Final thoughts on Doom 2 after completion?

1 hour ago, NaturalTvventy said:

Final DOOM was two sets of amature trash which tarnished the DOOM name, leaving a bitter taste in my mouth.

3 minutes ago, NaturalTvventy said:

The truth hurts!

It hurts!

But...but...

2 hours ago, Omniarch said:

Though, admittedly, if Sandy only had to make six maps for D2 rather than sixteen, he might well have proven the better designer. The main issue with most of his maps is the vague sense that they are underdone, and could have used a bit more polish. Without that shortcoming, I think his stuff could have been phenomenal.

 

Man, I wish Sandy would decide to make something like Sigil. That would be a very interesting set indeed.

Yeah, but here's the thing, many of these seemingly undercooked maps did not see many, if any in some cases, subsequent revisions during development, or afterwards via patches, such as Downtown.

So I do believe that ultimately it was just Sandy's idiosyncracy, he very much liked them that way. The most Doom 2's maps have seen, off the top of my head, include the barrier removal on Underhalls in v1.7, a missing texture and a HOM fix on Courtyard, and some minor texture changes and touches on Bloodfalls.

But otherwise, I still stand by my opinion.

12 hours ago, Orchid87 said:

My point about first maps in the episodes is not that they force you to pistol start, but that they are too short and easy because of being balanced for pistol start. One starting map is good, the rest just take up valuable map spots. 

How do you propose handling player deaths if a map isn't balanced around pistol start? 

2 hours ago, NaturalTvventy said:

Final DOOM was two sets of amature trash which tarnished the DOOM name, leaving a bitter taste in my mouth.

But... Final Doom is cool... :,(

Back in '95 or so, it was amazing. The Super Shotgun was an absolute beast of a weapon that trivialized smaller mobs - perfect for a sequel after you endure through the original Doom carefully picking off hitscanners. As the game progressed, levels would get weirder and weirder, and it was awesome. It felt like the level designers were going like "let's see how you deal with this", completely ignoring realism in favor of fun challenges. The final boss was also a thrill. I'll never forget climbing that pillar for the last time, hearing literal hell breaking loose behind me, carefully aiming at the monster's face and holding my finger on the Ctrl key, waiting for the right moment.

These days, though, it's a bit of a pain in the ass. The confusing level design of latter levels is more boring than challenging. Tightrope walking gets old fast. These days I usually replay Doom 2 until I reach The Pit, then quit.

7 hours ago, GarrettChan said:

And again, doing different segments and pistol starts seem to fix the problem and you can make it a so-called episode yourself. However, you can't do it backwards on Doom 1 where I want to play them continuously, so what's so bad about not breaking them apart?

On a semi-related note, I just found out that you can actually make The Ultimate Doom into one continuous episode.

I had to google it, but it led me back to an old thread on this very website, coincidentally enough!

"Welp, that's finally done with."

And then I went back to playing some way better community creations.

2 hours ago, thelazyqdude said:

"Welp, that's finally done with."

And then I went back to playing some way better community creations.

Ah, a man of culture 

In the 90s when i played through Doom II i never thought anything negative of any of the level designs, i gotta admit.  i loved every minute of it, and still do.  The quirks and the tricks are just par for the course.  And as much as i enjoy a lot of levels made by various people from here and elsewhere, i wouldn't say they are better than the originals, only different.

I've been wondering where the bad folks will go when they die now.

On 2/23/2021 at 2:38 AM, Orchid87 said:

7) Episodic structure has a disadvantage in that every starting level in an episode has to be dumbed down for a pistol start, as opposed to only one level in Doom 2. Also, Doom 1 episodes are too damn short.

E4M1 sure wasn't dumbed down for pistol start if you want 100% secrets and kills.

I finished Doom 2 for the first time when I was a kid (I played the game w/ keyboard only back then) I used to hate the game and never liked it, I thought it was too hard, the game had more enemies and low ammo for some reason.

Years later after discovering source ports with mouse support and better resolution such as Prboom thanks to a friend, I changed my mind and I think it's a really fun game but I still have some complaints about the level design, it's just not as great as the first game... Some maps like Nirvana or The Chasm were mediocre and horrible imo.

The Chasm is brilliant tho

This is more of a nitpick, but I do wish Doom II featured overworld maps like Doom and Heretic. They were a fun little touch in addition to giving you a sense of navigating through a world rather than just going from one level to another and they were much nicer to look at than just a plain text screen.

i think doom maps suck when you play them for the first time

i remenber being lost for hours first time i beated doom or doom 2 though its when you replay it that you really start to like the levels 

in this regard doom level filosophy is similar to that of classic sonic where you will be very slow first time playing but on replays you will blaze trough them

While I screwed around with doom a ton as a kid, last year was the first time I properly beat Doom 1 and Doom 2 in their proper form, pistol start UV.

