No, that's whatever you consider the sequel to Ocarina of Time >What is universally considered one of the most important games in history >sequel 1 is a shitty romhack about doing errands >sequel 2 is "what if we rehashed this game but made it so easy even babies would be insulted at how easy it is"
>What is universally considered one of the most important games in history
You're delusional. Can't have a great game by itself, no, it needs to be IMPORTANT even though its influence is vastly overstated.
You want underwhelming follow-up to a groundbreaking game, try Mario 64 to Mario Sunshine.
Doom 2 >More doom >More weapons >More enemies
Doom 3 >New tech >Oops, all dark, so much for those graphics >"We want the survival audience now for no real reason, lmao"
3 is more underwhelming
I got the revamped version on Steam which added some conveniences, and even with a walkthru I found it a slog. Finished the game, finally, but it was mostly tedious. Not much exploring and most of the objectives were too vague. Dark Forces is similar but so much better.
Gonna make people angry but I have to say I thought Unreal 2 was actually a fun shooter. Its not the best game ever and not even a great shooter but I had fun on that first run thru. Years later I tried going back a 2nd time and knowing I'd have to slog thru the ice planet again made me tired. But the little planets where you gotta assault a base and then set up defenses for a counter attack were actually good.
Doom II was a groundbreaking title within the genre because its enemy variety and map design made a focus on using movement, crowd control, mid-fight weapons switch to encounter different enemy types from multiple sides. The first Doom game and other FPS games from the same period played more like linear dungeon crawler games with no gameplay depth other than navigating the labirynths and looking for keys.
TL;DR, OP is a confirmed savescummer with no understanding of Doom II combat
i don't really understand your reasoning? i'd assume someone who loves doom II to be more of a savescummer tbh, as the level design really tempts you to save often, with all the surprise attacks. anyway you're terrible at reading people, i personally specifically always play retro fps never saving in the middle of a level. but the "underwhelming" was more about how it's a full sequel to one of the most important games ever, with the exact same engine as the first game, just one new gun, couple of new samey enemies. doesn't even have a real final boss.
Anon, Doom 1 enemy variety is shallow. You have a weak hitscanner, a slightly more dangerous hitscanner, two melee types, and then imps, cacos and barons who use the same fireball attack with different damage. It's barely an improvement over Wolfenstein 3D which had four hitscanner types and a dog.
Doom 2 introduces:
- commando, which, while being made of glass like other hitscanners, has the ability to eat through your health much quicker than pistol or shotgun zombies
- mancubus, whose fireball attack has a different horizontal arc and may catch you off guard when you circle strafe or use invisibility
- arachnotron which spams very quick fireballs and can only countered by stunlocking him, which may become a problem if you have too many other enemies to attend
- revenant with his homing missiles
- pain elemental which spawns lost souls
- arch vile which has two completely unique abilities even compared to anyone above
Not to mention that Doom 2 uses Doom 1 bosses on regular levels, while they were only encountered on special boss arenas previously. And then there is a big difference about how the enemies are used and positioned on the maps and the situations that map designers put you in. Doom 2 is a big improvement over Doom 1 gameplay wise.
This. Doom was a framework for Doom II to build upon but it's not comparable gameplay wise. It's like trying to argue whether you prefer SF2 World Warrior or Super Turbo. WW is a legendary game but not worth playing outside of curiosity or nostalgia.
I agree with you that Doom 2 overall rounds out the bestiary nicely with enemies that have more unique attacks than just "flying imp" (cacodemon), "tanky hard hitting imp" (baron), etc.
That being said I overall prefer the level design and pacing in Doom 1. Doom 2 I think the stages are a little TOO ambitious and packed, Doom 1 had level designs, layouts, etc. that were just right for a quick, fast paced experience, and the more clearly defined 3 episode structure gave the game a much tighter sense of escalation and progression.
Recently I went back and iron-manned each of Doom 1's episodes, and I had a great time. But after getting through Doom 2's first "episode" I had to hang in the towel. It was just kinda exhausting feeling in comparison.
Also I feel like Doom 1 had more of a "theme" to its episodes.
First episode is mostly military sci base visuals. The second episode is more demonic, but still clearly takes place in our world. Then the final episode goes all out in hell with flesh pits, castles, torture devices, etc. everywhere and looks completely unearthly compared to previous stages.
There's a clear sense of progression and build up across the game that makes the climax a lot more memorable. In comparison Doom 2 kind of suffers for not having much in the way of new tilesets and not using them as consistently.
I think Quake also has a bit of this problem, with the first episode having a great escalation of sci-fi real world -> medeival dark fantasy land -> eldritch horror, but then most of the eps mostly repeating it with slightly different palette kind of makes it feel less memorable by the end.
