Lyric Suite
Converting to Islam
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 56,631
Hit scan enemies have their place, and Doom uses them very well. Another Codex fallacy that just because something is used badly in modern games it is bad in and of itself.
>meme arrows
Unreal is a good example of an FPS with most, if not all enemies using projectile based weapons. Most of your weapons use projectiles too and the AI loves to dodge. I don't see what attrition based gameplay has to do with hitscanners anyways since Unreal accomplishes the same thing thanks to much better enemy AI.
Using instantaneous trace functions to simulate bullets is inferior to BD's more realistic and fair model.
No. The fact you can't avoid hit scan enemies and can only rely on them missing is part of what makes them interesting, particularly when you pair them with the rest of the bestiary. BD is trying to fix something that wasn't broken.
>complains about BD buffed hitscan enemies creating tanking scenarios (AKA "attrition-based gameplay")
>learns that BD no longer technically has hitscan
>Changes mind and claims Doom didn't have enough hitscan bullshit
Clearly, you will defy all logic and take any stance as long as it isn't one in favor of Brutal Doom. Generation Xtra retarded.
2) When will you realise I have no fucking interest in talking about Brutal Doom
Have you seen it in action? Like I said, the difference is extremely subtle. Most people would not even realize that it is no longer hitscan. 95% of the time you simply cant avoid being hit by an accurate bullet, but that remaining 5% is fair and down to player skill rather than RNG. It's plain better.
You're in a Brutal Doom thread, autist.
You've no interest in having an informed opinion on it either, as the pillar maze in BD doesn't force you take any damage, even with the mod's more competent AI.
You're a vanilla edgelord that shuns more engaging and skill-based gameplay.
I shun the aesthetics of Brutal Doom, because the main reason for playing Doom for me is its aesthetics.
That's not how bullets work and it leaves no room for error, fair scenarios or skill.
That's because you're a tard. Doom has awesome aesthetics, which BD barely impedes, but you've got to be a misguided retard to play games primarily for the aesthetic experience, especially geometrically-simplistic gameplay-focused ones from the 90s.
Shouldn't you be playing the PS1 port in that case? That is probably the version of doom with the best aesthetics and atmosphere due to lighting and audio updates.
That's not how bullets work and it leaves no room for error, fair scenarios or skill.
It does leave room for skill, as I fucking explained previously. Two ways to avoid taking excessive damage:
1) Kill fast.
2) Use of cover.
I'll add that when we're talking about groups of enemies, you have to prioritise which monsters to kill first and be adept at killing the hit-scan enemies first, so there's a third skill-involving aspect to it as well:
3) Kill order and dealing with groups.
I'll add a fourth one:
4) Identifying enemy locations so you can do (1).
If attrition gameplay required no skill, it wouldn't be interesting. But it does require skill, its difference is that it requires a larger and more dynamic skill-set than mere bullet hell games. The point of attrition based gameplay is to be skillful enough to avoid TOO MUCH damage. Being able to avoid ALL damage is boring, lame, and lacks an aesthetic appeal
Being able to avoid ALL damage is boring, lame, and lacks an aesthetic appeal
Sorry, I need an aesthetic aspect to playing games or I feel like I'm wasting time.
I was talking leaving no room for skill purely in the technical functioning of it. Once the enemy has fired their weapon, the only thing that determines whether you'll be hit is RNG (and maybe some other factors, can't confirm without doom's code specifically).
Anyhow that's fair enough. I find it unusual and decline-enabling prioritizing aesthetics over game aspects in a game. but whatever, diversity is the spice of life I suppose.
I find it unusual and decline-enabling prioritizing aesthetics over game aspects in a game, especially an early 3D one.
2) When will you realise I have no fucking interest in talking about Brutal Doom?
I find it unusual and decline-enabling prioritizing aesthetics over game aspects in a game, especially an early 3D one.
Graphics, as commonly understood (as an attempt at realism), has nothing to do with it. What's important is that Doom has memorable monsters, some memorable levels the kind of which you just won't find in any modern game, it has elegant gameplay, excellent soundtrack in the PSX version (PSX version was the first Doom that I played extensively), and so on. Graphics whores and looks-first people are just a bunch of retards. The ASCII version of ADOM is more beautiful than most modern games.
What's important is that Doom has memorable monsters, some memorable levels the kind of which you just won't find in any modern game, it has elegant gameplay, excellent soundtrack in the PSX version (PSX version was the first Doom that I played extensively), and so on. .
Aesthetics are important, but extensive focus on it is another factor that has led to the decline.
Aesthetics and graphics go hand-in-hand. Modern games go for levels crammed full of clutter with a realistic style (aesthetics) at high resolutions and with fancy technical graphical effects (graphics). all that banal boring futile recreation of realism instead of the gameplay-focused level design of yore.
Popular media calls lack of immersion 'immersion', and it calls lack of beauty 'beauty'. This 1984 bullshit shouldn't confuse any real lover of games regarding the importance of these things when done properly.