Doom 1 or 2?

[sgtcrispy]

Oh god, not this again...

[geekmarine]

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).

[Gordon]

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.

[Varis Alpha]

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.

[fraggle]

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.

[Zed]

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.

[myk]

Check this thread for previous discussion on this topic.

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

Argh, you shall be destroyed!!

[dew]

Here's another one. And another one.

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

[Vermil]

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.

[Maes]

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.

[Vermil]

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?

[Maes]

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.

[scifista42]

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. :)

[esselfortium]

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".

[scifista42]

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.

[fraggle]

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.

[Foodles]

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.

[Linguica]

Sorry fraggle all the new Doom 2 monsters are great. They nearly all enhance the gameplay along one or more of three axes:

• time awareness - what is happening that I need to immediately address?
  
• immediate spatial awareness - what is in my close vicinity right now?
  
• general spatial awareness - what is the architectural layout, like walls, buildings, etc, in my area?
  

Doom 1 enemies were designed by what we would consider today to be novice FPS players, for whom basic movement and avoidance were challenging enough, without monsters making it much more difficult. However, as a more advanced FPS player, what tactical problems do you end up having while fighting them? Beyond getting boxed into a dead end, there is practically nothing preventing you from kiting Doom monsters indefinitely with little challenge. The only problems you would run into are being progressively plinked by shotgunners (troopers aren't even worth mentioning) or splash damage from a Cyberdemon's rockets (I'm discounting the Spiderdemon as a "normal" enemy here, but it is basically a giant rapid fire shotgunner in practice anyway, so whatever).

Now let's look at the new Doom 2 monsters and what they bring to the table:

• The Chaingunner is a "low-level" enemy that even a more advanced player needs to worry about, because especially en masse, they can really wreck you quickly. There is a time awareness factor because if you don't take care of them quickly, your health will be severely eroded. There is also an element of general spatial awareness in case you need to retreat behind cover.
  
  
• The Mancubus's offset fireballs mean you can't just rely on mindless strafing around projectiles and actually need to pay attention to them, or else you can end up running into one. This implicates your immediate spatial awareness. (Did you end up learning the "Mancubus dance" of strafing left-right-center? Then congratulations, the game taught you a new behavior.)
  
  
• The Arachnotron's rapid-fire plasma also implicates immediate spatial awareness because if you're doing any strafing back and forth, you have to watch out for "crossing the stream" and being hit in the process. Do you think it's a coincidence the Mancubus and Arachnotron are introduced in quick succession on the same level, which also includes no other enemies? I don't think so. Both enemies make you do more than the Doom 1 hallmark of simple strafing around a single fireball. The game is telling you, in case you haven't gotten the point yet, that this is not going to work anymore.
  
  
• The Pain Elemental is a annoying enemy, yes, but it is there purely to implicate your time awareness - it can't even hurt you directly! Its danger to you is directly proportional to how long you let it stick around.
  
  
• The Revenant's homing missiles, again, mean you can't just rely on mindless strafing around projectiles and actually need to pay attention to them, which involves your immediate spatial awareness, and you also need to keep mindful of available cover so you can get rid of the homing fireball, which involves general spatial awareness. You could even argue it involves your time awareness, since if you let a large number of homing fireballs accumulate, they could end up killing you instantly. (Or, perhaps, another enemy??)
  
  
• The Archvile's fire attack strongly implicates your general spatial awareness and time awareness - you need to know where cover is, and you need to get there immediately. Furthermore, its secondary behavior of resurrecting dead enemies involves yet more time awareness - if you leave it alone too long, it's going to being back all those enemies you already went to the effort to kill.
  
  
• The Hell Knight is the only new enemy that doesn't make the game tactically deeper along one of these axes. It's just a Baron of Hell without being quite so tedious to fight as a real Baron. This does give mappers a new option for when and how to use the Baron, though, which is a good thing.
  

(I added in the Cyberdemon because I thought it fitted well in an empty part)

[scifista42]

Wow, Linguica. Doom is now officially a science.

[Marcaek]

Doom architechture may be an art but how you make that fun to play is most definitely a science. IMO as of late the former is stressed the latter is neglected somewhat.

[scifista42]

I personally don't think so - (slaughter)maps with challenging / clever setups are still coming out... Wait, the major releases of such maps were already a while ago. You might have a point. Still, I do think that modern mappers pay attention to the "scientific" part of creating fun, whenever they make effective traps etc.

[Blastfrog]

I prefer Doom 1 over Doom 2 because the music is moodier (and more fitting), the textures are more colorful and the places (while still abstract) somehow feel more believable. Yes, Doom 2 has more varied and ambitious level design, but it just lacks something intangible that makes Doom 1 feel more like an "experience" (for lack of a better word) than a game for a game's sake.

I guess it's sort of similar reasoning for why I prefer Thief 1 over Thief 2. Yes, the latter is objectively better, but I find the former subjectively better and it makes enough of a difference for me to like it more than the other for it.

That being said, Doom 2's monster, weapon and powerup additions are awesome. I do like how the PSX version of Doom 1 sprinkles those in. Does anyone else like it or is it blasphemy to have a chaingunner in E1M1?

[Doomkid]

I think they're both great. Ling gives great reasons above why my experiences with D2 are slightly more memorable, though. Mapping for D1 is kinda hard with all the restrictions, under the hood, D2 added even more than the average player realizes - Super fast doors and lifts, monster-only teleports and other line types which make mapping much more creative. Like 40oz said, D1 is probably a better starting ground for newbie mappers.

