File: 1677275941868.jpg (82 KB, 1280x720)

82 KB JPG

>>681502486
https://doom-nerdo-666.tumblr.com/post/709731029794111488/doom-3-could-use-a-proper-release-and-not-a
https://doom-nerdo-666.tumblr.com/post/712445413752487936/horror-does-have-a-place-in-doom
And here's how you do a Doom 3 sequel:
https://doom-nerdo-666.tumblr.com/post/724860004712300544/an-idea-doom-3-follow-uphow-to-save-doom-4

File: Painkiller v Eternal.jpg (578 KB, 1918x1191)

578 KB JPG

>>681502486
Doom 3 sucks. Nu-Doom sucks. The series ended with Doom 64.

>>681502645
But complexity as a concept is what keeps the brain busy.

File: screenshot.doom-3.1024x76(...).jpg (108 KB, 1024x768)

108 KB JPG

>>681502486
Never.
I like Doom 3

>>681502486
For what? It sucks ass

File: 1690027546272509.webm (3.71 MB, 1280x720)

3.71 MB WEBM

Why people bitch about this game's shotgun while the one in Quake takes 10 shots to kill basic enemies I dont fucking know. It's a good fucking shotgun.

>>681502645
Doom 64 is stagnant and sucks and is only liked ironically by fags trying to be hip by jerking off about dullest Doom game ever, just because it got a switch port. Retards would never have even played it otherwise.
I don’t even like the nu-Doom games and I still would rather play that tripe over 64 any day of the week.

>>681503352
You can actually hit things with the Quake shotgun for one thing.
The roles are also completely different. In Quake the rocket launcher becomes your mainstay weapon due to abundance of ammo (or at least should if you have any sense). In Doom 3 shotgun shells are probably your most reliably refilled ammo type.

>>681503352
Genuine skill issues. People hate to
admit that the Imp jumping out at them through the darkness was so disorienting and pant shitting that they lost all their skill and forgot how to close the distance and aim. D3’s shotgun is strong enough to blow away over half the game’s roster in a single well-placed shot.
Could you imaging if the D3 shotty had the RoF of Q1’s shotty?

>>681502486
I always liked it.

>>681503726
Yeah, you cant hit things with it but it does shit damage and is useless against stronger enemies. Why isn't the contextual role of the shotgun in Doom 3 taken into account? The fact 99% of encounters are in cramped hallways and 5 feet within enemies.

>>681503352
>Why people bitch about this game's shotgun while the one in Quake takes 10 shots to kill basic enemies I dont fucking know.
Because A) the problem that people have with the shotgun in Doom 3 was inconsistency, and B) Quake had a super shotgun that pretty much entirely replaced the regular shotgun and was actually quite powerful.
>It's a good fucking shotgun.
No. Just no. it's an absolutely abysmal weapon, and it's not the only weapon in Doom 3 that is pure trash.
You just have shit taste.

>>681503352
Shit sound effect and it's basically a melee weapon. It does the job fine but for fucks sake is it a downgrade from Doom's 1/2 shotty.
Guess cheaping out on Trent Resnor didn't pat off, huh? Fucking faggots.

>>681504658
>>681504718
You're just wrong.

File: EyE_wZtVgAM2m82.jpg (413 KB, 1887x1062)

413 KB JPG

for anyone complaining about Doom 3's shotgun, remember that you can always just mod it
7zip opens the game files and they're all in plain text
If you want to make a level just type 'editor' in the console
D44M and D44M 2 still don't have proper mod tools so Doom 3 will always have that over them

ITT: I am back in 2000s. Feels good, fags.

>>681504971
Compelling argument you have there.

>>681505314
You dont have arguments. It's just it's baad cause it's bad. Not an argument. It's just an objective incorrect statement. You can do well using only the shotgun. If you tried playing Quake or Doom with only the shotgun you'd get your ass handed to you. But somehow the shotgun in Doom 3 is bad because it's that fucking good? That make any sense to anyone..?

>>681505520
>You dont have arguments.
Actually, both of us provided arguments. The abysmal range, the poor sound effects, and most importantly, the simple unreliability of the weapon are entirely valid, objectively valid reasons to call the weapon shit.

>You can do well using only the shotgun.
First of all - that is a lie. There are several fights, such as those involving the mancuby where using only the shotgun will kill you, and there are countless other encounters - the ones that include enemies with destructable projectiles (caco's and revenants and such) where using it is beyond sub-optimal. Also, you literally can't fucking use the shotgun on the final boss.
Second of all: the fact that you can get further using the shotgun than you'd do in other shooters is because Doom 3 is a shit game with some utterly ABYSMAL encounter design. It's not a sign of the gun being good, it's a demonstration of the design of the game failing in every single way a shooter can fail. The game is for the most part, laughably easy and the enemies are so poorly designed, and encounters so poorly set up, that you can effectively reduce any single encounter to extremely close quarter fight with a singular enemy at the time, which is just... fucking mindboggingly bad level design, enemy design and encounter design, it's a failure across the board.
But it does not mean the gun is good. It's shit. It¨s not fun to use, it does not synergize, it does not have a niche, and it's annoying as you are at the mercy of a non-skill-based factor when using it. Those are things are objectively signs of poor weapon design. And the fact that the game is so fucking toothless that a weapon that only works 3/4 of the time is still viable is just that: the game also being pathetic and toothless on top of having a shit shotgun.

>>681506367
>abysmal range
So why isn't the contextual role of the shotgun in Doom 3 considered here? The encounters are all within its range.
>the poor sound effects
Just an opinion. Sound great to me.
>But it does not mean the gun is good
yes it does. Objectively so. Your feelings dont matter.

>>681506629
>So why isn't the contextual role of the shotgun in Doom 3 considered here?
Because literally all fights in the game are close range. As I said, there are about 5 fights in the entire game where due to AOE attacks, you are forced into a mid-range (which is still only like 5 meters tops because of how tiny and awful the levels are).
>Just an opinion. Sound great to me.
No, a good sound is one that reflects accurately the function of the weapon and approximates how that weapon does, or would, sound in real life, or even exaggerates that sound where appropriate. The launch sounds is like a party cracker and the impact sound is basically nonexistent.

>yes it does. Objectively so. Your feelings dont matter.
Says the person who does not understand a single thing about game design and whose only argument is "because I say so!"
No. Objectively, it is bad. For reasons I've explained, and you failed to refute at all. The only person who is arguing entirely from a sentiment here is you.