This is exactly what the issue with Doom 1 is. Doom 1 is a comfort food. It never challenges you, it never pushes you out of your comfort zone. It is just a gradual demon extermination, room by room, which becomes a chore by the end. Every fight that it throws at you has one solution: shoot it until it dies. You never panic run for cover from Archvile attack in Doom 1. You never think about getting close to a pack of Arachnotrons in to stunlock one of them with SSG and use as a shield from others in Doom 1. You never lead Revenant homing rocket into a pack of other demons in Doom 1. Yes, you have some opportunities to use in-fighting to your advantage in Doom 1 but nowhere near as much as in Doom 2.
>Every fight that it throws at you has one solution: shoot it until it dies
Disagree: while having a bigger bestiary is nice, Imps alone (telegraphed, avoidable projectiles like a shmup) and hitscanners (seek cover) along with melee combatants combined with various environment is enough to give a full length game full of challenges. Doom one might be more barebones but the core of its little genre is presented immaculately there, and the level design - while not as grueling as doom 2 - is sublime. Especially when going for an Episode iron man or a pistol start challenge on each stage.
I also don't think Doom 2 - at least the vanilla maps - is THAT much harder or more tactical. A little, to be sure, but what I meant by exhausting is more that iron-manning the game is a lot more arduous due to not having as clearly delineated "episodes" to use as checkpoints and that each stage is overall a lot longer. So take them together and you have a real time consuming run. I generally prefer arcade style gauntlets, which is why I prefer to ironman wads, but they need to have a certain pace for it. Doom 2 is probably funner overall if you're just playing one episode at a time instead of trying to either pistol start everything or iron man the game as Doom 1 demands.
Troll
Doom would be a footnote if not for 2. All of its modding longevity spring from the new enemies. The base game is loads better too once you grow up and admit that 1 is just comfort food like says that never challenges the player's skills or thinking in any way. The flat Tom Hall mazes of 1, while quaint, just don't compare to the imaginative, vertical, innovative 2 levels. Retrofitting an office building into Pandemonium is interesting but the conversions simply can't compete to levels that were properly built from the ground up and with more experience and game resources. To its credit 1 has more colorful textures and levels and I think the soundtrack is likewise not as drab. Both games also have exceptionally great (Deimos Lab, Mt. Erebus, The Citadel, The Abandoned Mines) and crap (Hell Keep, Military Base, Nirvana, Wolfenstein, Grosse) levels. >MUH EP1
It has like four enemies and as many weapons. That it's a historical relic and the shareware episode doesn't interest me, what feels the best to play is what matters and the possibilities of Doom 1 were all but spent with that one episode and it's all very basic compared to 2. It did establish a lot of the Doom level rules but that is also historical trivia.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Doom would be a footnote if not for 2.
Doom 1 was installed on more computers than Windows 95 at one point. Doom 1 has also sold about twice as many copies as 2. I prefer Doom 1 personally, but 2 is fine. Plutonia is better than 2 I reckon
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Doom 1 has also sold about twice as many copies as 2
It hadn't you dummy. Doom 1 first year sales were 140-200k while Doom 2 sold 1.2m in the first year. Doom 2 is the third best selling PC game for 1993-1999 period, it sold more than Warcraft 2, Red Alert, Diablo and Quake. Starcraft too but that one was new and eventually caught up.
Mail order Doom is so rare that you can barely find it on Ebay. Even combined with retail Ultimate Doom release, it's nowhere near Doom 2 sales.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I just checked here. Doom 1 is about double Doom 2 >The original Doom sold 3.5 million physical copies[122] and 1.15 million shareware copies[123] from its 1993 release up through 1999. Doom II sold 1.55 million copies of all types in the United States during the same period,[123] with about a quarter of that number also sold in Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(franchise)#Sales
3 months ago
Anonymous
You should check their source first (picrel). "3.5 mil in all its many versions" can be literally anything, including Doom 2, Final Doom and console ports (the ps1 version included Doom 2 too).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(1993_video_game) >By May 1994, Wilbur said that the game had sold over 65,000 copies, and estimated that the shareware version had been downloaded over 1 million times.[64] In 1995, Wilbur estimated the first-year sales as 140,000, while in 2002 Petersen said it had sold around 200,000 copies in its first year.[65][66]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_II >The game was the United States' highest-selling software product of 1994,[48] and sold more than 1.2 million copies within a year.[49] It placed 10th for 1996, with 322,671 units sold and $12.6 million earned in the region that year alone.[50] According to PC Data, which tracked sales in the United States, Doom II sold 1.81 million units and earned $74.7 million in revenue in the United States. This led PC Data to declare it the country's third-best-selling computer game for the period between January 1993 and April 1998.[51]
Ask yourself a question, if Doom 1 sold as many copies as you think, where are they? Why is the physical Doom 1 release so rare and a good copy costs thousands bucks?
