Why does he keep ragging about it not having its own identity? Is being an inbetween of Halo and Quake 3 not identity enough? I don't get it.
The thing about the demons is this: Once you get used to the game and start knowing the ins and outs, you also start to figure out how to take the enemy demons down. The revenant is certainly not all powerful, and there were plenty of occasions where I at least took away half of his HP, or even killed him outright. In open areas he's especially hosed since the rockets aren't that fast, leaving him vulnerable against hitscan shots. And that's not even factoring in the other powerups, which can also help a lot in taking him down.
As much as I hate saying this kind of thing, it's really obvious he hasn't looked up much extraneous info about the game at all. And mistakes the melee for being instant-kill despite the fact that it's actually pretty weak and only good for if the opponent has really low health.
Perhaps I don't get this "identity crisis" because I myself have never played Halo or Call of Duty, and in general I have not played many other multiplayer games recently aside from Battlefield 4. But as someone who is a fan of the classic DOOMs, I think it's good for what it is and it doesn't stray away [I]too[/I] much from the originals.
Was more fun than I thought it would be. I don't get the complaints about the SSG. I consistently did better with rocket/lightning gun combo than I ever did with the SSG. Revenant was dumb though for sure and I would absolutely not miss it.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;50156252]As much as I hate saying this kind of thing, it's really obvious he hasn't looked up much extraneous info about the game at all. And mistakes the melee for being instant-kill despite the fact that it's actually pretty weak and only good for if the opponent has really low health.[/QUOTE]
I think he called it insta-hit not insta-kill, which would make sense.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50156250]
The thing about the demons is this: Once you get used to the game and start knowing the ins and outs, you also start to figure out how to take the enemy demons down. The revenant is certainly not all powerful, and there were plenty of occasions where I at least took away half of his HP, or even killed him outright. In open areas he's especially hosed since the rockets aren't that fast, leaving him vulnerable against hitscan shots. And that's not even factoring in the other powerups, which can also help a lot in taking him down.[/QUOTE]
His gripes with it probably come from the fact that since it has no significant downsides, it doesn't really change the dynamic of the battlefield in any interesting way. If the demon had, for example, a warm-up time and speed penealty for firing its weapons, it would be vulnerable to kiting and sneak attacks. Which in turn could be countered with teammates protecting it, making it a more intricate mechanic.
I don't know how I'm supposed to sympathize with a critic who thinks being able to play a multiplayer title at 60fps is merely "oooookay"
I dunno man, I quite liked the open beta, but I didn't expect much (if anything). It felt good.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;50156600]I don't know how I'm supposed to sympathize with a critic who thinks being able to play a multiplayer at 60fps is merely "oooookay"[/QUOTE]
Try playing FPS games such as Quake, CS, etc. with only 60FPS, it's pretty awful. It depends on the engine though, Crysis was really good at this; the mouse felt reasonably snappy and responsive even if you only had like 30FPS
60 fps is ok but I will take higher fps any day.
I hate how everyone is "but muh heritage!" and instantly saying the game is bad.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Muh memeshit" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
I'd take a higher quality resolution over framerate simply because I don't give a shit at this moment in my life and 60 is perfectly fine
The Beta is even locked to 60 for testing purposes and its been stated that it will be uncapped on release.
[QUOTE=redBadger;50156943]I'd take a higher quality resolution over framerate simply because I don't give a shit at this moment in my life and 60 is perfectly fine[/QUOTE]
It's Doom anyway, not csgo where you're twitch shooting into ridiculous precisions.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;50156743]Try playing FPS games such as Quake, CS, etc. with only 60FPS, it's pretty awful. It depends on the engine though, Crysis was really good at this; the mouse felt reasonably snappy and responsive even if you only had like 30FPS[/QUOTE]
I've never played games at 144FPS but this sounds kinda bullshit. 60FPS is perfectly fine for me in CS and Quake. Maybe it's just because I've never played at higher than 60.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ocsid;50157150]I've never played games at 144FPS but this sounds kinda bullshit. 60FPS is perfectly fine for me in CS and Quake. Maybe it's just because I've never played at higher than 60.[/QUOTE]
At the competitive level, 60 fps is considered unacceptable for most games.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;50156743]Try playing FPS games such as Quake, CS, etc. with only 60FPS, it's pretty awful. It depends on the engine though, Crysis was really good at this; the mouse felt reasonably snappy and responsive even if you only had like 30FPS[/QUOTE]
I mean I play shooters all the time below 60fps without losing my mind, like most of the gaming population. If I'm able to run a game at 60fps or higher, great, more power to me, but I also like to being able to afford food, shelter, etc. over whatever it takes these days to run a game at full specs. If a game that runs below 60fps is unplayable, I'd wager there's more broken with it than just the frame rate, and I'd also argue that people who prioritize the importance of >60fps are probably in gaming for the wrong reasons.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;50157235]I mean I play shooters all the time below 60fps without losing my mind, like most of the gaming population. If I'm able to run a game at 60fps or higher, great, more power to me, but I also like to being able to afford food, shelter, etc. over whatever it takes these days to run a game at full specs. If a game that runs below 60fps is unplayable, I'd wager there's more broken with it than just the frame rate, and I'd also argue that people who prioritize the importance of >60fps are probably in gaming for the wrong reasons.[/QUOTE]
Who are you to dictate what reasons that people should or should not be into gaming?
