Quantcast
Connect with us

Editorials

Is the New ‘Doom’ Going to be Any Good?

Published

on

We are t-minus just a few days until the official release of id Software’s reboot(?) of DOOM, the hyper violent shooter that, let’s be honest, if you’re on this site, you clearly know and love (or loathe).

The team at id has been out front with the game, showing it off at every possible opportunity, including a few recent high-profile demos. To be completely frank, the game looks amazing. The tech is, bar none, some of the most impressive seen anywhere, so the performance aspects of the game are not in question. The game was unleashed at a staggering 200 frames-per-second on an Nvidia GTX 1080 in a video captured by PC Gamer, and it looks, well, amazing.

And no question: DOOM is a storied series. It was a mega cash crop for id in the 90s, when it brought blazing-fast gameplay to the PC and beyond. Not just that, it also revolutionized what multiplayer could be.

However, we are twenty-three years removed from the original release — sorry; I meant TWENTY-THREE YEARS! — and the design decisions that made the original game special then are not necessarily what bring people to first-person shooters today. In fact, we are twelve years removed from the last proper DOOM game — the BFG Edition came out in 2012 — and the landscape for shooters has changed. Like plenty of people, I remember it as a hyper-fast shooter with an arena-based multiplayer component. For me, it’s just was DOOM is.

Some telltale signs of a troubled launch are beginning to show through the veneer of the highly-glossed visual appearance of the newest entry in the series. For example, the reaction to the DOOM open beta was less than enthusiastic. It wasn’t overwhelmingly hated, though a glaring majority found myriad problems with the game: loadouts, generic multiplayer, rough controls. The list goes on and on. It came off like a shooter you’d find being released with a guy named Master Chief or…whatever the characters in Call of Duty are called.

Now, I must, at this point, offer a very specific caveat: This might all just be fan-based outrage, a sense of nostalgia gone overboard, but there does seem to be something slightly…off about the new game, doesn’t there? There are plenty of monsters and whatnot, but it just doesn’t feel like DOOM, for some reason. Or maybe it’s hard to know what that should look like. Should there be an RPG-like upgrade system for the player? Are the finishers laid out in last year’s E3 presentation really the way to go for a series that needs to re-establish itself? What if the emphasis is on new-fangled gimmicks, instead of what made DOOM great?

It’s also easy to look back at previous successes to find examples of how to do a sequel / reboot right. Two years ago, Wolfenstein: The New Order surprised audiences with a streamlined but kick-ass throwback to the games of yore. While a few ameliorative aspects updated the game’s mechanics, it still felt like what players wanted a Wolfenstein game to feel like.

However, the expectations for a Wolfenstein sequel were low, at best. DOOM carries with it a cultural cache reserved only for the highest of echelons. And the complaints aren’t complete unfounded, either. The most damning appears to be linking the reboot to other first-person shooters, the grandchildren of the original FPS.

Certain Affinity, known for developing the multiplayer for Halo: The Master Chief Collection, Call of Duty: Ghosts, and Halo 4, is working on the DOOM multiplayer. Those who played the open beta complained that it played like a generic shooter, which is probably the worst thing you could say about this game. Eurogamer’s Ian Higton had this to say:

Rather than feeling like a throwback to days of old, the sad fact is Doom feels like a generic first-person shooter wearing a Doom skin. id has tried its best to appeal to two markets by adding modern mechanics to an arena shooter, but by doing so its [sic] alienated its core audience and produced a shooter modern gamers will find mediocre at best.

Ouch.

As if that weren’t enough, DOOM review copies won’t be available until launch day, on Friday. Not that it definitely means that the game is going to review poorly, but that’s been a depressing trend for games we’ve been excited about recently. Last week, Bethesda — the game’s publisher — released a statement explaining why they wouldn’t be providing copies before day and date:

DOOM is a robust game comprised of a single-player campaign, online multiplayer, and SnapMap. We believe all three elements are important parts of the complete DOOM experience, and are meant to be experienced as part of a complete package. The game’s SnapMap and multiplayer modes both require access to a server that won’t be live prior to launch, review copies will arrive on launch day

Granted, some fully broken games have been released recently, ones whose online presences were completely broken on the day of release, so it kind of sounds feasible, but then again, it’s almost certainly written in indecipherable PR-speak, so there’s no way to know for sure. Truth be told, it doesn’t bode very well for this, one of our favorite horror-shooter series of all time.

In a weird, almost ironic twist, series co-creator John Romero recently posted news of a Kickstarter that’s on hold until a playable demo is ready. It seems like the time for DOOM may be now, but it may also be a time for us to be given a hard look at what a series long in the tooth looks like when it can’t make the leap to modern consoles / PCs.

Speculation can just be that, at this point: speculation. With some pretty high-profile games going through very public growing pains / failures, it’s easy to begin lobbing grenades at this one. Still, id and Bethesda are finding themselves follwing the ‘middling review’ blueprint to a T, and I can’t help but hope that my worst fears here are wrong. We’ll find out on Friday.

BD2016_YTBD2016_ST

19 Comments

Editorials

Before ‘The Blair Witch Project’, ‘Alien Autopsy’ Showed How Real Found Footage Could Feel

Published

on

Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction

The line separating artist from con man is a lot thinner than you might initially believe. While I think we can all agree that lying for the sake of profit is actively malicious behavior, isn’t it also true that the faux documentary aspect of The Blair Witch Project is half the reason why that film became such a cultural phenomenon? After all, if there’s one thing filmmakers have in common with stage magicians, it’s that misleading and misdirecting audiences is simply part of the job.

