The Great CT - Community Thread
- Thread starter mattavelle1
- Start date
Inside No.9's Cold Comfort episode is some plain horror material. It's really cool how this series can balance horror and comedy at the same time. It also made me realise how much I don't ever want to do a job like that.
I basically have one more area to clear in Mortal Shell and I really don't want it to end. I thought at first that the content of this game was enough. I'm 13hrs into this game and I generally play Souls-like games really slowly, but now I realise it really is a short experience. It makes me sad. I hope the devs are planning a sequel sometime in the future.
I basically have one more area to clear in Mortal Shell and I really don't want it to end. I thought at first that the content of this game was enough. I'm 13hrs into this game and I generally play Souls-like games really slowly, but now I realise it really is a short experience. It makes me sad. I hope the devs are planning a sequel sometime in the future.
Last edited:
I'm waltzing back in here for a minute (Sup guys, how have you been?) for some discussion on FPS and map design/bullet penetration.
First off: Bullet penetration.
Why is it so rare/under utilized in FPS? From what I understand it should not be too difficult to implement from a programming point, and by far easier to compute on modern hardware than it was a decade and half ago (CoD on the Wii even had it). However most FPS I have seen either don't have it all (such that even a chain link fence is effectively an impenetrable force field) or have it in such limited capacity it may as well not be included (Why only 'cover points' would have it is beyond me).
Second: Map design.
What map design's and scale do you guys general prefer for most shooters? Obviously this depends heavily on the number of players playing at any given time and the game modes and spawns systems implemented. I personally am a fan of the medium sized '3-lane' design most of the older CoD's used, as it helped channel teams into head on confrontations while still allowing for flanking and strategic counter play (likewise, it is usually small enough for players to reach each other in a timely fashion, but not too large to make it boring... What was the name of that one Map in ghosts that was so large neither team could manage to score the full points by the end of the round?). However most shooters' now seams to either narrow it down two '2-lane' or just go 'full circle' with the map design; the former being to narrow for anything other than point and shoot, and the latter just being clusterfuck in any game map that isn't massive by comparison.
First off: Bullet penetration.
Why is it so rare/under utilized in FPS? From what I understand it should not be too difficult to implement from a programming point, and by far easier to compute on modern hardware than it was a decade and half ago (CoD on the Wii even had it). However most FPS I have seen either don't have it all (such that even a chain link fence is effectively an impenetrable force field) or have it in such limited capacity it may as well not be included (Why only 'cover points' would have it is beyond me).
Second: Map design.
What map design's and scale do you guys general prefer for most shooters? Obviously this depends heavily on the number of players playing at any given time and the game modes and spawns systems implemented. I personally am a fan of the medium sized '3-lane' design most of the older CoD's used, as it helped channel teams into head on confrontations while still allowing for flanking and strategic counter play (likewise, it is usually small enough for players to reach each other in a timely fashion, but not too large to make it boring... What was the name of that one Map in ghosts that was so large neither team could manage to score the full points by the end of the round?). However most shooters' now seams to either narrow it down two '2-lane' or just go 'full circle' with the map design; the former being to narrow for anything other than point and shoot, and the latter just being clusterfuck in any game map that isn't massive by comparison.
As far as Bullet penetration goes, it could simply be a way for programmers to simplify the development process, and put less focus on what material should go where in order to in turn make level design also more simple? I remember back in HL2 was first shown in 2003, and they pride themselves by saying the world was built out of materials; meaning steel drums, and wood would interact with water like they would in real life. I think it's less about if we have the tech, and more "How does this affect the game in general?" Like you said though, earlier COD games did this, so why was it eliminated in later games? Your guess is as good as mine, but I'm going to say it was purely a technical reason in order to strive for better fidelity, at the expense of finer attention to detail in non-graphical areas.
I think physics systems on some level have stagnated in recent years due to the complexity of fidelity in games. Gamers want more fidelity, and that will come at the expense of physics. For example, GTAIV had some pretty nifty physics that were not used in GTAV (there's a comparison video about it on YT). Same is true for Just Cause 3 vs. Just Cause 4. I essence, they simplified some of the physics in both games, possibly to reduce complexity, and/or increase fidelity as the physics were already putting a strain on the rather limited CPU power as it was.
I don't recall if this was eventually patched or not, but I remember a similar comparison video where someone took Horizon: Zero Dawn, and compared the physics systems between it, and BotW. BotW had a much more in-depth, and sophisticated physics system the world was built around, whereas HZD was more about the fidelity at the expense of physics. While I am unsure if this is truly the case, I think physics, and graphics trade blows depending on the hardware used, and what I see is physics take more of a backseat (AI scripts, and some simple objects though still have their systems in place). But hey, this is also a world where Infinity Ward felt that Fish A.I. was something fancy, and had to be included when Super Mario 64 did this almost two decades ago. In fairness, Mario 64 likely was a simple script that said, "once Mario is within this distance of the Fish, the Fish begin moving away from player," and less that the fish had their own individual AI systems.
