Wolf ran on Rage's idT5. The PC version was locked at 60 (the absolute dumbest thing a dev can do for a PC version)...and suffered a lot of what id Tech engine's have since Quake III's.

Carmack, while brilliant, became notorious for these issues over the past 15 years. Insisting on small teams, developing everything in house, etc. Doom 3's engine ran great on PC, but that was also a point where PC hardware was all over the place. Rage, and its engine, took too long to release, and didn't scale well with some of the bigger changes to higher end PC hardware that came around the same time. The same issues remained in both the new order and the old blood. Tech 5 was very much an engine thats biggest benefit was resource management on weak hardware (the PS3/360), and did very little in terms of harnessing what higher end PC parts could manage.

Carmack, and his practices, left during initial development of id Tech 6 (rumored to be related to Bethesda canning his CoD clone he wanted the new Doom to be)...and it seems those that took over managed to do what Carmack struggled with. It rings out high end PC hardware, and can get a ton out of both consoles...the best of both worlds.

Reply to Kleptic,, good point bringing up using ID Tech 5 to run on PS3 / X360 . I bought RAGE and 'Wolfenstein New Order' for PS3 . As far gameplay mechanics go, RAGE and 'Wolfenstein New Order' were the 2 smoothest games i played on my PS3 and both running at 60Fps.

As much as it pains me to say it, there seems to be a consensus that John Carmack was causing more problems than he could solve. Rage was a mess from a technical perspective while the new Doom runs smooth as butter. Also, around the time Doom was rebooted, Carmack and many id veterans left the company, and it must have been for the best if the latest Doom game is any indication.

yeah a weaker PC will manage Doom better than the newer Wolfenstein games...that is what this article is about, not that Doom simply 'looks better'...

Sure but the game is still 1-2 years newer of course they are going to get things running more smoothly.

Again...I don't really understand what you are talking about, and I think you're missing how newer video games typically work in the PC environment.

BF4 came exactly 2 years after BF3...BF4 had a lot more effects and 'stuff' implemented into it. A weaker PC would run BF3 better than BF4 because of this. This is commonly what happens, newer games have higher quality visuals, and typically require more powerful hardware to get the most out of. The same PC usually runs newer games...worse...than older games...

Wolfenstien the New Order and The Old Blood are uncommon in this case in relation to Doom. Doom looks significantly better, is A LOT bigger, and has a lot more going on at any given moment...yet, utilizes hardware resources better...The same PC from a few years ago will run Doom BETTER than it would either Wolf game, even though the wolf games are technically inferior in visuals and scale....that is not common, that is not something that happens often...

you're acting like it is normal for the same PC to run Crysis 3 better than Crysis 1 or 2...it almost never works like that...this is a bizarre outlier.

The games you mentioned are not from AAA developers. Wolfenstein likely had a budget that was probably as big as all those games you mentioned combined. I'm not knocking the new wave of retro shooters. I absolutely love them (I think some get much higher review scores than they deserve though). I just really wouldn't describe Wolfenstein as purely a boomer shooter based on the relatively cohesive story, with cut scenes and is fully voice acted. Full set piece moments.

AA development seems to be focused keeping the single player solo experience alive. But the big developers are only concerned about the MTX and milking players who enjoy multiplayer.

The age of AA shooters. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. I like less expense, shorter games.