so i just got doom on the 360....

[raztat]

I like achievement points. It can be a nice show of your skill, or just a way to show that you truly have played a game in its entirety. I also love the idea of players getting a nice pat on the back and a little badge of honor for their accomplishments. It adds a little extra feeling of reward as you play through the game. Unlike some gamers, I like getting achievements but don't actually care too much about my Gamerscore. I mean I enjoy seeing it go up, but it's not like there's some maximum score to shoot for, and someone will always have a higher score than you anyway.

I hate online achievements, and in the future I plan on avoiding games that support them. Since you MUST have Xbox Live gold, essentially you have to PAY for these achievements, which is lame. It's fine for something like Halo, since anyone buying that is obviously buying for the multi-player, but I hate buying a good single player game that has some half-assed multi-player mode(like Stranglehold)and expects me to waste my time(and money) on it if I want all the achievements for that game.

Co-op achievements are also annoying to me because they are pointless. How is getting someone to play a game with you an accomplishment? I've got all the achievements for TMNT arcade except two that require me to get a Gold account and get someone to simply play the game with me and finish it. That's lame, playing a game on co-op is not an accomplishment, and I don't want to pay money for a Gold account, when I could use that money to buy another game instead.

I have to mention how much I hate Capcom right now, as their games have the most annoying achievements known to man and trying to get them takes away from your enjoyment of the game rather than adding to it. Dead Rising has a 7 day survivor achievement that requires you to play survivor mode for 14 hours straight without dying, and with no saves or check points. Any sadistic bastard who can come up with an achievement like that should have a special place in hell reserved for them. Then there's that stupid Bloody Palace bullshit in Devil May Cry 4 but I digress

What I think every game should start doing is giving players rewards for their achievements like Mass Effect does. They actually unlock gameplay bonuses that apply to a new game from scratch or a new game plus. It's very cool. Then nobody could say that achievements are pointless

I dont mind the co op ones, some games should have them like Kane an Lynch, I love the achievements in that game, cept for the online ones which i do have some.

[ZenLogikos]

I certainly do not intend to speak for anyone else, but I know RadarScope has and likes Doom. He may be interested when he gets back from vacation.

I love Doom, but in my eyes it hasn't aged well. I'm not talking about graphics. I can't stand not being able to look around!

[Citizin]

When I first saw this thread I thought you were going to rant on how much it sucked and I was surprised to see you actually liked it. Imo, you shouldn't pay for a crappy downloadable Doom you play on a controller. Doom should be played on the Pc, on a keyboard, in its originally intended way. But if you liked it despite all this than I guess it doesn't really matter. I just don't see how you would justify paying for it.

[raztat]

When I first saw this thread I thought you were going to rant on how much it sucked and I was surprised to see you actually liked it. Imo, you shouldn't pay for a crappy downloadable Doom you play on a controller. Doom should be played on the Pc, on a keyboard, in its originally intended way. But if you liked it despite all this than I guess it doesn't really matter. I just don't see how you would justify paying for it.

I got it on the xbox to play on live and for achievements. I also have doom on the 32x but dont have the connections to plug it up. Also got doom on the collectors edition of doom 3 on the xbox but no one plays it on live. I like doom alot, im now tracking all the games like doom, ex. blood, quake, hexin...ect

[Doctor Fugue]

When I first saw this thread I thought you were going to rant on how much it sucked and I was surprised to see you actually liked it. Imo, you shouldn't pay for a crappy downloadable Doom you play on a controller. Doom should be played on the Pc, on a keyboard, in its originally intended way. But if you liked it despite all this than I guess it doesn't really matter. I just don't see how you would justify paying for it.

I apologize ahead of time. I'm normally polite, but I've had 2 hours sleep in the past 60. The argument above has bothered me since the beginning of time, so it's not exactly you I'm ranting against; your post just poured salt in an old wound.

First of all, on an unrelated matter, the contradiction at the end of your post is confusing. You say it doesn't matter since he likes it, but then you don't see how someone can justify paying for it. Doesn't liking it automatically justify a purchase? Anyway...on to the real problem.

Here we have the old argument that Doom shouldn't be played with a controller. Admittedly, a mouse/keyboard combination is the original input method (is it?), and an expert at this method will have a level of control (like speed/accuracy of turning and choosing weapons) that may be quite superior to a controller. I agree. Fine.

But...by extension, why does this line of reasoning only apply to PC games? Why do PC gamers insist on calling console ports inferior and worthless. I would wager many people play Street Fighter on a d-pad. I say THAT is worthless. I don't care if someone is better with a d-pad than a stick, because your argument is about the way the game is meant to be played, and Street Fighter is meant to be played with a stick and six huge buttons.

Nearly every arcade game is being played in a manner not originally intended. Really, driving games should ALL be played with a wheel and pedals. Shooters should ALL be played with a stick. Virtual On MUST be played with twin sticks. The reason this doesn't happen is because of cost and availability, as well as preference. Not a matter of which is better, but which someone prefers.

Take a look at Resident Evil 4. Originally, it is intended to be played with a GCN conroller. The Wii version, with its motion-controlled aiming, is vastly more accurate...and indeed feels almost like cheating. So here is the appearance of an opposite case, the port is seemingly superior in control, and most would agree it is more fun. But, by your argument of how things should be played as originally intended, nobody should play the Wii version.

If we never played ports, whether it be with different controls or different graphics or better sound or new music or extra modes, then we couldn't play half the games we have today. If a port exists, and I like it, and I understand the differences between the original and new, then there should be no question about playing it.

