amok: For you, Desert Bus is the greatest game in gaming history, isn't it?

rtcvb32: I'm not a teenager anymore, I can't act at such high speeds as I used to.

Emob78: How do ya mess up Doom? How do ya do that? Is it intentional? Are they doing this shit on purpose?

rtcvb32: One way to mess up Doom, is to make it a dark corridor shooter where you have to wield a flashlight OR a shotgun...

Seriously Doom3 they tried to go towards horror and it just... was so annoying I think I touched it for 5 minutes at most.

Emob78: I think I am beginning to understand all of this. There's so many comments I'm reading saying how much better Doom 3 was to the Nu-Doom. But when Doom 3 came out, everyone pissed on it.

Painted_Doll: 60 euros for a short game ?

https://steamcommunity.com/app/379720/discussions/0/357286119108890051/

rtcvb32: Ummm how was Doom3 anything but a failure?

Emob78: Going back to my point... because somehow Doom 3 doesn't suck as bad the new Doom game does. That's the logic, I think. Like I said, I get it. But I don't want to. Thinking about this too much does make your head hurt. I highly recommend your approach.

Fenixp: The only thing that was a 'failure' about Doom 3 was that it was called Doom. Otherwise it's an excellent first person shooter.

Emob78: Going back to my point... because somehow Doom 3 doesn't suck as bad the new Doom game does. That's the logic, I think. Like I said, I get it. But I don't want to. Thinking about this too much does make your head hurt. I highly recommend your approach.

Fenixp: FYI the original Doom took about 5-6 hours.

Fenixp: The only thing that was a 'failure' about Doom 3 was that it was called Doom. Otherwise it's an excellent first person shooter.

Fenixp: Becaaause a bunch of commenters = a universal truth of the internet? Look at user scores for Doom 3 wherever and look at user scores for 2016 Doom wherever. Make a comparison.

Emob78: Not at all. For me it's a sampling I use to make informed consumer decisions. Over the years I've saved a ton of money not getting ripped by making bad game buys. If a game lacks in depth, or is buggy, or just sucks overall, the fine folks on the internet will sniff it out. If reviews were indeed nothing to go by, then there wouldn't be websites like Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, or Metacritic. If 10,000 people review a certain game, and 8,000 give it a bad rating, then odds are the game has something wrong with it. You may love it, you may hate it, but for me the percentage is enough to skip it.

Fenixp: Yes. That's why I said you should look at what said people are saying about Doom 3 and then about the new Doom. User reviews for the new Doom are generally more favorable than they were for Doom 3. Metacritic:
7.9 - Doom (2016) - 7.9
7.5 - Doom 3

Steam:
93% positive - Doom (2016)
89% positive - Doom 3

Yes, people generally did like Doom 3 as well, and they seem to like the new Doom even more.

adamhm: Due to the way it works it's inevitable that it will incur a performance hit, and that systems with weaker CPUs will be much more affected.

The Lords of the Fallen developers said that Denuvo was expected to incur up to a 5% performance hit. Unfortunately it was on a Twitch stream that is no longer available (it was linked to from here).

That "up to 5%" figure is in line with the figure given by CDPR for SecuROM on the original retail version of The Witcher 2, however when that came out it was found that weaker systems were actually hit very hard - up to 30% drop compared to the DRM-free version from GOG. I would not be at all surprised if this is also the case with Denuvo, especially since Denuvo was formed from SecuROM and works in a similar manner (albeit without its own authentication mechanisms).