I am so tired of you redditor homosexuals pretending these games are good. DOOM is ugly as shit, has grating music, down syndrome level design and a tiny selection of weapons and enemies. This trash fire is kept alive by 45 year old men making custom wads. DOOM fricking sucks.
People like Doom because it has slow moving projectiles that you dodge and weave around like a 3d shmup, coupled with dungeon-crawl-ish level design that combines exploring and running and gunning.
That's it. It's not simple. It's a formula that combines a lot of things that /vr/ homosexuals like in one package and does so well. You don't have to like it but if you can't understand why people like it you are a turbo autist sperg.
>introduces interesting level design >ssg >chain gunners and revenants >levels actually have ammonition
game doesnt feel like a fricking survival game anymore. I get it grandpa new = bad, faster = bad, slow = good.
No, that would be 3 >half of the game is traveling dark corridors using the most limp sounding guns in history and occasionally stopping for a cutscene because Half Life was popular at the time
>Doom 2
Pretty good continuation. It's more Doom, and Doom is fricking great. The game also codified many elements of "classic Doom" with its new monsters and style.
>Quake 2
It's like actually unironically kinda mediocre. I don't know why Doom 2 gets all the hate when this game exists.
I get that not everyone cares about this but DOOM 1 has amazing environmental storytelling with it's progression. The military bases and labs, give way to caverns and lava, which give way to demonic hellscapes.
Also I feel like Doom 1 had more of a "theme" to its episodes.
First episode is mostly military sci base visuals. The second episode is more demonic, but still clearly takes place in our world. Then the final episode goes all out in hell with flesh pits, castles, torture devices, etc. everywhere and looks completely unearthly compared to previous stages.
There's a clear sense of progression and build up across the game that makes the climax a lot more memorable. In comparison Doom 2 kind of suffers for not having much in the way of new tilesets and not using them as consistently.
I think Quake also has a bit of this problem, with the first episode having a great escalation of sci-fi real world -> medeival dark fantasy land -> eldritch horror, but then most of the eps mostly repeating it with slightly different palette kind of makes it feel less memorable by the end.
Doom 1 feels like an adventure and it has an actual sense of like, approaching a climax as it goes on. Doom 2 feels a little more random. It'd have really benefitted from some new tile maps I think.
I mean, Doom 2 has visible progression from starport to city and to hell which is mixed with earth facilities (as the intermission screen says, demons brought they own reality with them) which is more interesting than just caverns filled with lava.
This, and episodic nature of Doom 1 gives is a disjointed feel. It's not a big adventure but rather three small adventures. They even switched ep2 and ep3 during the development at the very last minute - you were supposed to go to hell, return, and only then find out that the base is corrupted. They reused this kind of progression in Doom 3 later.
>I mean, Doom 2 has visible progression from starport to city and to hell
It doesn't really.
Doom 2's starport doesn't even look like a starport and there's no way you'd know it was one without being told. The reason is because it overplays its hand with the:
>hell which is mixed with earth facilities
The first two "episodes" of Doom 2 are basically just the second episode of Doom 1: Earth sci-fi architecture mixed randomly with medieval and demonic shit. The entirety of Doom 2 is such a random mix of different tilesets that it's very easy to forget whether you're on earth or in hell, and while it IS supposed to be "hell on earth", it loses the impact when that's 2/3rds of the game with no real escalation before you get to hell.
Doom 1 had more of a progression where the first episode is purely technological, the second episode is a mix, and then the third is purely otherwordly.
This, and episodic nature of Doom 1 gives is a disjointed feel. It's not a big adventure but rather three small adventures. They even switched ep2 and ep3 during the development at the very last minute - you were supposed to go to hell, return, and only then find out that the base is corrupted. They reused this kind of progression in Doom 3 later.
> and episodic nature of Doom 1 gives is a disjointed feel.
It doesn't. Like I dunno there's nothing more I can say to this besides "no". You die at the end of ep 1, you wake up in ep 2 and you notice things have changed and now it's 50/50 technobase and hell. It's as organic as it possibly could be.
>which is more interesting than just caverns filled with lava.
Also Doom 1 already did this. Hell was pretty diverse tileset wise with having, fleshy areas with intestine floors, caverns and lava, castles and torture chambers, but it also did have a section in one of the stages (it might have been a secret, can't remember) where you basically have the first episodes sci-fi base just plucked down into the middle of a demonic castle, implying that the whole place was absorbed into hell. It's actually great visual storytelling.
