DOOMed to be Controversial Forever

DOOMed to be Controversial Forever

Why DOOM is a masterpiece - and why it will never shed the violent reputation it's stuck with.

Read Full Article

If the new DOOM doesn't fully copy the glory that is Brutal Doom I am going to be pissed.

I want to see some demon shooting goryness in all its modern glory.

RIP AND TEAR, RIP AND TEAR, RIP AND TEAR!!!

Be controversal all you like. That's fine. I will still poke fun at people who are surprised that Doom (any iteration of it) is a violent and bloody, and then complain about it. It will never change. Mortal Kombat will never change. Violent video games will never change. Stop complaining. You're wasting air. I'm glad to see that other people found signficance in it in other ways, but the ones who are jammed in neutral do nothing for me.

"the games within the FPS genre were unofficially renamed "Doom Clones."

Uh... super weird sentence there!
How about: "the games within the FPS genre were generally CALLED "Doom Clones.".

Renaming is something only creators of a property (or being) can do.

The only controversy I really remember circling around Doom 3 was whether or not there would be duct tape on Mars.

Spiderdemon?

Really?

An interesting thought, that- how much of the attention the series gets is due to its reputation for graphic violence? More to the point, how much are Zenimax still banking on said reputation? I'd've thought the world knows by now that DOOM is a violent series, but what other justification for dropping the number and using a name that's already taken could there be (aside from an attempt to prove to the world that they don't understand how numbers work)?

American Fox:
Spiderdemon?

Really?

And it had a chain gun. Really...

" the developers dropped the "4" from the original working title and presented the game as just DOOM"
Tell me they're going to add it back or I'm going to be ranting about it like Star Wars Battlefront 3 (yes 3, EA doesn't know how to count)

with critics labeling the presentation disturbingly hyper-violent

Critics? As in more than just She Who Shalt Not Be Named? I asked a few times before because I always try to remember what organizations trot out the "videogames bad!" sensationalism but I've not seen anybody but her speak on it poorly. I'm sure there will be a few news outlets once it gets closer to release, but even then it won't be anywhere near on the scale as back in the day. Hell, I don't think Doom 3 even got a blip on the radar from them. I only really draw attention to it though because purporting her as a noteworthy critic is kind of what propogates her attention to begin with.

Edit: I was wrong. Ignore that.

Anyways, in regards to all that satanic imagery, it seems like its not really being present in the new game, and I think thats a good decision. Honestly even back then at a very young age it struck me an effort to be edgy rather than as a substance in visual design. While I don't doubt that somebody could incorporate that well into a new Doom installment, I doubt that any developer working on the game would do so.

MarsAtlas:
[quote]snip

Also you brain-goofed and called the Cyberdemon "Spiderdemon". It happens.

snip

No, Spiderdemon is correct.

This was an interesting article that I feel like should have been about a page longer... I think Doom's interesting place in today's current social-political climate, is where this was leading and I feel a little bit left hanging. That being said I'm torn cause I'm not sure I want to have that argument again.

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
[quote]snip

Also you brain-goofed and called the Cyberdemon "Spiderdemon". It happens.

snip

No, Spiderdemon is correct.

Really? I shouldn't post sleep deprived. I last played it just a few months ago too.

MarsAtlas:

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
[quote]snip

Also you brain-goofed and called the Cyberdemon "Spiderdemon". It happens.

snip

No, Spiderdemon is correct.

Really? I shouldn't post sleep deprived. I last played it just a few months ago too.

You DO fight the cyberdemon at the end of the second part, and the cyberdemon is cooler.

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:

crimson5pheonix:

No, Spiderdemon is correct.

Really? I shouldn't post sleep deprived. I last played it just a few months ago too.

You DO fight the cyberdemon at the end of the second part, and the cyberdemon is cooler.

Agreed. Also, I do stand by that stuff about satanic imagery. That stuff was lazy and desperate. As much as I love Doom, if they wanted me to grade its aesthetic design I'd probably hand them back a B- with "You Can Do Better" written at the top.

Lizzy Finnegan:
While 1992's Wolfenstein 3D was widely credited with inventing the First Person Shooter (despite examples dating back to the early 1970s)

Any specific titles? The earliest thing I can think of that could be said to fit the description was Battlezone, and that came out in 1980. Catacomb 3D came out in 1991, and there were games like The Eidolon before that, but... I can't think of anything before Battlezone, and I'd genuinely like to expand my knowledge if there was something I missed.

