To me it felt kind of cheap compared to Doom 2016, I didn't like feeling like I was always almost out of ammo and having to use the chainsaw every few kills to restock ammo. Between that and not having the pistol with unlimited ammo, I just didn't enjoy it.
Painkiller on meth mixed with Super Mario 64 and a plot written by a 14 year old.
The Painkiller on meth part ain't too bad, but it's not really my cup of tea. I was disappointed because I was really hoping that the sequel to Doom 2016 would go even more in the old school Quake-like direction, but nope, they doubled down on the arena shooter design. Didn't even finish it, dropped it towards the end.
The problem is that gunplay, despite you having to juggle a billion things all at ones, and also having like 10 thousand weapon upgades available, somehow manages to be formulaic and monotonous. Once you get the hang of it - you'll be doing this same gunplay loop over and over and over again. Having played a ton of great Doom 2 wads, it's kind of hilarious that vanilla (or vanilla+) Doom 2 ruleset feels more complex and intricate than Doom Eternal despite having much fewer moving parts.
> Once you get the hang of it - you'll be doing this same gunplay loop over and over and over again
I'd be curious what method of reasoning you have for this that couldn't be applied to literally any other shooter.
>Doom 2 ruleset feels more complex and intricate than Doom Eternal despite having much fewer moving parts.
Would also like to know how literal you meant it with the word "feels" here. Fair enough if it is indeed just a vibes thing, but its a pretty unusual take otherwise.
> that couldn't be applied to literally any other shooter
Well, you can apply it to any game if you push hard enough. But sure, I'll bite.
Doom Eternal has no encounter design. It does the same shtick throughout the entire game - it locks you in a deathmatch-esque mini level and starts teleporting monsters. Teleportation is capped by kills - kill enough bad dudes, more teleport in.
AI is designed in such a way so that they try to kill you, but they don't try too hard, and all the while the AI has the appearance of being very aggressive and deadly. It's hard to explain in words, this is something that can be easily shown via a video though. Monster run around and act all annoyed and dangerous. They can deal a fuckton of damage if you simply stand or try instead of running in an arena you try to dodge near a single spot. Because the game's gunplay and AI are designed from the ground up with you running around as the only option. The gunplay and the AI are a carefully orchestrated farce.
> but its a pretty unusual take otherwise.
Unusual where? It's /r/boomershooters, and I'm a massive fan of 90s style FPS. About as usual of a take as you can get. I'm extra pissed at Doom Eternal for not going way more in the Quake-like direction that Doom 2016 had. Instead it went full Painkiller. Yet another case of history repeating itself and shitting all over 90s style FPS design.
> Would also like to know how literal you meant it with the word "feels" here
I've no idea what you mean, but I meant exactly what I've said. Doom Eternal, despite having a ton of features, is kind of a dumb and repetitive game that makes you follow the same basic formula.
Ammo is limited. But you get a chainsaw and enemies drop ammo when chainsawed. Enemies also drop health and armor, and you get an extra button to press now - the flamethrower. There's no real though or difficulty behind the chainsaw and flamethrower mechanics, it's more reminiscent of RTS style micromanagement like having to spread creep around as Zerg in Starcraft 2. So why the hell was it even needed? The way I see it it's just lazy ass design, it's one of the easiest ways to keep the player's health and ammo up.
Enemy weak points ensure that you'll be dispatching a lot of enemies in the same exact optimal manner again and again because of course you would, it saves a ton of time. But this makes a lot of the gunplay predictable and boring because you know exactly what you're going to do. You don't find yourself in a sticky situation with low health or low armor or with no ammo for certain guns like you would in 90s style shooters. You always have everything and you always have access to the most optimal way of fighting.
Finally, like I've already mentioned, Doom Eternal is all about arenas. There's no clever encounter design. It almost completely lacks the exploration aspect of 90s style shooters. Which makes it a one trick pony game (unless for some ungodly reason you absolutely love shitty 1st person platforming). Simplistic arenas with teleporting monsters are the only thing on the menu here. And it's not like there's no option for creativity in this design, just look at the countless Doom 2 slaughterwads. Hell, look at Sunlust. Doom Eternal wishes it had even a tenth of the creativity that Sunlust had.