>>681502486
I'm playing it right now for the first time on Switch, started it on Veteran so I have already gotten a few deaths from some very cheap blind attacks, but it's ok so far. I have one huge complaint though: Why is there no gyro? Even Doom I and II had some gyro, but the game that could benefit the most from it doesn't?

I do agree with what the thread says about the shotgun, it feels so weak, sometimes it takes four shots to kill a soldier unless I'm literally faceplanted to them.

>>681507135
>Because literally all fights in the game are close range.
So the shotgun fills its role perfectly.
>>681507135
>No, a good sound is one that reflects accurately the function of the weapon and approximates how that weapon does, or would, sound in real life, or even exaggerates that sound where appropriate.
It's a good thing it does exactly that and sounds good.
>>681507135
>does not understand a single thing about game design and whose only argument is "because I say so!"
You're the one who doesn't understand game design. Everything about the Doom 3 shotgun works in favor of Doom 3's game design and you're only point is that you dont like it. Well that's not an argument. The shotgun is objectively good at servicing the game design.

>lets put a pause on the classic gameplay doom is known for and do shitty time wasting puzzles
No it's the worse one

>>681507654
>playing it for the first time
>on Switch
Literally KYS.

>>681502486
very impressive when it released (i still remember my bro cooming over the leak) and an enjoyable play, but other than that, it doesn't have much replay value, imo. i'd rate it 6 or 7/10.

Why? It's just a shitty slow paced horror shooter.
2016 is the true sequel to Doom 2.

>>681507982
Keep your consolewar faggotry to yourself.

I'd even go as far to say the shotgun in FEAR is bad and the one in Doom 3 is much better. Why? Because in FEAR you have slo mo and most of the enemies can be taken out with a headshot so you're better off using any precision weapon over the shotgun in 98% of cases, where as the Doom 3 shotgun is just more effective at dealing with the enemies.

>>681508407
>true sequel
>cutscene every 5 seconds
no

>>681502645
You only heard about Doom 64 for the first time when Eternal launched.

>>681502486
that isn't even a Doom game.

>>681507721
>So the shotgun fills its role perfectly.
No, it's still crap. It is still unreliable, it still sounds terrible, and it still gives you zero flexbility.

>It's a good thing it does exactly that and sounds good.
And you complain about others using only "subjective" metrics? It has ZERO bass and zero impact sound. it does not do that.

>You're the one who doesn't understand game design.
NUH UH is not as impressive argument as you think it is. People gave you solid reasons, you just continue to screech and stuff fingers up your ears.
How old are you?

>>681508683
>walking at 0.5 km/h, swapping to flashlight non stop, no bullets, enemies spawn from holes in numbers no larger than 3. Only 1 spawning in your back being the more common type of spawn.

>>681508831
>No
Yes, it's not crap. It's good.
>And you complain about others using only "subjective" metrics?
Yeah, that's your opinion. I already said that and gave you my opinion. Sounds good.
>NUH UH is not as impressive argument as you think it is
That's all you have.

>>681509230
Do you seriously not realize what you are doing?
Again:
How old are you?

>>681508407
Sorry friendo, Doom 3 is a better Doom game than either of the Nu-Dooms.

>>681509285
Stop asking me my age. You have nothing to argue.

>>681502486
>ebin hardcore OBJECTIVE:SURVIVE gameplay
>walk down a cool detailed corridor
>spooky ominous whispers
>lights dim
>a pentagram appears on the floor
>lights dim
>single imp spawns
>run up to it and one-hit click it with shotgun
>proceed to open a storage cabinet
>20 shells, 60 chaingun bullets, 2 medkits and a BFG
>repeat

>>681502645
>complexity

now, let's not exaggerate. People who find Eternal too complicated are low IQ troglodytes and their opinion doesn't really matter.

>>681509528
>Stop asking me my age
Sensitive subject I see.
>You have nothing to argue.
I've already argued my point. Basic principles of discussion are completely lost on you.
Which brings me to the real interesting subject here.
How old are you?
And related to that:
Do your parents know that you are on an 18+ only website?

>>681509773
I countered all your points which is why you're deflecting to off topic nonsense. Cause you have nothing left.

>>681509914
How old are you, child?

File: doom eternal gameplay.webm (2.99 MB, 960x540)

2.99 MB WEBM

i transheart shart eternal

>>681510003
Ok, you lost.

>>681510003
I'm 34, and I can safely say you're retarded. You gotta be some kinda insecure kid yourself to be asking other people's age like this.

File: 1719935226248.jpg (164 KB, 2560x1064)

164 KB JPG

>>681509676
This. Doom Eternal was an insult to our intelligence. The game can basically be described as Bop-It but with edgy nu-core heavy metal playing in the background. Shoot thing until thing glows, hit button prompt, repeat. It's so blasé.

>>681510003
He's not saying his age because regardless of what he says you're going to say he's lying. This kind of thing just doesn't work on anonymous imageboards.

>>681510413
>Doom Eternal was an insult to our intelligence
is that a royal we or are you talking about you and your headmates

>>681502486
I'm sorry

>>681505167
Having mods available does not excuse the game.
There's a reason the duct tape mod was one of the most downloaded mods so quickly

>>681510060
>>681510338
Here is the list of things you failed to address or where your own argument was disproven.
1) the weapon is unreliable - it does not provide consistent effect due to randomization of both the spread and damage, this removes an element of control and with that, skill from the play, and makes mastering it, and thus using it, unsatisfying, if not downright frustrating.
2) the gun has terrible sound due to lack of base which a shotgun should have, and due to lack of impact sound - it fails to simulate the sound that a swarm of pellets would have as they cut through organic matter. It fails to represent the actual functionality of the weapon.
3) your argument that it's good because "you can solve most encounters with it" is invalid: lack of challenge and variety encounter and level design does not make the gun good, it just shows there are many other things wrong with the game.
4) the weapon does not have a niche as there are no specialized situations in which it would do well or poorly, due to everything being balanced for the games near-exclusive close combat.
5) the weapon also lacks flexibility too, as it only works at extremely close range. The fact that you rarely if ever need to keep distance does not change the fact that the use of the weapon is mechanically incredibly shallow.

In conclusion: the weapon actively detracts from player's skill expression, sounds terrible, feels terrible, and has no nuance or interesting function.
It's a bad gun. In an overal bad game. Plain and simple.

>I'm 34
I hope for your own sake that you are lying. A child would at least have a fucking excuse in it's immaturity. A 34 years old person cannot be lacking self-awareness or basic communication skills like you do.

