I meant it took the first Myst game four years to break 2.5 million units in sales

This hair-splitting is ignoring the point that by comparison to other big selling titles or franchises, id games sell in typically small-to-medium amounts. Myst was just one example that was considered the biggest-selling PC game ever for a huge chunk of time; there are others. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_games, pull out the id games in that list, check the dates, cross-check with other games released around the same time, it'll all become clear. You don't even need to go back to the 1990s - consider Doom 3 vs Half Life 2 vs The Sims 2 vs World of Warcraft. The main points remain: id don't do billion-selling blockbusters, it's mistaken to try push them into that league, and it's mistaken to consider an id game to have failed if it didn't make that league.

Badass weapons and whole lots of gibs

Yup, but production costs for games today are way higher than in the good old times of Dos.
If Doom would have failed in 93, they would have moved on to something else.
If a game completely fails at the box office today, a company will get broke immediately.
In '93 less than 10 people were enough to produce a blockbuster game.
Today, you'll need around 200 to do so. And those 200 want to get paid.



I have to disagree on this.
Let me take a closer look at the different components of a game:

1. Engine:
The estimated time needed to program a single line of code is about two hours. This includes syntax checking, code stability and debugging, code logic and library research.
I can't tell you any valid numbers here but i assume i'm not far from the truth when i say that a modern DirectX 9/11 engine has about 10-20 times more code than the engine used for Doom.
Modern engines do visibilty detection of objects in several ways (this is in fact the most important part of any engine), transformation of the vertices, animating and lighting them, casting shadows, generating particle systems, and so on.

Except for some simpler form of visibilty detection, none of this was present in the original Doom engine.
Moving sprites over the screen is way less complex than doing the same with polygon models.

2. Map design and object modelling:
Doom uses sprites fo enemies. Sprites are nothing but just one single texture that's always facing towards the camera. The only thing you have to do to move it is to change the position using one single vector.
Animation is done by just flipping to another sprite which means setting a pointer to another memory address.
Most of these "textures" were basically hand drawn at very low resolution.
Now compare that to the high poly models of today.
The amount of time needed to create a modern type polygon character with all it's vertices and textures and then animating is obviously a lot higher than doing the same with just sprites.
The same applies to map geometry and the textures.
Just compare screenshots of the original ' 93 Doom to screenshots of Rage and you'll immediately see that this needs a lot more work to be created.

3. Sound and music.
Sampling some few, repetitive sound effects and using midi music that can basically done by a single person on a home computer like in Doom is totally different to the hundreds of sound effects needed for a modern game. Additionaly gamers today expect orchestral soundtracks in games and not just some beeps.

4. Story
Games back than didn't need a complex story or storyline.
Today, there's also a bunch of people on every game production just working on the story. People who were obsolete in most games back in the good old days.

Now why am i telling you all this?
Because the above is exactly what gamers expect today!
Even if you'd do a remake of '93s Doom with modern tech, you'd still have a lot more work to do to make it look good.
If you don't deliver this content you will fail at the box office and not likely be able to make a living from your work.


There are only very few exceptions to the rule like Minecraft for example.
But i don't want to see id going into this direction.
Id were always the guys that pushed technology to the limits and i hope they'lll still be able to do so in the future.

And i doubt that Carmack would ever use somebody else's free engine...

I totally agree with you on this. But that's exactly what we're talking about:
Having the right idea at the right time for the right audience and sufficient resources and money to make your project come alive.

Pirates of the Carribean came 8 years after Cutthroat Island. In between was NO pirate movie at all so that might have generated some interest in a lost genre.
Star Wars was totally different to the serious science based SciFi movies that exploded in the early 70s and brought some more entertainging aspects to it.
The Walking Dead works exceptionally well because it sets the focus on character design and not just on creatively killing zombies.
In other words: They were succesfull because there was a demand because of lack, they did something differently or brought us something new.

But i still doubt that you'll generate excitement with gamers today using a 20 year old game concept.
As strange as it may sound: Doom's success might break the franchise it's neck.
There were so many copies of that concept over the last two decades, people just got bored with it.

