Just now finally playing 1993 Doom in 2017

[CARRiON]

I fail to see how someone can judge a game they've never played before when they start adding in extra content or things that were not there before. In my mind that will create a very unfair opinion of the game for you, especially if you add a mish-mash of custom content, and I think this is why you get some criticisms here. Your opinion on Quake will not be taken as seriously and you should understand why instead of saying you're being unfairly attacked. If you're going to throw wild criticisms out there, on a fan site no less, you better not have thin skin.

I think another problem with your criticisms are that you tend to complain about things that pretty much never get complained about and for good reason. For instance you mention how you hate how you can't jump to avoid damaging floors. It's somewhat pointless to criticize DOOM for this because, again, DOOM was made in 1993 and no id game had jumping up to that point, it's designed to be a hazard and create risk reward situations or amplify deadly situations, and if you really hate it *that* much you can run the game through GZDOOM and enable jumping. (but again, the original levels can be exploited with jumping so expect criticism from people should you complain)

As for what DOOM is, that's simple. It's a love letter to the 80's and 90's pop culture the small team consumed on a daily basis. It's Alien meets Evil Dead with a dash of Slayer and Metallica. Just you, some guns, and a horde of demons to slaughter. It's meant to be somewhat mindless and easy to jump into for anyone of any skill range, but it's not a casual experience. Quake is the exact same thing, just in a truly 3D space. The majority of 90's FPS are like this even, before we started moving into "the player is walking glass and must take cover every 5 minutes" territory.

[Edward850]

CARRiON said:

I fail to see how someone can judge a game they've never played before when they start adding in extra content or things that were not there before. In my mind that will create a very unfair opinion of the game for you, especially if you add a mish-mash of custom content, and I think this is why you get some criticisms here. Your opinion on Quake will not be taken as seriously and you should understand why instead of saying you're being unfairly attacked. If you're going to throw wild criticisms out there, on a fan site no less, you better not have thin skin.

This reminds of a similar concept; If a chef prepares you a meal, eat it as is, save dumping sauce on it for seconds. Otherwise how can you judge the meal that was prepared for you?

[fraggle]

enderandrew said:

I guess it is hard to say what Doom is precisely when you largely have 3 very different representations of Doom, if not more.

Right - if you consider Classic Doom, Doom 3 and Doom (2016), they're so different as to be three completely different games; not just in terms of technology and appearance (obviously) but gameplay, tone, etc. Of course the more recent games take the earlier ones as inspiration but ultimately trying to define some kind of overarching notion of "what Doom is" meaning something that spans the three is probably a waste of time.

Classic Doom is the only one of the three that I personally have a really strong interest in, and even then I'm surprised by the variation in what people consider "Doom" to be.

One school of thought is that Doom is a kind of distilled violence. The idea is that in "Doom" you play some kind of unstoppable badass, gunning down monsters in a gorefest while pounding heavy metal soundtrack plays in the background. This essay would seem to reflect that point of view, while Brutal Doom is this view of the game turned into a reality. It has clearly also been a heavy influence on the design of Doom (2016).

Another view is that Doom is in some ways a purely strategy-based game. You correctly identified earlier in the thread that the AI isn't great; in fact, with sufficient experience it's incredibly predictable how monsters will behave, how projectiles will move, etc. You can learn to dodge attacks from enemies before they've even made them. Entire megaWADs have been built around this kind of way of playing the game - skillsaw's work (eg. Ancient Aliens) in particular is interesting.

I'd say that you're hearing this point of view whenever anyone describes Doom as being like "ballet" (or in vectorpoem's article where he refers to manueverability as defence). There's no longer anything scary about Doom or its monsters - much like space invaders, they are simply elements of the game to be defeated. In a way it's almost sad, but maybe it's an inevitable result of a game that's been played for this long. The game is reduced to its purely logical components, it is a game of skill and strategy.

