Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Abyssalstudios1

A Doom 2 remake?

Recommended Posts

NOTE: This is just an idea. I'm not planning to do this, say, tomorrow. I'm just getting a feel for what other people think about this.

Who would be interested in playing/helping to make a re-make of the Doom 2 maps? I actually dislike many levels from Doom 2 ("The Chasm" being the perfect example), and I got to thinking about a re-make of those 32 immortal maps.

It wouldn't be a Plutonia 2 style of thing, mind. That was a good sequel. That is, it took a few ideas from the original.

I'm talking about making the Doom 2 maps make sense. Perhaps upping the difficulty, changing the architecture, and allowing for modern features (cough cough, jump, cough).

ANOTHER NOTE: I don't mean conveyors, jump- platforms, etc. I just mean, the Doom guy can, I assume, look up. And I imagine that he can climb a three-foot wall. I'm talking about MAP29's little blockage before you fight the baron...

I don't know, what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds overly ambitious and unoriginal. Sign me up!

Share this post


Link to post

I though there was already a remake of Doom 2 to be found some place.

And besides that, what's the point of remakes anyways? Why not just play the original map instead of playing a slightly different version of that same map with a few new rooms and areas?

Sure! There are remakes where the remake actually looks allot different then the original but if it doesn't actually look or resemble the original anymore then it could just as well be released as a entirely new map since it no longer looks like the original map in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm all for a 'remake', and an even more fun idea would be to build this remake in the same amount of time they had to work on Doom2, and see if you could come up with anything better. But if you want people to join, you're going to have to have some of the work done to show you've got the gumption to go all the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Abyssalstudios1 said:

Perhaps upping the difficulty,

Sounds good.

changing the architecture,

Okay.

and allowing for modern features (cough cough, jump, cough).

:(

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like a good idea, but if I remember correctly, KDIZD... Those are total overhauls of the originals but in someway holding its nature, why not make this Doom 2: Hell on ZDoom ? ¬.¬;;

Share this post


Link to post

If he's aiming to retain the original gameplay/layout style and feel of Romero's, McGee's, Hall's, and Petersen's maps in any way, shape, or form, KDiZD would probably not be the best example to emulate.

Also, he seems more interested in an actual Doom2-themed remake wad rather than expansions of the original maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Mithral_Demon said:

Sounds like a good idea, but if I remember correctly, KDIZD... Those are total overhauls of the originals but in someway holding its nature, why not make this Doom 2: Hell on ZDoom ? ¬.¬;;

Because then it would take years to complete and everyone would lose interest halfway through. Also, I want to participate in this but I can't map for ZDoom.

Share this post


Link to post

Was working on the next installment of NMD series, which is going to be a 32-map replacement with Doom 2's style, except not shitty. Don't expect it anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post

I love remakes, though I must say, you have to do a really good job to actually make any more than one map enjoyable.

For example, Alexander S' Remain1 raises the bar so incredibly high. The construction is breathtaking, the gameplay rules and it's all over too quickly.

On the other hand, KDiP just ends up being lots of confusing samey hallways, bland outdoor areas and map bugs which really ruin things.

Chris Lutz' Phobos Anomaly Reborn is an amazing level on its own, though I'm not sure I could sit through 31 more levels where I need to save every time I find cover.

As for KDiZD, I'd rather not see anything like that again. Overhype aside, I think it's very messy both in construction and gameplay, to the point where doesn't really even feel like Doom anymore to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Super Jamie said:

Chris Lutz' Phobos Anomaly Reborn is an amazing level on its own, though I'm not sure I could sit through 31 more levels where I need to save every time I find cover.

I think you might be thinking of Chris Lutz's "The Dying End", a single-map Doom2 map29 remake. Phobos: Anomaly Reborn is a multi-map Phobos episode.

Share this post


Link to post

I think DOOM II is good, and if the main drive behind such a remake is to "make something better" rather than "pay tribute to something we enjoy", I get the impression that stuff which is just different in some essential aspects, and possibly less enjoyable, will creep in there.

Ryathaen said:
Sounds good.

Could be, but not in all respects, as one of the charming aspects of DOOM II is that it offers a challenge overall but won't drag or get frustrating easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Super Jamie said:

I love remakes, though I must say, you have to do a really good job to actually make any more than one map enjoyable.