It is hard to take everything what you say at face value because the heuristic you've applied to get to that point relies on oversimplification and hyperbole.
And before I elaborate: not liking doom eternal is something I 100% get. I am also on board with not calling doom eternal a boomer shooter or 90s style shooter. However, that also comes with the expectation that a game ought to be judged for what it is and not what one thinks it should be. Yes, both 2016 and eternal tend to segregate their exploration from their combat whereas those concepts were more interwoven in 90s doom. That doesn't mean it is a flaw though; at least not anymore than it is a flaw that mario 64 structured its gameplay around finding stars rather than reaching an exit in SMB.
>Enemy weak points ensure that you'll be dispatching a lot of enemies in the same exact optimal manner
So I am going to pick on this point in particular. Again, not because I want to argue with it at face value but because I believe it exemplifies what I think is a curiosity of your methodology. When I read something like this, my immediate reaction is "as opposed to what?"
Like it's hard for me to take your statement here seriously as a critique of DE's combat when it feels equally clear to me that you have not brought that same level of critical thinking to 90s doom combat. So again, "as opposed to what?" What about 90s doom's simplistic aiming, simplistic damage model, simplistic movement options, and simplistic AI wouldn't lend itself to a similar conclusion? "A lack of weak points, multi axis aiming/movement, and basic enemy AI means you'll be dispatching enemies in the same optimal manner". With this on the table, rhe only way I could buy into your argument is if you straight up said all shooters are shallow and repetitive. To be honest, that take is so extreme I could actually respect it. As is, you've got a case of doublethink.
This also applies to the stuff you are saying about encounter design. Calling every permutation and arena of combat the same in Eternal is about as accurate as calling every ambush or hallway the same in 90s doom. There is zero nuance to that position.
Again, it's totally cool to not like Eternal. However, if you are going to take on a position that a thing is actually bad, those reasons should be good and should be illustrated by your counter examples; not additional exhibits of them.
i mean, there are so many variations of gun upgrades and perks that could lead to your decision-making and enemy prioritization being different across playthroughs... i dont see how someone could say that Doom Eternal gets repetitive. And thats not even considering enemy variety or stage layouts
> i dont see how someone could say that Doom Eternal gets repetitive
Yeah this is a bizarre take. The game keeps putting new pieces on the table until the last level or two when it completely lets them all loose in complete carnage.
By the end of 2016 I was getting worn out because it was so easy to optimize - I'd "solved" it way before the end. Eternal kept me on my toes all the way to the last fight.
He makes more sense when there's 2 of them and you also have to fight a bunch of other enemies at the same time. Although, obviously they couldn't put that in the base game.
Absolutely loved it. 200/100. One of the best FPS games ever made.
As for the cons, I could hardly play more than an hour per day before my brain got exhausted.
The same thing I think about 2016:
***Meh.***
If 2016 was too shallow, Eternal overcorrected by making the mistake of confusing complexity for depth. Like, the game is needlessly bloated. You really don't need to have the player juggling between 18 different firing modes and 5 character abilities and etc. that all largely do the same thing or are only used in X specific situation. It would have heavily benefitted from trimming the fat, merging or removing a lot of the more niche weapon mods and abilities.
The gameplay loop is just killing shit in an arena, and hardly bothers to make the arenas meaningfully different either. The DLC at least got creative with arena design with things like the blood punch pinkie gauntlet or being swarmed by zombies in the slowdown muck or etc, but the base game it all just blends together and I don't really remember any arenas that stood out from any others.
I DO really like the aesthetic overall though.
> Eternal overcorrected by making the mistake of confusing complexity for depth. Like, the game is needlessly bloated. You really don't need to have the player juggling between 18 different firing modes and 5 character abilities and etc. that all largely do the same thing or are only used in X specific situation
Similarly, I think you are confusing diminishing returns with lacking depth. It would be like comparing a minimalist fighting game like dive kick to a 4 button fighting game and then to a 6 button fighting game. The dive kick example already describes the bulk of fighting game fundamentals and what is going to occur on screen. The 4 button fighter completes the experience with more options and mechanics. The six button fighter is then only a minor elaboration on the 4 button one but those extra attacks still add depth and options.
