Doom 2: Sequel or Expansion Pak?

[Final Verdict]

11 minutes ago, SteelPH said:

Yes.

 

The only true answer to this conundrum.

[Boaby Kenobi]

I love Doom II but to me it feels more of an update, a bit like the PES or FIFA series where a new game is released every year, and it's ultimately the same thing with a few updates. If Doom 93 was released today I could easily see Hell on Earth as DLC being released a few months later. Maybe I think this way as my first experience of Doom was on the PSX and Doom & Doom II can be viewed as one continuous adventure on that particular edition.

 

[Loud Silence]

Expansion pack. Same engine, most of content is from first Doom. Only new maps and few new monsters. Just like in Quake and Quake II mission packs.

[Chip]

6 hours ago, AtimZarr1 said:

It's interesting that this question is rarely posed for Doom 64. Mechanically, it's quite similar to the original Doom - nothing has changed from collecting key cards, flipping switches, and fighting monsters to get to the exit. Just like Doom II, Doom 64 comes with new maps, new music, new technical advancements, and a new weapon. But it has fewer enemies than Doom II. So why doesn't anybody argue that Doom 64 is an expansion to the original Doom?

Either because of the new graphics or the new gameplay. DooM 64 has a lot of puzzles, rooms close to each other that can be entered several times, and so much more. They took time to make the game, and it really shows. To me, it felt like a whole new game from a whole new series. So, it can't really be considered an expansion when it is so different from the original game and still follows a big story started in the original game.

6 hours ago, AtimZarr1 said:

And yet if the same person walked by and saw Doom and Doom II gameplay side-by-side - they'll likely assume it's the same game.

That is similar to many sequels from this time. a lot of games used the same engine, so they could save time using the same one. So, I would call games like the original Wolfenstein and its sequel actual sequels, and not one being an expansion to the other. Same with games like Yar's Revenge, Mega Man, and so much more. 

[Hellektronic]

I'm going to have to say more of an expansion. *shrugs*

 

It's pretty much a matter of viewpoint though, and doesn't suggest I think Doom 2 is a lame sequel. I just grew up in the era of expansion packs, and by definition, I kind of regard anything that doesn't wholly change the game and the graphics as an expansion. Like, oh... Return to Na Pali for Unreal. That wasn't a sequel, it was just a fun expansion with new enemies, new weapons, new maps, etc.

 

In my opinion, I don't think "expansion" is a derogatory, belittling term, haha. Expansion packs are, quite frankly, one of the best ideas in gaming ever.

[OxalaiaQuilombensis]

It's a sequel. It stood true to it's roots,added new monsters with cool mechanics that expands the DOOM chess board(except for you,Hell Knight >:c),and that's pretty much it. It corrected the DOOM I mistakes,and upgraded it overall. It's a good sequel.

[Maes]

A Sequel using the same engine. Can you imagine what the reception would be if id really had a completely different engine for Doom 2, especially one that wouldn't guarantee playability with comparable specs to the original? E.g. something as groundbreaking as Quake? Would it be equally well recepted? I'm not asking in 1996, but in 1994 when Doom II came out. That's not a whole lotta time since Doom came out.

 

What about Doom II having the same extent of features differences as Heretic? Would it be considered "a sequel, not an expansion" then? What about Hexen or Strife?

[Artman2004]

4 hours ago, magicsofa said:

Are you joking? Homing revenant missiles, mancubus fireballs, pain elementals being summoners, both of archvile's abilities, and the icon of sin are all new mechanics. Furthermore, it's been proven in this thread that actually, doom 2 does look like earth to some extent.

Engine enhancements are not needed for a sequel. That would be like saying a movie isn't a sequel because it wasn't shot with new cameras. No way, it's a sequel because the filmmakers made it as a continuation of the first movie. You might think it sucks, but that doesn't magically turn it into an expansion pack.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to paint Doom 2 as such a horrible game, I like Doom 2. But I just think it's kind of underwhelming as what it calls itself. Also, they really could've better executed the Earth theme.

[seed]

Proper sequel.

 

It may not have been technologically revolutionary like Doom was for its time, and didn't add a lot of new content apart from some new mapping tricks, enemies, and a weapon, but it's just different enough to differentiate itself from its predecessor. It also has its own executable and does not require the use of the first game to run, so it's not an expansion pack even from a technical perspective.

 

On the other hand, Final Doom, Thy Flesh Consumed, NRFTL, and Sigil are all expansions.

[Aaron Blain]

The view that it is an expansion pack is based on a very superficial view of the game. "Only one new weapon" etc.

 

In terms of gameplay, Doom 2 is a hugely different game and represents a great deal of iteration and design. There's a lot in there, it's just not in the form of graphics.

[Lila Feuer]

Proper sequel.

[TriTT]

It’s a sequel. That’s why it’s called “Doom II” and not “Doom: Expansion Pack”.  They did a much better job at making it obvious that it was connected to a previous game than they did when they made Spear of Destiny (which is a prequel to Wolfenstein 3D) when they brought it to retail. SOD was meant to be the retail Wolfenstein 3D title but it didn’t sell nearly as well as Wolfenstein 3D, and while Doom was a huge success, Doom II was a massive success as well. They learned from their mistakes with SOD and did it right with Doom II. 
 

Doom II might look a lot like Doom, but it is not the same game. Spear of Destiny looks a lot like Wolfenstein 3D, but it’s a completely different game from Wolf 3D as well. Doom II might have a lot more similarities to Doom on the inside but I’m pretty sure that was done so deliberately because unlike with Wolfenstein, Id was actually very interested in making Doom user-friendly for modders (this is why Doom modders are scared of EXE flies while Wolf modders are use to needing to download separate EXEs). SOD required its own source code branch and files that were completely separate from Wolf 3D, but having Doom and Doom II be fairly compatible was a smart move on Id’s part because it ensured the games would have a lot of support that could be compatible for both games. 

 

I get where people are coming from when they say things like “Doom II and Spear of Destiny are just glorified expansion packs”, but just because the games share many of the same graphics, sounds, etc, that doesn’t make it an “expansion”. You still need Doom II in order to play Doom II. It won’t matter if you have Doom or the Ultimate Doom, or Final Doom, and for this reason alone it should throw this argument out the window, because this proves the game is a stand alone game.
 

Here’s an example of this mindset outside of gaming, let’s talk Glocks... between the gen 1 to gen 2 to gen 3 to gen 4 and finally to gen 5, a lot of people say “there’s no difference” while Glock says “we have made significant changes from generation to generation”. Who’s right? Glock is. The guns might look mostly the same from one to the next on the outside, but the differences on the inside are what makes the big differences between having a gen5 and having a gen 1. You don’t have a gen5 if you have a gen 1-4, just like you don’t have Doom II just because you have Doom, they may look the same on the outside for the most part and share some of the same internal features just like the Glocks, but they are different and having one does not mean you have the other. 
 

Edited July 30, 2020 by TriTT

[unerxai]

When you first play MAP01 it may look like more of the same, but the deeper you get into the game the more you see the differences with the first one. Aside from the new enemies and weapon, the overall game was designed with a much meaner intent towards the player, and that counts too.

 

Would've been nice a couple more new features? Sure, but still a worthy sequel.

[bfredric]

I unfortunately didn’t know about mods until 2003 so doom II tnt Plutonia gave me more Doom in the meantime so there’s that

[seed]

14 hours ago, EtherBot said:

Opposing Force has more content than Half-Life (more aliens, different guns). Resurrection of Evil has more content than Doom 3 (more demons, SSG). Aside from Doom 2 being the same length as Doom 1 I don't see where it becomes more impressive than expansion packs like those, in relation to their base games.

 

For your (semi-valid) comparison, it's a sequel because it continues the story where it left off, quite simple really.

 

Opposing Force is a expansion, same for Blue Shift, and both take place at the same time the original HL does but from the point of view of two different characters, so they couldn't fit the label of "sequel" even if they wanted to.

 

They all start roughly around the same time, and Blue Shift concludes its story after Barney witnesses the Marines dragging Gordon to the trash compactor, which is halfway through HL and the end of Apprehension, while OP4 ends shortly after G-Man recruits Gordon and detains Shephard.

[OliveTree]

Just now, seed said:

It's a sequel because it continues the story where it left off, quite simply really.

 

Resurrection of Evil continues the story from where Doom 3 left off... 

[seed]

2 minutes ago, EtherBot said:

Resurrection of Evil continues the story from where Doom 3 left off... 

 

Yes.

[TriTT]

21 minutes ago, EtherBot said:

Resurrection of Evil continues the story from where Doom 3 left off... 

Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil says “DOOM 3: RESURRECTION OF EVIL”. So where’s the point in your response? 

