Do people actually hate the DLCs?

I don’t hate them and enjoyed both. However, they definitely leaned too far into the “you have to fight an enemy THIS way” for me, and the ending boss battle in DLC2 was a major letdown. I was hoping it would be an Unreal Tournament style battle against a demonic Slayer with complex AI and a maze like or epic multi-tiered arena.

I do hope if there’s a Nu Doom 3 that it kinda splits the difference between the 2016 Doom and Eternal when it comes to combat loops. My two cents.

Stuff I liked in the DLCs

• New environments were great. Especially liked the setting of the UAC Atlantica facility and the Blood Swamps levels in the first DLC.

• The music was pretty good, as far as "Non-Mick Gordon nu-Doom music" can go. Props to Andrew Hulshult and the others for their work on this front, these were big shoes to fill.

• I appreciate the audacity of a few of the encounters, notably the empowered Marauder in the Blood Swamps that you're forced to kill before the buff totem is exposed. It felt like they were a little more comfortable getting creative with what they could implement without necessarily introducing new mechanics.

• The meat-hook grapple points are such a logical movement option they should've been present in the original levels.

Stuff I didn't like in the DLCs

• Most of the new enemies seemed like they were introduced to force players to switch to the less-used weapon mods. There were a few potentially troubling signs of this kind of "square peg only fits into square hole, round peg only fits into round hole" design in the base game (Pinkies being OHKOd by blood punches, Cacodemons being OHKOd by grenades), but at least there it was still reasonable to kill them without exploiting the weakness.

In the DLC though, many of the new monsters have hamfisted weaknesses that the game tries to force you to make use of (lest they become bullet sponges) - the most egregious of these is the Spirit, which cannot die if the player uses anything but the plasma gun's Microwave Beam on it (all for the supposed sake of a Ghostbusters reference). I think this was a poor set of design decisions and runs counter to the entire point of Doom, classic or otherwise.

• The Hammer did not feel satisfying to use, especially compared to the Sword. The long wind-up breaks the pace of combat in a weird way, and the limited range of the attack feels more awkward than it should as a result.

• The bosses are just boring. The part 1 boss was largely just "fight these Spirits I keep summoning" with some annoying stage hazards present, and the part 2 boss was mostly just "Marauder 2.0: Now with 5 regenerating health bars!"

• Doom Eternal's base campaign already has a shaky story that I don't really care for that much, and the additional "depth" to it offered by the DLC ranges from bizarre to infuriating. What happens with the spheres in the Blood Swamps, the full-retcon of Samuel Hayden's character, just about everything with the Dark Lord and how he relates to the Doomguy (who again, is supposed to be the same marine from Doom and Doom II)... It's very much the weakest point of the game and its DLC to me, to the point where I don't feel like engaging with it at all on my replays.

Overall, if I had to give scores to the three campaigns comprising "nu-Doom", I would give Doom 2016 a solid 9/10, Doom Eternal an 8/10, and the Doom Eternal DLC probably a 6 or 7/10, to the point where I would say it's not worth buying unless:
1. you feel like the base Doom Eternal gameplay isn't "complex" or "difficult" enough
2. you REALLY like the story and lore of the base game and feel invested in seeing its "conclusion" (I sure didn't)

I have a very mixed outlook. TAG1 is the better of the two, imo, but not by much, and not of it's own merit but rather because TAG2 makes bigger missteps.

First, the enemies. I already didn't like the extra gimmickness of Eternal (i.e. the grenade-shotgun being such an obvious instakill on cacodemons that I don't think I've ever killed one with any other weapon. Ever.) but it was still solid. Aside from one very specific case with the Marauder, which I'll discuss in the end of the post.

TAG1 introduced what I call the "forced" gimmick. Compare to Cacodemon being a regular gimmick, where you shoot it in the mouth, it dies. Now, forced gimmick, like the spirit, would be you can ONLY kill it in one specific way. Ever. Which ... Isn't always inherently bad. But creates a certain rigidity that is highly unpleasant, at least to me. More on this, too, at the end of the post.

TAG2 exacerbated this to extreme levels. With the introduction of the cursed prowler, and particularly, stone imp, the less used weapon mods got a leg up. Or that is the theory anyway. The problem here, is that it's not been given a leg up by it's own merit. It's rather, everything else is made completely pointless until you comply with that one specific gimmick.