File: 1690726541600534.jpg (65 KB, 479x487)

65 KB JPG

imagine getting involved in arguments with a purpose other than making someone upset

>>681502486
For what? Played the shit out of it, but now I can only enjoy Q4 from that era.

>>681502486
whenever people praise Doom 3 as a "true Doom game" you need to remind them that final boss of Doom 3 is beaten by running in circles around a pit and killing FUCKING IMPS with a BFG

>>681511006
>the weapon is unreliable
It's not. You're never gonna fire the gun and suddenly have it not fire. Or jam on you.
> the gun has terrible sound
that's your opinion. There's nothing to argue there. I think it sound good.
>"you can solve most encounters with it" is invalid
No it's not. That's what makes a weapon good by any objective metric. Your game design theory and personal preference doesn't matter in the context of what the game is.
>the weapon does not have a niche as there are no specialized situations in which it would do well or poorly
Wow, it's bad cause there's no situation in the game it does poorly in!? Amazing analysis. Plus, it does well in 99% of encounters which is apparently your problem with the game design in ther first place so you cant even keep your arguments consistent.
>he weapon also lacks flexibility too, as it only works at extremely close range.
So? You have 9 other weapons that work at longer ranges. And every fight is close range.
> the weapon actively detracts from player's skill expression
This is just youtube gobbledygoop speak dude.

>>681511006
Why even ask someone's age if you're just gonna find an excuse to cry like a faggot either way?

File: doom-2016-soul-cube.jpg (631 KB, 1600x900)

631 KB JPG

>>681511485
More interesting than your average bullet sponge bosses.

File: kino.jpg (19 KB, 203x249)

19 KB JPG

>>681502486
*mogs Doom 3*

>>681511685
>You're never gonna fire the gun and suddenly have it not fire.
What you just preformed is a strawman: You created a claim that I didn't make, then disproved that claim only you have made.
What I actually said is that the damage and spread are inconsistent. Which means that the same shot from the same distance and same accuracy may one-shot an enemy, but it also may take two or even three.
One point in and you already commited a serious logical fallacy.

>that's your opinion.
And it's entirely valid in reasoning. What you are doing now is just saying NUH UH and failing to provide any actual counter-argument to the notion that gun should sound like a gun.

>That's what makes a weapon good by any objective metric.
I agree. I also detailed those metrics and specified how the gun fails them. You just provided absolutely no counter-argument, it's another NUH UH.

>Wow, it's bad cause there's no situation in the game it does poorly in!?
Again a strawman. Another claim you made up and then "discredited".
What I said is that your argument that just because the game does not punish you for using it does not mean it's a well designed weapon, it just means the encounter design is trash.
So far we have two strawmen and two NUH UH.
>So? You have 9 other weapons that work at longer ranges.
The existence of other weapons does not make this one good. Not an argument. My argument is that there is no nuance or complexity to it's use which again is what makes weapons interesting to use.
>This is just youtube gobbledygoop speak dude.
You being literally brain-dead is not my problem, kid. You don't understand basic game design principles and terminology? Fine, but don't pretend like you know what you are doing. Ignorance is not an argument.

So that is 2 strawmen, 3 NUH UHHHH and 1 literal "I don't understand this subject."
Not a great tally, kid.
How old are you, REALLY?

>>681511903
>Why even ask someone's age if you're just gonna find an excuse to cry like a faggot either way?
Because I'm trying to find an explanation for why you are such an insanely deranged faggot. You being massively under-age would certainly explain why you behave how you behave.

>>681512267
>killing imps with endgame weapons is interesting
Can't make this shit up

>>681504658
>>681504718
>>681504971
>>681505520
>>681506367
>>681506629
>>681507135
>>681507721
>>681508831
>>681509230
>>681509773
>>681511006
>>681511685
>>681512657
>>681512763
touch grass
i beg you
this doesnt matter

>>681512763
I'm not even that anon that you were arguing with. Just pointing out the fact that you're an idiot.

I didn't shit on it at release though.

>>681512838
Doom 2016 has broken gameplay and nu Id will never fix it. The boss is literally just 3 BFG shots and few rockets away from death if you use the exploit.

>>681513082
>using an exploit which you won't even find if you play the game a a PC player and bind weapons instead of using the console wheel
>vs
>playing the game as intended
I don't even like 2016 that much.

>>681512863
Why the fuck are you even here you retarded nigger? Fuck off

>>681512657
>What you just preformed is a strawman
You've been strawmanning this whole time.
>What you are doing now is just saying NUH UH
All you have to my opinion that it sounds good is NUH UH
> I also detailed those metrics and specified how the gun fails them.
You didn't. You set your own trap.
>game does not punish you for using it
So by your own metric the gun is good.
>The existence of other weapons does not make this one good.
yeah it does. That's game design 101.
>You being literally brain-dead
You're brain dead and have exhausted everything you have.

>>681509361
>it just is, okay????
>why? Because I say so!!!
It's not even a doom game, retarded contrarian nigger

>>681511006
The shotgun forces you to get close to the target. I don't really understand what's your issue here. If there is a broken weapon in the game, then it's the grenade.

>>681513419
Son, you weren't even BORN when Doom came out and you're trying to tell people what is a Doom game? Piss off.

>>681513579
>If there is a broken weapon in the game, then it's the grenade.
Why? It's decently strong, but so annoying to use.

>>681511485
So the same thing as icon of sin at the end of Doom 2?

>>681502486
Reminder that doom 3 is the game that id software wanted to make ten years before with doom 1/2 but they couldn't fulfill this vision because of technical limitations.
People retroactively interpreted doom as a spastic ADHD game and the precursor of 2016/eternal because of wads.

>>681513419
>>681513347
sorry but you have autism, sneed.

>>681514017
It would be the same if you had to kill strong enemies to charge the cube. Icon of Sin can spawn anything up to Arch-Vile. Doom 3's endboss pit only spawns Imps and Maggots.

You likely have full BFG ammo, cells, belts, rockets, you name it - you got it. I wouldn't mind the "fight" if waves got progressively stronger. Fighting a couple of Hell Knights and an Arch-Vile while dodging Cyberdemon rockets had a potential to at least feel good.

>>681514380
So the tech limitations made for a better game? Figures.

Romero was a key component of what made Doom good so naturally whatever the tech autist Carmack made after he fired Romero doesn't have the same artistic intent.

>>681512863
eat the bugs then.