Also while it might sound like I'm in anti-doom 2 camp, I just want to point out that I think both games are essential.
Doom 1 might not have as much enemy variety or challenge but quite honestly it doesn't need it: it's still got the core fundamentals of what makes Doom in general fun (fast movement and dodging telegraphed projectiles while doing some lite exploration and psuedo dungeon crawling). It's easier but it's also shorter and its challenge is substantial enough for what it is. It also was the first so like it or not it pioneered the premise and vibe and "plot" of the game and any sequels were just going to be more of the same.
Doom 2 is a bigger, harder, more complex game for hardcore fans. And that's good too.
You've never been to Hell, how do you know what it looks like?
I'd expect a starport to either have a tileset modeled after real life airport interiors, or just be a sci-fi locale with some crappy looking parked space ship sprites outside of windows or some shit.
>which is more interesting than just caverns filled with lava.
Also Doom 1 already did this. Hell was pretty diverse tileset wise with having, fleshy areas with intestine floors, caverns and lava, castles and torture chambers, but it also did have a section in one of the stages (it might have been a secret, can't remember) where you basically have the first episodes sci-fi base just plucked down into the middle of a demonic castle, implying that the whole place was absorbed into hell. It's actually great visual storytelling.
>demons brought they own reality with them
Like their big spider mastermind crushing machine and Wolfenstein bonus stages and big john romero head wall boss. I like the new baddies, and the shotgun, but the levels look like they were just slapped together without much thought. There was a couple of OK stages though, they weren't all bad
No.
I was there. I remember when it came out. I was a tween. liked it a lot, as did everyone else. More of the same but sometimes thats OK.
Doom 3 was the most underwhelming sequel to a groundbreaking game ever. It was very pretty, and we kept playing it waiting for the moment it was supposed to get good. It just kept slogging along and many of us were irritated at how bad the gameplay was.
DooM was so much better it almost made up for the long gap between releases.
>inferior level design >only adds a handful of new enemies >one new weapon >abandons the more thematic episodic layout for a frick-huge long-ass campaign
Nope. The first Doom game always felt like a tech demo for Doom 2. It didn't live up to the engine potential with its flat and simplistic level layouts and limited enemy roster. Doom 2 was the real deal and an improvement in every area.
I like the levels of Doom 1 more, but the new enemies and the super shotgun gives Doom 2 pretty much the most perfectly balanced bestiary and arsenal of any shooter ever. Combined with how easy it is to make new levels, Doom 2 will pretty much never run out of new user made content, because even to this day people are still coming up with creative combat encounters utilizing the same enemies.
Of course Doom 1 still gets new user content all the time, too, but nowhere near as much as 2.
It's certainly a candidate. Doom 2 was literally just one new weapon (super shotty), couple new enemies and a bunch of maps. If DLC had existed back then it would surely have been a DLC.
Doom 2 base game was fine, but I can see how it can be underwhelming. Plenty of levels are boring and forgettable, with a lack of consistency towards theming and aesthetics at times. Most of the new additional monsters are not used to their full potential, and often feels like 1's monsters are being relied on too much. Soundtrack isn't as consistently good as 1's (still some bangers though).
Doom 2's longevity is largely carried by the community mapping/modding output. Many megawads show just how good the game can actually be.
did you mean to post 3?
No, that's whatever you consider the sequel to Ocarina of Time
>What is universally considered one of the most important games in history
>sequel 1 is a shitty romhack about doing errands
>sequel 2 is "what if we rehashed this game but made it so easy even babies would be insulted at how easy it is"
>instantly shitting on zelda for no reason
obsessed
OoT was so refined that its immensely flawed successors has no way to stand up to it.
>can't handle criticism of his baby games
maybe reddit would be more your speed
He called OoT one of the most important games in history, how the frick is that "shitting" on zelda?
>What is universally considered one of the most important games in history
You're delusional. Can't have a great game by itself, no, it needs to be IMPORTANT even though its influence is vastly overstated.
You want underwhelming follow-up to a groundbreaking game, try Mario 64 to Mario Sunshine.
Majora's Mask is better than OoT.
nah that would be 3
Everyone I knew as a kid switched to deathmatches on Doom II once it came out, I don't remember anyone complaining about being "underwhelmed"
Doom 2
>More doom
>More weapons
>More enemies
Doom 3
>New tech
>Oops, all dark, so much for those graphics
>"We want the survival audience now for no real reason, lmao"
3 is more underwhelming
Well you had Quake and Quake II which were effectively Doom 3 and 4, so I guess they decided to mix it up when they came back to Doom
and by the way Quake II was extremely underwhelming (in single player)
I got the revamped version on Steam which added some conveniences, and even with a walkthru I found it a slog. Finished the game, finally, but it was mostly tedious. Not much exploring and most of the objectives were too vague. Dark Forces is similar but so much better.