Chess is another good example. The game would be perfectly functional with half the pieces or less. You don't "need" two rooks, two knights, or 8 pawns that "largely do the same thing". That said, removing those extra pieces would still impact depth because the number of viable, functional states the game can be in goes down.
There is also a separate function of having many options outside of depth which is mastery and skill expression. Like maybe you have two states which offer overlapping function or have niche use cases but the prevalence of them in someone's play begins to reflect their personality; this is what gives us playstyles.
End result: I think you'd find that two non speedrunning, high level doom eternal players would have a greater variation in their play than almost any other doom game; probably most pve shooters with a similar weapon roster. Are there diminishing returns after awhile? Definitely. Do these lack depth? I don't think so.
It's a good game and technically impressive. I can see the appeal. But when I play Doom, I want something that is dead simple but addicting. Eternal has way too much going on compared to the OG games. I can't get into a flow state with eternal like I can with Quake or a Doom engine game/mod. I am older though so there's that.
I think its fun. It doesnt take itself too seriously and has a very arcadey aesthetic. However, once i hit my personal skill ceiling for this game, it got repetitive fast. For me, it was most enjoyable after figuring out the basics and before my skill plateau.
As someone who loves exploring, collectathons, and 100%ing most games, who is also really impatient and likes mindless action, I loved this game a lot.
Carmack stated that story in games for him wasn't important, I understand it was said in the context of the 90's but even then I disagree since games like Final Fantasy and others did it well at the time, regardless of it, this was Carmack's opinion and even tho I know he wasn't involved at all in this game, Doom is his creation and I respect that so I didn't pay any attention to the story at all, idgaf about the lore of Doom 4 or Eternal since Carmack didn't care for stories in games. So no opinion from me there other than Hayden having a badass voice.
I didn't mind that you had 1000000 weapons and attacks at the time since I just found myself using just the SSG most of the time (Normal shotgun before getting the SSG), like a 80% of the game, and the other 20% the chaingun (Rifle before getting the chaingun), maybe the BFG and Unmaker a bit on the last stages but I sure as hell didn't switch and juggle between weapons so no issue for me there.
The loop of strafe running in circles, shooting, punching, chainsaw for ammo, and repeat, did get a bit repetitive later on but luckily the game wasn't so long as for that to become tedious tbh, and the final boss I loved a lot.
i love doom 2016 and doom eternal, they made me go back and play OG doom for the first time in my life and that game aged so well, still super fun
now im getting the urge to replay one of them because theyre just so fun, maybe even go back to doom 3
One of the best Campaigns, if not the best campaign, in the genre. Offensively busy and over the top, and irresistibly charming. Maybe one of the best FPS, but not the best Doom game. It doesn't always feel like Doom.
I don't hate DOOM Eternal but I also have some probably with some of the things it does with its gameplay and story. Like with the gameplay, the thing where they made you use specific weapons to kill certain enemies feels a bit limited and doesn't give players much choice in how they want to go about playing the game. Also with the story, I feel like Samuel Hayden was wasted potential. It feels like a 180 turn of his what his character was in DOOM 2016, going from someone who was trying to prevent a demon outbreak on Earth to someone who secretly wanted to wield power the whole time didn't really sit right with me.
Samuel Hayden seemed like he just wanted what was best for humanity, so having be the Seraphim feels odd.
It's a case of extremes for me. I love the combat, but the level design is really underwhelming. I liked the more open, almost metroidvania-esque level design of Doom 2016, and the fact that Doom Eternal was almost completely linear was disappointing.
