CJ_Parker wrote on May 9, 2016, 10:34:
200fps is not really surprising given the horrible console port garbage visuals. What's next? "News" that Pacman runs at 500fps on Vulkan? Yawn.

Exactly! Today's kids gets excited for absolutely nothing. They seem to love the new Disney look of the new generic shooter shamefully calling itself Doom.

High-end gfx hardware to play '90s game mechanics. Exciting!

Well it's actually on the highest graphics settings contrary to the beta and the vulkan implementation is not final yet and wont be in the retail version, it will be patched in shortly after when it's running as it should, it was mentioned there were some issues when running at 200 fps that need fixing first + some more optimisations are needed, this was just a work in progress demo to promote Nvidia's new card.

Kevin Lowe wrote on May 9, 2016, 15:20:
So, if a game runs at 30 fps, it's an unoptimized console port. If it runs at 60 fps, it's bad because the developer didn't unlock the frame rate. And if it runs over 120 fps, it's because the art assets are console quality.

At what frame rate do people actually say something positive?

When it's high framerate /and/ looks amazing.

30fps is honestly bad.

60fps feels just as bad if you've lately been running 120+ fps on a 120+hz monitor. It's kinda jarring. For slow games like flight sims, it's fine. But in an action game, going down to 60 after a while of using 120 just makes it feel bizzarre - feels like your inputs are lagging and the sense of motion is 'off'. But granted, it's not an issue for folks running 60hz, so I can't fault a company for not catering to the 1% of monitors. It's kinda in the '1st world problems' category, so whatever.

D4 beta was a low rez texture washed-out mess. If the 200 fps demo is at the same graphics quality, then running 200fps simply means that the devs were appropriately competent - because it's to be expected.

-scheherazade

ItBurn wrote on May 9, 2016, 11:13:
The game doesn't look like doom. He's fighting aliens in a clean space station, not demons in a dirty mars facility.

This! It's mass effect / halo with a Disney influence on the 3D models.

Beamer wrote on May 9, 2016, 12:41:
I fail to see an issue with this, though. I mean, it's kind of fun. In Quake 3 we could customize our railgun colors, right? And that was kind of fun - if you knew one guy was really good with the railgun and used yellow, and saw someone near you get zapped by a yellow beam, you knew it was probably a good time to find cover.

Or, with Rocket League, everyone changes everything.

Fun times.

Fair enough. I guess people can play the campaign if they want all the art direction to stray true to the themes.

Customization is usually a good thing

Slick wrote on May 9, 2016, 17:09:

ItBurn wrote on May 9, 2016, 16:01:

Beamer wrote on May 9, 2016, 15:33:
I really never understood the M+b vs controller debate.

Ultimately, I just don't care. A fun game is fun. I play Rocket League using M+K, which is idiotic - I have a receiver for the Xbox 360 controller sitting in the Amazon shipping envelope in a drawer nearby; it'd take me 5 minutes to set it up. But I don't. M+K is fine for me. I've played plenty of other racing games with it, too, and done just fine in them, even though you're sometimes wiggling like crazy to get the right line.

And I play a ton of FPS games on consoles. Controllers work great there. The games are designed for it, and designed well for it, and every single other player is using a controller so no one is significantly better than you due to what you're using. If anything, it's a more even playing field because you don't have some guy with a super expensive setup destroying you.

I dunno, for me, both input methods are fine. Both have their purposes, but I find I can adapt to any input method fairly quickly. Using the wrong one in multiplayer is a disadvantage if others use the right one, but the less I game the less interested I am in multiplayer, so...

I don't care what other people use to control their games, but I do hate when my favorite control scheme is badly implemented. I don't agree with the argument that games are "designed for the controller". This means that on PC, you simply must support the mouse and keyboard, because that's all a lot of people have. Also, I absolutely can't stand controllers for first person shooters, even in single player, and I don't like how they design games around its limitations. Oh I died because I couldn't turn fast enough? That's fun... Or, enemies can't shoot for sh*t to compensate for the slow controller aiming? That's fun... This often/always bleeds into PC ports too, especially in the interface department. I've been playing fun games with mouse/keyb that were designed for the controller, but they'd be a lot more fun if the port was proper. How can you not be frustrated when you can see how better it could be?

