Doom 2 was a terrible game

[Da Werecat]

I already switch to SG frequently enough to be annoyed at vanilla Doom's retarded weapon switching algorithm. Besides, while the regular shotgun is more specialized in Doom 2, the pistol was completely worthless long before sequel.

The RL problems can be solved by making levels that are wide enough and provide lots of rockets. But, of course, level designers usually prefer shells. Probably because RL is still considered a highish-tier weapon.

Also, because using SSG is srsly satisfying. This weapon is versatile, but not all-powerful. Its ammo efficiency dives a bit when most of the pellets hit the floor/ceiling/wall/sky/all of the above.

Forcing the player to use the berserk pack or rockets against medium targets provided much more tactical challenge.

It should be noted that medium targets were infrequent in Doom 1.

[Holering]

Alien Vendetta (latest version) felt more like Doom II than Doom II.

[babo]

Gez said:

BZZZT! Wrong!

It's exactly the same attack, using exactly the same attack function, throwing exactly the same projectile, and dealing exactly the same damage.



This is a correct opinion.

you ignored the rest of it, and you know what the point was that it's a slightly weaker baron with a different shade of colors. unimaginative.

[esselfortium]

babo said:

you ignored the rest of it, and you know what the point was that it's a slightly weaker baron with a different shade of colors. unimaginative.

And yet it's still a more versatile monster than the baron because it's not such an endless ammo-sponge. Sometimes simple changes like that can be worthwhile.

[DooM_RO]

Come to think of it, both are just beefier imps.

[SFoZ911]

Doom2 monsters are far more dangerous and fun to fight against, using other attacks then just a straight, easy-to-dodge single projectile..

I don't think the SSG is overpowered. it was brought to the arsenal because the game introduced new monsters so it would be natural for the game to introduce a new killing tool to deal with them.

As for the levels. well some are very bad, but some are fucking great(the Inmost dens).

[purist]

dew said:

This is where I'm losing you. What limits are you talking about? Doom 2 had them raised, because its more complex, sexier maps wouldn't even run with the original engine. I remember discussing this with essel at the beginning of d2twid development and there was a conclusion that some of the Sandy maps (namely 19 and 24) were made for Doom, but either they were constructed too late, possibly even after Doom maplist was already locked, or they were simply too big and wouldn't even run. In that sense, Doom 2 runs the maps Sandy wanted to make, but couldn't because of limits. If you mean that none of the Doom 2 maps pushes Doom 2's limits, then yeah, you may be right.

I wasn't just talking about tech limits, actually I didn't real phrase it well. I meant it felt as though Sandy never got chance to get past the experimental early phase of mapping where you want to cram in your cool ideas but don't yet have the technique to execute them quite right (if it is based one one gimmick) or make the map a cohesive whole (if it was several). I'm sure given more time he would have but we'll probably never know.

Now I think about it this really only applies to Petersen. Romero found his style by Doom II and played to his strengths from then on. McGee played things more safe then Petersen in gameplay and had quite an accomplished style from the start.

[myk]

dew said:
Usually, bad players prefer Doom over Doom 2. And they usually hate SSG, because they played deathmatch with the good players.

I also get the impression it tends as well toward people who want to modify it more and like it less "as it is" and people who like DOOM as "a good game" among a series of games rather than more devoted fans.

babo said:
it's a slightly weaker baron with a different shade of colors.

They did that on purpose because the baron had too many hit points to be used regularly in many places, but they felt it was too iconic and cool not to use it regularly against a player that's beefed up by the SSG and the megasphere, and weren't going to modify it directly, so they made a weaker equivalent. Had they made a significantly different, it wouldn't have been in the same "family" as the baron of hell. In short, it's essentially a way to keep the meaty baron intact yet use it (as the hell knight) as the stock mid-tier monster. It makes little sense to ask for a different monster there when various other different monsters were being included too.

unimaginative.

It's a well-placed gameplay piece and not novelty and innovation for its own sake.

purist said:
Now I think about it this really only applies to Petersen.

I'd say his DOOM II maps show more conceptual clarity than most of the ones he managed to make for DOOM. E3M4 is probably the quintessential "idea cramming" map. He was the most willing to try things that weren't simply shooting baddies in a maze, playing with open areas, piece puzzles and less conventional scenery.

[DooM_RO]

E3M4 is my favorite E3 map, it really feels like a torture house and I it also kind of feels like an adventure. I also really liked that crusher part, which is probably where greedy people are punished. You rush towards the powerup, not thinking about the consequences and get punished for it. It symbolically shows you that the damned punish themselves and it also shows the shortsightedness of most greedy people.

[Phml]

I also get the impression it tends as well toward people who want to modify it more and like it less "as it is" and people who like DOOM as "a good game" among a series of games rather than more devoted fans.

