The Ancient Gods -- review from someone who DIDN'T like it

I wouldn't say Eternal is "the most hardcore of the hardcore", or whatever it is you're saying. Not even close, in fact. It's just a proper challenge, unlike so many AAA games these days, which want to shuttle you from story scene to story scene with as little hassle as possible while telling you how awesome you are for stopping the bad guys. I for one am happy to have a game where you actually get to be awesome, for once :p

1 hour ago, xdarkmasterx said:

I wouldn't say Eternal is "the most hardcore of the hardcore", or whatever it is you're saying. Not even close, in fact. It's just a proper challenge, unlike so many AAA games these days, which want to shuttle you from story scene to story scene with as little hassle as possible while telling you how awesome you are for stopping the bad guys. I for one am happy to have a game where you actually get to be awesome, for once :p

Just curious, in your mind, what makes a gamer part of the "hardcore of the hardcore" crowd?

1 minute ago, icecoldduke said:

Just curious, in your mind, what makes a gamer part of the "hardcore of the hardcore" crowd?

What do you expect? A scientific dissemination on hardcore-itude? All I'm saying is that there's much, much more difficult games out there. Acting like Doom Eternal is some terribly difficult thing that only the "most hardcore" can play, that this is practically the roof of difficulty, just sounds extremely hyperbolic to me :p

26 minutes ago, xdarkmasterx said:

 

What do you expect? A scientific dissemination on hardcore-itude? All I'm saying is that there's much, much more difficult games out there. Acting like Doom Eternal is some terribly difficult thing that only the "most hardcore" can play, that this is practically the roof of difficulty, just sounds extremely hyperbolic to me :p

I never said any of that, I said unlike the original games, it appeals to more hardcore gamers. 

Oh really?

18 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

Hardcore of the hardcore audience is a very small niche, and there isn't enough profit there to make a game that tailors towards that

On 12/20/2020 at 9:46 PM, icecoldduke said:

@Archvile Hunter If your point is doom has always been a game tailored towards hardcore players, which is a niche audience, why cater the experience of Eternal towards the hardcore of the hardcore audience? Your favoring a niche of niche above the rest. 

On 12/20/2020 at 10:20 PM, icecoldduke said:

In my opinion(and quite a few others agree) that Doom's catering to the hardcore of the hardcore was a bad move.

 

 

Ok, I know that this trivia about the kinds of phrases you use isn't much of a topic worth discussing, just had to set things straight.

Any way, I doubt we're going to get anywhere going back and forth between "it's hard so it sucks" and "it would suck if it weren't", but I'll leave you with this: If a game has a total of four to five difficulty settings (discounting gimmicky ones), isn't that as good an indicator as any that the game was not meant to be "super easy", but instead should cater to a wide range of player ability? What indeed would be the point of having so many if their challenge level ranges from "very easy" to "very easy"?

I can't speak to the difficulty of the lower settings in Eternal (I doubt very much though that you would need to be "hardcore" to beat it on easy mode), but you must agree that the upper ranges of difficulty have a right to actually kill people once in a while :p

11 minutes ago, xdarkmasterx said:

Oh really?

 

 

Ok, I know that this trivia about the kinds of phrases you use isn't much of a topic worth discussing, just had to set things straight.

 

Any way, I doubt we're going to get anywhere going back and forth between "it's hard so it sucks" and "it would suck if it weren't", but I'll leave you with this: If a game has a total of four to five difficulty settings (discounting gimmicky ones), isn't that as good an indicator as any that the game was not meant to be "super easy", but instead should cater to a wide range of player ability? What indeed would be the point of having so many if their challenge level ranges from "very easy" to "very easy"?

 

I can't speak to the difficulty of the lower settings in Eternal (I doubt very much though that you would need to be "hardcore" to beat it on easy mode), but you must agree that the upper ranges of difficulty have a right to actually kill people once in a while :p

Now your arguing semantics :).

We're not going to get any where, but hopefully at the end of this conversation people yelling at people critiquing Doom Eternal stop. My opinion on the game is just as valid as yours

3 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

I never said any of that, I said unlike the original games, it appeals to more hardcore gamers. 

And this is wrong because? why should a Series cater to the same demographic over and over After 30 or so years? 

this isn't the same Team from 1991.

(we're gonna pretend Doom E4 and Plutonia doesn't exists, for your sake)

If its a question of Sales, I don't think that's gonna be an issue, because as you said they found a niche that they know will buy their games. Bethesda already has other games that can become their Cash cow for the casual crowd.

