Doom 2: Sequel or Expansion Pak?

[seed]

16 hours 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...

 

Because OP4 and BS were not valid examples for the point you were trying to get across, if I got that right, as they start roughly at the same time as HL1, and end sooner than the base game (BS), or immediately afterwards (OP4), on top of requiring the content of the base game to run, even if back in the days of the WON version the required content already came pre-packaged, and still does on Steam, there's a reason why the "valve" folder still exists in both, so they are completely disqualified from being anything other than expansion packs and were even advertised and sold as such.

 

RoE may continue the story of Doom 3, but does so with a different protagonist and also requires the base game, even if it's bundled together with it and the Lost Mission in BFG Edition, so it's by all intents and purposes an expansion.

Edited July 31, 2020 by seed

[Boaby Kenobi]

13 hours 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.

 

Years ago an add-on/expansion pack was considered a good thing like you say, in fact, only games that were well received had additional releases because people wanted more content but didn't want to wait for the developers to come up with a "full" sequel, which back then could take up to at least a year.

Some of my favourite PC content is add-ons to other games like Fallout 3, C&C: Tiberian Sun got the Firestorm expansion, TES IV: Shivering Isles, Dragon Age: Origins - Pretty much all additional content is good, Mass Effect 2 - Again, most of the additional stuff was worth playing. Even consoles started to see this like the PS2 with MGS3: Snake Eater, which received an additional release with more content and of course the new camera view. Red Dead Redemption also had the zombie DLC stuff which I though was pretty good.

 

 

9 hours ago, EtherBot said:

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

 

Both the UK & US releases tell you on the back of the box that Doom 3 is required to play.

 

 

7 hours ago, Deⓧiaz said:

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.

 

The same could be said of Final Doom and that game is not considered by lots to not be a "full" sequel.

[ReaperAA]

Some think Doom 2 is a sequel while others think it is an expansion.

 

I have only one thing to say to all of you:

 

[Dexiaz]

2 hours ago, Boaby Kenobi said:

The same could be said of Final Doom and that game is not considered by lots to not be a "full" sequel.

Sorry, but that's the problem of "lots", not mine. I never had problems with calling Final Doom as Doom Sequel without Number (like Doom Eternal nowadays).

Edited July 31, 2020 by Deⓧiaz

[snapshot]

Sequel

 

The events take place after the first game's cliffhanger ending, Expansion Pack implies that it's a pack that requires a base game to work (like DLCs) Doom 2 is a standalone game and does not require the first game to work so it's not an Expansion.

Edited August 2, 2020 by sluggard

[OliveTree]

On 7/31/2020 at 3:25 AM, seed said:

Because OP4 and BS were not valid examples for the point you were trying to get across, if I got that right

Fair enough. For context, the point I was trying to make was just a rebuke of the "more content" argument. If taking place from a different character's POV and not following the previous game is enough to qualify an expansion pack then you don't need the "content" perspective to call something like Final Doom an expansion pack.

 

Now I'm confused over terms again though because what is Ultimate Doom if not more levels from the same POV directly continuing off the previous game?

 

for myself, this thread isn't exactly very relevant to me idk. To me a sequel is "a significantly different game that progresses elements of the core experience of the previous game forward in new ways" but thats really just how I personally think about it and I also think Doom II qualifies under that definition, if arguably just barely. It's why I consider Doom 3 and 2016+ to be sequels, but in my opinion Doom 64 isn't, for example. Unlike Doom II, D64 doesn't really contribute anything new aside from one gun and different presentation, which makes it basically a "spin off" in my opinion. Mechanically, literally nothing is changed. Doom II makes efforts to provide a very different mechanical experience.

 

Again my personal definition of sequel is basically incompatible with most's so it's kind of a moot point

[Megalyth]

It's a proper sequel in my book. A new weapon, a new power-up, all new levels (and more of them at that, 32 compared to 27 in the original Doom release, even if two of them are just Wolf3D levels), seven new monsters (more if you count the SS and the demon cube spitter), a bunch of new linedef actions, a bunch of new textures, new music, new decorations... Enough new content to call it a sequel.

[AtimZarr1]

On 7/30/2020 at 11:02 AM, LiT_gam3r said:

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.

 

Hypothetically, let's imagine recreating the E1M1 experience in Doom II, Doom 64, and Doom 3. We'll ignore any visual and aesthetic differences between the games and just compare the mechanical gameplay similarities for now.

