I definitely played Doom back in the day. I definitely played Doom II. But, I don't think I ever played the whole thing. Most likely I only played Episode 1 (the shareware version) and, most likely, I did have access to a pirated version of the whole thing but never got around to it because Doom II came out.
So, it's been fun to "go back" and play this for class - especially with an eye to see what's changed, what hasn't, what's distinctive. What follows are basically my notes from playing and they're in no particular order, though they do reflect some sense of thinking about the game as a whole:
(a) The music is really great, and really sets the tone and the mood. I don't remember the music from back in the day so perhaps I never heard it? Or, I was playing with the music down, SFX up and with little speakers. I don't remember having a headset back then - so the experience now (with headset) really makes the game shine. You can hear monsters hiding in closets - but weirdly, it feels a bit "dated" because - I think - the sound volume is pretty even across distances. So, a monster in a closet within range sounds the same as one really close. I could be wrong on this though...
(b) I had forgotten how fast the game was in terms of moving around - strafing, dodging and shooting are essential AND because you're aiming is "fixed" (no mouselook) you have to move your character to be able to aim at a target either by turning around or by sidestepping. Nowadays you swing the aim reticule around and your character can stay in place - but not so back then! It really changes the dynamic play environment in ways I don't think I had fully appreciated. (to be fair, the remake is really true to this part of the game - even as you can stand still and aim and fire)
(c) I had forgotten how dynamic the levels where - as in, the layout of stuff changes as doors open, walls retract, pillars descend, or ascend, and so on. It gives the levels a really interesting feel to them because - as you often backtrack a lot - there is excitement in seeing what's changed or having to adjust to a new situation (enemies attacking from above, etc.) You can see how iD was really going for "these levels are NOT possible in Wolfenstein 3D" where they were much more rectangular and "straight" feeling.
(d) I remembered secrets being a thing - I'd forgotten how many and often there would be secret areas in the game. I remember the (back in the day, from Wolfenstein) importance to understand that there might even be secret rooms within secreto rooms!
(e) The game has several weapons, and to my surprise - while fun, the game is less about choosing the right weapon for the job and more about the shooting and ammo. I mean, the weapons ARE different, but their difference didn't seem to be different enough from each other gameplay-wise. It was fun to find the chainsaw though - in a secret area, of course.
(f) The game has health and armor - but, unlike later games that treat armor as a sort of extra health bar (sometimes auto-replenishing, ala Halo), here armor just reduces damage, but you still take damage. I think it's a dynamic that's important and often under discussed? I might be alone here in feeling that it's an important part of Dooms feeling - I don't remember if it carried on to Quake or not either.
(g) There was more "wandering around trying to find the key" than I remembered - that might be a "it was better understood back then by players in the day"? Maybe I've just forgotten? Sort of like players (today) being unable to play Ultima IV or other games with no signposting and very little handholding.
(h) Apparently you could play co-op out of the box. I have no recollection of this at all. Huh.
I've been playing a mobile game called Cells, and as part of its monetization you can watch ads to get boosts and so on. For a while I was seeing a LOT of ads for games where you have a character or mob of characters that are all shooting enemies that are chasing you and you have to guide your mob through gates to get more characters added to your mob, of better weapons, etc.
I had heard that many of these games were using deceptive ads where the gameplay in the ads (which looked fun) was different from that in the game.
So, I made a note of a few of the games and decided I'd install and try them out to see what was what. All of this because the gameplay in the ads, like I said, seemed to be fun.
This is one of those games and - the gameplay pretty much IS what was in the ads. The characters are 3D stick figures, you clear levels that increase in difficulty, get coins to spend on upgrading your mob to be larger, more effective, etc.
Soon after I installed the game I noticed there was an option to remove ads for X dollars (a few, but nothing too pricey. So I paid the price expecting ads to be removed.
And the were. Sort of. So, not entirely. There used to be a banner at the bottom of the screen that had an ad and it was gone. BUT, the game has ads in lots of other places. Now, I don't think this is a bad thing per se, but what really annoyed me (and led me to uninstall the game) was that ad viewing is used to gate access to the game's content!
So, I might unlock a new weapon from playing the game. BUT, the weapon is only available to be unlocked after watching an ad. If I don't watch the ad, the weapon does not become available. And this stuff happens elsewhere too. It feels scummy and is a bad gameplay experience for me, and I don't think I've ever seen a game that does it like this.
After playing a while I unlocked a special "base" - I'm not sure how that will develop, since I won't play any more - because I don't want to be forced to watch ads to make progress in the game - especially after paying (some) money to remove ads from the game! I would have been ok with this if the ads stayed as an option - but as a requirement? No thanks.
Oh..another annoying thing - occasionally you get a "pop-up" for something to unlock/get from viewing an ad. And there's no button to "close" or "move on" without clicking on the "watch the ad" button. You have to wait a few seconds for the other button to appear! This one actually feels more like a dark pattern! I might have to re-install the game just to grab some screenshots of this game to use as an example in class...
In this game you perform the work of a government surveillance agent - investigating people suspected of certain crimes (or possible crimes). The name of the series definitely gives away where this game is coming from (a critique/examination of the surveillance state).
As far as games go it's straightforward in that there's (at least in the two episodes/chapters I've played so far) plenty of scaffolding, even handholding, in terms of getting you to find the info you need to make progress in the game. However, I only recently realized (through some experimentation) that the game is more flexible in its design than I though:
(1) The game's UI highlights when there are nuggets of information you can find (and then send to your bosses) - I first played as a "completionist" assuming that you had to locate ALL the nuggets and send them along...but, it turns out you don't have to!
(2) You can occasionally send bad/wrong info along as well - normally by sending it for association with the wrong person. The first time I did this (by mistake) the game alerted me...and then I realized I could (purposefully?) muddy the database/information - it's sort of like intentionally polluting the "truth" the system knows. I'm guessing there are dangerous ramifications to this some times and I'm guessing there's also something interesting to be said for adding noise to a system - I wonder if I'll see effects of this? (e.g. wrong person accused because I fed something factually incorrect into the system)
(3) Going off of (1) above, I've been wondering what it means to play such that you intentionally feed as little info as you can? This isn't a game where you can "take down the system from within" (I think), but it does feel interesting to purposefully NOT feed information to the system just because you can and it's there. Over the last few years I've re-evaluated my relationship towards sites/services that make use of my input in agreggate (e.g. reviewing something) and I'm much less willing to, say, write an Amazon review. My default is "no", I'm just making it easier for you to make more money with no benefit/reward for myself. So, why should I? When I do - it's because I want to directly support someone (e.g. writing a review for a book I enjoyed and want to support the author). And, this game feels similar? Why should I feed the system more info than it needs? More info can be good (more context, etc.) but also bad (more ways to screw people over).
I did eventually go back and finish it - and each story did have some different mechanic going on in addition to the photographs. I don't remember how everything connected/tied in narratively - but I do remember being satisfied enough to have been happy to finish the game.
Now that I've finished it I must say that I'm much more impressed/satisfied with how the game integrated story stuff with mechanics and dynamics. It's a good example of ludonarrative coherence (as opposed to dissonance) such that I think I might use it as a more modern example. At this point Rohrer's Passage is a bit long in the tooth - though in its favor its not long and it's reasonably easy to explain. But, we'll see...