[QUOTE=Dr. Ocsid;50157150]I've never played games at 144FPS but this sounds kinda bullshit. 60FPS is perfectly fine for me in CS and Quake. Maybe it's just because I've never played at higher than 60.[/QUOTE]
I think It makes a fraction of a fraction of a second difference where mouse and keyboard inputs being updated 60 times a second can be noticeable in competitive settings. I saw pretty interesting video explaining it. (although it sounds a little like framerate snobbery)
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjWSRTYV8e0[/media]
[QUOTE=monkey11;50157252]Who are you to dictate what reasons that people should or should not be into gaming?[/QUOTE]
just pointing out how silly it is to obsess over frame rate capping in a game that is already plagued by core issues like bad game design, stale mechanics and an identity crisis.
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;50157792]just pointing out how silly it is to obsess over frame rate capping in a game that is already plagued by core issues like bad game design, stale mechanics and an identity crisis.[/QUOTE] Im pretty sure he wasnt obsessing over it, also keep in mind whenever TB talks about framerate that he has a very advanced gaming rig expected to run stuff way beyond 60 fps, so having the ability to do so taken away is definetly a downside. He respects that peopld are ok with playing in lower framerates, but that doesnt change the fact that the game is objectively better if it allows for higher ones.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ocsid;50157150]I've never played games at 144FPS but this sounds kinda bullshit. 60FPS is perfectly fine for me in CS and Quake. Maybe it's just because I've never played at higher than 60.[/QUOTE]
At least in Source/GoldSRC games you don't even need a 144Hz monitor to notice it. I've only used 60Hz screens, and it's not bullshit, it's something I've been aware of since I was like 8 playing Half-Life, before I even knew what FPS meant. Go below a certain framerate, and your mouse movements will start feeling inaccurate and sluggish, similar to the effect you feel when you enable mouse smoothing, but not quite.
A couple of years ago I told some of my friends about this, some of them agreed and knew exactly what I was talking about, while some of them told me I was delusional and that there was no way in hell there could be any difference between 60, and, say, 200FPS on a 60Hz monitor, apart from the tearing.
I tried telling them that the problem was within the engine, completely unrelated to the fact that the monitor could only display 60 images per second, but they wouldn't have it.
So later on, at our annual LAN-party, me and the friends agreeing with me decided to prove it, thus we did some shit to cause tearing even at sub-60 framerates, obviously so I wouldn't be able to just go "Oh, tearing, we're over 60FPS boizzzzz MMMMMMM SO PRECISE", we also made some other arrangements so my friends could lock the framerate to certain values on the go; 30, 60, 120, 200, and 400, and then we fired up CS:GO, with my friends supervising the framerate.
As you might expect, I clearly noticed the slugfest it became whenever it locked to 30FPS, that combined with high amounts of tearing, pure eyecandy. Thanks to the feeling of the mouse, I was also able to tell the difference between 60 and 120 FPS 100% of the time, and the difference between 120 and 200 around 70% of the time. I was not, however, able to distinguish 200FPS from 400FPS at all. So, from our findings, even at 120FPS, at least in CS:GO, there's a bit of a "mouse sluggishness" problem, while it's gone completely at 200+ FPS. At least you know, according to me.
When it comes to competitive online games such as CS, I've always preferred screen tearing over input lag, while I tend to play singleplayer games for the story and overall experience, and if that's the case I generally leave Vsync enabled. Unless it's an FPS and built on Source, because fuck that
[editline]19th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;50157792]just pointing out how silly it is to obsess over frame rate capping in a game that is already plagued by core issues like bad game design, stale mechanics and an identity crisis.[/QUOTE]
So a problem among other problems should be left unmentioned because you, personally, don't care about it?
game looks like garbage what a surprise
the only thing I really dont like about the game is the loadouts. literally everyone ive talked to has only used the rocket launcher/shotgun because theres no point in using any others. having the rocket launcher as a base weapon is just way too strong.
Loadouts are bad, progression system needs to go, melee needs to be reworked, the Titanfall burn card-esque "hack" system needs to go, movement needs to be a bit faster (and have more options), and some weapons really need re-balancing.
Other than that, it's ok. It's not amazing/good, it's not shit/bad. It's just ok. Doesn't really do anything to stand out from the crowd of modern shooters, or to evolve from id's heritage of arena shooters (even though id didn't make the MP portion). TB is pretty much right on the money about the MP having an identity crisis of sorts, because the impressions I got from my time playing it is that it's like Halo with some UT/Quake-espue influences and a DOOM skin.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that as of right now, the game really doesn't do anything that elevates it over the games it is clearly taking influence from. It only just manages to be better than the new Halo games in my opinion, though admittedly, that isn't very hard to do.
my computer can barely run these fangled new games at a solid 30 fps
Call of Doomty
[QUOTE=Naught;50159075]the only thing I really dont like about the game is the loadouts. literally everyone ive talked to has only used the rocket launcher/shotgun because theres no point in using any others. having the rocket launcher as a base weapon is just way too strong.[/QUOTE]
Other weapon combos like Plasma gun (alt fire) + Super Shotgun are also very viable. (It's the one I usually dominated with) However the Super Shotgun was in pretty much every single one of my loadouts, it's just too fucking good. There needs to be more weapons that are equally strong, to give the gameplay more variety.
The rocket launcher is pretty balanced in my opinion. It takes skill to use correctly and can be avoided at range.
In a way they emulated Doom 2 perfectly, because from my experience, in most deathmatches on ZDaemon or Zandronum the SSG is the weapon everyone constantly uses all the time.
It also doesn't help that the SSG pickups are almost always placed right next to the spawns on most maps.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50156250]Why does he keep ragging about it not having its own identity? Is being an inbetween of Halo and Quake 3 not identity enough? I don't get it.
[/QUOTE]
You answered your own question.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