 

Doom II - You could faithfully recreate the E1M1 gameplay experience for the most part. The weapons behave the same, the demons behave the same, and so on. The player is capable of the same actions as they could perform in Doom I. Most of Doom II's changes are additions to the base gameplay of Doom I, and that base gameplay still exists faithfully on its own within Doom II.

 

Doom 64 - You could similarly recreate the E1M1 experience here as well - for the most part. The weapons and demons continue to behave mostly the same, at least at the surface level. There are some changes that would affect the game later on (Rocket Launcher pushback, Lost Soul aggression, etc.) - but the moment-to-moment gameplay remains largely the same. There aren't major general mechanical changes either - the biggest one I can think of is the lack of a status bar so you can't see where damage is incoming anymore.

 

Doom 3 - This one would struggle to recreate the E1M1 experience accurately at all. The Shotgun behaves differently, zombie soldiers can now roll around, imps toss fireballs in different patterns, etc. There are several general mechanical changes as well - the player now needs to look up and down to aim, weapons need to be reloaded, sprinting is now limited by an energy bar, the player can now jump around, etc.

 

Despite the fact that Doom II's and Doom 64's E1M1 hypothetical recreation would be near identical mechanically - Doom 64 is rarely questioned to be an expansion to Doom I's gameplay while Doom II is. My argument was that it primarily has to do with how Doom 64 appears aesthetically distinct - the sprites, animations, sounds, and music have all been redone. Even without playing the game, a casual viewer is immediately informed that Doom 64 is "different" from Doom I. Doom 64's campaign design may favor puzzles and traps to give it its own distinct campaign experience from the Classic formula - but the core mechanics and moment-to-moment gameplay have largely remained the same as Doom I's, which is what I think is necessary for an experience to be considered an expansion. However, trying to determine the number of changes needed to make a game go from "standalone expansion" to "a new game" is rather unclear and hard to define. In Doom 64's case, people treat it immediately as a new game, even if they are unaware of the smaller gameplay changes that might justify that conclusion, because of its aesthetic differences and so the question rarely comes up. If Doom 64 looked like Doom II, there would be people similarly asking if the game was an expansion or not. My original reason for bringing up Doom 64 was to point out that the influence of aesthetic is what drives questions regarding Doom II.

 

---

 

In the context of Doom II, the above E1M1 hypothetical example is why I view it more as a standalone expansion. The core gameplay elements of Doom I are still largely present within Doom II. The Shotgun, Imps, Plasma Rifle, Cyberdemons, etc. all behave largely the same as they did in Doom I - but now they can be placed within the context of the additions present in Doom II: Super Shotgun, Pain Elementals, Revenants, etc. Consider an expansion like Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne as an example: here we can have newer units like the Spellbreaker or Crypt Lord interact with the older units like Grunts and the Paladin - but those older units still exist faithfully on their own (relatively speaking) as they did in the original Warcraft 3. That's expanding the original gameplay concept, which is what is also happening in Doom II - the original gameplay mixed with the newer additions but the original gameplay still exists. Whether or not Doom II requires its own executable doesn't really matter, unless we're willing to concede that Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon or Super Street Fighter IV are not considered expansions to Far Cry 3 and Street Fighter IV respectively since they do not require their original games to function. It's also why there is a distinction between expansions and standalone expansions - the former requires the original game to play (Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil) while the latter does not (Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon).

 

The original question of whether Doom II is a sequel or an expansion is a false dichotomy though. A sequel is just anything that narratively takes place after the original story, which Doom II clearly does. Therefore, Doom II is a sequel. Meanwhile, an expansion expands upon the original gameplay mechanics - which Doom II also does. That's why I originally concluded that Doom II was a standalone expansion sequel. To me, the difference between a standalone expansion and "a different game" would be whether the game in question could largely recreate the original gameplay experience of its predecessor. As suggested by my hypothetical E1M1 example above, Doom II can faithfully recreate the Doom I gameplay experience (making it a standalone expansion) while Doom 3 cannot do the same (making it a different game).

 

I hope that clarifies my viewpoint and definition on expansions versus new games. There's a few things I still need to consider - for example, my definition would imply that PSX Doom would be considered an expansion (since it adds the Nightmare Spectre to the game while the original Doom experience is mechanically mostly the same)...

[Eurisko]

I think many feel the expansion pak vibes because at a glance little was changed.

But they improved on what was already there and as they say "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

 

Doom II is a 30+ level beast of a game packed to the rafters with huge maps , new enemies and the greatest shotgun in gaming history. It's a full and very rich title in it's own right.

 

My verdict: Absolutely 110% a sequel.

