doom 3 or doom 4?

Should The new Doom game be considered Doom 3.
What about Final Doom? That was the third Doom game in the series in my oppinion. Sequals dont always have to have a number in the title to be considered part of a trilogy do they?

Should The new Doom game be considered Doom 3.
What about Final Doom? That was the third Doom game in the series in my oppinion. Sequals dont always have to have a number in the title to be considered part of a trilogy do they?

*Sigh*
Don't you people get it???
Final Doom is an add on for Doom 2 (it has no new enemies or weapons) and *not* an official sequel to Doom 2 as it's not made by Id, but by TNT.
Besides, the stories for Final Doom are crappy as Hell - looks like a 12-year old has written them! Calling Final Doom for "Doom 3" is sacrilege imo.

Anyway, we don't know if the new Doom game IS a sequel. Many aspects point in the direction of a remake (I just don't understand why id won't tell us the title - will that really reveal too much about the game?).

Final Doom was the end of the doom story. It imo was a Doom game not an add on ( even though there were no new weapons , monsters ). As far as Id not making it they didnt develop RTCW , and arent developing Quake 4 either.

It was pretty damn hard for me to find consistency with Doom 2's story in the Final Doom stories. If it really was a sequel, it's probably the worst sequel to a game I have yet seen! So I'd prefer if Id completely ignored Final Doom IF the new game is a sequel.

Oh, and Id didn't develop RtCW, but they were overseeing and providing feedback during development, which they weren't with Final Doom as far as I know.

I've also read that they will be overseeing development of Q4, so it too is a different matter.

Final Doom was just an add on for Doom2. Its basically a map pack with a few new textures. It like any fan made levels for Doom2, just more of them at a consistently high workmanship. id did not create them, rather they hired the work out.

For it to be a true sequel, it would need some major addition in the way of tech/enemies etc. Also the story would have to be given a few moments thought. TNT/Plutonia are fun to play and of course I have them, but it is in essence just a map pack/wad addon.

For it to be a true sequel, it would need some major addition in the way of tech/enemies etc. Also the story would have to be given a few moments thought.

Doom 2

tech improvments:none, thats far away from a "major addition"

story: you where fighting deamons and when you get home they are there too, well it does look like it was givin a few moments of thought

For it to be a true sequel, it would need some major addition in the way of tech/enemies etc. Also the story would have to be given a few moments thought.

Doom 2

tech improvments:none, thats far away from a "major addition"

story: you where fighting deamons and when you get home they are there too, well it does look like it was givin a few moments of thought

If you read his post carefully Rancid-Radio, you'd notice that he wrote "addition in the way of tech/enemies etc."
Doom 2 has both new enemies and a new weapon as well as *one* new item.
Oh, and the story is better written than that Final Doom rubbish, so I'd say that at least *some* thought was put into make it look like it was written by a decent writer - even though I admit that there's some inconsistency in the Doom 2 story (you return to Earth on a well-deserved leave, wtf? According to Doom1's ending you arrived there through a gateway).

Ok...lemme explain this in 3rd grader terms

DooM = first of the DooM Series

DooM II = the second

Final DooM = an extension of DooM II, we could consider Final DooM what happened in DooM II but was never seen.

DooM 64 = an extension of DooM, yes thats right, he was on Phobos, won, was sent back, thefore its an extension.

Final DooM = an extension of DooM II, we could consider Final DooM what happened in DooM II but was never seen.

DooM 64 = an extension of DooM, yes thats right, he was on Phobos, won, was sent back, thefore its an extension.

Final DooM = Two unrelated tangents based loosely on the Doom 2 storyling both following the events of Doom 2 by a number of years. They are both contradictory to each other and to the previous Doom storyline, and therefore should not be considered part of the series.

DooM 64 = A sequel to Doom 2 based on the assumption that an Arch-Vile survived and ressurected everything, which didn't turn out that well because of the intense amounts of radiation. Though better than Final DooM, it is still not considered part of the series- just a tangent.

In fact, we don't even know if it's gonna be a sequel, a tangent or a remake.

hmm, I dunno if I would call it a remake. from what little we know, I would call it a Re-doing. If you think about it, the New engine is an extremely capable one and putting the old levels (with minor tweaks in) and similar monsters isn't going to work, so instead of Remaking it, they flesh out what they had eight years ago, and design the new game around the story, so it's not the same to the original but close enough not to be a sequel.

hmm, I dunno if I would call it a remake. from what little we know, I would call it a Re-doing. If you think about it, the New engine is an extremely capable one and putting the old levels (with minor tweaks in) and similar monsters isn't going to work, so instead of Remaking it, they flesh out what they had eight years ago, and design the new game around the story, so it's not the same to the original but close enough not to be a sequel.

...And that's not a remake?
RtCW is described as a remake of Wolf3d, but it has none of Wolf3d's levels in it. I'd say Graymatter and Id tried to flesh out what they had almost 10 years ago in wolf3d.

But maybe you would be so kind as to post a definition of a remake (and maybe one of a re-doing as well).

Okay, so maybe it is a remake. ah nevermind me.

Frankly, I'd prefer it to be a sequel, but it wouldn't hurt too much if it turned out to be a remake.

I can think of plenty of excuses for making a sequel to Doom 2 - after all the old Doom games don't reveal an awful lot about WHAT excactly Hell is.

Frankly, I'd prefer it to be a sequel, but it wouldn't hurt too much if it turned out to be a remake.

I thought that someone on the Doom3/NextDoom team commented on this? I was under the impression it was a sequel set in the same universe. Perhaps I got that wrong. Even if it is a remake, it would'nt be of too much concern as, if we take RtCW as an example we see that there is plenty if different content from the original. Some might argue that you could consider it a sequel simply on that basis, even if technically isn't billed as one. My point is, it will be obviously different from the original Doom, so remake or not, it should not pose a serious problem for fans.

Actually id's CEO said it won't be called DOOM 3, so I'm pretty sure it's not a sequel. It's remake, or re-doing as Dan calls it.

They have the tools to tell it right this time. Sure, that'll ruin the old games when it comes to plot consistency, but hey, they're just games.

if their re-doing doom do you think it'll have any of the lost items and ideas that where in the doom bible?

Hell no, Romero already said nothing of that was really considered for the game, except 2 or 3 loose objects.

Oh yeah, you're gone. ^_^

ha. No dan didn't say that. I did. Just because it's dan's avatar doesn't mean he said it. I still call it a re-doing, because as someone else said RTCW isn't exactly the same as the original, not different enough to be a sequel and not the same as the original. As far as I see it, most remakes are pretty faithful to the original, RTCW in my opinion wasn't, it was still close enough.

Heh. Sucker.

Sure, that'll ruin the old games when it comes to plot consistency, but hey, they're just games.

That's probably why I'd prefer it a sequel.
But hey, I've been used to a thought of the new game being a remake for a long time and a more plished/improved retelling of the Doom story would likely be cool as Hell.