But anyway, I'm getting off topic here. Map Design I think is a lot more complicated, and I'm not sure what I can really say about it except that the size of the map I don't really care about. I think there are advantages to all sorts of approaches. For example, I'm going to say straight away that I am not a fan of the map design of Rogue Company, but you get what you pay for, or don't pay for I guess. RC is only a fill-in for if COD ever comes to Switch. As far as your point about COD: Ghost's large map, are you talking about the Island looking one with the castle in it? It was big enough so there wasn't always something going on, but it also made it nice to keep your distance, and the castle provided some decent times where mayhem could occur.
I guess I haven't really done a deep-dive into the methodology of level design, and what really works, or doesn't work.
I think physics systems on some level have stagnated in recent years due to the complexity of fidelity in games. Gamers want more fidelity, and that will come at the expense of physics. For example, GTAIV had some pretty nifty physics that were not used in GTAV (there's a comparison video about it on YT). Same is true for Just Cause 3 vs. Just Cause 4. I essence, they simplified some of the physics in both games, possibly to reduce complexity, and/or increase fidelity as the physics were already putting a strain on the rather limited CPU power as it was.
I don't recall if this was eventually patched or not, but I remember a similar comparison video where someone took Horizon: Zero Dawn, and compared the physics systems between it, and BotW. BotW had a much more in-depth, and sophisticated physics system the world was built around, whereas HZD was more about the fidelity at the expense of physics. While I am unsure if this is truly the case, I think physics, and graphics trade blows depending on the hardware used, and what I see is physics take more of a backseat (AI scripts, and some simple objects though still have their systems in place). But hey, this is also a world where Infinity Ward felt that Fish A.I. was something fancy, and had to be included when Super Mario 64 did this almost two decades ago. In fairness, Mario 64 likely was a simple script that said, "once Mario is within this distance of the Fish, the Fish begin moving away from player," and less that the fish had their own individual AI systems.
But anyway, I'm getting off topic here. Map Design I think is a lot more complicated, and I'm not sure what I can really say about it except that the size of the map I don't really care about. I think there are advantages to all sorts of approaches. For example, I'm going to say straight away that I am not a fan of the map design of Rogue Company, but you get what you pay for, or don't pay for I guess. RC is only a fill-in for if COD ever comes to Switch. As far as your point about COD: Ghost's large map, are you talking about the Island looking one with the castle in it? It was big enough so there wasn't always something going on, but it also made it nice to keep your distance, and the castle provided some decent times where mayhem could occur.
I guess I haven't really done a deep-dive into the methodology of level design, and what really works, or doesn't work.
Bullet penetration probably has been avoided due to complexity/graphical fidelity, but it is a real shame! Most 'physics' in FPS are purely cosmetic and have no practical bearing on the gameplay. Bullet penetration, when done right, has a HUGE affect on gameplay. It allows for much deeper strategy and consideration when positioning your character or routing the enemy team, and is also a massive boon to counter Campering players or breaching positions. (Although is physics the right term for bullet penetration? at least in CoD it was a pretty simple 'reduce damage by x amount if in contact with Y object') It also seams much easier to implement than many physics elements in other games. BoTW spent months in development just to get the physics 'right' before the rest of the game could be developed. Bullet penetration is much simplier to implement by comparison. (but I am comparing apples to oranges so take that with a grain of salt)
As for map design, I kinda agree, especially about Rogue Company. In RC's case they went for the '3-lane' design but generally failed to put in the cross road sections that allow for flanking or breaching maneuvers. Coupled with the static spawns and objective based gameplay, and it results in a mess where an entrenched team is generally guaranteed to win by default.
As for the map in ghosts; I think you are talking about Castle. That was one pretty huge, but due to a general lack of cover it made it where teams could still have frequent fire fights and keep the flow going. The map I am thinking of was much more linear and had several break points, it was the one with a huge hole in the ground next to a mine, and a massive building in the middle of the map, dividing the two teams. It took a solid two minutes to get from one side of the map to the other.
As for map design, I kinda agree, especially about Rogue Company. In RC's case they went for the '3-lane' design but generally failed to put in the cross road sections that allow for flanking or breaching maneuvers. Coupled with the static spawns and objective based gameplay, and it results in a mess where an entrenched team is generally guaranteed to win by default.
As for the map in ghosts; I think you are talking about Castle. That was one pretty huge, but due to a general lack of cover it made it where teams could still have frequent fire fights and keep the flow going. The map I am thinking of was much more linear and had several break points, it was the one with a huge hole in the ground next to a mine, and a massive building in the middle of the map, dividing the two teams. It took a solid two minutes to get from one side of the map to the other.
