TotalBiscuit will now talk about nobody getting DOOM review copies for about 25 minutes - General

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50307898]So you actually think that every megathread is a circlejerk? lol nice[/QUOTE] Funny how they tend to be.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50307898]So you actually think that every megathread is a circlejerk? lol nice[/QUOTE] If you're talking in a thread for discussion on a particular game or series you'll probably like it, so why would you go to a thread for balanced criticism? The only threads I'd say are exempt from a bit of this are things like Beta threads, where say in Overwatch's thread people are talking about balance and design and criticizing the game saying things they'd like to be changed/improved.

[QUOTE=Rossy167;50307919]If you're talking in a thread for discussion on a particular game or series you'll probably like it, so why would you go to a thread for balanced criticism?[/QUOTE] The people there are more likely to shit on any little thing wrong with the game because they enjoy the franchise? Like, go look at the Payday 2 or Warframe threads. There's no better way to learn the current state of a game than listening to the people who actually play the fucking thing.

[QUOTE=no1dead;50307827]Lmao lets go check the thread where you'd expect everyone to like it.[/QUOTE] actually no, you never see that in any megathread. there might be some circlejerking but theres people giving their honest reviews as well.

[QUOTE=Super Muffin;50307862]No review copies until launch or close to launch isn't as rare as everyone is making this out to be. Destiny Every recent Ubisoft game (AC: Unity, The Crew, The Division) Every recent WB game (Arkham Knight, Mad Max, Shadow of Mordor, Dying Light) Sims 4 etc. I'm not in favor of it, but still. At least in WB's case they do it for marketing reasons to get the press boom consolidated into the launch window.[/QUOTE] Did you purposefully choose a ton of games that had horrendous launches?

[QUOTE=Zeos;50307941]Did you purposefully choose a ton of games that had horrendous launches?[/QUOTE] AFAIK almost all games with delayed reviews have horrendous launches. (I imagine snapmap in Doom is going to be all fucked up but that's not much of a big deal.) Again, I didn't defend the practice. I don''t like it. I was only pointing out it's not uncommon.

[QUOTE=Zeos;50307941]Did you purposefully choose a ton of games that had horrendous launches?[/QUOTE] What? Dying Light, Shadow of Mordor, Mad Max, all didn't have shitty launch's what are you smoking?

[QUOTE=no1dead;50307827]Lmao lets go check the thread where you'd expect everyone to like it.[/QUOTE] Really? Go look at the fallout thread when 4 came out.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;50307888]As posted in the DOOM thread. Here's what it looks like when played by someone used to mouse and kb. [video]https://youtu.be/anrvBD4aTGY[/video] Actually looks pretty good.[/QUOTE] looks better than I expected, but it seems piss easy. I know the dude died at the end but it never seemed like he was in danger, he barely got hit.

[QUOTE=no1dead;50307962]What? Dying Light, Shadow of Mordor, Mad Max, all didn't have shitty launch's what are you smoking?[/QUOTE] Mad Max on PC had poor performance for a lot of computers, Shadow of Mordor had problems with NVidia cards, and almost all of the others were buggy as fuck

[QUOTE=Dirf;50307982]looks better than I expected, but it seems piss easy. I know the dude died at the end but it never seemed like he was in danger, he barely got hit.[/QUOTE] Judging from the megathread, some say Ultra-Violence difficulty is just right, and all of Bethesda's footage of singleplayer lately was on Hurt Me Plenty which is the normal difficulty. Others seem to think that even UV isn't hard enough. But Nightmare is apparently downright relentless.

[QUOTE=Xubs;50308016]higher difficulties are a lot fuckin harder, Nightmare and Ultra Violence are pretty hard in Doom 4 in fact, the highest difficulty (Ultra Nightmare, the 6th difficulty and a new one to the series) adds a bullshit gameplay mechanic much like what Nightmare had in the original Doom: you die once, you reset the entire game, like a roguelike. Doom 1/2's Nightmare had infinitely respawning enemies in a game where ammo is finite, so hardest difficulties having stupidly hard mechanics is a tradition in the Doom series.[/QUOTE] Doom 3's Nightmare mode was also pretty mean, although you could only play it once you beat the game. Start off with the Soul Cube from the very get-go, but your health gradually decreases to like, 25. If you're good at killing enemies consecutively you could keep a good flow of health later in the game, but the areas where shit gets sparse are a bit less pleasant. BFG Edition shits over this thanks to more supplies everywhere.

Regardless if the game is good or not, not sending out review copies is suspicious. It's still completely possible for a game to be great despite this, I think Shadow of Mordor didn't send out review copies either. And that game was pretty great. But it still calls for suspicion.

The "poor reception" of the beta was 90% people who complained that it wasn't "doom" enough after spending 2 minutes on the main menu. It was simply a hate bandwagon

[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;50308135]The "poor reception" of the beta was 90% people who complained that it wasn't "doom" enough after spending 2 minutes on the main menu. It was simply a hate bandwagon[/QUOTE] I spent an hour with it. That was enough for me. [I]It's not Doom It's not Quake It's not Halo It's not CoD whatever it is, it's not fun[/I]

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;50307898]So you actually think that every megathread is a circlejerk? lol nice[/QUOTE] what is bias

[QUOTE=LittleBabyman;50308185]I spent an hour with it. That was enough for me. [I]It's not Doom It's not Quake It's not Halo It's not CoD whatever it is, it's not fun[/I][/QUOTE] Actually it's a little bit of all of those things. And it was pretty fun.

