Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
samiam

Why does Doom have more long-term popularity?

Recommended Posts

You know, looking through the internet, there is a very common motif that I have observed: The original Doom has a lot more long-term popularity than all of the first-person shooters that came out after Doom.

For example, once Quake came out in 1996, most of the people playing Doom went on to playing Quake. Strife was the last commercial game using the original Doom engine, and it flopped because everyone's attention was on Quake.

However, as the years passed and Quake was replaced by Quake II which was replaced by Unreal and then Half-Life and then Quake III and so on, there was a hardcore community of players of the original Doom that have stayed with the game. I don't see this with any of the other games; I remember I would read http://quakeworld.com in the late 1990s and download the latest cool deathmatch map there to play my roommate some 1-on-1. Today, quakeworld.com is dead and I can't find anywhere on the internet a really active community of people still playing Quake [1], much less level designers making professional-quality deathmatch maps and giving them away on the internet.

However, the Doom community is still alive and well. As one comparison, http://doom.wikia.com/ has some 2,126 articles (including articles on, say, every map Heretic comes with) while http://quake.wikia.com/ has only 310 articles. New maps still keep popping up in /newstuff, and we even are coming up with better and better random map generators for Doom (Quake briefly had one RMG but it went nowhere).

Any thoughts to why the original Doom lives on, while the communities for other FPS games from the era have all but died out? Is it easier to make maps for the original Doom? Do people really like the auto-mapper? Or maybe because the original Doom was the original really commercially successful FPS game?

[1] To be fair here, there is http://nexuiz.com which is a free first-person shooter in the spirit of Quake/Unreal/etc.

Share this post


Link to post

There are a lot of key factors. A lot of minor things too that most modern games replicate but I don't sell myself out for.

1. Editing is easy. It's got a really simple mapmaking process to create lifelike 'almost 3D' rooms'. I'm sure that kept people interested when they got into doom editing. Also because of comparative creativity, people try to impress each other by seeing the mapping "styles" people create.

2. AI is simple but effective. Monsters will track you down by vaguely walking toward your general direction in only 8 possible angles, and will fire at you from time to time when you are in sight. It's predictable but challenging at the same time.

3. Shotguns are by far the greatest weapons in the world. Making it the primary firearm in Doom is an enormous plus in my book.

4. Limitations in Editing. I think due to some of the limitations Doom has in what it can do, People naturally impress each other by finding loopholes and editing techniques to create realistic illusions.

5. Doom runs on everything. EVERYTHING.

I know there are some more key points I'm missing but I can't think of anymore at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post

Continuing JohnnyRancid's list:

6. Doom is fast Fast FAST. Doomguy must be the fastest living being on Earth, and that's crucial for Doom's gameplay in the bigger fights.

7. Doom can easily fit itself to many different scenarios (HR, "normal maps", survival horror, etc) without actually modding the game mechanics.

8. Doom's monsters are simple but interesting and none of them are really useless (save for the SS :-p ). I don't recall seeing other monsters like Arch-viles anywhere else, for example. Also, since the monsters are simple they are easy to use in many different situations, while more scripted monsters are much more limited.



Okay, I guess the reason Doom is still as popular as it is is a sum of many products (cult-status, ease of editing, gameplay features). Still you need to keep in mind that there are new people finding and liking Doom even today, so we can't all be just nostalgic fools. There has to be something about that old bastard game to keep even new players interested, despite the worse graphics, lower quality sounds and so on.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that, aside from its good qualities (which say why this role is played by DOOM and not some other FPS of its time), there's a technical reason. Its simpler resources and "2.5D" technology offer something different from newer FPS games.

Quake plays a similar role to DOOM's in respect to 3D FPS games, historically, but since these are actual and have such a long history, there's a diversity that distracts people from paying attention to it.

Since more of it is hard-coded and moddable in a less explicit way, the game encourages certain degree of consistency. TCs and mods exist, but the majority of DOOM add-ons are by far simply additional levels. This makes the game itself and its qualities, that subsist in add-ons, more identifiable and characteristic.

Also, id software did the right things to keep the game alive. The game is about FPS essentials, Carmack released the source relatively early and id Software keeps the DOOM name going commercially with its own new products.

Share this post


Link to post
Jodwin said:

Continuing JohnnyRancid's list:

6. Doom is fast Fast FAST. Doomguy must be the fastest living being on Earth, and that's crucial for Doom's gameplay in the bigger fights.



For me, that's the reason where most modern games fail. Plus, the simplicity of the engine allows a lot more monsters at the same time.

In modern games it's often only 20% the amount of enemies but to compensate they have increased health so the gameplay is slowed down even more.