But they're called Quake, not doom
Quake wasn't Doom 3, it was Nine Inch Nails neets H.P. Necronomicon: The Deathmatch Game.
Doom 2 sucks complete ass, OP was actual correct for once.
Doom 2 isn't too great. However it's been the foundation of some the best WADs out there.
there were a couple of levels i liked but overall i dont like it as much as the first one
exactly, a lot of d2 is just miserable to get through and most levels are often gimmicky in nature
Just within the boomer shooter genre there's Blood 2 and Duke Nukem Forever
>what if we ditched everything that made the first game stand out and turn it into one of the most generic shooters of the sixth gen
Gonna make people angry but I have to say I thought Unreal 2 was actually a fun shooter. Its not the best game ever and not even a great shooter but I had fun on that first run thru. Years later I tried going back a 2nd time and knowing I'd have to slog thru the ice planet again made me tired. But the little planets where you gotta assault a base and then set up defenses for a counter attack were actually good.
Doom II was a groundbreaking title within the genre because its enemy variety and map design made a focus on using movement, crowd control, mid-fight weapons switch to encounter different enemy types from multiple sides. The first Doom game and other FPS games from the same period played more like linear dungeon crawler games with no gameplay depth other than navigating the labirynths and looking for keys.
TL;DR, OP is a confirmed savescummer with no understanding of Doom II combat
i don't really understand your reasoning? i'd assume someone who loves doom II to be more of a savescummer tbh, as the level design really tempts you to save often, with all the surprise attacks. anyway you're terrible at reading people, i personally specifically always play retro fps never saving in the middle of a level. but the "underwhelming" was more about how it's a full sequel to one of the most important games ever, with the exact same engine as the first game, just one new gun, couple of new samey enemies. doesn't even have a real final boss.
Anon, Doom 1 enemy variety is shallow. You have a weak hitscanner, a slightly more dangerous hitscanner, two melee types, and then imps, cacos and barons who use the same fireball attack with different damage. It's barely an improvement over Wolfenstein 3D which had four hitscanner types and a dog.
Doom 2 introduces:
- commando, which, while being made of glass like other hitscanners, has the ability to eat through your health much quicker than pistol or shotgun zombies
- mancubus, whose fireball attack has a different horizontal arc and may catch you off guard when you circle strafe or use invisibility
- arachnotron which spams very quick fireballs and can only countered by stunlocking him, which may become a problem if you have too many other enemies to attend
- revenant with his homing missiles
- pain elemental which spawns lost souls
- arch vile which has two completely unique abilities even compared to anyone above
Not to mention that Doom 2 uses Doom 1 bosses on regular levels, while they were only encountered on special boss arenas previously. And then there is a big difference about how the enemies are used and positioned on the maps and the situations that map designers put you in. Doom 2 is a big improvement over Doom 1 gameplay wise.
This. Doom was a framework for Doom II to build upon but it's not comparable gameplay wise. It's like trying to argue whether you prefer SF2 World Warrior or Super Turbo. WW is a legendary game but not worth playing outside of curiosity or nostalgia.
I agree with you that Doom 2 overall rounds out the bestiary nicely with enemies that have more unique attacks than just "flying imp" (cacodemon), "tanky hard hitting imp" (baron), etc.
That being said I overall prefer the level design and pacing in Doom 1. Doom 2 I think the stages are a little TOO ambitious and packed, Doom 1 had level designs, layouts, etc. that were just right for a quick, fast paced experience, and the more clearly defined 3 episode structure gave the game a much tighter sense of escalation and progression.
Recently I went back and iron-manned each of Doom 1's episodes, and I had a great time. But after getting through Doom 2's first "episode" I had to hang in the towel. It was just kinda exhausting feeling in comparison.
Also I feel like Doom 1 had more of a "theme" to its episodes.
First episode is mostly military sci base visuals. The second episode is more demonic, but still clearly takes place in our world. Then the final episode goes all out in hell with flesh pits, castles, torture devices, etc. everywhere and looks completely unearthly compared to previous stages.
There's a clear sense of progression and build up across the game that makes the climax a lot more memorable. In comparison Doom 2 kind of suffers for not having much in the way of new tilesets and not using them as consistently.