I fail to understand why this is an objectively bad move? and maybe I wont and i can accept that.

52 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

If its a question of Sales, I don't think that's gonna be an issue

Only 4% more Doom Eternal players completed the campaign compared to Doom 2016 on PC, that comes out to 200,000 users. The bigger issue is only 37% of Doom Eternal players completed the campaign(88% at least completed the first level). That is up from 33% that completed the Doom 2016 campaign, but only by 200,000 users. The question going forward is player retention. Why didn't 63% of the Doom Eternal player base complete the entire campaign? Why are there 2,000 users(per day) still play Doom 2016(were as there are 4,500 active users per day playing Eternal)? 

My personal assumption is id software is going to introduce a new set of mechanics for the next Doom iteration. Regardless less then half of Doom customers completed the campaign is unacceptable from a development standpoint. 

2 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

Why didn't 63% of the Doom Eternal player base complete the entire campaign? 

I mean you answered you're own question (for 2 pages). Id is targeting a specific demographic with Eternal.

I mean the numbers make sense. Doom Eternal is Harder = Harder to complete and people will drop off because of its difficulty

But I'm not convinced that this will equate to id actually loosing money, Like you mentioned there is a demographic id is focusing on, a demographic who will purchase and play the game and will want more of the same content and people like me who just wants something different and interesting in the genre.

2 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

Regardless less then half of Doom customers completed the campaign is unacceptable from a development standpoint. 

I think that just means, id set out what they wanted and made a game with actual challenge that most aren't use to in the age where games always have a "win the game" option to boost sales.

Again these numbers don't really convince me that this is a bad move on their end and more just them sifting out their target demographic.

2 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

Regardless less then half of Doom customers completed the campaign is unacceptable from a development standpoint. 

That's not true. The overwhelming majority of games have below 50% completion rates:

Dishonored (41.1%), Wolfenstein: The New Order (46.8%), Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor (36.8%), Bioshock: Infinite (49.1%), Darksiders (13.7%), The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim(31.4%), The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (26.8%), Horizon: Zero Dawn (27.8%), Half-Life 2 (25.2%), Mad Max (28.7%), Shadow of the Tomb Raider (35.1%), Sleeping Dogs (25.7%), Portal 2 (39.4%), Batman: Arkham City (40.8%), Tomb Raider 2013 (30.2%), Transistor (25.1%), Hades (20.8%), and Dusk (22.6%).

In fact, I'm struggling to find any games with 50%+ completion rates, so I'm not sure why Doom Eternal's 37% would be considered "unacceptable from a development standpoint".

---

2 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

Why are there 2,000 users(per day) still play Doom 2016(were as there are 4,500 active users per day playing Eternal)? 

According to SteamCharts, Half-Life has a 30 day average population of 607.4 while Half-Life 2 has 921.1. That's an even closer ratio between those two games than between 2016 and Eternal but yet I don't think a majority of people would believe Half-Life 2 left fans unhappy.

30 Day Peak average population comparisons between some sequels:

Dishonored (669.6) vs Dishonored 2 (1076.4)

Wolfenstein: TNO (513.7) vs Wolfenstein: TNC (704.0)

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor (771.6) vs Shadow of War (3001.5)

Bioshock Remastered (414.7) vs Bioshock 2 Remastered (177.7)

Darksiders Warmastered (127.5) vs Darksiders 2 Deathinitive (159.7)

Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Special (15167.8 + 5834.0 regular) vs Elder Scrolls: Online (17193.8)

Tomb Raider (1447.5) vs Rise of the Tomb Raider (1621.6)

Portal (564.4) vs Portal 2 (2905.6)

Batman: Arkham Asylum (336.1) vs Arkham City (448.2)

The Witcher 2 (904.6) vs The Witcher 3 (19681.6)

Shadow of War, Portal 2, and The Witcher 3 are examples of sequels that dwarf their predecessors, but otherwise the majority of sequels tend to be a closer ratio with their originals. We really only see a "drop to zero" population phenomenon mostly in game series with frequent release titles, for example:

Far Cry 5 (3840.2) vs Far Cry New Dawn (839.4), Far Cry 4 (767.3), and Far Cry 3 (637.5)

Assassin's Creed Odyssey (8013.0) vs Origins (2465.0), Black Flag (1254.2), and Unity (627.8)

Need for Speed Heat (2038.3) vs Most Wanted 2012 (464.9), Payback (307.6), and 2015 (242.6)

---

It is also possible for a sequel to underperform in terms of average users per month, as we see in Bioshock 2 Remastered compared to Bioshock 1 Remastered. We could then assume that fans weren't as happy with Bioshock 2. If we accept that a lower population average reflects that fans were unhappy with the sequel - then we must also accept the idea that a higher population average reflects that fans were happy with the sequel. Considering Doom Eternal's concurrent population is currently twice over that of Doom 2016's, I don't think the CCU would indicate that Eternal left fans unhappy.