Share this post


Link to post

I was wondering this myself lately. I'm generally a nostalgic gamer, I'd rather play a crappy SNES ROM than the latest Guitar Hero or PC FPS, and when I made a list of games I'd finished, the large percentage of them were in the late-80s to mid-90s.

The thing that grasps me personally is the fact that everything was so new back then. Commander Keen was the first parallax scrolling platformer for PC. Doom was the first textured 3D shooters, and one of the first texture-mapped 3D games period. Games back then weren't just a licensed engine with some new graphics, they were entire new genres each release, with never-before seen features. You just don't get that these days.

Sure, there have been some great games since then. I loved playing Half-Life and Goldeneye and Gran Turismo just as much as everyone else, but I'll always come back to my classics.

Doom specifically just hits some sort of aesthetic and idealogical sweet spot for me. The graphics are good enough that you can't mistake what you're seeing, but still not so crap that they remove all imagination from the playing experience. It relies on good gameplay with a slick engine, rather than being too focused on looks and not enough on story, like so many games these days are.

Share this post


Link to post

I to have wondered this as of late, when my love for Doom was met with slight confusion from a bunch of my friends. Some said it was crap because it wasn't really 3D, others said it was because you couldn't look up and down, and some said it tried to be realistic but just wasn't. I argued that certain source ports eliminated these "problems", but they still maintained that it was shit.

Anyway, I started to wonder if I really only loved it out of sheer nostalgia, something which I myself really hate doing.

After much thinking however, I came to the conclusion that no other game has provided me with as much entertainment. I've played through the IWAD levels so much, yet I never get bored. I enjoy the challenge of new maps I've never played, but can happily go back to ones I've played to death.

And it hit me, that the game simply hasn't aged. Sure, the graphics may look a bit outdated, but the gameplay has never been successfully replicated by any game. It has something that no other game has, and that's what makes it special. You could argue that all you really do is shoot, flick switches and find keys, but the game is so good at making these 3 tasks doable is so many different ways.

Even now, 16-ish years after it's release, people are still creating brand new Doom experiences, showing us things we never thought capable of the engine. It shows just how solid a game they created years ago, and I seriously doubt id thought it would be as big as it is now.

Share this post


Link to post

Doom is fun, replayable, challenging, fast-paced, easily modified, innovative, technologically advanced (for it's time), multiplayer enabled, optimized for performance, terrifying, at times hilarious, atmospheric, immersive, ever-evolving, controversial, balanced, and simple yet complicated. Doom is perfect.

There is no game on the planet that meets this entire criteria. And sadly, no game will probably ever come close. Doom has such a long-term popularity because it is anything and everything, all at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post

And imagine that there was a period, ca. 1995-1997 where Doom was shunned and everybody was waiting for the next "Doom killer" to come.

Well, will be Corridor 7 (Wolf3D engine?) Nahh... Rise of the Triad? (you've got to be fucking kidding). Dark Forces? (Worthwhile, but way out of specs compared to Doom). Descent. Nope (too different, way out of specs too) and so on and so on.

To this Doom replied with Final Doom...which was, well, not received very well (I recall some ranting comments from Gamespot comparing it an "aging athlete that has to hang his running shoes and give way to the new breed").

I had even went as far as complaining to a magazine that had dared give a low score to Final Doom (the same magazine had practically given a 100% score to Doom 1/Doom 2 a couple of years ago, in late 1994).

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

I had even went as far as complaining to a magazine that had dared give a low score to Final Doom (the same magazine had practically given a 100% score to Doom 1/Doom 2 a couple of years ago, in late 1994).

I have written to magazines about similar sort of stuff. Wasting paper printing outlandish crap, not at all true to (what I think should be) the ideals and content of the magazine.

I had one editor write me back and essentially say "My job is to shift copies, not be a purist. My options are either appease a minority, or make lots of cash, what do you think I'm going to do?"

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say, I've always thought that ease of modding was a big thing. It seems to me that the lifespan of a game is tied to its modding community - people are eventually going to get bored of the stock levels, stock monsters, etc. However, with most modern games, you practically have to be a professional game designer to build a mod. With Doom, almost anyone can do it, and as a result, umpteen bagjillion years later, we still have tons of new levels and such being pumped out, because old modders don't get burned out, and it's very accessible to newcomers.

Share this post


Link to post
Super Jamie said:

I had one editor write me back and essentially say "My job is to shift copies, not be a purist. My options are either appease a minority, or make lots of cash, what do you think I'm going to do?"



