Doom 1 or 2?

[kristus]

I'm really glad they didn't. But I've already explained that in another thread so I'll leave it at that.

[Gez]

Vegeta said:

I think DOOM 2 disappointed many players that expected realistic locations from Earth, and instead that they found just a few maps that barely looked like a city.

Again, "realisticism" ("realism" isn't exactly the proper notion, so I'm coining a horrible new word) is a false lead. You follow it and you obtain complete crap that is disappointing on both fronts, ambiance and gameplay. Doom II actually tried to be somewhat realistic in a couple of places, and see how horribly it backfired (e.g., MAP13).

[kristus]

I've always loved that map. We played a lot of DM on it back in 1995.

[dew]

map13 may fail at looking like a city, but it's one of the most enjoyable maps in doom2 to play. i don't see anything 'horribly backfiring' in there, maybe except that slow and buggy elevator. i have to admit i don't care about visuals in doom games, or rather it's just a nice bonus for me. on the other hand i demand fun and challenging battle situations. doom and it's narrow corridors have very little of that, doom2 works much better as an action game.

[EvilNed]

Gez said:

Winner: Doom/Ultimate Doom.

This is very subjective of course, but that's the way I perceive these games. So that's why I say Doom is more atmospheric than Doom II. Not that Doom II isn't at all, just that it has a higher proportion of levels that don't fit like they try to be a Doom level and instead focus only on being a Doom level.

I don't know about that, I'd say being that UD has E2 and E3, two pretty boring and dull episodes compared to the rest of the Doom experience, is a real downer for that game.

Still a great game. But I definetly wouldn't say the level design is by any stretch greater than in Doom 2. Much of the game is very bland (referring of course to E2 and E3 mostly!)

Again, this is just my opinion, just as you've stated yours.

Also, I don't think Doom 2 really tried to be realistic. Not anymore so than Doom. If anyone expected realism from Map 13: Downtown, then hey... Maybe they don't get Doom. :p I'd also have to agree with dew on the fact that Doom 2 features more interesting battles that UD, which really don't have a lot.

[kristus]

Let it be known that Id also intentionally moved away from realism for the sake of playability. That's the whole reason why they split with Tom Hall.

[EvilNed]

And a big part of why Doom is so great.

[_bruce_]

EvilNed said:

And a big part of why Doom is so great.

Agreed.

[DeathevokatioN]

kristus said:

Let it be known that Id also intentionally moved away from realism for the sake of playability. That's the whole reason why they split with Tom Hall.

You'd think that DooM fans would have gotten this already.

[40oz]

kristus said:

That's the whole reason why they split with Tom Hall.

Are you sure that's accurate? It was Tom's idea to integrate teleporters in Doom. How realistic is that?

[magicsofa]

40oz said:

Are you sure that's accurate? It was Tom's idea to integrate teleporters in Doom. How realistic is that?

I figured since teleporters are the be-all and end-all of the storyline, they had to be in the game :)

Anyway, I think a couple things haven't been mentioned which I will contribute - although I haven't read every page in this monster thread thoroughly, maybe I'm repeating something.

One very obvious and literal thing I can point to why doom2's level design is BETTER than doom1, E1 included, is height variation. Of course doom1 was showing off this technology from the start, however in doom2 they started using larger structures to great effect. For example, a memorable moment for me was going down the lift in The Crusher. Something about descending on that room is really cool.

As far as atmosphere goes, I would say even though E1 has a great mood for the beginning of the infestation, doom2 is really atmospheric and you just can't expect it to be the same as E1. We're in the middle of the invasion here, you've been to hell and back. That said, there's still a lot more to discover - i.e. new enemies which I think add so much to the atmosphere. I would almost make an analogy between E1 vs Doom2 and Heretic vs Hexen. The first one was moody and all, but generally cleaner, brighter, and more straightforward. The second - doom2 and hexen - started to get more dirty, dark, and psychedelic.

Of course, episodes 2 and 3 are psychedelic but they lack that dark, brooding atmosphere that is present in doom2.