It's also interesting to note that, while Doom Eternal is generally considered to be a way more difficult game than Doom 2016, proportionally more players have finished the Doom Eternal campaign than Doom 2016's campaign.

1 hour ago, AtimZarr1 said:

That's not true. The overwhelming majority of games have below 50% completion rates:

 

Dishonored (41.1%), Wolfenstein: The New Order (46.8%), Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor (36.8%), Bioshock: Infinite (49.1%), Darksiders (13.7%), The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim(31.4%), The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (26.8%), Horizon: Zero Dawn (27.8%), Half-Life 2 (25.2%), Mad Max (28.7%), Shadow of the Tomb Raider (35.1%), Sleeping Dogs (25.7%), Portal 2 (39.4%), Batman: Arkham City (40.8%), Tomb Raider 2013 (30.2%), Transistor (25.1%), Hades (20.8%), and Dusk (22.6%).

Just because you listed other games that also have low campaign completion rates doesn't mean anything. It's not a good thing when less then half of your player base completes your game. I'm willing to bet the Eternal development team is concerned, and they are looking into the future to see what they can do to get these numbers up.

Quote

Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Special (15167.8 + 5834.0 regular) vs Elder Scrolls: Online (17193.8)

That one is a false comparison, you can't compare a MMO to a singleplayer game with no multiplayer when looking at CCU.

Quote

Dishonored (669.6) vs Dishonored 2 (1076.4)

Were did you get these numbers? SteamSpy has Dishonored at 150 CCU today and Dishonored 2 at over a 1000 CCU today, and it looks like this has been pretty proportional for the last month.

https://steamspy.com/app/614570 <-- Dishonored

https://steamspy.com/app/403640 <-- Dishonored 2

Quote

Tomb Raider (1447.5) vs Rise of the Tomb Raider (1621.6)

Tomb Raider is pretty close.

Quote

Wolfenstein: TNO (513.7) vs Wolfenstein: TNC (704.0)

Darksiders Warmastered (127.5) vs Darksiders 2 Deathinitive (159.7)

Batman: Arkham Asylum (336.1) vs Arkham City (448.2)

Those are just low numbers in general. When comparing these things, its usually best not to include titles with less then 1000 CCU, which usually means the game is dead. This means the squal and the prequal are considered dead, and might as well be zero. 

Quote

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor (771.6) vs Shadow of War (3001.5)

Portal (564.4) vs Portal 2 (2905.6)

Same thing there, 3000 CCU for Shadow of War means the game is active, 771 is less than a thousand, which basically means the game is dead. Same with Portal.

Quote

Otherwise the majority of sequels tend to be a closer ratio with their originals. We really only see a "drop to zero" population phenomenon mostly in game series with frequent release titles, for example:

So to clarify, in the game industry, if your CCU is under 1000, your game is considered "dead". That might as well be a CCU of near zero. The only game you listed that proves your point is Tomb Raider, which good for them :).

14 hours ago, Archvile Hunter said:

I have to disagree about the DLC level design having worse design that the campaign, I would actually say it's the other way around. While still fun, the enemy compositions during arena fights and their placement in incidental encounters feels arbitrary at many points later in the game. In Final Sin, they really just throw a hodgepodge of every demon type at you at once in large open areas. Not exactly the pinnacle of creativity.

 

The DLC encounters feel so much more deliberate and thought out. Usually there are only a couple of different heavy demon types in play at once, and it gives every arena encounter much more distinct "phases" of combat, there's a better flow to each individual encounter.

 

I also thoroughly believe that "good level design" is about restricting the player in various ways through the course of the level. Creative use of level geometry or environmental hazards are just as important for good encounter design as the composition of enemies. In the base campaign, Tyrants are mostly a non-issue. They are always encountered in large open areas, where it's easy to circle around them.