The last one, that I tend to subscribe to, is that Doom is more like an atmospheric thriller. Doom 1 in particular is for me a masterpiece of design - the levels are timeless, the music sets a spooky mood that leaves you wondering what's round every next corner. You have to view it in the context of all the other games that were around in the early '90s to appreciate how it's quite so different and groundbreaking. That may, by the way, be why you've had such a harsh response to the mods you've been using.

If you want to appreciate this aspect I'd encourage you to play a few old DOS games of the same era: you don't need to do it in an extended way but just get a feel for the tone of what was around. A few popular suggestions would be the Commander Keen series, the first Duke Nukem, Catacomb Abyss and Wolfenstein 3D (Doom's immediate two predecessors). Then turn off all your mods, turn the lights off and fire up Doom 1. Observe the difference.

Finally, one thing you may not be appreciating is how much variation there is in the gameplay itself depending on the levels you're playing. I've mentioned above how skillsaw's work - the interesting thing is how it completely changes how you play the game without changing any of the actual game behavior. But you get the same kind of variation even within the official game files. You experience this to a limited extent between Doom and Doom II simply because Doom II introduces additional monsters that change the nature of the gameplay (here's a fascinating analysis by Linguica if you're really curious).

But you get a much stronger example with the Plutonia Experiment found in Final Doom. If you compare the gameplay of Doom 1 vs. Plutonia it's almost like they're entirely different games, or at least they're played in completely different ways. Plutonia is more challenging, yes, but it also forces you to essentially throw out everything you've learned and learn to play all over again. That's why I suggested it earlier in this thread; if you found Doom 1 a snoozefest and aren't feeling like Doom 2 is challenging you much either, I strongly suggest you fire up Plutonia and see if it's something you find more interesting.

[enderandrew]

CARRiON said:

I fail to see how someone can judge a game they've never played before when they start adding in extra content or things that were not there before.

My criticisms of Doom were related to AI, difficulty, etc. Visual mods don't affect that.

As for Quake, I'm admittedly compromising on vanilla gameplay a little with a monster add-in, but I know I'll probably want the tougher monster AI. I've also realized that most people don't care what my feedback is so I'm not going to bother.

[Edward850]

enderandrew said:

My criticisms of Doom were related to AI, difficulty, etc. Visual mods don't affect that.

enderandrew said:

I used GZDoom to play the original in 1920 x 1080 with all kinds of modern sexiness (dynamic lights, anti-aliasing, BRX filters for sprites, HD texture packs, etc.) I wanted to preserve the design and gameplay, but spruce up the looks a bit. I eventually compromised a bit on the original aesthetic and went with a completely different HUD though. I know most people in the Doom community seem to suggest that if you're not playing "Vanilla" Doom then you're doing it wrong and they insist all HD improvements make the game look worse, but to each their own. I think this:
http://i.imgur.com/XFbV8JC.jpg
Looks a bit better than Vanilla DOOM:
http://www.flaterco.com/kb/DOOM/DOOM2_1.9.png

[sesq]

enderandrew said:

My criticisms of Doom were related to AI, difficulty, etc. Visual mods don't affect that.

As for Quake, I'm admittedly compromising on vanilla gameplay a little with a monster add-in, but I know I'll probably want the tougher monster AI. I've also realized that most people don't care what my feedback is so I'm not going to bother.

Well, with the "little monster add-in", we probably won't care about your feedback is, at least on that proponent and anything affected by that. Also, this is a Doom website, not a Quake website, at least primarily. No doubt many here are familiar with Quake.

[CapnClever]

Edward850 already beat me to the quote so I'll go straight to the point:

You didn't have to bring up visuals in the slightest, focusing only on the AI and the difficulty and other aspects of gameplay. Instead, you've shown and told everyone here how your specific configuration "looks a bit better than Vanilla DOOM". To many, this implies you do not like the original visual aesthetic to the point where you willingly and with significant effort chose an alternative for your very first playthrough. And hey, go ahead and do that. But to suggest that "I like to understand and have an appreciation for the classics" while outright rejecting a facet of one of those classics comes across as disrespectful.

