Our final review of id Software's old-school shooter reboot is ready.
Really ? A 7.1 out of 10. From my view of the game, i think it 8.5 or 9.
I love cod....but playing Doom MP for an hour, then remembering it was double XP bo3...I played that and after one round got bored...Doom is so fresh....MP is awesome definitely a 9
I have more of a problem with the .1 seems kind of arbitrary and pointless. I do agree with the 7 maybe would have given it a 7.5. Game felt great to play and looked amazing but by the end was tired of running from one battle arena to another which mostly consisted of shotgun till the bigger enemies came out then switched to one of 2 different weapons to use against them. They are heading in the right direction with the franchise just wish for a little more variety.
Reviews are pointless
Dont worry, Sony fanboys will start a petiton and they will up the score
A multiplatform game and yet you bring a Sony fanboys trash talk to something completely unrelated.
Oh fuck off, Xbox fanboy. This is multiplatform game.
Yeah but this is N4G TwoForce.
MGS5 got a 10/10, and that game had horrible online. Oh right...Maybe they shold've delayed the multiplayer in DOOM, like MGS5 did, to get a full-on single-player review.
i swear to god, it seems like im the only one digging the mutiplayer, i find that its the perfect mix between old and new school.But hey, thats just me
I clicked agree, because I think you are right. About being the only one that likes the multiplayer. :)
Lolz.. well I enjoy the mp :3
Don't worry, I like the multiplayer too. Edit: Thanks for the disagrees. I guess I don't like the multiplayer after all.
I too am enjoying the living crap out of the Multiplayer, it is really fun! I brings back the good old Quake and Unreal Tournament fast paced shooter ya know! I love this game and 7.1 is a BS score...
I still can't believe how people compare this to old quake games. they are nothing alike.
Meh. Quake 3 arena is way better than that sorry excuse of an old school arena shooter.
Not the only one, Im another.
I genuinely don't get the hate, I loved the beta! it was hectic and fast paced; you don't get time to chill and that's what I loved about it. I just don't get it.
I was hooked on the Alpha and Beta. Don't understand the hate for it. Anyway, need to get the full game this coming weekend after I finish Uncharted 4.
I loved the beta!
From what I played of the beta that was my thinking exactly. Im planning to pick this one up with MP in mind.
I love the fact they complain about the single player being too old fashioned and then complain about the multiplayer having too many modern tropes. Where is the line IGN?
Freeze tag is brilliant. I find tape maps lack variation though.
I love the multiplayer. Ironic thing is there are a lot of people that want COD to go back to bare bones gun on gun combat, and Doom did that. Yet they supposedly hate it? People just can't be happy, it's against life rules....
Some of the things they talk about are contradicting when they give the same old COD games 9/10 or 10/10 every year. As for multiplayer...it's a shame developers need to realise that new online additions don't belong in old school franchises. I hate loadouts
Because some companies have and continue to suckle on the Call of Duty teat
Or maybe they don't like the run and gun as much as the cinematic presentation of call of duty single player? Holy cow people can like things you don't and dislike things you like???????
you mean halo, thats pos, cod is fine
While I didn't read the review, and simply don't care what any current 'media members' think of anything anymore...I do have my own complaints with the direction they took mp, just as you said... First...Doom never had a multiplayer identity as much as people make it out to be...multiplayer was in the originals, but insanely basic, and by no means an 'arena'. You just picked a single player map to either shoot each other...or load the campaign assets into to shoot together. And, as mentioned, retro multiplayer vs. modern multiplayer are oil and water...no good will ever come of trying to bridge the gap between them...and what it looks like, having not tried it (but could tell right away it would not be something I'd get into all that much), is that they didn't get the retro part right, and didn't get the modern stuff right, either... Not to mention...co-op and straight up deathmatch is limited to snapmap...why these kinds of modes aren't in the official multiplayer section (which supports more players) is beyond me, as those are the ONLY true to the franchise modes that belong. Overall it just seems like Stratton and company really truly understood series fans when designing the single player...its risky fan service for gamers that actually played the originals, when the originals were new, and for them...its unstop'ably great...the risk is that modern everything game wise will likely not get it (media included)...but, with the multiplayer, they were far more against any risk taking, and it ended up hurting it more...personally, they should chainsaw off the mp portion...open up snapmap to more assets...and put all online effort into letting the community decide what doom's mp should be.
you're right. the original doom had very basic mp as it was one of the first games to do it. doom eventually evolved into quake 3 which is imo the pinnacle of arena shooters. if the new soon were to have good multiplayer mechanics they should've based it off the quake series. unfortunately for sales and accessibility, they needed to make a cod clone. and seeing how a lot of people are backing up this game on this forum it looks like they've made the right business choices. for gamers this game is trash though.