Just look at all the criticism towards good blockbuster games like Resident Evil 6, Dead Space 3 or even Bioshock infinite.

People are becoming bored with getting the same type of game in a different look.
Even COD players are slowly getting burned out on their favourite franchise. It just took a little longer than with other games.

That's why i hope id and Bethesda have the guts to give us something new or at least something different.
The games industry needs bold players to progress.

ID always delivered hardcoe horror and exploitation stuff at a high quality level.

But there's simply a wider audience for princesses, knights and dragons than for nazies, zombies and demons.

Doom 2 was the third best selling PC game in US during over 5 years period (1993-early 1998) according to PC Data. Two games above Doom 2 were non-violent games. (Myst, Flight Simulator) I think it's safe to say Doom 2 was a huge success back then, even though the sales number may look pale in comparison with Nintendo titles.

Not to mention a lot of people were against the amount of violence in DooM games. This may have deterred sales too. Dunno about Myst but FS was pushed by Microsoft a much larger entity.

I feel ID needs to go back to their violent gory days with intense action instead of focusing on the safe options.

I felt sad when splash damage decided to make their new game dirty bomb look like modern/futuristic warfare. We need to get rid of that theme already.
Get me some occult stuff, demons, medieval etc etc. Bring back color in gaming even if it means a lot of red and not just brown. FPS games are just dominated by military/terrorists and that trend needs to go away.
Theme wise dishonored was awesome, Bioshock was so colorful my eyes were about to melt because I could only handle brown.
We need a game that is going to change the trend. Brown military shooters need to die

But they are done. Unity3d cost 0$ to $1500 to use ; UDK costs nothing to use (unless you make a really good title and sell a lot of it). You don't need to spend a lot for an engine; it costs far less to license a AAA engine than to create one [usually]. Carmack used to charge $250,000 to use Id-tech and that came with a free day of questions and answers with him.

I've done both. For one thing you can make up a lot of time on the animation side for doing it in 3D, even if the plan were to do a sprite based game ~~Fallout was done with Lightwave 3D; even the clay models of the heads were converted to polygon meshes to animate/lipsync them.

You can buy a library for most of it; they even sell audio software designed for use in creating sound effects. Paying a 100 piece orchestra is a choice; if you have the money to take that strategic risk then fine, but it's not really a requirement. I have played games where the cheaper music was simply better music.

**Edit: Here is one of them ...
http://www.grimrock.net/2012/02/03/creating-legendary-music-for-grimrock/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ5bp6tGMj4

** Here is another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88SG8DruyEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQeJzcqfGQI


Games these days don't need them either ; unless the developer wants it so ~~but it was the same back then... In fact I would appreciate an example of why you think a good writer was 'obsolete' back then.
Games of the era didn't have the 'jaw dropping' visuals to sell them ~this is relative of course; jaws don't drop for what they used to, but even so, the games cost the same back then, and there had to be value put in it to be able to sell it; but that didn't stop a lot of garbage games from making it to market... Word of mouth on a lemon title didn't spread so fast as it does today. (But today we have 'review embargoes'. )

If you made it with modern tech as you say, then why would you have to 'do a lot more work to make it look good' ~modern [game] tech has mostly evolved to improve the appearance of games. If anything they have it easier today*... The guys that did the original TRON movie effects had to plot sine-waves by hand [initially] to get the lightcycles to move in curved paths; These days you can use automated curve tools and the modeler even handles banking and facing the model.

* Easier aside from the amount of assets required; but for someone wishing not to spend a outrageous fortune... It's very possible to buy stock assets and modify them to suit ~if they even need to be.

The exceptions prove the rule; the fact that they exist profitably (regardless of their number) proves that games don't need a $50 to $100 million dollar budget ~unless they want to spend that much.

IMO it is a kind of sloth to decide to manipulate a product to sell to the widest possible market in one shot ~ at the expense of the product's integrity. One (hypothetical) group is looking for the best possible shooter game, and the other is looking for the best possible adventure game...


I'd think it possible for a professional game studio to run two smaller teams to make separate games and satisfy both markets; and IMO is more desirable than to run both teams on the same title and compromise where the gameplay needs are mutually exclusive to one style or the other. That design ethos is how we get games that are made tolerable enough for both groups, rather than exceptional in the eyes of either.