>>681513372
>You've been strawmanning this whole time.
Really.
Post a single example of me committing a strawman from our previous conversation. Until you do, this is another NUH UH.
>>681513372
>All you have to my opinion that it sounds good is NUH UH
Actually, no. I have detailed the components and criteria for good sound. This isn't a strawman, this is a flat out lie. I've stated that a shotgun requires deeper and bassier sound, and requires impact sound which it lacks entirely. Another NUH UH.
>You didn't
Literal NUH UH.
>So by your own metric the gun is good.
Another straight up lie. The fact that the encounter design does not encourage you swapping out weapons does not make a weapon good. What forces you to swap out weapon is enemy and encounter design. The game failing to deliver on these things does not make the gun good, it just means that other parts of the game are bad as well.
The reason why you can get away with using nothing but the shotgun 90% of the time is because the game only forces you into close combat. This does not make the gun any more satisfying, nuanced or well designed.
Another nuh uh.
>yeah it does. That's game design 101.
No. If the BFG was the most fun weapon in the world, it would not change the shotgun being shit.
Another nuh uh.
>You're brain dead and have exhausted everything you have.
Self-explanatory.
>>681513579
>The shotgun forces you to get close to the target. I don't really understand what's your issue here.
How do you not understand a fucking bullet point breakdown of my problem here? How retarded are you?
How do you get lost at the point "the gun is unreliable and sounds like shit"?

>>681502486
It's rare for an expansion to be even worse than the original game, but doom 3 pulled it off.

>>681516195
Romero is a hack, he was only good because Carmack kept him in line and vice versa.

>>681516962
And Carmack is more interested in tech than gameplay.

Saying Doom 3 is what "id" wanted is bait. Tom Hall wanted one thing, Romero wanted another, Carmack another. In the end only Carmack was left and id declined under Tim Willits, who only wanted to chase trends instead of setting them.

>>681503352
I guess people don't treat it as a melee weapon. Spread fucking sucks but the damage one-shots most mobs.

>>681516195
>>681516962
You know I always remember a post I read here when it comes to Carmack and Romero.
>People like to shit on Romero, but the simple fact of the matter is NEITHER of them has made anything on par with Doom or Quake since parting ways.
I think there's a lot of truth there. Carmack is without question a talented programmer, but each of them played an important part in making Doom what it was. As important as good programming (UNFATHOMABLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT 90% OF /dev/FAGS THINK!) is to good game design it isn't the ONLY component, and I think Carmack tends to lose himself to the technical side of his work and forget simple joys of playing a great game. I don't think reuniting them would suddenly respark the magic, but it might be fun to see, and I feel like both of them would benefit from it.

>>681516865
>Post a single example of me committing a strawman from our previous conversation.
You said the gun is unreliable and takes 3 shots up close to kill something. This doesn't happen. And 3 whole shots would be an upgrade over the quake shotgun anyway.
>I have detailed the components and criteria for good sound.
There are no components and criteria for good sound besides objective measurable aspects like bit rate or sampling rate. All you have is you want more bass because that's just like your opinion.
>Literal NUH UH
all you have is you nuh uh'ing
>The fact that the encounter design does not encourage you swapping out weapons does not make a weapon good
Yes it does.
>The reason why you can get away with using nothing but the shotgun 90% of the time is because the game only forces you into close combat.
So the gun is designed for the game it is. So there's no problem with the shotgun.
>If the BFG was the most fun weapon in the world,
If the BFG was the only weapon you had and it killed you in close quarters even it would be a bad gun. Because it's complemented with weapons that have other roles it's now the most powerful gun in the game.
>Self-explanatory.
Yes, exactly.

>>681503352
The spread on it is abhorrent. You literally need to shove it up an enemy's asshole to get good damage out of it.
But I suppose that's fine as most of the game is cramped hallways.

>>681517990
>You said the gun is unreliable and takes 3 shots up close to kill something. This doesn't happen.
That is not what strawman means. I literally explained what strawman means and you still got it wrong. It's genuinely impressive how completely retarded you are.
And you are also lying about the game itself. The gun is inconsistent in damage. Case closed.

>There are no components and criteria for good sound besides objective measurable aspects like bit rate or sampling rat
That's a NUH UH!
The fact that you can't explain what makes a good weapon sound is your problem, I can and had provided those criteria, you just refuse to make an argument of your own. A pure NUH UH, pure non-argument.
>all you have is you nuh uh'ing
Now we have added NO U to NUH UH. Just add the "U MAD" to that and we'll have the full trifecta of "retarded child who cannot argue for shit".
In case you are still confused - the NUH UH is simply a way for me to point out lack of your own argument. I have provided my argument and explained why you did not.
And you literally can't do anything about that.
>Yes it does.
NUH UH.
See. You have not provided an argument, you have not formulated why you are right and I am wrong. There is literally no logical justification to why you believe you are right.
You have nothing, nothing that would prove or support your claim.
>So the gun is designed for the game it is. So there's no problem with the shotgun.
And now we have reached into a realm of literal nonsense, which hides yet another NUH UH.
>If the BFG was the only weapon you had and it killed you in close quarters even it would be a bad gun.
No, actually. It would not be a bad gun, it would be a bad encounter and bad level design. The gun could be amazing but if the encounter and level design does not compliment it, a good gun would be wasted on a bad game.
What makes a gun good or bad is how fun it is to shoot, which can and had been broken into specific criteria above.
>Yes, exactly.
Wow.

>>681519312
>I literally explained what strawman mean
That's exactly what it means. You're retarded.
>That's a NUH UH
You're nuh uh'ing. That's all you have.
>Just add the "U MAD"
You are mad lol
>NUH UH.
you're nuh uh'ing again
>which hides yet another NUH UH
...again. You have nothing left do you?
> It would not be a bad gun
Yes it would be.
>it would be a bad encounter and bad level design
There's nothing wrong with close quarters combat design.
>What makes a gun good or bad is how fun it is to shoot
No it doesn't. It's fun to use a Negev in Counter Strike or troll with dual needlers but those aren't good guns by any objective metric. How effective the gun is is by any objective metric how good it is. It being "fun" is literally just your opinion and no one cares about your feelings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMgI9KnWnio

>>681503352
It was funny to hear Doom 3's shotgun being bad becoming a meme because I remembered it being the only weapon I used for most of that game. Running down hallways and blasting jumpscare imps at point blank. A bad shotgun is one you don't use, 3's shotgun just asked you to get in.

like Doom 2016 and Eternal's single shotguns are less useful, at least for the shotgun component.

>>681502486
Doom 3 is dope I have no reason to apologize.