I'm still not seeing the one you're thinking. Maybe this'll help? http://www.codghosts.net/multiplayer-maps/
Like @Koenig said, even the Wii COD games had bullet penetration, so its not exactly a hardware limitation, but primarily a design choice. I havent played any COD since Ghost, but I would assume that the bullet penetration in the newer games hasnt changed much beyond what they implemented years ago. From my experience, the bullet penetration isnt really a physic calculation in COD, but instead a predetermined damage reduction for a certain distance behind that wall. Bullets didnt change trajectory based on the angle the bullet hits the wall or anything like that. There was also a limited distance that bullet would travel once it hit the wall. If your character is directly behind the wall, you will take damage, but if your a certain distance away from the wall, no damage taken. Its all precalculated, so its not really hard on the hardware. You could probably max out a modern top of the line Intel CPU if you were truly trying to simulate true to life bullet physics and how they would react to every object in the game world. True simulation of physics can be extremely demanding if the developer were to allow a true to life simulation of all the possible variables in a world. Imagine trying to factor how a bullet should move when shot at 200 yards with 10mph winds on an 85 degree day with 90% humidity. On top of making it very demanding on the hardware, would the player actually have a better experience? Probably not.
I though map sizing was good all the way from Black ops to Ghost. Ghost was pushing it, a few of the maps were a bit big for 12 players, but other than that I always thought they were good. Some maps had choke points where 90% of the action would take place, but still good. Goldeneye on Wii had good maps as well. Much smaller for the most part, but with only 8 players it worked well. A level or two had sections that were almost useless, and one room that was a guaranteed win if your team could get there first. I believe Goldeneye Reloaded on PS3/360 fixed that by adding a ladder to get in on the back side.
After playing an enjoying the multiplayer in Doom 2016, it made me want to see either Quake Arena or Unreal Tournament come to Switch. Arena shooters are so much different than COD style gameplay. I like them both, and would love to see it all still happen. Seems like Activision is satisficed leaving COD off the platform even though a Modern Warfare Trilogy would be easy money. Its too bad, but I don't think we will be see a COD "quality" experience on Switch. As much as we bitched about COD, in the end, it was mostly nitpicking, and all in all the games were fun.
I though map sizing was good all the way from Black ops to Ghost. Ghost was pushing it, a few of the maps were a bit big for 12 players, but other than that I always thought they were good. Some maps had choke points where 90% of the action would take place, but still good. Goldeneye on Wii had good maps as well. Much smaller for the most part, but with only 8 players it worked well. A level or two had sections that were almost useless, and one room that was a guaranteed win if your team could get there first. I believe Goldeneye Reloaded on PS3/360 fixed that by adding a ladder to get in on the back side.
After playing an enjoying the multiplayer in Doom 2016, it made me want to see either Quake Arena or Unreal Tournament come to Switch. Arena shooters are so much different than COD style gameplay. I like them both, and would love to see it all still happen. Seems like Activision is satisficed leaving COD off the platform even though a Modern Warfare Trilogy would be easy money. Its too bad, but I don't think we will be see a COD "quality" experience on Switch. As much as we bitched about COD, in the end, it was mostly nitpicking, and all in all the games were fun.
@Koenig Valorant and Insurgency have bullet penetration.
I think CS:GO does, as well. It's a cool mechanic for sure.
As far as maps go, I don't know if I have a preference for a particular design, it depends on the genre and how it's applied. Games like CS:GO and Valorant do totally fine with lanes that lead to multiple control points, but Splatoon's vertical, symmetrical maps also work really well due to the tug-of-war nature of its game modes. Meanwhile, a game like COD where you're encouraged to sprint around aimlessly will be designed in a way that you never reach a dead-end or, if you prefer staying in a corner or near a window, you'll always have opponents randomly running by for an easy kill. Treyarch does generally stick with 3-lane quasi-symmetrical maps so that no matter where you spawn, if you start running forward you're always guaranteed to run into someone, and someone is guaranteed to run into you from behind in turn. Now if you try playing COD in the style of CS:GO it falls apart immediately because of the unbalanced guns and killstreaks, and you get a stroke in real life. Likewise a game like Overwatch doesn't hold up the same in FFA with closed maps and random spawn points because that's just not how its characters are designed to be played.
So again, I wouldn't say there's a style of map design I like better or worse, but it's definitely often the case that a game doesn't use its maps as well as it could.
I think CS:GO does, as well. It's a cool mechanic for sure.
As far as maps go, I don't know if I have a preference for a particular design, it depends on the genre and how it's applied. Games like CS:GO and Valorant do totally fine with lanes that lead to multiple control points, but Splatoon's vertical, symmetrical maps also work really well due to the tug-of-war nature of its game modes. Meanwhile, a game like COD where you're encouraged to sprint around aimlessly will be designed in a way that you never reach a dead-end or, if you prefer staying in a corner or near a window, you'll always have opponents randomly running by for an easy kill. Treyarch does generally stick with 3-lane quasi-symmetrical maps so that no matter where you spawn, if you start running forward you're always guaranteed to run into someone, and someone is guaranteed to run into you from behind in turn. Now if you try playing COD in the style of CS:GO it falls apart immediately because of the unbalanced guns and killstreaks, and you get a stroke in real life. Likewise a game like Overwatch doesn't hold up the same in FFA with closed maps and random spawn points because that's just not how its characters are designed to be played.
