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

If Doom / Doom 2 / Final Doom came out nowadays... Would you still buy the games?

Recommended Posts

Hey people,

 

So I keep reading these reviews in which people think that game sequels should have more content than the originals, that it's unacceptable to have less, and so on...

So I'm intrigued on how that would apply to Doom series. Say, Doom came out last year, and you have paid the game full price already ($60-ish), and later this year, Doom 2 comes out. You can't help but notice it has less maps, and only a bunch of new content (monsters, power-up, one new weapon...). Would you consider Doom 2 a worthy investment for the same full price ($60-ish again, maybe a little more if the game was successful) as a sequel? Or would you skip it entirely?

 

I'm curious to hear people's advice on this! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Doomworld needs a [myDoomVsDoom2Take][/] tag

 

I would buy Ultimate Doom and Final Doom just to get Plutonia (I'd buy it separately if i could)

I'd buy Doom 2 if it meant I could play the plentiful mods made for it.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, DuckReconMajor said:

Doomworld needs a [myDoomVsDoom2Take][/] tag

 

I would buy Ultimate Doom and Final Doom just to get Plutonia (I'd buy it separately if i could)

I'd buy Doom 2 if it meant I could play the plentiful mods made for it.

First off, lolwat

 

Then, that would mean you'd pay again $60 for Final Doom in it's entire format (64 maps).
Mods would still be a thing, but their produciton would be driven by how popular the games would be. (seeing as you'd get Final Doom over Doom 2, if people would follow that logic, it would then be pointless to get Doom 2)

 

Maybe I didn't get the point across very well -- Question should rather be, would you nowadays pay full price for Doom 2 knowing it has less maps and only little new content? Compared to most modern era games, in which while the core mechanics remain, the content around tends to get bigger.

Share this post


Link to post

Following the modern model, you'd have bought Doom (Episodes 1-3) for your $60, then paid an extra 10-15 to get Thy Flesh Consumed as DLC. Doom II would've been a full price sequel a year later, no questions asked, I think. Those new levels are the main thing, and you know the DLC and multiplayer support will focus on that. Sure enough, half a year later you get No Rest For The Living for $10 or so, then maybe another $10 for the Master Levels... Or you could've paid $75 up front for the deluxe edition and got the DLC as they dropped and a magenta skin for the Revenant or something as a pre-order bonus and a silly hat for the mugshot.

 

Final Doom would've been released as two individually-priced stand-alone episodes along the lines of Wolfenstein: The Old Blood, so probably about $20 each.

 

Basically, you'd be gouged. But assuming Doom was as cutting edge now as it was back then, we'd all lap it up because that's the consumer model.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd buy the games if they were released today in their most complete forms.

 

So

The Ultimate Doom

Doom II + Master Levels + No Rest for the Living

Final Doom

Doom 64

 

I'd buy them for 60 bucks each, no questions asked. Bonus points if we get the Jag/PS1/Xbox exclusive levels or the Romero levels.

Share this post


Link to post

there is some precedent for this.... Obviously there are already versions of these games being sold on digital storefronts like gog and steam and ofc the new mobile ports along with switch, and there's been console ports since the 90s. The new game came out, and people who've never heard of doom are buying the older games now after having a taste of the new one. I'm dubious very many people would pay full price, but retro games are in these days and I dont doubt people would, at least, warmly receive it if it were only just released.

Share this post


Link to post

Depends how much I love the game. Doom was ground breaking back then and if I was at the right age I suspect I would be a Doom addict buying any version.

 

You show me a glimpse of a Revenant, Mancubus and Arachnotron etc with Marketing telling me it provides 32 unique levels with hell on earth and I'm sold. Yes I would spend $60 on the next game a year later.

 

I'm sure I spend a few hundred dollars on games every year and that money could go on lesser games, why not Doom?

Share this post


Link to post

I would probably wait for a sale like I do for everything else I buy in the games department. :D If there's no sale, then I don't see why not as it's well worth buying.

Share this post


Link to post

As a DLC, sure.

 

At a full $40 price (which is what they went for back in the day), no way in hell.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Oxyde said:

Say, Doom came out last year, and you have paid the game full price already ($60-ish), and later this year, Doom 2 comes out. You can't help but notice it has less maps, and only a bunch of new content (monsters, power-up, one new weapon...). Would you consider Doom 2 a worthy investment for the same full price ($60-ish again, maybe a little more if the game was successful) as a sequel? Or would you skip it entirely?

 

This was basically how Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 went down. And I bought L4D2 on release, and enjoyed it. So, yeah I’d probably accept Doom II as a sequel. $60 for classic Doom though...? I’m not so sure I’d swallow that. Games like Dusk and Amid Evil are both in the $20 range, which I thought was reasonable. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Oxyde said:

would you nowadays pay full price for Doom 2 knowing it has less maps and only little new content? 

 

Doom 2 has more maps than Doom.  Fewer in total than Ultimate Doom, but UD came after it.

 

Also, in practice, buying Doom only gave you 18 new maps (since you could freely play 9 without paying) and UD gave you 27 (assuming you did not have original Doom; if you did, it was only 9).  Doom 2 has 32 new maps.

Share this post


Link to post

People buy shitty DLCs that last 2 hours and end before you know it for $20 (usually without any New content beside some stupid weapon and reskinned enemies) . Do you really think a standalone expansion that's bigger than the original hit game would fail? Stop comparing Doom 2 to trash DLCs. At the time it was a huge hit/improvement and cemented doom's position as top dog. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'd still buy it.

 

Of course not at full price, huh I haven't bought games at full price in ages, and never anything above 25$. Anything more than 40$ translates into a shit ton of money in my currency.

