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

How Does Doom Compare to Doom II?

Recommended Posts

I Prefer Doom 2, but were talking microscopic difference. I like them both almost equally. I like the addition of the Super Shotgun, New monsters and the More Hellish outpost style of levels, Wolfenstein levels, and the bosses.

Share this post


Link to post

Doom has a better level design.
Doom II has the Revenant and the Arch-Vile. And the SSG.

Both are good.

Share this post


Link to post

But Doom 1's better level design doesn't really make up for the lack of monster variety and more vanilla mod possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Avoozl said:

But Doom 1's better level design doesn't really make up for the lack of monster variety and more vanilla mod possibilities.

Of course it does.

Share this post


Link to post

I think Doom II improved on everything from the original Doom. Bigger levels (though some of them are maybe a bit too big), more monsters, a new gun, new music (although I still prefer Doom's music), and a more challenging game overall. Personally, I prefer Doom II for the increased variety in monsters and the additional weapon.

I do like how the original allows me to jump into any of the three (four with Ultimate Doom) episodes at any time, and how the episode bosses aren't just a massive wall that you shoot, but as I said before, the benefits of Doom II vastly outweigh the flaws (in my opinion).

Share this post


Link to post

I prefer Doom II. The only things I prefer about Doom is it had better music overall and the episode format is superior to the Doom 2 format for levels. I like the new monsters in Doom II but I have mixed feelings about the SSG. I don't think the level design is better in Doom. Doom II levels are more ambitious so it contains more of the best and worst levels in my opinion. Doom I levels tend to vary between decent to mediocre.

Share this post


Link to post

I like both, but as a stand alone single player experience, I prefer the first Doom.

Doom has better level design and level flow whereas Doom 2 has a much better variety of demons and of course, the Double Barrel Shotgun.

Share this post


Link to post

Doom 1 is my favourite; almost always I test my stuff on Doom 1 first, because I like Hangar, Deimos Anomaly, Hell Keep and Hell Beneath much, much more than Entryway, Underhalls and Gantlet, which look boring.

Doom 2 is somewhat tougher and has more height variation in its maps. Unfortunately the design theme is very incoherent there. Highly detailed maps like Inmost Dens don't fit well with stuff like Suburbs. The Sandy Petersen levels dominate the set and are probably the most fun to replay, but overall they decrease Doom 2's quality by mostly being simple slaughtermaps with generous bonuses. Interestingly this isn't a problem in Doom 1, with maps like Command Center, Halls of the Damned and Unholy Cathedral feeling pretty original.

Share this post


Link to post

Doom 1 has the advantage of a better 'episodes' format, but in terms of modding I can't give up the expanded beastiary and texture variety.

Share this post


Link to post

Doom's supposed lack of monster variety is kind of a good thing for new (really new) mappers though. I had my wife start designing her first map after I introduced thing placement, and mistakenly loaded it in doom 2 format instead of Doom 1 as I intended. She crowded the starting room with SS Nazis, commander keens, chaingunners and archviles. Needless to say the map was unplayable. I think doom 1 and its fewer things has much more combinations of thing placement that won't essentially make your map completely retarded, provided theres enough ammo and whatever. I guess too many shotgun guys and cyberdemons could result in inescapable death. Doom 2s set up has a lot more failure formulas in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post

Doom 1 is a great game on it's own. My favorite game of all time.
Doom 2 is alright. New enemies, SSG are cool, but level design is confusing and gimmicky. Best thing is that 90% of the mods are based on it

Share this post


Link to post

Doom 1 had more atmosphere and the levels felt like real areas that sort of make sense in a hellish/sci-fi environment. Doom 2 I found didn't have that much of atmosphere(except for the Icon of Sin which felt like your death was coming towards you) The new monsters where very cool but also led to frustrating situations (Revenants in tight spaces, Archviles in open spaces annd pain elements all the time) There where alot of levels that felt like they could be real places(especially the city levels) but there where some levels that didn't make sense(Tricks and Traps comes to mind)

Share this post


Link to post

Doom 1 is a far more memorable game. Every area was colorful, genuine, and well balanced. The episode system makes each level feel like you're building up to something epic (the boss fight) - much like the first Castlevania game. Also, the Berserk fist was actually an equal alternative to the pump action shotgun - both of which are completely overshadowed in each successive Doom release.