>pick up ammo
>demons spawn behind you
>ad nauseam

>>681520595
>That's exactly what it means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It's objectively, provably not.
>That's all you have.
Actually, I have the whole argument that a gun should sound like a gun, and the explanation why the shotgun in Doom 3 does not sound like one, due to lack of bass and no impact sound at all.
>You are mad lol
And again this leads me to the question: How old are you?
The "I'm going to do the annoying thing because you said it would be annoying" thing really does not help you prove that you are anything more than a literal child.
>you're nuh uh'ing again
Yes, yes I am. I also explained in detail what it means when I do that. Care to address that? No? OK then.
>Yes it would be.
NUH UH again, child.
>There's nothing wrong with close quarters combat design.
There is a lot wrong with having only that in your shooter, but also this claim is irrelevant. I didn't say that close combat design is inherently bad. I said that the weapon Doom 3 gives you is bad. Try to keep up, child.
>No it doesn't.
You have literally just said "it does not matter if a gun is fun and satisfying to use in a shooter."

You sure you want to insist on that claim.
>How effective the gun is is by any objective metric how good it is.
No. A perfectly recoilless infinite ammo hit-scan gun with major stun effect, no noise, and an aimbot and no damage penalty would be the most effective weapon in pretty much any shooter.
It would also be an incredibly shit weapon, because it would not be fun to use.
This is an incredibly retarded argument.
Efficiency does not make a weapon good. Designing the weapon to be FUN TO USE is what makes it good or bad. A weapon that is effective under all circumstances but utterly boring and unsatisfying to use is in fact, an absolute DEFINITION OF A TERRIBLE GUN DESIGN.

Seriously, how fucking old are you actually? You can't be more than 12, 13, right? RIGHT?

>>681521627
>It's objectively, provably not.
Linking to something that proves you wrong. wow.
>I have the whole argument that a gun should sound like a gun
There's your strawman, again.
>And again this leads me to the question: How old are you?
More deflection cause you lost.
>The "I'm going to do the annoying thing because you said it would be annoying" thing really does not help you prove that you are anything more than a literal child.
You've ran out of arguments and points.
>Yes, yes I am.
lol
> I said that the weapon Doom 3 gives you is bad
It just objectively isn't. Keep trying.
>You have literally just said "it does not matter if a gun is fun and satisfying to use in a shooter."
Twisting my words. I said it doesn't make the gun good. Which it doesn't. That's just the facts.
>No. A perfectly recoilless infinite ammo hit-scan gun with major stun effect, no noise, and an aimbot and no damage penalty would be the most effective weapon in pretty much any shooter.
And still no one would say the gun is bad or ineffective because it's objectively good. Thank you.
>This is an incredibly retarded argument.
It's not. You have no arguments.
>Efficiency does not make a weapon good
You're still flip flopping whether the Doom 3 shotgun it too effective, or not effective enough. And making double think claims about pseudo game design theory about what is "good" and what isn't.
>Seriously, how fucking old are you actually?
More deflecting because you cant argue on the merits of facts and evidence.

>>681502486
No it still sucks and I am not ashamed to admit 2016 blows it out of the water as a Doom game and should had been called Doom 4

>>681516962
They made good games TOGETHER as a TEAM. Alone, you get this and Daikatana and whatever abortive VR project Carmack has been working on for the past ten years

>>681522515
>Linking to something that proves you wrong. wow.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.
What I said is that the damage in the game is inconsistent, and provided an example for that. You claim that the example is untrue. At worst you could argue that is an exaggeration or a fabrication (it's neither but that does not matter).
At no point have I actually reformulate your argument into a distinctly different one.

A strawman:
I said that the weapon is unreliable, because the damage and the spread are inconsistent.
You said "Are you saying that the weapon does randomly not fire at all? Because that is not true. You are wrong."
See the problem? There is a difference between saying "the damage is inconsistent", and saying "the weapon randomly does not fire at all." Those are two very different arguments.
By "proving" that the weapon does not randomly jam, you have not actually disproven my claim. You disproved something you and only you suggested, and acted like that proves me wrong.

Can you make a breakdown of my argument in the same fashion, child?
Because what happened there is that I said that the weapon damage is inconsistent and that it can take anywhere between 1 to 3 shots to kill an enemy.
And you seem to disagree with that number.
No aspect of that involves me twisting your own argument into something different. It's just you claiming that I'm innaccurate, which is also false but less interesting.

Seriously, how the FUCK do you not understand this? And this is exactly why I am saying that you cannot be older than 12. You have the definition of a strawman argument right in front of you.

What is your excuse for getting it COMPLETELY WRONG?
What did you think it means? Anything that you disagree with?

How.
Old.
Are.
You?

>>681523373
1 to 3 shots to kill an enemy is the definition of reliable. It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. And you can guarantee 1 shot kills up close against all but the strongest enemies. It's not my job to disprove a strawman fabrication either way.

Speaking of shotguns I like using slugs in Project Brutality.

>>681522515
I won't go point-by-point with your other nonsense, but I will point out the key thing: Which is that you commited a MASSIVE logical fallacy again.
It's called "Moving the goalposts", and it's you quitely changing your own argument because you could not maintain your previous one, but still acting as if you were correct all along.

You have COMPLETELY changed the subject from "is the gun good" to "is the gun effective". Ignoring the fact that no, it's not very effective, the two things are absolutely different.

A weapon being effective does not mean the weapon is good. These two things are not the same and cannot be used interchangably. And the only reason why you are now introducing effectiveness instead of just quality, is because you cannot maintain the argument that the weapon is good. When people say that the shotgun is shit, they speak about the quality of the design and execution of the weapon.
Not about mere effectivity, because as I illustrated, a weapon that is perfectly effective at all circumstances but is utterly unsatisfying to use, is a bad weapon, badly designed gun, and everyone will justly hate it.

>>681523987
After all that proving you COMPLETELY LYING OFF YOUR ASS, you still want to continue this farce?

I don't mind, it's fun to bully retards like you, but why do you keep staying here?

I just demonstrated that you literally cannot fucking get anything right even when I link you the definition.

Will you address that post? Will you admit that you were wrong? That you FALSELY accused me of strawman when there was none, then continued to insist you are right even after I provided conclusive evidence that you were wrong?
Does being proven to be a complete liar and genuinely so fucking retarded that you can't get definitions right EVEN WHEN LINKED TO YOU not affect you at all?

What is your reply to me demonstrating you lied about the strawman, kid?

>>681524418
The gun is good and it is effective. Something you've already demonstrated in your arguments. The gun cant both be "bad", and still effective and in like 95% of encounters lol. All you have left is your opinions about game design theory which aren't even relevant and no one cares about your feelings.

