Creative director Hugo Martin on how Doom: The Dark Ages is a spiritual successor to the original game, and how the Saw Shield will completely upend your expectations
Yeah that feeling of spacial awareness as you’re kiting around groups of enemies. Helps to have simple, easily identifiable level geometry for that matter.
Back when DOOM (2016) was being teased, I tried to picture what a Doom follow-up should look like, and quite frankly I would have left out jumping. Doom and Doom II were first-person Robotron. It’s all about movement and enemy management in cramped hallways and wide-open courtyards. This was the prime franchise for aggressive autoaim. (Though even the original benefits immensely from the option to manually point up.)
Slaughter maps are what modern “Doom clones” should look like. Hordes of enemies, with individually predictable behavior, placed such that you’re always caught between conflicting goals. Hide from hitscanners - keep dodging projectiles. Run from homing missiles - avoid damaging floors. Shoot the demons - let them infight. Conserve cells - nuke everything, oh god they’re coming right at you.
The alternative would be a focus on Nightmare. In the original games, it was deliberately unfair - and said as much when you picked it. But if you know the level beforehand, the accelerated pace and constant respawning force an aggressive playstyle. That’s the original “push-forward combat.” You can’t stand in the distance, plinking away at extra-dangerous mancubi, because the imps behind you are gonna get back up and scratch your kidneys out.
Both approaches highlight how Doom is about management. Health, ammo, time, space.
I always felt like dodging projectiles and not needing to worry about vertical aiming was the best part of doom.
It also translates to controllers well too vs the hit scan skills required with modern fpses along with the ability to aim on the vertical axis
Recently replayed doom 64 on pc and that game is so crisp. Feels really good on a controller and no vertical aiming is handled superbly in that game.
Yeah that feeling of spacial awareness as you’re kiting around groups of enemies. Helps to have simple, easily identifiable level geometry for that matter.
Back when DOOM (2016) was being teased, I tried to picture what a Doom follow-up should look like, and quite frankly I would have left out jumping. Doom and Doom II were first-person Robotron. It’s all about movement and enemy management in cramped hallways and wide-open courtyards. This was the prime franchise for aggressive autoaim. (Though even the original benefits immensely from the option to manually point up.)
Slaughter maps are what modern “Doom clones” should look like. Hordes of enemies, with individually predictable behavior, placed such that you’re always caught between conflicting goals. Hide from hitscanners - keep dodging projectiles. Run from homing missiles - avoid damaging floors. Shoot the demons - let them infight. Conserve cells - nuke everything, oh god they’re coming right at you.
The alternative would be a focus on Nightmare. In the original games, it was deliberately unfair - and said as much when you picked it. But if you know the level beforehand, the accelerated pace and constant respawning force an aggressive playstyle. That’s the original “push-forward combat.” You can’t stand in the distance, plinking away at extra-dangerous mancubi, because the imps behind you are gonna get back up and scratch your kidneys out.
Both approaches highlight how Doom is about management. Health, ammo, time, space.
excellently put, first person robotron is a great comparison