He doesn't have if he doesn't want too ~~but that is a choice; he wants to spend money on.

@Gizmo, that's all subjective


In the end you can indeed take the easier route to things, but you'll never get the quality of a true AAA game and that's the thing about it. Killing Floor, for example, still feels in some ways more like a mod than a polished game.

None of this is to say you need an enormous budget though, and I'm sure whatever budget Rage had was more than enough to provide a better game than what was made.

Really though, I'd be very unpleased if Doom4 didn't turn out to be much better than Rage, and that means no easy route like buying libraries or trying to auto-do things. No tiling either, please.

I can certainly accept that DOOM deserves an engine by Carmack, and that the visuals should be top notch... but both by themselves are not what makes DOOM ~DOOM. It's the core gameplay that matters ~It really is just the running around at 40MPH shooting everything, and the intensity of it all in that techno-occult setting. If DOOM can't sell for what it is, then they shouldn't make DOOM4 until the market becomes more receptive to a DOOM game... They are free to make whatever they like, why not make something new that incorporates a detailed narrative and all the trendy game mechanics that modern shooters seem to need [for some reason]. DOOM isn't a modern shooter ~~ Making it into one only ensures that it's no longer DOOM.

what is the chance to see this in DOOM4 ? Is it possible in id tech 5 or we must wait id tech 6 ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqtcBWkiY4w

This too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2XxTr0T0I

@Gizmo well we clearly disagree on these things, I won't bother with the previous points again.
I also disagree on what makes Doom, for me it's not just running around shooting everything, as that perfectly describes Quake3 and quite alot of other games like Duke.

Oh and they did make something new, Rage, which even with its linearity and health regen wasn't really a "modern" shooter.

I still find it funny you think adding standard things that every game has had since last gen is "trendy" new stuff. Look at Rage's multiple ammo types. How would adding that to Doom make it any less Doom? It wouldn't.

Here ya go. New idtech 5 game:

http://www.bethblog.com/2013/04/22/watch-the-evil-within-teaser/

Of course it wouldn't; it furthers the core activity.
How would adding multiple choice dialogs make it any more Doom? It wouldn't.

That's the point though, adding things that make a huge difference wouldn't take away from it being Doom, so why would you rather they not add features like that, knowing that people are bound to love them?
You're still seeing "new" features as CoD features it seems....

These little details are what turn a good game into a great game.

Been watching it, looks great.

As for that Doom3 with Modern Graphics demo, yes Tech5 can do that in fact it's nothing that impressive when you know the simple reasons it looks good in the first place, mostly being HD textures slapped on completely square geometry. Not that it doesn't look gorgeous
But yeah, Tech5 could do that and better, it wouldn't tile. Keep in mind though, the 1 level would be huge with megatexture xD

I don't care if people would love them; it's in the way when playing Doom; now I'd love something like that in Fallout or just about any RPG I can think of... but there is not the least bit of incentive for me to want them to include those features in the next Doom game.

This is a rather nasty trend IMO, to look at a game and say 'Man wouldn't it be sooo cool in [some title], to have it be like it is in [some other unrelated title ~with different mechanics and core audience]'; gee wouldn't it be great to strip out the game mechanics from one game and shoehorn them into another. It's not that these feature aren't fun, it's that they don't belong. Dismemberment and copious gore can be really a cool ~but does it really belong in the next Mario brothers game? Just because it was fun in one game does not mean it would be fun or appropriate for every other game out there.

When I start up a Doom/Duke/Blood/Shadow Warrior/Painkiller/Unreal/Quake what-have-you session, the story is the like garnish around the plate of 'meat & potatoes'; When I sit down to it... I'm not interested in a plate that's half garnish mixed with the main course, or worse ~all garnish with little meaty bits on the side.

Yeah, you wan't a primitive simple game with a visual sugarcoat
Doom2 with hd textures and bloom...

I hope that's not what we get, that would go pretty badly for id if Zenimax really wants Doom4 to be a smash hit like Skyrim.