So again, I wouldn't say there's a style of map design I like better or worse, but it's definitely often the case that a game doesn't use its maps as well as it could.
We're all wishing Doom Eternal had a proper multiplayer right now.
Last I played was Black Ops 4 and this was still the case. This is called a hitscan damage calculation, and all it really does is check whether there was an object at the center of your screen (or in a randomly chosen spot near the center, depending on weapon spread, etc) at the time you pressed the trigger, and then perform a damage calculation on it. So yeah, it would just ask basic conditional questions like "is there a penetrable wall between the shooter and the target" and then reduce damage accordingly. Now games like Battlefield and Insurgency do have actual projectile bullets, which actually fly through the map, but I'm not sure to what extent their trajectory is affected by walls. Either way, their trajectories are just parabolas, so they're definitely not realistic, just feel cool.
Last I played was Black Ops 4 and this was still the case. This is called a hitscan damage calculation, and all it really does is check whether there was an object at the center of your screen (or in a randomly chosen spot near the center, depending on weapon spread, etc) at the time you pressed the trigger, and then perform a damage calculation on it. So yeah, it would just ask basic conditional questions like "is there a penetrable wall between the shooter and the target" and then reduce damage accordingly. Now games like Battlefield and Insurgency do have actual projectile bullets, which actually fly through the map, but I'm not sure to what extent their trajectory is affected by walls. Either way, their trajectories are just parabolas, so they're definitely not realistic, just feel cool.
Occasionally we'll play Rogue Company, though it's definitely not a hit with us or anything. But we're still on the Discord server if you still have access to it, or go here: https://discordapp.com/invite/yHPHQCr
I'm pretty sure the big one for us is Monster Hunter Rise, that will hopefully get us to be active again.
I'm pretty sure the big one for us is Monster Hunter Rise, that will hopefully get us to be active again.
Earlier in the year, we got a crew together to play Burnout: Paradise. We did this for a good couple months before we got bored with it. Paradise is still a great game, but you can only go full-on Super-Exploder @mattavelle1 style so many times.
We had also considered getting a crew together for NFS: Hot Pursuit remastered, but only if the game was on sale. Interestingly, I did actually pick that up when it was 10 bucks off on the eShop. It's up in the air though if we will get a crew together for that though. Maybe next year if we want to get a racing fix going.
For now, I know @Koenig @Goodtwin @EvilTw1n @mattavelle1 , and myself are semi-getting crews together for Rogue Company, which is of course F2P. It's not really a great game, but without any COD, it's all we really have. We normally had been doing Thursday Nights for online this year, but that hasn't been as consistent lately with the holidays and all. And as far as voice chat goes, we've been using Discord for that, which has been very nice.
Like Joog said, we're kind of psyching ourselves up for MoHun Rise in March
We had also considered getting a crew together for NFS: Hot Pursuit remastered, but only if the game was on sale. Interestingly, I did actually pick that up when it was 10 bucks off on the eShop. It's up in the air though if we will get a crew together for that though. Maybe next year if we want to get a racing fix going.
For now, I know @Koenig @Goodtwin @EvilTw1n @mattavelle1 , and myself are semi-getting crews together for Rogue Company, which is of course F2P. It's not really a great game, but without any COD, it's all we really have. We normally had been doing Thursday Nights for online this year, but that hasn't been as consistent lately with the holidays and all. And as far as voice chat goes, we've been using Discord for that, which has been very nice.
Like Joog said, we're kind of psyching ourselves up for MoHun Rise in March
I played it every day for about 3 months, it's very fun. You have to be ok with installing an anti-cheat rootkit on your PC, however. And it's an extremely sweaty game, you will get flamed hard even in casual games. But it's really fun once you get into a rhythm. Now I don't know if it's better than CS:GO in any meaningful way because I never played CS:GO seriuosly, only in deathmatch game modes; but it's got its own spin on the genre so they're not entirely comparable.
I only quit playing it because I couldn't justify playing Overwatch and Street Fighter V and Insurgency and Valorant every day. I had to decide to put it away and go back to it periodically as they add new stuff, but I don't know if I'll ever focus on it the way that I do SFV and Overwatch.
I only quit playing it because I couldn't justify playing Overwatch and Street Fighter V and Insurgency and Valorant every day. I had to decide to put it away and go back to it periodically as they add new stuff, but I don't know if I'll ever focus on it the way that I do SFV and Overwatch.
