I can see the first tutorials/mods for disabling the takedown/scripted kills...they slow down the gameplay and take control from the player.

The second mod would be to remove/reduce the glossiness of enemies and other objects. Too much modern shine-o-vision as of late. Shiny doesn't mean good and everything looks wet.

Ok maybe the 2nd mod would be to increase player movement speed.

Then would be the gutsavers mod to turn down the gore. Of course removing takedowns alone would cut down on the gore.

Next we would need an AI mod to make the enemies dumber and run straight at the player.

Then we might need a mod for rockets to detect if an enemy is within a certain radius of the rocket and cause the rocket to explode in order to mimic a larger bounding box.

Next we will see a centerpoint mod to bring all weapons to the center of the viewport.

Then someone will hack in gl_texturemode gl_nearest and all hell will break loose. 

That'll be hard considering the standarts in terms of viewmodel modelling is to just model the only visible side, which is a shame. That'll require some reworks but if the worldmodels have as much polygons/texture the same size as the view one that would work.

Also have a way to make the viewmodels a bit smaller, make the chainsaw just like the one in D3 (it was a beast) and have the fists be its own weapon slot (they could be berserk fists anyway, close range attacks are a risk). 

At that point I would just wait till Gibhard comes out... so we can mod that to be a doom game. 

Why Downgrade It?

A lot of people with Aspergers will get upset when the new Doom game differs from the old games in ways such as "has modern graphics" and "isn't exactly the same as Doom 1/2" 

I can see the first tutorials/mods for disabling the takedown/scripted kills...they slow down the gameplay and take control from the player.

I'm still amazed at what part of "glory kills are optional and if you don't want them just don't do them" people are failing to understand. 

Optional as in "you can turn them off in the options" or as in "you can still kill monsters with guns, the takedowns are just another way"? 

of course you can still monsters with guns, you guys 

They've already stated that you need to use the special moves to get the monster pinatas to drop the most loot so ... they aren't REALLY optional. 

I hope this isn't a "controller optimized" game where the special moves require tricky multiple button presses/combos that are difficult to do on a keyboard. But I bet it is. 

I guess it would be nice if they can be disabled full stop in the settings?? 

https://www.doomworld.com/vb/doom-2016-general/86076-doom-alpha-code-strings-new-info-spoilers/

Some of these are (check the full thread for more):
>Archvile confirmed
>Spider Mastermind confirmed
>Automap confirmed
>Shitton of menus
>Game tracks kills/secrets
>Game functions in chapters, like DOOM 1
>There's 5 chapters total
>New Demon types
>"Aqua Marines, and Hell Marines"???
>Mutators for custom multiplayer matches
>One of these mutators allows Strafe Jumping

And check page 3 for weapons showcase, and another webm where the player moves around and it seems to go faster than previous previews.

Now I'll just wait for when the game'll be released. 

>Cyberdemons (the standard and a "Hell" variant?)

I wonder if the "standard" one is from Doom 3 or from Doom II.

The hysterical, smooth-moving savage cyberdemon we've seen so far is likely the "Hell" version.

I miss the slow-paced, stern, cold-blooded classic cyberdemon that walks and moves like a heavy machinery robot. Its Doom 64 version was bigger but still totally faithful to the character.

However, I also like the Robocop2-ish Doom 3 ROE version with its computer screen face. 

The Cyberdemon in Doom 1 and 2 is anything but slow-paced. It's one of the fastest monsters in the game with the Archvile. 

https://youtu.be/YznjAd9Duv8 

It's got to be the laziest cover in quite some time. 

Cover art is decided by the publisher right? Not the developers so I don't see why id should be taking the heat for it. 

Usually the publisher has their in house artists do the cover and promotional stuff based on developer assets, and they're usually laughably incompetent in comparison, but the publisher execs can't tell the difference.

The dev execs can though, and usually complain and reject the first handful of covers / icons / banners etc.

I doubt that a developer as prestigious as id didn't have a say here, even if it was just to challenge the low quality.

Maybe it got past just because of how unimportant covers actually are in this day and age. I suspect that it'll be replaced as well.

A random screenshot from the demo video with the original DOOM logo in front of it would look better. 

They should have re-created the original Doom cover but using the actual game renderer and assets. 

Exactly. The generic space marine on the cover is ... a questionable choice, at best. 

The dev execs can though, and usually complain and reject the first handful of covers / icons / banners etc.

Maybe they're too overworked with the game itself. 

It's up to the art director to make sure things like marketing materials and cover art and screenshots are all what they want to see.

Busy or not, the cover is the first thing a lot of people will see of your game. It requires a decent amount of thought and planning. 

I am not sure whether this is good or bad, but what I am sure is that the cover generates to my mind a kind of remarkable reminder of the former Doom cover (I am talking about the 90's Doom cover) in which the Marine was the central character...
... so maybe this was the desired effect. And honestly, being lazy in this case is not a argument against the game itself... it is sometimes more efficient to be lazy than failing with awesome trailers/covers/whatever that make the buyer thinking they'll have a jewel and that ultimately they acquired shit (example: Final Fantasy trailer vs ingame came to my mind at first...) 

Well, the art director getting a proper cover ready doesn't impede the team from making an awesome game. He's spending time doing that while the gameplay team is tuning shotgun damage and enemy AI. 

... and you are extrapolating too much so far ;)

Bad cover does not mean bad game, and it does not mean good game either. Same applies to good cover, which does not mean good or bad game...
You can even have mean cover with mean/bad/good game... etc... we are discussing about a "50 shades"-like of goodness/badness relation in between things that are purely subjective. 

Of course it doesn't. But marketing matters.