with almost all mods. Including brilliant ones like The Dark Mod. So if you bought BFG in the hopes of playing that? Well, bad luck! You can’t!

    And you’re at Id’s mercy regarding how much of this is fixed.

    - They’ve removed the original Doom 3 from all digital distributors.

    Bad move.

    This basically means that the only version of Doom 3 available from digital distributors now is one with a horribly broken engine, and one that doesn’t support mods. Great. Fantastic. That’s a monumental dick move.

    See, this is why I recommend just getting a retail version of Doom 3 on the cheap. You’re getting a better deal.

    - So what does BFG bring to the table?

    A ‘lost mission’ which is just a cheap rehash of the campaign with more reuse than Dragon Age II saw, and some ‘improved visuals.’ Let’s dismantle the idea of improved visuals, shall we? The thing is is that with mods, Doom 3 can look absolutely amazing. Can it look better than the BFG version?

    Fuck. Yes.

    Click that link. No, really, click it. By comparison, the BFG is a massive embarrassment for Id because it doesn’t come nearly as close to looking good as those mods make the original Doom 3, and this is part of why the original Doom 3 disappeared.

    Think about it.

    They realised that people could get a far superior experience with the original Doom 3, so they took that purchasing decision away from you.

    - In conclusion.

    Get Doom 3 (and its expansion) at retail for a fraction of the cost of the BFG. Get the Sikkmod, get the Wulfen/Mox texture packs, get The Dark Mod, and have a hell of a lot more fun than you’d have with the BFG edition.

    For PC users, this is the only sensible recourse.

    #62 2 years ago
  63. ManuOtaku

    If there is something that XBLA/PSN/Wiiware games did show me/taught me this genereation in particular, especially the updated version of old games (insert any prefered name), is that the review process is somewhat a pretty accurate one, i found that the great games of the past are great the games of today,i found much joy with any of this games, like i do with games of this gen, of course they have been lifted up a little bit on the graphics department, but the core gameplay mechanics has almost keep intanct and the same, so for me is safe to say that review process, and the games that were good in the past are going to be good forever, and that is a very nice thing and speaks a lot of good about this industry as a whole.

    #63 2 years ago
  64. Omelette

    I don’t know what happened here, but the ffirst comment up to at least the 26th comment start with surely the wrong @number, because otherwise they are speaking to themselves o.o

    #64 2 years ago
  65. DeyDoDoughDontDeyDough

    @DanWhitehead

    “Criticism – of any medium, be it games, film, music or whatever – should be an end unto itself. It should be the start of a conversation, about that particular creation or the medium as a whole. Whether people take that as a recommendation or not is secondary.”

    Well done, sir, it turns out you are a big part of the problem.

    EVERYBODY reads reviews to decide whether that game is worth buying, whether you write them that way or not. If your idea of a game review is that, “It should be the start of a conversation, about that particular creation or the medium as a whole,” you need to stop, have a little think, then punch yourself in the balls.

    As a game reviewer it’s not your remit to use game reviews to vent your insecurities about the medium through the discussion of games as if they’re comparable to perceived ‘high literature’ or to the explosion of impressionism in the mid-Nineteenth century. This isn’t the fucking renaissance and games aren’t high art. They’re – mostly – tits and cars and guns and as much as that depresses me, I certainly don’t see it as my remit to go around starting ‘discussions’ on the matter as if we’re looking at literature’s next New Wave. If I want a deep discussion about narrative and the nature of the human condition, I’ll re-read some Hemmingway and talk about that.

    The best game reviewers are the ones who understand this; who understand their place: report the facts, give us your opinion: is it worth buying? That is all.

    The worst game reviewers are the ones who think it’s their job to talk about how the sprite in that ‘Arty-farty-du-jour’ indy title is ‘locked into his own proto-bohemian existential crisis’. It’s bad writing, bad journalism, bad reviewing and a complete misunderstanding of the job a reviewer is being paid to do. Worse, the people who are most guilty of this type of pretenitous, misguidedly aspirant drivel also seem to carry along with them the misapprehension that anybody at all gives a fuck who they are.

    We don’t care. If we can get to the end of the review without having to look at the citation, then trust me, that’s a good thing. It means you’ve done your job. Also…

    “Reviewing something based on “value for money” assumes everyone has the same criteria for what that means.”

    This is ridiculous. Money is money and to buy or not to buy is the question, not how much it costs. You’re right in a sense, that this game is twenty-five quid instead of fifty doesn’t cure it of its aggressively malignant gameplay, but it doesn’t make it any better either. You’re missing the point here: games cost money, and to say reviewing has nothing to do with that is the standpoint of somebody who has spent far too long getting his games for free. It’s arrogant, ignorant and abhorrant.

    #65 2 years ago
  66. Gigabomber

    Problem is playing Doom 3 was no one’s cherished memory and Id never realized it. I only remember harsh criticism back when it came out, did I miss something?

    These AAA studios keep sawing away at gamer’s expectations and the gamer’s just keep gobbling the shit up.

    #66 2 years ago
  67. James_edge

    “But isn’t it a bit silly to slam a re-release of an old game in this manner?”

    I understand this article is half a year old now, but as its on the internet for all to see and I was one of the people ripped off by D3 BFG I feel it a duty to comment on this for the benefit of perspective buyers.

    It would be silly to slam a re-release of an old game for being dated yes, but nobody’s doing that. D3 BFG is NOT a re-release of an old game, it is a PC port of a console game (D3 BFG) which is an update of an old console game (Doom III) which was a port of the PC game Doom III. The problem is that because of that convoluted journey, the PC version of D3 BFG is actually notably graphically inferior to the original PC version of Doom III.

    Add to that Doom III supported “mods” and the have been numerous community made mods over the years adding High resolution textures, HDR, Bloom, SSAO, and more. And D3 BFG was DELIBERATLY made incompatible with those Doom III mods, it IS a complete rip off and IS one of the worst games I have ever played.

    #67 1 year ago