[QUOTE=LittleBabyman;50308185]I spent an hour with it. That was enough for me. [I]It's not Doom It's not Quake It's not Halo It's not CoD whatever it is, it's not fun[/I][/QUOTE] It has no personality and a progression system, I think I'll pass.

[QUOTE=LittleBabyman;50308185]I spent an hour with it. That was enough for me. [I]It's not Doom It's not Quake It's not Halo It's not CoD whatever it is, it's not fun[/I][/QUOTE] Though it [I]was[/I] made by the halo multiplayer guys, which is why I have high hopes for the singleplayer.

[QUOTE=Dirf;50307982]looks better than I expected, but it seems piss easy. I know the dude died at the end but it never seemed like he was in danger, he barely got hit.[/QUOTE] Fairly sure that part is at the start of the game. It'll ramp up the difficulty later especially on the higher difficulties I'm sure.

[QUOTE=Magikoopa24;50308246]Though it [I]was[/I] made by the halo multiplayer guys, which is why I have high hopes for the singleplayer.[/QUOTE] just because they have some guys that were on the halo team doesnt mean that it'll play like Halo. I personally found the multiplayer to be very lackluster, even compared to Halo CE's multiplayer

I didn't find the multiplayer incredible, but it was pretty nice for multiplayer in a primarily singleplayer game. Certainly wasn't as slow as people complained, though I wouldn't mind slightly faster movement speed.

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;50308273]just because they have some guys that were on the halo team doesnt mean that it'll play like Halo. I personally found the multiplayer to be very lackluster, even compared to Halo CE's multiplayer[/QUOTE] Well my point is, whatever it feels like, it probably won't feel like the main game. On top of that, since Id didn't have to develop the multiplayer as well, there -should- be more effort in the single player, which makes for a better game.

I guess people don't remember Wolf TNO also had a review embargo.

[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;50308322]I guess people don't remember Wolf TNO also had a review embargo.[/QUOTE] don't most beth games have embargoes now? I don't remember a recent one that didn't. can't remember if FO4 had one or not

[QUOTE=Magikoopa24;50308246]Though it [I]was[/I] made by the halo multiplayer guys, which is why I have high hopes for the singleplayer.[/QUOTE] Doom's multiplayer was made by Certain Affinity, who are an external team that co-developed the multiplayer for Halo 4 and Call of Duty Ghosts. You know, the games that are considered to be the worst in their respective franchises. The rest of their track record is mainly map packs for Halo and Call of Duty otherwise.

[QUOTE=RikohZX;50308390]Doom's multiplayer was made by Certain Affinity, who are an external team that co-developed the multiplayer for Halo 4 and Call of Duty Ghosts. You know, the games that are considered to be the worst in their respective franchises. The rest of their track record is mainly map packs for Halo and Call of Duty otherwise.[/QUOTE] iirc, Ghosts sucked because it was supposed to be better than the games before in all aspects, like graphics and gameplay, boasting that it was "the next gen cod", but in the end, it was a pile of brown shit that looked back and was more of the same. It had nothing to do with the multiplayer.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50308436]iirc, Ghosts sucked because it was supposed to be better than the games before in all aspects, like graphics and gameplay, boasting that it was "the next gen cod", but in the end, it was a pile of brown shit that looked back and was more of the same. It had nothing to do with the multiplayer.[/QUOTE] wasn't that the COD where the fish AI thing came from

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50308436]iirc, Ghosts sucked because it was supposed to be better than the games before in all aspects, like graphics and gameplay, boasting that it was "the next gen cod", but in the end, it was a pile of brown shit that looked back and was more of the same. It had nothing to do with the multiplayer.[/QUOTE] The multiplayer itself wasn't specifically bad, but the whole game was a phoned in 'who gives a shit' title that does absolutely nothing stellar, special or unique. The few times it tries something different, like a pseudo-apocalypse for some areas, they're underplayed or nonexistent beyond visual spectacle. It may as well of been Modern Warfare 4, but with Brazilians rather than Russians, and the multiplayer was as forgettable. Especially since the game came after Black Ops II, which shook up the series formula a lot beyond the same core gameplay. Halo 4 on the flipside was 343's first outing with a whole Halo title from the ground up, and they tried to 'modernize' the shit out of it by permanent sprint rather than Reach's armor ability for it, and multiplayer had loadouts and specializations, to the point that getting a killstreak lets you drop in power weapons instead of actually finding them on the map. There's a reason why Halo 5 pretty much got rid of all of 4's gameplay changes aside from the Sprint and focused on mobility improvement instead. Doom's multiplayer looks like it has good maps, but the two weapon limit with loadouts, while inspired by Quake Live specifically, will probably boil down to weapon combos that can kill people as fast as possible. Unless there really is an old-school style multiplayer, either at launch or post-launch, that sort of thing is only for the 4 player Snapmap which will lack the intricate map design of standard multiplayer. You can see why some people are a bit maligned about this.

[QUOTE=no1dead;50307827]Lmao lets go check the thread where you'd expect everyone to like it.[/QUOTE] You might wanna stop by the Killing Floor megathread some time if you don't believe they could bash the game in megathreads.