Ouch! What a great way to devalue one's standpoint. And it perfectly explains why game review magazines are a waste of both money and paper. I don't want to hear what the majority is supposed to expect but what the people really thing. But that's the one thing these magazines never contain.

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

Ouch! What a great way to devalue one's standpoint. And it perfectly explains why game review magazines are a waste of both money and paper. I don't want to hear what the majority is supposed to expect but what the people really thing. But that's the one thing these magazines never contain.

Makes you wonder if they actually play the games at all.

Anyway, how much do you guys think the whole shareware thing contributed to Doom's popularity?

Share this post


Link to post

I would say quite a lot, seeing as it was incredibly easy for just about anyone to get their hands on what is (arguably) the best part of the game for free online or for dirt-cheap on shareware disks. All the people who played through the shareware and never bought the game still got a very clear idea of what Doom was, both as a game and a technology. IMO much more so than they would have if e2 or e3 had been the shareware, even.

Share this post


Link to post
Reevys said:

Even now, 16-ish years after it's release, people are still creating brand new Doom experiences, showing us things we never thought capable of the engine. It shows just how solid a game they created years ago, and I seriously doubt id thought it would be as big as it is now.


Not to mention the advances in source port technology which has allowed those who like to think without limits to create anything and everything. Even those ultra-modern (G)ZDoom wads that try to resemble newer games still retain the core of what makes Doom look feel and play the way it's always done.

And it's a great mix, what other games could have so much user-made content that one minute you could be playing a classic 1994 style map followed by a 1000-monster slaughterfest without engine limits then enter an immersive OpenGL-enhanced world with new monsters and game mechanics?

Share this post


Link to post
The Ultimate DooMer said:

And it's a great mix, what other games could have so much user-made content that one minute you could be playing a classic 1994 style map followed by a 1000-monster slaughterfest without engine limits then enter an immersive OpenGL-enhanced world with new monsters and game mechanics?


Doom truly is the King of Kings. Allelujah!

Share this post


Link to post

The simplicity of the gameplay leads to good replay value. Interest has been kept alive by source ports, which have allowed the mods released for Doom to develop in new and interesting ways that were not possible before the source release. Mods like Action Doom are a testament to that.

I also think making Doom levels remains an attractive prospect because the process of making a Doom level is comparatively simple compared to "true 3D" engines. The fact that it's possible to knock out a complete Doom level in the space of a day has got to be satisfying. I'm pretty sure that can't be possible with modern engines.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

I also think making Doom levels remains an attractive prospect because the process of making a Doom level is comparatively simple compared to "true 3D" engines. The fact that it's possible to knock out a complete Doom level in the space of a day has got to be satisfying. I'm pretty sure that can't be possible with modern engines.

I wonder if this is a ongoing thing. Like if in twenty years making a map for a shooter we call "modern" will take as long as a Doom 1 map takes now.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd also like to add that Doom is relatively a small sized game too. DOOM2.wad is relatively 14MB, the latest version of ZDoom is probably 2MB at most. Looking at most other PC games, installation can take hours and consequently take place on several CDs. In turn you get a 15GB sized game that takes 10 minutes to load each at startup, 3 minutes to load each level or hub that has about 15 minutes of playing time, and I will play reluctantly through the whole game for about a week and get sick of it.

In addition to Doom's replay value, it only takes up a tiny fraction of my hard drive.

Share this post


Link to post

Replayability and moddibility. I remember discussing with someone who is totally against modding with some half-baked arguement that playing with the modded content is not the 'original' game anymore or something like that.

Modding is basically the lifeblood that keeps the game interesting and fun after a decade and a half while still going strong. If you limit your consumer's abilities to make user created content, people will get bored after a while, tossing it aside for something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. Chris said:

I remember discussing with someone who is totally against modding

Is he always like that or did he just get a new game and think it's super-cool?

Share this post


Link to post

Because it's always something different. The modding community in my opinion really gave the game longevity, as you can always make something new for it and see how far you can push the engine. And for someone like me that plays the console ports of Doom more than the PC, it's just that you can go through the levels and expect something different every time (EX. Will I gib this zombieman? Who will win in a monster infighting battle?). The atmosphere of the game is a biggie as well. In my opinion the PSX Doom games and Doom 64 have some of the best atmosphere I've ever seen in any video game.

Reevys said:

I to have wondered this as of late, when my love for Doom was met with slight confusion from a bunch of my friends. Some said it was crap because it wasn't really 3D, others said it was because you couldn't look up and down, and some said it tried to be realistic but just wasn't. I argued that certain source ports eliminated these "problems", but they still maintained that it was shit.