I honestly don't care, and am happy to ignore the visual talk and focus on gameplay (that's the part I tend to care about m'self). But I can understand why others would be upset.

Doomguy as a Mary Sue? Can't say I've considered it. Hell, can't say I've given much thought towards applying literary terminology to Doom before: you just run around and shoot stuff. Granted, as Doomguy you are given great advantages when dealing with your enemies. But any veteran player will also tell you how fragile Doomguy is and how easy it is to die with a tiny mistake as the cause. In my opinion, the badassery of Doomguy is directly proportional to how well you're playing and how challenging the encounters are. If you want a case where the game (i.e., the author) is explicitly portraying that Doomguy is a badass, Doom 2016 and Brutal Doom fit the bill far better.

I agree that adding a mod that affects gameplay before experiencing the original (ala your comment on preparing to play Quake) is going to diminish your ability to appreciate said original. But hey, we're all crunched for time, so take it at whatever pace you can afford. Other than that, well, this forum is dedicated to Doom: if you want to talk about Quake, there's an "Everything Else" forum for that.

[Michael92]

enderandrew said:

[...]I've also realized that most people don't care what my feedback is so I'm not going to bother.

It's not that we don't care, but your statements are open to objections.

@fraggle
This essay from everything2.. unless I don't have enough skills for interpretations of text in English, it's hard for me to compare Doom to an erotic game.

[40oz]

A lot of fuckheads in this thread.

Come on, a guy has never played doom before and he's coming here to talk about his first experience with it. Why does he have to be put under so much pressure? So what if he is not reviewing it as objectively as possible? Why is anyone wasting the time to background check this guy to see if he's full of shit? You're dodging the whole point of the thread.

If someone is going to talk about Doom id prefer that he speaks exactly what he's thinking, even if its biased, uncompromising, or even inconsistent. There's a lot of information to extract from how he's feeling as he's playing, even if its inaccurate, or even incoherent. Its fucking stupid to fight the reviewer for allowing his own personal biases come into play in his review. There are few people left in the world who haven't played doom yet. I dont think you guys are considering that this review could have been way worse. (have you seen the shitposts on this forum lately??)

I welcome the idea that someone is reviewing the game seriously without being 100% fair and objective about it. Were all doom nerds here, we know the facts. It's time to let people feel how they want to feel about it.

[Maes]

40oz said:

Come on, a guy has never played doom before and he's coming here to talk about his first experience with it. Why does he have to be put under so much pressure?

Because that's who we are, here at DW:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/013/017/casual.jpg

Those who can't take the heat:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7420/13930579102_be574c73d0_z.jpg

[hex11]

If the vanilla game wasn't challenging enough on UV, why not try UV+fast or even Nightmare?
Anyway moving to advanced engine with freelook, uncapped framerate, etc. will only make the game easier.
It's also possible to mod the vanilla engine with DeHackEd, to change attributes of the monsters and items. You can make the game harder this way too.
But I'm guessing that Nightmare should prove hard enough for someone who never played Doom before.

Edit: also it's nice to play in low-detail (F5) and with just the PC speaker sounds. I've been doing it like this for months and really like it.

[roadworx]

well, just look at it this way: doom is a game where you shoot demons and blow shit up to metal midis. great. the game isnt supposed to be an ultra-complex game of chess, its supposed to be simple fun. sure, the ai isn't the greatest. it was 1993, what do you expect? sure, the gameplay is simple. but that's one of the reasons we play it.