I think Quake also has a bit of this problem, with the first episode having a great escalation of sci-fi real world -> medeival dark fantasy land -> eldritch horror, but then most of the eps mostly repeating it with slightly different palette kind of makes it feel less memorable by the end.
This is exactly what the issue with Doom 1 is. Doom 1 is a comfort food. It never challenges you, it never pushes you out of your comfort zone. It is just a gradual demon extermination, room by room, which becomes a chore by the end. Every fight that it throws at you has one solution: shoot it until it dies. You never panic run for cover from Archvile attack in Doom 1. You never think about getting close to a pack of Arachnotrons in to stunlock one of them with SSG and use as a shield from others in Doom 1. You never lead Revenant homing rocket into a pack of other demons in Doom 1. Yes, you have some opportunities to use in-fighting to your advantage in Doom 1 but nowhere near as much as in Doom 2.
>Every fight that it throws at you has one solution: shoot it until it dies
Disagree: while having a bigger bestiary is nice, Imps alone (telegraphed, avoidable projectiles like a shmup) and hitscanners (seek cover) along with melee combatants combined with various environment is enough to give a full length game full of challenges. Doom one might be more barebones but the core of its little genre is presented immaculately there, and the level design - while not as grueling as doom 2 - is sublime. Especially when going for an Episode iron man or a pistol start challenge on each stage.
I also don't think Doom 2 - at least the vanilla maps - is THAT much harder or more tactical. A little, to be sure, but what I meant by exhausting is more that iron-manning the game is a lot more arduous due to not having as clearly delineated "episodes" to use as checkpoints and that each stage is overall a lot longer. So take them together and you have a real time consuming run. I generally prefer arcade style gauntlets, which is why I prefer to ironman wads, but they need to have a certain pace for it. Doom 2 is probably funner overall if you're just playing one episode at a time instead of trying to either pistol start everything or iron man the game as Doom 1 demands.
One map at a time*
Troll
Doom would be a footnote if not for 2. All of its modding longevity spring from the new enemies. The base game is loads better too once you grow up and admit that 1 is just comfort food like says that never challenges the player's skills or thinking in any way. The flat Tom Hall mazes of 1, while quaint, just don't compare to the imaginative, vertical, innovative 2 levels. Retrofitting an office building into Pandemonium is interesting but the conversions simply can't compete to levels that were properly built from the ground up and with more experience and game resources. To its credit 1 has more colorful textures and levels and I think the soundtrack is likewise not as drab. Both games also have exceptionally great (Deimos Lab, Mt. Erebus, The Citadel, The Abandoned Mines) and crap (Hell Keep, Military Base, Nirvana, Wolfenstein, Grosse) levels.
>MUH EP1
It has like four enemies and as many weapons. That it's a historical relic and the shareware episode doesn't interest me, what feels the best to play is what matters and the possibilities of Doom 1 were all but spent with that one episode and it's all very basic compared to 2. It did establish a lot of the Doom level rules but that is also historical trivia.
>Doom would be a footnote if not for 2.
Doom 1 was installed on more computers than Windows 95 at one point. Doom 1 has also sold about twice as many copies as 2. I prefer Doom 1 personally, but 2 is fine. Plutonia is better than 2 I reckon
>Doom 1 has also sold about twice as many copies as 2
It hadn't you dummy. Doom 1 first year sales were 140-200k while Doom 2 sold 1.2m in the first year. Doom 2 is the third best selling PC game for 1993-1999 period, it sold more than Warcraft 2, Red Alert, Diablo and Quake. Starcraft too but that one was new and eventually caught up.
Mail order Doom is so rare that you can barely find it on Ebay. Even combined with retail Ultimate Doom release, it's nowhere near Doom 2 sales.
I just checked here. Doom 1 is about double Doom 2
>The original Doom sold 3.5 million physical copies[122] and 1.15 million shareware copies[123] from its 1993 release up through 1999. Doom II sold 1.55 million copies of all types in the United States during the same period,[123] with about a quarter of that number also sold in Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(franchise)#Sales
You should check their source first (picrel). "3.5 mil in all its many versions" can be literally anything, including Doom 2, Final Doom and console ports (the ps1 version included Doom 2 too).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(1993_video_game)
>By May 1994, Wilbur said that the game had sold over 65,000 copies, and estimated that the shareware version had been downloaded over 1 million times.[64] In 1995, Wilbur estimated the first-year sales as 140,000, while in 2002 Petersen said it had sold around 200,000 copies in its first year.[65][66]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_II
>The game was the United States' highest-selling software product of 1994,[48] and sold more than 1.2 million copies within a year.[49] It placed 10th for 1996, with 322,671 units sold and $12.6 million earned in the region that year alone.[50] According to PC Data, which tracked sales in the United States, Doom II sold 1.81 million units and earned $74.7 million in revenue in the United States. This led PC Data to declare it the country's third-best-selling computer game for the period between January 1993 and April 1998.[51]
Ask yourself a question, if Doom 1 sold as many copies as you think, where are they? Why is the physical Doom 1 release so rare and a good copy costs thousands bucks?
