Which type of doom level do you like them most?

Which "type" of Doom level do you like? and when i say that i mean a hellish level or a earth/military base level or other (if there is another kind).

i say earth/military base anyone else?

Earth/military because i have fond memories playing Knee deep in the dead on the Super Nintendo version of doom when i was younger.

But I'll play anything :D

I like small levels like the ones found in the original doom. Maybe these days I expect them to have a little more detail.. but no getting carried away.

I normally like hellish and techbase/military themed levels the most, but if a level is well constructed, the theme doesn't usually matter to me.

I'd have to go with techbase, as well. It was quite a while after playing the shareware that I actually managed to get my hands on a copy of the full game (I was 12 at the time, and video games are hella expensive for a 12-year-old), so I played Episode 1 to death and it's permanently seared into my brain.

I like outdoor, aesthetically pleasing open spaces. I can't stand closed up, indoor mazes I can't find my way out of with lots of keys and switches and places where monsters come in too close, crowd you, and kill you. I hate that crap.

I like the Shores of Hell texture set, but many of the E2 maps are just like the above described style that I hate. ENOUGH WITH THE MAZES, DAMMIT. They crush my soul :\

I like short, well-themed, well-designed, fun maps with sensible layout choices.

I can't really be bothered spending a week or two to play a megawad over and over again, but I will replay a short single map, or sometimes pick one good level in a megawad and replay that. I've lost count of the amount of times I've run doom2.exe -skill 4 -warp 7.

Theme doesn't bother me much, nor does detailing. From 2-texture Nightomb, to extensively-detailed green-hell Yesterday's Nightmare, to Needs More Detail's simple E1-style techbases, as long as a level is cohesive and consistent, I like it. I'd prefer solid gameplay to oodles of detail, even E1M1 is immersive enough for me. Imagination is a large part of playing Doom, filling in the blanks that a bunch of 128 pixel textures can't.

I like well-balanced maps. A hard battle like a Revenant or even Arch Vile straight up is not a problem as long as the player is given a fair chance (read: somewhere to hide and the SSG). I can't stand a few things, which usually cause me to quit a map straight away: unfair hitscanner traps like 50 chaingunners with nowhere to hide, distant Revenant snipers again with nowhere to hide, and that "ultra-hard" style of gameplay like Punishr or Go 2 It. I also don't really see the point in levels where you have to save a hundred times just to pass it, that's not testing peoples' skill, that's just trial-and-error.

I like 1024 levels because they allow someone to be very clever within reasonable yet still quite restrictive restraints. I like good speedmaps for the same reason, and I have no idea how Enjay made the absolutely brilliant ntspd002 MAP04 within 100 minutes.

I also love remakes of the original levels. I guess they appeal to my sense of 90s-games nostalgia, which is why I play Doom in the first place. Even better if they expand and improve on the originals.

Hell
Hell with Tech Base
Hell Techbase Canyons

You name it, combine one with the other.

I don't know about theme. I could narrow my tastes down to theme but ultimately I like them mostly open and surreal... and earth like... so that's my theme.

I generally enjoy a good City level, however Outdoor levels are my favorite. I'll never forget when I first played Nemesis (level 9?) in AV. What an awesome level... A huge island with a demonic temple weaving its way throughout. Very epic.

Beautiful.

My preferred theme is futuristic tech bases.

I'm not that fond of hellish maps because often they have no real sense of location (mostly thanks to trying to emulate Sandy Petersen's awful mapping style.) Those which try to do something different with a hell based theme often are outstanding works (like Demonized, for example.)

Graf Zahl said:

My preferred theme is futuristic tech bases.

I'm not that fond of hellish maps because often they have no real sense of location (mostly thanks to trying to emulate Sandy Petersen's awful mapping style.) Those which try to do something different with a hell based theme often are outstanding works (like Demonized, for example.)

Refresh my memory, please: Which Hell-themed maps did Sandy Petersen work on?

Map 24, Map 27, and Map 28 of Doom 2 were all done by Sandy.

engineer said:

Refresh my memory, please: Which Hell-themed maps did Sandy Petersen work on?

Basically all of them, unless they're The Living End or part of episode 4.

Graf Zahl said:

Sandy Petersen's awful mapping style

Heresy! You are honestly calling E2, E3, MAP07, MAP10 and MAP27-28 awful?

Yes

Super Jamie said:

Heresy! You are honestly calling E2, E3, MAP07, MAP10 and MAP27-28 awful?

Shitty maps are shitty, there's no two ways about it.

Super Jamie said:

Heresy! You are honestly calling E2, E3, MAP07, MAP10 and MAP27-28 awful?

Alot of the levels from E2, E3 and map10 was started by Tom Hall. But yeah, alot of them is very awful. I don't understand why he was so proud of e2m9.

esselfortium said:

Yes

heh

Tropical like and hellish are my favorites (with great amount of detail it is just fascinating).

more for everything I love hellish levels, but if a level is done well, then not important on which it type

Sandy's maps in Doom 2 have the best replay value and the most aggresive monster setup, so STFU. The rest are lame to be quite honest, excepting the first 6 or so levels.