but do you know why we really love doom so damn much? why we drool over it like a dog and a bone? its because we like the create and admire. we like to modify the game to our heart's content, then share our creations with everyone else. and we play them, and love them, and god dammit, that's why we love this game. creativity. we can let our minds loose in a way that we're able to express ourselves. and with the tools that have made level-editing so easy, anybody can do it. anybody can make whatever the hell they want within the limits of what's possible. and trust me, even if doom is an old game, the modern source ports have made what Romero dreamed of doable. what you can create with this game is amazing. platformers, Tetris, FUCKING RACING GAMES. that's why we love this game. not only is it fun to play (in our opinions, of course), but it's a tool for creation. a limitless plain of pure imagination. a way for anybody to express themselves, a way for anybody to make whatever their minds can come up with.

but, if you don't like it, you don't have to. after all, it is just an opinion; not everybody has to like what we like.

oh, and sorry for coming off overly patriotic/personal about our likings. i know i did, but i didn't mean to. i was super tired when i wrote this, and wasn't thinking straight. i fully respect your opinion and can see why you don't like the game. its not for everyone, after all.

[Fonze]

^ Nobody's attacking Doom; don't take it personal.

To the OP: apologies for my being a smart-ass. The iwads were designed at a time where most players used keyboard only controls; also being the "first" (in the franchise) and a commercial product, they had to be fairly easy to be enjoyable to people. The mouse movement, while there and fun to play with, had a forward/backward movement that couldn't be turned off, making it a bit more difficult to use than in fps games today. You should try wads that are designed with both features and ports you like in mind; it'll lead to a more enjoyable, well-tailored experience.

[Maes]

roadworx said:

well, just look at it this way: doom is a game where you shoot demons and blow shit up to metal midis. great. the game isnt supposed to be an ultra-complex game of chess

If you think about it, the rules of chess are quite simple too, but can lead to very complex games, to the point that chess is still not considered a solved game (except for some endgame positions).

Doom AI's too is simple, compared to modern games, but the possible moves and evolution of gameplay lead to a quite complex emergent behavior that quickly surpasses chess, if one were to pose similar questions (e.g. "Is level X solvable from pistol start?", "What's the most optimal route and precise set of player movements for solving a level under NM-MAX rules?" etc.). Of course speedrunners and TASers have been answering those questions for years, but their approach is mostly empirical ("Let's play the level and see how it goes"), and only when really hard pressed they go into RNG manipulation, micromanaging situations according to obscure rules and flaws etc.)

[roadworx]

Fonze said:

^ Nobody's attacking Doom; don't take it personal.

sorry if I came off that way, didn't mean it to seem that way

Maes said:

If you think about it, the rules of chess are quite simple too, but can lead to very complex games, to the point that chess is still not considered a solved game (except for some endgame positions).

Doom AI's too is simple, compared to modern games, but the possible moves and evolution of gameplay lead to a quite complex emergent behavior that quickly surpasses chess, if one were to pose similar questions (e.g. "Is level X solvable from pistol start?", "What's the most optimal route and precise set of player movements for solving a level under NM-MAX rules?" etc.). Of course speedrunners and TASers have been answering those questions for years, but their approach is mostly empirical ("Let's play the level and see how it goes"), and only when really hard pressed they go into RNG manipulation, micromanaging situations according to obscure rules and flaws etc.)

dammit, you're right

how come every single time i try to explain something it turns out to be completely and utterly wrong

[Koko Ricky]

Doom's monster roster, and the range of weapons, is incredibly diverse compared to many modern shooters which tend to homogenize those elements.

[Cipher]

I realize I'm bumping this thread quite a bit, but hopefully it's forgivable, as I also first played Doom in January 2017.

Coming from an almost non-existent background in FPS games (though I have a love for challenging games in general, mostly platformers and action games), I had quite a different experience from the OP. The game felt about as new to me as it must have to audiences in 1993, and I had a great time from start to finish. It felt reasonably difficult to me during my first playthrough(s), though I can now very comfortably finish any of the maps in the first three episodes on UV from a pistol start without saving, and do the same for most of Episode 4 as well. It only took a few weeks of casual playing for it to start to feel easy despite next to no familiarity with the genre. I can see how that might be a letdown for someone coming in with more experience in all the games that have drawn on Doom's elements in the intervening two decades.