"games designed for the controller" isn't an argument, it's a fact. It's a design choice. It's fairly obvious when they are, menus use a radial menu DESIGNED for an analog stick, the weapons/abilities are usually no higher a number than the number of buttons on a controller.

I'm not saying that I love it when a 3rd party dev does a half-assed port of an FPS game from console to PC without native mouse support. As I mentioned, most of the time the people doing the port is not the studio that designed the game. They might not even have a way to enable native mouse support, so have to hack together some analog stick emulation which is often the worst. That shit irritates me to no end.

But that doesn't mean that games aren't designed for controllers. If you don't have one on PC, then you're forgoing a big chunk of the available library out there. you can play a flight sim with KB/M, but it'll be the "bad" choice over a HOTAS, same with a racing sim and a wheel+pedals, same with a Vive game without the motion controllers, lol or the headset!

PC gaming is all about customizing peripherals. Customizing everything. So don't tell me that the most open gaming platform that's ever existed can only design games for ONE input method. That's how console peasants speak.

We agree about the games being designed for a controller thing. I just said that not properly supporting kb/m is not an excuse that I will accept. I've never played a PC game with a controller and while it was rough sometimes, I still preferred the improved aiming that kb/m afforded. Except with Dead Space, which was literally unplayable in every way, not only controls. I've never said that they should support *only* keyboard and mouse. I'm all for variety, but you should support kb/m, because everyone has them. It's the default controlling method, like gamepads for consoles.

ItBurn wrote on May 9, 2016, 16:01:

Beamer wrote on May 9, 2016, 15:33:
I really never understood the M+b vs controller debate.

Ultimately, I just don't care. A fun game is fun. I play Rocket League using M+K, which is idiotic - I have a receiver for the Xbox 360 controller sitting in the Amazon shipping envelope in a drawer nearby; it'd take me 5 minutes to set it up. But I don't. M+K is fine for me. I've played plenty of other racing games with it, too, and done just fine in them, even though you're sometimes wiggling like crazy to get the right line.

And I play a ton of FPS games on consoles. Controllers work great there. The games are designed for it, and designed well for it, and every single other player is using a controller so no one is significantly better than you due to what you're using. If anything, it's a more even playing field because you don't have some guy with a super expensive setup destroying you.

I dunno, for me, both input methods are fine. Both have their purposes, but I find I can adapt to any input method fairly quickly. Using the wrong one in multiplayer is a disadvantage if others use the right one, but the less I game the less interested I am in multiplayer, so...

I don't care what other people use to control their games, but I do hate when my favorite control scheme is badly implemented. I don't agree with the argument that games are "designed for the controller". This means that on PC, you simply must support the mouse and keyboard, because that's all a lot of people have. Also, I absolutely can't stand controllers for first person shooters, even in single player, and I don't like how they design games around its limitations. Oh I died because I couldn't turn fast enough? That's fun... Or, enemies can't shoot for sh*t to compensate for the slow controller aiming? That's fun... This often/always bleeds into PC ports too, especially in the interface department. I've been playing fun games with mouse/keyb that were designed for the controller, but they'd be a lot more fun if the port was proper. How can you not be frustrated when you can see how better it could be?

"games designed for the controller" isn't an argument, it's a fact. It's a design choice. It's fairly obvious when they are, menus use a radial menu DESIGNED for an analog stick, the weapons/abilities are usually no higher a number than the number of buttons on a controller.

I'm not saying that I love it when a 3rd party dev does a half-assed port of an FPS game from console to PC without native mouse support. As I mentioned, most of the time the people doing the port is not the studio that designed the game. They might not even have a way to enable native mouse support, so have to hack together some analog stick emulation which is often the worst. That shit irritates me to no end.

