Unreal was quite a long game if I recall, 20+ hours if you didn't rush it.

Looks good, but, I'm fighting myself over whether to pre-order this or get SF V...which are the only 2 games right now that I wanted this year.

you just made up everything by speculating and even pretended to know random people's innermost thoughts.

actually thats all freely available information from interviews & news articles, albeit phrased in a silly way...right down to carmack yelling at the publisher...id encourage you to do some reading on ids history if youd care to stop "speculating" yourself & start making informed comments the entire point of that was to underline that it isnt the same team that made rage, not really, & they are actually trying to recapture the old doom feeling...its just that the poster i replied to should be worried for the game for different reasons (which i half-assedly outlined) anyway im glad the single player campaign is relatively lengthy. thats refreshing & a good step in the right direction

Peoples standards must really be low if they think 13 hours is good. Bioshock infinite was 30 hours long, 13 hours still falls under mp-first-tacked-on-campaign...it's just slightly longer than battlefield and cod...being slightly better than the sorst possibly example does 't make it good. Every fps and tps game I've bought i the past few years has had 20-30hr campaign. But maybe that's because i have self respect enough to not buy 10 hour games.

20-30hr fps? so youve bought three games in the past few years? :P bioshock infinite might have given you a lot of playtime (i dont see how) but it was not a particularly good game there is a definite trend towards shortening/cheapening sp campaigns. you can finish bf/cod in 4-6 on hardest difficulty, so this isnt just slightly longer. my standards arent low, just realistic...this is just wat i said, a step in the right direction...potentially.

20-30hr fps? so youve bought three games in the past few years? :P bioshock infinite might have given you a lot of playtime (i dont see how) but it was not a particularly good game there is a definite trend towards shortening/cheapening sp campaigns. you can finish bf/cod in 4-6 on hardest difficulty, so this isnt just slightly longer. my standards arent low, just realistic...this is just wat i said, a step in the right direction...potentially.

The quality vs quantity argument doesn't work for me. Regardless of the quality game it needs to have good length. Because people can debate the pros and cons of a games design but game length isn't as easily dismissed. If the best game in the world was 10 hours long it would be almost impossible for me to justify buying it at full price.

there needs to at least be a balance, tho. a long crappy story is still crap! that being said, i appreciate that you have high standards & i encourage you 100% to stick to your guns im still cautiously, warily, cynically, hopefully trying to remain optimistic that DOOM will deliver. its a day1 buy for me anyway

Peoples standards must really be low if they think 13 hours is good. Bioshock infinite was 30 hours long, 13 hours still falls under mp-first-tacked-on-campaign...it's just slightly longer than battlefield and cod...being slightly better than the sorst possibly example does 't make it good. Every fps and tps game I've bought i the past few years has had 20-30hr campaign. But maybe that's because i have self respect enough to not buy 10 hour games.

No it was not. You're either bad at games or you seriously take your time to the point of insanity. The only people who came remotely close to 30 hours are those who go out of there way to get 100%. You can assume a similar amount of time spent for the upcoming game, given that the estimation for just finishing the story is 13 hours. http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1068 Judge the game when it's out, from the way people like you are reacting over the 13 hours (when the games you claim are far longer have similar or less content if judged on hours of gameplay), I think you're going to be just fine. More so when additional content is released for the game.

13 hours for SP campaign is quite all right, especially for FPS. The question is what it actually will be, there was plenty of times that I finished game in half the time publishers claimed it takes and I really don't rush through it. As for the Rage discussion I happened to like the gunplay aspect of it. It was actually fun to shoot so I am quite optimistic about new doom. But I'm still not going to preorder because I never do, why would anybody ? There is no benefit.

17 levels of the same old grinding, oh well, didn't expect anything less in 2016...

So around 20hrs+ for me then.. Im not a rusher Great looking trailer too, but that music sux big time, fail.. Some rock/metal or industrial would sound a lot better.

An FPS game locked at 60 fps, might as well lock fighting games at 30 fps while they're at it. Not buying.

Peoples standards must really be low if they think 13 hours is good. Bioshock infinite was 30 hours long, 13 hours still falls under mp-first-tacked-on-campaign...it's just slightly longer than battlefield and cod...being slightly better than the sorst possibly example does 't make it good. Every fps and tps game I've bought i the past few years has had 20-30hr campaign. But maybe that's because i have self respect enough to not buy 10 hour games.

I agree, and I pretty much do the same. But keep in mind games like Bioshock or Deus Ex are meant to be single-player, but games like Doom or Halo have a strong focus on multiplayer. I don't really understand why, but a lot of people prefer to play FPSs that are focused on multiplayer. They're a lot of fun if you have someone you know to play them with, but in my opinion, playing against strangers is boring.

