You betray the Amiga by playing DOOM!

[jizmo]

I never owned a PC so it was only some times in 2000s that I finally played Doom. It's an astounding tech demo with superb gameplay years ahead of its time – but it's also completely without depth in its gameplay compared to many other titles of that period. I could not be bothered to play pick it up for playing it through any more in the early 2000s .. much less in 2010s and 2020s.

Amiga for me was always all about being cool and at the leading edge, and doing what it does best. The moment the tables turned and the platform became fixated on playing catch up and getting old PC games running on a platform not designed to run them even at passable speed, I totally lost my interest.

Now, almost 30 years since the launch of Doom I'm still astounded of all this fixation people have over the game. Maybe it's time to move on?

[skan]

Originally Posted by jizmo

Now, almost 30 years since the launch of Doom I'm still astounded of all this fixation people have over the game. Maybe it's time to move on?

This. And we have Dread now anyway, so...

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by jizmo

I never owned a PC so it was only some times in 2000s that I finally played Doom. It's an astounding tech demo with superb gameplay years ahead of its time

If you think Doom 1993 is an "astounding tech demo", you'll be blown away by Doom 3, which was actually called that back in 2004. It still looks great in 2021, and NOT the BFG Edition, the ORIGINAL.

Originally Posted by skan

This. And we have Dread now anyway, so...

What the hell is Dread? Some kind of Doom clone that the Amiga calls its own? Yawn.

[nikosidis]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Strange reply.

But yes, piracy did a lot of harm to the Amiga, if not killing off directly.

Then again, the engineers of the Amiga committed a major faux pas (in my opinion) of having the auto-boot floppy disk system, allowing viruses contained in the boot sector to infect the Amiga without any way of stopping them (was there?)

Really?
Is not this the reason they sold a lot of hardware. All the games for free.
This is way off topic though.
Doom is for sure one of the games that started a huge trend that continue today.
Amiga was never ment for that kind of games. Amiga is first of all a fantastic retro platform for 2D
pixel GFX. Just like C-64. I love them both
It is very cool that Dread show that Doom like game can be done on Amiga 500. It is a tech wonder, but even if the game came in 1992 I do not think it would change much regarding Commodore.

[trixster]

Originally Posted by Foebane

What the hell is Dread? Some kind of Doom clone that the Amiga calls its own? Yawn.

You need to catch up at the back. If you think Dread in 'Yawn' then you may as well give up on amiga development and clever coders trying the push the hardware

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by nikosidis

Doom is for sure one of the games that started a huge trend that continue today.

Doom didn't start a trend, Doom was the way all games were going to go from now on! Think about it, all PC games in the late 90s and henceforth all pushed the 3D first-person mode, as it aided in immersion and realism for worlds that were 2D but could easily be recreated in 3D, it was a natural evolution for gaming.

All games today are 3D, all of the big AAA titles that dominate the PC and consoles. The only reason there are low-budget and indie 2D games nowadays is for those hoping to cash in on the retro craze, and must I remind you that even they are not as technically primitive as their 80s and early 90s counterparts?

[nikosidis]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Doom didn't start a trend, Doom was the way all games were going to go from now on! Think about it, all PC games in the late 90s and henceforth all pushed the 3D first-person mode, as it aided in immersion and realism for worlds that were 2D but could easily be recreated in 3D, it was a natural evolution for gaming.

All games today are 3D, all of the big AAA titles that dominate the PC and consoles. The only reason there are low-budget and indie 2D games nowadays is for those hoping to cash in on the retro craze, and must I remind you that even they are not as technically primitive as their 80s and early 90s counterparts?

Do not talk for everyone!
There are a lot of games that work better in 2D.
Why do you think Super Mario is still so popular?
I think that the Indie retro scene is so much more creative doing games.
Not only that, but there are a lot of quality releases.

Example is this fun game released last year for C-64.

https://rgcd.bigcartel.com/product/boxymoxy-commodore-64

Now days there must be a team of 300 people working 5 years to release something that is good on modern platforms.

The last years the only original, fun game I liked was Rocket League.

I also admire pixel gfx much more than most done in 3D. To my eye it is what I like to see in computer gfx, unless it is simulation games. Even regarding music I mostly enjoy chip music, mods. over real music in games.

