Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ahoy00:00 Introduction00:50 How was DOOM originally described?02:20 DOOM clones04:33 Quake Killers6:06 A hypothetical questi...
This video is made by Ahoy (quality content). And it’s a fairly short video (around 10min) with an interesting conclusion. I highly suggest you watch it.
I see the dismissiveness as a reaction to the title clickbait/burying the lede. I get that this is how you have to do video titles on YouTube to get views, but a sentence or two about what the video’s actual premise is in the post body would have gone a long way to interest people who are, understandably IMO, a bit apathetic towards headlines like this.
I know what you’re thinking – it’s a stupid question, it’s an FPS. It’s the definitive FPS. And it’s a fair point. DOOM ticks all the boxes required for a reasonable definition of a first person shooter. It’s presented from a first-person perspective, and shooting the bad guys is a key part of it. But the FPS genre didn’t exist when DOOM was released. The term “first person shooter” wasn’t common until a few years later.
So what genre was DOOM? How was it originally described?
Edit I’ve now understood that quoting most of the video’s opening salvo has unfortunately misrepresented the video’s contents to the people who are still trying to leave comments without actually watching it. It’s a video about what DOOM’s genre is and what DOOM’s genre was, not only the latter. The title looks clickbait-y but is honestly pretty accurate regarding the subject of the video.
I have watched the video. I think it’s Stuart’s worst.
The thesis statement is more like “We now call Doom an FPS, but that term really didn’t come about until Half Life, so what did they call Doom at the time?” Which would have been a quick aside in another video, but here it’s the whole thing. I don’t think there’s enough meat there for a whole video, and the “obviously, but what I’m really getting at is…” title isn’t great.
Given a choice, I’m going to rewatch Chicken-o-meter instead of this video.
He’s not saying Doom was the first FPS, he’s saying the term “First Person Shooter” didn’t exist yet to describe the few games it would apply to at the time.
Then the title should’ve said that… But it’s asking what the current genre is in the title (uses word “is”), presumably to appeal to the “Boomer shooter” vs “FPS” debate, when that’s not what the video is about at all.
A better title would be: “What genre was Doom? Hint: FPS didn’t exist yet.” Or even just “What genre was Doom originally?” Neither is click-baity or overly long.
…ye gads, something about the low-framerate EGA + flat topology in catacombs 3D gave me ferocious motion sickness at the time; even looking at screenshots still makes me feel queasy to this day…
The projection’s also wrong. Things in the background move faster when you turn. Essentially it’s a third-person camera with an invisible protagonist. The camera swings around behind you, and stuff appears and disappears when it shouldn’t.
Weirdly, another game did the opposite. Die Hard by Dynamix (not the other hundred licensed titles with the same name) is a third-person shooter with very dungeon-crawler movement but smooth turning animation. Unfortunately that animation shows your character occupying the space in front of you. So you don’t turn, you sort of shuffle around a little circle.
Except what’s really happening is that it’s a first-person perspective, and John McClane is your gun.
I understand it might be an interesting video on Doom being the trailblazer of its genre, but you give me a simple dumb question as the title of your video and I’ll give it a snarky dumb answer every time.
If this is offending you as a clickbait title, I fear for your long term survival on the internet. This is a downright polite title compared to most of what you’d see on YouTube. Count your blessings.
It is true, every time I have opened YouTube, I have died.
I now realise this video’s existence is my one true blessing and will scoot post haste to the Patreon listed and hand over all of my worldly possessions as penance.
The title used “is.” They should’ve said, “What genre was Doom? Hint: FPS wasn’t a genre yet.” It’s a little more wordy, but I probably would’ve watched it. I’m not watching this out of principle because the title sucks, and I don’t want to reward that.
My quote is not the only content of the video; I’ve just included most of the introduction. The 13:23 long video has the following chapter markers:
00:00 Introduction
00:50 How was DOOM originally described?
02:20 DOOM clones
04:33 Quake Killers
6:06 A hypothetical question
12:05 Conclusion
Only the first half of the video is accurately described by your suggested title. The video as a whole is described by the existing title with reasonable accuracy. It’s not a bait-and-switch: the video also discusses what genre DOOM is, not only what genre DOOM was.