[Woolie Wool]

For me, a lot of Doom II's original maps have no atmosphere at all. They're just ugly, badly-textured monster containers. E1 at least looked like a place, even if it was too abstract to really recognize areas as having any particular function.

Doom II would have been better if it was designed with a "theme map" ethos like a more primitive version of Epic or Axiom.

[_bruce_]

Yep, the elevator in The Crusher was awesome. Cool level overall - reminded me of a darker version of The Focus.

[Jodwin]

Woolie Wool said:

For me, a lot of Doom II's original maps have no atmosphere at all.

Seconded. For example, the city maps are too poorly executed (IMO) to be atmospheric. They are just random mishmash of areas with no purpose that are trying to have a purpose, and which have very accurate real-world counterparts. We all know what a city downtown looks like, and a lot of us know what an industrial zone looks like. The Doom 2 maps are too far away from these images to be atmospheric to me. On the other hand, maps like those in E1, or MAP29, have no real counterpart in real-world so they don't suffer from unrealistic execution (not to mention, like Woolie Wool said, E1 felt like a place).

Also, I found E2M2 quite atmospheric when I first played it. Even though it's abstract like any other Doom map, it manages to be the most "realistic" (or should I say, sensible) official Doom map.



Oh, and anyone who thinks that the bright white/yellow/red mishmash caverns of MAP28 are atmospheric is clearly out of his mind.

[Hellbent]

I notice that there's some muddlement about realism. The issue with realism isn't whether there are fantastical or sci-fi elements, it's whether the physics and the environment resemble something believable within the universe and story the game is set in.

[Jodwin]

Hellbent said:

The issue with realism isn't whether there are fantastical or sci-fi elements, it's whether the physics and the environment resemble something believable within the universe and story the game is set in.

Well, that's partly true, but it's also relevant whether we have personal experiences of what the game is trying to portray or not, and how our own experiences clash with the game. I'm pretty sure none of us have visited real tech bases ourselves, so they get more slack than real world locations do.


Anyway, some people called MAP06 and its elevator atmospheric. On the other hand, I never found that map to be atmospheric at all. It has potential to be atmospheric, but the map fails to convey a place or a location with a purpose. There's the dark beginning area, then the huge open room with one huge crusher, and an assortment of other areas, none of them even trying to look like they have a purpose; while we are meant to assume that the "place" portrayed in the map actually does have a purpose in the game world. I mean, what is the point of that crusher? It's there just to look cool and to play off the "lets crush the mastermind!"-gimmick. The smaller areas in the map aren't that bad, but they're only hallways while the bigger rooms are just that, rooms with no purpose.

Compare this to, for example, E1M3 which has multiple toxic waste container areas, obvious computer tech rooms and more. When playing E1M3 it's easy to understand what the map is, even if it isn't actually realistic. Thus the map manages to be much more atmospheric since the areas in the map seem to serve a purpose in the game world.

[EvilNed]

Jodwin said:

Oh, and anyone who thinks that the bright white/yellow/red mishmash caverns of MAP28 are atmospheric is clearly out of his mind.

Then sign me up to the mental institution, because that maps got more atmosphere than most in Doom 1 do. :)

[DeathevokatioN]

Realism doesn't have anything to do with atmosphere, and niether does the degree to which architecture "represents" something that would be logical in real life have anything to do with atmosphere. Modern Warfare 2 has "realistic" looking levels that "represent" real life places, does it have atmosphere? No. It's one of the most pretentious and soulless games to ever get popular.

The ID Doom series, in general draws it's atmosphere by making creepy levels, not by realism.

In one of the intermissions of DooM2 it says that "The Demons have brought their own reality with them", that pretty much explains why everything looks so twisted and abstract, and is a reasonable enough explanation as to why the levels don't look realistic, and for me the levels represent a world that's slowly transforming into a bastion of hell. Have you ever stopped to take a look at how boring normal human architecture is? There is no imagination in it, and indoor areas would suck balls, everything would be cramped, too many corridors that are 64 units wide, offices that have one colour, just about every wall is white, small cramped rooms. I still can't bring myself to be as creeped out fighting against a mancubi that's standing on someone's bed in some uninspired clean looking bed room, :P or coming across the icon of sin in a theater.