Both games have excellent music. (okay, except maybe map02. What's elevator jazz doing in Doom?!)

Also, "not this thread again!" ;)

EDIT: D2 deathmatch is also much better overall, even when just using IWAD maps.

[Holering]

I think Doom 1 has more of a survivor-horror feel. The maps seem more spooky and more serious. Doom 2 just seems like it's very fast paced and messy. There's no episodic endings and the maps are all thrown together like they didn't care. I personally would've liked to see more expansions like "Thy Flesh Consumed"; I like the high difficulty of "Thy Flesh Consumed". Doom 2 is great but I prefer Alien Vendetta or Final Doom TNT; some of the best maps IMO are in TNT (with some rare exceptions in Plutonia lol).

Sodaholic said:
That being said, Doom 2's monster, weapon and powerup additions are awesome. I do like how the PSX version of Doom 1 sprinkles those in. Does anyone else like it or is it blasphemy to have a chaingunner in E1M1? [/B]

I liked it!

[fraggle]

Linguica said:

Sorry fraggle all the new Doom 2 monsters are great. They nearly all enhance the gameplay along one or more of three axes:

Yep, I don't really dispute that. In fact, I actually said that they all extend the gameplay in new ways compared to Doom 1. My objection is purely a subjective, personal one: too much of them makes the game less fun and less enjoyable for me.

Great analysis by the way. To go with your theory, I guess it's the "general spatial awareness" side that I dislike. I mentioned in my previous comment how I dislike Plutonia, so I went back and tried playing through Plutonia MAP01 to remind myself what the experience was like.

The main thing I noticed is that I'm confronted with a lot of these kinds of enemies - Revenants, but particularly noticeable is the overabundance of chaingunners. As you noted, with chaingunners, "if you don't take care of them quickly, your health will be severely eroded". A single chaingunner can deal out a lot of damage on his own but if you're dealing with them one at a time it's not too hard to take them out quickly (see eg. Doom II MAP04 where in practice they tend to appear one by one). In Plutonia MAP01 you're quickly confronted with two chaingunners (top of the set of steps), a pattern that often repeats. With a situation like this you can easily be killed by one chaingunner while you're still reloading from having taken out the first.



So when you have multiple chaingunners like this, or when you're confronted by Archviles (flame attack) or Revenants (homing missiles), it's essential to be able to find cover to hide behind. And levels like the ones in Plutonia force you to do this all the time. It's a continual process of hiding and popping out to take shots. Doom II extended the game dynamic by introducing these monsters, and it seems that Plutonia changes it to be focused entirely around this different style of play. In a sense it's almost like a completely different game to Doom 1.

I should clarify that I'm not completely opposed to these kinds of monsters; it's not like I just ragequit any WAD as soon as I see a revenant or archvile. They are an interesting challenge that certainly makes the game more varied. I guess it's just excessive usage of them that drains me, and Plutonia to me is the epitome of that kind of design and gameplay. In the end I'll play what I find fun and what I enjoy; it's more than clear that there are plenty of people who are Plutonia fans and obviously enjoy or prefer this kind of gameplay. It just isn't for me.

[CorSair]

Sodaholic said:

I do like how the PSX version of Doom 1 sprinkles those in. Does anyone else like it or is it blasphemy to have a chaingunner in E1M1?

Heh, stupid surge of idea popped: What happens when you combine Doom 1 maps with Doom 2 monsters? Guess I should try that out. :V

[Varis Alpha]

it's not like the PSX-exclusive encounters completely replaces the bestiary of the Doom levels. they're more like extra things thrown in for variety, like Sodaholic said. the only new enemies i remember being inserted right now are the Chaingunner and hidden PE in map 1, though, aside from the PSX-exclusive levels, which i believe is generally harder and filled with more monsters?

[Doomkid]

fraggle said:

it's essential to be able to find cover to hide behind. And levels like the ones in Plutonia force you to do this all the time. It's a continual process of hiding and popping out to take shots.

This is why I've never really been a big Plutonia fan, and always saw TNT as the better of the two. Hell, this is the reason I look back on my older megawads with a degree of disdain..

This stupid ass trend is pretty much the bread & butter of modern FPS.... Zzzz...

[codeslicer]

myk said:

<font color=yellow>Check this thread for previous discussion on this topic.</font>

/B]

I was talkIIIINNNG in general and not just level design.

[Magnusblitz]

I definitely agree with Linguica's point that the Doom 2 enemies are far and large an improvement on Doom 1's.

Doom 1 has: two hitscanners (which both move slowly, only fire once, then move again), two melee-only enemies, a flying/charging melee enemy, and three fireball enemies (one of which flies). Plus the two boss monsters. There's not a lot of variation here. The baron is basically just a bigger, meatier imp; the caco is just a bigger, meatier imp that can also fly.

Almost all of the Doom II enemies are much more unique. Revenants and Mancubuses have unique attacks that need to be dodged in different ways. The arachnatron shoots a steady stream if it keeps eyesight, as does the chaingunner, making them different from other fireball/hitscanner monsters. The AV and PE are obviously quite unique. As mentioned, the hell knight is the only new 'boring' addition, and it was clearly added because they realized the Baron has too much HP for it's threat value. Which, is what I would say is probably the one problem with D2 monsters - overall, their health is too much, as almost every monster is somewhere between 2-4 SSG/rocket shots.