It seems that you (and many others) have used a heuristic of “clickbait-y sounding titles don’t accurately describe the contents of videos” and left corresponding comments. Although often accurate, that heuristic has failed in this instance.
I ended up watching it, and I thought it was generally just okay. Basically, here’s the tldr from what I remember:
Doom was originally a “virtual reality adventure” game - I guess that was the terminology for “first person” game back in the early 90s
Doom clone became a thing for a couple years until Quake came along, at which point “Quake killer” was the term used; just prior to this, “first person shoot’em up” was used
Some random discussion about what Doom would’ve been called if it didn’t get popular - not sure what that speculation is worth imo, maybe trying to discard biases?
conclusion that Doom was actually an action RPG? Because it has similar gameplay as gauntlet? Gauntlet was a hack and slash dungeon crawler, not an action RPG, so the proper conclusion imo is “first person shoot’em up dungeon crawler,” the “action RPG” argument came out of left field
So that’s my take. I don’t think it was a particularly noteworthy watch, and I’m not particularly motivated to subscribe to watch more. It was okay though, so I’m not going to avoid the channel or anything.
My cup overfloweth with impractical and obscure yet mildly interesting tidbits. In any case, laws are made to be broken, so I think you’re all good. (:
I share your frustration, but YouTube offers you a choice: use honest titles and suffer at the hands of the algorithm, or use clickbait and get access to a much wider audience.
If the creator needs to use clickbait in order to have the funding to produce higher quality videos, I find it hard to hold them personally responsible for the systemic issues of the platform.
And that’s fine, I just won’t watch those videos. The channels I tend to watch have pretty clear titles, e.g. Gamer’s Nexus and Digital Foundry are awesome.
What about the title is clickbaity? There’s no “the answer is going to surprise you”, no surprised face in the thumbnail, no “you won’t believe what happened next”. The video examines the question in the title.
FPS. Next question.
This video is made by Ahoy (quality content). And it’s a fairly short video (around 10min) with an interesting conclusion. I highly suggest you watch it.
I see the dismissiveness as a reaction to the title clickbait/burying the lede. I get that this is how you have to do video titles on YouTube to get views, but a sentence or two about what the video’s actual premise is in the post body would have gone a long way to interest people who are, understandably IMO, a bit apathetic towards headlines like this.
Then let’s transcribe part of the opening:
Edit I’ve now understood that quoting most of the video’s opening salvo has unfortunately misrepresented the video’s contents to the people who are still trying to leave comments without actually watching it. It’s a video about what DOOM’s genre is and what DOOM’s genre was, not only the latter. The title looks clickbait-y but is honestly pretty accurate regarding the subject of the video.
Wolfenstein…
People arguing with the video without having watched it lmao
I have watched the video. I think it’s Stuart’s worst.
The thesis statement is more like “We now call Doom an FPS, but that term really didn’t come about until Half Life, so what did they call Doom at the time?” Which would have been a quick aside in another video, but here it’s the whole thing. I don’t think there’s enough meat there for a whole video, and the “obviously, but what I’m really getting at is…” title isn’t great.
Given a choice, I’m going to rewatch Chicken-o-meter instead of this video.
He’s not saying Doom was the first FPS, he’s saying the term “First Person Shooter” didn’t exist yet to describe the few games it would apply to at the time.
Then the title should’ve said that… But it’s asking what the current genre is in the title (uses word “is”), presumably to appeal to the “Boomer shooter” vs “FPS” debate, when that’s not what the video is about at all.
A better title would be: “What genre was Doom? Hint: FPS didn’t exist yet.” Or even just “What genre was Doom originally?” Neither is click-baity or overly long.
The video covers that and Catacomb 3-D, which I don’t remember hearing about before but it looks like they released it half a year earlier.
…ye gads, something about the low-framerate EGA + flat topology in catacombs 3D gave me ferocious motion sickness at the time; even looking at screenshots still makes me feel queasy to this day…
(never had that problem with ultima underworld)
The projection’s also wrong. Things in the background move faster when you turn. Essentially it’s a third-person camera with an invisible protagonist. The camera swings around behind you, and stuff appears and disappears when it shouldn’t.