>>681524786
You have proven yourself to be so dumb you can't read a definition when it is linked to you.
You have proven to be so dishonest that you maintain I used a strawman when I didn't.
You have proven to be a chronic liar when you accused me of a fallacy I didn't commit.
You have proven to commit fallacy after fallacy.

What is your response to that, kid?
It's right there. This post: >>681523373
Proves everything you say is dishonest and completely wrong.

What is your response. Will you apologize? Will you present a counter argument?
It's not going to disappear.

>>681525069
Funny you're still stuck on this strawman fallacy, cause you are one and have no arguments. Try arguing with someone who thinks the gun is good, but it's not good...because made up game design theory reasons, but also it's too good and that's why it's bad...? lol

>>681525360
>Funny you're still stuck on this strawman fallacy, cause you are one and have no arguments
Capacity to admit when you were proven wrong is the very foundation and purpose of a discussion.

If you do not have a capacity to do that, then everything you say is automatically untrustworthy and you are not worth spending any more time on.

So what you are saying right now is that there is nothing wrong with lying and committing fallacies.
Am I getting that right?

>>681525617
The only one lying is you.

>>681525768
>The only one lying is you.
See: >>681523373
What part of it is a lie?
Why did you say that me stating something that you do not consider accurate, was a strawman?
How is that a strawman?
Can you break it down the same way I did with your actual strawman?

And I was right, why did you insist I've commited a strawman when I didn't?
How is that NOT a lie?
How is you insisting on it even after I provided evidence proving you objectively wrong, NOT a lie?
Answer these questions, child. Dance for me a little more.

>>681526046
You're the one dancing. You're the one lying. I proved you wrong and you have nothing. Now tell me why the shotgun is "too good" again, lol.

>>681526347
>You're the one lying.
How am I lying?
How is any part of this >>681523373 false?

You haven't disproven it. You haven't disproven anything else either.
Prove you can actually stand up to an argument for once. Address >>681523373

Do it, monkey.

>>681526584
There's nothing to prove. You lost. That's why you're hiding.

>>681526846
>There's nothing to prove.
You are not wrong. Everything necessary was proven. Namely the fact that you lie, compulsively, commit massive fallacies, refuse to admit you are wrong even when given a dictionary definition proving you wrong, and that overal, you are less than a worm.

But you of course could at least ATTEMPT defend yourself, child. You could admit you were wrong. That would actually give me interest in disproving the rest of your claims, because I would know there is at least a shred of backbone in you.

As it is, it's a demonstration that you are a cowardly, dishonest piece of shit. Irrefutably so. A solid, objective proof that you do not have even a shred of actual dignity or a mental capacity to judge... anything, really.

Why did you accuse me of commiting a strawman when I didn't?
Why did you commit one yourself?
Why did you continue to insist I'm wrong when I gave you irrefutable evidence that I'm right?

As long as you can't give a honest answer to any of these questions, I've won this argument. I've PROVEN that nothing you say is trustworthy. That your entire argument is based in open deception and dishonesty.

And that you are incapable of correcting yourself, even when PROVEN WRONG.

>>681527380
All you have left is what about isim and strawmaning. Something you already proved for me anyway. The fact you dont even wanna argue the shotgun anymore speaks volumes. Everyone can see it.

>>681527706
>All you have left is what about isim and strawmaning.
You accused me of this before, and then I continued to break down everything you said and prove you wrong.
Did you forget this happened?
>>681511006

I have a lot more things prove you wrong on, but I won't waste the time until you prove to be worth the trouble. As long as you cannot prove you can admit you were wrong when objectively proven so, there is no point in me adding more evidence.

Admit that you were wrong, and lying your ass of. Then we can continue.

Until then, keep basking in your own failure, which is plain for everyone to see and appreciate, kid.

>>681528221
Go ahead and prove me wrong. Just like you proved by your own admission the shotgun is good. Amazing how i got that out of you lol

>>681528362
>Go ahead and prove me wrong.
I already did once, and you still refuse to acknowledge that.
Why would I continue when you proved your own incapacity to admit you were wrong?

Admit that you are a lying cunt, as I demonstrated.
I'll promise that I'll continue proving other parts of your bullshit once you do.

File: Popcorn.gif (497 KB, 500x236)

497 KB GIF

>>681526693
Good thinking, amigo.

>>681528539
You haven't done anything but make up excuses and lies, and now you're deflecting because there's nothing left.

>>681528616
And this is why I keep pushing your nose in the poodle of piss you made.

I proved you wrong.
You are incapable of admitting it.

Seriously, why would you expect me to continue proving you wrong after that?

>>681502486
Great game, contrarian faggots can suck my ass

>>681528781
Where did you prove me wrong? lol

>>681528948
Here >>681523373

What part of it do you find incorrect?

>>681529079
You're reaching

>>681529208
How am I reaching?
What part of that post is incorrect?

>>681502645
its funny that Doom 64 looks more darker than Doom 3 and you can barely see any shit in real hardware

>>681529269
You're reaching for anything i mean

File: 448791981_443019548620665(...).jpg (54 KB, 526x787)

54 KB JPG

Doom 3 was well received because it was released in a epoc 'muh gwaphix' was a thing.

>>681529454
How?
It's simply. I've proven you wrong. You have not recognized that fact.
Proving that you are not capable of recognizing evidence even when it is presented to you in indisputable manner.

Which is why I'm not bothering adding more evidence to the discussion. You proved that evidence does not matter to you.
Until you recognize indisputable evidence and show capacity to correct yourself, I will continue to just let you wallow in your failure.

>>681529728
There is no evidence. The only evidence is here
>>681503352
and all you have is that the shotgun is too good

>>681529835
And you say that I'm reaching, huh?

By the way, I actually addressed your current line of reasoning too. Here >>681524418
Your entire argument hinges on another logical fallacy, which I highlighted for everyone to see. And you did not address that either.

But again, I will accept your concession as it is.
You are a spineless and lying piece of shit, and everyone can plainly see that. As you cannot address the evidence for that, you admit you lost.

I would say "I hope this was a learning experience for you", but I suspect you may be actually deranged enough to not even realize what went wrong for you here.

holy autism

>>681502486
this game is a major soi filter

>>681530325
Your argument is just hipster game design theory no one cares about, or matters. It's a bunch of double think and pseudo whataboutisims to excuse the shotgun, in your own words, "is too good and is effective for the whole game." Wow, does this sound like a bad gun to anyone?

