Monster design changes

[resle]

I am sure this particular dead horse must be a mummified carcass by now, beaten repeatedly to a pulp. Ground to the finest of dusts.

But I want to ask nonetheless:

 

WHY, why did Doom games after Doom 2 - starting with Doom 64 - have to f**k with the original monster design?

Something that was instantly SO iconic it's still revered 30 years later, inspiring countless fan art, attempts at upscaling, voxel upgrades etc.

 

Take Mario's Goombas, or D&D's Beholder.

Faithful to the original design through the decades, from pixel art all the way to last generation 3d engines,

their respective IP owners being well aware of the power of recognizability.

 

So I can't help but wonder what went through everyone's head when they decided to just go and trash such an invaluable asset.

Lost souls turned to some creepy human-cyborg head, pain elementals with two mouths, brown squishy cacodemons, insect-like hell knights...

 

Even Doom Eternal - that tried to harken back to the original designs - still has insectoid-ish Barons with... uhm... blades on their forearms?

Not even spewing iconic green fireballs? The Gladiator, that looks like an almost perfect modern rendition of a baron or hellknight, feels like a tease to the fanbase.

 

What do you think?

[kalensar]

In the case D64-- That is explained in it's very story on why the monsters look different. It gets a pass especially for having an explanation

 

Doom 3--- First foray into very true 3D at a level higher than Quake engine. Completely different timeline/ universe/retelling of Doom.

 

DOOM(2016)-- Basically a retelling of Doom 3... Using the most advanced engine available. No complaints as it's one of my favorite shooter games.

 

I havent played Doom Eternal and, frankly, I am not going to at all. Watching the gameplay makes me sick to my stomach, and nothing about any of it tickles my fancy. Looks like a Halo remake that went super religious. The story makes even less sense than Halo 5.... Yeah Doom Eternal became Dalo. 

[Solmyr]

I thought this was going to be yet another thread about improving classic Doom monsters, such as giving the Lost Soul less health and reducing the hitbox of the Spiderdemon, that IS a horse that was beaten so much through out the years, it's nothing but dust and a small crater in the ground.

 

14 hours ago, resle said:

Insect-like hell knights and barons in Doom 2016 and Eternal.

Huh? They don't look insect like at all, in fact the Hell Knight looks more like a weird cave dwelling reptilian-ape hybrid creature and the Baron could look vaguely insectoid in its design; the fact that his upper body seems covered in fleshy plates could give that vibe, although it doesn't seem to resemble a chitinous carapace, it looks more like it's made of plastic, like an evil Toy Story reject.

 

I guess the design changes throughout  several Doom games could be the result of marketing and showcase of graphics to try and stand out on their own without relying on the original designs too much, while also in Doom 3' case it could be that they tried to aim for a more "realistic" less demonic and more alien feel, in contrast to the more demonic and cartoony feel of classic Doom, although Doom 3 is demonically cartoony in it's own right in more aspects than just design, so that's debatable.

 

In Doom 64, the design change is justified because Play Station Doom was already a thing, and the Nintendo game had to stand out to compete in some way than just making yet another console port. Given that they recycled Aubrey Hodges sound effects and commisioned a brand new atmospheric soundtrack from him, they were more than justified to change the art direction to make it stand out from his competitor's success. 

 

What baffles me about Doom 3 is the fact that they retained the Revenant but discarded the Arachnotrons and Spiderdemon in favor of Trites, Ticks and the Vagary which look more demonic and less cartoony, but if they got the Revenant they had no real excuse (when it comes to cartoony designs) to avoid those scrapped monsters. It's a pity because they had a cool concept art of the Spider Mastermind. Fortunately it got repurposed into the Arachnotron mini boss for the mod; Doom 3: Phobos.

 

In Doom 2016/Eternal they had some weird designs, but it was a remake and they had to reimagine designs to fit a cartoony style for their own games as part of their "love letter to the originals" approach, and for a newer generation that couldn't care less for the original games.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Solmyr

[slugger]

The Doom designs take influence from spectacular stuff - you can see 80s and 90s heavy metal bands and HR Giger and the OG Star Wars trilogy and so forth, not to mention Christian art throughout the ages.

 

Subsequent designers are less ambitious and visually literate. Instead of getting to create new designs, their job is to take the old designs and reskin them.

 

I do like the Lost Head, though. I think it's the one design that legitimately captures the goofy-gross vibe of OG Doom, but with a 00s attitude.

[SMG_Man]

I'm not bothered by the various monster redesigns throughout the series. As much as I love the originals that I grew up with, there are several from the newer games that I view highly. Sure the cacodemons and lost souls in Doom 3 were questionable, but the mancubus and hell knight designs there were great in my opinion. Really, the only design change by the time of doom eternal that I question is what they did with the Baron of Hell - to me, the 2016 design had a pretty "faithful to the original" approach, and while the Eternal design is admittedly cool with its fire/lava theme, I think they could've used that for something else and kept the 2016 design.

 

In any case though, I think change is inevitable. The game is beyond the constraints of a team of only a dozen people working on it, and it's great to see both what modern tech can do and what the new teammembers come up with.

[Artman2004]

The designs were changed to fit the vision of the new games. For example, the old colorful cacodemon would look out of place in Doom 3's darker horror world.

 

The Doom 3 iteration of the lost soul is probably my favorite of the redesigns. It's a creative reimagining of a classic monster.

 

Not a fan of the redesigns in the newer games, as they look a bit too "Halo-ish" for my tastes.

[idbeholdME]

Doom 3 was fine. Changing the overall vibe to horror-ish theme would make the colorful originals look out of place.

 

Nu-Dooms are pretty hit or miss (rather miss). The one I like is the Demon, which gained a massive upgrade in both the looks and combat ability. Can't really say any other monster stands out to me on the visual side.

[Rudolph]

Doom 3's Pinky is incredibly intimidating. Even its original introduction is panic-inducing. Too bad, the monster itself is really not that dangerous.

 

In contrast, Doom 2016's Pinky is quite dangerous, but I find it to be too silly-looking. I mean, when you think about it, the monster is basically just a big head with four limbs. That design did not bother me in Classic Doom, where everything is already kind of goofy-looking, but given Doom 2016's photorealistic graphics, I cannot help but be reminded of Joe Head Joe from Skullmonkeys:

 

 

That being said, I do not have any problem with Doom 2016's Cacodemon and Baron of Hell. I guess their design has aged better than the Pinky!

Edited July 20, 2022 by Rudolph

[resle]

I just wish I lived to see in-game models like the one on the right, rather than the one in the middle.

 

Modern tech used ✓, original design preserved ✓,

and if you imagine it a little less color saturated, animated, towering over you - it would also fit a scary/horror theme.

 

 

 

  

Edited July 20, 2022 by resle

[LadyMistDragon]

Emotionally, it's awful. Realistically, John Carmack was too focused on the technology side of things and needed to properly demonstrate more advanced visuals. Still, the Cacodemon and pinkie (Demon) redesigns were absoulutely atrocious. Nu-Doom still departs further, but at least the designs were competent.

On 7/19/2022 at 9:15 AM, Solmyr said:

 

while also in Doom 3' case it could be that they tried to aim for a more "realistic" less demonic and more alien feel, in contrast to the more demonic and cartoony feel of classic Doom, although Doom 3 is demonically cartoony in it's own right in more aspects than just design, so that's debatable.

 

 

Malcolm Betruger is basically a comic-book supervillain, so there ain't no arguing here. He seemed to laugh all the time and I'm just like, were the demons lacking in any sort of vision before he opened the portal to hell? It might make some sense, but um, yeah.

[Murdoch]

On 7/19/2022 at 2:13 PM, resle said:

WHY, why did Doom games after Doom 2 - starting with Doom 64 - have to f**k with the original monster design?

 

Because different games have different design ideas, and cramming styles in from other games that do not fit would look like ass at worst or a bit odd at best.

 

I really do not understand your confusion here.

[Solmyr]

59 minutes ago, LadyMistDragon said:

Malcolm Betruger is basically a comic-book supervillain, so there ain't no arguing here. He seemed to laugh all the time and I'm just like, were the demons lacking in any sort of vision before he opened the portal to hell? It might make some sense, but um, yeah.

Yeah, his laughter felt out of place most of the time and on par with Emperor Palpatine, like he was just laughing because he enjoys being evil and demonic, and what makes even less senese is that in the end, he got promoted to Maledict despite failing to stop the player time and time again until the portal was sealed. He was still a fun villain though, pity that he was a lame final boss in Resurrection of Evil.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Solmyr

[Noiser]

I don't see anything "cartoony" about Doom 3. I think Betruger sounds ridiculous because the script was very bad, not because it was on purpose. For me Doom 3 wanted to be serious from start to finish, even if it failed along the way.
 

Doom 2016, on the other hand, embraced the sillyness from the first games and used it very effectively as a narrative method (imo). Eternal did that as well, but it got a bit messy in terms of narrative. D2016 felt more mysterious and I think that was a good way to balance all the craziness.

Anyway, we are just speculating here. I don't know if it really matters at the end of the day.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Noiser

[resle]

1 hour ago, Murdoch said:

 

Because different games have different design ideas, and cramming styles in from other games that do not fit would look like ass at worst or a bit odd at best.

 

I really do not understand your confusion here.

 

So, Goombas in Mario 64 could have been modeled to look like zucchini rather than mushrooms, and that would make sense to you.

Got it.

 

[ebrl]

Bruh the "invaluable asset" og cacodemon is a copyright infringement copy-and-paste, pain elemental is goofy as fuck, hell knights are literally a lazy palette swap. The original designs fit the original game perfectly but it's not like someone is putting mustard on the Mona Lisa with the reworks.

[Tycitron]

I might be have an unpopular opinion; but i think the original demons would look pretty scary af if 100% accurately remade in 3d, i really don't find them very goofy looking, (aside from maybe pain elemental)

[kwc]

1 hour ago, resle said:

 

So, Goombas in Mario 64 could have been modeled to look like zucchini rather than mushrooms, and that would make sense to you.

Got it.

 

Man, you know that isn't what Murdoch is saying.
 

It's funny you mention Mario though, oddly you're ignoring the huge stylistic changes between SMB 1 & 2. 
Even with Goombas, the change in design between SMB 1 & 3 vs SMW is pretty drastic.

[resle]

23 minutes ago, kwc said:

Man, you know that isn't what Murdoch is saying.
 

It's funny you mention Mario though, oddly you're ignoring the huge stylistic changes between SMB 1 & 2. 
Even with Goombas, the change in design between SMB 1 & 3 vs SMW is pretty drastic.

 

Doesn't look that drastic to me

 

[Murdoch]

1 hour ago, resle said:

 

So, Goombas in Mario 64 could have been modeled to look like zucchini rather than mushrooms, and that would make sense to you.

Got it.

 

 

That's a hyperbolic over-reaction and you know it. The various monster revisions in Doom have, with a few exceptions, at least a passing similarity to the originals. To expect new teams of designers to not put their own spin on material is a bit silly. Some may chose not to, some do. As long as they keep the basic spirit, what's the big deal? If it bothers you that much, don't play the other games. There's more maps and mods for the original games than one person could conceivably play.

[kwc]

2 minutes ago, resle said:

Doesn't look that drastic to me

You left him out, I'm talking about this fella.

[Egg Boy]

"WHY, why did Doom games after Doom 2 - starting with Doom 64 - have to f**k with the gameplay?

Something that was instantly SO iconic it's still revered 30 years later, inspiring countless wads, attempts at remakes, source ports etc.

 

Even Doom Eternal - that tried to harken back to the original gameplay - still has a super shotgun with... uhm... blades on a hook?

Not even missing due to the iconic blockmap bug? The health bonus, that looks like an almost perfect modern rendition of its original counterpart, feels like a tease to the fanbase."

[Noiser]

9 minutes ago, Egg Boy said:

"WHY, why did Doom games after Doom 2 - starting with Doom 64 - have to f**k with the gameplay?

Something that was instantly SO iconic it's still revered 30 years later, inspiring countless wads, attempts at remakes, source ports etc.

 

Even Doom Eternal - that tried to harken back to the original gameplay - still has a super shotgun with... uhm... blades on a hook?

Not even missing due to the iconic blockmap bug? The health bonus, that looks like an almost perfect modern rendition of its original counterpart, feels like a tease to the fanbase."

Now I just want to see a visplane overflow on Doom Eternal for shits and giggles

[Doomkid]

If a future Doom game does use the old designs as closely as possible, that’d be pretty darn cool, but at the same time I think the changes are nice as well. Gives each chapter of the Doom experience its own flare. I wouldn’t like every game in the series to look the same.

 

It’s actually bizarre to mention Mario in this context, a game that has had wildly different looks from game to game - I don’t just mean one enemy type, I mean very different approaches to the visual flare of the game from square 1. Other than being “fairly cartoony and light hearted”, most of them did their own thing (though from late Wii-era onward they’ve kinda lazily fallen into one distinct art style).

 

Mario 64’s visuals and atmosphere are nothing like Mario Sunshine’s, and there’s really huge differences between that and Odyssey too, so.. A strange series to reference on the topic of visual consistency, considering the overall differences in appearance from Doom 1 to 3 to Eternal is very comparable to the differences in appearance between Super Mario Bros 1, Mario 64, Sunshine, and Odyssey.

 

It’s really rare for any particularly long-lived game series to stay rigidly locked into one exact art style or appearance forever. There’s still “enough” consistency with all the Dooms, it’s not like I look at the enemy and can’t make heads or tails of it. It’s obviously a Baron. If it was changed so drastically that it were impossible to tell what was what, that might be a different story (depending), but it’s not at that level.

 

2 hours ago, kwc said:

You left him out, I'm talking about this fella.

 

Funny thing is, Mario Sunshine was also left out, which once again changed their appearance pretty starkly, giving them hair, no mouth, and polka dot pants. It never really bothered me, I liked the variety if anything.. it was still obvious enough that it was a goomba, after all.

[Egregor]

[nolongeramnion]

4 hours ago, kwc said:

You left him out, I'm talking about this fella.

The mario world goomba is actually a galoomba. Though I do see how you could mistake that without being in the cult of nintendo switch users.
https://www.mariowiki.com/Galoomba

 

Quote

Normal Goombas were originally going to appear in Super Mario World, but they were replaced by a different species (later known as Galoombas). These chestnut-shaped Goombas are rounder than the traditional mushroom-shaped Goombas. They are knocked upside-down when jumped on instead of being defeated 

The above text is from the Super Mario Wiki and is available under a Creative Commons license. Attribution must be provided through a list of authors or a link back to the original article. Source: https://www.mariowiki.com/Goomba

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by anon

[resle]

4 hours ago, Doomkid said:

Mario 64’s visuals and atmosphere are nothing like Mario Sunshine’s, and there’s really huge differences between that and Odyssey too, so.. A strange series to reference on the topic of visual consistency, considering the overall differences in appearance from Doom 1 to 3 to Eternal is very comparable to the differences in appearance between Super Mario Bros 1, Mario 64, Sunshine, and Odyssey.

 

But that's the thing: in spite of wild differences in atmosphere, tone, visual flare how you put it - Mario's design stays consistent. A goomba is a goomba is a goomba, a koopa stays a plain koopa, etc.

[Doomkid]

I feel like the visual difference between goombas in Mario Sunshine compared to most other Mario games is actually really comparable to the difference between the "standard" old Baron of Hell design, and the revamped appearance in Eternal. It's the kind of redesign where you can still clearly tell what it is at a glance (which to me is what matters most)

 

 

 

I like when game series do these minor redesigns personally, it helps give each entry in a series a more unique identity (while still clearly being part of the same series/family/etc). It's actually useful too, if their behavior is changed a little bit from what you're used to. Everyone will have their different standards though, I'm sure there are some Mario fans out there who were pissed off by this redesign at the time. I liked it though, I had already seen old goombas before. Maybe like what happened with Mario, there will be a future Doom game that more strictly uses those old designs, and I'd like that. I just don't mind the changes either.

[resle]

52 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

I feel like the visual difference between goombas in Mario Sunshine compared to most other Mario games is actually really comparable to the difference between the "standard" old Baron of Hell design, and the revamped appearance in Eternal. It's the kind of redesign where you can still clearly tell what it is at a glance (which to me is what matters most)

 

  

 

I like when game series do these minor redesigns personally, it helps give each entry in a series a more unique identity (while still clearly being part of the same series/family/etc). It's actually useful too, if their behavior is changed a little bit from what you're used to. Everyone will have their different standards though, I'm sure there are some Mario fans out there who were pissed off by this redesign at the time.

 

Except it's not a Goomba, it's something called a "Strollin' Stu" (jesus I had to search and channel the long gone nerd in me)

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by resle

[Doomkid]

So if the Eternal version of Barons of Hell were instead called something like Bruisers of Hell but were otherwise the same, then that would have been alright?

 

Edit: lol, I wasn’t wrong. Strollin’ Stu is literally called a goomba variant on the Mario wiki. The fact that you didn’t understand the point I was making is baffling.

 

[resle]

2 hours ago, Doomkid said:

So if the Eternal version of Barons of Hell were instead called something like Bruisers of Hell but were otherwise the same, then that would have been alright?

 

A simple "whoops I was wrong" would have sufficed,

but ok let's go metaphysical:

 

If two things look different,

and they have different names,

then, my friend -

they indeed are different really really different things,

I mean really different,

not the same.

 

Hope this helps,

r.