Opinion: DOOM is Exactly as Violent and Bloody as It Should Be

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
It's a loooong time too late to ever complain about Doom. It's so straightforward and Doomy that it kind of laughs off criticism overall. Those who like Doom will flock to it if they want it, and that is that.
 

Jux

Donald Trump is a racist
Sep 2, 2012
866
0
0
Encaen said:
I hope that makes sense, but even if you still disagree with my sentiment, I promise that I won't suggest that it causes me any kind of trauma. :)
Well this feels needlessly passive aggressive. I understand that this is a snarky one off, but this is pretty dismissive of basically everyone that has PTSD[footnote]No, I'm not suggesting Sarkeesian has PTSD[/footnote] speaking up about triggering events.

"troubling (and depressing)" suggests that the people who enjoy something that she doesn't enjoy is causing some kind of emotional trauma. Causing emotional trauma is universally recognized as a bad thing. Hence suggesting that people enjoying something she does not enjoy is a bad thing.
First, I'd disagree with the assessment that this necessarily is causing her emotional trauma, or at least emotional trauma to the degree that seems to be suggested here. "Troubling and depressing" could easily just be interpreted as "disappointing". When the Saints lose a game, and I say "Man that was depressing to watch", I don't mean that I'm literally depressed. I'm disappointed.

Let's assume though for a minute, for the sake of argument, that your interpretation is correct. That other people enjoying gore and violence has a severe emotional impact on her. Why is someone saying "this shouldn't be for anybody" never ok? Do you understand the conundrum you're falling in here? By saying "this is never ok", you're placing the same sort of limitations on criticism you're denouncing her for.

A close friend of mine had a stillbirth a long time ago. One of the results is that since then, she really hates dead baby jokes. I can't speak for her directly, though she's made is pretty clear that she thinks no one should find dead baby jokes funny. Instead of telling her "It's never ok to tell me what kind of jokes I should find funny", I did a brief amount of self reflection, and decided that her request to not hear dead baby jokes was a reasonable one[footnote]This was an easy conclusion for me to come to, as I was never a fan of them myself.[/footnote].

When you're confronted with a situation where something is causing someone emotional distress, you have choices beyond immediately jumping to the "You can't tell me what to do, you're not my mom!" knee jerk reaction. If you don't think their criticism/request is a reasonable one, simply saying "I'm sorry that this causes you distress, but I feel the burden placed on me acquiescing to this request is unreasonable" is a pretty big difference from saying "Saying someone shouldn't like something is never ok."
 

Glongpre

New member
Jun 11, 2013
1,233
0
0
They could make Doom more violent honestly. The trailer was pretty tame.

It is good they are trying to go back to the old formula, and not Doom 3, but it still didn't have the feel.

-The player moved too slow
-Stuff seemed to take too many hits to kill (maybe it's just me)
-Executions take too long, slows everything down
-The chainsaw looks terribly annoying to use, and that's a shame
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Jux said:
Encaen said:
I hope that makes sense, but even if you still disagree with my sentiment, I promise that I won't suggest that it causes me any kind of trauma. :)
Well this feels needlessly passive aggressive. I understand that this is a snarky one off, but this is pretty dismissive of basically everyone that has PTSD speaking up about triggering events.
To me, it "feels" remarkably on point because it isn't dismissive of *everyone* that has PTSD; just the those riding the recent internet trend of claiming to have PTSD and insisting that everyone else tip-toe around their (frequently arbitrary and convenient-at-the-moment) triggers at all times.

Y'know, instead of doing the responsible thing and not engaging media where they KNOW they are likely to be exposed to their 'triggers'. (and if they don't know that, why are they making a big deal about triggers in the first place?)

A close friend of mine had a stillbirth a long time ago. One of the results is that since then, she really hates dead baby jokes. Instead of telling her "It's never ok to tell me what kind of jokes I should find funny", I did a brief amount of self reflection, and decided that her request to not hear dead baby jokes was a reasonable on
And that was your (emphasis) *PERSONAL* decision. You know not to tell those kinds of jokes around her because she does not find them funny (for good reason), and that's fine because you have a vested interest in her well-being, as her friend.

But that is between you and her, not because she has special privilege or righteous authority over you.
You have the choice to limit your speech for her benefit. I bring this up because the moment you stop treating it as your choice, is the moment you stop thinking for yourself in that regard.

I get that having PTSD sucks; really. I'm not unfamiliar with the condition, and have some real life experience.

