TR Member Perks!

The hour leading up to the launch of DOOM may have been one of the most emotionally conflicting moments I’ve had in all my time playing video games. Twelve years after the ho-hum Doom 3, we were finally getting a new Doom. It was a draining hour, an intense mixture of excitement, dread, and most of all, curiosity. After all these years, I was finally going to get a real Doom 4. And with hell conquered and a mound of demons at my feet, I think I can safely say that DOOM might honestly be one of the best first-person shooters I’ve played in the past decade.

DOOM is not a game that bothers with a lot of story. You get a quick monologue at the start, sure, but the literal second you get control of Doomguy you have a pistol in hand, and there’s a group of zombies shambling towards you. Minutes later, you have a shotgun. From there on out, DOOM has been a breakneck rollercoaster ride of ultra-violence, with only a few short stops for the occasional exposition. The rest is saved for collectible text logs to deliver backstory, which is a nice compromise.

While I feel the exposition is largely unnecessary for a Doom game, the way it’s handled is surprisingly great. Doomguy is a feared individual after his wrecking-ball run through Hell from the first games and has been imprisoned by the demons to stop him from getting in their way. Strangely enough, I got a bit of a John Wick vibe from the way the human villain talks about Doomguy, less as a person and more of an unstoppable demon-slaying force of nature known as the ‘Doom Slayer.’ If you had to give Doom a story, I figure this is the right way to get it done.

Doomguy himself isn’t quite as fast as he was in the original Doom (Although he still is fairly speedy), but where he lacks in supersonic movement speed he makes up for it with verticality. Jumping plays a huge role in the gameplay, and there’s always a constant struggle for the high ground against some of the deadlier foes. Enemies aren’t too fond of standing in place either, and it’s not strange to see imps dart across a battlefield, giving you the need to have your head constantly on a swivel. 

Doom Imp

Along with the imps, pinkies, and other assorted classics come a score of new enemies, and all of them add to the gameplay. My favorite among them are the new security officers, big guys who trudge around energy shields not quite unlike Halo‘s Jackals. While they can certainly take a lot of frontal punishment, their design allows for you to take them out via shooting their exposed backs, something that the primitive sprites of the 1993 classic simply couldn’t pull off.

Also stepping up to the plate are some iconic bosses from the original, along with a fitting newcomer. These encounters were honestly some of the game’s highlights, and seeing the Cyberdemon using a mix of old and new tactics was quite a treat. Sadly, all of the bosses seem to be stuck in the second half, and the first few levels are barren when it comes to unique encounters.

To combat the unholy hordes you have ten distinct weapons at your disposal, a refreshing mix of old and new. Old standbys like the chaingun and super shotgun are still a blast to use while some of the newcomers such as the Gauss Cannon fit in quite nicely. None of the classic weapons are changed too dramatically besides the chainsaw, which now functions as an instant-kill on a monster if you have enough fuel. However, while the normal firing modes work just fine, DOOM spoils players with a variety of fantastic alternate firing modes.

Once you hunt down one of the field drones scattered across the levels, you can unlock a weapon mod to change up your alt fire drastically. For example, the shotgun can either fire off explosive shells or quick bursts, which can be switched on the fly with a press of the R key in the blissful absence of reloading. Once you have your alternate fire, you can upgrade said firing modes with weapon points gained from either killing enough enemies or completing level-specific challenges.

Doom Chainsaw

However, the biggest mix up to combat is probably the glory kills. You’ll be encountering a lot of enemies during the game, and there aren’t enough health pickups to keep the average player alive during the brutal confrontations. So to compensate, you can perform a quick canned kill on an enemy, turning them into proverbial health pinatas. While the idea of the glory kills did bug me quite a bit at first, I soon warmed up to them, and the animations are snappy enough that they don’t slow the pace of the slaughter.

While levels don’t feature as much backtracking as one might assume considering DOOM‘s heritage, they’re still quite vast and packed with secrets. From armor upgrade points to challenge maps to new models for a model viewer, exploration will usually pay off with a nice reward. However, the holy grail of these has to be the classic maps, which you can find snippets of during a level. Once said fragment is found, you’ll find that you can play the entire level through the main menu, just with the gameplay and monsters of the new DOOM. I must say, walking through the nuclear plant again just might be one of the most nostalgic moments I’ve personally encountered in gaming.