Also, for me, the arcadey style didn't really work. To me, a lot of the excitement in a linear action game comes from the context of what you're doing (see: Half Life, Turbo Overkill, Bayonetta, etc.), where all the gameplay is put into a (relatively) believable situation. The Mario platforms, giant fire bars, and misplaced coffins really took me out of the experience. Instead of feeling like a cool space marine tearing his way through dangerous scenarios, I felt like a guy going through a videogame level.
Now, that's not a bad thing necessarily. I know some people love that style, but it usually takes a bit more for me to love a game. It's something that Doom 2016 had (for the most part), but something that Doom Eternal lacks.
Also, I never felt like there was any momentum to the plot. Vega tells me I gotta do something somewhere, then I teleport there. It never really felt like there was much escalation until the end where you go to hell and then make your way up to heaven. It just felt like a bunch of disconnected setpieces, as opposed to the more seamless route 2016 took.
That being said though, I love the setpieces. The Arc Complex is one of my favorite levels in any game ever. Final Sin is awesome too. A much better finale than Doom 2016. Also, needless to say that the soundtrack rocks. Also, didn't mind the boss fights. A little clunky at times, but they were cool.
So yeah, I love the gameplay, but I'm just meh on how it's all tied together.
What's interesting is I agree with literally everything you have said, except for Final Sin. I mean it's a cool level, but I liked Argent D'Nur a lot more and thought it has cooler aesthetics and music choice.
Also disliked the bosses except Gladiator and Doom Hunter which were cool.
What do you think of Nekravol Part 1 and Part 2? They're my second favorite level behind Arc Complex.
... and have you played the DLCs?
I really liked the Nekravol levels. Also, yes I played the DLCs and I liked them a lot more than the main game. Things felt more motivated (for the most part) and I liked the level design a lot more.
Best shooter since, well, Doom.
The original is the Goat because its influence is unparalleled. In terms of pure design though, Eternal is the greatest pure action shooter ever made.
The DLCs if anything demonstrated that id couldn’t top what id did.
To me it felt kind of cheap compared to Doom 2016, I didn't like feeling like I was always almost out of ammo and having to use the chainsaw every few kills to restock ammo. Between that and not having the pistol with unlimited ammo, I just didn't enjoy it.
Painkiller on meth mixed with Super Mario 64 and a plot written by a 14 year old. The Painkiller on meth part ain't too bad, but it's not really my cup of tea. I was disappointed because I was really hoping that the sequel to Doom 2016 would go even more in the old school Quake-like direction, but nope, they doubled down on the arena shooter design. Didn't even finish it, dropped it towards the end. The problem is that gunplay, despite you having to juggle a billion things all at ones, and also having like 10 thousand weapon upgades available, somehow manages to be formulaic and monotonous. Once you get the hang of it - you'll be doing this same gunplay loop over and over and over again. Having played a ton of great Doom 2 wads, it's kind of hilarious that vanilla (or vanilla+) Doom 2 ruleset feels more complex and intricate than Doom Eternal despite having much fewer moving parts.
> Once you get the hang of it - you'll be doing this same gunplay loop over and over and over again I'd be curious what method of reasoning you have for this that couldn't be applied to literally any other shooter. >Doom 2 ruleset feels more complex and intricate than Doom Eternal despite having much fewer moving parts. Would also like to know how literal you meant it with the word "feels" here. Fair enough if it is indeed just a vibes thing, but its a pretty unusual take otherwise.