I have a friend with PTSD, caused when he and his best friend were shot in gang-related violence. He survived, but his friend died right in front of him. For years after the event (I met him about two years after), he had full-traumatic flashbacks, complete with phantom pains. I've seen full episodes at least three times.

Now his "trigger" is mainly event-associated (around his late friend's birthday), so every year he has to take special care around the first week of August. During which he avoids reading news from his homeland (he immigrated to the U.S. from Wales), and watching or playing anything with "realistic" firearms.

Yet, never once has he demanded anyone; be it online or in real life to never reference August 6th, or the suburbs of Wales, or pistols because it might trigger him. He takes responsibility for his affairs, rather than foisting it upon everyone else and getting mad at complete strangers when they don't comply.

And while I take extra care around him at that time, that's because he's my friend, not because he had special privilege bestowed upon him by the Progressive Stack Fairy or whatever.

Beyond that, I've done work with the disabled and mentally challenged including victims of PTSD (mostly foster care and former abuse victims). And not a single one of them has *ever* acted as though their being "damaged" or "disabled" in some way is a badge of honor that gave them the righteous authority to dictate to others what they can/cannot express, and especially THINK.

Because while they're people that have been hurt or damaged, they still just want to get on with their lives.

So forgive my pretense here, but in my limited experience and understanding, people with real psychotic trauma DON'T openly complain ("speaking up"), brag or demand warnings of their "triggers" in public, because in doing so they risk causing themselves an episode, and those aren't worth ANY amount of pity or attention.

Personally, I find it fucking scary just to watch someone unravel; I can only imagine how awful it feels for them.
And that's why I get a bit riled up when someone blathers on about their "triggers", plays the pity-shame-game or (especially) if they start going on about their bullshit self-diagnosis. (psychological trauma cannot be reliably self-diagnosed because the thing you're using to assess the damage IS damaged)

Why is someone saying "this shouldn't be for anybody" never ok? Do you understand the conundrum you're falling in here? By saying "this is never ok", you're placing the same sort of limitations on criticism you're denouncing her for.
Because the limitations aren't actually the same.

Simple version:

Sarkeesian: "Stop liking what I don't like!"
Encaen: "Telling others what they should not like when they clearly like it is not cool."

You are correct in that this creates a conundrum, but realize that your condemnation cuts both ways: That there is no scenario where Sarkeesian can be reasonably criticized, even when she is denouncing others. By simple continuity, she is the one that cast the first stone.

However, it's just not the act of denouncement that is wrong, but the reasoning why. Other people enjoying their ultra-violent FANTASIES has absolutely NO real or reasonable impact on Sarkeesian's life, so her position is pretentious bullshit.

Encaen's position is a response to that, since such hollow pretense is wrong.

"Troubling and depressing" could easily just be interpreted as "disappointing". When the Saints lose a game, and I say "Man that was depressing to watch", I don't mean that I'm literally depressed. I'm disappointed.
You know, it's funny.
Recently, in another overblown Sarkeesian topic the primary defense for her premise invoked absolute literalism (in particular, revolving around the word "reinforcement"). Basically, any attempt to interpret her words in any other way but the most literal manner there was construed as "misrepresentation".

And now, in this topic, Sarkeesian is defended directly by interpretation of her words.

It's not something I pin specifically on you, but rather, this trend in Sarkeesian topics where the defense either deflects towards arbitration ("it's just her opinion") or overly reductionist literal meaning of her statements (orthodoxy).

I only point that out, because no other public figure in gaming gets that kind of treatment as regularly as Sarkeesian.
 

Lufia Erim

New member
Mar 13, 2015
1,420
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
The only criticism I had of the Doom gameplay and trailer was the executions being excessive. Excessive in the sense that they were needlessly slow and convoluted, particularly the chainsaw, they would get boring really fast in actual play.

Some of them were pretty good, the sliding kick, face punch and goomba stomp (for lack of better descriptions) had the speed and potential to be strung together into chain that could make them great fun. The one's that require you stop moving were terrible though, they need to be missing from the final release. Maybe give the Marine Iron Man style thruster punches to explain the speed and ferocity of them, you could explain away the seventy miles per hour running speed the same way too.
You know how we used to explain these things back in my day? Mother fucking magic. And we liked it.

