A response to Fragmaster's
editorial on Doom 2000.
question of id making a Doom sequel is a contentious one. I need
not remind anyone (well, anyone except newbies) of the original
game's influence on the entire gaming world. However, questions
still hang around the idea of another sequel to Doom.
the sequel be compared to the originals? This may not seem
a very important question at first glance but I believe it really
should be addressed. Let me first remind everyone of the Doom
technology... "2D extruded into the third dimension" and "2.5D"
are just two of the terms used to describe the 2D/3D engine. I
presume that a sequel would use a true 3D engine, which would
break the connection to the first two games. Doom also has very
distinctive and recognizable graphics and gameplay. Subconsciously
a "true" 3D, in the style of Quake, would not feel the
same. What do I suggest? I believe id should try using an updated
doom engine (GLDoom, for instance). The graphics of these GL versions
are very good and I also think that had Doom never existed and
a Doom-type game with 2D sprites had been released after Quake,
critics would of thought of the graphics as artistic and expressionistic.
consider this next question to be a minor point, but where could
the story go from the end of "Hell On Earth"? The very
fact that id choose to make Quake, their first true 3D game, separate
from Doom illustrates the fact that it is difficult to carry on
this storyline. After all, they could of made a lot of money simply
out of the Doom name (Doom being id's biggest seller to date).
But who cares
about single player anyway? Well I do, but I am also well aware
of the massive multiplayer following that id games have. How would
multiplayer be implemented in the Doom environment? Would ID create
new skins, power ups, etc. that a modern MP fan would enjoy? This
would change the content of the game... would it still be Doom?
design is another extremely nostalgic feature of Doom, and many
people still reminisce about it's unique maps. I am not about
to say that these levels are crap (just for the record, I love
Doom and still play it occasionally) but the whole concept of
level design has evolved from the days of Doom. The best example
is Half-Life; you won't find weapons and ammo lying around (like
in Doom), you have to mainly get it off enemies. Even Quake and
Quake 2 show signs of this change in level designing (finding
data CD's instead of keys for instance). When comparing Doom's
level design, it seems to be positively prehistoric, yet these
levels make Doom what it is (I fear that reminiscing about the
design and multitude of monsters would make this article blend
into all the other Doom articles, so I shall stop). However, the
question still remains; "what basic plan would id follow
when designing levels..."?
I also think
that the hype would kill the game before it has a chance to get
out. id is always very careful not to hype their games up too
much; the first major publicity for most of their games is when
they release a test. This is successful because id relies on the
gamers actually playing the game and then hyping it themselves.
id might be keeping Doom 2000 under wraps because if the game
is confirmed then hype would start spilling out from every media
outlet. "So what?" you may claim, "This is doom,
it can survive the hype, can't it?" Well that's what many
thought about the new Star Wars movie...
2000 articles could be called very premature considering that
all id has actually done is to secure the "Doom2000.com" domain
name. And I realize that this article is very negative, but I'm
just giving my opinion and asking a lot of questions. This is
because the success of Doom 2000 would not ultimately come down
to me; it would come down to the entire gaming community.
And now for
a rebuttal from John Brownlee.