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

If Doom II was released with...

Recommended Posts

All the features from Doom64 how would you have responded back then?

I've been thinking about how Doom II seemed more like an expansion pack for level designers rather than being a good sequel to me. I honestly feel like the game was rushed by id software and looking back on it, and comparing it to other games such as Hexen, D64, Strife, Duke3D I have to say I'm actually disappointed in my favorite game. I understand we have all those tools today for Doom, but has anyone ever wished Vanilla Doom had more to offer instead of having to use Source Port shenanigans to achieve more complex level design?

Also what if it were released with slightly more complex enemy behavior such as:
*Certain demons will randomly increase their speed after reaching a certain amount of HP.
*Certain demons become more aggressive at certain HP levels.
*At random monsters will run away from the player depending on their HP
*Lead their projectiles like the Cyberdemon does in D64 (Seems like they could already do this with the damn partial invisibility)
*Multiple projectile speeds from the same demon

One more thing. Random damage spread is wiped from existence, and damage from projectiles is determined by how far it's from the center of it's target.

Share this post


Link to post

They should have incorporated freelook. That coupled with the new monsters, maps and music would've made it have more of it's own identity.

They added a lot of nice new stuff, but not quite enough. Then again though, look at things like Super Mario Bros 1 and 2, they're pretty much the exact same with different levels too. Seems like it was more common to do that in earlier times.

TendaMonsta said:

*At random monsters will run away from the player depending on their HP
[..]
*Multiple projectile speeds from the same demon

Most of the ideas you have there are cool, but I dislike these two. It would make 100% kills more annoying, I like the 'relentless' AI of Doom. Multiple projectile speeds would be really frustrating, I suppose it would be ok if the projectile sprites were different too.

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't mind having certain demons getting more aggressive at lower HP, but I can see them being problematic for slaughter maps unless it would cause demons to infight more frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
TendaMonsta said:

All the features from Doom64 how would you have responded back then?

I've been thinking about how Doom II seemed more like an expansion pack for level designers rather than being a good sequel to me.


What you have to remember is that when Doom2 was released on PC, that Doom1 was only available via mail order on PC (well it was sold in some non-U.S shops).

Doom1 didn't make it to shops until Ultimate Doom a while after Doom2. Doom1 was probably self published by ID using shareware and mail order in order to prove Doom could sell. Then when they got a publisher, they started work on Doom2 for shops.

ID did the same with Wolf3D and Spear of Destiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Doomkid said:

look at things like Super Mario Bros 1 and 2, they're pretty much the exact same with different levels too


Not any more similar than the similarities between any two random platform games, really. SMB 2 was only superficially similar to SMB 1, and it was actually based on the engine of a totally different game. Perhaps you were referring to some kind of Famiclone hack of SMB 1? There are many of those called "SMB 2" which actually are SMB with just the title screen changed.

Avoozl said:

I wouldn't mind having certain demons getting more aggressive at lower HP, but I can see them being problematic for slaughter maps unless it would cause demons to infight more frequently.


Ever tried NUTS.WAD with -fast ? :-D

Share this post


Link to post
TendaMonsta said:

Also what if it were released with slightly more complex enemy behavior such as [...]

It would be quite a different game in that case. I can't say whether it would be better or worse, but the simplicity of Doom's monster AI combined with the variety of attacks from the Doom 2 monsters often works in its favour.

The only things I find myself wishing vanilla Doom had originally were some kind of freelook and things-over-things support - basically like what the other Doom-engine games do. I think implications of not having those weren't really considered at the time because Doom was already such a step up in 3D-ness compared to what came before it.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Not any more similar than the similarities between any two random platform games, really. SMB 2 was only superficially similar to SMB 1, and it was actually based on the engine of a totally different game. Perhaps you were referring to some kind of Famiclone hack of SMB 1?


He'll be referring to the Japanese SMB sequel, which was later released in Europe and USA under the name Lost Levels. Conversely, the sequel you refer to was released in Japan as Mario USA.

EDIT: Back on topic, Vermil makes the correct point here. This would be better directed to Final Doom, which was indeed little more than an expansion pack.

Share this post


Link to post

Freelook? In that renderer?

plzno

Doom II brought enough new things to the table, really. Not just the weapon and monsters, but the new linedef actions and sector types that generally aren't noticed because everyone's using v1.9 or a source port these days.

Share this post


Link to post
BaronOfStuff said:

Freelook? In that renderer?

plzno


Heretic.