Doom needs no explanation. It needs fast pace fun gorey shooting . Gimme a shot gun and point me in the direction of the most enemies.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
Lufia Erim said:
You know how we used to explain these things back in my day? Mother fucking magic. And we liked it.
Surely you mean coffee, all the motherfucking coffee FROM THE DEVIL'S OWN SPECIAL PLANTATION TENDED BY THE DAMNED SOULS OF ALL THE DRUG LORDS OF HISTORY, MOAR CAFFEINE TO HELP A MARINE RIP AND TEAR RIP AND TEAR!

Ahem, where was I.

I would be fine with 'he can run at 70mph, deal with it,' but since they redesigned the armour already I think giving some little Iron Man like features make it visually spectacular and add some feedback to the motion would be neat.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
Are we all so defensive that we can't deal with people disliking the things we like any more?

I'm not sure where this comes from, loads of people have disliked games, or certain games, or trends in gaming, since... always.
We never really needed to get our `don't shame me!` on before.

Yes, DOOM is about violence, obviously. So why even pay attention to those who don't want it to be violent? I'd get it if it was a massive tidal wave of people all at once, but as far as I've seen its... two people.
I can deal with two people not understanding my enjoyment of tearing things apart.

(Also, jeez, remember when DOOM used to know how to use colour?)
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Phasmal said:
Are we all so defensive that we can't deal with people disliking the things we like any more?
If by "things" you mean games, yes.

Weirdly enough, this sort of response is largely frowned upon in other media culture and journalism. Yes, there are outcries, but they haven't been normalised the way gaming has.
 

StreamerDarkly

Disciple of Trevor Philips
Jan 15, 2015
193
0
0
Not surprised in the least at the progression of this thread. Apparently, if you write an opinion piece explaining why Sarkeesian's latest belch of hot air is misguided, that's "getting defensive" or being "unable to handle criticism".

In addition, the "more citations needed" crap gets really annoying. When you're too lazy to go looking yourself and need to be spoon-fed links, it's childish to keep coming back saying you need more.

Listen guys. No one cares whether you think it's OK to talk about Anita and how exactly you think it should be done. Or the fact that she's entitled to an opinion. Or the fact that she doesn't speak for everyone. Do YOU actually have an opinion on the topic at hand, which is the claim that the new DOOM game is too violent?
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Phasmal said:
Are we all so defensive that we can't deal with people disliking the things we like any more?
Apparently. More specifically us gamers seem to be alright with other "real gamers" disliking something we like, but the moment someone outside of gaming dislike it, we get more defensive then a pack of hedgehogs. Even more precisely, if someone outside of gaming that also has a "liberal agenda" tries to criticize games they might as well just pour gasoline on a fire and paint a target on themselves.
 

cikame

New member
Jun 11, 2008
585
0
0
Was it violent?
I don't know, i mean i guess, the execution animations are super fast in an attempt not to slow down gameplay too much, so they're kind of cartoony and ridiculous rather than gory. Comparison time, here's a clip from Killing Floor 2 showing their gut physics. http://www.gfycat.com/LikelyMellowAnophelesmosquito
Besides, the game has issues other than its standard level of blood, like it's pretty tame art direction, basic weapon animations and unimpressive audio direction.
People remember the monsters in Doom 3, they even put one on the front cover of the game because it looked so cool, not to mention the designs in the original games which will live on for generations.
 

Johnny Impact

New member
Aug 6, 2008
1,528
0
0
Those fatalities are gonna get old fast. What happens when you stop for the obligatory animation while six other critters are attacking?

Is there some explanation for how Taggart is able to rend demons limb from limb? Presumably hellspawn are made of tougher stuff than we are, else they wouldn't be a threat. Ripping someone's head in half is not a thing that happens in the real world. Super soldier serum? Motorized armor? Just curious.

I know carnage is par for the course but gibbing things seems a bit too easy/common.

1) Brown 2) Gray 3) Muzzle Flash is NOT a complete color palette. There don't have to be rainbows, I mean this *is* Doom, but I've played a number of these washed-out games where everything is the color of old turds and it's starting to wear on me.

It does look fast-paced, with many enemies coming at you, and a pleasing arsenal of weapons with which to dispense the fuck-yous. It looks truer to the original Doom than 3 was. Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen.

Also, for folks who complained about bad lighting and low-res textures, this game isn't coming out until next year. They have a while to tweak the visuals. Perhaps their demo wasn't done with maximum settings. I'm betting the final will be darker and more detailed, closer to 3 than it appears right now.