That said, the gameplay was enjoyable enough to keep me coming back to it for weeks, so that certainly says something.

While the vanilla levels in the first game get quite easy, there's obviously a lot of depth in the system and the way it can be designed around. I've since done a blind run of Doom 64 EX, and found myself frequently pleased with how clever and challenging its monster placement and layouts are, and I know it only gets harder from there in the form of fan maps and intentionally challenging releases like Final Doom. Incidentally, I do sympathize a bit with the thread creator's complaints about generic mobs as obstacles in the original game, but I don't think that's a limitation of the system. Doom 64 already addresses this handily, with particularly cruel and specific instances of monster placement, and from my impression other sequels follow suit.

The thread creator brought up "AI" a few times, but -- as others have pointed out here -- that feels a bit off the mark to me. Maybe it's simply my experiences as a primarily retro gamer, and primarily outside of the FPS genre, but competing against the "AI" feels like a bit of a foreign concept to me, outside of genres where you're supposed to be playing against a player analog (strategy, fighting, etc.). In Doom, as in most games I'm familiar with, your opponent is never a particularly clever individual monster. It's the level designer, and the tools they get to use against the player are clever layout and enemy placement.

The original game is already fun, and now that I've cut my teeth on it, I'm excited to see what the sequels do with the system it set up.

[enderandrew]

I welcome a different perspective.

Though I think if you have to do a pistol start on each map individually on UV to create any challenge (and even then a novice can beat that) it does suggest the game doesn't have much challenge. If you play through the Episode select screen, then weapons carry over from level to level. It would seem this is the default/intended game mode.

Even Pac-Man has rudimentary AI where each ghost behaves a bit differently. Good players learn those behaviors and can master the game, but there is a rewarding challenge.

I do need to revisit and finish off Doom 2 and then move onto Final Doom, which I've heard is much more challenging. But one of the minor quips that did really irritate me about Doom 1 and 2 was areas where you were forced to take damage via the floor. I do greatly prefer the Quake/Half-Life approach where you can jump and avoid the damage with skill, or potentially take damage. Forcing damage that the player can't avoid seems cheap and unfair.

[Cynical]

enderandrew said:

I welcome a different perspective.

Though I think if you have to do a pistol start on each map individually on UV to create any challenge (and even then a novice can beat that) it does suggest the game doesn't have much challenge. If you play through the Episode select screen, then weapons carry over from level to level. It would seem this is the default/intended game mode.

It's not; this is one of the things ZDoom changes. In Vanilla, every time you die, you restart the level with just a pistol. According to Sandy Petersen, the levels were designed and balanced primarily for pistol starts.

[Deadwing]

I think playing with graphics enhancements ruins the experience for me, IMO. Of course, it doesn't need to be original resolution (640x480), but its abstract LD doesn't work when you put some super detailed textures and light effect. They make the levels look empty and feels weird, because when you increase some level of detailing, you expect the whole game to also get more detailed. Also, while these resources are pretty, they never look actually pretty in the whole context, you can clearly tell that they were made by fans.

Anyway, about gameplay, I think Doom has the best gameplay a FPS has offered until now, simply due to its LD, weapons and enemy types and combination. No other FPS creates this unique "chess style" gameplay with some tactical choices. Still, its my opinion and people probably has more appeal for other elements (which probably is the OP case)

[Cynical]

Deadwing said:

No other FPS creates this unique "chess style" gameplay with some tactical choices.

Nonsense. Play some Build Engine games. Or Wrack.

[Doomkid]

Cipher said:

It only took a few weeks of casual playing for it to start to feel easy despite next to no familiarity with the genre. I can see how that might be a letdown for someone coming in with more experience in all the games that have drawn on Doom's elements in the previous two decades.

That said, the gameplay was enjoyable enough to keep me coming back to it for weeks, so that certainly says something.