[magicsofa]

I don't even know what a standalone expansion is. If it's an expansion, it's not standalone. If it's standalone, it's not an expansion. Pretty sure I got this question right on the SAT...

[Uni]

My stance is the same as @Megalyth. The amount of content Doom 2 added is sufficient enough for me to call it a proper sequel, not to mention that the gameplay of Doom 2 feels entirely different than its predecessor, they certainly designed it with a different approach to level design. I just wished they added one more new weapon, like a flamethrower and maybe a different boss monster.

[Boaby Kenobi]

7 hours ago, AtimZarr1 said:

my definition would imply that PSX Doom would be considered an expansion (since it adds the Nightmare Spectre to the game while the original Doom experience is mechanically mostly the same)...

 

PSX Doom is not a sequel though, neither is Doom 64, even though one could argue that D64 is exactly that as it's a new entry in the series with fresh levels. I think for a lot of longtime PC gamers Doom 64 didn't even exist. Most thought of that game as just PC Doom on the N64.

 

4 minutes ago, Uni said:

not to mention that the gameplay of Doom 2 feels entirely different than its predecessor

 

I don't understand why you think that. Doom II is pretty much identical in gameplay. The level design is different but the game plays in almost exactly the same way. Doom 2016 feels entirely different to Doom 3 but I don't think that could be said about the original two games.

[Uni]

@Boaby KenobiI think it has a lot to do with the level design being a lot more open and the introduction of the new monsters which had more complex attack pattern and priorities. Doom was more atmospheric in its nature and scope, it was limited to mostly enclosed structures and few enemies on screen, usually from the front side with easy and predictable attack patterns. Doom 2 introduced more interesting monsters and expanded the level design, a lot more experimenting with ideas and concepts and it lead to more interesting gameplay that for me feels different than its predecessor. 

[jazzmaster9]

6 hours ago, Boaby Kenobi said:

neither is Doom 64

How exactly is Doom 64 not a sequel?

 

6 hours ago, Boaby Kenobi said:

 it's a new entry in the series with fresh levels.

...How exactly is Doom 64 not a sequel?

 

6 hours ago, Boaby Kenobi said:

I don't understand why you think that.

Mancubus, Archvile, Revenant.

 

I guess if you look at it at a superficial level, yeah Doom 1 and Doom 2 have the same gameplay.

But those monsters really change up the play style drastically.

[smeghammer]

Sequel, without a doubt. I got the shareware Doom1, probably from PC Zone magazine, and played it to death. At some point I got the full 3 episode version and then as soon as I became aware of Doom2's imminent arrival I eagerly awaited this new game...

 

I did get hold of Ultimate Doom and certainly considered that an expansion of the original Doom release, likewise once I got Final Doom, I considered this an expansion for Doom 2.

 

It all got a bit blurred with sourceports, and it quite confused me for a while when ZDoom was first available and it would play BOTH doom AND Doom2!! 

[DoomedFox]

I feel its both a sequel and expansion pack, a sequel to the first DooM story-wise and a expansion pack for Map creators who got a new weapon, textures and monsters from DooM II

[[Vitz!]]

Sequel.

And that comes from a guy who used to say Doom II is a glorified expansion pack. I mean it kinda "feel" like it, but it simply isn't. 

It's just a sequel that really liked reusing assets, but it's not like this is unheard of, especially back in the day, so I don't mind.

Edited August 3, 2020 by [Vitz!]

[dmdr]

I already ranted in this thread but to make things clearer:

 

sequel = defined by it's relationship to a story

expansion pack = defined by it's relationship to an exe

standalone expansion pack = braindead corporatese for 'a different game'

 

these things aren't mutually exclusive. example, although I've not played it because D3 is boring, based on the talk in this thread Resurrection of Evil is a sequel to Doom 3... in the form of an expansion pack!

[seed]

On 8/2/2020 at 1:55 AM, EtherBot said:

Doom 3

 

That's also incorrect, as despite the number in the title, Doom 3 is a reboot and retelling of the original game with a different protagonist and its own timeline.

[magicsofa]

13 hours ago, DoomedFox said:

a expansion pack for Map creators who got a new weapon, textures and monsters from DooM II

An expansion pack that removes content from the game it's expanding? No waaaaay

[Doomsday]

Sequel. Because I usually see Expansion Packs as taking place in a different character's perspective.

[Gifty]

It's important to understand that what constitutes a videogame "sequel" is very subjective to the time period. In the 90s there was a lot more leeway around the idea of what is or isn't a sequel -- most of the original Keen series was made within the same year, without any real major changes from title to title, in a method that would now probably be considered DLC. Command & Conquer: Red Alert is technically just a total conversion of the original Command & Conquer with most of the same assets and under-the-hood tech. 