It doesn't necessarily make things more challenging, either. For example, spirits can be microwave tapped to extend the time they're present and still maneuver around them. Stone imps really aren't that complicated and die in a single or two blasts of the auto-shotgun anyway. The problem isn't that those enemies feel unfair or challenging. The problem is that those enemies are, essentially, a Quick Time Event. There is always only one possible outcome. Only one strategic and tactical solution possible.

Once you've beaten one stone imp ... That's it. There's nothing new to be discovered, no neat tricks you can perform with them. And aside from shuffling around your microwave taps, spirits aren't much better. Cursed prowlers, instead of being challenging, are simple "anti-blind" mechanisms where the optimal way to play is to simply memorize it's sound-cue and spawn area, then immediately spawn-kill the cursed prowler the moment it spawns. That prowler doesn't present any challenge at all. In fact, it dies instantly. All it does is make sure that the player is in a specific place, at a specific time, using a specific weapon, on that specific monster.

This problem is further exacerbated by the sheer exaggeration of these gimmicks. It's not merely encouraged that the player performs that one specific action ... It's near completely mandatory. Performing the action typically results in instantaneous victory over the gimmick. Not performing the action results in instantaneous defeat. There is no in between. No struggle. No tactical or strategic adaptation. To me, it feels literally like a QTE prompt.



Second, the final boss. Which ... Is an extreme disappointment and a joke. Especially after Samur's battle, which was tense alright, used vertical thinking, used the environment ... The final boss is quite literally a marauder with extra steps. It's not quite as bad as the above mentioned QTEs, but I still find the very same flavor of exaggerated gimmicks. Bonk the boss at one specific time, or die. Except this time, we get an extra variable. Would you like to do more damage to the boss, or less? If more, apply hammer. Why would you want to do less damage? Don't care. Use the hammer.



Finally, to tie all of this together ... I think the biggest problem I have with TAG1/TAG2 is the same problem I have with the base game. And that, to me, is ... Hugo Martin. Or to be specific, his vision, his direction choices and his approach to game design. One very specific part of Hugo's mindset, to be specific. "The fun zone". "Making the player play right". That's exactly my biggest problem with TAG1 and 2, and after having finished both, it actually affects how I play Doom Eternal as base, too. Because I start to notice these things sharper after being exposed to them so blatantly in TAG.

And, I don't want to be too harsh to Hugo here. While I very much dislike his vision and his idea, I don't think it's valid criticism to just call it out on that fact alone. What it DOES create, however, is a bottleneck. If the player doesn't share exactly in Hugo's vision, then tough luck, the player doesn't enjoy that specific building block of the game. And the more of those building blocks you force to conform to a vision which clashes with the player ... The less reason there is for the player to keep playing. Why play a game which isn't fun? Why do something you do not enjoy?

Now, does this make Doom Eternal and TAG1/2 bad as a whole? No. But I do feel this strongman direction is coming on stronger and stronger. And the more creative freedom Hugo gives to himself, while sapping gameplay freedom from me ... The less I'm interested in his vision. Ultimately, my criticism of Hugo's vision is simple. Yes, there's a lot of effort. Yet, it's technically impressive. And yes, it has hit the right spot with a lot of players. But ... I'm not going to come back to this game after finishing it. It's just not interesting nor enjoyable to repeat the exact same set of actions, if I was only lukewarm the first time in the first place.

The worst of it all? These gimmicks are completely unnecessary. Because even if Hugo absolutely insists of railroading the player into a specific playstyle ... This can be done via less invasive methods. If you want players to use the microwave mod more, then buff the microwave mod. Make it more enticing. Don't punish the player for not enjoying the thing that you personally find cool. If you absolutely HAVE to include these gimmicks, be it for tutorial purposes, as a set-piece, or a an actual, one off gimmick, then by all means, do so. But with the frequency that stone imps blood maykrs spawn, and the gravity that the cursed prowler and spirit represent ... That one gimmick, suddenly becomes the whole thing. And once that gimmick has worn off it's novelty ... All that you're left with is a one trick pony.