But that doesn't mean that games aren't designed for controllers. If you don't have one on PC, then you're forgoing a big chunk of the available library out there. you can play a flight sim with KB/M, but it'll be the "bad" choice over a HOTAS, same with a racing sim and a wheel+pedals, same with a Vive game without the motion controllers, lol or the headset!

PC gaming is all about customizing peripherals. Customizing everything. So don't tell me that the most open gaming platform that's ever existed can only design games for ONE input method. That's how console peasants speak.

<Electric-Spock> wrote on May 9, 2016, 16:56:
For an FPS, the M+K is far superior, just as for a fighting game like Tekken or Street Fighter, the controller is better, and even mo better is an arcade stick.

I think that the keyboard is far better for fighting games than a controller or fight stick. It's harder to master, yes, but pressing a direction key is immediate while moving a stick takes some time. It's much faster to do circle motions or to alternate left and right quickly.

Doombringer wrote on May 9, 2016, 15:18:

CJ_Parker wrote on May 9, 2016, 12:35:
It applies more than ever. Back in the day when id games were PC exclusive and Carmack was still on board, people bought the latest id game not just for the game but also as benchmarks for what is the visual state of the art in gaming. I was one of them. I wasn't even that interested in the Dooms or Quake 1 + 2 or Q3A as a game but I did not want to miss out on the graphical spectacle.

This new Doom? Laughable garbage. Low detail, slow pace, little variety, everything is low res, zoomed in and XXL for controller friendliness, same goes for the lack of vertical gameplay, everything happens in a narrow band in front of the player so controllers basically only need to be moved left/right and only slightly up/down.
The console compromises here are plain as day to see for anyone with an eye for the analytical detail of why a game is made as it is and I'm more than happy to share my expertise with y'all (even if most of ya don't deserve it! ).

You're complaining about a lack of vertical gameplay in a Doom game... which never had a variety of vertical gameplay (beyond a few platforms or stairs). In fact, you couldn't even mouselook up and down in classic Doom or Doom 2...

A lot of people could argue that too much vertical play is actually UN-Doomish and not something they want. And "controller friendliness"? The original Doom had how many controls exactly? Weapon swaps, strafe, shoot... not even reload! And the display... huge numbers for health and ammo and armor.

Did we play the same classic Doom?

I'm inclined to agree with you, not entirely because your name has "Doom" in it

Kevin Lowe wrote on May 9, 2016, 15:20:
So, if a game runs at 30 fps, it's an unoptimized console port. If it runs at 60 fps, it's bad because the developer didn't unlock the frame rate. And if it runs over 120 fps, it's because the art assets are console quality.

At what frame rate do people actually say something positive?

you sir, just made my new sig

*edit also the answer to your question is 144 fps, the god tier =p

This comment was edited on May 9, 2016, 17:14.

For an FPS, the M+K is far superior, just as for a fighting game like Tekken or Street Fighter, the controller is better, and even mo better is an arcade stick.

When designing a game to be playable using the inferior input device, the overall quality suffers. This is especially true in the FPS department with developers dumbing down their games for the consoles.

I pretty much only play MP FPS games on PC, and the popularity of console FPS gaming has really put a damper on things. Lately, I really only get excited about PC only releases, which are few and far between. Watching that Battlefield One trailer and seeing the XBOX One logo at the end just lets me know they are not making a game I want to play, but something I might want to play if it's not dumbed down too much.

ItBurn wrote on May 9, 2016, 16:01:

Beamer wrote on May 9, 2016, 15:33:
I really never understood the M+b vs controller debate.

Ultimately, I just don't care. A fun game is fun. I play Rocket League using M+K, which is idiotic - I have a receiver for the Xbox 360 controller sitting in the Amazon shipping envelope in a drawer nearby; it'd take me 5 minutes to set it up. But I don't. M+K is fine for me. I've played plenty of other racing games with it, too, and done just fine in them, even though you're sometimes wiggling like crazy to get the right line.

