Doom 3 BFG Edition reviews: a loss of perspective?

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

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

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.

@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.

@5 Amen to that.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

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

@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.

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

@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.^^

@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?

@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
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.

@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.

“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.

@25 You are absolutely fucking insane.

How on earth have you not been certified yet?

@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).

@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.

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.

@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.

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

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

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

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

@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 )

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

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

@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.

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 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.

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

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 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.

@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 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.

“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.

@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.

@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.

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.

“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.

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.