I guess the final addendum is that this kind of direction is enforced and glorified by Hugo. Exemplified in the Marauder being specifically patched so that the BFG can't be used to find alternative ways of damaging the Marauder. Was it done for balance purposes? I highly doubt so, because no player in their right mind would waste a BFG on the Marauder. But it's nice to have the option to do so. No, this was patched because Hugo made a specific statement: "This is my game. Play it the way I want or don't." And after consideration ... I respect that stance. And will do exactly as Hugo says. If I don't enjoy it, I simply won't play it. So if there is any future Doom releases ... I'm actually unlikely to purchase and play them. Out of respect for Hugo's vision. Play the game his way, or not at all ... Not at all it is then.

Now ... You tell me. Is this conclusion good design? Was it worth it in the end? I do not know. I lean towards no .. But maybe Hugo has a point too. Suck it up princess, as some would say.

4 hours ago, CFWMagic said:

Is this conclusion good design?

If what you were looking to play was a Fromsoft "dodge or die" game, maybe. If you were looking for something with continuity to a series of traditional, foundational classic FPS games, I'd argue no. Unfortunately it feels increasingly like the Doom series has been hijacked to become something else at this point, something that just caters to the designer's whims and specific likes - Sekiro, comic book movies, and Saturday cartoons from the 80's. The first two hold zero interest for me and the other feels tonally inappropriate for a series that's supposed to be about military-industrial corruption, sci-fi horror, Hell, and demons.

The next Doom game is no longer going to be a pre-order for me, that's for sure.

The worst of it all? These gimmicks 

Now ... You tell me. Is this conclusion good design? Was it worth it in the end? I do not know. I lean towards no .. But maybe Hugo has a point too. Suck it up princess, as some would say.

For me I do hope they a continue with the experimention of different fast pace gameplay styles and combination.

I already have the classics for the traditonal FPS, i dont need another one after Doom 1, 2, Final Doom and Doom 64.

I didn't like the direction it went with Doom 3 and thats Fine, I decided that it didnt hold my interest and continue with it, people can do the same with 2016 and Eternal. Doesnt mean its bad, it really just wasnt for my liking.

14 hours ago, Quasar said:

If what you were looking to play was a Fromsoft "dodge or die" game, maybe. If you were looking for something with continuity to a series of traditional, foundational classic FPS games, I'd argue no. Unfortunately it feels increasingly like the Doom series has been hijacked to become something else at this point, something that just caters to the designer's whims and specific likes - Sekiro, comic book movies, and Saturday cartoons from the 80's. The first two hold zero interest for me and the other feels tonally inappropriate for a series that's supposed to be about military-industrial corruption, sci-fi horror, Hell, and demons.

 

The next Doom game is no longer going to be a pre-order for me, that's for sure.

Aye, that is actually a very valid point that I didn't think of when initially criticizing TAG1 and TAG2. Yet, somehow, FromSoftware style games feel very different from Eternal's gimmicks. I don't know if it's just me being difficult (and I suspect, that is indeed the case. Because now that I think of it, the same QTE criticism can be applied to Souls dodges) but the way difficulty and challenge is achieved in FromSoft games and Doom Eternal is quite different despite appearing the same at the first glance.

The reason for this, I'd argue, are i-frames. In fact, I've drawn parallels between Doom Eternal and Souls before, but not quite with traffic light enemies. Glory-kills, to me, feel a lot like souls dodges. My go-to rune set-up, for instance, is air-control (of course), dazed and confused and either glory-kill range, or post-glory kill speed. Each glory-kill, in my mind, is interpreted the same as a souls dodge. Meaning timing it right gives you full invincibility, no matter the attack the enemy is using.

The reason this feels different from what I'd call a QTE experience, is how it's used in gameplay. Specifically, dodges and glory-kill i-frames are defensive. Meaning reactionary. While weapon-mod specific kills are active, meaning proactive. What this results in, that even if i-frames and glory-kills defacto are the same style of single button press QTEs, they involve a layer of tactical depth that weapon specific kills lack: That is knowing or at least estimating frame-data on enemy attacks. Because a Baron's ground-stomp has a different range and timing than a dread-knights, despite dodging both with the same trick, a glory kill, the two actions feel different, because I need to time them differently and because the attacks I'm defending against are different.