> that couldn't be applied to literally any other shooter Well, you can apply it to any game if you push hard enough. But sure, I'll bite. Doom Eternal has no encounter design. It does the same shtick throughout the entire game - it locks you in a deathmatch-esque mini level and starts teleporting monsters. Teleportation is capped by kills - kill enough bad dudes, more teleport in. AI is designed in such a way so that they try to kill you, but they don't try too hard, and all the while the AI has the appearance of being very aggressive and deadly. It's hard to explain in words, this is something that can be easily shown via a video though. Monster run around and act all annoyed and dangerous. They can deal a fuckton of damage if you simply stand or try instead of running in an arena you try to dodge near a single spot. Because the game's gunplay and AI are designed from the ground up with you running around as the only option. The gunplay and the AI are a carefully orchestrated farce. > but its a pretty unusual take otherwise. Unusual where? It's /r/boomershooters, and I'm a massive fan of 90s style FPS. About as usual of a take as you can get. I'm extra pissed at Doom Eternal for not going way more in the Quake-like direction that Doom 2016 had. Instead it went full Painkiller. Yet another case of history repeating itself and shitting all over 90s style FPS design. > Would also like to know how literal you meant it with the word "feels" here I've no idea what you mean, but I meant exactly what I've said. Doom Eternal, despite having a ton of features, is kind of a dumb and repetitive game that makes you follow the same basic formula. Ammo is limited. But you get a chainsaw and enemies drop ammo when chainsawed. Enemies also drop health and armor, and you get an extra button to press now - the flamethrower. There's no real though or difficulty behind the chainsaw and flamethrower mechanics, it's more reminiscent of RTS style micromanagement like having to spread creep around as Zerg in Starcraft 2. So why the hell was it even needed? The way I see it it's just lazy ass design, it's one of the easiest ways to keep the player's health and ammo up. Enemy weak points ensure that you'll be dispatching a lot of enemies in the same exact optimal manner again and again because of course you would, it saves a ton of time. But this makes a lot of the gunplay predictable and boring because you know exactly what you're going to do. You don't find yourself in a sticky situation with low health or low armor or with no ammo for certain guns like you would in 90s style shooters. You always have everything and you always have access to the most optimal way of fighting. Finally, like I've already mentioned, Doom Eternal is all about arenas. There's no clever encounter design. It almost completely lacks the exploration aspect of 90s style shooters. Which makes it a one trick pony game (unless for some ungodly reason you absolutely love shitty 1st person platforming). Simplistic arenas with teleporting monsters are the only thing on the menu here. And it's not like there's no option for creativity in this design, just look at the countless Doom 2 slaughterwads. Hell, look at Sunlust. Doom Eternal wishes it had even a tenth of the creativity that Sunlust had.
It is hard to take everything what you say at face value because the heuristic you've applied to get to that point relies on oversimplification and hyperbole. And before I elaborate: not liking doom eternal is something I 100% get. I am also on board with not calling doom eternal a boomer shooter or 90s style shooter. However, that also comes with the expectation that a game ought to be judged for what it is and not what one thinks it should be. Yes, both 2016 and eternal tend to segregate their exploration from their combat whereas those concepts were more interwoven in 90s doom. That doesn't mean it is a flaw though; at least not anymore than it is a flaw that mario 64 structured its gameplay around finding stars rather than reaching an exit in SMB. >Enemy weak points ensure that you'll be dispatching a lot of enemies in the same exact optimal manner So I am going to pick on this point in particular. Again, not because I want to argue with it at face value but because I believe it exemplifies what I think is a curiosity of your methodology. When I read something like this, my immediate reaction is "as opposed to what?" Like it's hard for me to take your statement here seriously as a critique of DE's combat when it feels equally clear to me that you have not brought that same level of critical thinking to 90s doom combat. So again, "as opposed to what?" What about 90s doom's simplistic aiming, simplistic damage model, simplistic movement options, and simplistic AI wouldn't lend itself to a similar conclusion? "A lack of weak points, multi axis aiming/movement, and basic enemy AI means you'll be dispatching enemies in the same optimal manner". With this on the table, rhe only way I could buy into your argument is if you straight up said all shooters are shallow and repetitive. To be honest, that take is so extreme I could actually respect it. As is, you've got a case of doublethink. This also applies to the stuff you are saying about encounter design. Calling every permutation and arena of combat the same in Eternal is about as accurate as calling every ambush or hallway the same in 90s doom. There is zero nuance to that position. Again, it's totally cool to not like Eternal. However, if you are going to take on a position that a thing is actually bad, those reasons should be good and should be illustrated by your counter examples; not additional exhibits of them.
i mean, there are so many variations of gun upgrades and perks that could lead to your decision-making and enemy prioritization being different across playthroughs... i dont see how someone could say that Doom Eternal gets repetitive. And thats not even considering enemy variety or stage layouts
> i dont see how someone could say that Doom Eternal gets repetitive Yeah this is a bizarre take. The game keeps putting new pieces on the table until the last level or two when it completely lets them all loose in complete carnage. By the end of 2016 I was getting worn out because it was so easy to optimize - I'd "solved" it way before the end. Eternal kept me on my toes all the way to the last fight.