I really like hellish levels the most, and I'm best able to map unrealistic hell or weird levels too, while I suck at techbases, which are supposed to follow a rigid model based on man-made buildings.

printz said:

Sandy's maps in Doom 2 have the best replay value

No.

and the most aggresive monster setup, so STFU. The rest are lame to be quite honest, excepting the first 6 or so levels.

That's not a sign of quality. Besides, I don't agree anyway. John Romero's Doom 2 maps are better at both this and replay value. Don't tell me that any of Sandy's maps beats MAP29 at anything!

I really like hellish levels the most, and I'm best able to map unrealistic hell or weird levels too, while I suck at techbases, which are supposed to follow a rigid model based on man-made buildings.

... and that's precisely the reason why I prefer tech levels in general. They are supposed to resemble something as opposed to being just a random collection of rooms. Hell must be a pretty much disorganized place. :D

I like all kinds of themes - I guess it's a matter of how they're put together, what textures are used (and how), and the flow of the map.

I too like all kinds of techbases - e1, some of e2 - from bright and shiny computerbases to abandoned, rusty, run-down industrial sites. I also like natural outdoor themes and caves. I am picky about hell maps - it has to be a certain kind for me to like (not sure how to define).

As for layout, I prefer large, sprawling areas (maybe not too huge) with lots of room to run around and fight freely, and interesting architecture/detail to keep it from being boring. If smaller areas are well-incorporated and not annoying, then even better. My mapping style tends to revolve around large, free-flowing foyer-like areas connecting several smaller areas, and if someone else's map is like that, there's a good chance I'll like it too.

I'm not even gonna argue about which original Doom(2) maps objectively good or bad. It's kind of like arguing about which subgenre of metal is better than another?..

Graf Zahl said:

Don't tell me that any of Sandy's maps beats MAP29 at anything!

MAP29 is both Romero's weakest work, and the most disappointing Doom 2 map. Revenant snipers and a Cyberdemon you can just walk past? Come on, this is the sort of crap people would have rejected as amateur 10 years ago.

Christoph said:

I am picky about hell maps - it has to be a certain kind for me to like (not sure how to define).

I think the Doom version of hell as green bricks and wood with pink/brown monsters is somewhat different to the typical Judeo-Christian idea of hell as all fire and full of red Satan-like creatures. I found that odd at first, but once I got my head around the idea of "hell" as a more eldritch place, I started enjoying hell-themed maps alot more.

Well one reason for my pickiness about hell maps is that I find there to be at least a few "types" of hell maps, and endless combinations between them and even other non-hell themes.

For instance there's outdoors hell, there's red/fire hell(E3M*?) or green/wood "eldritch" hell (map18), there's flesh hell (map28), there's "library" (often part "eldritch") hell (map27), and so on. I'm not stating those as any kind of actual, objective definition, except in my own mind right now, but just to show the differing kinds of hell maps. I guess I'm not so much opposed to any particular theme so much as the way it is technically incorporated into a map.

Just wondering: what exactly does constitute a "hell" map in the first place, and if there are any distinct subcategories, does anyone else have a take on it? I know this is slightly off-topic, and probably a very subjective, open-ended question, but now that I'm thinking about it I kinda want to explore it further...

Super Jamie said:

MAP29 is both Romero's weakest work, and the most disappointing Doom 2 map. Revenant snipers and a Cyberdemon you can just walk past? Come on, this is the sort of crap people would have rejected as amateur 10 years ago.

Others believe that this is one of the best maps in Doom 2. As for the Cyberdemon - so what? I don't hold thst against the map. You either don't need to kill the one in E3M9. Just run past it, get the items and get out ASAP. And best run past the rest of the unleashed hordes as well. The invulnerability makes it rather easy.

In response to the very first post, I too am a big fan of earth/military base maps. I usually like the "man-made" type of maps (the high-tech/scifi kind, not the real-world, brick and wood kind) more than natural or hellish maps, though it all depends on the details, and what mood I'm in.

Speaking of original Doom2 maps, I consider them a tad too old to have much replay value (except for nostalgia) - I usually cringe at the starkness of detailing and monsters - but I do value them for the time they were made, and the fact that they tend to serve as prototypes for newer maps and styles of maps.

For that reason, I am a very big fan of original (in both senses of the word) map re-makes. I like the idea of taking a map's basic theme or feel, and re-working to make it feel epic, new, and scary all over again just by twisting things around, making it look more detailed/badass, adding 3 times the monster count, etc. This is something I want to try my own hand at, as it seems really easy but also fun (both making the map and playing it). The original Doom2 maps are (by current standards) so simple and sub-par that almost anything would be an improvement, at least if done properly. In other words, I like the original maps' essence (and have already played them) so much that I want to see their spirits live on in newer, more vibrant forms! Or something like that.

Okay before I get lambasted by overzealous fans of old-skool original Doom2, let me sort of take back what I said about them being sub-par and whatnot. They're decent by themselves for the most part - there's just those certain parts that either have obvious flaws, or in my opinion could've been done slightly better, or could easily be re-done (using modern methods) to be much better. I'm not trying to criticize them so much as to say that by now, it should be easy to do some good remakes of them - taking just the original concepts and re-making them way better than the original.

Brown.