 

When the DLC spawns a Tyrant in a small corridor you suddenly can't just circle him to death, and this restriction asks the player to think of what to do now that this option has been taken away.

 

It holds true in Classic Doom as well. Fighting a Cyberdemon in a wide open space is boring, but put him in a tight space and he suddenly becomes much more dangerous, and consequently much more engaging to fight.

Felt the Tyrant was pretty easy, because you can just ice bomb him and bring him down.

Thought more about the Maurodeur that spawns in the first Level on the small Plattform.

The Door closes behind you and you have nearly no Space to Fight him.

My Solution was just to jump over to the other Area and he stayed there and felt into his Death without me interacting.

This is bad Design.

The Tyrant in the Swamps was more Fun.

Not the biggest Area but one where you can Move.

On the original Doom the same, smaller Areas but still ones where you can move somehow.

Overall the Swamps felt better, but had also hidden invisible Walls, even if a Plattform is right next to you.

Invisible Wall

The Encounter with two Marudeurs was also not as hard some say.

Mostly i really had Problems in the other Levels because of unpolished Level Design.

And i do think we just do disagree with the Spawning of Enemies :)

I still feel it is cheaper made and just thrown out :P

1 hour ago, Archvile Hunter said:

It's also interesting to note that, while Doom Eternal is generally considered to be a way more difficult game than Doom 2016, proportionally more players have finished the Doom Eternal campaign than Doom 2016's campaign.

4% more players completed Eternal compared to 2016 on PC, which comes out to 200,000 users, which is a gain, but not by much. The question is why didn't the other 63% of players complete the entire campaign? We will see what id does with the next doom game, but my guess is they will refactor things again in an effort to get this number up. 

Im still waiting for your Linkedin and the UE4 titles you have worked on, IceCold.

My point being, some more good faith posting would be preferred here. You can't just mention that your opinion is as vaild as any other only for you to then wave away a curated list of similar titles that also have low completion rates. You want to call shotgun? Then bring some shells, instead of blanks.

5 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

Im still waiting for your Linkedin and the UE4 titles you have worked on, IceCold.

I just now, sent you a DM in good faith, please don't share with the community. 

I can't speak from experience but I feel like leaning so heavily on Steam numbers and statistics doesn't paint an accurate picture. 

6 minutes ago, Super Mighty G said:

I can't speak from experience but I feel like leaning so heavily on Steam numbers and statistics doesn't paint an accurate picture. 

It turns the conversation more tangible then subjective, and is a decent metric for how many consumers enjoyed the singleplayer experience. Steam Spy has Doom Eternal customers for PC around 5 million players.

When you have 88% of your player base(4,400,000 people) complete the first level of your game, but only 1,800,000 people complete the entire game, the question is why 2,600,000 people didn't complete the entire game.

Was it too boring? Was the story bad? Was the gameplay too complicated? I suspect id software sent out that survey to answer that very question. It takes a lot of time and money to develop a singleplayer experience, and if only 37% of consumers finish the entire game, the worry from management is player retention for the next title. 

10 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

Just because you listed other games that also have low campaign completion rates doesn't mean anything. It's not a good thing when less then half of your player base completes your game.

I'm really not sure how you're coming to that conclusion. I provided 18 examples of positively received games with below 50% completion rates. If you believe developers would be concerned about a below 50% completion rate, then you need to provide examples of popular games with +50% completion rates because I wasn't able to find anything. From the evidence I provided, the majority of people don't finish the games they start.

10 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

Were did you get these numbers? SteamSpy has Dishonored at 150 CCU today and Dishonored 2 at over a 1000 CCU today, and it looks like this has been pretty proportional for the last month.

SteamCharts. The confusion comes from because you actually linked to a standalone expansion (Death of the Outsider), and not the first game. This would be SteamSpy's link to the first Dishonored: https://steamspy.com/app/205100

10 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

So to clarify, in the game industry, if your CCU is under 1000, your game is considered "dead". That might as well be a CCU of near zero.

We weren't discussing longevity of game titles though, we were discussing the ratio of users between game sequels. If there are 50 concurrent users playing Game Part A and 700 concurrent users playing Game Part B, that's still a significant difference even if both games would be considered "dead".

In fact, the "deadness" of games isn't really relevant here at all since we're mostly discussing singleplayer games that were launched several years ago anyways, most of which were successful enough to later justify new entries.