Share this post


Link to post

No because if they came out today, then they wouldn't have 25+ years of mods, some of which are truly excellent, to go along with them.

Share this post


Link to post

I feel people are misunderstanding the question. Is Doom 2 worth being a full priced game as a sequel to Doom? 

 

By itself, in today's market, I would have to say no. It would be more like an expansion along the lines of $30-$40. If it was combined with Final Doom then I would say yes it's worth the full $60.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/3/2019 at 3:19 AM, RonnieJamesDiner said:

This was basically how Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 went down. And I bought L4D2 on release, and enjoyed it.

 

Also note they tried to render the original obsolete afterwards when they ported most of its content to L4D2.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, seed said:

 

Also note they tried to render the original obsolete afterwards when they ported most of its content to L4D2.

 

Yeah, I can’t really argue that point. Though, they did release The Sacrifice DLC for the original in 2010 which was nice. But it even seemed like the majority of the modding community was accepting of the transition, as the bulk of the best custom campaigns were eventually ported over. That said, with custom campaigns like Death Aboard (one of my favorites), I still preferred playing it in the original anyways. 

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, RonnieJamesDiner said:

Yeah, I can’t really argue that point. Though, they did release The Sacrifice DLC for the original in 2010 which was nice. But it even seemed like the majority of the modding community was accepting of the transition, as the bulk of the best custom campaigns were eventually ported over. That said, with custom campaigns like Death Aboard (one of my favorites), I still preferred playing it in the original anyways. 

 

Indeed, and that was also clearly seen in the overall quality of the game I'd say. I don't think L4D2 is a bad game at all or anything, but with L4D1 you could tell that that game was made by people who actually wanted to do it, whereas L4D2 kind of just... happened. Makes we wonder why they didn't simply make DLCs for the original instead rather than make a new installment in the series.

 

I like the original more as well, primarily because of the main reason I've mentioned above. I prefer the maps, atmosphere, and models/graphics of the original game as well.

Share this post


Link to post

@seed

 

I can't recall the specifics, but I remember Valve had made a bunch of technical (and I think visual) improvements to the Source engine, which they wanted to utilize. And rather than trying to overhaul the original L4D, they just decided to make the sequel. Even though this basically dismissed their entire dialogue with the community regarding a bright future of DLC and addons for the original, I'm glad they didn't destroy L4D1 by making it play like the sequel. As much as I enjoyed L4D2, the movement, and guns, and combat just felt "weird" to me, compared to the original. It felt kind of sluggish, the weapons felt less impactful, the ragdoll physics and death animations seemed worse, and all sorts of other little things. Not to mention the general tone and atmosphere feeling far less appealing than the first game.

 

I completely agree with you that the sequel just didn't seem to have the passion of the original. I saw this most in the level design. Swamp Fever and Hard Rain were some of the laziest and boring pieces of level design I can remember in a Valve title, for me personally. Which is really funny considering, one of their big achievements on the enhanced version of the engine was this "dynamic weather" feature, which was the whole point of the Hard Rain campaign. Dynamic weather is a neat idea, sure, but the campaign is so flat and uninspired -- except maybe the interesting gameplay mechanic of the sugar cane factory having a boatload of Witches -- but the campaign as a whole was pretty underwhelming, and the weather feature did not compensate.

 

At the end of the day, it was one of those things where... my biggest draw to the game were the friends I played Versus with, so it didn't really matter whether it was L4D 1 or 2. But, the original was definitely a better game, in my opinion -- especially when it came to level design. And this point was made really clear to me when they ported the original campaigns over to L4D2, because my Versus group would almost entirely stick to the ported L4D1 maps after that.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/2/2019 at 6:53 PM, Oxyde said:

Say, Doom came out last year, and you have paid the game full price already ($60-ish), and later this year, Doom 2 comes out. You can't help but notice it has less maps

 

Wait, 32 maps is less than 27?

Because that's how it was. The original non-Ultimate DOOM had less maps than DOOM II. That was the thing, DOOM II was supposed to be bigger in every aspect (and it was).

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Jayextee said:

 

Wait, 32 maps is less than 27?

Because that's how it was. The original non-Ultimate DOOM had less maps than DOOM II. That was the thing, DOOM II was supposed to be bigger in every aspect (and it was).

Yeah, people get the timeline wrong

1993: Doom (27 maps)

1994: Doom II: Hell on Earth (32 maps)

1995: The Ultimate Doom (9 additional maps for Doom), The Master Levels for Doom II (21 additional maps)

1996: Final Doom (64 maps)

1997: Doom 64 (32 maps)

2010: Doom II: No Rest for the Living (9 additional maps for Doom II)

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, some people confuse Ultimate Doom with the original release of the game.

 

The original release was just Doom, released in '93, with a total of 27 levels, ending after Inferno, and then Doom 2 followed in' 94, with 32 (5 more). It is now referred to as Ultimate Doom but it only became Ultimate in '95 once Thy Flesh Consumed was added to the base game, acting as an expansion, and bringing the total map count to 36.

Share this post


Link to post

God damn it, I always forget that Doom came out only with 3 episodes... Shame on me!

Share this post


Link to post

Doom 2 maps are also bigger. People always forget id had very limited hardware back then and over detail would make big maps crash machines. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Pegg said:

Doom 2 maps are also bigger. People always forget id had very limited hardware back then and over detail would make big maps crash machines.

 

I remember reading something saying that Sandy's maps crashed the game usually and they had to raise some stuff. Carmack probably had some fun, heh.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder what our reactions would be in that alternate timeline.

 

"A first... first-person shooter? What is this? Oh, it looks like that old game... what was it called? Wolfenstein? I wonder what the gameplay is like."

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
×