Funny, I get the opposite feeling. People who like Doom 1 best seem to enjoy it because it's a more immersive and coherent experience. People who like Doom 2 best seem to do so because it's a more interesting gameplay experience.

IMHO, PWADs speak volumes. If you see a mapset for Doom 1, half of the time it's going to be E1 inspired or remake. People are trying to recapture an atmosphere. On the other hand, PWADs for Doom 2 are all over the place. They're using the toolset but throwing away the background.

You see plenty of people popping up saying all they do/did is play E1 over and over. I haven't ever seen someone saying he replays D2 all the time in that same manner, even if only a particular episode.

[Pirx]

purist said:

I've always thought the additional beastiary was worth the sequel alone I terms of a better resource. I disagree with some of the complaints about the more complicated behavior limiting their use or making them annoying.

I've never been keen on the SSG though. It limits the use of the normal shotgun and RL which slaughter mipon balance.

that's pretty much what i said too in another of these doom vs doom2 threads: that doom had better coherent style and i preferred episodes to fighting through 32 maps in a row. Doom2 however beats it at gameplay and monsters.

As for the dominance of the ssg, that's not as much because the ssg is too powerful, it's a great, versatile gun, suited for doom2's stronger and more numerous enemies. Rather the sg and cg are weak in comparison and should have been beefed up by 10% or so firing rate and damage to keep up with the ssg instead of being discarded by most players. That's about what balance phml tried to achieve in his slaughterguns patch. Pretty subtle yet effective.

[dew]

purist said:

I wasn't just talking about tech limits, actually I didn't real phrase it well. I meant it felt as though Sandy never got chance to get past the experimental early phase of mapping where you want to cram in your cool ideas but don't yet have the technique to execute them quite right (if it is based one one gimmick) or make the map a cohesive whole (if it was several). I'm sure given more time he would have but we'll probably never know.

Now I think about it this really only applies to Petersen.

I'm not sure if Sandy would ever get over the experimental phase. He churned out ideas and concepts and I'm pretty sure he was behind some of the new linedef actions. Plus, he's credited with map07 and map30, so he had his fingers in the hardcoded bits as well. In my opinion he'd just bother Carmack with new features and hacks forever, heh.

What his maps do lack is polish (duh) and also certain layout dynamic that Romero mastered and McGee simply stumbled into because of his stringier layouts. Sandy did separate trapped rooms with lots of pace breakers like elevators, switch-operated doors, crushers, teleports. His monsters are revealed or teleported only after you get somewhere or do something... It's about scenarios, puzzles and surprising the player, not about putting him under constant pressure with well thought out monster placement and dynamic fights. Maybe that subconsciously grates on some players' nerves.

Megamur said:

Nerfing the SSG might actually cause you to switch weapons. You really don't have to in its current state.

Oh and while I'm ranting, let me address this silly notion permeating this thread that Doom 2 had only one new weapon. Nope, Doom 2 was the game that truly introduced the BFG. It appears very late in the OG (E3M3) and if you pistol start, you won't even get it in the map that'd let it shine the most (E3M6). Dropping packs of demons in Limbo is fun, don't get me wrong, but you never have to rely on it and it utterly destroys whatever danger E3 presents. There's one scenario in E3M5 where using it is truly justified, but other than that I can think of just the cyb in Warrens and that's not something to brag about. Everywhere else the hallwayish, maze-like layouts of Doom work against the strenghts of the BFG and you struggle to herd enough monsters together to justify the ammo loss. With the exception of baron takedowns, plasma or RL does the job more economically.

Now enter Doom 2. Sure, you can kill almost everything with the uberpowered, omnipotent SSG, but you don't really do that, do you? Not when the game is riddled with BFGs and cell packs to destroy wonderfully grouped hordes of meat! The introduction in map08 clearly indicates that. You do switch away from the SSG all the time, don't lie to yourself. There are 20 SSGs and 19 BFGs in the whole game on UV. Doom 2 on continuous is most definitely about juggling the SSG and the BFG and both is very gratifying. The bigger and meaner fights are certainly handled much better than any mass murder scenario Doom gave us with its "mow down the zombies" and "one hell monster at a time" approach. Doom 2 introduced the BFG as we know it.

[TwinBeast]

I try to avoid using BFG. The only time I use it is when I'm pistol starting and don't have any other cell weapon, and even then only when I'm about to/already run out of ammo for other weapons, or it's a level with lots of cyberdemons...

I've probably played Doom2 E1 + few levels just as many times as Doom1 E1.

[clamgor]

Both Doom games are still better than most trash these days.
Also probably my first post here to be in a topic that gets helled.

But to some extent, I did find Doom 2 terrible. It bored me beyond recognition.

[Xaser]

Everything is bad. Nothing is g--

Gez said:

Everything is bad.

Nothing is good.

Oh goddamnit.