The same can't be said about weapon/mod specific kills however, as there's no way to use auto-shotgun or microwave in ways which would require significant tactical adjustement. The auto-shotgun tries to remedy this with salvo-extender, and arguably, you can find some tactical variety with it because you need to correctly mix and match the order of heavy/fodder kills in order to retain enough ammo, but even then, it's very debatable, because if you're not shooting a stone-imp, it's charging you. At most I find myself aiming for other targets for ammo for a single shot, or two, out of the entire salvo, before having to switch back to the same course of action as with every stone imp: wait for it to charge you, don't turn your back to it.

Anyhow, I've rambled long enough. Thankyou for the insight and thankyou for giving me a couple more arguments to defend TAG1/TAG2 with so I can have a more balanced criticism of it. Appreciated.

 

10 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

For me I do hope they a continue with the experimention of different gameplay styles and combination.

I already have the classics for the traditonal FPS, i dont need another one after Doom 1, 2, Final Doom and Doom 64.

 

I didn't like the direction it went with Doom 3 and thats Fine, I decided that it didnt hold my interest and continue with it, people can do the same with 2016 and Eternal. Doesnt mean its bad, it really just wasnt for my liking.

I typically try to have the same-mindset. When I was younger, I was very snooty and quite a bit of an elitist ... In retrospect, it really isn't fun to shit on things just because you don't enjoy them and someone else does. So I do try to stray away from that line of thinking. Glad to see that it pays off.

Doom 3, and Classic, are a curious one for me. Mostly because I always lean towards "I'll play the way I want to play, because the point is for me to have fun, not for someone else". And I've noticed a reason for which I have much less issues with Doom 3, despite it being absolutely much more rigid than Doom V. And after giving it some thought, I realize why: I never actually played Doom 3. I played my very own custom version of it, modified and rebalanced to such a point that it's a completely different game.

My point here being, with Classic Doom and Doom 3, it's relatively easy to adapt the base game to the player if you do not enjoy a specific part of the game. It's not always 100% doable, but it's still very extensive. Examples of this would be Classic Doom black magic that makes rooms on top a room a thing via clever teleporters and mapping. With Doom 3, this is achieved relatively easy thanks to a robust and comprehensive engine, to which Carmack has released the keys.

And here, is where I realize that my argument isn't completely fair, because you CAN do this with Eternal. You CAN add more ammo if you don't like the chainsaw and glory-kill centric loop. You CAN mitigate some of the traffic light enemies through scripting and meathook. But to be honest, it feels very ... Half hearted. I'd argue that Carmack's 90s hacker spirit of information and manipulation of it (as in, software) is something that should be glorified and promoted. This is what seeps through the pores and cracks in older doom games and what, ultimately, keeps Doom and to some extent, even Doom 3 in a state of being alive to this day.

Contrast with Doom IV and Doom V, where mapping out of the box isn't quite as right thanks to the extremely impressive, technically and graphically, work they did on the engine. Hands down, Doom V is one of the best, if not THE best quality/performance games out there. I seem to remember that is because it's textures are coded in a very specific way, so there's no need for loading screens in level, and everything runs smoothly together without needing to re-use assets. But that very same technical improvement limited mapping quite a bit.

Then we have the inclusion of Bethesda, which in my opinion is actively toxic. I'm sure you remember the Denuvo "scandal". While I'm sure, it can be argued that the player-base over-reacted to the whole thing ... I can also argue that multiplayer in Doom IV, and to a lesser degree, Doom V, were and still aren't worth the extra security measures that they require. Having the console locked by default so players can't cheat because the game is always-on, is something that needlessly hampers the user base from faffing about in the game and perhaps discovering more things which can be used to modify the game and give it a breath of fresh air.

And of course, there's my own old-school elitism. The classic "why are you trying to put Quake in my Doom?! Did I ask you for multiplayer?! Did I ask you for a railgun?! Go back to Quake Live with that, now!" is comedically overdone (I think even Nikolai, the STALKER youtuber, poked fun at it by overlaying Q3A sound effects over Doom V in his meme videos. All this to say that even people who aren't inherently full time doom/quake players get the parallels). But where there's smoke ...