 

Today, sequel conventions are aligned closer to something like film, where a new entry is expected to push the main storyline or lore of a franchise forward in some way, or have some kind of noteworthy feature to distinguish itself from past entries. Although, even today you still have remnants of the old "expandalone" model, with many of the Call of Duty games sharing a lot of underlying game infrastructure and assets from title to title, while being marketed as full-on sequels. Multiplayer games in general use a much more cumulative or iterative development style that's similar to the old 90s convention mentioned above, where modern single-player games tend to do more "reinventing the wheel" from game to game. 

 

tl;dr it's all kind of arbitrary, it's more about self-branding and author intention. Doom 2 is a sequel because ID conceived it as a sequel. Final Doom is an expansion because ID conceived it as an expansion.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Gifty

[Smite of Disrespect]

I'm gonna have to say expansion pack. When I list my favorite video games, like "Doom, Quake, and Duke 3D," Doom includes Doom and Doom II, as if they are the same game

[JustCallMeKaito]

Sequel. The monsters change the pacing, the SSG makes you actually want to use your shells, and it's just 4 levels short of matching up with Ultimate Doom. On top of that, the maps tend to make better use of the engine than the first game did, as the levels are much more vertical, and different aspects of gameplay are played around with. The Focus plays around with the lighting, Tricks And Traps toys with stealth and infighting, The Chasm has the player walking a tightrope over death, Barrels O' Fun plays with chaining barrel explosions, and so on.

[Biodegradable]

More monsters with improved layouts and team-ups to create more threatening and dynamic combat scenarios, introduces the Super Shotgun to let you know you're going to need this kind of firepower for the job ahead and 32 new maps with higher stakes and greater creativity featuring Romero's cruelty, McGee's quirkiness and Peterson's abstract madness. It took everything it learned from Doom 1, built and expanded upon the foundations and set in motion everything we know as Classic Doom today.

 

It's a perfect example of everything a sequel is meant to do. 

 

[Distortion Dog]

Is Doom 2 a Sequel? Yes it is.

 

Is it a PROPER Sequel? Not really.

 

As much as I prefer the one-shot nature of the game, as well as it's welcome additions, it's very clear that much thought was put into it, probably to focus on planning out that "Quake and Quiver" game. The other id Tech 1 games are quite a glimpse of what a better sequel could have been. 

But , I can't understate how much of an impact Quake has left on the western industry as a whole, so I don't think I could be lamenting about it.

[magicsofa]

23 minutes ago, Distortion Dog said:

Is it a PROPER Sequel? Not really.

Hmm... but let me ask you this. When you generally play Doom, which IWAD are you using? Doom.wad or Doom2.wad?

[Distortion Dog]

10 minutes ago, magicsofa said:

Hmm... but let me ask you this. When you generally play Doom, which IWAD are you using? Doom.wad or Doom2.wad?

Well, you play either Doom or Doom 2. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

The thing is, while most sequels are quite different from the first game, Doom 2 is in this weird position where it's sufficiently different from Doom to be considered a sequel, but not by much. It's got new levels and demons, sure, but it feels and plays like a juiced-up version of Doom, rather than it standing as it's own product. Very much like Super Mario Bros and "The Lost Levels", really.

[Chezza]

Doom 2 was a product of its time and earned the sequel status. In today's standards then it definitely would be a glorified expansion.

[Doomkid]

40 minutes ago, Distortion Dog said:

Well, you play either Doom or Doom 2. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

The thing is, while most sequels are quite different from the first game, Doom 2 is in this weird position where it's sufficiently different from Doom to be considered a sequel, but not by much. It's got new levels and demons, sure, but it feels and plays like a juiced-up version of Doom, rather than it standing as it's own product. Very much like Super Mario Bros and "The Lost Levels", really.

I get where you're coming from. Out of curiosity, what is it that makes, for example Super Mario Bros 3 a "proper sequel" to SMB1 in comparison to Lost Levels? Would it be not only the new maps, but new music and new graphics for everything, even re-used enemies?

 

I ask because although I feel Doom2 is a proper sequel, I think and example like Doom 64 is an open an shut case primarily due to the new graphics for everything, whereas with Doom2 it can really go either way. If Doom64 reused the Doom1 and Doom2 sprites for all of the enemies, it would possibly lose it's unique identity and "proper sequel" status in the eyes of many people, imo.