Of course. As I said, I'm not going to blame anyone if the game's flaws really did keep you from enjoying it. That's perfectly legit. But it's also hard for me to understand. There wasn't a single moment during Far Cry 2 where I was irritated or put off in the slightest. It's like the people that hate System Shock 2 because the weapons break too easily. I recognize that they have every right to feel that way, but at the same time it's hard for me to NOT see their complaints as silly, because I can't understand how that one thing (or collection of things, as the case may be) could be irritating enough to keep them from enjoying the rest of the game. It's the Doom 3 flashlight thing all over again. Literally everyone else (including the developers) seems to agree that it's a crippling design flaw, yet I cannot for the life of me understand what is so bad about it. I wouldn't have even identified it as a problem on my own.

This is one of the reasons that I'm worried about my prospects as an indie game designer. What I look for and what I let slide in videogames seems so different from what the majority of gamers look for and let slide. In some cases, I actually thrive off of the things that so offend other people (Doom 3's flashlight, Resident Evil's controls, Timeshift's repetition, Far Cry 2's plethora of guard posts to attack, Quake's gritty brown color palette, etc), and am offended by the things that others thrive off of (excessive polish and balancing being a perfect example. I find it bland. I find it uninteresting to the extreme. I much prefer the rough edges of games like STALKER to the perfection of Halflife 2). Perhaps my standards are lower than most. Perhaps I'm just a lot more patient. I don't know. Either way, I'm hoping that there's a niche of others like me, because otherwise I won't do very well :P

The re-spawning enemies would have been okay if it was in any way sensible. Say, after an hour the factions send out troops to re-man the checkpoints or what not. That would have been fine. But the way it was done...clear a checkpoint, leave for 20 seconds, then come back and fight new ones all over again, was aggravating.

Also, seeing an actual war between the apparently warring factions would have helped. I kept hearing from characters about this bloody conflict, but the only person any of them seemingly ever shot at was me. What the Hell?

I have a theory, that graphics, sound and story creators didn't get the memo, that the game was supposed to be a cash-in on an established name, and actually worked. However the coders could not be arsed to add the entire faction system (irrelevant as it might seem in civil war), so you get everyone firing at you even when you're on a mission for their good (notice, that checkpoint and location ownership never matters).

heh, I actually think that they made half of the mechanics and someone said "Oh that's fine, no one's gonna notice," and made them just stop there. Still love the game, but it pains me to see how great it could have been.

Played Far Cry 2 and it was a blast. The environment and average AI are stunning and cunning. I look forward to the new Far Cry sequel.

Well it will depend on the person. I never minded the flashlight thing and honestly think Doom 3 is a very faithful remake of the original, I think people's perceptions of the original were off. Others disagree though and you can't dismiss them, I would actually say looking at those opinions and actually absorbing them will make you a better designer.

In the end I think people dislike hassles. Gaming is supposed to be fun, a vacation from the hassles of modern day life. Hassles in videogames annoys the older and wiser audience who have other crap to worry about. The most successful games are those that make a more casual requirement feel rewarding.

In FC2 the battles were constant and there was no reward, you had to fight endless enemies just to traverse the map. And they weren't quick and easy enemies like in The Elder Scrolls games, they were drawn out FPS battles with enemies who had a lot of health. It made traversing the landscape a constant hassle with no real reason or reward backing it up.

Can you extrapolate on this a bit? I'd be interested to hear why you think Doom 3 is a faithful remake (I don't necessarily agree or disagree. It's just a viewpoint I've never heard)

There's a Doom 3 styled level set for Doom 2 called Legacy of Suffering. Occasional dark rooms, tight spaces, scripted scenes, player locked with a pack of monsters, quad-barrel shotgun...
Sure, you remember the same Doom? *fires up #1 in Chocolate* It's dark, but it's rarely "and now we turn off the video" dark. Also, the game has the decency of relatively rarely locking you with monsters (the point which Serious Sam and Painkiller stupidly miss). Also, the backtracking is mercifully fast (play Arcadia map, based on BioShock to see the worst of Doom backtracking), thanks to running speed. Also, it doesn't try to pull off survival horror crap by limiting ammo from the very start.

I disagree with everything you just said.

And yes I have played it many times, some recently.