Yep. Another gayboy got filtered by this absolute legend.
Sandy's levels for Quake were alright, but his work on doom was horseshit
That's not Half-Life 2 though.
Not even close, Doom 2 is better than 1
Doom 2 sucks but so did all the non-shareware episodes of 1, you got the super shotty for deathmatch so you had to buy it
Regardless of what people think about the game now, NOBODY thought this in 1994.
>people
You mean that one resident /vr/ schizo and reddit tourists like this
?
calm down sandy maybe one day you'll get good at making levels
>now
Everybody likes Doom 2. I'm not even a big FPS player these days but Doom 2 is still great.
I am so tired of you redditor homosexuals pretending these games are good. DOOM is ugly as shit, has grating music, down syndrome level design and a tiny selection of weapons and enemies. This trash fire is kept alive by 45 year old men making custom wads. DOOM fricking sucks.
>anything I don't like is reddit
People like Doom because it has slow moving projectiles that you dodge and weave around like a 3d shmup, coupled with dungeon-crawl-ish level design that combines exploring and running and gunning.
That's it. It's not simple. It's a formula that combines a lot of things that /vr/ homosexuals like in one package and does so well. You don't have to like it but if you can't understand why people like it you are a turbo autist sperg.
interesting approach, but still mediocre bait
Ganker is not a substitute for a personality
>introduces interesting level design
>ssg
>chain gunners and revenants
>levels actually have ammonition
game doesnt feel like a fricking survival game anymore. I get it grandpa new = bad, faster = bad, slow = good.
No lol, it's not even the most underwhelming sequel by that dev.
>doom 3
>quake 2
>quake 4
>rage 2
>doom eternal+dlc
No, that would be 3
>half of the game is traveling dark corridors using the most limp sounding guns in history and occasionally stopping for a cutscene because Half Life was popular at the time
No that would me Devil May Cry 2, the best selling Devil May Cry game because everyone thought it would be even better than the first game.
>filename
Hehe, nice one.
This is the dumbest new meme.
DOOM II > DOOM
>Doom 2
Pretty good continuation. It's more Doom, and Doom is fricking great. The game also codified many elements of "classic Doom" with its new monsters and style.
>Quake 2
It's like actually unironically kinda mediocre. I don't know why Doom 2 gets all the hate when this game exists.
>Doom 2 gets all the hate
WDYM? It's a well-beloved game
Some raging autist shits on it here all the time
And?
Raging autists shit on OoT all the time here, who cares?
The levels aren't as good but it's an improved version of the game and the custom wads are great. Doom II is one of my favorite games ever.
Doom II experimental levels > Doom dungeon crawler key hunt levels
I like both but D2 has more replay value
>Doom dungeon crawler key hunt levels
based, that's why eternal doom is so great
>Doom II experimental levels
cringe
Unironically
I get that not everyone cares about this but DOOM 1 has amazing environmental storytelling with it's progression. The military bases and labs, give way to caverns and lava, which give way to demonic hellscapes.
Yeah that's what I was getting at here
Doom 1 feels like an adventure and it has an actual sense of like, approaching a climax as it goes on. Doom 2 feels a little more random. It'd have really benefitted from some new tile maps I think.
I mean, Doom 2 has visible progression from starport to city and to hell which is mixed with earth facilities (as the intermission screen says, demons brought they own reality with them) which is more interesting than just caverns filled with lava.
This, and episodic nature of Doom 1 gives is a disjointed feel. It's not a big adventure but rather three small adventures. They even switched ep2 and ep3 during the development at the very last minute - you were supposed to go to hell, return, and only then find out that the base is corrupted. They reused this kind of progression in Doom 3 later.
>I mean, Doom 2 has visible progression from starport to city and to hell
It doesn't really.
Doom 2's starport doesn't even look like a starport and there's no way you'd know it was one without being told. The reason is because it overplays its hand with the:
>hell which is mixed with earth facilities
The first two "episodes" of Doom 2 are basically just the second episode of Doom 1: Earth sci-fi architecture mixed randomly with medieval and demonic shit. The entirety of Doom 2 is such a random mix of different tilesets that it's very easy to forget whether you're on earth or in hell, and while it IS supposed to be "hell on earth", it loses the impact when that's 2/3rds of the game with no real escalation before you get to hell.
