Thread:Le Rottweiler/@comment-1496755-20150131214112/@comment-26005008-20150201134044

Yes. I myself personally don’t think that it’s too absurd to consider. But the problem with Quake, much like Doom (but not Tom Hall’s version), is that it’s about a lonely football player who shoots first and never asks questions. Story development, character development, drama, lore &c. are minimal at best. That’s why I occasionally entertained the idea of a remake being more like Doom 3, because it would attempt to make sense of the world. For example, there’s no realistic or believable reason why chainsaws would exist on Mars. They were in there because basically, id thought that it’d be cool (they were inspired by the Evil Dead franchise). But Doom 3 explained chainsaws as being products a shipping accident. There, we could internally comprehend why chainsaws exist; they don’t feel like an afterthought at all. The energy weapons were also explained in scientific detail. Of course, run‐and‐gunners don’t typically care about things such as these, but for curious people like me, this is all interesting.

But Doom 3, aside from needlessly altering the core formula that made its predecessors successful, would attempt to force you into the story, notably by making you sit through audio logs and skim texts just because you want one bloody code for some lousy locker. I’m guessing that id desired to reward players for caring about the story, but for uninterested players low on resources, it can just be annoying.

I don’t think that Doom 3 had to sacrifice its story features, but I certainly don’t see why id had to mess up the core formula either. Just because you desire to innovate doesn’t mean that you have to throw away what made the originals so good. O.K., so you want to do a story‐based horror shooter? Great, then call it something else.