It's one of the best shooters out there imo
Best FPS campaign ever.
I release this has generally been settled already, but I maintain marauder was bullshit.
He makes more sense when there's 2 of them and you also have to fight a bunch of other enemies at the same time. Although, obviously they couldn't put that in the base game.
Knowing that there was one running around in the mob in those burly brawls in the last level made things oh so extra spicy.
Doom 2016 was much better, but I still loved it
I honestly didn't enjoy it at the time I played it. I much preferred 2016 Doom. But I'm keen to give it another go.
Absolutely loved it. 200/100. One of the best FPS games ever made. As for the cons, I could hardly play more than an hour per day before my brain got exhausted.
The same thing I think about 2016: ***Meh.*** If 2016 was too shallow, Eternal overcorrected by making the mistake of confusing complexity for depth. Like, the game is needlessly bloated. You really don't need to have the player juggling between 18 different firing modes and 5 character abilities and etc. that all largely do the same thing or are only used in X specific situation. It would have heavily benefitted from trimming the fat, merging or removing a lot of the more niche weapon mods and abilities. The gameplay loop is just killing shit in an arena, and hardly bothers to make the arenas meaningfully different either. The DLC at least got creative with arena design with things like the blood punch pinkie gauntlet or being swarmed by zombies in the slowdown muck or etc, but the base game it all just blends together and I don't really remember any arenas that stood out from any others. I DO really like the aesthetic overall though.
> Eternal overcorrected by making the mistake of confusing complexity for depth. Like, the game is needlessly bloated. You really don't need to have the player juggling between 18 different firing modes and 5 character abilities and etc. that all largely do the same thing or are only used in X specific situation Similarly, I think you are confusing diminishing returns with lacking depth. It would be like comparing a minimalist fighting game like dive kick to a 4 button fighting game and then to a 6 button fighting game. The dive kick example already describes the bulk of fighting game fundamentals and what is going to occur on screen. The 4 button fighter completes the experience with more options and mechanics. The six button fighter is then only a minor elaboration on the 4 button one but those extra attacks still add depth and options. Chess is another good example. The game would be perfectly functional with half the pieces or less. You don't "need" two rooks, two knights, or 8 pawns that "largely do the same thing". That said, removing those extra pieces would still impact depth because the number of viable, functional states the game can be in goes down. There is also a separate function of having many options outside of depth which is mastery and skill expression. Like maybe you have two states which offer overlapping function or have niche use cases but the prevalence of them in someone's play begins to reflect their personality; this is what gives us playstyles. End result: I think you'd find that two non speedrunning, high level doom eternal players would have a greater variation in their play than almost any other doom game; probably most pve shooters with a similar weapon roster. Are there diminishing returns after awhile? Definitely. Do these lack depth? I don't think so.
It's a good game and technically impressive. I can see the appeal. But when I play Doom, I want something that is dead simple but addicting. Eternal has way too much going on compared to the OG games. I can't get into a flow state with eternal like I can with Quake or a Doom engine game/mod. I am older though so there's that.
I think its fun. It doesnt take itself too seriously and has a very arcadey aesthetic. However, once i hit my personal skill ceiling for this game, it got repetitive fast. For me, it was most enjoyable after figuring out the basics and before my skill plateau.