That's good point. I always did feel that Doom 3 was a little more "Doomy" than people give it credit for. However, as someone who HAS played Doom recently, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a faithful remake. More like a reboot. And yes, some of that has to do with the more modern trappings (the one I really notice is the more directed linear level design, but I know other people were disappointed in the low enemy count--but that's been true of every Id game since Quake). But I think the major one is that the combat speed and rhythm of Doom isn't there. Doom 1 and 2 had a lot of running around crazy fast, and Doom 3 really didn't. It sounds like a pretty minor thing from an objective point of view, but it really does make a huge difference.

The ironic part is that games that get labeled "faithful Doom throwbacks" like Painkiller and Serious Sam are about as detached from Doom as Doom 3 is. Yes, you shot a lot of enemies in Doom, but you really didn't ever have to do the sort of mob control those games require, and you were never forced to keep progressing forward along a linear pathway. Plus, whatever happened to keycard hunting puzzles? Granted, they were often more frustrating than fun, but still...

I keep waiting for a true "Doom throwback." Keycards and all.
Actually, it did at one point. I wish I could remember the level (I think it was near the beginning of the third episode). Basically, you're almost constantly low on ammo throughout the entire thing, to the point where you end up having to use your fists at some points.

And frankly, if you ran out of ammo in Doom 3, you were doing something very wrong.

Yeah, that's part of the "narrative" the original Doom so masterfully pulls off. Monster population gradually changes from zombified guys and minor demons, to pure demon hordes and large packs (Doom 2 fails flat at this, I've seen a Cyberdemon and Z-privates in the same room there). Level design and visuals shift from regular shapes to all sorts of crazy. Third episode is Hell, and getting guns and ammo becomes a bit of an issue there, since armed humans with drops no longer appear en masse - they weren't imported, I guess.

I don't count anything below shotgun as guns. :) Well, the revolver in HL1 was a exception.

EDIT: nevermind. misread

I just don't really agree with this. I think Doom is a lot slower than some other games from the time and I think Doom 3 got pretty hectic.

Opinions are like assholes though, etc. etc.

What games, for example?

Again, I'm not trying to turn this into an argument. It's just a side of things I've never heard before (especially since I used to chat a lot with a friend who was a HUGE Doom 3 hater), and I'd like to hear your complete opinion on the matter. Plus, I'm a sucker for unpopular opinions :3

I'd have to replay Doom 3 and Doom side by side to make an accurate comparison (which won't be happening until I build my new computer, unfortunately). I do remember that Doom 3 did get fairly fast-paced by the end (especially in hell), and I agree that the reaction time required in Doom 1/2 is significantly lower than people seem to think. But in this case, it's the movement speed I'm mostly talking about. How you were zipping around like a car in Doom 1/2, and kept a pretty realistic pace in Doom 3. And there were a lot of times in Doom 1/2 (mostly in the first episode) where you were maintaining a constant forward pace as you slaughtered enemies. Kinda like the climactic shootout in 'Equilibrium'. Of course, once you started facing foes stronger than Imps or Zombies this didn't hold true, and the gameplay was very much like what Doom 3 delivered. And now that I think about it, I seem to remember Doom 3's fights feeling rather segmented, whereas the ones in Doom 1/2 kinda blurred into one another, and happened in quicker succession.

About the number of enemies thing... I'm still pretty certain that Doom 1/2 had a lot more enemies that you fought at once than Doom 3 did. Like, there are multiple times in Doom 1/2 where you're fighting multiple mancubuses (spelled right?) at once, or multiple Hellknights, or things like that. I'm not sure that ever happened in Doom 3. In Doom 1/2, I remember killing many many different enemies per room, whereas in Doom 3 I don't think the number ever broke into the double digits (unless you count those spider swarmer things). I could be remembering wrong, though. It's been a year or two since I last played Doom 3.

Dang, you're making me want to replay the game. I remember really enjoying the combat and the atmosphere (especially in Hell). Just add that to the list of games to binge on when I get a decent computer.

(current list: STALKER CoP, Serious Sam TSE HD, Crysis, Far Cry 2, Timeshift, Doom 3, FEAR, Painkiller, Trine, Max Payne 2 and Medal of Honor Airborne. And those are just the games to replay :P)