Doom 1 or 2?

Thought it might be cool to make a quick thing that suggests monster counts based on linguica's venn diagram at the top of the page. I got "general space awareness" and "immediate space awareness" the wrong way round in my labels but you get the idea.



Edit: ha, i just noticed the bottom left screenshot is the same as the bottom right. Oh well :0)

codeslicer said:
I was talkIIIINNNG in general and not just level design.

True, although the overall level design part is arguably the one where there's more space to make comparisons in because in the rest, DOOM II tends to simply add over what DOOM does. That's what makes DOOM II the more popular game in terms of PWAD design. New level design relies on the game minus the original level design.

Some comments in that older thread also add to a more general comparison, though. (It's inevitable that level design will bleed into other aspects of the game and level design depends on these other aspects.)

In my longer post there, at the end I define DOOM as a more "exploratory game" and DOOM II as "the exploitation of its gameplay". This can be seen in the overall product (levels plus everything else) but it's also reflected in parts, such as the monster sets. This difference ends up in how each game (of part of the game, as DOOM and DOOM II are basically two parts of one game) are characterized by the community. DOOM attracts nostalgia and is stronger as a creative groundbase for anything that escapes immediate shooter action, while DOOM II is the chosen field for skilled players and technical enhancement of the game. DOOM is stronger at sustaining and building up the narrative of the game while DOOM II encapsulates its sheer here and now.

Stepping out of immediate playability (the role and difficulty of the monsters in combat) but in line with it, the monster set and texturing in DOOM is also more stylized toward a mix between hell (or dark fantasy) and classic science fiction. In DOOM II, the new monsters tend to have a grittier and weirder aspect, perhaps more mundane yet gross, toward a cyberpunk theme. DOOM seems more epic and timeless, whereas the DOOM II texturing and extended monster set make it more like a contemporary nightmare.

Doom II to Doom -> Bigger. Badder. But not always better. New soundtrack is ok and very welcome but some levels are way too big (especially the city ones). It's noticeably harder and more challenging. Don't know where to put Evilution but for me, Plutonia is the hardest IWAD. Haven't checked Youtube for solution / help but I needed it sometimes with TNT or Doom 2(especially the secret levels... oh I have forgotten about Doom & Doom 2 books that I have - all is well-known on the Doom Wiki but those were the times when major games got their "hint books". And both of them were translated to Polish. Wow). Doom 2 is, IHMO, a good extension and challenge. But as few people here said, the original episode splitting is much better than Doom 2 one big episode. And Final Doom(s) - just an add-on pack for vanilla Doom 2 (though standalone). I don't know what to say more. So I'm hitting "submit reply" now :P

Edit: and chaingunners, chaingunners everywhere! Team TNT must love 'em!

Magnusblitz said:

I definitely agree with Linguica's point that the Doom 2 enemies are far and large an improvement on Doom 1's.

Doom 1 has: two hitscanners (which both move slowly, only fire once, then move again)

Tut tut, you've left out the old Spider Mastermind!

Doom's E1 and E3 had fucking superb architecture and design. Doom II didn't have some of its better levels until halfway through the game, whereas Doom started out with good levels. E2 is a mix bag with more dumb than good, imo. E4 I believe came after D2's release, and you can tell with some of the bigger height variations (Doom was oddly flat in some levels, whereas Doom II had levels with very big open areas and tall, vertical architecture and whatnot. Doom II however improved the bestiary, giving us many staple monsters, and, of course, the SSG. They even had the SS guards as a unique enemy as opposed to a re-skinned chaingunner. As such, modders could easily paint over him for an enemy that strength wise in between a Zombiman and Chaingun Dude.

As for Doom II levels, I hate the City ones. I feel they're boring. And so big. You're supposed to clean out YOUR city and I live in a small town :)

RadTang said:

As for Doom II levels, I hate the City ones. I feel they're boring. And so big. You're supposed to clean out YOUR city and I live in a small town :)

Hehe, I don't think that D2 city levels are bigger than a small town. I kind of agree with your point, though - D2 cities are sometimes really unintuitive and demotivating and look/feel weird. Mainly MAP19, then 13 and 15, and even 12, 18 and 20 have their strange parts.

scifista42 said:

Hehe, I don't think that D2 city levels are bigger than a small town. I kind of agree with your point, though - D2 cities are sometimes really unintuitive and demotivating and look/feel weird. Mainly MAP19, then 13 and 15, and even 12, 18 and 20 have their strange parts.

I don't remember them well (the City levels). One of my favs is 8th - Tricks & Traps. Mainly for that awesomely funny infighting. But ending is pretty lame and quite easy (unlike final maps in Final Doom). The Wolf 3D levels are nice addition though they could remaster them a bit (Doom has way better engine than Wolf 3D). True players and followers of ID would still recognize them.