Not only are the levels fun to play through, but they’re also exceptionally nice to look at. While the standard UAC environments might blend together a bit, Mars is breathtakingly beautiful, and Hell feels like you’re walking right through an Iron Maiden album cover. There are also quite a few clever shout-outs to the series past sprinkled in, such as the Icon of Sin and old Super Turbo Turkey Puncher arcade games, really adding just that extra bit of fanservice.

Also helping with the presentation is the phenomenal sound design, filled with enough explosions and meaty shotgun blasts to make the biggest Hollywood blockbusters blush. Sadly, the music isn’t nearly as good, mostly relying on industrial tracks that all sort of bleed together. The tracks are serviceable for what they are, but when compared with Bobby Prince’s phenomenal tracks for the original Doom or even Quake‘s industrial soundtrack, it’s just thoroughly forgettable.

Doom Hell

Speaking of forgettable, the multiplayer mode that was developed by Certain Affinity is a total slog. Things start out nice with a surprisingly in-depth customization system allowing you to change limb types, patterns, and even wear-and-tear, but it all goes downhill when the shooting starts. It’s floaty, it’s weightless, and guns are one-dimensional and possess no punch thanks to the lack of feedback and hilarious numbers accompanying your damage types.

While the multiplayer may be bland and forgettable, SnapMap hinges on being borderline offensive. The original Doom‘s modding tools are superb, and the sheer power and versatility of said tools have to lead to some of the most interesting conversions in gaming history. SnapMap, on the other hand, is constrictive and laughably limited, with a baffling choice to use the ho-hum multiplayer gameplay style over the far-superior singleplayer shooting. To put it in simpler terms, if Doom‘s modding tools are a big bucket of LEGODOOM‘s are a handful of Duplo blocks. Fun for beginners, and not much else.

Despite the additional modes’ numerous and obvious shortcomings, the sheer glory of the single player has managed to right their wrongs. With every death I suffered in a garbage Deathmatch or poorly-created SnapMap I slogged through, I simply remembered the overwhelming joy I felt when gunning through hordes of demons, and suddenly, things didn’t seem too bad. The truth of the matter is that if any single player campaign over the past ten years deserved the moniker of Doom, it’d be this one.

Doom Doomguy

DOOM was reviewed on Steam with a copy bought by the reviewer.

More About This Game




Not even tacked-on multiplayer or a weak level editor can stop DOOM from being a total blast from start to finish.

Perry Ruhland

Staff Writer

Filmmaker. Entertainment critic. Genre film aficionado. Has bad taste and hot takes.

  • webkilla

    I’ve seen other reviewers praise this game for reinventing itself in the same way that Wolfenstein: A New Order did

    Definetely getting this once my exams are over

  • Crizzyeyes

    >Yeah the entire multiplayer mode is shit
    >9/10! Worth every penny! No mods! Woo!
    An honest review from an honest publication.
    In b4 someone forgets the entire legacy of LANing and tries to tell me that Doom multiplayer has always been shit.

  • Zepherdog

    Sadly I don’t buy the game is this good given the amount of (paid) shilling in the last few months, the lack of review copies and the lackluster game play videos (for both MP and SP).

    And I’m not giving Beth any money to form my own opinion, even if the game *is* good; Wolfestein and Fallout 4 were both huge disappointments and I don’t think I can stomach another one.

  • GrimFate

    Considering I dislike game story when I’m in the mood for just killing things, Doom’s sparse story and great combat make it very appealing. Add in the fact there’s no stupid, slow tutorial at the start and minimal handholding, and this game is near perfect for impatient gamers who just wanna shoot the hell out of virtual monsters. I personally give it a 9/10 too, but haven’t played multiplayer yet.

    It sucks that advance review copies weren’t sent out, because I almost wrote it off before release. The E3 video looked very unappealing to me. That said, impressively positive Steam user reviews probably would have convinced me to pick it up day 1 if I hadn’t decided to preorder thanks to the sheer speed of gameplay in the Vulkan API video.

