Building comparison
head to head
DOOM (2016)vsEat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard
DOOM (2016) asks more than Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard, and the gap is execution.
DOOM (2016)
Execution · Pure Mechanics
Push-forward arena FPS where movement and aim are the whole game.
Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard
Execution · Pure Mechanics
A by-the-numbers cover shooter testing only modest aim.
DOOM (2016) leans Execution (Pure Mechanics); Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard leans Execution (Pure Mechanics).
DOOM (2016)Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard
Axis by axis
Execution8 vs 5
DOOM (2016) leans clearly harder on execution.
DOOM (2016)
Aim, movement, glory-kill timing all peak.
Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard
Cover-shooter aim with generous margins
Reads1 vs 0
DOOM (2016) leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
DOOM (2016)
Demons scripted attack patterns.
Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard
Parody enemies follow obviously scripted waves
Variance1 vs 1
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
DOOM (2016)
Minimal encounter randomness.
Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard
Set pieces never change
Optimization5 vs 2
DOOM (2016) leans clearly harder on optimization.
DOOM (2016)
Rune and weapon mod picks meaningful.
Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard
Little to solve beyond weapon pickups
A matching score does not mean a matching test. Two games can both sit at 10 on execution and demand completely different things of you - which is why the reasoning above matters more than the number beside it.