Spirit World is way more atmospheric and sinister than most DooM levels.

[esselfortium]

But realism doesn't have to mean strict, boring realism in order to create a believable setting. There's a concept I call "magical realism," that's sort of along the lines of how sci-fi movie sets have lots of structures and details that don't actually serve any purpose but to look cool, contribute to the atmosphere, and appear at least vaguely like they could possibly do something if you squint really hard.

What we usually consider "realism" in Doom levels generally means what I think of as magical realism. It's possible with any map theme, and doesn't mean sticking beds and TVs and 1-unit pencils and paper in random places in a map.

[40oz]

I don't really understand what this "realism" conversation is about. Granted Doom 2 had some pretty weird stuff in it, but if you ask me they captured the realistic aspect of it too, just in a much more low-def form. I mean, if you ask me, this area in MAP16: Suburbs easily looks like an abandoned condo if you use your imagination. Especially when you compare it to the drab monotony of Ravenholm in "OMG THE MOST REALISTIC GAME EVER" Half-life 2.

[Jodwin]

DeathevokatioN said:

Realism doesn't have anything to do with atmosphere

Realism as a concept has a lot to do with atmosphere. I never said that a map has to be ultra-realistic to be atmospheric. Rather, I said that Doom 2's city maps trying to represent real-world locations and failing horribly works badly against atmosphere. They do not need to be realistic, but they need to be believable and convey a sense of place and reason, as I explained before with the E1M3 example and what essel said about "magical realism" - same thing, different way of explaining. What "realism" has to do with all this, is that if you are trying to create a real-world location but fail, it will backfire more than failing creating a location that does not exist.

What that means, is that you can get away with a jumble of areas in some settings (like, Hell), while other settings (cities) are much more critical because of expectations of realism. It doesn't mean that they have to be realistic, just that failing to provide a good sense of place and essel's "magical realism" is worse than in other settings.


On the other hand, MAP28 is a horrible mess and is beyond any help.

[Hellbent]

+2 @ DeathevokatioN's post, especially nice analysis of the "demons bring their reality with them." I never really knew what to make of that statement!

@ Essel: Magic Realism

[40oz]

I don't think so.

MAP15: Industrial Zone has a lot of things that doesn't seem unlikely for an industrial zone. I mean, if you look at these funky shaped buildings it kinda makes sense that some crazy metal structure like this exists. Even if it's not very easy to determine what exactly it does.

Also I don't see how unreasonable it would be to find a freight warehouse in an industrial zone especially when there is a harbor nearby.

If I were new to mapping I'd say those could easily pass as windows too. Where there used to be streets and cars and other stuff are quite obviously six feet under in debris and ash. I mean, if you look at the sky texture, the entire city is on fire. And some of the buildings even clarify that such as this one that is engulfed in flames from the inside, and this one that's missing a roof. If you look at the aftermath of 9/11 I'd say that's pretty fuckin accurate.

With all the warning stripes and metal frames on the walls I'd say this appears to be some kind of a factory. And this area reminds me of the back alleys of the residential areas of south philly.

I don't really like Doom 2 much because I always seem to be short on ammo unless I play it from start to finish, mainly because maps 02-06 are comprised mostly of shotgun guys but I've still got an imagination.

[Snakes]

I definitely share that school of thought, 40oz. In all honesty, though, Map16 is tough for me to see as anything like a suburb. This would be problematic if I were super-worried about realism, but it never occurred to me to even think about these sorts of things.

Jodwin said:

On the other hand, MAP28 is a horrible mess and is beyond any help.

On one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I think that the music really elevated Map28 to the degree of somewhat-spooky for me. That and the hall with the scrolling spine textures. Mediocre on the whole-shot, though.