  • GrimFate

    If it helps, I agree with the reviewer, although I haven’t played the multiplayer (either the beta or final version). And Steam reviews are over 8,000 positive to just under 650 negative if user reviews are more convincing.

    And I agree the lack of gameplay videos and advance reviews were off-putting. Almost didn’t get it myself because of this. But if you want a video to convince you, this example of pure gameplay did it for me:

  • Dindu Nuffin

    The multiplayer was garbage when I played it so I’d only buy it for single player. I’ll definitely play it, but not at full price.

    Usually games with rapidly diminishing multiplayer audiences go on sale pretty quickly so I won’t have to wait too long.

  • AgentBJ09

    “Doomguy is a feared individual after his wrecking-ball run through Hell from the first games and has been imprisoned by the demons to stop him from getting in their way.”

    Correction: ID didn’t continue THAT Marine’s story, thankfully. They continued on from the novelization of DOOM III; Samuel Hayden is a character from that novel series, and the third one was canceled, so they likely took advantage of that gap to make their own.

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    At the very worst there should be 2 separate ratings, one for multiplayer, one for single player. Doom multiplayer was not played by the vast majority of people who loved Doom, that is absolute fact. So there is no point of comparison.
    This game wasn’t made for the multiplayer, that much is obvious and it doesn’t have to be, to be considered a great game.

  • Perry Ruhland

    I think you should re-read the final paragraph. The multiplayer modes are downright garbage, but the campaign is extremely appealing. It’s very obvious the game wasn’t even designed with multiplayer in mind, and it’s treated here as the tacked-on extra it truly is.

  • Perry Ruhland

    Hm, that’s a bit odd, because you can find the Icon of Sin already long-dead here. So either there’s some continuation between DOOM and Doom 1/2, or they just killed the big guy offscreen.

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    Then why bother with games media at all tbh? Why are you here.
    If you arbitrarily decide “These positive reviews are all shilling”, or “These positive reviews sound good”, what’s the point in reading them, you are just making up your own mind anyway at that point and twisting the opinions of others to fit your own.
    Wolfenstein was great btw.

  • I’ve moderated this comment to remove the link to G2A, as we don’t promote grey market sites, as they are known to not actually benefit game developers due to to how they work.

  • Zepherdog

    Well It’s gradually become that way, or at least that’s how it seems. And there’s tons of proof of misconduct and actual shilling affecting several publications and communities in the past that have only recently seen the light of day.

    The reason to read the reviews is to inform oneself about the products, but since one can’t know if the review is honest anymore the point of reviews is moot, specially with how the reviews are often dismissive of the low points of a game and instead praise it more than it deserves.

    And I disagree, Wolfestein was mediocre at best.

  • Out of curiosity, and based on your 2 comments here – are you saying you believe we participated in this “paid shilling” in some way?

  • criponi

    With the MP being so naff and also no review copies going out I was sure this would be a poor effort… oh how wrong I was.

    PS : Doom is 39$ on PC right now [Link Removed by Moderator, Rutledge Daugette, as TechRaptor doesn’t promote grey market sites]

  • Alright, if you’re just going to keep deleting your comment and re-post your G2A link – which I can only assume is an affiliate link that you benefit from, I’ll have to blacklist you from the site.

    To Re-Iterate- I’ve moderated this comment to remove the link to G2A, as we don’t promote grey market sites, as they are known to not actually benefit game developers due to to how they work.

  • Buddydudeguy


  • Buddydudeguy

    ” Doom multiplayer was not played by the vast majority of people who loved Doom” Couldnt agree more. I was afraid they’d concentrate on MP and leave the campaign as secondary….they made the right move.

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    I feel your bias mixed with paranoia is getting the better of you here. Wolfenstein had pretty much across the board praise from press and users alike. Yet you are trying to portray it as “mediocre at best”, which suggests you actually thought it was a flat out bad game.
    The trash being put on Steam through greenlight are bad games. Wolfenstein was objectively a well put together, complete game that looked good, ran well and played smooth. It just wasn’t your thing, which is fine, but just because you didn’t like it doesn’t mean you will gain much credibility trying to portray it as an objectively bad game that only got praise because they paid ALL of the reviewers.