This is a huge part of why I love deathmatch so much. Having opponent(s) that can critically evaluate a situation rather than just doing the "stumble over to you" thing that Doom AI does allows for intense challenge in gameplay, depending who you're against of course. Doom DM is a case of 'easy to learn, hard to master' in that the skill roof is so exceedingly high. You can continually improve your playing in very nuanced ways as you slowly but surely become more familiar with player movement and weapon mechanics. PVP Doom is a huge part of why I'm still playing years and years later!

enderandrew said:

Forcing damage that the player can't avoid seems cheap and unfair.

I'm sure there must be a few areas in the iwads (d1 and d2) that do this but they're so rare. I'm struggling to think of them at the moment. I know The Chasm has the shitty inescapable pit, but it's not 'mandatory' as such. E2M1 and E2M2 have some pits but theres those little square islands that let you get past without draining HP. Anyone know the main spots off hand?

[enderandrew]

Doom 2 map 9 was when I walked away so that particular aspect was fresh in my mind. You start off surrounded by unavoidable slime and it looks like you'll have to cross it repeatedly.

[Doomkid]

Of course, not sure how I forgot that one. After you first exit the slime you never have to get in again since it's easy to just board the lifts from the corner of each platform, you just have to play carefully. It is likely to do a little damage on that first step, though. There's also E2M6 (Halls of the Damned) but that gives you a pedestal covered in medkits right afterward so I can't be too harsh on it.

[Bauul]

Just a small point if you weren't aware: Doom 1 and Doom 2 were designed around the primary input method being Keyboard only. So most people didn't have pixel-perfect mouse aiming or variable turn speeds. Using the default controls, to even strafe you needed to press Alt first.

It's generally a much slower and clunkier control scheme (although as I recently learned, some people have absolutely mastered it). Use modern WASD + Mouselook, and you can blast through the original games with no difficulty at all.

So of course you'll find the original games easy if you played them like that. To really understand how challenging Doom can be, you need to either use modern custom maps that are tailored for the modern, faster FPS player, or a gameplay mod like Brutal Doom that makes things much harder.

[Cynical]

Not true; mouse support was there from day 1, and there's old Id footage of Romero playing with the mouse.

[enderandrew]

Bauul said:

Just a small point if you weren't aware: Doom 1 and Doom 2 were designed around the primary input method being Keyboard only. So most people didn't have pixel-perfect mouse aiming or variable turn speeds. Using the default controls, to even strafe you needed to press Alt first.

It's generally a much slower and clunkier control scheme (although as I recently learned, some people have absolutely mastered it). Use modern WASD + Mouselook, and you can blast through the original games with no difficulty at all.

So of course you'll find the original games easy if you played them like that. To really understand how challenging Doom can be, you need to either use modern custom maps that are tailored for the modern, faster FPS player, or a gameplay mod like Brutal Doom that makes things much harder.

I think that is a very fair observation.

[VGamingJunkie]

In fairness, if you map your modern layout accordingly but use the left/right arrow keys in place of the mouse to strafe left/right, even in a purely keyboard layout, the game becomes drastically easier than the default layout since you can circle strafe with ease and you can do this even in the original DOS game. I guess it's the mindset back then, the idea of using WADS to move probably wasn't heard of.

Furthermore, Doom could have had mouse aiming if the developers had wanted to give it such a thing with the only downside being some visual warping (Aim up and down in ZDoom or any software rendered source port that supports mouse aim and you'll see what I mean), ironically they stuck with auto-aiming for the vertical plane because they thought it would be easier for players.

[Cipher]

enderandrew said:

Though I think if you have to do a pistol start on each map individually on UV to create any challenge (and even then a novice can beat that) it does suggest the game doesn't have much challenge. If you play through the Episode select screen, then weapons carry over from level to level. It would seem this is the default/intended game mode.