The mutliplayer portion of Doom 2016 was developed by Certain Affinity, who's previous projects include Halo 4, Call of Duty: Ghosts, and the Halo: Master Chief Collection. This might be why the multiplayer doesn't sit right with many older Doom players. And yet can you blame iD for going in this direction with the multiplayer? You have games like Overwatch coming out which are very bare bones--no modern FPS tropes. Then you are told the biggest complaint about the game is no "real progression system" I.E unlocks for leveling, no customization (no load outs), etc. So there's obviously a demand for the modern elements for FPS's--or maybe people just want what's more familiar to them. Let's face it--Call of Duty is still the most popular shooter played, but I think iD and Certain Affinity underestimated just how tired many players are of the Call of Duty systems.
Certain Affinity did a great job with Halo 2A and Max Hobberman who is the head of CA was the former multiplayer lead for Halo 1-3. They've never developed a multiplayer component by themselves, they just assisted id on the MP. Same with Ghosts and even World at War.
Certain Iffinity didn't actually design the mp of those games you mentioned, they did some of map packs.
the load outs are lame but I guess when a lot people are playing COD you gotta give them something they can relate too. I also had too change my original comment because I misread yours.
Is some of this score a quasi-punitive measure against the fact they didn't give early release copies to press-- and assumably -- no $$$ kickback from the devs? The review constantly drags the same argument around the block
fair score.. 7 is a good score still.. I'd probably enjoy it more than a lot of overrated titles. I'm sure no one will put a knife to the author's throat since this isn't an exclusive title. - so the con is the multiplayer... when I played it on PS4 it didn't feel good to me. DooM is revered for it's SP anyhoo
I would give the game an 8 to 8.5, very good single player. The however is a big imbalanced pew pew mess that insults the singleplayer and Doom name.
The SP is great, especially as the difficulty goes up. I am enjoying the MP too, people like Sciurus_vulgaris jump on the band wagon of "this is an insult to Doom" but fail to remember that Doom 2's MP was fairly bad and required mods to be any good, and Doom 3's MP was worse and Doom 1 vanilla was only 4 player (although great at the time, unplayable now without mods).
So they complain about it not being revolutionary for the doom series, yet cods been stuck with the exact same gameplay for 10 years and that doesn't effect its score. The game is fun, it's just a badass kill everything type of game. It's okay to have games like that. I couldn't give it less then a 8.
People will complain either way. Make changes and you get pitch forks from die hard fans, don't make changes and you get eating alive by reviewer's. Gears is trying ti please the fanbase and keep it old school which will backfire with the media but at the end the fans calm the shots so hopefully they can ignore reviews and purchase the game based on the fun and quality aspect of the game .
And what do you expect? People think in different ways, which is why you can never please everyone. It's just not possible.
The game was supposed to be an evolution of the old school Doom gameplay and that's exactly what it delivers. Gaming journalism these days..
The game is a 9/10. Graphically, Gameplay, Multiplayer, Snapmaps. It has more content than 90% of games released today. Its a whole, complete game. Something of a rarity in the modern age of gaming. You can tell the reviewer was born after 1990, he doesn't appreciate the classic style of shooters. Anyone who actually DOES like the game, Join me online in my ps4 community Cyberdemon Club. 20 members so far, multiple snapmaps published, an engaging leader, anyone is welcome. Search in communities or message BuckyBarnes for an invite.
I'll send psn request
IGN gives Evolve a 9 which is a piece of cr&^p game and this gets a 7.1?! I have this game and I can say it is fan bloody tastic both single player and multiplayer.
