You might well be invulnerable during the executions but you might well then be surrounded by enemies and have given up and tactical advantage of your previous position.

This.

Oh, and when the execution move is finished and you're no longer invulnerable - you're still surrounded. 

http://cdn.dftw.org/vault/img/2011/05/10/4dc92bc3c29e068473000f36/large_cimg1651.jpg 

IMO it's quite a leap from "there were no health pickups in the footage shown" to "there are no health pickups at all": absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, and all that.

I agree, this is why I've also been saying "it's too soon to tell". But, in light of the information we do have, I don't think my concern is unreasonable. Yes, it's conjecture, but this is a discussion about a game that has yet to be released so a majority of the discussion is just that anyway.

Another interesting thing I noted in the E3 footage is that not all glory kills trigger pickups - in fact the very first one you see seems not to. If so, that kinda negates the "health on-demand" aspect of them.

Yes, that is interesting. Possibly there wasn't a drop since the player was at 100? Anyway, I hope you're right. Any evidence that nullifies the health on demand theory is more than welcome in my book. 

Yes, that is interesting. Possibly there wasn't a drop since the player was at 100? Anyway, I hope you're right. Any evidence that nullifies the health on demand theory is more than welcome in my book.

I'm almso certain I'm right; I just rewatched and the third glory kill, which is the firsr of them with a drop, is just an ammo drop. No health from that one.

Watch from here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7g6BfvU6A8&feature=youtu.be&t=162 

Indeed, it looks like you're right. This is good, if health drops aren't a guarantee they can't be easily exploited. 

Seems slow...every kill is scripted it would seem. I want to spin in circles cutting everything around me, not hop from one scripted cutting sequence to the next. Also, the blood seems hard to see except for when up close. It's the same as though it's the new blood in the darkplaces engine, but glossier. 

Good to hear if its not guaranteed health drops.

But just to sqaure this with Shamb & mh - you guys having a laff right as to Tactical advantage / surrounded tradeoff ? Let me illustrate :
"Oh no I am surrounded and getting damaged now I pinata'd the fuck out of this imp....what do I do what do I do ?? OH I KNOW! -> PINATA AGAIN!!!!" >:D

To be clear - I love the speed and the idea of rewarding aggression. Rewards could be other than health and ammo though. 

 

You can't do this though, you've got to damage an enemy enough first so it goes into its stunned state. That's the only time you can do the glory kills.

On the other hand, with lesser enemies like zombies and imps, it is actually possible (and really satisfying and fun) to to go on a complete rampage in a crowd alternating shotgun blasts with executions.
That tactic falls apart if there is any open space for imps to run away though, or if there are larger monsters, but it's very satisfying if you can keep it going. 

To be honest, I've no idea where this notion that it's something you can just summon at will is coming from.

To summarize the mechanic:

You've got to wound an enemy sufficiently for it to be available.

You're not always guaranteed health (or anything at all, for that matter).

While you may be invulnerable while doing it, you're certainly not once done so you need to be careful about timing and placement.

Based on that it should be quite obvious that when you do manage to pull it off properly, when it works, it can be quite a reward, but there's often going to be other times when just sending in a few rockets is going to be the preferable approach.

As a mechanic it doesn't seem broken, or dumbed-down, or pandering to console kiddies, or any of those things.

IMO there are valid criticisms in that it's a very gamist mechanic, it breaks the fourth wall, it can affect one's sense of immersion in the game. There's a more interesting discussion to be had along those lines rather than trying to nitpick at the mechanics of it, methinks. 

"You've got to wound an enemy sufficiently for it to be available."

SO ... in a fast based, twitch shooter I need to be careful to hurt enemies - not too much, just enough - in an arena with bullets and rockets and explosions going off - in a game known for it's in-fighting and collateral damage - to put them into a stunned state so I can then close the gap and perform a fatality. To get extra health.

K. 

Wow it's almost as if the people at id are wildly incompetent and haven't given a single thought to anything like balancing and testing! If only they had know this they could have made adjustments to make sure this isn't a problem! 

I'm trolling, a little ... but in seriousness, that doesn't sound like a system that belongs in a Doom game.

Just call it something else so we can all move on. Stop writing "DOOM" on game boxes that have nothing to do with that franchise. 

"It has shotguns and demons, close enough to Doom for me!" -rmq.txt 

 

JneeraZ is the worst nick ever. 

Talk to Lunaran about it. 

For those that are seemingly having difficulty understanding how the game design process works, I will try to explain in simple terms:

What game designers DON'T do, is finish a game, balance the difficulty, and then at the last minute bolt on some arbitrary new game mechanic that throws the entire balance completely out of whack and call it a day.

What game designers DO do, is get all the game mechanics in place and THEN they do the balancing at the end, with all the game elements already in place.

Because id have been around the block a bit and have the resources to ensure that they aren't completely incompetent, then I would imagine we are more likely getting the latter rather than the former. This hypothesis is backed up by people such as czg who have actually played the game, whose opinion on the matter has objectively more value than all the assumptions and misinformation that everyone else is trying to peddle. 

Kinn

How does your theory explain Doom 3? 

Just not a doom game. 

How does your theory explain Doom 3?

That's very cute. Doom 3 was pretty good. It was designed as a tense, scary-boos-in-the-dark horror shooter, and on those terms it was pretty well made if you can get over the fact that it's not like Doom 1/2. 

I'm trolling, a little ... but in seriousness, that doesn't sound like a system that belongs in a Doom game.

You're trolling, a lot...

Again you've jumped right from "this mechanic is available as an option" to "this is something you HAVE to do EVERY TIME and if you DON'T the game is BROKEN".

You don't have to carefully plan how much you damage the enemy. Just send in the rockets and blow them to chunky salsa if that's the way you like to play the game. 

The worst thing about (Internet) discussions is this process:

- hear about some thing
- assume that thing takes its very worst and dumbest possible form
- get upset about your assumptions

The second-worst thing is of course when some guy rolls into a forum thread and starts nagging/nannying people, but come onnnnnnn let's not comic-book-guy this place up. At least not more than usual. 

- assume that (Internet) discussions takes its very worst and dumbest possible form

;) I kid, I kid.

#1349: I tend to read it as "Jazeera".

#1353: Doom� was misguided by Half-Life and the lack of Romero. The Doom� design was clearly focused towards shutting up the public who insisted in saying that id's games were brainless gorefests with no story. So, they made Half-Doom. This becomes even more evident by the Resurrection of Evil mission pack including a gravity gun. 

I'm honestly more excited about STRAFE than Doom.

If you've under a rock:
http://www.strafe1996.com