I agree, and I pretty much do the same. But keep in mind games like Bioshock or Deus Ex are meant to be single-player, but games like Doom or Halo have a strong focus on multiplayer. I don't really understand why, but a lot of people prefer to play FPSs that are focused on multiplayer. They're a lot of fun if you have someone you know to play them with, but in my opinion, playing against strangers is boring.

It's a different mindset. I don't play R6 Siege, CS, Quake or any other game because I enjoy playing with my friends. I play because I like winning and I'm super competitive. I was competitive in sports in my earlier years and it just transitioned well to FPS/RTS/Moba games. I do still play story driven titles, and I like some of them, but I definitely prefer competitive e-sports titles more.

It's a different mindset. I don't play R6 Siege, CS, Quake or any other game because I enjoy playing with my friends. I play because I like winning and I'm super competitive. I was competitive in sports in my earlier years and it just transitioned well to FPS/RTS/Moba games. I do still play story driven titles, and I like some of them, but I definitely prefer competitive e-sports titles more.

I find playing against AI far more rewarding, when it comes to FPSs and some racing games. In some games, the AI can be a lot harder than any human players, and you get more variety. Very often with online FPSs, everyone wants to play the same few maps over and over again and they always use the same weapon every time. It gets old pretty fast. It gets worse when you play in "hardcore" mode (where you die quicker), which to me isn't hardcore at all because all you need is an automatic weapon and whoever spots the other player first wins. That's stupid - I want someone to be able to fight back and redeem themselves. When you get shot and have a chance to fight back, that shows who has the real skill.

I find playing against AI far more rewarding, when it comes to FPSs and some racing games. In some games, the AI can be a lot harder than any human players, and you get more variety. Very often with online FPSs, everyone wants to play the same few maps over and over again and they always use the same weapon every time. It gets old pretty fast. It gets worse when you play in "hardcore" mode (where you die quicker), which to me isn't hardcore at all because all you need is an automatic weapon and whoever spots the other player first wins. That's stupid - I want someone to be able to fight back and redeem themselves. When you get shot and have a chance to fight back, that shows who has the real skill.

Idk, it depends on the game. In League of Legends, Dota 2 or Starcraft, there is no better AI than a human player. In online FPS games, there is teamwork, positioning, etc. In terms of hardcore, I assume you mean Battlefield. I don't really play that. But in a game like CS:GO, there is a ton of strategy behind the actual play. Like yeah, an AK can 1 shot a player in the head, and it may seem like it's spots first wins, but it its more nuanced then that. There are smoke spots, pop flashes, etc that allow players to either defend or attack a particular position. There is game knowledge, like knowing when to rotate out of a bomb site to another, or knowing how to pick (attack) a particular area. The economy system rewards players who are smart about buying and sharing their weapons with other players. Knowing when to save or buy is a huge part of the game. Knowing who is strong for what position on the map is a huge part of the game. Memorizing spray control patterns so you can spray someone down with an AK from across the map is a huge part of the game. RTS games have their own nuances, like economy, knowing when to trade/attack armies. Knowing how to properly engage your army so all the units are attacking at the same time. Knowing when to split your army against AoE attacks, etc. I find being able to do that and beat a human opponent to be more rewarding then beating a scripted AI. Like when I was a Masters SC2 player, I knew I was better than 98% of the people who played SC2 online. That's rewarding to me. This isn't even to mention that both these games run $100K+ tournaments. And games like Dota 2, League run $1,000,000+ tournaments. It's no different then the competitive nature of Baseball, Football, Basketball, whatever. I just like to know I'm better than other people at a particular game.

@Denial I agree that it depends on the game, but that's why I specified that FPSs and racing games tend to be the ones where AI is more of a challenge. Playing in coordinated teams requires players who are willing to participate and take orders (ie, your friends). In many situations of multiplayer with strangers, everyone just does their own thing, which can really spoil the fun. I don't play games like BF, TF2, or CS for this reason; I don't have enough friends who play on PC. I haven't yet played SC2 multiplayer, but if/when I do, I don't think I'll ever do 1v1. I've seen those matches online and it seems incredibly repetitive. It's all about finding what your opponent is building, making a counter to it, and then just building your army as fast as possible. Sure, that involves skill, but I prefer to play an RTS for strategizing, not to see who can out-pace me. When doing 3 players or more, it gets far more interesting. I consider myself a semi-casual gamer. I strive to be an above-average player, which I usually am. When I play a game, I take it seriously, but I'm not a perfectionist. I probably have the skill to get into tournaments if I really put the time into it, but I just don't care. I get bored easily.

If the config file can be edited like Doom3's, then no complaints from me. The game is not even out yet so how can it be known that the fps lock cannot be overridden in the config file? Does not matter if it could not while in beta.

(honest question) Is it possible to get past 60 FPS in Doom 3 or Rage?

(honest question) Is it possible to get past 60 FPS in Doom 3 or Rage?

Id tech engine limitation, not possible. We'll have to deal with it.