Personally I have mixed feelings about the SSG, it's fine for single player but I feel it throws off the balance some for multiplayer. Also doom 1 has better music, level design, and atmosphere IMO, but the difficulty of doom 2 is appealing. I always figured the lack of difficulty in doom 1 could be explained by the fact that wolfenstein was the only other "real" FPS game at the time so the genre was still brand new, but then again I was like 1 at the time so I can't say anything for fact.

terminus12 said:

Personally I have mixed feelings about the SSG, it's fine for single player but I feel it throws off the balance some for multiplayer. Also doom 1 has better music, level design, and atmosphere IMO, but the difficulty of doom 2 is appealing. I always figured the lack of difficulty in doom 1 could be explained by the fact that wolfenstein was the only other "real" FPS game at the time so the genre was still brand new, but then again I was like 1 at the time so I can't say anything for fact.

On custom maps, it's possible to block SSG to single only (via flagging it so it won't appear on that map on multiplayer). Doom 1 is not too difficult but these extra monsters are really noticeably on UV. There's only a few levels with same monsters quantity - like E2M9. Nice map and quite difficult. 4 barons at once. It only gets worse when you escape through the doors - 10 cacos. If you survive, there's fat reward. The level is small, smaller than E1M1 and very simple in design but it's enjoyable and still nice. Even it's creator thinks that's awesome (Sandy Petersen).

I see them as one game, because I kind of came into Doom about when Doom II had come out. But I've come to appreciate the descent into Hell that Doom 1 offers. But some of the level design in Doom 2 seems even smarter. Then I'll often think there never needed to be any more enemy variety than there already was in Doom 1, but it's hard to argue with the coolness of some of the added monsters in Doom II. I saw that as more of an expansion pack. Just new levels. I didn't see what all the hoopla was, and didn't like the double barrel much.

I wish they'd collect some of the fan favorite user-made levels for future releases on other platforms (like a Steam pack or on Playstation/Xbox/Wii).

For someone new to Doom or someone who has not played through either game, you could easily look at them and say there is no difference, same game different levels... But in actuality it's really hard to compare the two, they are two totally different experiences complete with their own atmosphere.

Doom feels very arcade-y. It is flatter, much faster paced, and heavier more adrenaline pounding soundtrack.

Doom II on the other hand, is definitely a bigger, slower, more puzzle oriented game.

They are both GREAT experiences. I like that Doom II takes what made Doom great, and give it more variety. I never really cared for the SSG however, since it really just eats up valuable shotgun ammo, and takes too long to reload. Just my opinion! But I do love all of the extra baddies.

As far as a go-to-game, I find myself playing the original Doom more often BECAUSE of its more lightning fast pace and break-up of episodes.

Perhaps a future mod idea could be shortening some of Doom II's levels (especially the city ones) or making some of them more linear, changing some of the textures to something more colorful, and breaking up the levels into 3 episodes that can be accessed individually from the menu?

If one thing is true though, I have always wanted to see a "true" sequel to Doom II, complete with more enemies, bosses, weapons, level settings, textures, and music.

Also, on a side note, I agree, I do like that the PSX Doom has Doom II baddies sprinkled throughout. This is more inherent when played at the highest difficulty (which is how PSX Doom should be played!) It helps keep you on edge!

Jeremy said:

I never really cared for the SSG however, since it really just eats up valuable shotgun ammo, and takes too long to reload. Just my opinion!

With triple damage for double the ammo it's actually saving valuable shotgun ammo.

Belial said:

With triple damage for double the ammo it's actually saving valuable shotgun ammo.

Yes ! Demons (Pinkies) dying from 1 good shot. Instead of 3 normal (it may happen that they die from 2 normal shotgun shots). But SSG is also risky - Imps and former humans / shotguys die from just 1 regular shotgun shot (though you can use SSG to dispatch a bigger group of them). And you may not always want / have time to switch weapons.

Belial said:

With triple damage for double the ammo it's actually saving valuable shotgun ammo.

I can agree with that in scenarios where you are face to face with a horde of baddies, good for clearing out those notorious monster closets or other tight spaces.

But for run n' gun, definitely not my weapon of choice.

This is what makes Doom such a timeless game, everything is a science, and the game was designed to be very well balanced. A clever Doomer strategically alternates between weapons depending on scenario and amount of expendable ammunition. I just find that I use the SSG about as often as the Rocket Launcher or BFG, special occasions ;-)

Doom is a much more conceptual, finished game, with more coherent maps, "story" and bosses. Doom 2 has great new monsters and the SSG, but if we are talking about the game itself, Doom is much better.

The later episode level design for particular maps in Doom seems to be either rushed or simply not as creatively done, however Episode 4 seems to be a bit of an exception maybe because it was released much later and not in a rush.

It's not that they were rushed. It's that Sandy Petersen made them. He can do decent base levels (as E2 would attest, though a lot of them were simply improvements on what Tom Hall made) but E3 is just a weird, abstract mess because he's Sandy Petersen.

His levels have always been weird and ugly and more focused on gameplay than appearance. This goes for his Quake maps, too.

dethtoll said:

It's not that they were rushed. It's that Sandy Petersen made them.

Sandy Petersen rushed them! http://doomwiki.org/wiki/Development_of_Doom#Levels (Levels, 2nd paragraph)

By the way, it's interesting that Petersen worked on Quake, I didn't know it until today.

Eh, I don't really think that qualifies as rushing. 10 weeks was a lot of time in 1993, and he already had Tom's levels to work with.

