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

How did id create such good maps if they had nothing to copy?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jon said:

I feel sorry for you folks who have to continually revise your appreciation of things. I seem to have a rare disease where I can still enjoy Doom for what it is (and Goldeneye for that matter). And I haven't played a modern FPS I've liked except the new Wolfs for a very long time.

What does appreciation have to do with it?

I can appreciate something and not like it. Right? I appreciate Wolfenstein 3D for pioneering my favorite genre of games, but that doesn't mean I have to play it.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, everennui said:

They didn't... in my opinion. The levels are very BAD. They don't hold up to me at all, and I don't understand how people can like them. I'd much rather play something from one of the numerous legendary wadsmiths that are so easy to find.

 

This. Knee-deep in the dead is honestly the only good episode in the original Doom. Most of the levels from Shores of Hell and Inferno are either merely ok or just not that enjoyable. Doom 2 is even worse where something like half the levels suck.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, everennui said:
54 minutes ago, SP_FACE1 said:

And by bad I mean by today's standards. And yes I have heavily downgraded my ratings for some legendary PWADs because the state of level making has got so much better. E.g. Scythe was a 5 star wad for me when it was released. Now it's less than four.

...and this is a great point. Is it, "OKAY" to do this?

I'm doing it mainly for convenience. I'm rating the levels I play and I had to make the choice between taking into account the release date or just comparing them as is. I chose the latter which means I'll have to adjust my older ratings as more levels come out and my taste evolves. But if I had chosen the other way, I'd have hard time comparing by numerical ratings. It's a trade off.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, everennui said:

They didn't... in my opinion. The levels are very BAD. They don't hold up to me at all, and I don't understand how people can like them. I'd much rather play something from one of the numerous legendary wadsmiths that are so easy to find.

Agreed, that when compared to levels made today the original IWADs seem primitive. But consider, that today's levels build heavily on many of the principles established in the IWADs. In my opinion, we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

Are the IWAD levels plain, when compared with today's levels? Sure. But that doesn't make the IWAD levels bad. On the contrary, some would argue that the gameplay and level design are the reasons they shine.

 

[EDIT: I accidentally used "PWAD" when I meant "IWAD". I've fixed this.]

Edited by ReX

Share this post


Link to post

I play the original levels (mainly episode 1 and doom2) quite often and I like them. But I think it's largely because of nostalgia. The way I came to the conclusion that the originals are not really that good was after playing many classical style PWADS. I thought if I had never played the original levels, would I be able to distinguish e.g. which one was the original episode 1 and which one was a reenaction of it? And if I'm not giving great ratings to any of the classical style PWADs why would I think the originals are great (except nostalgia)?

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, hardcore_gamer said:

 

This. Knee-deep in the dead is honestly the only good episode in the original Doom. Most of the levels from Shores of Hell and Inferno are either merely ok or just not that enjoyable. Doom 2 is even worse where something like half the levels suck.

nah doom 2 is better than any of them

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't like Doom 2 at first. Then I liked it with more experience. Doesn't sound much like nostalgia to me.

 

The original levels in both games could use more detail polish, but their foundation is good.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, everennui said:

What does appreciation have to do with it?

For the sake of what I was saying, just substitute "appreciation" with "liking".

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, jval said:

 

Vanilla needs 4 Mb RAM at least. Won't run with 2 Mb.

For some reason there seems to be a lot of FUD about this. I've heard anything from "Doom runs with 1 or 2 MB" to "Doom runs on a 286". Most are uninformed comments from technically non-savvy people or the result of misunderstandings.

 

For example, there's a (rather pathological, TBQH) explanation of why some people might think that Doom ran on 286s: it would be, at least in theory, possible to run in on a 286 motherboard with some sort of 386 overdrive chip, pin-compatible with a 286 PGA socket. That would allow a "286" (well, no longer one) it to execute the i386 instruction set that Doom uses.

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4325

 

But being that upgrade so rare, I wonder how many people really ran Doom on such a system. Let alone that it would "run" only in the strictest sense of "the program code executing", far from being playable.

 

But there's no escaping the memory limitation: vanilla Doom is hardcoded not to work on anything with less than about 2.5 MB of addressable "zone" memory (so basically, if it cannot perform a unitary malloc operation of at least a single big 2.5MB chunk of memory when it starts, it simply won't run). On a PC, with the usual memory type separation, 4 MB of total RAM barely fits the definition.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Maes said:

... some people might think that Doom ran on 286s: it would be, at least in theory, possible to run in on a 286 motherboard...

I can attest that DooM did not run on the 286 that I owned in the early 1990s. Because of this, I had to run DooM on my computer at work, which was either a 386 or a 486, and did have 4 MB of RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Da Werecat said:

I didn't like Doom 2 at first. Then I liked it with more experience. Doesn't sound much like nostalgia to me.