For example, Alexander S' Remain1 raises the bar so incredibly high. The construction is breathtaking, the gameplay rules and it's all over too quickly.

On the other hand, KDiP just ends up being lots of confusing samey hallways, bland outdoor areas and map bugs which really ruin things.

Chris Lutz' Phobos Anomaly Reborn is an amazing level on its own, though I'm not sure I could sit through 31 more levels where I need to save every time I find cover.

As for KDiZD, I'd rather not see anything like that again. Overhype aside, I think it's very messy both in construction and gameplay, to the point where doesn't really even feel like Doom anymore to me.

I liked KDiZD. Also, yes it is Doom, on account of using the Doom engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Solarn said:

I liked KDiZD. Also, yes it is Doom, on account of using the Doom engine.


So do heretic and strife as I understand it, and I wouldn't really call those the same games ...

On topic as long as it's fun and the maps are possible to get through I wouldn't mind any attempts, if they aren't good I just won't play them. That's what it really boils down to here :P

Share this post


Link to post
ArmouredBlood said:

So do heretic and strife as I understand it, and I wouldn't really call those the same games ...

On topic as long as it's fun and the maps are possible to get through I wouldn't mind any attempts, if they aren't good I just won't play them. That's what it really boils down to here :P

Heretic is Doom IN A FANTASY WORLD and Strife is Doom WITH ALIENS. And I love them for it.

Anyway, my point was that calling a particular WAD "not Doom" is just dumb and closed-minded and I'm seeing a lot of it in response to WADs a poster doesn't particularly like. Do fans of a particular game give up their open minds in exchange for "true fan" licenses or something?

Share this post


Link to post

Solarn said:
Anyway, my point was that calling a particular WAD "not Doom" is just dumb and closed-minded

I disagree with this. KDiZD is, after all, a WAD that displays ZDoom's capabilities, and that's a very relevant aspect of it. It was made around the idea of what ZDoom does. Even a ZDoom fan might say "this isn't Doom, it's ZDoom!" Such players might not like certain classic WADs, feeling they're too limited because they stick only to basic stuff and they prefer more complex DECORATE and ACS stuff, slopes, and the like. It's important because it says what to expect, and there's a reason why source ports are called differently from the original executable. You call him "dumb" but his expression is noting why he doesn't prefer that sort of thing (or at least not for the project in question).

If you take DOOM's gameplay as an essential aspect of it, you may well conclude that engines that change that considerably are "not Doom" anymore. It's a matter of choice, not narrow-mindedness. It's just a slogan, but if you bother to analyze where it's coming from, it has a point. You might or might not agree, but it's there.

Narrow-mindedness is not about how broad the spectrum of things you like is... it's about how you take the tastes of other people. In my book, not tolerating people that like very specific things is narrow-minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Solarn said:

Heretic is Doom IN A FANTASY WORLD and Strife is Doom WITH ALIENS. And I love them for it.

Anyway, my point was that calling a particular WAD "not Doom" is just dumb and closed-minded and I'm seeing a lot of it in response to WADs a poster doesn't particularly like. Do fans of a particular game give up their open minds in exchange for "true fan" licenses or something?


Say that instead next time :P I was pointing out how shaky your 'if it's on the doom engine it's doom' point was. The open-mindedness you talk about is why I look up things like heretic and strife: I play doom, come to these forums, hear about things related to doom, and check em out. I guess I haven't been focusing on doom long enough to take a purist attitude yet, which I hope I won't ever do, as then I'd miss out on great TCs.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

I disagree with this. KDiZD is, after all, a WAD that displays ZDoom's capabilities, and that's a very relevant aspect of it. It was made around the idea of what ZDoom does. Even a ZDoom fan might say "this isn't Doom, it's ZDoom!" Such players might not like certain classic WADs, feeling they're too limited because they stick only to basic stuff and they prefer more complex DECORATE and ACS stuff, slopes, and the like. It's important because it says what to expect, and there's a reason why source ports are called differently from the original executable. You call him "dumb" but his expression is noting why he doesn't prefer that sort of thing (or at least not for the project in question).

If you take DOOM's gameplay as an essential aspect of it, you may well conclude that engines that change that considerably are "not Doom" anymore. It's a matter of choice, not narrow-mindedness. It's just a slogan, but if you bother to analyze where it's coming from, it has a point. You might or might not agree, but it's there.