Yeah, the first three episodes quickly become devoid of any serious challenge. There are still two levels I can't beat on UV on episode 4 without save states though, from pistol start or otherwise (maps 2 and 6, though I think at this point I could do 6 without save states with weapon carryover).

Still, about a month of play to do that doesn't necessarily indicate a huge difficulty problem to me. It took me less time to beat Ninja Gaiden 3 recently, and that's a notoriously hard game (in a completely different genre, but one I have experience in, which I'm guessing is similar to your background in shooters).

And in fairness, too, while I've been playing keyboard-only, I am using the WASD+arrow-key turning setup, peppering lots and lots of strafing and circle-strafing into my movement that, as others have pointed out, wasn't as easy to do with the game's '93 default controls.

Also, as Cynical pointed out, the intended punishment for death is reverting to the beginning of the level with just a pistol. That's one of the reasons I avoided using ZDoom (I was totally baffled by its choice to autoload a save upon death; that's crazy to me). I first played through the game on "Hurt Me Plenty," enforcing pistol starts if I died, since I'm used to that kind of punishment in older games. Obviously you can circumvent that by just manually loading a save when you die, which is how I first got through UV, and the next challenge from there was to go through UV accepting pistol starts if and when I died.

Even Pac-Man has rudimentary AI where each ghost behaves a bit differently. Good players learn those behaviors and can master the game, but there is a rewarding challenge.

Do you not think the same holds true of Doom, though? In Pac-Man, the difficulty is never dodging a single ghost; it's applying your knowledge and reflexes to scenarios in which they crowd you in different problematic ways. Ditto enemies in any older action game, or the monsters in Doom, which at the very least each seem to have a particular niche.

I do need to revisit and finish off Doom 2 and then move onto Final Doom, which I've heard is much more challenging. But one of the minor quips that did really irritate me about Doom 1 and 2 was areas where you were forced to take damage via the floor. I do greatly prefer the Quake/Half-Life approach where you can jump and avoid the damage with skill, or potentially take damage. Forcing damage that the player can't avoid seems cheap and unfair.

There are definitely quirks like forced floor damage I'm not fond of, and that in pariticular becomes increasingly prevalent in later maps. I straight-up think E3M7 has terrible level design, as it's more or less a damaging-floor maze that's excruciating to play through blind. It's been tolerable on later playthroughs only because I remember where to go (and to its credit, ones you solve it, it's pretty hard to ever get lost in it again).

Again, if you found any joy in the game's playstyle but want more creative and considered level design, particularly around enemy placement, and with no forced damaging floors I can think of, check out Doom 64 (which I played through its unofficial "EX" computer port) in addition to the other sequels. I can't speak to how it will play for someone more skilled in the genre, but I found it quite difficult on a blind playthrough of its hard mode recently, and the levels cleverly put together in general.

Deadwing said:

I think playing with graphics enhancements ruins the experience for me, IMO. Of course, it doesn't need to be original resolution (640x480), but its abstract LD doesn't work when you put some super detailed textures and light effect. They make the levels look empty and feels weird, because when you increase some level of detailing, you expect the whole game to also get more detailed. Also, while these resources are pretty, they never look actually pretty in the whole context, you can clearly tell that they were made by fans.

A little off-topic, but I agree with this. I wound up sticking with Crispy Doom after struggling with DosBox. A little extra resolution is appreciated on modern monitors (640x480 is enough), but I don't need or want to forget I'm playing a game from the mid-'90s. Nothing against those who prefer otherwise though.

[Cynical]

Personally, I'd say that if you want more considered enemy usage that shows off the game's strengths, just skip straight to Plutonia, Hell Revealed (idclev 14 is your friend on this one, since the first 13 maps are mostly just a waste of time), Alien Vendetta, Scythe 2, Lunatic, Plutonium Winds, or Unholy Realms.

(Also, I see nothing wrong with "forced" damage floors. You have 100 health for a reason, and having a "timer" of sorts can be a useful dynamic for level designers.)