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I get the drive for innovation on the developer side. It's also why I refuse to criticize Hugo too harshly. I firmly dislike his visions, sure, but I'm more than sure I'm missing something. Yet, I simply wish that this experimentation was done with something else than doom. Perhaps a new IP, or even a spin-off. I didn't mind Quake Champions so much, for instance, despite actually refusing to play it because hero-systems and in general, any class/character system in such a fast paced FPS is a turn off for me. But I get it's appeal. QC had it's own dedicated player-base at some point, and more power to them. I just like the fact that QC wasn't presented as a mainline Quake game. The experimentation wasn't shoehorned into something that was already established and that I already was invested in.

... So much for me saying I'll stop rambling ...

Most of the experimentation in TAG feels like it was done in a way that i think id themselves aren't entirely proud of. had these expansions simply been made without the year one release thing, things could have been a bit different.

I like to think there's a lot of ideas that could suit this new formula, even in a scenario where Doom 6 is "yet another reboot".

Just looking at concept art and content like the Plasma Revenant skin makes me think that the "Slayer saga" doesn't have to end yet.

In terms of presentation, the stuff around the Dark Lord gets more interesting when you consider the amount of Doom fans hyping Doom as "more epic than it is" with statements like "Doomguy is the strongest character" and how the Doomslayer is influenced by fans. (take away the Doom comic and you'll spot some meme copypastas and fans having weird reactions towards a certain other green FPS soldier; we could have still had a Doomslayer but without the "Rip and Tear" catchphrase)

The idea that "Doom could be more epic" could apply to day 1 since fans have started making great fan content and the fact that, for better or worse, fans meddled with the series the minute that an intentionally nameless entity is called "Doomguy".

At the very least, TAG2 could be a justification for a new Doom to reinvent the series again if it means experimenting with 2016/Eternal ideas and doing them differently.

Whether that means "i didn't like how Samuel Hayden is the Seraphim" or "i made these 2 seperate characters just for the fun, i don't mind the twist back then actually".

I think something that rubs me the wrong way about Doom Eternal's cartoony visuals (or rather discussion around it) is how people even refer to something as "cartoony".

Something about people worrying if it makes Doom safer or when even id themselves mentions Saturday cartoons: it's still part of that implication of "animation is for children" mentallity that the mainstream has.

The kind that ignores Primal, Aeon Flux, Heavy Metal, Fantastic Planet, Persepolis, Bakshi movies and bunch of other animation meant for older demographics that aren't sitcoms or stuff like that.

That reminder of "we're in a pop culture obsessed world but also know little of it".

Reminds me of how videogames and comics had those instances of being seen as childish and that's partially why that "cinematic videogame" template found in some modern games exist.

Because it's also when people say "how can we make a good Doom movie" and my mind thinks of a well animated violent cartoon before seeing it as live action.

"animation is for kids except sitcoms" might as well be Disney propaganda and part of why anime is getting more popular.

There's also people comparing Doom's new art syle to other games because of specific traits and even if that's ignorant, it's a bit better than other discussion/opinions about the art style because it contains "outside reference/examples".

But it's also that, when you have a fanbase that obessively anaylized old sprites and did so much with the setting from mods and such, you can tell that the Sentinel/Maykr stuff is either made with new fans in mind or older fans that don't care much for what other fans did prior.

Also easy to see how Doom took elements from Quake, but then there's ideas that could have been in Quake.

The Night Sentinel for example could give Quake a certain coat of fantasy x sci-fi that could suit the Ranger.

1 hour ago, CFWMagic said:

Then we have the inclusion of Bethesda, which in my opinion is actively toxic. I'm sure you remember the Denuvo "scandal". While I'm sure, it can be argued that the player-base over-reacted to the whole thing ... I can also argue that multiplayer in Doom IV, and to a lesser degree, Doom V, were and still aren't worth the extra security measures that they require. Having the console locked by default so players can't cheat because the game is always-on, is something that needlessly hampers the user base from faffing about in the game and perhaps discovering more things which can be used to modify the game and give it a breath of fresh air.

Are there any evidence such things are because of Bethesda, instead of just because of id? I mean...

... not that Bethesda hasn't had its lot of terrible decisions (insert horse armor meme here) but AFAIK id Software had remained largely independent and autonomous after getting bought by ZeniMax, I haven't heard of a lot of executive meddling in Doom 2016 or Eternal. I would blame them for the whole Slayers Club nonsense and all the associated crap (timed events and stuff), but stuffing anti-cheat sofware and locking down the console seems like stuff id Software would have done on their own without external prompting.