We certainly had a good run with Burnout Paradise. Probably 8-10 weeks in a row where we had 4+ people playing. Its a great game, but nothing holds us together COD use to, and honestly, nothing ever will again, even if COD were to come out on Switch. A lot of us are in our 30's and 40's now, and everyone prioritizes their gaming time a bit different than back in the day. I do think @Juegos is right though, Monster Hunter Rise will grab 4-6 of us for a good month or two. I too downloaded Need for Speed HP during the sale @Shoulder, but im not trying to get into that right now. Doom Eternal is at the top of my list of games to play right now. If I am looking to play an online multiplayer game right now, I would probably prefer to just jump in for a few Rocket League matches, its always a blast.
I remember playing Black Ops 2 with you guys on Wii U....
Definitely was a bonding experience....
It's pretty much BS that Switch hasn't gotten a version of COD....
Wii U got them, and it sold like total shit....
Switch sells very well, and not one COD game comes out for the platform....
Treyarch, we need you more than ever.... Cold War on Nintendo Switch please....
Definitely was a bonding experience....
It's pretty much BS that Switch hasn't gotten a version of COD....
Wii U got them, and it sold like total shit....
Switch sells very well, and not one COD game comes out for the platform....
Treyarch, we need you more than ever.... Cold War on Nintendo Switch please....
Interesting topics. In reverse order:
As already discussed, it depends on the application. A mirrored, symmetrical map works for something like Splatoon's turf war, because the game is designed for ease of movement. You get into skirmishes, but also end up chasing enemies. That's why it feels like a madcap food fight - you have to push, which places you in the path of others, who you chase (or who chase you); hijinks ensue.
As for other maps...I'm flexible. DOOM 2016's arenas were great. But I dug a whole lot of COD maps... except the Swiss cheese ones. You can have too many arteries to the point that flanking is arbitrary.
I used to wonder about the nuts and bolts on this. Tbh, I would also put data packs into the equation - how many CPU calculations do you want to make before sending your damage info to the host? Adding in parameters for specific damage reduction, bullet trajectory, new damage/spray cone accuracy, then "is it still close enough for aim assist?" would make for a frustrating fire fight before you even send data through a laggy connection. I would worry less that a CPU couldn't handle it in a closed, offline experience. I'd more worry "can you even make sense of the data so that it's fun?" in an online application.
As already discussed, it depends on the application. A mirrored, symmetrical map works for something like Splatoon's turf war, because the game is designed for ease of movement. You get into skirmishes, but also end up chasing enemies. That's why it feels like a madcap food fight - you have to push, which places you in the path of others, who you chase (or who chase you); hijinks ensue.
As for other maps...I'm flexible. DOOM 2016's arenas were great. But I dug a whole lot of COD maps... except the Swiss cheese ones. You can have too many arteries to the point that flanking is arbitrary.
I used to wonder about the nuts and bolts on this. Tbh, I would also put data packs into the equation - how many CPU calculations do you want to make before sending your damage info to the host? Adding in parameters for specific damage reduction, bullet trajectory, new damage/spray cone accuracy, then "is it still close enough for aim assist?" would make for a frustrating fire fight before you even send data through a laggy connection. I would worry less that a CPU couldn't handle it in a closed, offline experience. I'd more worry "can you even make sense of the data so that it's fun?" in an online application.
Last edited:
Any map is fine to me as long as they aren't overly huge and as long as they aren't just ground-level maps. Splatoon is probably the only game I can stomach ground-level maps with little verticality. If Nintendo didn't make it a pain to leave platforms in Smash Ultimate, I would've also never stuck to Final Destination maps all the time online and offline. In fact, if they changed this one thing besides the built-in lag, I would've loved this game a lot more.
My early impressions for Doom Eternal on Switch are positive. The games framerate seems to be even more stable than Doom 2016, and that is impressive because the areas are generally bigger with more objects in them. The game seems to stay very tight to the 30fps target 99% of the time. Im sure as I get to some of the crazier battles later on I will experience more dips, but with all the silence that surrounded the Switch build of this game for months, I was a bit worried the game was going to run poorly. The visuals on the other hand do not hold up as well as Doom 2016. The red muddy haze of Hell played nice with low resolution textures and low rendering resolution. There are lot of textures that remind you of games where you can see the textures before they loaded all the way in, except in Doom Eternal they never do load in. Overall Doom Eternal still looks ok on Switch, it is just very washed out and missing a lot of detail compared to the PS4/X1.
The gameplay additions dont take long to be thrown in. You basically start with most if not all your abilities from Doom 2016, but then get a dash mechanic and flamethrower mechanic very early on. They also changed up how they implemented the chainsaw. In Doom 2016, you were very limited on how often you could use it because you needed to wait to find gas, but in Eternal it generates over time, and its crucial that you use it often to maintain ammo. The flamethrower helps get you armor shards, and glory kills give you health. All these things need to be mixed up to often.