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
[quote]snip

Also you brain-goofed and called the Cyberdemon "Spiderdemon". It happens.

snip

No, Spiderdemon is correct.

you're still wrong tho, they're the arachnotron and the spider mastermind, not spiderdemons

teh_Canape:

crimson5pheonix:

MarsAtlas:
[quote]snip

Also you brain-goofed and called the Cyberdemon "Spiderdemon". It happens.

snip

No, Spiderdemon is correct.

you're still wrong tho, they're the arachnotron and the spider mastermind, not spiderdemons

If I want to school you, kid, it was called spiderdemon in the original release and was later changed in future games. Scrub :P

crimson5pheonix:

teh_Canape:

crimson5pheonix:

No, Spiderdemon is correct.

you're still wrong tho, they're the arachnotron and the spider mastermind, not spiderdemons

If I want to school you, kid, it was called spiderdemon in the original release and was later changed in future games. Scrub :P

>read wiki
>looks up own Doom manual
I stand corrected
but I will find something to school you on, just you watch

MarsAtlas:

with critics labeling the presentation disturbingly hyper-violent

Critics? As in more than just She Who Shalt Not Be Named? I asked a few times before because I always try to remember what organizations trot out the "videogames bad!" sensationalism but I've not seen anybody but her speak on it poorly. I'm sure there will be a few news outlets once it gets closer to release, but even then it won't be anywhere near on the scale as back in the day. Hell, I don't think Doom 3 even got a blip on the radar from them. I only really draw attention to it though because purporting her as a noteworthy critic is kind of what propogates her attention to begin with.

Yeah, apart from the one or two tweets from the regular source of nerd-rage, I haven't seen any controversy.
Maybe I'm just emotionally dead, but when I saw the new DOOM gameplay video, I just thought `Well isn't that cute, returning to the days where bloodsplatter made something edgy`. Don't get me wrong, I love me some DOOM (the first one is by far my favourite though and I thought after the second it just didn't feel the same)- but I don't think this entry is particularly controversial.

We simply have too many games now where you can pretty much liquefy your opponent, it's not that special any more.

The purpose of "Doom is controversial" for gamers is to make the other side appear to be lunatics. Zero serious human beings in my experience have been concerned with Doom over it's violence. There's been much more concern over loss of work productivity back when Doom was popular.

Gamers themselves fuel the "controversy" surrounding Doom out of a longstanding desire to not want to analyze games - rather exploit the most ludicrous attacks on games to put themselves in the best light. Much like fans of Dungeons and Dragons liked to bring up the "D&D is satanic" media hype to show how stupid the other side is and in contrast how level-headed and justified they themselves are (and by extension D&D itself and their playing of it).

The result of all of this is as one would expect - a dearth of actual analysis of games in any kind of serious manner but a plethora of "debate" between all-too-clever non-serious gamers (who dominate gamer culture) and delusional, poorly articulated, or attention-seeking media monsters, who would have been shut down far easier if gamers themselves hadn't encouraged them.

And because gamers themselves sought to avoid any serious analysis of games (perhaps out of insecurity of what that might uncover), the door is always open for attacks on games, from the blame-game following school shootings to Jack Thompson, to the modern confusion and fear about Anita Sarkeesian and her "attacks?" on games and gamers. Gamers never are willing to own up to the role that they themselves play in allowing this to happen.

The gamer mantra has long been "shut up and game", or "just play", as if games are some kind of miraculous form of innocent goodness that seeps into people and causes them to emit rainbows of joy. Like any fundamentalist religion, the result is blindness.

briankoontz:
The purpose of "Doom is controversial" for gamers is to make the other side appear to be lunatics. Zero serious human beings in my experience have been concerned with Doom over it's violence. There's been much more concern over loss of work productivity back when Doom was popular.

Gamers themselves fuel the "controversy" surrounding Doom out of a longstanding desire to not want to analyze games - rather exploit the most ludicrous attacks on games to put themselves in the best light. Much like fans of Dungeons and Dragons liked to bring up the "D&D is satanic" media hype to show how stupid the other side is and in contrast how level-headed and justified they themselves are (and by extension D&D itself and their playing of it).