10 hours ago, Gez said:

Are there any evidence such things are because of Bethesda, instead of just because of id? I mean...

... not that Bethesda hasn't had its lot of terrible decisions (insert horse armor meme here) but AFAIK id Software had remained largely independent and autonomous after getting bought by ZeniMax, I haven't heard of a lot of executive meddling in Doom 2016 or Eternal. I would blame them for the whole Slayers Club nonsense and all the associated crap (timed events and stuff), but stuffing anti-cheat sofware and locking down the console seems like stuff id Software would have done on their own without external prompting.

A fair assessment, which I have to concede, has some merit. I'm still inclined to think that  Bethesda at the very least influenced some of the decision making. Specifically because Bethesda's actions with it's own mainline games ,most notably, Fallout 76 and what, to me, sounds like an inane, inexplicable decision to turn Fallout into a live service. Of course it makes sense from a business perspective. But from a development perspective, I seriously fail to believe that not a single person responsible for development realized that maybe, just maybe, a fallout game without any NPCs at all isn't a good idea.

Of course, that's a lot of assumptions. So as said, I might have to concede here. But to me, this sounds a lot like corporate interests colliding. There's also another peculiarity that I'd like to muse about. Bethesda's involvement doesn't mean that ID software didn't support that involvement. Specifically, corporate agents are corporate agents. Be it bethesda or id, the job is still the job. My point being, if ID software willingly went along with these plans, which I also think they did, doesn't mean that the idea for implementing these plans didn't come from Bethesda or wasn't nurtured and "improved" on by Bethesda.

To give you a caricature example ... Just because Bandit B is the one harvesting organs from Victim C and does so with all the glee of your garden variety strawman villain, doesn't mean that Overlord A wasn't the one who gave Bandit B the idea in the first place.

Jokes aside, considering the methodical approach with which Bethesda has been attempting to get a piece of always on live service scene ... Even if there is no direct evidence of Bethesda being the end-all be all decision making party in the matter, I still have grounds for reasonable doubt on the matter, considering Bethesda has been trying to make that it's schtick.

And considering, I can't verify the veracity of this, specifically because it's corporate secrets and Bethesda, just as many other publishers, makes sure to keep their monetization secrets locked behind closed doors ... This is one of the few times where I do not presume innocent until proven guilty. I'll refraim from fearmongering and calling it the end of the world ... But the way I see it, until Bethesda actually proves that they had absolutely nothing to do with these decisions, which they never will because corporate secrets ... Until then, I don't trust them. Mostly because I've been fooled more than once before.

imo when they make angel or god enemy in doom, thats when going to downfall of doom eternal.

On 11/16/2022 at 3:26 AM, Ozcar said:

imo when they make angel or god enemy in doom, thats when going to downfall of doom eternal.

That... already happened. You do realise that already happened, surely. Literally the main villain of the base game.

The first DLC was excellent and then they completely fumbled the second.

The second is so bad that it drags down the first making it borderline cringe.

They should have cliff hangered after first. It would have been preferable.

If you completely disregard the second as if it never existed, it works well.

I recently tried TAG 1, and to be honest, I hated it.

The fights are very annoying, there is too many annoying enemies like the invisible whiplash or possessed demons, and that make levels looks like Master Levels.

But TAG 2 its ok

1 hour ago, YANDOR04 said:

I recently tried TAG 1, and to be honest, I hated it.

The fights are very annoying, there is too many annoying enemies like the invisible whiplash or possessed demons, and that make levels looks like Master Levels.

But TAG 2 its ok

 

I recently replayed TAG 1, and to be honest, I loved it.

The fights are very exciting, there are many enemies like the invisible whiplash or possessed demons, and that make levels look like Master Levels.

But TAG 2 its ok

i think the reaction over tag 2 was overblown. maybe its just nostalgia bias but i was pleased to get the second expansion pack for eternal on the dreadful 3/18/21 (for some reason doom fans are still sore about this moment all because "muh doom eternal is easier" or something). tag 2 was a solid dlc in my opinion. and also the immora cutscene just goes so hard ong 🚫🧢. 