And I play a ton of FPS games on consoles. Controllers work great there. The games are designed for it, and designed well for it, and every single other player is using a controller so no one is significantly better than you due to what you're using. If anything, it's a more even playing field because you don't have some guy with a super expensive setup destroying you.

I dunno, for me, both input methods are fine. Both have their purposes, but I find I can adapt to any input method fairly quickly. Using the wrong one in multiplayer is a disadvantage if others use the right one, but the less I game the less interested I am in multiplayer, so...

I don't care what other people use to control their games, but I do hate when my favorite control scheme is badly implemented. I don't agree with the argument that games are "designed for the controller". This means that on PC, you simply must support the mouse and keyboard, because that's all a lot of people have. Also, I absolutely can't stand controllers for first person shooters, even in single player, and I don't like how they design games around its limitations. Oh I died because I couldn't turn fast enough? That's fun... Or, enemies can't shoot for sh*t to compensate for the slow controller aiming? That's fun... This often/always bleeds into PC ports too, especially in the interface department. I've been playing fun games with mouse/keyb that were designed for the controller, but they'd be a lot more fun if the port was proper. How can you not be frustrated when you can see how better it could be?

STOP MAKING SENSE!!!

Beamer wrote on May 9, 2016, 15:33:
I really never understood the M+b vs controller debate.

Ultimately, I just don't care. A fun game is fun. I play Rocket League using M+K, which is idiotic - I have a receiver for the Xbox 360 controller sitting in the Amazon shipping envelope in a drawer nearby; it'd take me 5 minutes to set it up. But I don't. M+K is fine for me. I've played plenty of other racing games with it, too, and done just fine in them, even though you're sometimes wiggling like crazy to get the right line.

And I play a ton of FPS games on consoles. Controllers work great there. The games are designed for it, and designed well for it, and every single other player is using a controller so no one is significantly better than you due to what you're using. If anything, it's a more even playing field because you don't have some guy with a super expensive setup destroying you.

I dunno, for me, both input methods are fine. Both have their purposes, but I find I can adapt to any input method fairly quickly. Using the wrong one in multiplayer is a disadvantage if others use the right one, but the less I game the less interested I am in multiplayer, so...

I don't care what other people use to control their games, but I do hate when my favorite control scheme is badly implemented. I don't agree with the argument that games are "designed for the controller". This means that on PC, you simply must support the mouse and keyboard, because that's all a lot of people have. Also, I absolutely can't stand controllers for first person shooters, even in single player, and I don't like how they design games around its limitations. Oh I died because I couldn't turn fast enough? That's fun... Or, enemies can't shoot for sh*t to compensate for the slow controller aiming? That's fun... This often/always bleeds into PC ports too, especially in the interface department. I've been playing fun games with mouse/keyb that were designed for the controller, but they'd be a lot more fun if the port was proper. How can you not be frustrated when you can see how better it could be?

I really never understood the M+b vs controller debate.

Ultimately, I just don't care. A fun game is fun. I play Rocket League using M+K, which is idiotic - I have a receiver for the Xbox 360 controller sitting in the Amazon shipping envelope in a drawer nearby; it'd take me 5 minutes to set it up. But I don't. M+K is fine for me. I've played plenty of other racing games with it, too, and done just fine in them, even though you're sometimes wiggling like crazy to get the right line.

And I play a ton of FPS games on consoles. Controllers work great there. The games are designed for it, and designed well for it, and every single other player is using a controller so no one is significantly better than you due to what you're using. If anything, it's a more even playing field because you don't have some guy with a super expensive setup destroying you.

I dunno, for me, both input methods are fine. Both have their purposes, but I find I can adapt to any input method fairly quickly. Using the wrong one in multiplayer is a disadvantage if others use the right one, but the less I game the less interested I am in multiplayer, so...

