[Jason Vines]

Kantor.com has a good blog posting: Why Doom 3, Well, Sucks.

I agree with the article. The game looks amazing, and it's a nice way to kill a few minutes (and monsters). The atmosphere can send tension and fear coursing through one's body. But, still, Doom 3 sucks. Most of the levels are all the same; if you've played one, you've played them all. Pervasive darkness and creature spawning take the place of intelligent placement and advanced AI. Interaction with one's environment is minimal. Friendly NPC's are few and far between, and dealings with them are rudimentary. Infuriating key hunts substitute for ingenious, realistic puzzles. And gameplay is the same the whole time: point, click, shoot.

That might have been fine for Doom and Doom II 10 years ago, when FPS combat itself was innovative. But in the 21st century, after Dark Forces, Half-Life, Jedi Knight, Far Cry, and No One Lives Forever, gamers expect interactive environments, varied gameplay, objectives that matter, engaging characters, immersive stories, and artful level design. Doom 3 offered nothing of the kind.

John Carmack, the captain of id Software, scorned such innovations, calling them "gimmicks." I suppose he thinks fun and immersion aren't vital to good games.

[Rick]

I've never thought of Doom 3 like this. Now that I come to think of it, it did suck compared to Half-Life 2 or other more "interactive" FPSes.

I did think that Doom 3's graphics were absolutely stunning - but back then I hadn't played HL2 or other shooters with that kind of graphics yet.

[Sim]

I don't think Doom 3 sucks, it was a worthwhile FPS -- but I absolutely share the criticism. I played it after HL2, and of course, it was no match. HL2 is ultimately better.

Still I found it was enjoyable, the darkness and shock effects are nice -- but it's definately one league below FPS' like HL2, Far Cry or FEAR.

Quake 4 has shown how the Doom 3 engine can be used for more diversified gameplay, so in a sense, Quake 4 has been what Doom 3 should have been in the first place.

[Jason Vines]

Sim said:

Quake 4 has shown how the Doom 3 engine can be used for more diversified gameplay, so in a sense, Quake 4 has been what Doom 3 should have been in the first place.

I said that a few months ago.

Sim said:

I don't think Doom 3 sucks, it was a worthwhile FPS -- but I absolutely share the criticism. I played it after HL2, and of course, it was no match. HL2 is ultimately better.

Still I found it was enjoyable, the darkness and shock effects are nice -- but it's definately one league below FPS' like HL2, Far Cry or FEAR.

I find plowing through Doom 3 a chore, one I do just to finish the game instead of seeing where the story goes or discovering what new environments await me. After all, Doom 3 has barely any story, and 99% of its levels consist of sprawling UAC Martian base.

FEAR had repetitive levels, too. Far Cry had minimal plot. But they compensated for those deficincies with other elements I talked about in the first post of this thread. Doom 3 doesn't do that.