On 7/3/2022 at 8:11 PM, gwain said:

doom2 in a nutshell

💀💀💀

On 11/2/2022 at 7:59 PM, Captain Keen said:

I don’t hate them and enjoyed both. However, they definitely leaned too far into the “you have to fight an enemy THIS way” for me, and the ending boss battle in DLC2 was a major letdown. I was hoping it would be an Unreal Tournament style battle against a demonic Slayer with complex AI and a maze like or epic multi-tiered arena.

 

I do hope if there’s a Nu Doom 3 that it kinda splits the difference between the 2016 Doom and Eternal when it comes to combat loops. My two cents.

yeah i gotta be honest. the cursed prowler and screechers just werent it. they are obnoxious introductions to eternals combat chess pieces. i think if tag 2 was not made under the pandemic of the early 20s it along with tag 1 could've been more fleshed out. what could've been...

The Final Boss in DLC 2 is annoying and terrible. Everything else is great. Except I wish they were longer, and you could play with the new weapons more. 

Edit: Also, I forgot the details of this one arena fight where you can opt to redo it to unlock something or face a greater challenge, but it on normal difficulty it is REALLY REALLY TOUGH. Like it's way too crampt to avoid these groups of enemies while the archville spawn completely annihilates you. There's another one like it reoccuring in the DLC but it's not nearly as bad.

UAC Atlantica is the best level in Doom Eternal

I't not the fact that i hate de DLCs, but i strictly don't care about them. I think that Doom Eternal is a self-sufficiant game, with great challenge and with a good lifespan. I'm not a fan of DLCs. The only i have are Dishonored ones, to continue the story, appreciate the lore and the background with Daud story. Sometimes i replay them. They are correct but nothing more. I prefer new games or anothers opus.

14 hours ago, P_A_Z said:

I't not the fact that i hate de DLCs, but i strictly don't care about them. I think that Doom Eternal is a self-sufficiant game, with great challenge and with a good lifespan. I'm not a fan of DLCs. The only i have are Dishonored ones, to continue the story, appreciate the lore and the background with Daud story. Sometimes i replay them. They are correct but nothing more. I prefer new games or anothers opus.

Have you played TAG? Yes the base game is self-sufficient on its own, but the expansion packs really do add in extra gameplay variants taking this system of combat to its full potential. Encounters are more challenging for players who've mastered the base game, and you get a number of new enemy types to keep things interesting, as well as the Sentinel Hammer. There's also some plot twists and a very satisfying finale in TAG 2.

3 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

 

Have you played TAG? Yes the base game is self-sufficient on its own, but the expansion packs really do add in extra gameplay variants taking this system of combat to its full potential. Encounters are more challenging for players who've mastered the base game, and you get a number of new enemy types to keep things interesting, as well as the Sentinel Hammer. There's also some plot twists and a very satisfying finale in TAG 2.

I don't play TAG and TAG 2, i know if my memory is good that we start with weapons fully upgraded, all the runes are accessible, Praetor suit points are totally unlocked and monsters are doubled so we've got two Marauders in one arena for example. Just tell me if i'm wrong.

When i play Doom Eternal, i like to start with nothing, explore and find upgrades step by step in the game progression. It makes the charm of the game, we can play and replay like we want with the upgrade system. A good replayability with choices.

7 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

 

Have you played TAG? Yes the base game is self-sufficient on its own, but the expansion packs really do add in extra gameplay variants taking this system of combat to its full potential. Encounters are more challenging for players who've mastered the base game, and you get a number of new enemy types to keep things interesting, as well as the Sentinel Hammer. There's also some plot twists and a very satisfying finale in TAG 2.

For me the Prowler (TAG2) and Spirits (TAG1 + 2) broke the combat dance. Both force specific actions, the Spirit can only be killed by the Ghostbusters gun mode of the plasma riffle.

I hate to say this, but the TAG2 finale made Doom Eternal much less interesting to me: It's basically a Gladiator 2.0 fight and the plot twist makes the Doom universe look like an ancient Viking/Greek mythology tale.

I'm looking forward to play Doom 2016 again and I'm really excited about id Softwares next project - but I have very mixed feelings towards Doom Eternal after TAG 1 and 2.

But it looks like you actually enjoyed both expansions and I'm glad to hear that, because id put a lot of effort in these two expansions.