18 minutes ago, AtimZarr1 said:

I'm really not sure how you're coming to that conclusion. I provided 18 examples of positively received games with below 50% completion rates. If you believe developers would be concerned about a below 50% completion rate, then you need to provide examples of popular games with +50% completion rates because I wasn't able to find anything. From the evidence I provided, the majority of people don't finish the games they start.

That's a huge issue from a development standpoint, and maybe you don't understand how much of an issue that is. If your going to justify a multi-million title, you don't just look at revenue, you look at various other data points and develop a heuristic for potential player retention for a sequal. You can't go indefinitely with players not completing the entire game, players will eventually stopping buying. If only a small percentage complete the entire game, that plays into the heuristic I mentioned previously, and the people with the purse strings will demand some action going forward if more money is going to be allocated to a new project. That's how this works.

Quote

SteamCharts. The confusion comes from because you actually linked to a standalone expansion (Death of the Outsider), and not the first game. This would be SteamSpy's link to the first Dishonored: https://steamspy.com/app/205100

Fair point, so out of your 18 examples you have two valid ones, even though Tomb Raider is a borderline bad example, I should go more into that at some point, but I don't have time at the moment.

Quote

We weren't discussing longevity of game titles though, we were discussing the ratio of users between game sequels

Parts of this discussion is about longevity of previous prequals being a heuristic for determining player retention. 

Quote

In fact, the "deadness" of games isn't really relevant here at all

That's not really true. A dead game is a dead game, how many more players any title in a dead series has over another, doesn't factor into the heuristic of "should we spend lots of money to make a new game in this series". You have to use other data points to determine if a new game will make money or not.

So lets sum this because I feel we've had quite a few different discussions:

* Doom Eternal added platforming, Ooze and Ammo starving mechanics that weren't in Doom 2016. This seemingly created a additional 4% of players completing the campaign. 

* There is a delta of 2,600,000 users that completed the initial mission but didn't complete the entire campaign.

* There are players who are vocally complaining about the additional mechanics.

* Id Software sent out a survey about Doom Eternal, presumably this means they are asking themselves the same questions were talking about here.

I think the survey came out because of some of the "controversial" new mechanics in Doom Eternal and they are trying to figure out what to do to ensure player retention for the next title. If the next Doom iteration has those "controversial" mechanics removed, that means enough players complained in the survey, and they were worried about player retention. 

The only way to know who's right in this conversation is to see what happens with the next Doom title. I look at the public data one way, you look at it another, but there was enough of a scare about retention, that id software sent out a survey, and the next doom game, I'm willing to bet, will be heavily influenced by the survey they send out. 

I'm really unhappy about the direction id Software took with TAG 1 and continued in SGN ML.

Before, UV provided a challenging experience for experienced FPS players. Nightmare was for professionals or UV players who got used to their difficulty and were looking for a new challenge. UN was for professionals who trained hard, had lots of experience and were willing to master almost impossible encounters with rock, papers, scissors like mechanics combined with impressive movement and targeting skills.

This changed with TAG 1 and even got harder with SGN ML. Encounters like the 2 Tyrants + Doomhunter + some others aren't possible on UV anymore, except you are willing to learn rock scissors strategies for these encounters. I finally lowered the difficulty to HMP but now the arenas are way to easy. There is no challenge anymore. With TAG 1 and especially SGN ML I'm now forced to learn the most effective combination for each of these special encounters, if I want to continue on UV. But that's not fun anymore.

I loved Eternal because of the arena fights. They provided a different experience every time I started a new campaign. This is now gone. I walk in the 2 Tyrant + Doomhunter room? I perform step 1, 2, 3. I walk into the acid with 2 Marauders? I perform 4, 5, 6. 3 This might be fun for some, but for me as an "experienced casual gamer" it's not fun anymore. It takes away the freedom I loved in Doom 2016 and Eternal. 

I now restarted Eternals main campaign. I enjoy every arena which doesn't force me into rock paper scissors moves. I'm a bit sad id Software decided to target the DLCs and new master levels at hardcore gamers. Maybe the experienced casual gamers don't play Eternal anymore and it's good id Software now raises the difficulty, who knows.

14 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

* Doom Eternal added platforming, Ooze and Ammo starving mechanics that weren't in Doom 2016. This seemingly created a additional 4% of players completing the campaign. 

How do you arrive to that conclusion? There are way too many variables to justify that 4% more.

15 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

and if only 37% of consumers finish the entire game, the worry from management is player retention for the next title. 

Yes, but compared to what? You can make the assumption that these are bad numbers if you have the "retention" mean from other similar games. Maybe they are regular numbers.