 

The original levels in both games could use more detail polish, but their foundation is good.

 

Doom 2 has so many terrible maps. Sure not every level in Doom 1 was a classic but there are very few maps in it that I would consider basically bad. But Doom 2 has plenty of such maps. Refueling base is terrible, which might not be too shocking considering that it's basically a rejected Doom 1 map. Barrel's of fun is also very bad. Pretty much all the maps with the large open spaces are terrible.

 

There is a reason 90% of the time I say to myself "OK, now I am going to replay Doom 2!" I give up about half way through because I get so bored with the lame maps.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a false premise in the question, imho. Obviously all creative work depends on past influences (on the creator's part) and expectations based on past creative work (on the audience's part). But in general I think you're more likely to get greatness when creators can apply well-honed skills as they explore new, uncharted territory. Having examples to learn from is great; a lot of times, it's also simultaneously a burden. There are a gazillion Hitchcockian thrillers by filmmakers who have spent years analyzing what made Hitchcock's films tick, but few hold a candle to the master, who was of course inventing rather than following a blueprint. Those Hitchcock disciples that made a name for themselves, like say Dario Argento or Claude Chabrol, were the ones who ended up using their knowledge as a springboard to create a substantially new kind of cinematic logic. Similarly, classical music theory programs teach tens or hundreds of thousands of musicians the basic rules that govern a specific period of Western music, but the composers that make a contribution to the discipline are the ones that move beyond (often far, far beyond) these rules to create new and different approaches to structuring sound.

 

This is why I often feel of two minds about game design theory, even as I find it fascinating. The implicit (and sometimes explicit) claim of most game design theory stuff is that by studying past work you can find rules that will help you make a better game. But in most cases, what distinguishes "great games" is that they contain design choices that both (1) "work" and (2) aren't simply the application of previous knowledge and practices. And oftentimes pathbreaking creators themselves have had a mostly intuitive understanding of what really makes their games work, not the formalized models to which game design theory vaguely aspires. (I think this applies to id circa Doom--I don't think the OG levels are untouchable, but they do radiate a kind of joy in exploring brand new tech that gives them a special magic to me.)

Share this post


Link to post

the community still doesn't make many maps that are as mechanically interesting as the gimmicky ones from doom 2. it's incredible how many beautiful arenas and corridors we put out but it seems like few people are studying the type of activity doom2.wad was interested in

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, hardcore_gamer said:

 

Doom 2 has so many terrible maps. Sure not every level in Doom 1 was a classic but there are very few maps in it that I would consider basically bad. But Doom 2 has plenty of such maps. Refueling base is terrible, which might not be too shocking considering that it's basically a rejected Doom 1 map. Barrel's of fun is also very bad. Pretty much all the maps with the large open spaces are terrible.

 

There is a reason 90% of the time I say to myself "OK, now I am going to replay Doom 2!" I give up about half way through because I get so bored with the lame maps.

 

I used to love "Refueling Base" for the secrets and the "boss fight".

It so nicely conveys the feeling of hiding in and exploring a huge, cold installation where hordes of nasties are roaming the all forgotten corridors... as one's hastily moving from end to end seeking refuge in its vastness and a millisecond of silence.

Today I think it is still an enjoyable map, albeit I can sense that the stamped out, square, planar style of many DoomII maps rubs you the wrong way... basically a postage stamp sprinkled with random obstacles and some keys.

It should be noted though that Doom I had E3M6 which could have easily passed as a DoomII map... so this style wasn't all that foreign. Sandy most likely prepared for the "assault" which would become DoomII.

 

It seems the successor's best maps, with some exceptions, were the early ones(for me especially Map03 + Map05). I see McGees input as the most important for DoomII and would go as far as saying that he had surpassed Romero at that point as a designer(for DoomII maps at least). His style was more refined and a glimpse of things to come.

 

@yakfak - could you elaborate further?

Edited by _bruce_ : Wording, content

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hardcore_gamer said:

There is a reason 90% of the time I say to myself "OK, now I am going to replay Doom 2!" I give up about half way through because I get so bored with the lame maps.

What if I told you that said reason was entirely subjective, which by extension means that it's not to be confused with an objective verdict in regards to the iWAD's overall quality?

 

4 hours ago, hardcore_gamer said:

Pretty much all the maps with the large open spaces are terrible.

If you don't like somewhat sprawling maps, okay. There's some of that in doom II, which is the reason why I, personally, like it better than doom I.

 

When I first played doom, quake was already released IIRC, and Duke Nukem 3D was a thing back then as well, still I could see how maps like Industrial Zone, the Living End, and whatnot are really cool. I know lots of people hate them, but I also like The Chasm and Barrels of fun.

