Doom 3 (2005, fps) - 02 Oct 11

Sure is atmospheric, what about gameplay?

First impressions. Intro reminds me of Resident Evil; sets the scene nicely. However, after receiving your in-game PDA, you’re bombarded with a ton of text -- this is not a good thing unless the user is already invested in the game; most users will just skip past all of this (and it probably contains important information). Traveling to objectives in the non-dangerous part of the game reminds me of Half Life. Faces are very nicely detailed, but by contrast, the low-poly count on character heads can draw you back out a little. Level detail has some very nice textures, but again (only by contrast) the lack of anti-aliasing is very noticeable on thin models (like hand rails). The way of interacting with the service lift (choosing floor from a control panel) is a nice touch, and adds some nice realism. The menus are a bit clunky; saving and loading isn’t a seamless experience, which can be frustrating.

Atmosphere. The game intro stage seems to be timed quite well, just as I was starting to think “Hmm, in Doom 2 I could start shooting things straight away.” things started to attack me; so the intro is long, but maybe not too long. Comparing the game to Doom 2, the difference is that there is a small degree of fear in your first encounter; you’re actually not sure whether to attack him or not, and before you have time to think, a scientist beating you with his fists. In Doom 2 the fear comes much later. The flashlight does add another degree of fear, especially since you can’t use your gun at the same time.

Enemies. The Imps aren’t as fun to kill in this n; version as the fireballs are harder to dodge, perhaps because there is less space to move around. Enemies in general also seem to be harder to kill.

Levels. In Doom 2, levels give you mental barriers, and a sense of achievement and progression. Doom 3 seems to be a little more seamless, which is technically impressive and perhaps more immersive, but maybe not as much fun as the original.