![]() It also has a different, more sombre tone, but this wasn't new, it had already been done in Quake. If a bit of flavour text counts to make this Doom 3, then Final Doom must also count, which would make this Doom 5. It wasn't unusual for "ports" on different systems in the 90s to be totally distinct games.ĭoes it advance the story? A little bit, again, but no more so than the Final Doom episodes. All of this is presumably due to technical limitations. ![]() ![]() It has new level layouts but they are closer in scale to Doom 1, with none of the larger areas and horde battles seen in Doom 2. There's new assets for everything but I think it has fewer weapons, enemies, power-ups etc than Doom 2. The game is already dated technically for 1997.ĭoes it have lots of new content? Well, a little bit. It has one or two things the Doom engine didn't have (coloured lighting?) but by the time it released Quake was already out and Quake 2 was fast approaching. Is it made by the original developers? No, had they moved on to Quake.ĭoes it have advanced new tech? No. Whatever criteria you look at to consider it a main entry in the series, it doesn't qualify. Doom 64 is nice and I recommend it to Doom fans, but this "real Doom 3" thing I keep seeing is highly overstating it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |