---

40oz said:
I don't really understand what this "realism" conversation is about. Granted Doom 2 had some pretty weird stuff in it, but if you ask me they captured the realistic aspect of it too, just in a much more low-def form. I mean, if you ask me, this area in MAP16: Suburbs easily looks like an abandoned condo if you use your imagination. Especially when you compare it to the drab monotony of Ravenholm in "OMG THE MOST REALISTIC GAME EVER" Half-life 2.

---

---

fatal error said:


Perhaps thats why Ultimate doom is ported to more systems than Doom 2. Example: Doom for the iphone.

---

---

Woolie Wool said:


Ravenholm is about the worst example you could have used because Ravenholm was drenched in atmosphere and as creepy as fuck. The only place in HL2 that was creepier was Nova Prospekt. Half-Life 2 in general had no shortage of atmosphere.

---

---

fatal error said:


Perhaps thats why Ultimate doom is ported to more systems than Doom 2. Example: Doom for the iphone.

---

---

40oz said:


What the hell? Are you kidding me? You constantly run around inside of apartment buildings that are all basically identical. Just some square rooms with crappy hardwood floors, torn up wall paper and doorways in and out of each one. Throw some old matresses, a table with a tv on it, a cardboard box and some milk cartons and you got yourself a new room. Doom was the same thing minus the props.

---

---

phi108 said:
With Doom, you have the initial basic setup of an FPS, so good level design is gameplay-intensive, and many agree that Doom 1 is superior to Doom 2. (I guess Romero did a super job of introducing the world to Doom with E1, though maybe playing that episode first hardwired all our brains to beleive that E1 gameplay is the best there is.)

But with the Source engine and Half Life 2, you have more lighting, sounds, scripting options, so you can make a horror/apocalypse/etc experience beyond what Doom can do, similar to what a movie does. It can have inferior gameplay to Doom, but people can be distracted by the experience. In my first HL2 playthrough, I didn't know what to expect. I just enjoyed the story and the atmosphere, but it does fail in replayability. The gameplay in H2 feels annoying and like a chore to complete, so you deal with it to see the new plot points like in HL2 EP2, but then you forget about it and go back to Doom where gameplay was the focus because that's all the engine could do.

---

---

Aldaraia said:


On the contrary, I remember much more in Ravenholm. Running across rooftops as you avoid those freaks chasing you and climbing up pipework, sneaking through alleys while desperately fighting those headcrabs and a classic brawl in the graveyard. Ravenholm was frightening.

---

---

40oz said:


That's what I'm saying though. You do run across rooftops. Monsters do chase you. You do sneak through alleyways. Doom has the same shit. It's just not portrayed as well as a game that came out 6 years later. But it's definitely there. As I had already described in a few posts above, Doom 2 may not have the greatest maps, but I can still see what things are SUPPOSED to be. We're talking about level design anyway aren't we? That's what I'm defending.

---

---

esselfortium said:
A bit more episode-specific texture and decoration usage would have gone a long way towards making Doom's locations feel more believable. Seeing the same UAC-techbase doors and computers and blue carpets and such adorning apartments and the like really didn't help set a convincing location, and swapping them out for something more theme-appropriate would have probably made a big difference without having to change the map structures themselves.

---

---

Maes said:


You win the thread. Here's an internets.

---