Meh.
There's a new 'official' WAD just added to the "DooM + DooM II"
bundle. Called "Sigil 2" and made by Romero himself, it's...
In the meantime, I d/led it and will figure out how to make it run in
GZDoom in my spare time. Thank you!
In the meantime, I d/led it and will figure out how to make it run in >>GZDoom in my spare time. Thank you!
Run it with this nice bundle:
https://limitedrungames.com/products/doom-doom-ii-will-it-run-edition-switch-ps5-xbox-pc
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 13:22:18 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Damn, and I was about to shout at you for being off topic in an action
Meh.
There's a new 'official' WAD just added to the "DooM + DooM II"
bundle. Called "Sigil 2" and made by Romero himself, it's...
games group when you're talking about how WoTC created a second "Sigil" project and killed it even faster.
"More doom for WoTC"
In the meantime, I d/led it and will figure out how to make it run in
GZDoom in my spare time. Thank you!
Meh.
There's a new 'official' WAD just added to the "DooM + DooM II"
bundle. Called "Sigil 2" and made by Romero himself, it's...
...you know, I don't even care. I've never been that much a fan of
Romero's level design aesthetics, and definitely not his
puzzle-and-platform heavy "oooh, I'm a hard-core 1337 gamer" of his
recent mods. There's very little actual info about the wad itself,
except Romeo's sad boasting that he made the levels so difficult that
even he can't finish them on the hardest mode.
I guess that's an appealing trait to level design for some? Not me,
though.
Technically, this isn't a 'new' release; Sigil II came out over a year
ago. It is only now being included as part of the "DooM + DooM II"
(the one that uses the Kex engine) as part of promotion for soon-to-be-released "Doom Dark Ages"). But if you don't own that
version, you can download it from here: https://www.doomworld.com/idgames/levels/doom/Ports/s-u/sigil_ii_v1_0
It won't work on original DOS-Doom, though. I don't care what Bethesda
says, if it won't run on the original software, it's not an official continuation of the Doom games. ;-)
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 13:22:18 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Damn, and I was about to shout at you for being off topic in an action
Meh.
There's a new 'official' WAD just added to the "DooM + DooM II"
bundle. Called "Sigil 2" and made by Romero himself, it's...
games group when you're talking about how WoTC created a second "Sigil" project and killed it even faster.
"More doom for WoTC"
In the meantime, I d/led it and will figure out how to make it run in
GZDoom in my spare time. Thank you!
On 14/04/2025 00:39, Zaghadka wrote:
In the meantime, I d/led it and will figure out how to make it run inI understand why people can get excited by all things Doom due to the >position it has in PC gaming history but the problem I have, I never
GZDoom in my spare time. Thank you!
played it so I don't have that nostalgia hit which I believe is a big
part of its appeal.
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote at 23:39 this Sunday (GMT):
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 13:22:18 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Damn, and I was about to shout at you for being off topic in an action
Meh.
There's a new 'official' WAD just added to the "DooM + DooM II"
bundle. Called "Sigil 2" and made by Romero himself, it's...
games group when you're talking about how WoTC created a second "Sigil"
project and killed it even faster.
"More doom for WoTC"
In the meantime, I d/led it and will figure out how to make it run in
GZDoom in my spare time. Thank you!
Tell us how it goes!
I understand why people can get excited by all things Doom due to theOh, you should try it. It has a very accessible feel to it. It's not nostalgia, it really is an earthshatteringly good game. If you don't like really old-school controls (no WASD or mouselook), GZDoom will give you
position it has in PC gaming history but the problem I have, I never
played it so I don't have that nostalgia hit which I believe is a big
part of its appeal.
those without compromising the game. Just remember, you're not aiming at anything with that mouselook. It only feels that way.
OTOH, Quake is total nostalgia. What it did has been done better. Low
polygon models and bad particle effects are not a draw.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 07:41:05 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB wrote:
On 14/04/2025 00:39, Zaghadka wrote:
In the meantime, I d/led it and will figure out how to make it run inI understand why people can get excited by all things Doom due to the >>position it has in PC gaming history but the problem I have, I never
GZDoom in my spare time. Thank you!
played it so I don't have that nostalgia hit which I believe is a big
part of its appeal.
Oh, you should try it. It has a very accessible feel to it. It's not nostalgia, it really is an earthshatteringly good game. If you don't like really old-school controls (no WASD or mouselook), GZDoom will give you
those without compromising the game. Just remember, you're not aiming at anything with that mouselook. It only feels that way.
OTOH, Quake is total nostalgia. What it did has been done better. Low
polygon models and bad particle effects are not a draw.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 19:00:04 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, candycanearter07 wrote:
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote at 23:39 this Sunday (GMT):
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 13:22:18 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Damn, and I was about to shout at you for being off topic in an action
Meh.
There's a new 'official' WAD just added to the "DooM + DooM II"
bundle. Called "Sigil 2" and made by Romero himself, it's...
games group when you're talking about how WoTC created a second "Sigil"
project and killed it even faster.
"More doom for WoTC"
In the meantime, I d/led it and will figure out how to make it run in
GZDoom in my spare time. Thank you!
Tell us how it goes!