    I mean take Totalbiscuit for example, he’s very much in favour of full disclosure when it comes to this sort of thing. He liked Wolfenstein, he seems to like Doom as well. His is one opinion I’d trust as being legit. If praise is across the board, it pretty much rules out the idea of “paid shilling” because it takes a BIIIIIIG stretch to try and portray the idea of Bethesda paying every single media outlet going. Including one such as this that, like TotalBiscuit, is very much “anti-media” and pro-consumer in it’s approach, yet still liked the game.

  • AgentBJ09

    I remember seeing that the second time you enter Hell, that giant skull thing, but given what the tablets say about the Doomslayer’s achievements, it’s likely the latter.

    That and if you remember from the end of DOOM II, it says that the Marine was thinking of being buried with a rocket launcher, just in case he needed to continue the fight. This new guy plays like Master Chief post Halo III, having woken up when he was needed.

  • jaygerbomb

    Here here! I for one am glad to have single player campaign focused shooter. To be honest, I almost wish it didn’t have MP at all, but I know, it’s a box they’ve got to check.

  • Zepherdog

    There’s no way to know, that’s my point. It’s pretty hard to believe a game that’s been terribly received for at least 2 years, specially the last few months of poor previews and promotional material is suddenly turning out to be *fantastic*. Not to mention the mysterious sudden influx of threads on reddit/4chan/etc. of the last few weeks praising the game even before it was released (which has happened with other Bethesda games, Fallout 4 most recently) when it’s clear most people in those communities found the game previews unappealing.

    If you did get paid to review the game positively or not is besides the point, the fact people are being unambiguously paid to pass themselves as community members and reviewers and praise the game is what muddles the water and turns honest positive reviews effectively suspect.

  • Zepherdog

    Well I’d still rather pass on the game than risk disappointment and a big hit on the wallet because people keep saying they ‘liked’ it.

  • The previews were based solely on the multiplayer afaik, and games are very apt to change before they actually get released. Additionally, the reviewers at TechRaptor have no contact with the actual developer when the code is received – all contact is done through an editorial staff member, so as to avoid any sway.

    I just bought the game because internally my guys said that it’s really fun, and I have to agree. Fast paced, and really fun to play. I don’t need to be paid to praise the game, and nor do any of my staff.

  • Zepherdog

    I sure hope that is the case since Techraptor has been one of the very few reputable sites I’ve found remaining and I wouldn’t want to see it fall to horrible practices like everyone else these days.

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    That’s fair enough but I mean how do you choose what games you buy if that’s the case. I mean if I’m hearing nearly all good things about a game that matches up with the stuff I can see on Youtube/Twitch, along with it being the sort of game I enjoy, there has to come a point where you say “I think I should get this”, otherwise you’d never buy a game again.

    Of course doing lots of research from multiple sources is always the best way when looking at a new game. Barring that, wait until it’s cheaper (which I do with the vast majority of games anyway).

  • Perry Ruhland

    Shame that they killed him off like that if so, seeing his giant skull with a big hole blown through it made me smile.

  • SomeCollegeStudent

    I was very skeptical of Doom when I heard the multiplayer was backwards in design and gameplay. Making things much worse was when Bethesda announced no review copies before launch. Then the singleplayer came out, and suddenly the critics of the multiplayer were praising the singleplayer.

    “What happened?” I thought, so I watched someone, competent, play the first hour of the singleplayer. And it looked good. It was not a hand-holding, restrictive campaign like many shooters of recent years. It instead drops you straight into the action, does the action well, and ramps up as you go.

    I think critics praise the game so much now because they expected the singleplayer to suck as much as the multiplayer. Then they were shocked to learn that the singleplayer was at minimum competent, perhaps even good or great.

    Does it deserve a 9 with the multiplayer in its current state? Maybe not. Maybe it deserves more like an 8. But I think at this point people really want a good singleplayer shooter, to the point where they will overlook bad multiplayer, and Doom seems to be delivering that.