As Thread say: Doom is not how you show off your Amiga. It is kind of lame knowing it can run on any PC at 1000fps. At least a original title like Dread is not Doom and done only for the Amiga.
Amiga is first of all for 2D games and if you love pixel gfx, mods, chip etc. That is what impress me the most. I love some simulation games like Dirt Rally but most of my game playing is done on C-64 and Amiga.

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by Foebane

All games today are 3D, all of the big AAA titles that dominate the PC and consoles. The only reason there are low-budget and indie 2D games nowadays is for those hoping to cash in on the retro craze, and must I remind you that even they are not as technically primitive as their 80s and early 90s counterparts?

What an epically dumb take. I enjoy a good FPS as much as anybody, and the pearl-clutching over DOOM here makes me laugh like a goon, but there are plenty of nice things about 2D graphics and pixel art that can't be simply dismissed as "retro," and plenty of reasons why everything up-market is 3D that don't actually make it better inherently.

For starters, the reason 3D is preferred in AAA gaming has nothing to do with it actually being better - it has to do with people being conditioned to think it's better. This goes all the way back to the '90s, when the first major full-3D titles from mainstream publishers came out. There were a few games like Descent that picked an aesthetic that worked with the limitations of early 3D engines, but by and large most of those titles looked like complete ass. But people were enamored of novelty, and that was novel, so it sold. It also provided a really easy path to distinguishing oneself from the competition - you didn't have to actually look better, you just had to be the first on the market to show off some new rendering trick or push 20% more polygons or whatever. That kind of mindless oneupmanship with no actual creative vision behind it is still driving the market today.

It's also preferred because, while the initial investment in sets/models/textures is higher, 3D assets are easier to reuse and extend. Especially now that it's kosher to do in-engine cutscenes instead of high-detail raytraced FMV, everything you make is something you can reuse at any point down the line with minimal extra cost/effort. (This is also why Hollywood has completely abandoned 2D animation, as much as Disney would like you to believe otherwise.) Which is valid, but again has nothing to do with whether it's actually better than the 2D alternative.

And as far as 2D goes, there's plenty to like about it. You have to put in the extra work, but the artist has full control over the appearance of everything at any point. You don't have some point in the game where the characters look all weird because the player jumped to some unexpected position and the pre-baked lighting at some point in one level is hitting them just the wrong way.

They also have full discretion over the level of detail. Notice how in New Super Mario Bros. Mario actually looks less detailed than in the original NES game? That's because he's a 3D model, constrained to move and appear in the logical, "correct" way where you only see half of his face when he's facing perpendicular to the camera, which he pretty much always is. Compare that to SMB3, where he's drawn at a sort of wacky 3/4 view even though he's supposed to be facing directly right or left, but you get a better impression of the character that way.

(They appear to have corrected for this in later entries, but the point stands. They didn't have to correct for that on the NES, they just did it right the first time.)

Some games are well-suited to 3D and some aren't; it's as simple as that. Being dogmatically insistent on one or the other is just blinkered.

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by commodorejohn

What an epically dumb take.

This is what you went with huh? Yes I'm sure you did not entirely waste your time writing the rest of that post, your opinion is highly valued!

[commodorejohn]

Yes, that's what I went with, as a preface to, you know, the part where I actually wrote an extensive post explaining why it's an epically dumb take.

[Photon]

Originally Posted by EAUniW

There were no comparable titles on the Amiga

But this compares apples to pears. Or rather 1000 good games (not only Amiga) to 1 of dubious value. It is a strange phenomenon.

It's the 1970s maze games all over again, but WOW you can turn your head (only horizontally tho). Maybe if the PC had a single joystick usable for a game, Doom would have used it and failed miserably. We won't know. We only know um... ppl wanted not to point and click, but to click and boom?

Doom was shoot cardboard low res low framerate thing, do it over and over.

The first shoot'em-up is comparable to that amazing gameplay.

At the same time, the PC couldn't deliver even a console-quality shoot'em-up to save it life. It couldn't scroll, period.

From the viewpoint of the masses who had played home computer, arcade, and console games, the point that there was nothing to compete with that on PC at all, at the release of Doom and beyond, is very valid indeed.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Doom didn't start a trend, Doom was the way all games were going to go from now on! Think about it, all PC games in the late 90s and henceforth all pushed the 3D first-person mode, as it aided in immersion and realism for worlds that were 2D but could easily be recreated in 3D, it was a natural evolution for gaming.