[Enjay]

esselfortium said:

And yet it's still a more versatile monster than the baron because it's not such an endless ammo-sponge. Sometimes simple changes like that can be worthwhile.

I agree. I like the Hell Knight and think it fills a very useful slot in the game. The "tougher imp"/"weaker baron" position is a very flexible one. It would have been nice if the sprites had been changed a bit more than just a simple recolour though.

[Melon]

I thought Doom 2's levels were pretty bad until I pistol started them. The difference in some levels is massive, try it! It makes the game go from boring shit with an unbalanced SSG to super cool fun times deluxe. Except for Barrels of Fun, but they can't all be winners.

I don't think the SSG is unbalanced, it's only unbalanced when you start a level with it and 100 shells when the level itself wasn't designed to have one early on, or even at all! The real balance problem IMO is the damage output of the revenant rockets, if their damage was, like, half as much then the game would be way more awesome. I think that's the main reason why people hate revenants, the hardest-to-dodge projectile dealing the most damage is pretty shitty, it's very unforgiving at times. I can see why they make people so frustrated.

I think I'm going to make a dehacked patch that halves the damage of revenant rockets and play some PWADs with it to see if I'm talking out of my ass or not.

[Enjay]

Although, if the levels are best played when pistol-starting in a game that is set up to allow you to carry stuff from one map to the next uninterrupted for the entire game, there is perhaps still a flaw in the game.


As for revenants, personally, I don't mind them and find them to be quite a cool enemy. At least, I find them that way if they are used in a reasonable manner. Despite my reservations about Doom2, most of the time the revenants are used quite well in the original maps. However, over the years mappers seem to have gone out of their way to make revenant placement one of the most annoying features possible of user made maps.

[Tarnsman]

Barrels of Fun is an awesome pistol start, really makes you scramble

[vdgg]

Melon said:

revenant rockets, if their damage was, like, half as much

The Plutonia Experiment on I'm Too Young To Die? :>

[William Blazkowicz]

I actually liked the music, but I must agree SOME tracks sounded like they belong in a long elevator rather than in a giant... open... blocky city. Yes. The cities are what ruin Doom II for me. It's still a great game, but the cities are just long and boring and I've seen moders that have done better city levels. *cough*action doom*cough*.

[Da Werecat]

Action Doom? Why not Dawn of Reality? :)

[William Blazkowicz]

Da Werecat said:

Action Doom? Why not Dawn of Reality? :)

I never played ANY wads, since my computer won't download things properly (i do not know why that is). I did not hear of Dawn of Reality. The reason I say Action Doom is because it looks good from what I have SEEN.

[FreddBoy]

Well, the way I look at it is from the perspective of until 2006 I had only played Final DOOM and DOOM II on the PSX. When you had completed the original DOOM levels, you were immediately thrust into DOOM II with no pause, BUT WITH ALL OF YOUR GUNS INTACT.

Up to this point, I had seen the same old textures, same old badguys and -importantly- the same styles of enemy placement. DOOM II took me by surprise by throwing a lot of new enemies at me in not so easily handled bunches. That's what was important. Mixing it up combat wise was far better in my eyes than top tier level design, but that is also important. Its no good your level looking cool, but combat feels crappy.

Could DOOM II offer more? Undoubtedly yes, but we also have a sequel that feels more fleshed out and with more veriety of combat and exploration in height rather than area. Level design was ok, but the later levels of DOOM II were sublime.

The icon of sin was a shitty boss though. Could have been made much more dynamic IMHO.

[Da Werecat]

FreddBoy said:

Up to this point, I had seen the same old textures, same old badguys and -importantly- the same styles of enemy placement.

Yeah, Jaguar port (PSX Doom ancestor) has a very repetitive texture scheme.

[Platinum Shell]

Tarnsman said:

Barrels of Fun is an awesome pistol start, really makes you scramble

I agree, it's the one moment in Doom 2 I remember the most. Although now it's not the same one I learned how to push the two barrels away from the sea of others and just let that kill the mancubus.

[Deleted_Account]

I don't really like Doom II. The level design is all over the place, the Taco Bell music ugh...

I do like the new monsters, the super shotgun was a nice addition too. For me, I've always felt that Requiem felt more like Doom II than Doom II.

[TheLazenby]

I almost never play Doom II. The closest I've come was playing through PSX Doom and having to put up with some of Doom II's shitty levels.

What gets me is that it was a HUGE seller; didn't anyone start it and realize "Oh, this is the same game"? It's Doom with all of Doom's great traits done fairly poorly.

[Da Werecat]

TheLazenby said:

What gets me is that it was a HUGE seller; didn't anyone start it and realize "Oh, this is the same game"? It's Doom with all of Doom's great traits done fairly poorly.

It's nice to finally being told the truth. I'll never play it again. :)

[TheLazenby]

Da Werecat said:

It's nice to finally being told the truth. I'll never play it again. :)

AND REMEMBER THAT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!