Narrow-mindedness is not about how broad the spectrum of things you like is... it's about how you take the tastes of other people. In my book, not tolerating people that like very specific things is narrow-minded.

But ZDoom IS Doom. Just because it changes certain small aspects of the engine, the core remains the same. To make it "not Doom", you'd have to change core elements of how the engine behaves, like the 2.5D rendering or the way monster behaviour is handled.

It's not about liking or not liking any certain thing. He's welcome to hate KDiZD all he wants, but saying that it's not Doom belies a purist attitude, which is the very definition of narrow-mindedness. It is Doom, it's just not very good Doom. Well, I think it is, but I can understand it when people gripe about the overly long key hunts or the confusing and sprawling architecture or the emphasis on visuals over gameplay. I might not agree with them, but I understand them.

And anyway, if you argue that a certain gameplay is an integral part of Doom, then where does that put all the maps that don't follow that type of gameplay? Is Void Doom then? Or Evil Eye? Or Cyberdreams? Or... you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Solarn said:

To make it "not Doom", you'd have to change core elements of how the engine behaves, like the 2.5D rendering or the way monster behaviour is handled.

Zdoom behaves different from original executables. So, by your words, it is "not Doom" :-)

Share this post


Link to post
skepticist said:

Zdoom behaves different from original executables. So, by your words, it is "not Doom" :-)

Did you even read what I wrote? Yes, it behaves differently, but the core elements of the engine remain the same.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you talking about a note for note remake of the game with modern architecture? Or are you talking about a retooling of the original game's ideas with better execution and visuals?

Remain 1 did exactly that with the first 11 levels of Doom 2.

Share this post


Link to post

Solarn said:
But ZDoom IS Doom.

Trying to use the least context as possible, I'd say it's based on it (or the released source). It is DOOM in the sense it runs the DOOM games. Incidentally, I prefer to use DOOM for the games and Doom for the engine. If ZDoom.exe can be ZDoom, Doom.exe can be Doom.

Just because it changes certain small aspects of the engine, the core remains the same.

Whether the aspects it changes are minor or major depends on the eye of the beholder. I mean, someone could say "nah, that's not Doom because of this and that" and another could answer, "okay I see where you're coming from, although I think it's much like Doom because of this and that unlike XYDoom, which changes this and that." This stuff is like arguing whether DOOM 3 is DOOM. It depends on what you're trying to say.

To make it "not Doom", you'd have to change core elements of how the engine behaves, like the 2.5D rendering or the way monster behaviour is handled.

It does do that in various respects, adding jumping, slopes, possibilities that radically change the way stuff behaves, and what not.

saying that it's not Doom belies a purist attitude, which is the very definition of narrow-mindedness.

I like to think I'm an open-minded purist! A guy that doesn't like to place decorations on his furniture or posters on his walls and dresses in relatively simple clothes or only drinks water isn't necessarily a closed-minded person. That mostly depends on how he handles himself when socializing with people that have other habits.

And anyway, if you argue that a certain gameplay is an integral part of Doom, then where does that put all the maps that don't follow that type of gameplay? Is Void Doom then? Or Evil Eye? Or Cyberdreams? Or... you get the idea.

Sometimes you make playing or modding related choices where those integral parts become important to you, which in turn, depending on which aspects you chose, are related to how much you may be interested in this or that mod. And even if you were to choose to stick to more classic or purist stuff for the most part for whatever reason, you can still play others. I personally do that. The bulk of what I play is vanilla or vanilla-like, yet I do play some mods for specific advanced engines when they seem outstanding or particularly different. It's not very different from being quite a fan of a certain game, dedicating much time to it, and more occasionally playing other games.

Besides, the question is like, "wait, so you mostly use ZDoom, so where do you put all the DSDA and COMPET-N demo recordings?" Maybe you check some of them, sometimes, but not in the same way some competitive player or demo fan might.

The mods don't go anywhere because this is a subjective choice. A good deal of the community will still be looking for mods that make lots of changes, even if some don't play them as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Solarn said:

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes, I did. But when port affects PHYSICS of the game it becomes so different from original that it`s legible to say it`s not DooM anymore. And it is not a MINOR change in my eyes, not because i like it or not, but because it makes gameplay different. Engine`s core may stay the same, but i hope you will not say that Heretic\Hexen is DooM aswell??

