DOOM ETERNAL: There’s a new “Doom” out and if you’re remotely interested in video games, I’d really like to convince you that you should care about this franchise. Maybe you’ve seen ’em around, but they didn’t look like your type of thing. Maybe they seemed violent for your taste, or even (God forbid) kinda stupid. Fair enough. Give me a chance to turn you around with the following four arguments…
- “Doom” invented first person shooters. Literally invented them. For a long time, FPSes were actually called “Doom-clones.” When you play a “Doom” game you are playing pop culture royalty.
- Every single “Doom” game has been a classic. The first “Doom” came out in 1993, twenty seven years ago. Since then, they’ve released six “main series” games (not including spin-offs, expansions, etc). And they’re all masterpieces. Every. Last. One of them. The franchise is constantly re-imagining itself, from atmospheric horror to balls-to-the-wall action.
- “Doom” is in its prime. For years, “Doom” was stuck in development hell, and rumors swirled that the franchise was on its last legs. When the rebooted “DOOM (2016)” was finally announced, it was met with skepticism. But it didn’t take long for players to realize they had their hands on a generational classic, one of the best shooters ever made. This wasn’t some crass cash-in, it was a total rethink of the “Doom” formula with bold new gameplay ideas that distilled the essence of the originals for a new generation. Even the immortal “Doom” theme was one-upped by composer Mick Gordon, who made a soundtrack that stands as one of the best metal albums in decades, let alone soundtracks. “Doom Eternal” continues that legacy (but I’ll get into that below).
- “Doom” is about making you smile. One of the things that I think stops people from “getting” “Doom” is misunderstanding its intent. From the outside, you see guns, and demons, and blood and metal music, and it’s easy to think this is some kind of aggro-bro festival, a franchise for angry incels and Hot Topic devotees trapped in their parents’ basement listening to Slipknot. But I swear to God, that’s not what “Doom” is. “Doom” is funny. It’s cheesy. It’s “Evil Dead.” It’s “Thor: Ragnarok.” It’s a joke. It’s WAY closer to “Monty Python” than it is to “Saw.” Yes it is violent, EXTREMELY so, but so is “Home Alone.” The question is context: violent against who/what, and why?
The true, beating heart of “Doom” is that you are a badass and the world needs your badass energy to smite evil and look awesome doing it. It’s a power fantasy, but not a mean-spirited one. “Doom” never picks on the little guy, or any guy for that matter, because your targets are never human. Marvel movies and “Star Wars” butcher actual people by the thousands, but “Doom” sends you against evil incarnate. You’re killing demons, man, it’s practically an exorcism! It’s the Lord’s work!
The Doomguy (the franchise’s stalwart ever-silent protagonist) is nameless and blank for a reason: he’s a badass suit, one sizes fits all, meant to be worn by you. When you play “Doom,” you’re not living out a twisted fantasy of violence, you’re a badass sunk deep in the enemy lines, the last hope of humanity against a tide of amoral evil. It’s “Looney Tunes,” and you’re the Roadunner in a world of Coyotes. You triumph because you always do, and always will. You’re a badass, and evil is going down.
Are you really gonna tell me you couldn’t use some of that energy in your life right now?
Okay, I’ve made my case, now let’s talk about the new guy, “Doom Eternal,” because it’s a fascinating game. “Doom (2016),” its direct predecessor, was an underdog, made when all the rockstars had departed id (the developer behind “Doom”) and no one had high hopes for the next entry. Its spectacular critical reception put the inevitable follow-up in a tough spot: how do you deliver a second time, when people are now expecting the world from you?
“Doom Eternal” arrives now four years later, and it’s clear that a lot has changed. First off, the game is hard, much harder and more frustrating than the last entry. D2016 was challenging, but a few of its weapons were clearly overpowered, and the enemies could be rushed down with relative ease. For “Eternal,” id clearly wanted to change that. The enemy AI is far more aggressive and numerous. Weapons run dry of ammo rapidly, forcing you to constantly switch. The new demons are designed specifically to target dominant play styles from D2016 and invalidate them. Every time you get comfortable, “Eternal” shifts on you, pushes you, asks you for more. It’s a longer game, too, up to 15 hours, and not one minute of that time is relaxing. It’s a lot.
I’m not sure id completely understands what this change means. In their Ahab-like obsession with fixing their meta and forcing the player to survive only by playing the correct way, they altered what their game is. “Doom (2016)” was first and foremost a power fantasy. It made you feel like a god all the time, even when it challenged you. “Doom Eternal” thinks it’s a power fantasy, but it isn’t, because you have to actually earn all the power you manifest, and it’s not a fantasy if you have to go grind it into existence. If this franchise was “Rocky,” “Doom (2016)” would put you in a ring with Apollo Creed and make sure you beat him. “Doom Eternal” is three months of punching frozen slabs of beef in a Philadelphia freezer.