Doom 2016 already had a Metroid Prime feel with its platforming, but Eternal takes it even further. Eternal has a ton of platforming, if your like me you will probably enjoy the breaks it gives you from the intense battles, but others who do not care for platforming similar to Metroid Prime, it will probably be a nuisance. Doom Guy is just so mobile. Its fun running, dashing and double jumping your way around the map destroying demons.
Bottom line, if you enjoyed Doom 2016 you will almost certainly enjoy Eternal. The Switch build is very competent and should be considered for those who either dont have access to a better version on another platform or simply people who want to support good ports on Switch.
The gameplay additions dont take long to be thrown in. You basically start with most if not all your abilities from Doom 2016, but then get a dash mechanic and flamethrower mechanic very early on. They also changed up how they implemented the chainsaw. In Doom 2016, you were very limited on how often you could use it because you needed to wait to find gas, but in Eternal it generates over time, and its crucial that you use it often to maintain ammo. The flamethrower helps get you armor shards, and glory kills give you health. All these things need to be mixed up to often.
Doom 2016 already had a Metroid Prime feel with its platforming, but Eternal takes it even further. Eternal has a ton of platforming, if your like me you will probably enjoy the breaks it gives you from the intense battles, but others who do not care for platforming similar to Metroid Prime, it will probably be a nuisance. Doom Guy is just so mobile. Its fun running, dashing and double jumping your way around the map destroying demons.
Bottom line, if you enjoyed Doom 2016 you will almost certainly enjoy Eternal. The Switch build is very competent and should be considered for those who either dont have access to a better version on another platform or simply people who want to support good ports on Switch.
I'm doing my first run through on Too Young To Die. I like the intensity of Hurt Me Plenty, but with Doom 2016 that made my first play through a bit brutal. This way I will be familiar with the environments and new gameplay mechanics before I jump into the frying pan. Doom 2016 was a game that warranted replaying multiple times, so I am sure once I complete Eternal on easy mode, I will immediately restart on the higher difficulty. Hurt Me Plenty is as difficult as I would like. Props to the players who can play and complete the game in Nightmare mode, but that shit will never be for me.
Shame the Game Awards started with the Smash and Perfect Dark announcements. The only other thing to jump out at me was Crimson Desert, so I'll be keeping an eye on that.
As always, I dislike how unimportant the awards are in the Game Awards. "Here's 3 awards rapid fired out without talking to the winners or anything, who cares, now here's a word from our sponsors or another CG trailer".
Also, why the fuck is there a pre-show to a free show? My understanding is pre-shows are suppose to entice potential viewers to buy the main show, but if it's all free, what's the point? It's all just "the show".
Oh well, Sephiroth is in Smash so that's good.
edit: Forgot about The Evil Dead game, that looks like it could be a fun co-op game
As always, I dislike how unimportant the awards are in the Game Awards. "Here's 3 awards rapid fired out without talking to the winners or anything, who cares, now here's a word from our sponsors or another CG trailer".
Also, why the fuck is there a pre-show to a free show? My understanding is pre-shows are suppose to entice potential viewers to buy the main show, but if it's all free, what's the point? It's all just "the show".
Oh well, Sephiroth is in Smash so that's good.
edit: Forgot about The Evil Dead game, that looks like it could be a fun co-op game
Last edited:
I finally bought an HDMI switcher. Now I don't have to bother with cables anymore. I'm trying to mod my Wii so that it can play games again since its lens died and I'm too lazy to bother with sourcing a replacement, having to wait, and then having to deal with the installation. Just recently I had to do just that with my PS4 and its controllers. I'm beginning to get tired of this....
Anyway, it was easier than I'd thought it'd be. Those darn nieces and nephews better be grateful for this. I was initially gonna hold it hostage to see if they can improve their grades until I realised that I can probably do just that by holding the games hostage instead. On the plus side, it gave me a reason to bother getting an internal SD card slot for my PC.... and so my mother would stop pestering me about their father pestering her about his children pestering him about videogames.
I'm at the end of Bastion again. I must say I enjoyed the game even more than I did the last time I played it. It really does get more fun the more you replay it. This time I actually tried to follow the plot of the game. This is probably the third time I've bought the damn game just for the portable Switch experience. It's up there with Dandara, Shovel Knight and Dark Souls as games I don't mind having to repurchase forever.
Anyway, it was easier than I'd thought it'd be. Those darn nieces and nephews better be grateful for this. I was initially gonna hold it hostage to see if they can improve their grades until I realised that I can probably do just that by holding the games hostage instead. On the plus side, it gave me a reason to bother getting an internal SD card slot for my PC.... and so my mother would stop pestering me about their father pestering her about his children pestering him about videogames.
I'm at the end of Bastion again. I must say I enjoyed the game even more than I did the last time I played it. It really does get more fun the more you replay it. This time I actually tried to follow the plot of the game. This is probably the third time I've bought the damn game just for the portable Switch experience. It's up there with Dandara, Shovel Knight and Dark Souls as games I don't mind having to repurchase forever.