Besides, look at his Doom 2 maps -- he would have had more time to work on those yet they look like garbage. MAP09 to this day makes my eyeballs puke.

The entirety of Quake's 4th episode (save for the opening base level, which is a Romero joint) is by Petersen and they... well, some of them are pretty good (The Palace Of Hate is a favourite of mine) but some of them are just plain ugly. The Nameless City is Petersen defined: ugly, functional, clear Lovecraft influence.

dethtoll said:

Eh, I don't really think that qualifies as rushing. 10 weeks was a lot of time in 1993, and he already had Tom's levels to work with.

Besides, look at his Doom 2 maps -- he would have had more time to work on those yet they look like garbage.

Okay - you're probably right.

D2 was kinda monotonous, with all those tan walls and bricks. I did like some new technical textures it introduced such as the black metal wall and the green metal wall, but overall I found that the best looking maps were the ones initially designed for Doom 1, such as the amazing Citadel (I love that particular kind of gray brick that comprises it, also the red brick area is wonderful).

It's no secret that D2 was comparatively never very hellish in appearance, even in the final third of the game (only saving grace being Map 28, clearly). The new gray "occult" walls bore slight hints of the ominous green brick, but failed to replicate the feeling and libraries such as those in Monster Condo were real pretty, but not at all infernal.

And I do think it's ok that Doom 2's artistic direction emphasized going for something different than Doom 1 - sure enough. The games present different kinds of progression from techbase to hell and Doom 2's distinct feel has its many charms. However I feel that it lacks those hellish reds, greens and most importantly the beautiful blue/red animated wall.

While the original Doom was sometimes all over the place with the texturing (especially in E2), I found taht DTWiD did a much better job with the textures, them being very appropriate and tastefully meshed together in most cases (not so much in D2TWiD, as to mirror the original game itself). But for example E2M9: Nebulous Origins is probably the most beautiful Doom 1 style map I've played - it meshes the techbase and the hellish aspect perfectly while emphasizing the "Phobos Anomaly" feel as I like to call it: the gray brick mixed with water, torches and the flickering blue/red texture. Why couldn't Doom 2 be more like this?

And what are your opinions? What are your favorite themes and texture kinds from both games?

Both games have their fair share of ugly levels. I think Doom 2 has overally greater percentage of ugly textures in its stock, and in its levels too. D2 levels also feel more "crude" and "blocky" on average, in contrast with Doom 1's non-orthogonal wildly-shaped layouts (some of them). Where Doom 1 has cramped but relatively detailed and colorful bases, Doom 2 has views into impressively large areas with little detail, but that can also suffice to create immersion.

My favorite theme is colorful techbase, and both Doom 1's E1 and Doom 2's E1 fits the description well-enough, even if I can notice more "blocki-ness" in the D2 maps.

D1 certainly looked better, but I actually prefer D2's raw exclusive assets, despite the fact that many of them are ugly, because the good ones are pretty damn good. My favorite D1-exclusive textures are SKINTEK and the additional TEKWALLs; Doom 2 has BRICK7, BRICK10, and the ZIMMER and PAN families, which are great.

Doom 2's stuff looks way better to me, not just better than the previous game but also than most of the stuff in Final Doom (although there are a few Plutonia maps with really gorgeous combinations of colours and such) - Doom 2 is the best stock level set for sheer height and distance, and its big expanses look naturally great in the engine, even if it's all textured in tanrock8 and modwall

I think Ultimate Doom has a more vibrant color palette, and as a mapper I find that it has a higher ratio of textures that are just useful, whereas Doom 2 expands the texture pool but adds a lot of brown schmutz that's hard to use effectively.

HOWEVER, the wood panel textures in Doom 2 are all awesome. It is the true expression of Episode 4's wood-hell theme.

D1 has more consistent theming which is a big part of it, but I think what really sets it apart is the level design. I think the biggest comparison in level design is the dark souls series, where the levels seem to wrap around into eachother and you are constantly finding alternate shortcuts to previous areas. I think this naturally makes the levels more visually intriguing.

D1 had more atmosphere to it. It was at its prime(100%). D2 was (80-85%), you can tell effort was poured forth into it but not enough to give it the glory D1 had. But, many wads address these issues. So in a sense, I consider both to be, one of the same game, pretty much. :-)

You had me until

Xfing said:

beautiful blue/red animated wall

Although in all seriousness, I do agree. Doom 1 just feels better made, even episode three. I disliked doom 2 when I first played it but I've grown to appreciate its take on the hell atmosphere too, and I also never gave too much of a fuck about colorfulness so the brownness of Doom 2 is in no way detrimental to my opinion. In fact I find it kinda adds to the mood, more than the carnival visuals that doom 1 sometimes had.

I like all the marble textures, if only because I like the feeling of the marble walls and the more the merrier, imo. But otherwise, Doom 1 seemed a bit more colorful, with all of the more brightly colored tech bases. If I remember correctly, Doom I also either had brightly lit areas, or darkly lit areas. Part of Doom II's muddiness I think came from a lot of more in between lighting that was neither very bright nor very dark.