[Roebloz]

I think the reason why Doom 2 is often seen as not a proper sequel is because if we compare it to Sonic 1, 2 and 3&K which were released at that time, each game were the same idea but each with their own different art styles and even if the gameplay was largely the same, things were added to add twists to said gameplay. Doom and Doom 2 however? Same art style and while there were new enemies and linedef actions, It's closer to Doom 1 than Sonic 2 is to Sonic 1 (Or Sonic 3 to Sonic 2). Still taking the classic Sonic series as an example, Sonic and Knuckles was much more of an expansion pack to Sonic 3 (Which it was in this case, to create the full intended game by the devs) than a full-on standalone game. It has the same things as Doom 2 does in terms of difference (Or lack thereof) with the original game. S&K still had the same artstyle for everything and even if there were new levels and new enemies/bosses it feels more like an expansion than a proper sequel (IN THIS CASE IT IS I KNOW) Sounds familiar? Doom 2 has the same set of differences in that it adds new enemies and levels but keeps the same art style from Doom 1 even with the new graphics so with that in mind, it's easy to assume some people could indeed think of Doom 2 as an expansion pack. Am I making any sense? I hope so. To end things off, what's my point of view on all this? It's a sequel, as sequels don't need to reinvent the gameplay everytime.

[OliveTree]

1 hour ago, TriTT said:

Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil says “DOOM 3: RESURRECTION OF EVIL”. So where’s the point in your response? 

if merely continuing from the story of the previous game is all that we need to define something as a sequel than RoE is a sequel and not an expansion lol. I just found it funny that Seed had a lot to say about Opposing Force but didn't acknowledge RoE...

[TriTT]

8 minutes ago, EtherBot said:

if merely continuing from the story of the previous game is all that we need to define something as a sequel than RoE is a sequel and not an expansion lol. I just found it funny that Seed had a lot to say about Opposing Force but didn't acknowledge RoE...

To me, Doom II is a sequel because it cannot be played without owning Doom II. You can’t own Doom/Ultimate Doom and say you have Doom II. So it being a standalone game is what I feel makes the argument that it’s an expansion null and void. Feeling like an expansion and being an expansion are two different things. 
 

ROE I’m pretty sure requires (or at least it did before BFG edition put them all together) that you have Doom 3 installed or at least own Doom 3 for it to work. So it is without any wiggle room - an expansion to Doom 3, and it even says so in its title. 
 

I think you may have misunderstood what seed was trying to say though. Doom 2 is a DIRECT sequel to Doom. You follow in the footsteps of the very same space marine that was in the first game, just seconds after he returns to Earth. Doom 3: ROE may continue the Doom 3 story, but you are not the same marine from the base game. 

[Doomkid]

8 hours ago, Hellektronic said:

I'm going to have to say more of an expansion. *shrugs*

 

It's pretty much a matter of viewpoint though, and doesn't suggest I think Doom 2 is a lame sequel. I just grew up in the era of expansion packs, and by definition, I kind of regard anything that doesn't wholly change the game and the graphics as an expansion. Like, oh... Return to Na Pali for Unreal. That wasn't a sequel, it was just a fun expansion with new enemies, new weapons, new maps, etc.

 

In my opinion, I don't think "expansion" is a derogatory, belittling term, haha. Expansion packs are, quite frankly, one of the best ideas in gaming ever.

Interesting perspective, and I agree. Who ever said more of a good thing was bad, after all? I think of D2 as a sequel, not only for my own reasons but for reasons others have brought up as well, but I also think people automatically assuming something negative when they hear “expansion pak” comes from the modern era where certain games come in an incomplete state without the so-called “expansion”.
 

It’s a shame, because the real, non-scummy variety of expansion that actually just gives you more of what you love is a great thing. Back in Doom’s era (and in pre 2010 in general) it never had such a negative connotation.

[Uni Musuotankarep]

It's a semi-sequel to me. Because Doom 2 doesn't add new features like jumping, crouching and mouse aim, or slopes, or even dynamic horizontally moving and or breakable sectors.

And also because it's just Doom 1 that has the Super Shotgun and new monsters, the new gun is powerful, sure. But the Postal 2 Sawed Off is better since you can gib enemies with it better.

[Cynical]

Doom 2 is a stand-alone game that doesn't require Doom 1 to be installed to work.  It's a sequel.

[Final Verdict]

9 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

 

It’s a shame, because the real, non-scummy variety of expansion that actually just gives you more of what you love is a great thing. Back in Doom’s era (and in pre 2010 in general) it never had such a negative connotation.