For this reason, there are a fair number of people who prefer D2016, and I think that’s a fair opinion, although I’m sure that baffles id Software. “Eternal” is better in every measurable way: better weapons and balance, better graphics, more variety of locations, etc. But “Doom” was obsessed with how you feel, while “Eternal” is obsessed with how you perform, and I think some people don’t want that. I struggled with it for a while, honestly, especially in the early hours. I was dying a lot, way more than last time. I didn’t feel like the Doom Slayer. I knew the game was right to kill me, that I wasn’t playing optimally, but I was annoyed that they cared so damn much about that. What happened to “you’re a badass, Andrew!!” I liked how that felt!
But over time, I came to understand “Eternal” is just a different beast, and now I’m glad of that. There’s no point trying to do “Doom (2016)” again, it’ll just be diminishing returns. Better to try something new. Once I accepted that I wasn’t gonna grin through this game like I did the last one, I came to love it on its own terms. It’s a harsh mistress, but a fair one. The checkpoints never screw you. Bugs are very rare. No matter how close to death you get, there’s always a chance to bounce back and finish a fight on top of the world. And if you die too much in a boss battle, the game offers you an armor buff that doesn’t penalize your progression (although I suspect the ulterior motive for this is that the boss encounters are just okay, and id doesn’t want you to linger on them).
Credit where it’s due, I did get better. “Eternal” forced me to master its core concepts. After finishing the game, I went back to a mid-game level that I found very challenging the first time through, and was astonished at how easy it had become. I think “Eternal” would’ve landed better with some people if they’d worked that moment into the campaign itself. Because as you play, you are getting better, but the level of challenge is always rising with you, so you never feel it. I didn’t realize how good I’d gotten, and I think the game might’ve benefited from finding ways to tell me.
So which do I prefer, “Doom” or “Doom Eternal?” I’m not sure yet. “Eternal” is a better mousetrap, but “Doom” was a little easier to love. What I can say is that “Eternal” is a worthy follow-up and a classic in its own right. Time will tell whether it or its brother remains in the hearts of “Doom” fans more dearly.
LITTLE WOMEN–Okay, I know I am SUPER late on this, but I finally saw “Little Women,” and if that’s not an Oscar-level job of directing, nothing is. I’ve seen and admired Gerwig’s work in the past, but this is her best, by far. What astonishes me is how she fuses her style with the source material; it’s very her, but also very much a classic romance, and neither overpowers the other. Her goal was clearly to make a period piece feel modern, but that’s a tricky dance: you can end up shooting things badly for no reason just cause you think it looks cool (“The King’s Speech”), or you can make the whole thing feel fake and costumed (“Public Enemies”). Gerwig found the middle path. It’s a rich, funny, sad and captivating story, and the end is a blast to analyze. I never thought anyone would slip an “Inception”-style WTF ending into a period romance, but here we are.
I’m embarrassed it took me so long to see this movie, and I suspect whatever implicit bias lingered in my mind about it played a role in Gerwig not getting the nominations and wins she clearly deserved. As usual, women have to do twice as much for half the recognition, but this phenomenon is particularly pronounced with directing, a role that men hold away from women with a unique vigor. A director embodies many, maybe most of the qualities that men are uncomfortable with women having. This is why the Academy has only nominated a woman for the award five times, and only given it to a woman once. Even accounting for the disparity between male and female working directors (which is itself a problem), those numbers defy belief.
Watching “Little Women,” and seeing how truly great it is, I can’t come up with a single valid reason why I didn’t urgently see it during awards season. I’d heard it was great, I knew it was going to be great, why didn’t I see it? I’m afraid I’m part of the problem. I don’t like that thought, I consider myself a feminist. But as the credits rolled, I had this sick feeling in my gut, like I was watching video footage of myself committing a crime. I found time for “Parasite,” “The Irishman,” “Uncut Gems,” but not for this.
I’m sorry, “Little Women,” and I’m sorry, Greta Gerwig. I’ll do better in the future.
HALF LIFE: ALYX: It’s really really really really good.
Next.
Okay, that’s not satisfying, so let me just say this: HL:A isn’t a revolutionary game in the way “Half Life 2” was. It doesn’t introduce any new concepts, and it isn’t as ambitious as “Boneworks.” But what it brings to the table is raw power. Nobody has had a budget like this to make a VR game before. Nobody has committed these kinds of resources, not even close. This is AAA development finally crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war on virtual reality, a window into what it would look like if the industry really locked in and committed to the medium. And it is beautiful.
“Half Life” games are famous for their openings: the tram ride in the original told you you weren’t in a shooter like any you’d played before, and HL2’s “Rise and shine, Mr. Freeman” did the same. “Alyx,” very mindful of that, opens on a balcony, overlooking a massive alien-occupied city that is easily the most jaw-dropping thing I’ve ever seen in virtual reality. I don’t know how long I stood there, gaping at it, thinking “everything is different now,” which is the same thing I thought at the beginning of the other two games. Valve did it again.
ONWARD–Pixar’s new movie is really good, people. I liked it a lot. Not top-tier, but not bottom-dwelling either, a solid B+. It’s nice to see them still inventing new IP and pushing their technology. That’s all I got on that one. Kind of an anticlimactic ending, I know.
Til next time. Wash your hands and stay inside, damn it.