Ok first off, I think Doom1/2 is still the best feeling shooter. I've played like 20 hours of Doom Eternal, and I'd love to give it more time, but tbh I'm kind of addicted to this bitcoin mining thing - it's so entertaining to watch the pennies trickle in, so I'm not running anything harder than software rendered gzdoom for the time being. 

So anyways, to me, Doom 2 just feels the absolute best.

Doom 1 had a more coherent, iconic feel. But it was very, very easy. I'm no champion, and I had absolutely no problem until I think Episode 4/map 2? And once I knew the tricks of that map, it's a breeze now. But I definitely had to run it like 15 times to squeak by the first time. After that map, it went back to being a little too easy. Still supremely fun though.

Doom 2 is sloppy, there's arrows on the ground to make sense of wacky maps, the attempts to make real looking locations fell so bizarrely flat it should have been dropped, and the difficulty changes wildly from map to map. But I probably had more fun than Doom 1, the supershotgun is a great, fun addition (I still switch to the shotgun plenty) and the monsters they added are iconic and I honestly can't picture playing many Doom wads without them.

We all know the maps are messy, but they're still fun. Even Chasm, which I 1-shot on the blind run, albeit 30 minutes late. I think Doom 1 and 2 were so brilliantly designed that the gunplay, weapon selection, and monster archetypes became the default for fps, and even survived what was supposed to be a permanent modernization and meta shift brought on by the likes of Half-life and Halo. Well it's 2021 and I'd rather blow my brains out than play Halo, COD, or Fortnight over any Doom game but Doom 3.

DOOM 2 is a mixed bag for me. It does have some incredible levels which I love playing and also some horrible levels that I can't stand (namely the city levels). The game's general progression is strange and doesn't make too much sense, although I feel the new enemies do come into place at the appropriate times.

The new enemies and SSG are amazing. I think the final level against the Icon of Sin is an interesting idea, but I never look forward to it. I feel Map 29 could've been the final level if they replaced the Cyberdemon with a new boss that really made you sweat.

I personally see Doom 2 as more of a blank canvas more then a game. A blank piece for people to make their own maps with it's textures and monsters.

Doom 2 by itself is a very inconsistent game, and if Id wasn't so open to modding I doubt Doom 2 would be looked back fondly.

At the time, I thought it did an excellent job adding new challenges. Now, though, I agree with the poster above it's basically a blank canvas. Some of the city levels were 2 steps away from being atrocious, and that's not including Nirvana (I think, though there are city textures for some odd-ass reason).

I love Doom 2 and how, in the eyes of some, it has the same downfalls of Doom Eternal (level themes jumping around, gimmicky enemies and maps based on gimmicks).
It's funny because the new enemies introduced in, say, Left 4 Dead2 are very similar to the ones added in Doom 2, conceptually. They are based on countering tactics that players have discovered in the first game.

Honestly my main gripe with Doom 2 is that the Hell levels kinda suck, visibly speaking. It doesn't feel like hell. When I was a kid and couldn't read english (I'm italian), I had no idea that the last levels took place in Hell.

The other thing that I wish had been implemented was the green trees that had been made. I don't know why they just reused the brown dead ones.

6 hours ago, Z.Franz said:

It's funny because the new enemies introduced in, say, Left 4 Dead2 are very similar to the ones added in Doom 2, conceptually. They are based on countering tactics that players have discovered in the first game.

Not sure I see it, to be honest.

I will give you the Mancubus and the Revenant, whose projectiles are designed to be harder to evade, but the rest... The Hell Knight is just a weaker Baron of Hell, the Chaingunner is an actually dangerous Zombieman, the Arachnotron is a miniature Spider Mastermind, the Arch-Vile is unlike anything seen in the original game and the Pain Elemental is there because the Lost Soul leaves no corpse (and thus cannot be revived by the Arch-Vile).

I am not sure I see the similarities with the Jockey and the Spitter from Left 4 Dead 2.

The gameplay focused 'gimmick' designs of Doom 2 lend themselves to Doom's engine (speedy action) more than attempts at realistic stuff. This was especially true with hardware limitations on the level design back in 1993/4.

Doom 2's levels are smaller, faster, and more internally coherent than most of Doom 1.

Doom 1 had more of a feeling of realism, especially in episode 1, but the level design was just as abstract. Most of episodes 2 and 3's level design was shit compared to most of Doom 2, and not just because of the extra monsters and the SSG. Put revenants and mancubi in episode 3 and it still wouldn't be as good as Doom 2's level 22-30. Conversely, put some of the better ep 2 & 3 levels in Doom 2 and I bet they'd be regarded as some of the weakest in the mapset.

That being said, for Doom 1 Sandy had 10 weeks to overhaul, what? 9 Tom Hall maps and then make 9 new ones. In Doom 2 he had 10 months to make 16 maps. Plus they were all more experienced 3D designers by then, who probably were itching to try new things.

I love Doom 1 and 2 and it's awesome they're varied enough to offer different experiences.

Then Team TNT tried to mash the two concepts together and for the most part failed but still made something fairly fun.