I don't think the selective elitism of some PC gamers should exist. If playing Doom with a controller is wrong, then we should label ALL ports as worthless, because no port plays exactly as the game was originally intended.

We can talk about how different methods of control change the game mechanics, and someone may very well prefer an input method that appears to offer less accuracy. That is up for debate, and generally comes down to whichever method a person is most comfortable and experienced with (many Street Fighter players who have used a d-pad for 15 years would never reach for a stick, and the reverse is true as well). Personal preference has nothing to do with how good or correct something is.

But, since we are talking about playing a game as it was originally intended, I have a few suggestions for those who make the "PC input is correct for Doom" argument. Never play any racing game again, unless you have a wheel and pedals. Never play ANY fighting game, unless you have the correct stick and buttons. Never play Robotron without two sticks. Never play Marble Madness without a trackball. Never play After Burner without the moveable cabinet. Never play Time Crisis without a steel pedal. Never play a Cave game without sitting in front of a vertical cab. Absolutely, never, EVER use the keypad for directional movement, for any game EVER made that wasn't originally made for that. And never ever ever ever play an arcade game, unless you are in an actual arcade, feeding credits into the machine.

If we followed these rules, nothing would get played. Let's enjoy ports, understand their differences, discuss their shortcomings or improvements, but never dismiss someone's preference based on selective reasoning from an argument that could be applied to entire genres of games.

[AwesomeMonstar]

When I first saw this thread I thought you were going to rant on how much it sucked and I was surprised to see you actually liked it. Imo, you shouldn't pay for a crappy downloadable Doom you play on a controller. Doom should be played on the Pc, on a keyboard, in its originally intended way. But if you liked it despite all this than I guess it doesn't really matter. I just don't see how you would justify paying for it.

Keyboard is just as cumbersome if not worse than the dual joystick set up. Since keyboard and mouse was not part of the doom set up, the argument about it being more precise is null and void. joysticks gives you easier 3d range of movement, the only downfall of doom on 360 is the lack of something like windoom to make it extra pretty.

[Ack]

I would just like to throw out, as a PC Gamer, I do think there are certain genres that don't work on PC, just as I feel there were genres that only worked on PC for the longest time. The Fighting game, for instance...the only way I feel this should be done is with some kind of hookup for a console controller to the PC. Playing a fighter with a keyboard just isn't worth it. I know, I play with the keyboard. I also don't feel Racing games work well unless you have special controls for them.

I will say on the upside for the PC, there is the option to get said special controllers. While many consoles nowadays release a mouse and keyboard control device, there is always the question of sensitivity, and that is something that PC players have been discussing for as long as shooters were online. Take Shadowrun for the 360 and PC. To make it equal for the PC and console gamers, the console guys were given auto aim and the PC guys got their sensitivities gimped. Yet the game designers felt this was necessary because of the difference in how the two groups play games.

I will say FPS titles are definitely becoming more prevalent on consoles now, due to the popularity of titles like Goldeneye and Halo. As time goes by and controllers and hardware evolve, shooters become easier to do on consoles. But the last time I tried to play one, it still didn't feel right. Personally, I'll stick with titles like Call of Duty 4 on the PC. Sure, maybe I don't have the option to go for achievements, and maybe I don't get to restart my climb to level 55 10 times over, but I do get things like the mousewheel knife trick, and I do get to enjoy matches with more than six people in them.

And while I'm not a fan of RTSs, every time I've seen one done on the console, I've seen it done badly.

And you guys know I play console more than PC, so just take a moment and consider my arguments.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

I would just like to throw out, as a PC Gamer, I do think there are certain genres that don't work on PC, just as I feel there were genres that only worked on PC for the longest time. The Fighting game, for instance...the only way I feel this should be done is with some kind of hookup for a console controller to the PC. Playing a fighter with a keyboard just isn't worth it. I know, I play with the keyboard. I also don't feel Racing games work well unless you have special controls for them.

I will say on the upside for the PC, there is the option to get said special controllers. While many consoles nowadays release a mouse and keyboard control device, there is always the question of sensitivity, and that is something that PC players have been discussing for as long as shooters were online. Take Shadowrun for the 360 and PC. To make it equal for the PC and console gamers, the console guys were given auto aim and the PC guys got their sensitivities gimped. Yet the game designers felt this was necessary because of the difference in how the two groups play games.

I will say FPS titles are definitely becoming more prevalent on consoles now, due to the popularity of titles like Goldeneye and Halo. As time goes by and controllers and hardware evolve, shooters become easier to do on consoles. But the last time I tried to play one, it still didn't feel right. Personally, I'll stick with titles like Call of Duty 4 on the PC. Sure, maybe I don't have the option to go for achievements, and maybe I don't get to restart my climb to level 55 10 times over, but I do get things like the mousewheel knife trick, and I do get to enjoy matches with more than six people in them.

And while I'm not a fan of RTSs, every time I've seen one done on the console, I've seen it done badly.

And you guys know I play console more than PC, so just take a moment and consider my arguments.

take a look at command and conquer on the sega saturn, it runs fast, its fun, the only thing is that of course you cant move that cursor as quik but thats to be expected.

[Ack]

I didn't play much in the way of Sega. Look at Starcraft for the N64. The graphics were poor, the controls were slow, and the only multiplayer was a 2-way split screen. Get my drift?

[Ramatut4001]

I like achievements. It's sort of a metagame. I don't think I'd go so far as playing King Kong or Naruto just to get easy ones, but they add a lot to the replayability of games. I can't wait until trophies get supported by more games, or even better, the PSP.