>>681530669
>Your argument is just hipster game design theory no one cares about, or matters.
Wow, you actually find a way to dig yourself even deeper. That is impressive.

First you admit that what I'm saying is actual understanding of game design, which for some reason you see as a bad thing, and then you say:
>in your own words, "is too good and is effective for the whole game."
Which is not something I actually said once in this thread.

Prove me wrong. Quote the post in which I said the gun is good. Much less "too good".
Go on.

You said those are my own words. Surely, you wouldn't be lying again, and it's not a problem for you to copy-paste the line and link the post in which it was said, right?

Seriously, how do you keep digging yourself even deeper into this shit?

>>681530970
Your game design theory's aren't important and dont mean anything.

>>681531361
>Your game design theory's aren't important and dont mean anything.
Where did I say the gun is "too good", child?

Are you admitting that you lied AGAIN?

>>681531502
You already redefined "Good" to mean anything but being effective and more so how "FUN" it is. We all read your analysis about encounter design and hipster youtube speak that doesn't matter to excuse the shotgun being "good" is "le bad". You're forgetting no one cares what you think is fun. No one cares about your feelings. It's not important. You have nothing left.

>>681502916
nice screenshot, dude.

File: LMAO.webm (2.64 MB, 1568x1166)

2.64 MB WEBM

bruh look at this dude oh no no no

>>681531786
So you are admitting that you lied?
You said that in my OWN WORDS I said the gun is "too good".
Yet you cannot produce any evidence of me saying that.

When you were caught lying and riddiculed for that for half an hour - why did you think lying some more would make it better?

Why did you lie again?

>>681532018
You're lying by deflection and omission. Another fallacy you're trapped in.

File: Spoiler Image (274 KB, 1242x1528)

274 KB JPG

>>681502486
Where did the idea of ugly monstrous demons come from?

File: guide on how to be a retard.png (225 KB, 3483x875)

225 KB PNG

>>681502486
Doom 3, Fallout 3 and other obviously bad games in popular series are used by shartyfags as a raiding tactic.
They don't talk about some le hidden gem or other game that people thought was bad but they liked. They just post the worse game in a given series and claim it's the best because it makes people mad.

>>681532215
>You're lying by deflection and omission. Another fallacy you're trapped in.
Not really.

You said:
>>681530669
>It's a bunch of double think and pseudo whataboutisims to excuse the shotgun, in your own words, "is too good and is effective for the whole game."
Let me stress out the important part again:
>in your own words, "is too good and is effective for the whole game."
Those are your words, aren't they?

Now, I proved you made a claim.
See how this works?
Now it is your obligation to prove that I said "the weapon is too good". In the same manner I just did.

Otherwise, you admit you lied. Again.

>>681502486
No need. I always liked Doom 3. I need to play RoE.

>>681532737
If you cant argue on the merits of your ideas you dont have an argument. Keep digging that hole.

File: 1496258358366.gif (51 KB, 192x224)

51 KB GIF

Still playing the game, THREE goddamn shotgun shots to kill a single soldier at an appropriately close range, while he depletes half my HP because the firing speed is utter trash. Holy shit I really miss my super shotty from 2.

>>681533003
>If you cant argue on the merits of your ideas you dont have an argument.
I can, but I'm dealing with the most slimy piece of shit I've seen for a while. It is fun to consistently prove that. And by the way, I already gave you a counterpoint, twice, which you still haven't actually address.

I don't see much point in actually engaging you, watching you squirm and piss yourself is way more funny, but I am generous, so I'll give you a hint:

One thing is not like the other.

Can you guess what I'm referring to?

>>681533190
The only thing to address are my arguments, the facts.

>>681533389
>The only thing to address are my arguments, the facts.
Let me help you a little more, because I genuinely feel sorry for you.
>Moving your goalposts.
I can't make it any easier than that.

>>681533553
So you cant even do that, amazing.

>>681533817
I did. I pointed out what moving your goal posts mean and why you are guilty of that.
Your "counter argument" was, in your OWN WORDS:
>It's a bunch of double think and pseudo whataboutisims to excuse the shotgun, in your own words, "is too good and is effective for the whole game."
I could go on explaining that you also used the word "double think" completely wrong, but I think your brazen, now proven lie is quite enough.

You have only one argument. Which is that Doom 3 does not force you to change your weapons very often, and allows you use the shitty shotgun for most of the time.

I went on in great detail why that is wrong. Starting by explaining that weapon efficiency is not a factor of the quality of the gun, but the quality (or in this case, utter lack of quality) of enemy, encounter and level design.
And then I explained how efficiency =/= quality.

You have never addressed any of these points. Your replies went along the way of:
>Your game design theory and personal preference doesn't matter in the context of what the game is.
Which is not an argument, in fact it's an admission of you not being willing to accept one, as you deny relevancy of game design theory, despite having no reason to do it.
And
>So by your own metric the gun is good.
Which is objectively a lie, I specifically stated that by that metric, the gun is not good
and
>There's nothing wrong with close quarters combat design.
Which is a non-sequitur (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur)

I genuinely can keep going all day, it's only your own dignity you are burning here.

>>681521465
Just like Doom 1 and 2.

>>681534580
No, you're excusing making arguments for more fluff words like "goalposts" because you have nothing to add. And redefining words to suit your agenda and bias.

>>681535126
>And redefining words to suit your agenda and bias.
You said that after I proved you deliberately and knowingly misused the term "Straw man"?
Really?
You do realize that at this point I've proved you lied several times, blatantly and undeniably, right?

Let's be serious for a while. Do you SERIOUSLY not realize what you are doing here?

I would understand if this was the classic "I was totally trolling" cope mechanism, and you were justifying your failures to yourself by saying you are just wasting my time and being annoying on purpose.

But I'm not entirely convinced that is what is happening... You do know what went wrong for you, right?

>>681534903
Yeah, but at least in Doom 1/2 you have room to maneuver most of the time, and your bullets aren't made of soft plastic.

>>681521465
>sprint up and blast them in the face
>it dies
>continue demon murder spree

>>681535449
The only one whose been strawmanning and lying has been you. When your game design hipsterism argument didn't work you deflected to attacking me instead.

>>681535804
>The only one whose been strawmanning and lying has been you
Really.
Because I remember this post:
>>681523373
And it very explicitly proves me right and you wrong, and you haven't been able to even BEGIN disproving it.

Why don't you address that then?

>>681535976
There's nothing left to prove. That's on you.

>>681536513
>There's nothing left to prove.
You are not wrong, but it does not speak in your favor.
You just accused me of strawmanning and lying. I have concrete, undeniable evidence that no - it was you who did all that.