While I still enjoy the SSG and new monsters, the level design in Doom 2 feels too open ended and confusing (The Factory and city areas come to mind) as well as too gimmicky. Doom 2's music is generally weaker, leaning towards elevator soundtracks instead of metallica styled heavy rockers. Oh, and if you're only going to have one new boss, at least make it awesome - not some wall texture.

Share this post


Link to post

I know this is a controversial opinion, but yes, I prefer Doom's level design but I like the additional monsters and super shotgun that Doom II provides. I also prefer to map for Doom II, because it has those extra options in terms of enemy types, though I do prefer the original's texture set (wish some of Doom's textures hadn't been left out when they made Doom II).

Share this post


Link to post

Taking them on their own, without the modding community, I think the first Doom is the better game. The maps are more refined, with the styles being more distinct and realized, and its episode format creates a greater sense of progression and storytelling than Doom 2's 30-maps-in-one-go. The episodes' length and design are better paced, whereas the second game is a bit more sluggish, in areas.

Like others have said, I think Doom 2 has been more helpful for fan-made levels, and I think that several megawads have done a better job of combining the first game's better design with the second's new resources.

Share this post


Link to post

Doom is an easier game to get into and tends to have some nostalgic vibes to it, but is far too easy and kind of plain once you've figured it out. Doom 2 is a better game overall, but not a good entry-point, and it's overall not as memorable as the first one.

Share this post


Link to post
Zed said:

Doom II has the Revenant and the Arch-Vile.

This really doesn't sell it for me. I pretty much hate those two monsters.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

This really doesn't sell it for me. I pretty much hate those two monsters.


I really love them both. And the Arch-Vile has the ability to resurrect monsters, which, in my opinion, is a very cool feature, and the Revenant's homing rockets are neat. Of course, it depends on what every person likes, so it's more my opinion than anything else. And by the way, why you hate them? Killing an AV with a Super Shotgun has to be one of the coolest things I've done.

EDIT. Typo.
EDIT 2: Damn, another typo, I'm really sorry.

Share this post


Link to post

Check this thread for previous discussion on this topic.

Zed said:
Damn, another typo, I'm really sorry.

Argh, you shall be destroyed!!

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps it's because Doom2's maps are inspired by something in real life (i.e a city), while Doom1's aren't?

Perhaps, it's because the Doom engine and much of the artwork was built around Doom1's maps (mainly E1), while the maps in Doom2 were built around the engine?

The Wolf3D engine games are perhaps an interesting comparison; you've got the real life settings of Wolf3D (i.e castle) and Operation Body Count (tower blocks) versus the non-real life settings of Corridor 7 (well, Corr7's plot does hint toward 'Area51') and Blake Stone.

Share this post


Link to post
dew said:

To this day, no one has managed to explain why Doom's supposed to have better level design than the sequel.


The quickest answer on top of my head, is that E1's levels are more detailed than anything you'll find in Doom II (or in E2 and E3 of Doom itself, for that matter).

Doom II, by comparison, has larger and more crudely mapped levels, relying on the presence of larger indoors and outdoors areas, bizarre layouts as well as the "earth buildings" feeling. But you could say those things for several of E2 and E3's levels, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Doom II, by comparison, has larger...relying on the presence of larger indoors and outdoors areas.


Height (well, Printz said that one) outdoor areas, larger indoor areas; are those generally, not some of the bigger geometry advances of the Doom engine versus the Wolf3D engine?

One could argue that Doom1's maps are closer to Wolf3D in geometry.

To continue this line of thought; plot wise, the city in Doom2 is of supposed to be being 'warped by/becoming part of Hell', like Doom1's E2.

It is possible that the warping may not have been pulled off quite so well in Doom2?

Share this post


Link to post
Vermil said:

Height (well, Printz said that one) outdoor areas, larger indoor areas; are those generally, not some of the bigger geometry advances of the Doom engine versus the Wolf3D engine?


If unlimited sector height and height differences were enough to make a good game, then Rise Of The Triad (the 1994 original, not the 2013 remake) would've been a fucking masterpiece. It was not.

Share this post


Link to post
dew said:

To this day, no one has managed to explain why Doom's supposed to have better level design than the sequel.

Because Doom 1 architecture mostly look better thematically fitting and unified (moon bases, hell), as opposed to many Doom 2 maps (quazi-Earth). Because most Doom 1 maps seem to have compact layouts structured with care, while some Doom 2 maps consist of rough-shaped sectors, seemingly lazily put together, and intuitiveness is somehow off, sometimes completely off.