For many game genres 3D is inappropriate and not at all natural. But people who prefer other genres tend to get dismissed as not being 'serious' gamers because they don't have expensive rigs set up to run the latest (boring) 3D FPS at the highest possible frame rate.

All games today are 3D, all of the big AAA titles that dominate the PC and consoles. The only reason there are low-budget and indie 2D games nowadays is for those hoping to cash in on the retro craze

I have a shelf full of PC and PlayStation 3D games that I never play because they are too boring. That includes several of the Crystal Dynamics Tomb Raider games that I stupidly bought thinking they would be at least as good as the original Tomb Raider series (the only PC game I play today). Boy was I wrong about that!

The reason people are attracted to 2D games today is not that they are 'budget' or 'retro' but because they are different from ho hum 3D games that all play the same. 3D gaming has advanced so little that according to PC Gamer the best FPS of 2020 was... Doom!

[Retro1234]

the latest Tomb Raider games are brilliant so much so that a whole series of games ripped it off Uncharted.

Doom was a real game changer and is still a cool game.

Things have kind of calmed down now and both 2D and 3D are acceptable but 3D will only keep advancing who knows where maybe headsets etc.

I had Gloom on the Amiga and this was ok for a while this was a quite nice clone that me and my friend would play.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

3D gaming has advanced so little that according to PC Gamer the best FPS of 2020 was... Doom!

Doom Eternal, Bruce - get it right.

I don't like that game, but it's completely different gameplay-wise from classic Doom, it's highly demanding and it seems only Doom purists have embraced it for delivering rock-hard gameplay that basically requires quick wits and the exact right tools for each job, not like classic Doom at all. Heck, the purists out there demand it be played at the highest possible difficulty, the masochists that they are. This is why I don't like it, it changed the formula too much, but it IS the reason it was the highest-rated game of last year, as it reinvented itself and was new.

[nikosidis]

I think it is quite simple. You want something as realistic as possible. Simulation=3D
Lots of fun games inkl. platform games work best in 2D. It can be 3D backgrounds etc. but the main concept, gameplay should be 2D. Another reason most games made today are boring is that they are advanced to get into. It is ok if you are 12 years old and have all the time in the world. For grown ups we like to get into the game as quickly as possible. 1 or 2 buttons max and not a game that will last for eternity. C-64 games are mostly quite short but I think it is perfect. I can sit down and complete a game in 4 - 5 hours or maybe in a weekend. Perfect I think! A fantastic game like "Tiny Little Slug" took me several days, but still worth it. Many C-64 and Amiga developers learned from games being to difficult on the platforms back in the day.

[Photon]

The author seems to make a point that "Doom on PC killed Amiga" which I think by now is refuted. So there doesn't seem much to gain from saying "all Amiga games were 2D, that's why it died". That's clearly a lie. Amiga had tons of 3D games - some of which made it to PC, who couldn't scroll to save its life. It didn't even have a decent car racing game at the time Doom was released. So that could clearly not have been it.

I return to the lack of support for Amiga in the USA. Some unknown bug bit them, and they went PC, for no good reason at all, years before Doom was released.

And no, nobody betrayed the Amiga by playing Doom. Not even now, in fact. And not even if you play an actual 3D game on your PC.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Photon

So there doesn't seem much to gain from saying "all Amiga games were 2D, that's why it died". That's clearly a lie. Amiga had tons of 3D games - some of which made it to PC, who couldn't scroll to save its life.

Who said the Amiga had no 3D games? That's absurd, as I've played a few of them myself.

[Photon]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Who said the Amiga had no 3D games? That's absurd, as I've played a few of them myself.

It's a reply to the last few replies, something like "all games were going 3D, Amiga missed the boat, cos Doom was the first 3D game", all 3 untrue.

Foebane started it.

It's the wrong way to look at it - in 1990, most PC users played Tetris in MS-DOS and Leisure Suit Larry on EGA. Some historical correctness must be infused.

[Foebane]

OK, I was wrong. I own up to my mistake.

[Coagulus]

I'm now playing Doom 3 on my phone. And smoother than on my laptop. Progress is mad. But I still love Amiga.