Just to get my word in: I think atmosphere has to do with realism, but only to a limited degree. Map11, for example. What makes that map atmospheric for me is not that it resembles in particular location, but that I can just imagine myself being there. To me, that's the most important thing. Map12 certainly accomplishes this. Map13, too (save for the crusher). Map16... still not getting it, but it has its creepy aspects.

[esselfortium]

Hellbent said:

+2 @ DeathevokatioN's post, especially nice analysis of the "demons bring their reality with them." I never really knew what to make of that statement!

@ Essel: Magic Realism

@ Hellbent: Magical Realism

[magicsofa]

40oz wins


I really can't take any more of this banter about realism and atmosphere. It's obvious that custom maps released right around the time of doom2 had shit for realism and atmosphere (I mean literally poop), and mappers had to learn to get themselves to the level of the ID guys. Also, a lot of the atmosphere is in the sprites, graphics, sounds, and music. And a lot of the fun of the game has nothing to do with realism. I've played shitty 1994 wads that were a lot more fun - in my crazy opinion - than some of the modern wads with amazing detail.

I also would rather not get so hung up on the comparison between doom1 and doom2. I think it is just really easy to make a believable techbase - it's a building with some tech-y textures inside. Outdoor areas are obviously way harder in the blocky doom engine, but they have certain atmosphere that is completely lacking in E1. Plus E1 has some really retarded structures, such as the entire maze on E1M2 of those computer-wirey-stuff textures. Yeah, sure, there are toxic waste plants and junk, but as I remember the toxic waste is just all over in totally random places. E1M1 features a zig-zag walkway through it! That so fucking believable I thought I was there. Also E1M8 is obviously just a random ass building. Represents absolutely nothing (who builds star-shaped platforms?) My final gripe is actually repetitiveness. Base after base...at least doom2 varies with the cities and dungeons and weirdness.

Whatever though. Just, whatever.

[arrrgh]

What got me with Doom II is that the levels didn't really follow a strong theme... It just in general felt like 32 levels bundled together, rather than a coherent game. And that although most of the levels were good, there were the ones that felt like horrible 1994 wads (like MAP21, eew.)

[printz]

Snakes said:

In all honesty, though, Map16 is tough for me to see as anything like a suburb.

Not even those two villas in the middle? The rest of the level is a nightmare anyway. It has the colors and the light level of a nightmare.

[EvilNed]

Okay, so the two main complaints seem to be:

1) Doom 2 isn't realistic enough, to which I only say: Exactly, that's why it's so great.

and:

2) Doom 2 doesn't follow a specific theme. Well, I'd have to disagree there. The theme I see is of a decaying world slowly turning into Hell. That's what I see, and that's what Doom 2 is to me. I have no problems with it.

Now, Doom 1, apart from E1, features no specific theme that I can see. That I can tell you. E2 has some maps that COULD be a mishmash of spacebase and hell, but then again you have maps like E2M1 and E2M8 (or E2M9) which look more like just plain weird levels.

And E3 is great and fun, but let's face it: It's theme is just weird stuff thrown together. In a great way, I might add. But if you really break it down. The "theme" aspect doesn't really hold any water.

[40oz]

Doom 2 doesn't really offer a giant mess of new textures by the way. I mean, most of them are just reused doom textures. Obviously it's not very probable to have all this STARTAN1 and PIPE2 on Earth or all these crates with UAC logoes on them, but that is what they had and what they had to make dew with. I can see what the buildings in Doom 2 are SUPPOSED to be, although it's not blatantly obvious. Doom 2 had a much shorter time-range to work on than Doom 1. In addition to that, the earliest map editors did not have 3d visual mode like Duke Nukem's editors do, so making things look right meant to play the maps and build nodes over and over and over and over again, which they simply did not really have that much time to do.

If you focus more on the maps and the textures for what they are and not so much how they are applied you'd see that Doom 2 really does represent the places they are supposed to look like.