Checked BFG on 360, same as you described above + fireballs of enemies that cast lights.


This is what i don't understand. I never considered the Doom3 of 2004 to be a fragfest.
It always was a scary game no matter how they originally intended it to be.
I have friends that stopped playing halfway through the story because they thought it was too scary!
Especially ROE had some very intense surreal and nightmarish moments in the original.

With the changes made to the BFG edition, it looks like Tim Willits "corrected" the gameplay to what he originally had planned.

I'm exaggerating now to make the point clear:
The original was a great and unique scary experience, the BFG release is a mediocre shooter.
Doom3 2004 was well balanced. The BFG edition has lost it's character.

The enhanced gameplay speed is welcome though.
I always thought the player movement in the original was too slow.
Dodging imp fireballs is easier now.

The George Lucas syndrome has infected id.
You shouldn't change an 8 year old "classic" after all the fans have come to love the original.

I don't know the answer to that one, that is a good question. When I think of a scary immersive environment in a video game, I still think of the Doom 3 alpha over every other game out there. The Doom 3 alpha had what you would call "comic relief" aka that monster that said "I smell fear", and the bathroom scene which was ridiculously awesome. I can't imagine those scenes were just there for the E3 demo, if I had to guess they pieced together stuff they already had, and just more or less glued it together, but I really do think the original concept might have been a scary game like the alpha felt like.

At one point during development they could have meant it to be a scary game with "comic relief" here and there, but for whatever reason they changed it over to a frag fest. The alpha didn't have monsters teleporting in, that was added later(post 2002), which was probably so the could get released on time. Making a bunch of assets with doors breaking, monsters eating other monsters or humans are alive, take time. If I was betting on this, they probably realized the game would take to long if they continued on with a scary themed game, and switched over to a fragfest style game. They probably scrapped a lot of the more scarier elements in the game, so there wouldn't be discontinuity between each map, and left in a few things here and there.

Problem seems to be that id has always had confronting, clashing design ideas. Even if Willits screams it's not a horror game, I bet many of the other designers and artists felt like punching him in the stomach, and knew they were making a horror game.

I don't know who was in charge of Doom3, I forgot, but whoever it is doesn't matter as much as the fact that there were clearly different opinions in design throughout the team, and most opinion leaned towards as horror game, and thus Doom3 is by far more tied to horror than brain-less action shooter. Like I said before, I could endlessly record clips throughout Doom3 where you can see horror was really intended.

Seriously, if they ran out of time and changed it to more of a fragfest at first, the BFG: Edition was an opportunity to go back and ADD what was lost, and TRULY make it an amazing, absolutely terrifying game. Instead they seem to have dropped horror completely and try to make it action.

As I have stated before, this was a failure, and Richard is right, Doom3 being action would be completely overshadowed by the GOOD action shooters out there. Doom3 is dark, slow paced, and the levels are long, narrow hallways with little vents all over the place, and then there is the lack of real music playing. Sound familiar? It should, Dead Space took this route. You can't take a game that was designed for horror and just turn it into action, especially when there's no music to pump you up, just ambient all over the place.

Edit: Oh, and btw, fans may have been angry at first, and wanted an action game, but then they began to accept Doom3, and even started loving it and many saying it's "totally kickass" and began to forgive its flaws, like the flashlight-weapon, seeing how it fits in design terms. It was a slow, hard process. Now all of a sudden id says "[censored] it, it's an action game guys! " You know what that's like? That's like a kid getting punched in the face for wanting a candy, then the bully says "oh and here, have your stupid candy." In the end it's more insulting than helpful.

No matter how many times you say that, there is the small problem of countless interviews from 2002-2004 that show you're talking nonsense. Here's one to get you started: http://archive.org/details/QuakeCon_2002_Interview

Now please cut out that historical revisionism bull.

Read two posts up . As I said I would agree at some point during development(up till 2003) it was supposed to be a scary game, and they switched it over to a fragfest style game as Tim Willits keeps saying it is. You can see huge design changes between what little of the alpha was in the e3 leak and the retail game, which usually only happens when you realize the game is going to take longer than expected.


This is another possibility I would agree with.


A lot of the time that probably went into the bfg edition was porting it over to the 360/ps3, 12 months isn't as long as you think it is, so additional major game mechanics, and major level modifications would have been out of the question.

Although I do think they should have brought back what Doom 3 might have been originally designed to be in the expansion pack.

Oh I'm so glad doom 3 turned out as a fragfest game! And if it was Tim's decision then kudos to him on that! This is a shooter! And I really don't want doom 4 to be like "playing a movie" modern CRAP!
Oh and may be all of you forgot, but in one of Carmack's quakeqon'12 speech he explained why they separated flashlight from gunfire, because he didn't want additional light sourse hit perfomance.

Scary = horror, don't you know that?
There was nothing scary about the classic Dooms, they had no horror. They were cartoony fun.
And the whole deal is that it doesn't matter what DOOM is overall, Doom3 itself was meant to be horror and be different from the others, and different from other games around.

Doom3 as an action game plays very boringly, and it will never be one of the memorable action games, whether you want to believe it or not.

Edit: If they went in and added open spaces, more actual light, and music playing while fighting large waves of monsters and bosses (like in Rage and any other shooter), then it would actually make a good action shooter and a memorable one too.

Thanx on that)) No I didn't know! Now I do)))

Well actually all my doom 3 experience was all about awesome shooting, I never ever cared about horror = scary stuff, coz it worked only for the first time playthrough!
So to each his own)

This is why Id should've kept John Romero.

Everything you guys said makes sense. That's why I'm having second thoughts if I'm going to sell this game to buy Batman AC GOTY EDITION. Patch Please.

Did you play Doom when it released? For the time, it was one of, if not THE MOST scary game ever, and was not considered cartoony at the time. It was the height of graphical realism at a smooth framerate!

Doom 3 was going for a different kind of horror... more suspense.

Doom 1 was not really scary but there was a certain fear factor for it. I was 8 or 9 the first time I played it. Very enjoyable!

Graphical realism? Doom was very cartoony at the time. You know what had realistic graphics and gore? Mortal Kombat 2. 1993.