20 hours ago, icecoldduke said:

So lets sum this because I feel we've had quite a few different discussions:

 

* Doom Eternal added platforming, Ooze and Ammo starving mechanics that weren't in Doom 2016. This seemingly created a additional 4% of players completing the campaign. 

* There is a delta of 2,600,000 users that completed the initial mission but didn't complete the entire campaign.

* There are players who are vocally complaining about the additional mechanics.

* Id Software sent out a survey about Doom Eternal, presumably this means they are asking themselves the same questions were talking about here.

 

I think the survey came out because of some of the "controversial" new mechanics in Doom Eternal and they are trying to figure out what to do to ensure player retention for the next title. If the next Doom iteration has those "controversial" mechanics removed, that means enough players complained in the survey, and they were worried about player retention. 

 

The only way to know who's right in this conversation is to see what happens with the next Doom title. I look at the public data one way, you look at it another, but there was enough of a scare about retention, that id software sent out a survey, and the next doom game, I'm willing to bet, will be heavily influenced by the survey they send out. 

 

You said the steam numbers helped make the conversation more tangible yet you're basing this entire hypothesis on it. If you're going to make this assertion I argue that more data is needed. 

You also have to keep in mind that unlike DOOM 2016, where every PC copy uses Steam, DOOM Eternal is also on Bethesda.net (which is what every retail unit and third-party key site provides codes for), and recently was also released on Xbox Game Pass (and subsequently the Microsoft Store).

Now, those platforms don't have stats AFAIK, but at the very least the concurrent player count is likely significantly higher than just what Steam provides, all things considered.

43 minutes ago, chemo said:

You also have to keep in mind that unlike DOOM 2016, where every PC copy uses Steam, DOOM Eternal is also on Bethesda.net (which is what every retail unit and third-party key site provides codes for), and recently was also released on Xbox Game Pass (and subsequently the Microsoft Store).

 

Now, those platforms don't have stats AFAIK, but at the very least the concurrent player count is likely significantly higher than just what Steam provides, all things considered.

We can go for consoles sales, but don't know if there are archivement progress, in the years of xbox 360 there's was a page that's show you, but dont know about now, but yeah, we can't prove if his afirmation it's correct without more data, looking how much was talked of eternal instead of 2016 in the next months prior releases, i trink more people care about eternal than was with 2016.

9 hours ago, Martin-CAI said:

Yes, but compared to what? You can make the assumption that these are bad numbers if you have the "retention" mean from other similar games. Maybe they are regular numbers.

These numbers are very concerning to people with the pursue strings, have you have sat in and participated in these kind of conversations? I have, it's never fun, and the people with the money are truly obsessed with these kind of numbers, even if you aren't. 

Quote

You said the steam numbers helped make the conversation more tangible yet you're basing this entire hypothesis on it. If you're going to make this assertion I argue that more data is needed. 

Obviously id software agrees, hence they sent out the survey, and we'll know for certain the end result when the next Doom title gets announced, so we'll see whos correct then :)

Quote

we can't prove if his afirmation it's correct without more data, looking how much was talked of eternal instead of 2016 in the next months prior releases, i trink more people care about eternal than was with 2016.

That doesn't prove anything. 

Let me update my critique. I'm replaying Eternal, I finally got the infinite ammo cheat, and I'm replaying some levels on UV with the ammo cheat enabled, and I think that's one of my biggest issues with the game: ammo starving. The encounters for me, require too fast of reflexes for me to worry about which gun I'm using. Obviously certain monsters take more damage with certain weapons, which is fine, but I can't concentrate on my ammo counter which always is at near zero, and everything else going on. 

If they just had 4x the ammo or a mode that allowed you to just play the entire game with infinite ammo, I'd be a more happy customer, even with the platforming I think.   

This has been said before, but if you participate in the gameplay loop you should not have ammo problems. Whether it's bad or not is subjective, but if you refuse to use your tools you will have a bad time.

I cant wait for the next DLC where we get 3 Marauders and find this conversation restart all over again.

With how they ramped up the difficulty in the DLCs and new Slayers Gates, id knows the repercussions of making their game Casual unfriendly. Drop offs  in player numbers are to be expected and they found their niche in players who can actually suck it up and get better at the game.

I dont think they're gonna need an armchair analyst to crunch numbers for them.

But thats my take on it. We'll what direction id takes this on the next set of DLC.