Doom has more content than Evolve. Off topic : Uncharted 4 Has a lot of content. For example, you can add 8 bit audio and 8 bit resolution on bonus. I think Uncharted 4 and Doom will keep me busy for a while.
I think its a fair score.
IGN have stooped to the level of clickbait now, perhaps maybe before. Who pays their salaries? The advertising does
DOOM 2016 campaign score for me is 10 out of 10 . Playing the campaign is pure bliss!
I can tell this review was rushed. Did not even mention the DOOM 1 and 2 classic maps which are very fun to play!!!
Ya his complaints where basically that it's too much Doom, even though that's kinda the point, it's called Doom. I can get behind the multiplayer complaints like hack modules and glitchy melee crap, but snap map itself sounds like enough for an 8, and you throw in good campaign and it seems like it should be no less than an 8.5.
I actually love it, not bothered about MP, but the campaign is a blast, he goes on about just running & gunning for 8 hours, it's DOOM, what do you expect mate...looks & runs great on ultra settings on PC too...
The game is pretty solid. Only thing that bugged me was the incredibly weak ending which i know is clearing setting up for a sequel but still i would have like some sense of closure for this installment. But other than that it is a blast and would recommend to anyone looking for a fast shooter that mixes the old with the new. 8.5/10 imo
How long did it take you?
Once there was a time IGN had some value in their reviews. They have long sense lost there way.
Lol hey where's the review in progress.....or did I miss it.
Missed it. Same score. Deserves much, much higher. 9/10 minimum. These idiots.
I didn't buy it but looks like an 8 minimum. I played the beta a lil.
I guess bethesda should of paid for ads on their website
Also , IGN did not get a review copy before release , so other people got their reviews up before IGN . I am pretty sure that pissed off IGN management .
Don't be surprised if Homefront the Revolution ends up being the better game.
Both games' singleplayer modes look great for different reasons. Not really comparable except both are FPS.
Homefront looks and plays like a last gen game. I know I've played it, as it stands if Homefront scores over a 6 I'll be shocked.
You played the MP I assume. I haven't played it but the graphics surely don't look like last gen on PC!
Easy way to turn this game into a 9 or 10 for reviewer Change the letter I.D for N.D and you would have a 9 or 10 - the graphics would have been praised as the best for FPS and a accomplishment. - The multiplayer would have been praised for the the new mode (Soul Harvest) the health pack would also get praise because you can't just wait to fight back if your damage so it create new element of tension. - Like UC4 the rune would become a positive (see Uc4 review) "A sense of chaos is further encouraged by the outrageous... summon a sarcophagus that attacks the enemy with flying evil spirits can totally interrupt the rhythms of what would otherwise be a normal firefight" But Alas the game is made by I.D not ND.
He didn't troll he was expressing his thought on the biased views in the industry based on who develops the game. He never once said UC4 was a bad game or didn't deserve it's critical acclaim
And how did I troll? Cause I have the nerve to say that review aren't based on established or logical criteria like : loading time, performance issues, level of difficulty, accessibility, etc... But on the expectations of the readers or user toward the game. Here's a example : Heavy Rain Back in 2010 this game was the bomb, you weren't a real gamer if you didn't play Heavy Rain cause Heavy Rain was a real game unlike the call of duty Ghost crap. Heavy Rain had a tremendous story with great voice acting Ign named it PS3 game of the year (ahead of Red Dead Redemption) Fast forward today where we have a remastered version of the game. If we follow remastered logic of God of War 3, The Last of Us,etc then this game should retain is high score but no! Blasphemy! the game is score in the average 7 a simple explanation comes to mind: the port must be terrible but No the port is almost perfect so what happened? Well suddenly the great game wasn't so great anymore and nobody cried foul when the game was score a 7. Whats so funny is how reviewer from different media seems to be on the same page in 2010, nobody mentioned Bad voice acting, cheesy scenario, mundane tasks but in 2016 suddenly all of them agree on the above.
OMG and i thought IGN was a lot of people. Thanks for the clarity. Now I know they are just 1 person :)
Or do what activision does with cod when it comes to ign reviews bribe them
I'll buy it when is cheap