 

This part is 100% truth.

 

Back then expansions were awaited with barely contained anticipation by most people. It was almost like a sequel before the real thing. A lot of expansions were also more meaty back then, sometimes doubling the size of the base game. Then all the carrot-on-a-stick nonsense started, I even stopped referring to them as expansions and simply called it DLC. 

 

For me an expansion only gets that title if it adds a lot of content to the game. Everything else is good/bad DLC but never worthy of expansion status, regardless of how they word it or advertise it. That's just me though, a fine coat of dust from the days of yore that I never shook off.

 

That said, not everything was better back then. I'm well aware of how nostalgia can creep into your memories. The older you get the better it seemed 'back in ye olde days' and I'm only in my 30's.

 

I really dread to think what it's like when you're actually old, everything must seem somehow dimmer and less...vibrant? I mean look at me rambling on, now add another 40-50 years and I'll be shaking my fist at children and then the sky, in that order. Because...well, I'll have to blame something for my decrepit frame and gravity ravaged visage.

 

I could accept all that happily, if it wasn't for the fact that my cognitive powers will be akin to that of a newborn baby. Complete with bathroom misadventures, nappy's and needing someone to wash and hand-feed me. Sound familiar? Ha, it's worse this time because you don't have the luxury of being oblivious. That has to be the greatest of insults. It's entirely unacceptable and if there is an afterlife I promise you someone will answer for this indignity.

 

And with that gloomy- and utterly random- admission, I bid thee fair weather.

 

[DooM Bear]

I definitely understand why people can feel it is just an expansion and is definitely on the edge!

 

For me the big difference between a sequel and an expansion is what happens with the story.

 

For instance, HL: Opposing Force and HL: Blue Shift add new weapons, enemies, a new campaign, etc. compared to HL1 (just like DooM 2 does) but they still revolve around the same situation / time and don’t continue on past the end (or at least not substantially past the end) of the original game so they are expansions.

 

DooM 2 though continues the main story and therefore is a sequel :-D

 

I am sure there are many games that contradict this view point though and, again, do agree DooM 2 is definitely on the edge!

[OliveTree]

3 hours ago, TriTT said:

To me, Doom II is a sequel because it cannot be played without owning Doom II. You can’t own Doom/Ultimate Doom and say you have Doom II. So it being a standalone game is what I feel makes the argument that it’s an expansion null and void. Feeling like an expansion and being an expansion are two different things. 
 

ROE I’m pretty sure requires (or at least it did before BFG edition put them all together) that you have Doom 3 installed or at least own Doom 3 for it to work. So it is without any wiggle room - an expansion to Doom 3, and it even says so in its title. 

I think this is a fair enough reason to consider Doom II a sequel in terms of being "a standalone entry taking place after the previous mainline game". My argument wasn't that Doom II isn't any of that so idk exactly why this is a reply to me lol. Regarding RoE, I'm fairly sure you could always play that on its own. I've never owned a boxed PC copy, but the steam release (not the BFG version) is able to be played on its own, and there was a release for the original xbox that was obviously the same.

 

3 hours ago, TriTT said:

I think you may have misunderstood what seed was trying to say though. Doom 2 is a DIRECT sequel to Doom. You follow in the footsteps of the very same space marine that was in the first game, just seconds after he returns to Earth. Doom 3: ROE may continue the Doom 3 story, but you are not the same marine from the base game. 

yeah this is a valid distinction.

 

For the record, I personally feel like both sides of the question have merit (hence my original post). 

[jazzmaster9]

Doom 2 is a sequel, i cant see it being just an expansion

 

adds:

- New Weapon

- 32 NEW levels, remember Doom 1 (pre Ultimate Doom) only had 27. so it has even more content than the first game (which in my book disqualifies it from being an expansion)

- New Enemies with new attack mechanics

- New Music

- New Graphic art.

 

The ONLY  way to consider this an expansion is if it had 16 or so levels, a Black Imp and a Hell Knight.

[Dexiaz]

Doom 2 doesn't require Doom 1 to run, so it's not an expansion pack. The MEANING of the Expansion packs are "expand the game". Which game? Doom 2 doesn't expand the Doom 1 itself.

[MassiveEdgelord]

I don't get why people say using the same engine as DOOM 1 makes it an expansion. By that logic, DOOM for the SNES is a sequel because it uses the reality engine instead of Idtech1