Curious you mention Skyrim... It's a hit to be sure... but it's most commonly lamented issues are also part of why it's a hit I think.

Imagine if this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU] really happened with Doom and afterwards they saw an inexplicable increase in sales... Would anyone who took the time to post on the Doom forums [well before the game was announced] ~have been happy that the changes made it more palatable to a larger audience who loved it?

*** My point has always been that a game sequel should improve and refine, rather than reformulate. IE. "Whack-a-Mole 2013 edition" does not need and interactive narrative plot, nor animatronic mole puppets that squeal and bleed realistically when hit with the mallet. If you can't sell a Whack-a-Mole game without that... why not make a different game?

The point is to make a game that both a larger audience and the long time fans would be satisfied with. Adding cool little things like multiple ammo (just an example, I've stated a dozen times they need something actually new) wouldn't have the majority of long time fans complaining. Why? Because they can ignore it, and they would.

Unfortunate as it may be, btw, the concept of what a game is supposed to be changes over time, and your own idea remains nothing more. Look at Brutal Doom. I find that thing to be an awful turd, and surprise surprise it removes the feeling of Doom, turns it into Duke Nukem with some Mortal Kombat finishers. Yet the majority of people who try the mod out end up loving it.

You can't.
What you can make is a game that a larger audience and the long time fans would both tolerate. It's like two in a sauna where one want's it warm and the other wants it hot... The compromise means it's slightly too hot for one, and slightly too cool for the other.

** Would you accept a design with regenerating health?

That's assuming that all long time fans are as picky and closeminded. Bad assumption there.

Brutal Doom again brings up the point. A great example of a huge change that most long time fans enjoy. They don't just "tolerate" it.

~You don't think that I'm only talking about Doom do you?

It is impossible to hit more that one target with one shot; unless they overlap [that's the compromise].
But http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/FO3_Arrow_to_the_Knee.jpg.

________________

I'd not heard of Brutal Doom before; looking at it... I'd say it looks pretty cool, but I don't understand why you mentioned it(?); what's to tolerate?
I've not played it, but none of the changes I saw seem to go against the grain. [You don't assume I mean 'no changes at all ' do you?]

It seems like it all comes down to "be true to the original or bring Doom to new grounds".

BOTH is risky in some way.

-If you stick to the original gameplay and put your focus on graphics, most oldschoolers will be satisfied but the vast majority of gamers who joined the party in 2000 und later will be ignored.
This will lead to lower sales and therefore a smaller budget and a less expensive blockbuster experience.
Additionally, Doom 4 will have to compete with all the mods of the original Doom games (even if they don't look as crispy as modern games) because the gameplay is the same.
Only the graphics would be superior.

-If you do something new, you'll likely annoy the oldschoolers with gameplay elements they probably dislike because they weren't in there before.
Adding new gameplay elements to longtime running brands is problematic.
My impression is that new gameplay elements can put off fans quite easily.
Look at Dead Space 3: The coop mode scared off lots of gamers due to the change in gameplay it brought.
New gameplay elements are also problematic even if they are optional:
An example would be the microtransaction stuff in Dead Space 3 every Dead Space fan is complaining about although you never need to use it.


I'm right in the middle of it when it comes to old vs new.
I would by a new Doom game with both approaches.
But my personal experience shows that i'm very open to retro games AND new gametypes.
This is quite rare in this really devoted fan driven market.

When i look back at the progression id's games went through, up to a certain point they handled this quite well.

First was Wolfenstein, then came Doom that added floors, ceilings and up and down, Quake brought us real 3 dimensions, Quake 3 focused on multiplayer, Doom 3 gave us realtime lighting and shadows and "the flashlight" as a new gameplay element.
Rage also had a new element, the megatexture, but that didn't do anything to the gameplay.

I'd say, Doom 4 needs to be based on the series without forgetting it's roots but desperately needs a new never before seen key feature that delivers a new and unusal gameplay experience.
Copying existing games even if they're tremendously succesfull won't work.


P.S.: why is the word "f a n b o y" always automatically replaced with "really devoted fan" when i write a post???
Is that word a swearword in the US?