Weirdly, another game did the opposite. Die Hard by Dynamix (not the other hundred licensed titles with the same name) is a third-person shooter with very dungeon-crawler movement but smooth turning animation. Unfortunately that animation shows your character occupying the space in front of you. So you don’t turn, you sort of shuffle around a little circle.
Except what’s really happening is that it’s a first-person perspective, and John McClane is your gun.
…ah, that explains it!..no other EGA games affected me the same way…
The answer is still FPS.
I understand it might be an interesting video on Doom being the trailblazer of its genre, but you give me a simple dumb question as the title of your video and I’ll give it a snarky dumb answer every time.
If this is offending you as a clickbait title, I fear for your long term survival on the internet. This is a downright polite title compared to most of what you’d see on YouTube. Count your blessings.
It is true, every time I have opened YouTube, I have died.
I now realise this video’s existence is my one true blessing and will scoot post haste to the Patreon listed and hand over all of my worldly possessions as penance.
The title used “is.” They should’ve said, “What genre was Doom? Hint: FPS wasn’t a genre yet.” It’s a little more wordy, but I probably would’ve watched it. I’m not watching this out of principle because the title sucks, and I don’t want to reward that.
My quote is not the only content of the video; I’ve just included most of the introduction. The 13:23 long video has the following chapter markers:
00:00 Introduction 00:50 How was DOOM originally described? 02:20 DOOM clones 04:33 Quake Killers 6:06 A hypothetical question 12:05 Conclusion
Only the first half of the video is accurately described by your suggested title. The video as a whole is described by the existing title with reasonable accuracy. It’s not a bait-and-switch: the video also discusses what genre DOOM is, not only what genre DOOM was.
It seems that you (and many others) have used a heuristic of “clickbait-y sounding titles don’t accurately describe the contents of videos” and left corresponding comments. Although often accurate, that heuristic has failed in this instance.
I ended up watching it, and I thought it was generally just okay. Basically, here’s the tldr from what I remember:
So that’s my take. I don’t think it was a particularly noteworthy watch, and I’m not particularly motivated to subscribe to watch more. It was okay though, so I’m not going to avoid the channel or anything.
According to Betteridge’s law, the answer is “No.”
I had to look up Bettridge’s law, which was more effort than I took with the original post. Excellent work! I have to agree now and change my answer.
My cup overfloweth with impractical and obscure yet mildly interesting tidbits. In any case, laws are made to be broken, so I think you’re all good. (:
Someone didnt watch the video
Why watch a video with such a pointlessly clickbait title?
Because it is a good video by a channel that makes quality game related content.
Its not the fault of a channel that google made an atrocious sorting algorithm.
They could have made the title about the fact that FPS wasn’t a term at the time instead of using a question that is worded in the present tense.
“What genre was Doom when it was released”
I share your frustration, but YouTube offers you a choice: use honest titles and suffer at the hands of the algorithm, or use clickbait and get access to a much wider audience.
If the creator needs to use clickbait in order to have the funding to produce higher quality videos, I find it hard to hold them personally responsible for the systemic issues of the platform.
And that’s fine, I just won’t watch those videos. The channels I tend to watch have pretty clear titles, e.g. Gamer’s Nexus and Digital Foundry are awesome.
I’ll take this one: Wolfenstein Clone.
It makes no sense to call something a clone when it was made by the same studio that made the original. Very few wanted to call quake a doom clone.
It’s an interesting and entertaining video. That was the reason for me at least
How did you know that it would be entertaining before watching the video?
What the hell is the passage of time anyway?
It’s from Ahoy, that’s how I knew
Now imagine someone doesn’t have any idea who Ahoy is and you might understand why they wouldn’t want to just watch a video with a clickbait title.
You asked why someone would want to watch it and I answered why I wanted to lol. At no point had I trouble understanding why someone wouldn’t want to
Yup, I’ve never watched one of their videos, and if this is how they make their headlines, I probably never will.
What about the title is clickbaity? There’s no “the answer is going to surprise you”, no surprised face in the thumbnail, no “you won’t believe what happened next”. The video examines the question in the title.