Forest Dweller
Smoking Dicks
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2008
- Messages
- 12,205
No, this isn't a reaction to that other Doom thread. I had planned to make this thread all on my own since I just recently beat them.
Anyway, I remember when my mom first got a computer (I was in fourth grade) there was a demo disk that came with it that had lots of different games. One of them was the first episode from Doom 1. So that was one of the first PC games I played. It's funny how I waited so long (about 14 years by my reckoning) to finally play the entire game. Not sure why I decided to now.
Anyway, here's some random thoughts and impressions I got while playing the two games.
1) Level design, level design, level design. It was so awesome, the maze-like levels with all the little secrets and pick-ups you could find, as well as the adventure-like elements of finding keycards and flipping switches to make shit happen. Exploration was just as much a part of the gameplay as the actual shooting. If you look at it, the shooting mechanics were of course very primitive by today's standards. You don't "aim" so much as point in the general direction of an enemy, for one. If the game was just shooting and nothing else, it would be ass. Think about it - it really would. But the exploration elements more than make up for that, and I would say are the real meat of the game.
It makes me wonder how what many consider to be the first "real fps" would have such a strong exploration element. Maybe because it was a new genre and so they would borrow elements from other genres? Like the adventure genre? That was still strong at the time, so my vote goes with that.
It also makes me wonder where the turning point was to these linear, "more immersive" fps's. If I had to pick I'd say Half-Life, but maybe some of you have more knowledge on this.
2) When I played the Doom 3 demo, that was enough for me. I didn't like the constant action and enemies being constantly thrown at me. When I was done with the demo I felt exhasuted. Playing Doom 1 and 2, though, it seems the "rate" of enemy spawn was the same. And I didn't find it exhausting. One thing I can think of would be the simpler graphics, as well as the lack of complex gradients of light that are more intensive on the eyes. The other thing would be, as I said earlier, the lack of a real need to aim, in the manner that we aim today in modern fps's, which is also more intensive. Or maybe it's just the level exploration elements gave a feeliong of "downtime" to the player, or at least something else to focus his mind on, whereas Doom 3 was completely linear. Whatever the reason, the end result was that the monster spawn was okay in Doom 1 and 2 but not in 3. I would think that if there was a modern Doom (a real modern Doom, mind you) it might need less enemies, but also more sophisticated shooting mechanics. And of course, a non-linear maze-like level design.
3) The games are short. It showed me about 8 hours beating Doom 2 and less for Doom 1. And yet, they still felt like full experiences to me. I wonder why that is. In modern games I have my somewhat arbitrary 40-hour rule, and I think it fits well. Maybe it's just because there was no "fluff" in Doom 1 and 2. It just cuts the bullshit and gets right to it. And you move fast, which works well with those larger levels. I'm trying to imagine what the games would be like if your movement speed was like that of modern games. It would probably double the game length but feel boring and drawn out.
The other thing I noticed is that I only played it in bits and pieces. About an hour at a time before taking a break. I'm wondering why that is. It wasn't that I didn't like the game, since I would feel the urge to play again not too long afterwards. It was the same way for Thief 1 and 2, only doing a mission or two at a time before stopping. In modern games, if I'm really into one, I can easily go 8 hours or more without stopping. So what's the difference? Could it be that lack of "fluff" I mentioned earlier, or something else?
4) Doom 2 was considerably harder than Doom 1 (I played on the medium difficulty, by the way). In fact it really feels like the second half of Doom, if they were one game. No dip in difficulty at the beginning. In that game they really threw hordes of enemies at you, and brought bosses from Doom 1 in as normal enemies. Doom 2 is a true "sequel" by the old definition of the word - a game that expects you to have played the first beforehand. You don't get those anymore.
-Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'll probably be playing some more older fps's in the near future. I'm definitely looking at Quake, and a friend suggested Duke Nukem 3D. Any others I should be aware of?
Anyway, I remember when my mom first got a computer (I was in fourth grade) there was a demo disk that came with it that had lots of different games. One of them was the first episode from Doom 1. So that was one of the first PC games I played. It's funny how I waited so long (about 14 years by my reckoning) to finally play the entire game. Not sure why I decided to now.
Anyway, here's some random thoughts and impressions I got while playing the two games.
1) Level design, level design, level design. It was so awesome, the maze-like levels with all the little secrets and pick-ups you could find, as well as the adventure-like elements of finding keycards and flipping switches to make shit happen. Exploration was just as much a part of the gameplay as the actual shooting. If you look at it, the shooting mechanics were of course very primitive by today's standards. You don't "aim" so much as point in the general direction of an enemy, for one. If the game was just shooting and nothing else, it would be ass. Think about it - it really would. But the exploration elements more than make up for that, and I would say are the real meat of the game.
It makes me wonder how what many consider to be the first "real fps" would have such a strong exploration element. Maybe because it was a new genre and so they would borrow elements from other genres? Like the adventure genre? That was still strong at the time, so my vote goes with that.
It also makes me wonder where the turning point was to these linear, "more immersive" fps's. If I had to pick I'd say Half-Life, but maybe some of you have more knowledge on this.
2) When I played the Doom 3 demo, that was enough for me. I didn't like the constant action and enemies being constantly thrown at me. When I was done with the demo I felt exhasuted. Playing Doom 1 and 2, though, it seems the "rate" of enemy spawn was the same. And I didn't find it exhausting. One thing I can think of would be the simpler graphics, as well as the lack of complex gradients of light that are more intensive on the eyes. The other thing would be, as I said earlier, the lack of a real need to aim, in the manner that we aim today in modern fps's, which is also more intensive. Or maybe it's just the level exploration elements gave a feeliong of "downtime" to the player, or at least something else to focus his mind on, whereas Doom 3 was completely linear. Whatever the reason, the end result was that the monster spawn was okay in Doom 1 and 2 but not in 3. I would think that if there was a modern Doom (a real modern Doom, mind you) it might need less enemies, but also more sophisticated shooting mechanics. And of course, a non-linear maze-like level design.
3) The games are short. It showed me about 8 hours beating Doom 2 and less for Doom 1. And yet, they still felt like full experiences to me. I wonder why that is. In modern games I have my somewhat arbitrary 40-hour rule, and I think it fits well. Maybe it's just because there was no "fluff" in Doom 1 and 2. It just cuts the bullshit and gets right to it. And you move fast, which works well with those larger levels. I'm trying to imagine what the games would be like if your movement speed was like that of modern games. It would probably double the game length but feel boring and drawn out.
The other thing I noticed is that I only played it in bits and pieces. About an hour at a time before taking a break. I'm wondering why that is. It wasn't that I didn't like the game, since I would feel the urge to play again not too long afterwards. It was the same way for Thief 1 and 2, only doing a mission or two at a time before stopping. In modern games, if I'm really into one, I can easily go 8 hours or more without stopping. So what's the difference? Could it be that lack of "fluff" I mentioned earlier, or something else?
4) Doom 2 was considerably harder than Doom 1 (I played on the medium difficulty, by the way). In fact it really feels like the second half of Doom, if they were one game. No dip in difficulty at the beginning. In that game they really threw hordes of enemies at you, and brought bosses from Doom 1 in as normal enemies. Doom 2 is a true "sequel" by the old definition of the word - a game that expects you to have played the first beforehand. You don't get those anymore.
-Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'll probably be playing some more older fps's in the near future. I'm definitely looking at Quake, and a friend suggested Duke Nukem 3D. Any others I should be aware of?