Last edited:
Ok, so I completed Doom Eternal on I'm Too Young to Die last night. Even on this easy mode, Doom Eternal is still not a walk in the park. At least it wouldn't be if it weren't for the extra lives to be found in this game. Unlike Doom 2016, you can obtain extra lives in Eternal. Doom 2016 was so damn satisfying when making it through a battle because it was all or nothing. You die, you go back to the last check point and try again. Eternal takes some of that achievement away with the introduction of extra lives. I am luke warm on this decision, but it does seem that ID Software made some adjustments to account for this. After completing the game I immediately restarted on Hurt Me Plenty, and boy oh boy was that a reality check. Eternal throws high powered enemies at you much sooner than Doom 2016 did and they do massive damage. In Doom 2016 the player was eased into the action starting with zombies, imps and possessed soldiers, all enemies that do low levels of damage per hit. Eternal throws you right into the frying pan, facing off against enemies in the first level that you didn't see in Doom 2016 until the third level or later. Eternal is more difficult than its predecessor if it weren't for extra lives. Being able to accumulate extra lives is the caveat to that. Will you die more in Eternal than you did in Doom 2016? Probably so, but the extra lives offset that, and in a way this makes Eternal perhaps more accessible to a wider audience than the originals unforgiving nature of battles.
Doom 2016 vs Eternal in the graphics department is not a favorable comparison for Eternal. Doom 2016 while being very soft and blurry was still able to bring the games overall atmosphere to the Switch. The post processing effects and lighting were intact, just at much lower rending resolutions than the PS4/X1 build of the game. Eternal shines where Doom 2016 stumbled, and that is in the framerate department. Eternal holds tight to 30fps 99% of the time. I was shocked how well the game still ran even in the larger areas with far more enemies on screen than Doom 2016 ever presented. Where it doesn't shine is everywhere else. Eternal ends up looking very flat and washed out more often than not. Fully loaded textures look like they are two steps away from being fully loaded. The lighting and depth of field are basically stripped out of this Switch port. Many of the textures in Eternal would be right at home on a Wii game. Yes I said Wii, not Wii U. All in all, Eternal just isn't a good looking game on Switch. Far more so than with Doom 2016, its easy to see just how good the game should look, but the port just isn't able to do those environments justice.
Now that we got the ugly out of the way, Eternal is a fantastic port if you can look beyond the graphics. Somehow Panic Button and ID Software manage to transition a 60fps very fast paced game to 30fps and maintain the sense of speed and responsiveness. This game controls great. The gameplay is fast and your controller responsiveness are top notch. In terms of gameplay, Panic Button deserves credit for preserving the feel of a game designed to run at twice the framerate. The new gameplay elements are excellent and the player must quickly adapt to using these new mechanics in battle in order to succeed. Doom 2016 more more simplistic in combat, and I love that, but I can see why ID Software wanted to evolve it further. Learning to use the flamethrower often to obtain shield shards and the chainsaw for ammo are mandatory for success. Doom 2016 always had some Metroid Prime feels with the movement speed and double jump mechanic for platforming. Eternal takes that to a new level. There is far more platforming in this game, and for the most part it works very well. There are times it can feel cheap because you fell to your doom not knowing where to jump next, but overall I like the increased sense of exploration in this game.
I recommend this game to anyone who really enjoyed Doom 2016 on Switch. Unless you are a sucker like me, its probably worth waiting to see if they put this game on sale Christmas day. We see a huge sale every year during Christmas, and third party publishers have no problem with slashing the price of games that they just recently released, especially Switch ports of games that sell for $20 on PS4/X1.
Doom 2016 vs Eternal in the graphics department is not a favorable comparison for Eternal. Doom 2016 while being very soft and blurry was still able to bring the games overall atmosphere to the Switch. The post processing effects and lighting were intact, just at much lower rending resolutions than the PS4/X1 build of the game. Eternal shines where Doom 2016 stumbled, and that is in the framerate department. Eternal holds tight to 30fps 99% of the time. I was shocked how well the game still ran even in the larger areas with far more enemies on screen than Doom 2016 ever presented. Where it doesn't shine is everywhere else. Eternal ends up looking very flat and washed out more often than not. Fully loaded textures look like they are two steps away from being fully loaded. The lighting and depth of field are basically stripped out of this Switch port. Many of the textures in Eternal would be right at home on a Wii game. Yes I said Wii, not Wii U. All in all, Eternal just isn't a good looking game on Switch. Far more so than with Doom 2016, its easy to see just how good the game should look, but the port just isn't able to do those environments justice.