Doom was already a ridiculously simplistic game, carrying 3 weapons instead of 8 is not going to change the core gameplay much at all (and do we even know if this limitation actually exists in SP?).

I think people need to stop pining for recreating their "Brutal Doom" experience... because that wasn't Doom and it very barely resembles the actual franchise gameplay. These threads get cluttered up with people being nostalgic for things that were literally never a part of what Doom actually was.

Doombringer wrote on May 9, 2016, 15:18:

CJ_Parker wrote on May 9, 2016, 12:35:
It applies more than ever. Back in the day when id games were PC exclusive and Carmack was still on board, people bought the latest id game not just for the game but also as benchmarks for what is the visual state of the art in gaming. I was one of them. I wasn't even that interested in the Dooms or Quake 1 + 2 or Q3A as a game but I did not want to miss out on the graphical spectacle.

This new Doom? Laughable garbage. Low detail, slow pace, little variety, everything is low res, zoomed in and XXL for controller friendliness, same goes for the lack of vertical gameplay, everything happens in a narrow band in front of the player so controllers basically only need to be moved left/right and only slightly up/down.
The console compromises here are plain as day to see for anyone with an eye for the analytical detail of why a game is made as it is and I'm more than happy to share my expertise with y'all (even if most of ya don't deserve it! ).

You're complaining about a lack of vertical gameplay in a Doom game... which never had a variety of vertical gameplay (beyond a few platforms or stairs). In fact, you couldn't even mouselook up and down in classic Doom or Doom 2...

A lot of people could argue that too much vertical play is actually UN-Doomish and not something they want. And "controller friendliness"? The original Doom had how many controls exactly? Weapon swaps, strafe, shoot... not even reload! And the display... huge numbers for health and ammo and armor.

Did we play the same classic Doom?

Most people are OK with modernizing Doom, but not as a dumbed down console port for the lowest common denominator. They want a PC game. Brutal Doom does vertical gameplay pretty well while maintaining that "Doom" feel, especially in the 30 level map pack.

We absolutely want remakes of old PC franchises to be different and modernized, but they must keep their identity and core features.

Kevin Lowe wrote on May 9, 2016, 15:20:
At what frame rate do people actually say something positive?

If you are looking to hear anything positive about the new Doom, I am afraid you are on the wrong website.

So, if a game runs at 30 fps, it's an unoptimized console port. If it runs at 60 fps, it's bad because the developer didn't unlock the frame rate. And if it runs over 120 fps, it's because the art assets are console quality.

At what frame rate do people actually say something positive?

CJ_Parker wrote on May 9, 2016, 12:35:
It applies more than ever. Back in the day when id games were PC exclusive and Carmack was still on board, people bought the latest id game not just for the game but also as benchmarks for what is the visual state of the art in gaming. I was one of them. I wasn't even that interested in the Dooms or Quake 1 + 2 or Q3A as a game but I did not want to miss out on the graphical spectacle.

This new Doom? Laughable garbage. Low detail, slow pace, little variety, everything is low res, zoomed in and XXL for controller friendliness, same goes for the lack of vertical gameplay, everything happens in a narrow band in front of the player so controllers basically only need to be moved left/right and only slightly up/down.
The console compromises here are plain as day to see for anyone with an eye for the analytical detail of why a game is made as it is and I'm more than happy to share my expertise with y'all (even if most of ya don't deserve it! ).

You're complaining about a lack of vertical gameplay in a Doom game... which never had a variety of vertical gameplay (beyond a few platforms or stairs). In fact, you couldn't even mouselook up and down in classic Doom or Doom 2...

A lot of people could argue that too much vertical play is actually UN-Doomish and not something they want. And "controller friendliness"? The original Doom had how many controls exactly? Weapon swaps, strafe, shoot... not even reload! And the display... huge numbers for health and ammo and armor.

Did we play the same classic Doom?