The result of all of this is as one would expect - a dearth of actual analysis of games in any kind of serious manner but a plethora of "debate" between all-too-clever non-serious gamers (who dominate gamer culture) and delusional, poorly articulated, or attention-seeking media monsters, who would have been shut down far easier if gamers themselves hadn't encouraged them.

And because gamers themselves sought to avoid any serious analysis of games (perhaps out of insecurity of what that might uncover), the door is always open for attacks on games, from the blame-game following school shootings to Jack Thompson, to the modern confusion and fear about Anita Sarkeesian and her "attacks?" on games and gamers. Gamers never are willing to own up to the role that they themselves play in allowing this to happen.

The gamer mantra has long been "shut up and game", or "just play", as if games are some kind of miraculous form of innocent goodness that seeps into people and causes them to emit rainbows of joy. Like any fundamentalist religion, the result is blindness.

There's so much irony and ignorance in this statement it's hard to pick a place to start.

Has controversy, especially by games like DOOM, been exploited for marketing gain? Of course, this is not a secret, unless you're some all-too-clever non-serious gamer. Have people had actual concerns about DOOM's violent content... Yes? Your personal, anecdotal evidence is as valid as my own, who went to a school where, post Columbine, even talking about video games got you a meeting with the guidance counselor just to make sure you had no ideation of shooting up the place. So, either you are too young to have experienced the fear and fervor of stuff like DOOM caused in the average person during the media fear campaign, or you're too old and were isolated from it. And even if you are/were, you're not to old or young to have not seen things like New Town calling for a public burning of violent games and people claiming GTA5 needed to be taken off shelves cause it encouraged violence against sex workers. Tell me, how is stuff like that fueled by gamers who don't want to analyze games? What benefit is that to those supposed people? None, your claim is demonstrably wrong.

Second, There's tons of analysis of gaming from within and without the culture, both technically, thematically, and philosophically. That analysis spans the breadth and width from one extreme to the next from "How GTA can teach you how to be a more moral person" to "OMG GTA IS MAKING OUR KIDS KILL ALL THE WOMEN EVERYWHERE RIGHT NOW!" There's been public discussion, scientific analysis, cultural examination. Its been done to fricken death. Have you just been ignoring it all to maintain your decades old view that gamers and games are just kids and kids toys? The fact you'd even allude to that certainly brings your "gamer cred" in to question. Additionally, trying to imply that people like Anita are not attacking the medium is also willfully ignorant or a huge issue of confirmation bias. She is, that's something else that's been examined to death. It's not "gamers" encouraging her and her kind, its "academics" and SJWs who think that everything is racist and sexist and trasphobic and whatever the heck other buzzword, that have taken control of the media and will blow everything, real or imagined, in to a huge story and push that narrative. Why do you think "gamers" had to "die" last august? Because they're trying to lay the ground work to make gaming their social justice propaganda tool and you can't do that if the people making the games know that "gamers" are still the vast majority of their audience, and when that utterly failed, they went with social media terrorism by using public shaming and threats of doxxing and possibly physical, financial, or professional harm to keep people in the industry from speaking up.

The "Just play vidya games!" mantra is not a cry to not analyze the more robust aspects of video games, which, again your utter and willful ignorance, which is painfully ironic from someone talking about fundamental religion and blindness, is showing. No, it's request for people to develop, buy, and play games how and why they want and appreciate/criticize gaming for what it is and what it means, both good and bad. It's a direct condemnation of the 20year old viewpoints and psuedointellectual attitudes like what you've demonstrated here that choose to only look at the negative, or, even worse, look at imagined slights carefully constructed by using miscontext and lies like individuals such as Sarkeesian are doing.

Am I the only one who read this article feeling like it was about a different game?

I always saw Doom's main achievement being in the atmosphere and the addition of the third dimension. Remember that Doom was the one where they added height to each section of the floor and allowed the lighting to change both in response to triggers and in response to guns. As a result, it also had better ways of forming challenge beyond just putting guards around corners and behind doors (looking at you wolf3d). I would say Doom actually was a step away from twitch gameplay and more toward difference in kind.

Also, I don't understand the mention of "agency". Doom was a bunch of key-based scavenger hunts scattered along a straight line.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here