  • Scootinfroodie

    I have a question about that bit actually. Many of your complaints about the MP were core gameplay concerns: slow movement, floaty jumping, guns with weak feedback, but presumably CA worked WITH id Software and not in isolation, so shouldn’t those also be SP concerns?

    Also I’ve yet to see footage of enemies being any sort of threat to any remotely experienced FPS player. They mostly just seemed OG DOOM level at best (and in lesser numbers than many of the more interesting DOOM 1/2 encounters), and some of them even had smaller projectiles

  • Scootinfroodie

    There’s a pretty large gap between mediocre at best and absolute trash. Wolfenstein definitely was mediocre though. It’s a game that has more mechanically in common with Far Cry 3 than Wolf3D or RTCW (the latter still surpassing attempts made over a decade later), and there’s a severe lack of interesting weapons and enemies.

    I think the issue though, in many of these cases, is that some people are attracted to the superficial aspects of old school shooters (there’s “secrets”, rocket launchers and gibs. Thus it’s old school), while there are those of us who actually enjoy the mechanical aspects more. I generally don’t take TB’s advice on mechanical complexity in shooters, since he tends to play those more casually. He’s good for lack of corporate backing, but there’s still some topics where I wouldn’t really go off of what he has to say. There’s too many instances of him remembering things incorrectly or saying something entirely wrong/misleading. There’s been at least one bit of info given out every co-optional that has to be corrected by the subreddit he moved his comments to and never visits, for instance.

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    LOL! Return to Castle Wolfenstein……..ok, that game was entertaining for about half an hour, then “suddenly zombies” happened and it turned to crap. Nowhere near a patch on the new one.
    I’ll agree the weapon and enemy variety could have been better but not sure what you are going on about mechanically as it was superb. Fast, fluid and challenging. That and the Shadow Warrior reboot, for the first time made single player FPS feel like it had actually progressed since 2004. It’s nothing like slow ass Far Cry mechanically so dunno really where you pulled that one from. Of course the engine has more in common, they are both new engines, what do you expect? I freaking hate Far Cry with a passion, it doesn’t play remotely similar to The New Order.

  • Scootinfroodie

    Dude what? That’s like not even halfway through Mission 2. You missed out on some of the best levels in the game because you got annoyed about undead?
    Movement in RTCW is better, weapon and enemy variety is better, the recoil mechanic is MILES better, and the level design leaves TNO’s in the dust.
    Mechanically TNO is slow, shallow and stale. It uses FC2-4’s compartmentalized health regen, gives the same number of movement options as FC3 and the enemies have that same level of inconsistent AI that FC2 and 3 do. Additionally, your engine comment just doesn’t make any sense. Not only is idtech5 the successor of the engine RTCW was made on, but engines coming out around the same time doesn’t imply similarity between titles.

    As for progression of FPS, what do you consider progress to be? Slapping modern shooter mechanics onto old franchises?
    If your standards are so low that generic modern fps mechanics+armor and more than 2 guns at once is pushing the medium forward, then where’s the praise for STALKER, Metro, FEAR, and Crysis? If you’re gonna talk first person melee (literally the only remarkable thing about Shadow Warrior 2013) then where were you when Condemned and Zeno Clash came out? What about the advancements in simulation, destruction and AI since 04? What about the experimentation of the past two generations of shooters?

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    I just can’t take you seriously tbh dude. You need to take those rose tinted glasses off. As I said, RTCW was ok until I got to the zombie bit, then I stopped playing because an OK game turned into a poor one. I play lots of FPS, especially back in those days. My reaction to that game was pretty much “meh”.

    It seems like you are just hating on these newer games in an attempt to seem superior to the vast majority who liked them, as if you are a “real” gamer who actually knows his stuff. Shadow Warrior and The New Order were a blast, the vast majority of people agree with that. You are just being a contrarian hipster because your arguments just don’t hold up. You say FC3 is similar, then state the only things it has in common are health regen and “movement options”. You mean the standard movement options that have been in FPS games forever? With maybe a slide in there? Sure, really makes the games identical.
    TNO is not slow, this just shows your bias, it’s objectively not slow.