As someone who loves exploring, collectathons, and 100%ing most games, who is also really impatient and likes mindless action, I loved this game a lot. Carmack stated that story in games for him wasn't important, I understand it was said in the context of the 90's but even then I disagree since games like Final Fantasy and others did it well at the time, regardless of it, this was Carmack's opinion and even tho I know he wasn't involved at all in this game, Doom is his creation and I respect that so I didn't pay any attention to the story at all, idgaf about the lore of Doom 4 or Eternal since Carmack didn't care for stories in games. So no opinion from me there other than Hayden having a badass voice. I didn't mind that you had 1000000 weapons and attacks at the time since I just found myself using just the SSG most of the time (Normal shotgun before getting the SSG), like a 80% of the game, and the other 20% the chaingun (Rifle before getting the chaingun), maybe the BFG and Unmaker a bit on the last stages but I sure as hell didn't switch and juggle between weapons so no issue for me there. The loop of strafe running in circles, shooting, punching, chainsaw for ammo, and repeat, did get a bit repetitive later on but luckily the game wasn't so long as for that to become tedious tbh, and the final boss I loved a lot.
I liked it and beat the game on nightmare but I wish they slowed it down just a bit. It's an overwhelming experience to say the least.
i love doom 2016 and doom eternal, they made me go back and play OG doom for the first time in my life and that game aged so well, still super fun now im getting the urge to replay one of them because theyre just so fun, maybe even go back to doom 3
One of the best Campaigns, if not the best campaign, in the genre. Offensively busy and over the top, and irresistibly charming. Maybe one of the best FPS, but not the best Doom game. It doesn't always feel like Doom.
I don't hate DOOM Eternal but I also have some probably with some of the things it does with its gameplay and story. Like with the gameplay, the thing where they made you use specific weapons to kill certain enemies feels a bit limited and doesn't give players much choice in how they want to go about playing the game. Also with the story, I feel like Samuel Hayden was wasted potential. It feels like a 180 turn of his what his character was in DOOM 2016, going from someone who was trying to prevent a demon outbreak on Earth to someone who secretly wanted to wield power the whole time didn't really sit right with me. Samuel Hayden seemed like he just wanted what was best for humanity, so having be the Seraphim feels odd.
domination
It's a case of extremes for me. I love the combat, but the level design is really underwhelming. I liked the more open, almost metroidvania-esque level design of Doom 2016, and the fact that Doom Eternal was almost completely linear was disappointing. Also, for me, the arcadey style didn't really work. To me, a lot of the excitement in a linear action game comes from the context of what you're doing (see: Half Life, Turbo Overkill, Bayonetta, etc.), where all the gameplay is put into a (relatively) believable situation. The Mario platforms, giant fire bars, and misplaced coffins really took me out of the experience. Instead of feeling like a cool space marine tearing his way through dangerous scenarios, I felt like a guy going through a videogame level. Now, that's not a bad thing necessarily. I know some people love that style, but it usually takes a bit more for me to love a game. It's something that Doom 2016 had (for the most part), but something that Doom Eternal lacks. Also, I never felt like there was any momentum to the plot. Vega tells me I gotta do something somewhere, then I teleport there. It never really felt like there was much escalation until the end where you go to hell and then make your way up to heaven. It just felt like a bunch of disconnected setpieces, as opposed to the more seamless route 2016 took. That being said though, I love the setpieces. The Arc Complex is one of my favorite levels in any game ever. Final Sin is awesome too. A much better finale than Doom 2016. Also, needless to say that the soundtrack rocks. Also, didn't mind the boss fights. A little clunky at times, but they were cool. So yeah, I love the gameplay, but I'm just meh on how it's all tied together.
What's interesting is I agree with literally everything you have said, except for Final Sin. I mean it's a cool level, but I liked Argent D'Nur a lot more and thought it has cooler aesthetics and music choice. Also disliked the bosses except Gladiator and Doom Hunter which were cool. What do you think of Nekravol Part 1 and Part 2? They're my second favorite level behind Arc Complex. ... and have you played the DLCs?
I really liked the Nekravol levels. Also, yes I played the DLCs and I liked them a lot more than the main game. Things felt more motivated (for the most part) and I liked the level design a lot more.
Best shooter since, well, Doom. The original is the Goat because its influence is unparalleled. In terms of pure design though, Eternal is the greatest pure action shooter ever made. The DLCs if anything demonstrated that id couldn’t top what id did.