Share this post


Link to post

It's bearable, at least.

Anyway, when I first looked at the Doom II box back when I was 9 (this was 2010) it was in a book titled Vintage Games and it was actually a shot of Doom II for the Zodiac. Now, at this time, I didn't realise that Doom and Doom II were different games (that is, when I watched my dad play Doom when I was four, I thought Doom was one big game with a "Double-barreled Shotgun", two types of "skeletons" (Revenant and Archvile, of course) and loads of levels).

When I saw the Doom section of the book, I didn't realise I'd already seen Doom II.


Anyway, sorry for the misleading tangent.
My point is that the book showed a shot of the box back for Doom II on the Tapwave Zodiac, and one of the screenshots showed Barrels of Fun; there was a Lost Soul zooming into the player's face and the player themself was reloading the SSG.
Because of the movebob, the sprite was quite low, and my 9 year-old self thought that the player was taking out the needle to throw a grenade.

So, what if Doom II had 2 new weapons? The Super Shotgun and a grenade? I dunno, but running around with SkullTag's Grenade Launcher proves it would work OK at least.

So yeah, sorry for this needlessly long reply. I tend to take the long way round when explaining things. :P

BaronOfStuff said:

Doom II brought enough new things to the table, really. Not just the weapon and monsters, but the new linedef actions and sector types that generally aren't noticed...


New sector types? Say what?

Share this post


Link to post

I would increase the engine limits to allow for more detailed maps, instead of some of sandy's abstract herpa-derp "fun" maps. I don't like the gimmicky stuff AT ALL. That's 1994 pwad quality.

Another factor was that the mappers didn't have enough time for all those maps I believe. There are some obvious bugs in them even in 1.9, shows lack of polish.

Also, they could have fleshed out the weapon animations more and have some better story or at least intermissions.

Share this post


Link to post
VGA said:

Also, they could have fleshed out the weapon animations more and have some better story or at least intermissions.


One must remember that Doom2 originally came out on floppy disks. They didn't have a CD, DVD etc's worth of space.

Doom1 and Doom2 (27-28mb) also took up over 20% of the hard drive space on my first computer I had access to (it had 125mb).

VGA said:

That's 1994 pwad quality.


Funny that Doom2, made in 1994, looks something like a 1994 pwad.

Share this post


Link to post

^
That's all I'd really have done to 'improve' Doom II outside of the new things/features already included. Just increase certain engine limits (like the safebuffer) while leaving the core gameplay alone. 256 visplanes? Holy shit!

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I'm actually okay that Doom II didn't really add too many features. As stated before, it was the first real commercial release of Doom - I didn't get my hands on a copy of Ultimate Doom until many years after I got Doom II. So honestly, it was okay for me knowing that it was basically the same game with more monster types and different levels. If it had been too radically different, I dunno, I probably would've been even more bummed that it took so long for me to get ahold of the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Vermil said:

One must remember that Doom2 originally came out on floppy disks. They didn't have a CD, DVD etc's worth of space.

Doom1 and Doom2 (27-28mb) also took up over 20% of the hard drive space on my first computer I had access to (it had 125mb).



Funny that Doom2, made in 1994, looks something like a 1994 pwad.

1) You much space would a few text paragraphs and an image would take? About the weapon smoothing, I guess they would need a few dozen more frames, but still, that's not the real reason.

2) Why would a paid pro mapper working in a team and with experience produce the same quality as a hobbyist?

Share this post


Link to post

I found Doom64 to be clunky and boring. ID definitely rushed it. The N64 was "the big one" at the time, so they tried making a DOOM game for the N64, but it sucked.

Share this post


Link to post
VGA said:

I would increase the engine limits to allow for more detailed maps, instead of some of sandy's abstract herpa-derp "fun" maps. I don't like the gimmicky stuff AT ALL.

Well, I do.

Sandy's Doom II maps are indeed "fun", and are definitive of what makes Doom II great and still unique to this day, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
facelessdoomer said:

I found Doom64 to be clunky and boring. ID definitely rushed it. The N64 was "the big one" at the time, so they tried making a DOOM game for the N64, but it sucked.


Are you still trying to be a troll?

Share this post


Link to post

Doom 2 was pretty much the perfect game, completing and greatly building on the work started in Doom (1). I'm glad id released it in exactly the way they did.