Doom 1 had more of a progression where the first episode is purely technological, the second episode is a mix, and then the third is purely otherwordly.
> and episodic nature of Doom 1 gives is a disjointed feel.
It doesn't. Like I dunno there's nothing more I can say to this besides "no". You die at the end of ep 1, you wake up in ep 2 and you notice things have changed and now it's 50/50 technobase and hell. It's as organic as it possibly could be.
Also while it might sound like I'm in anti-doom 2 camp, I just want to point out that I think both games are essential.
Doom 1 might not have as much enemy variety or challenge but quite honestly it doesn't need it: it's still got the core fundamentals of what makes Doom in general fun (fast movement and dodging telegraphed projectiles while doing some lite exploration and psuedo dungeon crawling). It's easier but it's also shorter and its challenge is substantial enough for what it is. It also was the first so like it or not it pioneered the premise and vibe and "plot" of the game and any sequels were just going to be more of the same.
Doom 2 is a bigger, harder, more complex game for hardcore fans. And that's good too.
>Doom 2's starport doesn't even look like a starport
How many starports have you personally visited that you can tell that it doesn't look like one?
You've never been to Hell, how do you know what it looks like?
I'd expect a starport to either have a tileset modeled after real life airport interiors, or just be a sci-fi locale with some crappy looking parked space ship sprites outside of windows or some shit.
>which is more interesting than just caverns filled with lava.
Also Doom 1 already did this. Hell was pretty diverse tileset wise with having, fleshy areas with intestine floors, caverns and lava, castles and torture chambers, but it also did have a section in one of the stages (it might have been a secret, can't remember) where you basically have the first episodes sci-fi base just plucked down into the middle of a demonic castle, implying that the whole place was absorbed into hell. It's actually great visual storytelling.
>demons brought they own reality with them
Like their big spider mastermind crushing machine and Wolfenstein bonus stages and big john romero head wall boss. I like the new baddies, and the shotgun, but the levels look like they were just slapped together without much thought. There was a couple of OK stages though, they weren't all bad
No.
I was there. I remember when it came out. I was a tween. liked it a lot, as did everyone else. More of the same but sometimes thats OK.
Doom 3 was the most underwhelming sequel to a groundbreaking game ever. It was very pretty, and we kept playing it waiting for the moment it was supposed to get good. It just kept slogging along and many of us were irritated at how bad the gameplay was.
DooM was so much better it almost made up for the long gap between releases.
That would be Chrono Cross.
I still don't know what it brings over Doom1, besides 1 new gun, 5 extra monsters and a custom endboss.
Imagine how GREAT Doom 2 and Quake 1 could have been if Petersen had been fired after Doom 1.
Not even close. Try harder homosexual.
>I would love to be your chamber boy.
Yes.
>inferior level design
>only adds a handful of new enemies
>one new weapon
>abandons the more thematic episodic layout for a frick-huge long-ass campaign
TNT Evilution was better.
Nope. The first Doom game always felt like a tech demo for Doom 2. It didn't live up to the engine potential with its flat and simplistic level layouts and limited enemy roster. Doom 2 was the real deal and an improvement in every area.
>is this the all-time most underwhelming sequel to a groundbreaking game?
No, Links adventure holds that title
Doom 2 is good and if you don't like it you need to get gud
I like the levels of Doom 1 more, but the new enemies and the super shotgun gives Doom 2 pretty much the most perfectly balanced bestiary and arsenal of any shooter ever. Combined with how easy it is to make new levels, Doom 2 will pretty much never run out of new user made content, because even to this day people are still coming up with creative combat encounters utilizing the same enemies.
Of course Doom 1 still gets new user content all the time, too, but nowhere near as much as 2.
It's certainly a candidate. Doom 2 was literally just one new weapon (super shotty), couple new enemies and a bunch of maps. If DLC had existed back then it would surely have been a DLC.
>implying
it gave us these gems that were actually ported to the switch of all playforms
No that's Blood 2
Doom 2 base game was fine, but I can see how it can be underwhelming. Plenty of levels are boring and forgettable, with a lack of consistency towards theming and aesthetics at times. Most of the new additional monsters are not used to their full potential, and often feels like 1's monsters are being relied on too much. Soundtrack isn't as consistently good as 1's (still some bangers though).
Doom 2's longevity is largely carried by the community mapping/modding output. Many megawads show just how good the game can actually be.
I prefer the first Doom but 2 is a fine game.
There is much worse around.
wtf is that hairline on doomguy
Doom II to Doom is what Mortal Kombat II is to Mortal Kombat. Simple as
>More Doom is underwhelming