    When I said pushing the genre forwards I meant technically, graphically, actually making a good single player FPS that makes the most of modern hardware………..I thought that was obvious.
    Given that FEAR and Stalker were years old themselves, they don’t really factor into the argument. The only one that would is Metro, a fine game but also one with a very different feel to the frantic gibbing of the past that TNO and Shadow Warrior brought us again.
    You can over analyse little individual details and say “This isn’t as good as the good old days”, but that’s a really silly thing to do. The overall experience of TNO when everything was put together, was a blast, the vast majority agreed with that, just accept that maybe you don’t like something that most others do rather than trying to twist it into this ridiculous situation where all of those people “know nothing”, you are the expert, so your opinion is fact, hence you are better than everyone else.

    Or MAYBE in the future just actually try and enjoy newer games rather than picking them apart because they didn’t do X,Y and Z the same as a game from your rose tinted childhood days.
    Trust me I’ve played FPS games since Doom (hence your attacks on my credibility are laughable by the way), sure there are some things the genre did better in the past. I’m not going to slate games based on a checklist of mechanics from a previous era. I’m just going to play the game as it is and hope I enjoy it, you seem incapable of doing that without constantly making “This isn’t as good as back in the day” comparisons. I’d suggest you’d have more fun if you didn’t do that, I’ve found in the past it’s very easy to make yourself hate a game that’s actually good by going into it with a “This isn’t going to be very good” mindset, constant nitpicking (which IS what you are doing), will always affect your enjoyment of a game.

    Now I’ll grant you one point that maybe it’s because we have been devoid of good single player FPS for a while as to why people enjoyed Shadow Warrior and TNO as much as they did, but you are literally trying to argue that they are bad games, they objectively aren’t, that’s just moronic. In comparison RTCW mostly bored me, I hold no love for that game compared to the other stuff that was around at that time. It just didn’t seem very good to me.

  • Scootinfroodie

    I played RTCW about 6 months before TNO for the first time. Wanna explain how I developed “rose tinted glasses” in under a year? You experienced less than half of RTCW (no FG42, no Teslagun, no Snooper, never even fought German spec ops). I’ve completed both RTCW and TNO roughly within the same year. RTCW is hands-down the better that

    Also I like how you took 2 of the things that I threw out (not even all of the examples I gave off the top of my head), oversimplified them, and then pulled out a “b-but other shooters have that”
    What makes TNO remarkable then dude? It’s not megatextures, RAGE did that already. It’s not any of the mechanics, it’s not the storytelling, it’s not the tech. It can’t even be the gibbing itself really, since TNO is mostly “hitscan til they fall over” and games like The Darkness and Bulletstorm happened between 04 and TNO.
    “Objectively not slow”. Please play some fast shooters for once in your life.
    ” good single player FPS that makes the most of modern hardware”
    Your standards are that low and yet you can’t find examples from 2005 onwards other than SW2013 (a fairly technically standard shooter) and TNO (a game that, in terms of making the most of hardware, is again outdone by Rage, a title that came out on the same engine years earlier)
    “I’ve been playing FPS since DOOM” and evidently your selection is quite narrow if you think TNO is fast and “pushes the genre forward”, or that no shooters have made good use of the hardware since 2004.
    Also you’re strawmanning. TNO and SW2013 are not BAD games, but they are definitely mediocre. There’s nothing that really pushes them past ” solidly made”, and a lot that keeps them from being great. I think it absolutely is because there’s been a dearth of prominent old school SP games that perfectly generic mechanics are being heralded as notworthy, simply because someone slapped an old franchise name on top. I’ve gone back and played a number of shooters I never got around to playing in the past couple of years, and in terms of pure gameplay and level design, there’s some definite regression in the industry. I don’t see why I should be gleefully handing out participation ribbons because someone didn’t fuck up Wolfenstein, and your eager appeals to popular consensus really do nothing to change that

    Edit: forgot to mention why I listed FEAR and STALKER. The year you gave was 04. FEAR was 05 and STALKER was 07 with two subsequent entries

  • I think it’s pretty safe to say it is the case, since I own and run the site.

  • Smoky_the_Bear

    All of your arguments are nitpicking and stating your OPINION as fact. I found RTCW average when I played it at release, no idea how you found it so good a couple of years ago.