Then the Casali brother's quickly threw together Doom 2 on steroids (the best IWAD) and one of them was hired by Valve, ironically to help make one of the most realistic FPS of all time.

9 hours ago, Rudolph said:

Not sure I see it, to be honest.

 

I will give you the Mancubus and the Revenant, whose projectiles are designed to be harder to evade, but the rest... The Hell Knight is just a weaker Baron of Hell, the Chaingunner is an actually dangerous Zombieman, the Arachnotron is a miniature Spider Mastermind, the Arch-Vile is unlike anything seen in the original game and the Pain Elemental is there because the Lost Soul leaves no corpse (and thus cannot be revived by the Arch-Vile).

 

I am not sure I see the similarities with the Jockey and the Spitter from Left 4 Dead 2.

Hey, I'm not saying they are the same. Not all of them would fit the criteria but I think that the design philosophy was similar. It was a try to get the players out of their comfort zone. Like the spitter was made to counter corner camping in L4D, the Arch-Vile, the Pain Elemental, the Revenant and the Mancubus require some more specific tactics than simple circle-strafing. In Doom every enemy is either hitscan or fires slow straight projectiles. In Doom II they tried to subvert this by making enemies with specific gimmicks.

That's the way I see it. But I understand the analogy might not be perfect

Doom 2 was always a strange beast to me. It had a lot going for it but it also had some goofy maps. I'll try and break it down below but you better get comfortable, I tend to ramble on.

Gameplay: Doom had some nice encounters but for me the gameplay was much better in Doom II. The higher monster count and new monsters lent a lot to this aspect of the game. It was also more action focused, more chaotic.

Atmosphere: Doom wins this for me hands down. I can easily remember the maps in Doom where as in Doom II the crazy texture variation means that I don't tend to remember them in as vividly. This is actually very strange for me because I played Doom II more than Ultimate Doom back in the 90's so you would think I would have the maps memorised (I do, but I have to get to that map first and then it all comes back).

I put it down to the aesthetics, simple yes but the maps of Doom 1 are imprinted into my memory. There was more tension building as well, with quite moments where you were creeping along down some dimly lit hallway wondering where those distant noises were coming from.

Level design: I'll give this one to Doom II. Even though I love Doom I's maps the levels in Doom II (except the middle ones) are more complex and unusual in their layouts. Sometimes it feels like you're a rat in a maze but for the most part they're laid out well once you've played them. What I mean is the first time I went through Doom II as a kid I enjoyed it but wasn't ecstatic about the maps, but 2nd and 3rd playthroughs I learned to really appreciate the map layouts.

Even if I still thought the texture usage was weird, which sometimes seem to take a backseat as if it were almost an afterthought.

Monsters/weapons: Obviously Doom II, no contest. Although I remember as a kid I was a little disappointed that they only added one new weapon. I remember thinking 'that's it? They only gave us one new weapon which is just another shotgun?'.

That's what I thought. And then I found this 'new weapon' and all my mutterings dissipated in a moment when the double barrels lit up. My misgivings were utterly silenced by the sheer brutality of this awesome engine of destruction. I always thought it was a little too powerful though.

Progression/story: This is an easy choice for me as Doom 1 did it better. I don't particularly care about pistol start vs continues and such. I do care that Doom I was broken into nice episodic chunks with a clear sense of progression in both design and looks. There was a clear distinction going from episode to episode it really felt like you were moving from one place to another, from Mars to the realms of Hell. The little progression map after each level helped to move this along nicely. In contrast Doom II was all over the place and I often forgot that I was in a hell map. Only the last 2-3 maps of Doom II did I get a sense that I was in the bowels of Hell.

That's about it, mostly through the eyes of my younger self. These days I love both Doom and Doom II, but even today I still have fonder memories of Ultimate Doom than Doom II.

I can vividly remember every map in Ultimate Doom but in Doom II only a handful of the maps (around 8-9 of them, not going to list them all here) are vivid and nostalgic in my mind. I put this down to Doom II's maps being more inconsistent. 

Really, that's all it comes down to for me. Ultimate Doom is just more memorable in my opinion for the reasons I listed above. However, Doom II advanced the gameplay with new monsters and some very memorable encounters (The Courtyard being a personal favourite of mine). Point being that in the end they're both great, just for very different reasons.

3 hours ago, Z.Franz said:

Hey, I'm not saying they are the same. Not all of them would fit the criteria but I think that the design philosophy was similar. It was a try to get the players out of their comfort zone. Like the spitter was made to counter corner camping in L4D, the Arch-Vile, the Pain Elemental, the Revenant and the Mancubus require some more specific tactics than simple circle-strafing. In Doom every enemy is either hitscan or fires slow straight projectiles. In Doom II they tried to subvert this by making enemies with specific gimmicks.

Ah, in that sense, yes, I see what you mean. I would not have called them "gimmicks", as to me at least, the word implies shallowness.