That's enough of an explanation to me. I agree about the height and gameplay variety, though, that's where Doom 2 manages to do better.

One more point - might not be appropriate to bring it up - but anyway: The level design in BTSX (as a high-quality D2 project) looks to me like it was inspired by Doom 1 more than Doom 2 - gameplay is more like D2, however. This is obviously no proof, but I dare to say that it signs something.

EDIT: Ninjaed by 4 posts. :)

Share this post


Link to post
scifista42 said:

One more point - might not be appropriate to bring it up - but anyway: The level design in BTSX (as a high-quality D2 project) looks to me like it was inspired by Doom 1 more than Doom 2 - gameplay is more like D2, however. This is obviously no proof, but I dare to say that it signs something.

Speaking for my own BTSX contributions, I wouldn't say so. Though BTSX is of course a blend of a lot of disparate influences and ideas, some Doom 2 is definitely in there.

To take one example from E1, "Navigating Flood Regions" only really came into its own after I got fed up with its original layout, chucked most of it out, and replaced it with a couple of abstract setpiece areas directly influenced by the mindset I had adapted for my Doom 2 The Way id Did submissions.

Similarly, the large underground area I contributed to "Speedtraps For The Bee Kingdom" in episode 2 took direct influence from Romero's Doom 2 style, adapted and filtered through my own mapping inclinations.

"Blatant Doom Trip" in episode 3 is probably the most direct example of a BTSX level I've made that's entirely built around abstract D2-influenced setpieces, but of course that one's not going to be seeing the light of day for a while so it's a moot point :)

Anyway, back to the main topic:
The more I've studied Doom 2's levels, the more I've found them a great source of mapping inspiration. I find most of them to be leagues more accomplished than the vast majority of Doom 1, and there are some oft-maligned levels like "The Pit" that are easily among my favorites. Most of Doom 1 was built in two months by someone who had never used the editor before, and everyone else was just as inexperienced. With Doom 2, they were able to expand on what they had done before and take it in much more diverse and ambitious directions, with great results IMO.

Also, mid/high-tier enemies with more interesting behavior than "shoot a slow projectile in a straight line".

Share this post


Link to post

I probably don't have enough insight, but when I look at BTSX maps, I mostly see detailed techbases in a similar spirit as E1 techbases, and compact layouts in a similar spirit as D1 compact layouts. I don't see anything as rough and haphazard in execution, as was The Pit, or Chasm, or Suburbs, or Citadel, or Icon of Sin, or Nirvana, or Dead Simple, or basically any D2 level. In my view, majority of D2 levels were garish and disorganized far more than majority of D1 was.

Well, if you're talking about pure principles and not actual implementations - then I see that you're right, probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Zed said:

I really love them both. And the Arch-Vile has the ability to resurrect monsters, which, in my opinion, is a very cool feature, and the Revenant's homing rockets are neat. Of course, it depends on what every person likes, so it's more my opinion than anything else. And by the way, why you hate them? Killing an AV with a Super Shotgun has to be one of the coolest things I've done.

They're just both really irritating monsters to fight. The revenant rockets can't be dodged like normal rockets and the Archvile's flame attack follows you and requires you to take cover somewhere out of sight.

If you look at the Doom 1 monsters I guess most of them all fit a familiar pattern: while they have different strengths and weapons etc., they all essentially behave the same, moving around and doing either line attacks or throwing missiles at you (which are usually slow moving enough to dodge if you're experienced enough). The Archvile and Revenant break that pattern.

I guess it's a weird thing to object to really. They both extend the game by adding new and unexpected gameplay that is admittedly original. It's exactly what you'd expect to find in a sequel, and Doom II already got enough criticism for just being more of the same. But basically, that original gameplay is what I like and enjoy about Doom as a game, it's what I find fun. You describe those monsters as "cool" and "neat"; sure, I'll accept that, but I just don't find them fun. I dislike Plutonia partly because it makes pretty heavy use of those two monsters; never played more than a couple of levels from it.

I don't mind the other Doom II monsters so much - the Arachnotron and Mancubus are both pretty good, though I'm not such a big fan of the Chaingunner or Pain Elemental. My only other big objection is perhaps the Icon of Sin, which is probably one of the worst video game bosses of all time.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that Doom is much nicer to look at since the texture pack seems much more colorful that Doom 2's, I also like how the episodic structure helps to break up the game into more manageable chunks.

However looking at the gameplay, I think that Doom is pretty easy and less fun that Doom 2, the SSG really made a huge difference.

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
×