EDIT: oh sorry, now i see that you said before that Heretic is DooM in a fantasy world. OK then, i`ve got your point. Only thing i wish to add... In my opinion, it is not engine alone made Doom the game we all know and love, and it cannot be the only aspect taken in consideration then determine what is DooM and what is not. For me in-game behavior and gameplay is no less important.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Whether the aspects it changes are minor or major depends on the eye of the beholder. I mean, someone could say "nah, that's not Doom because of this and that" and another could answer, "okay I see where you're coming from, although I think it's much like Doom because of this and that unlike XYDoom, which changes this and that." This stuff is like arguing whether DOOM 3 is DOOM. It depends on what you're trying to say.

I'd say the distinction is clear, although that might simply be because I'm only a casual fan. If it doesn't require rewriting large parts of the engine from scratch to accommodate, then it's not major. And Doom 3 is Doom 3. It's Doom in the sense that it follows the same plot and is intended as a reimagining of the original game, but it isn't Doom in the sense that it has nothing to do with the classic games.

It does do that in various respects, adding jumping, slopes, possibilities that radically change the way stuff behaves, and what not.

Yes, but these are all messy or less messy hacks using things (slopes and the illusion of 3D) or possibilities that were already present in the original engine (vertical movement and different thing behaviours).

I like to think I'm an open-minded purist! A guy that doesn't like to place decorations on his furniture or posters on his walls and dresses in relatively simple clothes or only drinks water isn't necessarily a closed-minded person. That mostly depends on how he handles himself when socializing with people that have other habits.

Exactly. And as soon as he starts telling them that his way of doing things is the only right way, he becomes closed-minded.

Sometimes you make playing or modding related choices where those integral parts become important to you, which in turn, depending on which aspects you chose, are related to how much you may be interested in this or that mod. And even if you were to choose to stick to more classic or purist stuff for the most part for whatever reason, you can still play others. I personally do that. The bulk of what I play is vanilla or vanilla-like, yet I do play some mods for specific advanced engines when they seem outstanding or particularly different. It's not very different from being quite a fan of a certain game, dedicating much time to it, and more occasionally playing other games.

But that does not answer my question. Are you arguing that Cyberdreams and Evil Eye, which fundamentally change the gameplay of Doom while leaving the engine (and the resources) largely untouched, are not Doom? And if so, then what are they?

skepticist said:

Yes, I did. But when port affects PHYSICS of the game it makes it so different from original that it is legible to say it`s not DooM anymore. And it is not a MINOR change in my eyes, not because i like it or not, but because it makes gameplay different. Engine`s core may stay the same, but i hope you will not say that Heretic\Hexen is DooM aswell??

You may have a point. Then how about this: as long as it has the Doom engine at its core and requires the Doom IWADs, then it's Doom.

Share this post


Link to post

I`ve edited my post above, read it please. We have different points of view, there`s nothing wrong with it ;-). I do not consider all Doom wads as DooM just because of engine; i consider some of them as Conversions. And this applies not only to DooM but to any other game.

Share this post


Link to post
Solarn said:

To make it "not Doom", you'd have to change core elements of how the engine behaves, like the 2.5D rendering

So GLBoom is not Doom.

Solarn said:

or the way monster behaviour is handled.

So MBF is not Doom.


Yes, ZDoom changes a lot of stuff from Doom. It's not demo-compatible, or save-compatible. The trigonometry code (sine/cosine and tangent tables) are different (the original was slightly inaccurate). The physics code is more complex in a lot of places to account for slopes, since the ground is not necessarily flat anymore; so where MBF can make projectiles bounce off a floor with a simple "momz = -momz" ZDoom on the other hand factors in the slope of the floor. The projectile spawning code has also been changed a lot to behave better when firing with a pitch other than horizontal, and obviously that's not an issue for the original engine or any port without pitch.

Now despite all that, if you play it vanilla-like (which means not using extended features, even those from Boom/MBF, not binding keys to jump/crouch or looking up and down, not using mouselook, etc.), and set all the compatibility options to be the most vanilla ZDoom can, you'd have to be pretty observant to see the differences in gameplay. You can be that observant (especially if you are an experienced speedrunner) but it doesn't change that they are quite subtle.

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
×