    I mean personally I loved the theme of TNO and while not a storywriting masterpiece it was good, schlocky B-movie goodness that fit the source material really well imo, much better than “You are in an EEEEVIL castle”, which is about all RTCW entailed. Yes you will remember better than me because I quickly forgot about that game years ago, the game didn’t keep me interested long enough, it’s as simple as that.

    I found TNO to be incredibly well balanced and paced with fun and fluid gameplay. I found the art design to be very good, making you feel like you really were in the “The Nazis won the war” setting. That’s where I say it was actually a step forward, in adding in more modern game storytelling techniques into the genre rather than just “You are a nameless man, here’s a gun, go shoot things” of yesteryear. The game changed things up constantly as far as setting which made the game flow really well. Now I can’t say any of these things about Shadow Warrior, maybe a lot of that game was average but honestly I just had too much of a blast with the sword to care, that weapon was so damn good.

    I argued against the initial statement of those games being “mediocre at best”, that pretty much means bad in my book, what’s between mediocre and bad? So if it’s mediocre at best that means “most likely bad”, I fail to see how that is strawmanning.

    So I said 04 and FEAR was 05, again, nitpicking. Stalker was a very different type of game in my opinion, yes an FPS but not the old school style closed level FPS we are talking about here. There are other examples I can cite of good FPS that didn’t really fit the “old school” mold. Crysis was great, again very open though. Never been a Bioshock fan but I guess some people might count those.

    Not hard to see that there has been a lack of good, old school single player FPS recently though. SW and TNO were a great return to form for the genre IN MY OPINION, in yours they were not. A lot of this is subjective and that’s what you fail to understand.
    I’m not saying they were as good as genre classics like Half Life or something, but even then those games do show their age now, so something more updated was very welcome.
    Nor am I saying they were as fast as Quake or something, that’s objectively false, I still fail to see how you can call the gameplay in those games slow though, compared to all this modern warfare nonsense we’ve had to sit through for years, it throws tons of stuff at you and it is frantic and chaotic.

  • Scootinfroodie

    Let’s step back here for a moment, because I’m not sure if this is intentional or not, but there’s a lot of projection and goalpost moving going on here.

    You were the one who entered this conversation to shout down someone else’s opinion. I came in to point out reasons why their statement was correct. Additionally somehow your initial strawmanning of “absolute trash” has become “bad”, which is a far more broad and vague term.

    You’re the one who said 04 as well. I didn’t pick that year, and its not nitpicking to point out that solid shooters came out a year later. You also explicitly said FPS, and not old school shooters. If we’re talking about that specific type of shooter, then TNO CANNOT push the subgenre forward because it’s not any closer to meeting the standards set by Doom/Quake/etc than any other modern SP FPS. That’s not even really a subjective thing, just compare game mechanics. Make a little Venn Diagram out of it.

    Additionally please decide what it is you’re comparing TNO to. If we’re considering it a return to form” then it’s slow. If it’s a modern FPS, it’s not really notably faster than CoD or Far Cry 3/4. It’s also not faster than Gunslinger, which is arcadey but not within the same category as Doom. You don’t get to just pull an “IMO” here as these are observable and measurable aspects of the game. For the record, those games throw equivalent numbers of enemies at you, depending on which portion of the game you play, and yet none of them are cited as a return to form for old school shooters because nobody scribbled Wolfenstein over their title screens and put little nazi uniforms on the bad guys. It’s fine and dandy if you like the game, but it’s quite another to try to make categorical statements about it, and another still to use the “muh opinions” defense after attacking someone else for theirs

    Also please stop making easily falsifiable statements about RTCW. It’s really clear you’ve played almost none of the game and are generalizing based on what is literally the first mission. It’s like if I said Shadow Warrior was based around “some dumb temple” because I never saw any of the other environments in that game

  • William Proto

    Uh brah? He clearly acknowledges the flaws of the multiplayer mode and explains why campaign makes up for it.

  • William Proto

    I’ll probably get this after a price drop, I heard people complaining about the multiplayer and level editor but my main concern was the single player anyways. Great review as always man.