Being a freshman in high school right now, I always get this problem. "Why do you want to play that piece of shit when you can play games like Call Of Duty?" To bad they're all too fickle and graphic happy to give older games like Doom a try. Oh well, they all suck. :)

Share this post


Link to post
JohnnyRancid said:

3. Shotguns are by far the greatest weapons in the world. Making it the primary firearm in Doom is an enormous plus in my book.


This is one of the main reasons I play. Nothing gives me the same rush as hearing the Baron activate sound, and knowing that I'm gonna try to kill the blood thing with only a shotgun.

I'm also a big time buff of shotgun accuracy competition, and shoot trap/sporting clays almost weekly. Doom (1 and 2; 3 missed it) are the only games to ever accurately represent a shotgun in my opinion for an FPS game.

Share this post


Link to post

esselfortium said:
I would say quite a lot, seeing as it was incredibly easy for just about anyone to get their hands on what is (arguably) the best part of the game for free online or for dirt-cheap on shareware disks. All the people who played through the shareware and never bought the game still got a very clear idea of what Doom was, both as a game and a technology. IMO much more so than they would have if e2 or e3 had been the shareware, even.

Yeah... now that you mention it, I wondered why I didn't mention it in the "id got it right" portion of my post. Maybe I forgot but, then again, other games did the same and might not have ended up so well. Duke Nukem 3D, for example, was also distributed this way. Other things may have played against it: It was more derivative (of DOOM, even), less essential* and its developers took a long time to release the source and failed to continue the Duke Nukem brand in a solid way, with the vapors of DNF and all. Thus it managed to get ahead of DOOM back when 2.5D games were still commercially fresh but fell back later.

* Among this, it's more 3D-like environment may have made it easier to replace with a real 3D game that did that more effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
DuckReconMajor said:

Anyway, how much do you guys think the whole shareware thing contributed to Doom's popularity?

Massively. On release, ID only took out one magazine ad for Doom themselves. Romero gave the Doom shareware to vendors for free, and told them to keep the profits, something unheard of at the time. So places like Apogee, Softdisk, etc were the advertising the shareware product themselves, for their own income purposes, while ID were reaping the rewards from all the registered game purchases. When you think about it, getting someone else to advertise your own product for you, for nothing, is a pure stroke of genius.

Share this post


Link to post
JohnnyRancid said:

Looking at most other PC games, installation can take hours and consequently take place on several CDs. In turn you get a 15GB sized game that takes 10 minutes to load each at startup, 3 minutes to load each level or hub that has about 15 minutes of playing time, and I will play reluctantly through the whole game for about a week and get sick of it.


Are you contesting the system, consumer citizen? Work harder so you can afford a Better computer and play Better and Bigger games, because Bigger is always Better. Have a nice day.

Reevys said:

I to have wondered this as of late, when my love for Doom was met with slight confusion from a bunch of my friends. Some said it was crap because it wasn't really 3D, others said it was because you couldn't look up and down, and some said it tried to be realistic but just wasn't. I argued that certain source ports eliminated these "problems", but they still maintained that it was shit.


You should trick your friends into buying show your friends Big Rigs. After all, it's all the things that Doom isn't: it's "true photorealistic hardware 3D accelerated" and shitz. Or, even better, make them play a FPS creator or Genesis3D engine game...preferably Ethnic cleansing and let's see if they find those "superior" to Doom.

Share this post


Link to post

Super Jamie said:
Massively. On release, ID only took out one magazine ad for Doom themselves. Romero gave the Doom shareware to vendors for free, and told them to keep the profits, something unheard of at the time. So places like Apogee, Softdisk, etc were the advertising the shareware product themselves, for their own income purposes, while ID were reaping the rewards from all the registered game purchases. When you think about it, getting someone else to advertise your own product for you, for nothing, is a pure stroke of genius.

That must have helped, especially in allowing id Software to grow. They stopped doing it, though, once they got bigger, which may explain why other previously existing companies were more conservative regarding shareware. They had less to gain from it. DOOM II, the biggest selling DOOM game, was a retail game, although its popularity evidently benefited from all the people checking out the DOOM shareware package.

Funny thing is, the emphasis on shareware may explain why id Software bothered to put more effort in making the first episode look clean and consistent than the other two :p

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Funny thing is, the emphasis on shareware may explain why id Software bothered to put more effort in making the first episode look clean and consistent than the other two :p

I would have thought that had more to do with the swap from Romero's original maps, to Sandy's maps, with some based on Tom's ideas.

It's funny to call Knee Deep in The Dead polished by today's standards. Is there even one intentionally-aligned texture on E1M1? :P Gameplay, however, is indeed spot on. I wish Romero had made more PWADs.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×