 

We can always look back and talk about how they executed their ideas at the time and pat ourselves on the back how modding, scripting and mapping transcended all that in some way shape or form, but that's going nowhere. Id had awesome concepts, many of which were so unique that you're gonna be hard pressed to find them in other, more modern games at all, let alone in ways that are actually more fun.

 

Wanna know where the bamboo-pole platforming in some slaughter maps is from? That's the chasm for you right there. Id made it happen, people just used their concept and made it more difficult. Opening monster closets that grant access to a new area in a map? Look no further than "Dead Simple", id made that happen. Putting people under time pressure while doing a "hurdle run"? Look at "Barrels of fun" and guess who made it happen. Good concepts are like art, they don't need you to like them, they just need to be inventive in a way that makes gameplay different in order to be good concepts. The many large, open, and epic sceneries you see in so many games today? Id made them first, only at "lower resolution".

 

I could go on for some time here. Fact is that everything that is made by this community today is essentially an "evolution" of a concept that we've seen in iWADs from the past. That's why they're awesome for obvious and maybe not so obvious reasons, imo. Some people should ask themselves if it's reasonable, let alone fair, to pass the verdict that iWADs are boring when they've played them seemingly hundreds of times already.

Edited by Nine Inch Heels

Share this post


Link to post

There a few Doom/Doom 2 maps I never grew to love. Deimos Lab, Mt. Erebus, Unruly Evil, Nirvana, The Citadel and The Chasm come to mind. Doom doesn't work when ugly texturing, chunky architecture and ambiguous pathways dominate a map, which arguably those examples are guilty of. My memories of those playthroughs are of getting lost or stumbling about, even after repeated runs.

 

I suspect that the team may have suffered from a somewhat solipsistic perspective, as these maps have a hardcore appeal that sacrifices pure fun engagement for needless challenge. 

Share this post


Link to post

Most of Doom 2's maps aren't awful but I can't play through Doom 2 for too long because I'll start feeling sleepy unlike Doom 1 with the more varied/colorful visuals, atmosphere, and better overall music selection (I always change the music to map20's if I don't want to hear entryway theme but gosh it feels like a lot of the music makes me wanna yawn not to mention the several repeats). :S

Edited by SuperCupcakeTactics

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Piper Maru said:

Legend has it that an elf appeared on a window sill and told John Romero to build Doom. 

If by an elf you mean Satan himself.... then yes. Here is Satan's testimonial:

 

"If ye build Doom... you'll be on the box art, be the main villain and the protagonist at the same time! If ye don't believe me I'll have te go over and visit some other level designer.... say John Romero!"

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, _bruce_ said:

@yakfak - could you elaborate further?

i'm talking about set-pieces where a series of logic-leap progressions happen, or a series of lifts each triggered by stepping on the previous lift, secrets leading to secrets, levels which take place basically in a single room which transforms in stages etc, etc, etc. lots of modern levels seem to be too logical for their own good and take up a lot of space where, compared to the cute moon logic doom 2 demonstrates, nothing happens.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, yakfak said:

secrets leading to secrets

Secrets within secrets is one of my favorite things. I don't see many opportunities while I'm making a map to make a secret like that (only one time comes to mind but there might be another) but when I do make one it's pretty neatoooo.

 

Also... id made great maps because you can't have a game like Doom and not have most of your maps be fun and interesting using most every early engine feature in good ol' 1993 after many sessions of DnD pioneering awesomeness

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, everennui said:

Doom 2 was better from a gameplay perspective, but aesthetically I feel like they went backwards - in general - from Doom, The First. Again, it feels rushed. Considering it wasn't a priority to John Carmack at the time, and he was working on the next big thing... I think there's probably some truth in my claim, but I don't know for sure.
 

*********************************************************************************************

From http://5years.doomworld.com/interviews/johnromero/page3.shtml:

 

Why are there no level par times in the DOOM II intermission screen?  On that note, where did the ridiculous par times for Doom 1 come from?

 

I didn't have time to set all the par times for DOOM2 because there were so many levels and we only took 8 months to make DOOM2.  I set all the par times for DOOM 1 by starting the level, running to the exit as fast as possible, rounding off the resulting time, then adding 30 seconds for padding.  I actually got those levels done faster than the par times.

*********************************************************************************************

 

So, Doom 2 was rushed compared to the Doom, so @everennui has a point in that regard.

 

That being said, I disagree with the sentiment that the levels are bad. Are there some that I don't enjoy as much as others? Sure. Are there some that don't seem to be as high quality as others? In my opinion, sure.

 

The bottom line is that the original levels did not push the engine to its limits, as was done by subsequent mapsets. But does that make them inferior? In my opinion, no. I like them, but I can appreciate that there are those who disagree.

 

Chances are this community would not be as robust as it is if all of us agreed on everything. And it certainly wouldn't be going as strong after almost 25 years if people didn't care enough to keep having these arguments and designing levels for it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Pegleg said:

So, Doom 2 was rushed compared to the Doom, so @everennui has a point in that regard.

Episodes 2 and 3 of the original Doom were basically the definition of "rushed to completion", with most of the work done in only two months by Sandy Petersen, a new hire who also had to learn how to use the map editor and familiarize himself with the game itself in that time. Romero's work on episode 1 was a longer process, but on the other hand, it was done while the engine and game mechanics were still in development and what was possible or worth doing was constantly changing and developing.

 

Both games were developed extraordinarily quickly, but Doom 2 was the result of experienced authors spreading their wings and seeing how far they could push the tools that they already knew well by that point.

 

(Also, that interview quote confuses me because Doom 2 does include par times for its levels, at least in the final 1.9 release. Maybe they were missing from an earlier version?)

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, esselfortium said:

...Both games were developed extraordinarily quickly...

By today's standards that's true, but for that era Doom didn't have a particularly short development cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, geo said:

If by an elf you mean Satan himself.... then yes. Here is Satan's testimonial:

 

"If ye build Doom... you'll be on the box art, be the main villain and the protagonist at the same time! If ye don't believe me I'll have te go over and visit some other level designer.... say John Romero!"

Well that's the thing, the secret history of DOOM that isn't explained in Masters of Doom or any behind the scenes documentary. Very few people know the truth, it just so happens that I know someone who knows someone who knows someone else. The public were lead to believe that the idea and design came from the brilliant minds of Carmack and Romero etc. Actually, the idea was presented to Romero one night. While he was playing billiards, an elf climbed in his window and told him to get money from the Rockefeller Foundation for Doom. Perhaps Romero only saw elves or Satan in his mind, Doom still got built. And the torch has been passed onto Marty Stratton. Story is one evening he was cooking spaghetti sauce in the kitchen with his shirt off when the sauce boiled up a bit much and he got splashed by hot tomato juice he screamed out "DOOM TO ALL TOMATOES" and John Romero materialized out of the ether and told him to build Doom 2016. Whether that's just heresy or truth is anyone's guess. But here we are, ripping and tearing, and now ripping and and tearing on the Nintendo Switch. Imagine that! 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, esselfortium said:

(Also, that interview quote confuses me because Doom 2 does include par times for its levels, at least in the final 1.9 release. Maybe they were missing from an earlier version?)

As the interviewer, I can now reveal that that question was given to me by someone I had asked for questions (possibly Lee Killough although I don't really remember), and I asked it without even stopping to think about how it is obviously wrong or if it was really meant to be about Final Doom or something.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Piper Maru said:

Story is one evening he was cooking spaghetti sauce in the kitchen with his shirt off when the sauce boiled up a bit much and he got splashed by hot tomato juice he screamed out "DOOM TO ALL TOMATOES" 

 

Oh okay, so I see now the real meaning of Doom, which is proper awareness of kitchen safety. Always wear an apron when you are making supper/opening an accidental gateway to hell. Proper lab procedures and following the recipe could've avoided so many problems. It says low simmer not lake of fire. I bet Doomguy had a really good hand in that game of cards they were playing before all the demons appeared. But no, couldn't finally beat the other marines at gin rummy. That would be far too much to ask. You have to have _something_ to do while you're waiting for the water to boil.

 

14 hours ago, fraggle said:

I kind of think of it like a spectrum with Tom Hall on one end (real-world, cohesive), Sandy Petersen on the other (abstract, gameplay-oriented), and Romero sits somewhere in the middle. 

 

^ This is the only answer to the question, if you look at who worked on the game and when.  Each person had a personal style and influences, but it's the union of them in one thing that makes it what it is. As the engine grew and more features were added, the capabilities of the levels were realized by each mapper in different ways.

 

The Tom Hall/Petersen combo was a perfect bridge to Sandy's E3. There's a Matt Chat where Mr. Petersen talks about his style, and he says while his levels might not be as pretty, because of his background in tabletop games he had a tendency to think of level design in vignettes, lots of unique but compartmentalized experiences. Tricks and Traps from Doom 2 is the best example of this of course. Hall and Petersen both have a strong talent for memorable cinematic feel and set-pieces. Romero's maps are some of the best for deathmatch as their layouts have very little excess, and was a perfect choice for introduction/shareware episode. There were many reason's for Doom's success but especially when it comes to the maps it was just a good blend of design styles in one game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, ReX said:

I can attest that DooM did not run on the 286 that I owned in the early 1990s. Because of this, I had to run DooM on my computer at work, which was either a 386 or a 486, and did have 4 MB of RAM.

And I can attest that on my 286, which has 4MB RAM, it is warranted to run Wolf3D in the smallest window possible to get a fluid framrate. Doom would probably not get a fluid framrate at all, but that of course depends on what map is played.
 

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
×