It's Dark and Scary: A retrospective of Doom 3

A few nights ago I took the opportunity to play through sections of Doom3 for a second time. I really enjoyed Doom 3 and it occurred to me, again, how unreasonably harsh some of the reviews/criticism of this game have been. While most reviews praised id Software for the quality of the engine, and the average on-line rating was quite good (88% - GameRaking.com), many subsequent comments about Doom 3 are critical of the gameplay to the point of downplaying the significance of the game.

Doom 3, unlike most games on the market, has a singular, well-honed gameplay focus – a dark claustrophobic experience designed to elicit an emotional response. Historically, designers of FPS games have tried to squeeze every conceivable gameplay element (gimmick or otherwise) into their games. One could assume that the purpose is to keep player’s attention and stop them from getting bored. The problem, from my point of view, is this can cause a game to be quite disjointed or, at the very least, inconsistent in its intent. For every game where this works – a al Half-Life 2 – there are many where it does not. It is regrettable, therefore, that game reviewers confuse the over proliferation of gameplay elements in a single title with good game design.

Every facet of Doom 3 has been designed to reinforce the intent of the game – an interactive, immersive and dynamic experience intent on scaring you. The introduction sets the scene and hints at the trouble to come. The tight, dark environment and the incredible positional audio promote tension and uncertainty. The dynamic lighting, detailed world (textures as well as decorative and character models) and physics promote a sense of reality and place. Even the surreal sections of the game serve to reinforce that something has gone terribly wrong.

Within this context, id Software designed, developed and implemented the core gameplay elements – enemies and player weapons. The core gameplay elements are, in my opinion, entirely consistent with the intent of the game, and yet, it seems that most reviews are critical of these very elements. For example, the enemy AI is often described as simplistic, but surely zombies and monsters intent on killing you would have a singular focus and would not, necessarily, exhibit a degree of self-preservation that most people equate to good enemy AI. Additionally, this is a Doom title and to be consistent with the genre, the game needs to feature hordes of enemies surging forward with reckless abandon.

The other criticism that I find painfully ridiculous in its ignorance of the game’s intent, is that the player can not hold a torch and shoot at the same time. Yes, the game would be easier if you could simultaneously hold a torch and shoot, but then, the one of the most significant fear-inducing elements would be lost. By way of explanation, imagine the situation where you are walking through a very dark section of the map, you see an alcove that is completely hidden in shadows. Your experience of the game to this point suggests that there might be something nasty hiding in the alcove. So, you are left with a choice, do you switch to the torch knowing full well that if there is a monster there it will take time to switch back to the gun? Or do keep the gun in hand and hope the alcove is empty? Or do you shoot into it just in case, and waste ammo? It’s a tough choice. If you had a torch “duct-taped” to your gun, this uncertainty would be removed from the game thereby reducing the some of the fear one feels while playing it.

I applaud id Software’s dedication to making a consistent and focused gameplay experience. Doom 3 isn't perfect and there where things that frustrated me - mostly boss battles - but it scared and thrilled me, which made it worth every cent.