The story is in your face and bad, the menus are a mess and hard to navigate, and the UX is garish and colored like an arcade attract screen. The contrast between the two was part of what made that game great. It meant that when the game was loud, the loudness was focused on the combat. 2016 had this wonderful minimalism to it with the story largely being in the background and the menus being clean and concise. It doesn't help that the presentation also took a major step back. I ultimately stopped playing because I got bored. Being forced to use a plasma rifle because the enemy has an energy shield and the plasma rifle is the hard counter to the energy shield is not. Sitting through a bunch of repetitive 1.5-2 second animations over and over and over again is not. Being forced to use the glory kills and chainsaw constantly just murders any momentum you feel during encounters and the rigidness of the enemy weaknesses means you don't have the sense of freedom you did in 2016. Basing the gameplay so heavily around shortages of health and ammo and a heavy dose of "if enemy A, then weapon B" was a really terrible choice IMO. Call me crazy, but I found the loop in Eternal extremely repetitive in the worst way possible. The "you can do anything with your awesome powers" aspect of Doom 2016 is more metal and more fun than the "learn to use all these systems we've designed to conquer this combat puzzle" attitude of Eternal.Ģ016 for sure. The new BFG requires more skill to use effectively but the old one felt better and more empowering. The way they changed the BFG is just one example. Eternal definitely has some of that, but not enough for me. It's a valid form of game design, but I much preferred the greater freedom of 2016 where you could pick whatever weapon felt right at any given time. Eternal really wants you to mess with all its systems and learn what enemies are vulnerable to what etc. The Marauders are the most famous, and they aren't particularly fun to fight, but there are others. It is full of combat puzzles and enemies you have to take on in the way the game dictates. I think the first game had better and more memorable locations for its levels, even if Hell on Earth sounds really cool in theory.īut the biggest issue I have with Eternal is the way that it wants to shoehorn you into very specific play styles. The first game had some platforming but the second game focuses on it and often in a bad way I think all the wall climbing stuff kind of sucks. People have mentioned the story, and it's incomprehensible trash and there's SO MUCH of it that it detracts from the game. I haven't finished Eternal (though I have been picking away at it recently) but while I don't think it's a bad game by any means I think it's got a lot of flaws that the first one doesn't.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |