Some people were weeping salty tears over the derailment of another thread so here it is, the only thread where you can argue about Prey vs Prey vs Prey 2.
Which Prey is the best Prey?
- Thread starter Explosive Zombie
- Start date
- Watchers 15
- Clickbait Competition Drama Opinion Poll
Thread: Which Prey is the best Prey?
gameragodzilla
Member
It was entirely political why that happened. Bethesda was gonna publish Prey 2 developed by Human Head Studios. Bethesda wanted to do a hostile takeover of Human Head. It failed and the game was the casualty of that. However, Bethesda retained the name so they slapped it onto that mediocre System Shock wannabe that rightfully flopped shat out by Arkane Studios, simply because they could.
Fuck Bethesda.
Prey 2017 is 100 times better than the boring corridor shooter you're all losing it over, man I didn't want to say much but Jesus the stuff you guys say like this is painful to read.
edited to be less sexy
Cryptek
Japan? I'll pass thanks
- Platforms
Bruh.
I will admit the 2017 game is good too. I love how the aliens are really alien, shadowy beings that feed on souls (well, consciousness but pretty much same thing) and the Apex Typhon is pretty awe inspiring. The final boss is bigger than the entire station you're on.
Honestly, it's some cool shit in its own right and also a shame it will never get a sequel.
But it should have been called something else but Bethesda did that shit on purpose out of spite it seems.
But the original Prey was just full of awesome and did things nobody else at the time had done.
Personally I loved the setting, simple but effective story and everything else about it.
Maybe in another 10 years they'll make another game called Prey that barely has anything to do with this or the original game and then we can be mad together.
gameragodzilla
Member
No it wasn't.
Prey 2017 tries to be System Shock 2, but lacks any interesting lore or worldbuilding to make said space station interesting to explore. I know more about the entire relationship drama between two random lesbians than I do about the main Typhon threat, which is not how System Shock did things. Shit, even Doom 3 has better written lore and that's a goddamn FPS from id Software.
Prey 2006 is a very imaginative and fantastic FPS with a lot of neat ideas. It did portals before Portal. It had gravity walking. It combined Cherokee spiritualism with weird ass Sci Fi shit. Even the basic weapons all had an HR Geiger biomechanical nature to them. The first weapon is essentially your basic scoped assault rifle, however it looks weird and the scope is literally an appendage jumping out and attaching to your eye.
Prey 2017, meanwhile, is a mediocre at best immersive sim. Sure, I can "play my way", but that's literally every immersive sim. I don't praise a game for merely being part of a genre. I judge a game based on how good is it an example of said genre. And since immersive sims also typically have the problem of every individual playstyle not being as refined or well done as a game focusing on that one playstyle (for example, shooting in Prey 2006 is way better than shooting in Prey 2017), it requires the world be interesting and well done for me to want to immerse myself in it. That's what all the different playstyles are all about, as I can choose how I would react to things in the world I've immersed myself in. Hence why the genre is called "immersive sim". And Prey 2017 is godawful at that. Its writing is among some of the worst I've ever experienced in a AAA video game, and given worldbuilding and writing are very important in this genre, that's a massive fuck up.
The same way Bioshock Infinite or Aliens Colonial Marines having bad gunplay make them bad FPS games.
It has great lore and world building, that you noticed more about the two lesbians says more about which head you were using during the game. Doom 3 DOES NOT have better written lore, by the way, that's just patently absurd.
Cherokee spiritualism with weird ass sci-fi shit... so like Turok? Believe it or not, it wasn't the first game to have portals either or gravity walking. The weapons are neat but can you turn into a roll of toilet paper?
That's a lot of words to say "I didn't like the writing/world building", you seem to type a lot of words so it looks like you've made a compelling case, but you haven't because it just boils down to "I like x and not y" without any good backing for why anyone should agree. It's fine for you to like one thing more than another but an explanation helps people see it your way, otherwise your posts are just masturbatory.
Aliens: Colonial Marines was a bad game because of horrendous enemy AI among other issues, the best gunplay ever wouldn't make it engaging to play levels where you can just run past enemies to get to the end. BioShock Infinite as a "bad" game is a huge can of worms but it normally has more to do with how it works as a follow up to BioShock or the basic lesson it attempts to impart, not really how satisfying the gunplay is. In a general sense the combat is less interesting than BioShock 1 because it's more streamlined with less options but the actual gunplay is fine.
gameragodzilla
Member
No it doesn't. I brought up the lesbians precisely because they had more fleshing out than the Typhon. Hell, their audio logs are the only ones that are semi-mandatory. I can tell you about all the different demons, where they came from, their history, their motivations, how they operate, etc. And the demons are just one component of the lore. There's also the ancient civilization and all the archeology shit there. There's the other technologies the UAC was experimenting with, including the weapons, how they work, where the ammo is manufactured from, etc. I can go into great detail about the world of Doom 3. I can't do that with the Typhon or even Talos 1, really. Not anywhere near the same extent.
Yes, but Turok is not as fucked up. And sure, Prey 2006 wasn't the first game to have portals as it was something experimented with map makers for multiplayer for ages. But Prey 2006 was the first game to implement that in a single player campaign and really use it for puzzles. Doubly so since Prey 2006's concepts existed since 1998. It was the other 3D Realms game that was in development hell for a long ass time. As for turning into a roll of toilet paper, I find that far less interesting than having cool guns to use if I'm shooting. Turning into random things is just stealth, but if I want to play a stealth game, I'd rather play Thief or Splinter Cell.
And yes, I don't like the worldbuilding, entirely because there's not much to say about it. All I know about the Typhon is the individual types, the fact that they eat minds, came on a Soviet satellite and TransStar uses them to make Neuromods by harvesting them from death row inmates. There's some interesting details, like the possibility that the Typhon are the reason behind Fermi's Paradox as any sufficiently advanced species gets harvested by them, but Dead Space 3 literally did the same plot point 4 years earlier, and did it much better by giving that plot point the gravitas and weight it deserves.
Gunplay also involves enemy AI, enemy variety, weapon variety, etc. The point is Bioshock Infinite and Aliens Colonial Marines both suck horribly at being shooters, hence why they're a bad example of the genre. That's my point. You have to be good at what you're doing, otherwise it sucks. Sure, Bioshock 1 can get away with meh gunplay that Infinite couldn't because Bioshock 1 is trying to be an exploratory immersive sim. But Bioshock 1 succeeds at that with far more interesting worldbuilding and lore. Prey 2017 does not have that. It says something when everyone, when discussing the writing of Prey 2017, focuses entirely on how it fleshes out the mundane, everyday lives of random people on the station. That is not interesting lore by itself. Sure, they're necessary to ground all the weird shit, but they're not the main lore in and of itself. Doom 3 also has those in the form of a memorable audio log complaining about incompetent employees. He was hilarious, but it equally would've sucked in Doom 3 if his audio logs complaining about each and every stupid employee was a good 25% of the entire audio logs.
I've beaten it 5 times and don't even remember there being lesbians. But I remember stuff like space exploration has advanced as far as it did because of an alternate history where JFK isn't assassinated and I remember the implications for the typhon the ending poses. Each demon having a reason to exist and a lore entry isn't BETTER lore, it's more lore. How much of it matters? Everything in Prey is there to enhance the feeling of the world being real. I'm unsure Doom 3 cared about immersing anyone considering 60% of the game is random walls/doors opening to reveal monsters going BLAH! Which is like... who designed this place this way? I have no doubt you can tell me more about things that don't matter in Doom 3, if it interests you that's nice but it's unclear how any of it truly affects someone playing.
Saying you'd rather play x or y for stealth isn't much different from me saying "If I wanted a shooter I'd play Halo CE or Hald-Life 2 instead of Prey 2006". You used inventive as an argument for Prey 2006 but seem to discount any inventiveness in Prey 2017 because it just serves mechanics you don't want to use, but everything inventive about Prey 2006 was to serve rudimentary puzzles or corridor shooting and I can play other games for shooting and puzzle solving, you see why just saying what else you can play is a weak argument here?
The typhon are amorphous blobs that can change to fit their needs and attack anything on sight. Sometimes there's a lot to why an enemy is what it is and where it came from, sometimes there isn't, with a sequel this may have been explored but in its current state it's not entirely different from other enemies in horror movies/games like zombies where often the explanation never comes. Is Dawn of the Dead a worse movie than 28 Days Later because 28 Days Later explains where the zombies come from? I don't think so. What's interesting about the typhon is what it says about us that we'd try these experiments because power, technology and advancement of the human race can be so important for us we play with fire, and of course with the ending
the idea of being able to teach them empathy is put into play, this made me think of BioShock actually the difference being here you had a choice. Where BioShock judges you for simply following orders (a fun metacommentary on gaming as a whole) this game judges you for things you actually had a choice on, think of the player as the typhon and the ending is an examination of whether or not the player was capable of empathy with beings it knows aren't real, the typhon could be said to have no empathy for humans because THEY'RE NOT REAL, it's a video game.
(hence the cliffhanger ending)
When you say gunplay you shouldn't assume people think you include the AI behavior of enemies, gunplay can just mean how it feels to shoot a gun. BioShock Infinite does not "suck horribly" at being a shooter, for your point to work I'd need to agree with such a statement. Okay now you're talking BioShock 1's world building and lore, you're kind of all over the place here, does Prey need to have the best world building and lore ever? Does your ability to name any game you prefer in those realms nullify it? If so, why doesn't my ability to name games that are superior to Prey 2006 at well... ANYTHING it does nullify that game? Neither game is top of their class. BTW who is everyone when you say that's what people discuss about Prey? Like okay, I try one article and get to this "The more you explore, the more that the mysteries of Talos I and Morgan's identity begin to unravel. It's a deep, well-written tale that tackles themes of existentialism, science going too far, and the dangers of playing God. The best part, however, is that it isn't forced in your face and doesn't get in the way of the gameplay." I do see people bringing up how it makes you feel for other characters through the audio logs and such but that isn't what i'd call detrimental and no one is saying nothing else is interesting, the people I find talking Prey often talk about it as one of the best game worlds they've been in with some of the best immersion. In Doom 3 audio logs like that can be funny but you don't get a whole story out of them and care about people you never met, not really comparable. In Prey I wanted to know more about the typhon, in Doom I never cared to know more, they're demons and evil, big whoop.
QuantumZebra
It’s just basic anatomy
- Platforms
I'm.... gonna have to veto all of this, except the praise for Prey 2006.
Prey 2017 is a superior (but absolutely 180 degree different) game.
The "not enough explanation" thing is a ridiculous argument. So many horror classics both gaming and in other media rely on not knowing wtf is going on or why.
Predator? All we knew about it was it was an alien that crashed and is hunting people. The Thing? Literally the same thing. Aliens? Found planet with weird stuff, guy gets alien baby, boom shitshow.
Sci-Fi horror has its roots in an unseen/unknown anomaly fucking people up. Prey 2017 nails that.
I didn't know the backstory... but that sucks.
Also still I can't get on board w/ the hate for Prey 2017. Arkane is a fantastic studio and the game was the best we've gotten in Sci-Fi horror since DS1.
gameragodzilla
Member
Danielle and Abigail's audio logs are the only ones that are semi-mandatory in order to synthesize a voice command to get past a door. If you collect all the audio logs, it'll make up a good 20% of all of them, which is a lot. Again, it says something when that's what's mandatory and not anything else. And more lore is better lore, as I get to understand more of what's going on and flesh out the cool shit. Of course, you can overexplain it, but Doom 3 does a great job of leaving enough mystery to be realistic. The game doesn't outright tell you that ancient Martians fled to Earth and became humanity's ancestors, only that the scientists speculate it due to the evidence. All of this helps make Doom 3's world feel both alive and interesting. Even the monster closets and random item placements are explained by people being careless, or stealing stuff, or the facility being designed with different maintenance hatches, and the demons themselves modifying said environment as their influence grows. The point is, Doom 3 focuses on the interesting stuff. Prey 2017 does not.
No, because Prey 2006 has elements as a shooter that makes it worth playing as well instead of Halo CE or Half-Life 2. It succeeds at being an FPS title. Stealth in Prey 2017 still functions based on simple line of sight with a bit more verticality or ability to squeeze into certain places by changing into a smaller thing. I mean shit, Duke Nukem 3D had the shrinkers in 1996 and that's an FPS. If you want more intricate stealth, there needs to be more complexity in the mechanics. Thief takes into account not only line of sight, but also lighting, your movement speed, and the amount of noise you make on various different objects. That adds depth. Prey 2017 simply can't add enough depth for every single mechanic because its focus is spread out on various different mechanics all at once. Other games do as well, but they can get away with it because it's not about each individual mechanic being refined, it's about playing a role in said interesting world. But without an interesting world, I just have the ability to switch between a clunky FPS or a simplistic stealth game.
Knowing where the Typhon comes from is more interesting if the game is trying to be an exploratory immersive sim. Dawn of the Dead doesn't need to explain where the zombies come from because it's not trying to be an exploratory, scientific, immersive movie, it's meant to be an allegory to modern consumerism and the like. But if you're gonna be an immersive sim where worldbuilding is important, having that kind of exploration and detail is important. Instead, at most we just get some morality of "oh, we're using these dangerous things on death row inmates, how unethical!" which is a very old Sci Fi evil corporation cliche. I mean shit, even the Doom movie from 2005 had that plot point.
As for the plot point of "teaching empathy to the Typhon" at the end, again, every immersive sim lets you make choices that can influence the story in some way, as well as changing based on your personality and morality. It's typical of any role playing game. The problem is Prey 2017's worldbuilding and immersion is so weak that it ascribes motivations to me that aren't there. I didn't kill Abigail's murderer because I couldn't be bothered, not because I lacked the drive for vengeance. Also, I could still do everything "correctly" and kill everyone at the end anyways because I felt like it. It's not a very good reflection of the player. Again, you can't praise Prey 2017 for merely being part of a genre, it needs to be a good example of said genre. Deus Ex does a far better job reflecting the player's morality based on how you tackle enemies (lethally or non-lethally) as well as your viewpoints on the game's various topics.
I mainly discussed Doom 3 and Dead Space 3 simply to point out that Prey 2017's lore and writing is so bad that a first person shooter and third person shooter did the same things better, making the point that Prey 2006 is a very good FPS while Prey 2017 is a mediocre immersive sim. One is a good example of its genre, the other is a poor example of its genre.
And yes, Bioshock Infinite does suck horribly at being an FPS. The guns are weak, enemies are bullet spongy, the variety in both guns and enemy types are weak, I could go on for hours. Of course, all the point I'm making here is having good worldbuilding in an immersive sim is necessary for said immersive sim to work. I need to be immersed and interested in what's going on, which is what makes all the morality choices and playstyles worthwhile. Without that immersion, there is nothing here. As I said, I just have the option of either playing a clunky FPS or a shallow stealth game.
There's a difference between not giving everything and not getting anything. We still know the Predator are hunters who are bound by honor and not just a mindless killing machine. We saw that when it disabled all its weapons to fight Arnie one on one, giving a lot more depth to the creature and making it more than just a generic horror movie monster. The Thing fully explores the implications of how we'd deal with an alien that can mimic and disguise itself as anything, sowing massive amounts of distrust amongst everyone. It also explores how to test whether someone is a Thing or not, too. Even the Xenomorph gets fleshed out with the implication that it's a bioweapon from the dead Space Jockies, and Aliens explores how they nest and reproduce.
The point is, there's always more to iconic Sci Fi monsters that are interesting over the generic ones that are forgotten about. Again, you don't have to reveal everything, and even the Doom 3 example I always bring up doesn't reveal everything. There's still a lot of mystery. The point, however, is to balance having just enough to really make the antagonist intriguing without revealing too much, because without it, I just default to the most simple, generic form which is they're black goo aliens who eat people. Dangerous, sure, but not any more interesting than your typical dangerous animal, just with some different abilities. And even the plot point of scientists exploiting them for profit is, again, very typical cliche Sci Fi.
All in all, the main point is always worldbuilding, lore and having a reason to explore are core tenants of any immersive sim. If I'm not immersed in the world, I have no reason to care much about what's going on and the entire experience falls apart. Prey 2017 does not have that.
I wouldn't say 2017 is shit but it didn't grab me for whatever reason. 2006 I've only come to recently (as in this thread - I didn't have it back in the day) but the impact is instant. Considering its age that's quite an achievement.
Last edited by a moderator:
gameragodzilla
Member
True, I'm exaggerating out of bitterness, but the long ass posts are me explaining why I found Prey 2017 to be a mediocre immersive sim while Prey 2006 is an excellent FPS. They're entirely different genres, but one is a better example of its genre than the other.
Main reason being Prey 2017's writing and worldbuilding is very uninteresting and not well explored.
Dreamlord
Living the...
- Platforms
I played both games, at the time of their respective release. I enjoyed Prey, it was an interesting game with some nice mechanics. The fact that I still remember scenes from it is to its credit for sure.
Prey 2017 was a very good game and, in my view, a much better game to Prey. You can't really compare them per se, but if I had to, I would certainly give my vote to the second one.
Prey 2017 was a very good game and, in my view, a much better game to Prey. You can't really compare them per se, but if I had to, I would certainly give my vote to the second one.
gameragodzilla
Member
Again, I still don't see why Prey 2017 is good as everything people praise about it is just standard immersive sim stuff. Now granted, immersive sims are unfortunately quite rare these days while FPS titles are a dime a dozen, but I still don't believe in giving praise for a game simply because it's part of a genre. It needs to be a good example of said genre and ultimately even the new Deus Ex games kick its ass in every regard.
Dreamlord
Living the...
- Platforms
Yeah, I don't care one iota about genres etc. I simply enjoyed the game. Nice atmosphere and exploration, I liked the premise and the game mechanics. It was good looking, had some really good areas to explore. The shooting was just ok, but overall, I really enjoyed my time with it.
Honestly I wish they'd gone with a different name. The 2017 game really has nothing to do with the original so why do that? It's just such an odd choice. For the life of me I can't wrap my head around it.
gameragodzilla
Member
Yeah, but you need to play more games if that's the case, because practically every other game in the same genre offers the same experience but better. lol
I admit, I would be less irritated and offended by the game's existence if it had a different name, but I found Dishonored meh as well. Arkane just aren't that great at making immersive sims and they only keep getting attention because they're one of the few devs still doing it.
Oh my God can you just shut up? You're absolutely nauseating with these awful arguments and actually telling people they need to play more games?? Who the Hell do you think you are? I was enjoying the thread, considering a replay of Prey 2006 but got flabbergasted by the shit you were spewing so I apologize for my part in the derail but holy crap dude, just calm the Hell down with your hate for Prey 2017, it's obnoxious and no one wants to get into an essay war with your autism over "the deepest of lore" or some crap. Prey 2017 isn't just praiseworthy to me because it's a "member of its genre", I PREFER IT to Deus Ex and BioShock, I do not like OTHER immersive sims better, I like Prey 2017 BEST. So you can also fuck right off with that argument that it's just doing enough to qualify as one, that's how you feel, stop cramming it down anyone else's throat like it's how they feel.
gameragodzilla
Member
No, I won't. Not until everyone realizes how mediocre Prey 2017 is.
There is nothing it does better than Deus Ex or Bioshock. Sure, you can like it. I even like objectively bad games here or there. But it's objectively not a good example of its genre. Its crappy worldbuildilng cements it as such.
Congrats on being the biggest retard on the forum, it used to be me but you've outdone me.
Dude it's just an opinion. Chill the fuck down.
gameragodzilla
Member
Retarded or not, I'm right. lol
Nah, don't give him too much shit. I'm highly opinionated and I never back down. lol
I'm used to getting shit from people. It's expected.
He's saying it's factual and he needs to convince us all of that fact, if anyone doesn't know what an opinion is it's him, besides him being a retard is just an opinion.
How can you be right if you're contradicting me and I'm right about everything ever? Including the things I change my mind on!
gameragodzilla
Member
Because you're not and I am. lol
More a case of how well the opinion is backed. I explained how Prey 2017 has bad writing and how even the examples other people bring up for keeping mystery in horror still have some extra things to latch onto to make them interesting. Prey 2017 doesn't have any of that, which is why it's writing is so boring.
But hey, I don't agree with the other guy giving you shit. I know I'm a dickhead so getting shit is expected.
You're still wrong, you mistakenly conflate the Thing with Prey and mention that the Thing can turn into anything... it can't... it only mimics living beings. The horror of a random object in a room being a monster is seemingly unique to Prey. Besides the amazing ability to mimic random objects turning a normal office into a haunted house where you can't even trust a styrofoam cup there are other forms the Typhon takes like the Nightmare which are legitimately cool looking and fun to deal with. To me, everything beyond an enemy being "cool looking", "fun to fight" and of course the added spice of thematic depth with how it reflects upon the monsters within us all is just fluff. Knowing the typhon is from planet Xelianian where they harvest Gorgand molecules doesn't in anyway make it better in the game itself. This is why your backing doesn't work for me.
Yeah and so long as he was giving me crap I was fine but telling another poster they should "play more games" because they didn't agree with him was crappy, come at me all you want but there's no reason to be a dick to @Dreamlord
gameragodzilla
Member
My point is The Thing added an air of paranoia and mistrust amongst the cast, which is why it was more interesting than a generic movie monster. When the enemy just turns into a random object rather than a person you supposedly know and trust, it's far less interesting. At that point it's basically prop hunt mixed with jump scares. The monster needs to be more interesting, and part of that is knowing there's more to it than just being a generic alien who wants to eat things. That's no more interesting than any dangerous animal.
By contrast, the demons in Doom 3 are literal demons from Hell, supernatural and evil, who want to consume your soul and damn the entirety of Earth. The Necromorphs from Dead Space are actually mutated human corpses who kill and infect other human corpses and eventually turn into giant Brethran Moons. The Sphere from Prey 2006 are aliens who seeded various planets with life to harvest them for later, processing them as food or mutating them into foot soldiers for their own purpose. There's always something extra with these creatures to add some extra flair to otherwise generic horror monsters wanting to kill you. Without it, the game's story simply isn't anywhere as interesting.
Everything anyone says is an opinion. If you get triggered by one you've lost an argument.
gameragodzilla
Member
Like I said, no need to give him any shit. Heated disagreements are fine, and I acknowledge I'm an asshole when it comes to my opinions so any pushback is justified.
You also tried claiming the xenomorph had more to it than being a dangerous animal by claiming they were a biological weapon, you're using backstory added by Prometheus which RETCONNED the original film to make that argument. In fact, the only reason the eggs are on the ship is because it would have cost too much to make the separate temple set the eggs were originally meant to be in, it was 100% cost-cutting and the implication wasn't originally a bio-weapon, you could come to that conclusion but it's interesting in doing so the "genius" that is Ridley Scott had to retcon his own material (I say his own, he didn't write Alien). Basically, the Xenomorph is nothing more than a dangerous animal that's just more dangerous.
On top of this,
if you know the ending of Prey you know it's capable of being more than that
I'm not seeing why the motivation for the demons in Doom 3 is all that interesting. Brethran Moons, again, you're using stuff not from the original game, how much lore was there in Dead Space 1 if we're actually comparing these on a 1:1 basis? Prey would absolutely give you more info on the Typhon with sequels. How is there always something extra? You excused Dawn of the Dead because it's a metaphor, you totally ignored that there was nothing "extra" to the motivations or origins for some reason, and not all good zombie movies are even metaphors. I think you're pulling arbitrary goals out of your ass when it comes to what amount of detail a creature needs to be interesting.
gameragodzilla
Member
No, it was heavily implied in the original simply by virtue of having the corpse of the Space Jockey. Even the original concept of the pyramids and temple hinted at something greater, that there's some more to the Xenomorph than just being generic animals. Sure, it didn't reveal everything there, but that's the point. You still must have at least something hinting at more interesting stuff over the generic monster. If it was "just" a dangerous animal, it wouldn't be placed in those places.
Now sure, there's hints at more to the Typhon and
how you can teach it empathy towards the end.
The demons in Doom 3 having motivation makes them more interesting because again, it elevates them above generic monsters. They're literal demons from Hell, more evil, more supernatural, and can do more things that aren't physically possible simply because they aren't part of the natural order. It adds more to the game. And even in Dead Space 1, you know the Necromorphs are actually human bodies, the Markers are causing weird hallucinations, and the huge implications of the fact that the Red Marker wasn't an alien object but built by humans. Sure, we didn't get everything about the Necromorphs, and I frankly liked Dead Space 3 a lot for finally revealing what the Necromorph's endgame was, but there was still more to it.
Basically, I want at least a hint that the creatures aren't just dangerous animals. If all they are are essentially angry lions with extra abilities and shapes, that's not very interesting. But the Typhon are just the biggest example of the core issue. The same issue applies to Talos 1 itself. Most of the lore surrounding the alternate history is very interesting, but it's given very early on in the game and that's about the full extent of it. In terms of the different experiments they're trying to run, or all the weird behind the scenes conspiracies, there's also very little of that outside of the end where there's a military purge of the facility. Also a very typical Sci Fi cliche (Half-Life 1 had it).
Again, contrast with Doom 3 where the entire Alpha Labs is all about the different experiments the UAC runs. They have a beam deconstructing molecules to form into other stuff. There's even an audio log talking about an accident someone had backing their head into the beam because they saw a demonic vision. Another experiment is about using the space between atoms to store fuel and thereby dramatically increasing the potential payload. And there's also the conspiracies regarding teleportation experiments in the Delta Labs that reveal how the demons came to be, the unethical human experimentations, the psychological breakdowns of the test subjects and the early hints of zombification, etc. I could go on for hours about the detail in Doom 3 while still also preserving a lot of the mystery and horror. So Doom 3 is my benchmark, doubly so since Doom 3 is also an FPS by id Software, so its writing should easily get its ass kicked by a true immersive sim, yet it's not.