Joho the Blog
|
|
|
May 05, 2003
Wagner James Au reviews David Kushner's new book, Masters of Doom: How Two Guys Created an Empire and Transformed Pop Culture, for Salon, and he has a big chip on his shoulder. While Au likes the book — " excellent, ripe with vivid, you-are-there details tracking the rise of id Software" — he is just plain pissed off that Kushner thinks Wolfenstein and Doom were breakthrough games, especially when compared to his own favorite:
Here's how Au gives id's games their due:
"Weren't horrible"? Oh, where to begin... Wolfenstein and then Doom were each technical breakthroughs. Ultima may have been the first game to let you look in any direction (Wolfenstein didn't let you look up or down), but it played like shit on the computers of the time whereas Wolfenstein flew. John "God" Carmack's genius was in squeezing performance out of machines. Wolfenstein was the first 3D (or 2.5D as Au has it...fair enough) that let you run through a large world without the machine getting in your way. Playing Ultima, on the other hand, was like trudging up a very long hill. Doom upped the ante considerably: fully 3D, reasonably-animated (albeit sprite-based) enemies, effective use of lighting effects, and good enough AI, all within a gaming world through which you could run without pause or hesitation. And there's another thing: The gameplay of Wolfenstein and Doom were breakthroughs, too. Doom in particular was scary as shit. Rooms went dark and baddies leapt out at you. The growling of the beasts still creeps me out. Clearly first person shooters don't appeal to Au. Fine. And just as clearly, what's really motivating Au is the death of Looking Glass Studios, the creator of quieter 3D games such as Thief, which he attributes to the twitch-and-flinch appeal of games like id's. (Au wrote about this in an earlier issue of Salon.) But he's just plain wrong when he says that id's games didn't bring us closer to the "utopian vision" of a "play space for freeform imagination and social experiment." Au writes:
This is true of id's games. That's what they do well. But id is important because it showed the possibility of making visually-convincing, responsive 3D spaces that can be populated by the stuff of the human imagination. And that is indeed a transforming capability. Many of the games set in 3D worlds have been shoot-'em-ups because, well, this is America. But some have been more than that: "No One Lives Forever" and its sequel are better pieces of pop culture than any James Bond movie made in the past twenty years. And the Thief games that Au prefers, glorifying domestic robbery instead of intergalactic war, themselves are part of id's legacy. Au doesn't have to like id's games. But Wolfenstein, Doom and Quake each were such audacious leaps in interactive graphical worlds that you could practically hear the collective gasp of gameplayers worldwide. I hate to see that achievement belittled. Jonathon does a good job defending id from Au's attempted frag. Posted
by D. Weinberger at May 5, 2003 08:11 AM
TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference Defense of Doom:
» Masters of "DOOM" from Way.Nu Tracked on May 6, 2003 09:29 AM |
Comments
On a TECHNICAL level and even on an initial experiential level DOOM and Quake are are definitely achievements of considerable merit. Jon Carmack will be remembered as someone who quantum leaped game play to an entirely new level of realism.
But, thats where it stops. DOOM, QUAKE and almost every game since has taken on a substantially more sinister, dark, dystopian and dank ambience, not to mention the radically increased level of violence and mayhem. Is this really something to be appluaded in game play? I don't think so. There is so much potential in the aesthetic and storyline realm, that these games are entirely lacking.
After all these years scince DOOM, I'm still waiting for some aesthetically beautiful and compelling sci-fi, way-out games that take advantage of Carmack acheivments and move beyond the dark, dystopian settings that all of these games seem stuck in.
Just imagine a game that has the speed and realism of Carmacks graphics engine, BUT the look of ANIME? Now THAT would be amazing!
Until then I'll continue to pass on all of the dark and dystopian games thank you.
Posted by: Paul Hughes | May 5, 2003 12:37 PM
Technical pedantry: Doom was 2.5d, in the sense that all objects and monsters -- even those which appeared to be on a different level -- were on more or less the same level in practical terms. You couldn't aim up or down, but if you fired at the monster on the ledge from far enough away the game would have you aim at it. Similarly you couldn't have two levels over each other.
The first "true" 3d game I played (which handled all of the above cases that Doom didn't) was Marathon on the Mac. It also had a plot. Quake brought true 3d to PC FPS games, but the plot waited till HalfLife came along.
Regarding the Salon article: I think what this article missed was that Id is responsible for popularizing FPS and, to some extent, 3d graphics games. They may not have been the most technically advanced or have particularly literatet, but their accessibility (both in terms of hardware requirements and in terms of simplicity of gameplay) made them the gateway drug to the future of game playing.
Put another way: if Ulysses had been the first book in the English language it wouldn't be around today. We needed The Canterbury Tales to get to Ulysses.
Paul: try Oni. (Disclaimer: a friend was the project lead).
Posted by: Faisal N. Jawdat | May 6, 2003 02:39 AM
That's right. I misspelled 'literate' in a discussion of the cultural history of violent computer games. You may now point and laugh.
Posted by: Faisal | May 6, 2003 05:20 PM
You guys are missing the great aspect of Doom although Jonathan Peterson wrote about it well here:
http://www.way.nu/archives/000628.html#000628
The immersive aspect of the game was unique. It was the first game that took away the feeling that you were clicking keys on a keyboard. The guys at id didn't just make a violent game. They made a game that seemed perfectly timed for human responses and reflexes.
For good or bad, there was a period of time that I was playing for hours (maybe twelve) every day and then began to dream the game. I would never save the game so if I died, I had to start again from the very beginning. The dreaming was very weird. For this stretch of time, I was practically god-like within the confines of the game. I would walk into levels for the first time and kill everything and hit all the secrets on the first try. Everything was very clear. I could enter a room and know where the bad guys would be.
Anyways, while playing at that level was fun, it didn't feel very healthy so I cut back on my playing and the dreams went away. I wasn't as good after either. The company's name is appropriate for their craft.
The audio and video, while not astonishing to look at or listen to, worked on half-decent computers (I played on an AMD386-40) and contributed to the mood.
The creators of the game had a keen eye for design and made some memorable monsters and some hilarious situations. I used to try to play without wasting a single shot. This meant trying to get the bad guys to kill each other as well as do a lot of dirty work with the chainsaw. I can't remember any of the monster names anymore but there is a tall skeletal creature that when in close combat, would wind up and unload a horrific slap on you. I remember the first time a friend of mine was hit by one, he almost jumped out of his chair. A host of little touches like this made the game unique.
I'm rambling here but this discussion is bringing back memories of one of the great games. I'll add the various Civilisation games as well as a couple of Commodore-64 games, Rocketball and Gunship to the list as well. (aside: the 64 was a great gaming computer and although the graphics were crude, the games were wonderfully playable)
Others companies have tried to mimic Doom and one-up id but generally they've failed. I think that general complaints about the lack of storyline are misguided, like complaining about the inefficiency of a Ferrari when used as a school bus. That's not its function.
Posted by: Ken Keller | May 7, 2003 03:48 PM