And we have been through this cycle three times. I give you the proof of your lies, you refuse to respond to it, five minutes later, you make the same lie, I point out the proof, you refuse to respond to it, on and on, and endless cycle that always ends me with having to just say:
"Look at this proving you wrong", and you do, you can't respond, but you never learn.

See why I'm not eager to discuss anything else with you, kid?

>>681536807
You've been lying and strawmanning from the beginning. Read the thread. Your arguments didn't work so it was a last ditch effort of deflections.

>>681537160
>You've been lying and strawmanning from the beginning.
Explain this though
>>681523373
And this:
>>681532737
And this:
>>681534580

Because these posts prove you were lying, you were committing a strawman, and you false accused me of doing so, even saying that the definition "proves you right" when it didn't.

Do you not consider this lying?
Claiming that I literally said that the gun is "too good" when I did not say that. Doing that repeatedly?
Saying that me saying the game can take between 1-3 hits to kill an enemy is inconsistent damage is strawmaning is not lying?
Claiming that I commit doublethink by using widely accepted basic design theory is not lying?

Saying that "the game does not jam so you are wrong" when I said that the weapon is inconsistent is not a strawman?

Show me one strawman that I commited, kid. City ONE.

I'm giving you a lot of chances, you know.

>>681538024
First tell me i strawman, and then refute my arguments. You cant even stay on topic. Keep it together.

>>681538225
>First tell me i strawman, and then refute my arguments.
That is not how this works, kid.
You said that I lied.
You said that I commited a strawman.
You have to prove those claims. Like I just did.

>>681538502
You haven't proved anything.

Doom is a new series

>>681538594
I did.
And now it's your turn. You keep saying that I lied, and committed logical fallacies.
Where is your evidence? Why can't you produce a single post, single claim of mine that would prove that?

What are you afraid of, monkey?

>>681539078
You're a monkey. You cant even argue with merit. You just deflect and strawman after you already admitted the shotgun was good by mistake.

File: DOOM 3 09_11_2019 22_51_15.jpg (571 KB, 2560x1440)

571 KB JPG

>>681502916
You're pretty cool, you know that anon?

>>681509131
>no bullets
the fuck are you talking about retard
it's Doom 2016 which had the shittiest ammo reserves in the history of FPS games
we had tons of ammo in doom 3

>>681539391
When you make a claim, you need to then prove that claim.
Otherwise, it means that you lied. Making accusations that aren't true (which you prove by providing evidence) is lying. That is actually what that word means.
What did you think it means?

>>681539391
>You just deflect and strawman after you already admitted the shotgun was good by mistake.
OK, cool.
Post one example of where I lied.
Post one example where I strawmaned.
Post one example where I said the gun is good.

Keep what I said above in mind. If you can post those examples, then you are right.
If you can't, then you are a liar.

Your turn, monkey.

File: 1466289998102.png (109 KB, 414x426)

109 KB PNG

>>681503740
>Could you imaging if the D3 shotty had the RoF of Q1’s shotty?

File: Doom3Guy.jpg (20 KB, 474x266)

20 KB JPG

>>681502486
I play Doom 3 every Halloween. I have to fight off the demons for another year otherwise everything goes to shit.

>>681539867
Do a run with the HUD turned off.

>>681539768
Oh so when I make a claim i have to prove it but you can just lie out your ass and inject your pseudo game design theory about what you think is fun and ignore reality. Gotcha.

>>681539982
>Oh so when I make a claim i have to prove it
Yes, exactly.
You have to prove it, or you prove you lied. It's very simple.

So?

>>681539920
That sounds awesome. I usually play the game with the lights off so it'll add to the immersion.

>>681503352
These 10 seconds are infinitely better than all nu doom that was shat out and will be shat out combined

File: d3marine.png (696 KB, 1024x768)

696 KB PNG

I miss this cool bastard, i'm glad he has his own skin in Quake champions tho

>arguably most OP shotgun ever put into a fps
>RoE gives you an even more powerful super shotgun
>anons claim shotguns are weak
Is /v/ employed by polygon or something?

>>681540625
Nah, they just get all their shitty opinions about Doom 3 from Civvie.

>>681540139
The thing is you literally cant prove your arguments. The shotgun being effective is just an objective fact. Demonstrably so even by your own admission. And yet all you have is what's "FUN" for (you), and which doesn't matter in the slightest to the point. There's nothing you can prove. All you argue with are feelings, as evident by them getting hurt so bad being called a liar and a strawman. You have nothing left.

File: 89894_2.jpg (50 KB, 763x572)

50 KB JPG

FOR ME, IT'S BUBBA LEGO-TEP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL6ewSTFJS8

>>681540760
>The thing is you literally cant prove your arguments.
So you cannot provide a single one of the examples I asked you for.

Thank you for playing, monkey. Why do you do this to yourself?

>enlightment
Actually Doom 3 is the only worthwhile thing to come out of doom franchise

File: 1448913452800.jpg (921 KB, 2160x3840)

921 KB JPG

>mfw playing doom 3 on an oled

>>681534903
At least doom 3 doesn't have somemong.png

doom 3 is the best and one of my fav games; replayed it at least 50 times; know it completely by heart. nu-doom sucks.

great thing about doom 3 is that it gave us dark mod

This thread has made me check moddb and it seems the cst mod for BFG (trust me on this, it is worth it) now supports more than just 60 for 120fps.

>>681502486
I'm so sorry past me for forcing you to play this mediocre ass game instead of dropping it after an hour when it stops being interesting

it is a shame nightmare mode is a pile of shit.

>>681543535
fun fact, she's the only npc who can't be killed.

>>681544604
With a skinsuit like that i'm not surprised.

Doom 3 is gay

>>681502645
Doom 64 is total shit, only hipsters like it
>Verification not required.

>>681503939

because the shotgun in quake is your first weapon akin to the pistol in doom.
it also fires super fast. it's basically fully automatic
the super shotgun exists which is the 2nd weapon you get in the game, and it still fires faster than any of Doom's shotguns

so yeah, reliability > damage. 100% of the time.
this is why the doom3 shotgun is trash, albeit fun to use

>>681502486
Team Beefs VR port is purest Kino

>>681544881
but enough about countless terry wads.

>>681503726
The shotgun is great, but it have to be used at close range. A Hell Knight only needs 4-5 close shots.

>>681502486
Nah. Shit Half Life 2 copy. But I guess it appeals to zoomies who like walking simulators.