I'd say the only respect in which it didn't clearly surpass the initial Doom is in terms of the music, but that's not such a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Grazza said:

Doom 2 was pretty much the perfect game, completing and greatly building on the work started in Doom (1). I'm glad id released it in exactly the way they did.

amen

Share this post


Link to post
facelessdoomer said:

I found Doom64 to be clunky and boring. ID definitely rushed it. The N64 was "the big one" at the time, so they tried making a DOOM game for the N64, but it sucked.

Funny, I think it's probably the best FPS on the n64. It's aged far better than Goldeneye or Turok, though I will admit those were ever so slightly more innovative.

Doom64 with 2 player splitscreen (just like Hexen/Goldeneye etc) woulda been totally badass.

esselfortium said:

Sandy's Doom II maps are indeed "fun", and are definitive of what makes Doom II great and still unique to this day, IMO.

Grazza said:

I'm glad id released it in exactly the way they did.

Yep, I agree with this.

BaronOfStuff said:

Yeah, and it looks shit.

It's true that the stretching looks kinda gross, but some of those doom2 maps are quite tall. Maybe a slightly more limited view than, say, Duke3D, just to prevent extreme stretchyness..

Either way, auto aim does the job right 9 times out of 10, I just wish that you could hit things a bit further away. That can be a total pain in the ass.

Share this post


Link to post

Having played Build games for the last 17 or so years, I can't say I'm particularly bothered by how mouselook is handled in 2.5D games. It's not a big deal. But for it to have worked in Doom 2, the skies would need to have been twice as tall at least. Anyway, if Doom 2 had features like thing-over-thing, overlapping sectors, transparency, taller midtextures, colored lighting, interactive objects (other than barrels), more complex enemy behavior, more in-depth linedef actions, etc., I won't lie … I would have been fucking floored by it. It would have definitely made Doom 2, without a doubt, utterly superior to the original. As it stands, its superiority is mostly due to the extra content; more textures, enemies and weapons/powerups. That said, I don't know if I'd worship it that much more. Doom 2 is pretty amazing as it is, even with all the brown, gimmicky maps, "meh" end boss and sometimes confusing layouts.

Share this post


Link to post
GoatLord said:

Anyway, if Doom 2 had features like thing-over-thing, overlapping sectors, transparency, taller midtextures, colored lighting, interactive objects (other than barrels), more complex enemy behavior, more in-depth linedef actions, etc....


...then it would be Quake II. And unplayable on anything the average consumer could buy in late 1994. Part of the reason for Doom (and Doom II's ) success was its relatively fast and smooth engine, which was achieved (also) by cutting back on such frills while still managing to look way better and offer more gameplay depth than Wolf3D.

E.g. fully 3D environments with proper freelook were already available in Ultima Underworld since 1992, but it ran like shit back then, and it still ran like shit on computers that would ROCK Doom 2 years later, just like Descent did.

The only Doom-contemporary engine I recall which had a good blend of Duke3D-like features with Doom-like performance was the Jedi engine used in the first Dark Forces game.

Share this post


Link to post
Grazza said:

Doom 2 was pretty much the perfect game, completing and greatly building on the work started in Doom (1). I'm glad id released it in exactly the way they did.


Doom 2 is a great game, but I think you're missing the bigger picture: by changing the Doom 2 engine, imagine how much more interesting all the Doom 1 vs Doom 2 threads would be! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

E.g. fully 3D environments with proper freelook were already available in Ultima Underworld since 1992, but it ran like shit back then, and it still ran like shit on computers that would ROCK Doom 2 years later, just like Descent did.

Huh? I had a 486 equivalency back in the day, and Descent ran fine on it.

Share this post


Link to post
BlueFeena said:

Huh? I had a 486 equivalency back in the day, and Descent ran fine on it.


You mean a 486 DX/100 or something similar with 8 MB or more? Descent didn't run as well as Doom on a 486 DX/40 with 4 MB ,it was pretty much a slideshow and fucked your hard disk up by swapping all the time even at minimum settings. It was simply not meant to be on par with Doom, requirements-wise.

Share this post


Link to post

I wish it had more weapons than just the double shotgun, which is easily found as early as level 2.

Oh, and better levels than what there already are.

Share this post


Link to post
BlueFeena said:

That's probably it, although the best I can give you is a model name.


Yeah, those could go all the way up to a Pentium upgrade, performance wise. I recall seeing a 100/120 MHz overdrive which behaved really weird: some software thought it was a 386, in some things it performed very well, in others not as much.

In any case, Descent was clearly a "Pentium recommended" type of game, not something designed to run on 386s and entry-level 486s for the time, unlike Doom.

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
×