"Doom 1 and 2 really does not have much internal consistency or logic."

I think you're wrong on this. Can you cite examples of where the game conflicts with itself? 

Maybe the meta demon works at Microsoft. 

"My point is that it's no less logical than the rest of the nonsensical stuff that formed the design of Doom 1 and 2. "

Huh? Shotgunners drop shells and bullets. Chaingunners drop bullets. The rest are pickups. You could have certain enemy types drop ammo that makes sense.

That's far more logical than the current implementation and also your suggestions.

Personally I think it's lazy and we shouldn't be so forgiving of it. If the game is fun most people will overlook it, but they shouldn't have to. 

Congrats guys you have ruined Doom4 for everyone who's read it, regardless of whether the game is good or not. 

 

That's the problem. 

At first it seemed to be a brainless remake, but now it's clear that id is trying to make a proper game out of it. 

What? Who really gives a fuck about some people think of a game before anyone has even played it? I doubt this thread will have any impact on people's experience with doom. 

I think you're wrong on this. Can you cite examples of where the game conflicts with itself?

The level design is full of completely abstract elements that behave in ways the player can't anticipate unless he presses the use key on the right thing, which just looks the same as another thing which does nothing. I'm not talking about secrets, I'm talking about elements that actually block player progression. Things like when the designer forgets that doors and platforms are supposed to look like doors and platforms, and expects the player to press "use" on all the crates until he finds that one crate that behaves like a platform, or that one bit of wall identical to all the other bits of wall. There's loads of places like this and they're not secrets - I think Doom 2 is the worst offender here. Often secrets are easier to find than the actual way forward. After a while it really doesn't bother me; I can appreciate the quirky old-school charm of it, but please don't pretend that Doom 1 / 2 were highly logical games with such a wonderfully consistent visual language.

Huh? Shotgunners drop shells and bullets. Chaingunners drop bullets. The rest are pickups. You could have certain enemy types drop ammo that makes sense.

Firstly, I thought it was only mentioned that the new Doom's demons would drop health and armour - I don't recall anyone saying they drop ammo unrelated to the monster. Secondly, and for the last fatherfucking time, I really don't care how daft it is that monsters drop health and armour. It's a game :) 

Regarding nonsensical stuff being okay in Doom2 and games back then, it was only okay back then because Doom2 was the benchmark.

The whole realism and logical stuff is important, because it helps your immersion into a game. id failed at immersion with Doom, but it didn't matter because it was just a fun as fuck game.

In the 20 years since then developers have realised that the more realistic a game, the more the player can put themselves into that role and be immersed into the game.

I don't want to see a big glowing windows icon in front of me - leave that for Sonic and other lame children's games. But the same goes for the rest of the game, shit has to make sense and be logical. I don't want to me be reminded that I'm just playing a video game.

Unless it's aiming to be a multiplayer game. Multiplayer gamers don't seem to care as much they just want shooting monotony. 

We'll agree to disagree. 

"id failed at immersion with Doom, but it didn't matter because it was just a fun as fuck game."

I seriously disagree with that. When I first played Doom, I was totally consumed and into the game world. The world melted away and all I saw was the level I was playing ... if that's not immersion, I don't know what is. 

which part of blowing up monsters in hell does not remind you of a video game and makes sense and is logical?

Also, what JneeraZ said. Immersion is much more than 'realistic'. In fact most the 'realistic' games actually end up breaking immersion more because they go out of their way to try and be realistic and yet the inherent gamey stuff in the game always stops it from being so. 

I think what Kona is driving at is the conveyance. The universe the game asks you to play within has such depth and imagination that you can suspend your disbelief enough to buy into the game much more.

Which is a great thing.

But. In the late 90's it was termed realism, and many people took the word at face value, trying to make sorry arse simulations and call them games.

The past few syearssince, where games hadevelopment s come within the reach of common man, have seen a Renaissance of sorts, all those who grew up on games like doom trying to recapture that simple fun the old games had, avoiding the death of fun in games design called realism.

Now that the collective gamer culture is getting free of that fad, we see beleaguered old id coming up with a reboot which actually seems like it's not a petty cash grab.

From what I can tell, it seems like they're genuinely trying to bring the ideals of Doom2 to 2016. God help them, they're even listening to the fans.

It's a bold move, (billions of $ at stake) and yet I don't think there's anyone who genuinely wants to see it fail.

But then again, you need an awesome filter to talk to fans. They talk shite for the most part... 

Yeah ijed conveyance might be a better word for it.

"I seriously disagree with that. When I first played Doom, I was totally consumed and into the game world. The world melted away and all I saw was the level I was playing ... if that's not immersion, I don't know what is."

But when did you first play Doom JneeraZ? Was it before Quake, Unreal, HalfLife (which all massively improved immersion, in that order)? The same could probably be said for Pong when it first came out in the 70s, but it couldn't be considered immersive now. Just as Doom couldn't be considered as immersive as, say, Skyrim. 

I still find doom immersive, I could argue more so than skyrim.

Doom is its own little microcosm with laws and predictable behavior resulting from those laws. To me, this little world is very immersive; everything simply clicks which makes it easier to 'get in the game'. I think doom's unrealistic aesthetics helps it to be immersive.

In my experience, skyrim's mechanics were not nearly as engaging. The game was much more realistic looking, sure, but the closer you get to looking 'real' the more glaring and 'immersion breaking' the things inconsistent with reality become.

immersion =/= reality simulator

I don't believe there is a set of rules or formula that makes things immersive, It's unique to each game.

I count system shock 2, riven and morrowind as some of the most immersive games I've ever played and they all achieved this immersion in different ways. Games don't have to be consistent with reality, just consistent with themselves.

Fuck, I'm tired and rambling and saying a whole lot of nothing... 

Music, lighting, artstyle, those 3 when put together correctly produces immersion.
Doom is immersive by putting us into a world that makes no architectural sense, but the musics (more effective when ambient, like E1M8, E2M2 and so on), lighting depth and said unrealistic architecture (which works in a way because you could say the architecture reflect the demons' twisted beings) makes for immersion.
Unreal is better at being an immersive game than Quake 2 because of its big open spaces, more ambient music (which goes to combat mode whenever you fight an important enemy), varied colored lighting, its skyboxes and varied locations, which consist of multitudes of caves, temples, villages and spaceships. Quake 2 has orange at its dominant lighting, blasts metal music 24/7, and we just have bases, warehouses, prisons and sometimes outdoor areas for environment: cold and dull environment. Sure, it's a more realistic setting (Sure it's an alien world but if it took place on earth no one would notice the difference). 

immersive. 

For sure, I suppose many people have trouble getting immersed in non reality-logic environments and designs, that would explain many trends in game design/gfx.

Disclaimer : that's not a dig at people, it just is, different brains and all. 

was much more immersive for me than Half Life.

Also plenty of modern day quake levels are more immersive than a number of modern games. 

Make my levels longer so that they're more immersive.

Quake's gameplay is engaging, so if you have a well executed theme that is immersive then you get the conveyance. 

is a great example of what I was referring to. 

so it does come back down to gameplay and atmosphere no?

I mean quake has pickups etc, gameplay mechanics arent always realistic or logical but does it really matter. 

story, character upgrade/progress, it's all faff if you dont have the basics. 

But there will always be a personal taste element to it as well, which is where I think a lot of the disagreements in this thread come from.

Some people like jazz, others metal, others techno etc etc. One piece of music can be objectively as good as another of a completely different type, but won't be liked as much by different people because of their individual tastes.

Its a safe bet that anyone commenting here likes FPS games, but even within that genre, there is a massive breadth of variety.