Now that we got the ugly out of the way, Eternal is a fantastic port if you can look beyond the graphics. Somehow Panic Button and ID Software manage to transition a 60fps very fast paced game to 30fps and maintain the sense of speed and responsiveness. This game controls great. The gameplay is fast and your controller responsiveness are top notch. In terms of gameplay, Panic Button deserves credit for preserving the feel of a game designed to run at twice the framerate. The new gameplay elements are excellent and the player must quickly adapt to using these new mechanics in battle in order to succeed. Doom 2016 more more simplistic in combat, and I love that, but I can see why ID Software wanted to evolve it further. Learning to use the flamethrower often to obtain shield shards and the chainsaw for ammo are mandatory for success. Doom 2016 always had some Metroid Prime feels with the movement speed and double jump mechanic for platforming. Eternal takes that to a new level. There is far more platforming in this game, and for the most part it works very well. There are times it can feel cheap because you fell to your doom not knowing where to jump next, but overall I like the increased sense of exploration in this game.
I recommend this game to anyone who really enjoyed Doom 2016 on Switch. Unless you are a sucker like me, its probably worth waiting to see if they put this game on sale Christmas day. We see a huge sale every year during Christmas, and third party publishers have no problem with slashing the price of games that they just recently released, especially Switch ports of games that sell for $20 on PS4/X1.
I was thinking about the COD ports to Wii while writing that post. Eternal does look like that type of visual downgrade. There are still times where it looks good, mostly in levels similar to Doom 2016, but overall it really is like comparing Black Ops on Wii to the game on 360, the difference is pretty substantial.
The game is still great fun on Switch, but the constant LOD pop in and texture decals streaming in at very close distances, the game just doesn't look great very often. Panic Button supports their games with updates for months after release, so it could get a little better, but I wouldn't expect miracles.
The game is still great fun on Switch, but the constant LOD pop in and texture decals streaming in at very close distances, the game just doesn't look great very often. Panic Button supports their games with updates for months after release, so it could get a little better, but I wouldn't expect miracles.
@Juegos What is your opinion on Doom Eternal bringing in extra lives? I'm still not sure I love it. I know you can turn them off, but there are a few sections where it feels like the developers planned on players needing them. Such as the second to last boss where most of the ground was electrified. Once I have completed Eternal on Hurt Me Plenty, my next attempt will be to complete the game with extra lives turned off, but I have a feeling there are a few difficulty spikes that will have me cursing the game.
I'm pretty sure the extra lives allowed me to get past some encounters that I would have had to retry otherwise, but in every level there were multiple encounters that I had to retry a bunch, so I never really kept the lives very long. I played it on the hardest difficult available (but not the permadeath mode), so it was freaking brutal, especially some of those optional arenas toward the end, or anything with an arch-vile or a marauder. So I really wasn't wishing it was harder and more punishing, lol.
I think modern DOOM were designed to be played on its hardest difficulty (not perma). You play normal if you're new or is just trying to get used to its gameplay again and then you switch to the hardest difficulty. At least, that's what I've gathered from playing Doom 2016. Near halfway through the game where you've gotten your playstyle down the game starts to feel like going through the motions, so upping the difficulty setting made things fun again.
I adore Doom 2016, but didn't enjoy the difficulty beyond Hurt Me Plenty. I like my characters to feel powerful, and once I tried playing on Nightmare, you no longer feel that way. You get hit a couple times and your dead. If you dont mind dying a lot, and I mean a lot, then the harder difficulties are for you, but if you just want to be challenged without replaying battles countless times, then Hurt Me Plenty should be sufficient. Some of you cats are really good at Doom, but like Bayonetta, a lot of people will feel like its too unforgiving and move on from the game. Whatever difficulty gives you enjoyment is the correct one, so I wouldnt say Doom was designed to played on the hardest difficulty, but I would say that Doom is not intended to be an easy game, and thats why even on Im Too Young To Die, many players will die multiple times on their journey.
We're going to have a cold front move in on Christmas, and it will be in the mid 50s (which will feel like the mid 40s up north), so we'll be bundled up and it will truly feel like Christmas. Remy (our puppy) will get to wear his Christmas Sweater. It's 71 degrees today (feels like mid 60s), so not exactly sweater weather.
I'm almost done with Age of Calamity. On track to 100% it. I may finish tonight, but if not tonight, then tomorrow for sure. I know I've said it before, but I'm having an absolute blast with this game. It doesn't feel repetitive like the first one could feel.
Now I just have to think on what I'll play next...
I'm almost done with Age of Calamity. On track to 100% it. I may finish tonight, but if not tonight, then tomorrow for sure. I know I've said it before, but I'm having an absolute blast with this game. It doesn't feel repetitive like the first one could feel.
Now I just have to think on what I'll play next...
For whatever reason, I can no longer make direct purchases in Steam. Apparently, my bank has Steam blacklisted for whatever reason. It's a great annoyance as this means I have to resort to gift cards, and Steam's gift cards are made inconvenient to buy outside of Steam itself, especially if you don't want to purchase anything more than $25.