That’s why I’ve developed a habit of mostly ignoring the moral quandaries behind many of film and television’s biggest “hoaxes” in favor of appreciating the narrative elements that drive productions like Mermaids: The Body Found and even Animal Planet’s highly underrated The Cannibal in the Jungle. However, if there’s a definitive case of a highly publicized broadcast fooling the world into taking it seriously, it has to be Fox’s infamous 1995 TV special Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction.

It’s been over three decades since that eerie footage first haunted television screens right at the peak of the ’90s ufology craze, and in that time, the video has taken on a life of its own. From countless parodies and references in everything from The X-Files to Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater (as well as John Dower’s recently released tell-all documentary The Alien Autopsy Scandal, which I’d highly recommend to genre fans everywhere), there’s no denying the legacy of the Alien Autopsy video. However, I rarely see the tape discussed as what it truly is: a highly convincing found footage film directed by a passionate stage magician and brought to life by masterful practical effects work.

That’s why I’d like to invite readers to join me on a deep dive into one of the most infamous broadcasts of all time in an attempt to reevaluate the footage as a fascinating narrative experience rather than a complete hoax.

The TV Special That Convinced Millions It Was Real

Ray Santilli next to Extraterrestrial replica in ‘The Alien Autopsy Scandal’

For starters, regardless of whether or not you believe that there was in fact an extraterrestrial crash in Roswell during the summer of 1947 and that some form of autopsy was performed on the victims, the producers behind the black & white recordings, Ray Santilli and Gary Shoefield, insist that their video was a “restoration.” Though I’d argue that the proper word is “remake”of genuine footage that was too damaged to air on television. That’s why the duo went on to recruit filmmaker and eccentric magician Spyros Melaris and sculptor/monster designer John Humphreys to bring their version of the autopsy to life and sell it to the highest bidder.

This is where the story of the Alien Autopsy as a narrative experience really begins. Melaris claims that his approach to the faux recording consisted of striving for extreme period accuracy in both shooting equipment and setting while also planting subtle details that would initially seem like mistakes but could later be revealed to actually fit the time period. That being said, the filmmaker was under the impression that the short would be released for free as a PR stunt, with the team later producing and selling an informative documentary chronicling exactly how the footage was faked and commenting on how easy it is to manipulate public perception with a good old-fashioned magic trick.

This obviously isn’t how things went down, and that’s likely the reason why Melaris has since distanced himself from everyone else involved with the project. Yet, no amount of behind-the-scenes drama can undermine the genuine effort that went into making the short as impressive as it is. From the sourcing of real animal organs from a local butcher to make the organic part of the creature more lifelike to the highly detailed sculpt that made use of a hollowed-out underlayer that could be filled with fake blood and assorted viscera, there’s a reason why so many Hollywood specialists are still impressed with the artistry on display here.

Of course, the believability is only half the story, as I think that the best part of the autopsy is how Melaris builds on the existing tension by obscuring certain details and often embracing the chaos of what a real examination of extraterrestrial life could feel like. The camera often goes out of focus at just the right time to make certain effects hit even harder, and we can only speculate as to what the hazmat-suited doctors are gesticulating about during the operation. There’s a real air of mystery to the whole thing that almost makes it feel like a cosmically terrifying, cursed film containing forbidden knowledge that civilians were never meant to see.

So when Fox’s Fact or Fiction brings in the specialists to comment on the film and its otherworldly subject, it’s no surprise that we end up with one of the most memorable mockumentaries of all time – albeit one where the participants are unaware that the footage they’re commenting on is basically a large-scale practical joke. A joke that the network was obviously in on, as many participants claim that the TV special cut out significant portions where guests point out that they believe the footage to be an elaborate hoax.

The Lasting Impact of the Hoax Turned Cultural Event

Regardless, I remember going to bed terrified after watching reruns of the special and thinking about the respected pathologist who claimed that the body was almost certainly inhuman, with even effects maestro Stan Winston commenting on how difficult it would be to recreate some of these visuals through practical puppetry. That’s not even mentioning Jonathan Frakes’ dramatic hyping up of the disturbing imagery as if he was talking about the tape from The Ring, with his spooky demeanor here likely being responsible for his later role as the host of Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction a few years later.

Personally, I’d argue that the Alien Autopsy phenomenon had just as much of an impact on me as a horror fan as The Blair Witch Project, a film that was almost certainly influenced by the success of this immensely popular hoax (to the point where they even produced their own TV special commenting on Heather’s found footage). Even if Fox didn’t intend to produce a narrative feature about the aftermath of the Roswell crash, the end product still holds up remarkably well as a highly entertaining mockumentary exploring the idea that we may not be alone in the universe.

While neither Santilli nor the rest of the production team has ever commented on this, I also think it’s very likely that the idea of a faux Alien Autopsy could have been influenced by Dean Alioto’s The McPherson Tape/UFO Abduction. I’ve already written about how this granddaddy of found footage was co-opted by rogue ufologists who began selling bootlegs of the tape at conventions as if it were real evidence of a close encounter, so it’s not that much of a stretch to imagine that Santilli and company could have heard about this phenomenon and been inspired to come up with their own highly profitable hoax.

At the end of the day, it’s unlikely that the Alien Autopsy film is recreating any real footage from Roswell, but I can still appreciate the short and the accompanying television event as a standalone horror story that still influences the way we see found footage to this very day.

After all, the possibility that something could be real is often much scarier than finding out for sure – and that’s why I think Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction is still worth revisiting three decades down the line.

Continue Reading