Easy as drag-and-drop as soon as you point GZDoom at the right DOOM.WAD.
It's really interesting map design so far. Romero does a good job with
those. Lots of thinking on your feet. Ammo shortages. Etc.
Unfortunately, since I got my HDR monitor, some full-screen SDR games
cause the monitor to come back dimmed.
Which is how I learned that CTRL+SHFT+Win+B is the "reset graphics
driver" keyboard command.
Sigil II is pretty nice. Good level design. Difficult. It's no "Brutal
DOOM" though.
On 15/04/2025 23:09, Zaghadka wrote:
I understand why people can get excited by all things Doom due to theOh, you should try it. It has a very accessible feel to it. It's not nostalgia, it really is an earthshatteringly good game. If you don't like really old-school controls (no WASD or mouselook), GZDoom will give you those without compromising the game. Just remember, you're not aiming at anything with that mouselook. It only feels that way.
position it has in PC gaming history but the problem I have, I never
played it so I don't have that nostalgia hit which I believe is a big
part of its appeal.
OTOH, Quake is total nostalgia. What it did has been done better. Low polygon models and bad particle effects are not a draw.
Honestly probably not as I do remember playing Quake II and the single
player part I just didn't enjoy as it felt (with good reason) that I was doing the same thing over-and-over again. The multiplayer part was quite
fun though.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 17:09:48 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 07:41:05 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB >wrote:
On 14/04/2025 00:39, Zaghadka wrote:
In the meantime, I d/led it and will figure out how to make it run inI understand why people can get excited by all things Doom due to the >>position it has in PC gaming history but the problem I have, I never >>played it so I don't have that nostalgia hit which I believe is a big >>part of its appeal.
GZDoom in my spare time. Thank you!
Oh, you should try it. It has a very accessible feel to it. It's not >nostalgia, it really is an earthshatteringly good game. If you don't like >really old-school controls (no WASD or mouselook), GZDoom will give you >those without compromising the game. Just remember, you're not aiming at >anything with that mouselook. It only feels that way.
Especially with something like BrutalDoom. The updated visuals and
ridiculous amounts of gore transform the game, and make it a lot of
silly fun.
OTOH, Quake is total nostalgia. What it did has been done better. Low >polygon models and bad particle effects are not a draw.
Honestly, tech aside, I was never as impressed with "Quake" even when
it was new. And now that it's tech is ancient, it's got very little to
offer.
I still play Doom semi-regularly. I almost never fire up Quake.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 19:00:04 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, candycanearter07 wrote:
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote at 23:39 this Sunday (GMT):
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 13:22:18 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Meh.Damn, and I was about to shout at you for being off topic in an action
There's a new 'official' WAD just added to the "DooM + DooM II"
bundle. Called "Sigil 2" and made by Romero himself, it's...
games group when you're talking about how WoTC created a second
"Sigil"
project and killed it even faster.
"More doom for WoTC"
In the meantime, I d/led it and will figure out how to make it run in
GZDoom in my spare time. Thank you!
Tell us how it goes!
Easy as drag-and-drop as soon as you point GZDoom at the right DOOM.WAD.
It's really interesting map design so far. Romero does a good job with
those. Lots of thinking on your feet. Ammo shortages. Etc.
Unfortunately, since I got my HDR monitor, some full-screen SDR games
cause the monitor to come back dimmed.
Which is how I learned that CTRL+SHFT+Win+B is the "reset graphics
driver" keyboard command.
Sigil II is pretty nice. Good level design. Difficult. It's no "Brutal
DOOM" though.
Sigil II is pretty nice. Good level design. Difficult. It's no "Brutal
DOOM" though.
It's not Brutal DOOM in a good way or bad?
Quake was impressive tech for its day, and it featured some many ideas
that have since become de rigeur for FPS games nowadays, but it was
too focused on arena-combat gameplay and its lore was a mess. Bleh.
;-)
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 19:26:58 -0000 (UTC), ant@zimage.comANT (Ant)
wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
I still play Doom semi-regularly. I almost never fire up Quake.
Classic Doom > Quake for me. I remember my friends and I tried qtestx86
for Linux in the computer lab. The PC didn't have audio card, but it was >amazing esp. in Linux. Then, came QuakeWorld with better Internet play.
I could play it with my crappy dial-up modems!
I'm confused by your use of the > symbol. It implies that Doom is
better (which it obviously is ;-) but then you rave about Quake. The
maths don't check out!!!!111!!!
Quake was impressive tech for its day, and it featured some many ideas
that have since become de rigeur for FPS games nowadays, but it was
too focused on arena-combat gameplay and its lore was a mess. Bleh.
;-)
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 11:19:09 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:12:26 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Quake was impressive tech for its day, and it featured some many ideas >>>that have since become de rigeur for FPS games nowadays, but it was
too focused on arena-combat gameplay and its lore was a mess. Bleh.
;-)
You also *had* to buy a Pentium. I remember throwing my AMD 486DX4-100 at >>it and still getting "Mr. Turtle."
You didn't HAVE to buy a Pentium (but boy did it help!)
Some of us were playing Quake on x486 chips. It was... rough, even for
me (and I'm really tolerant of low FPS). But I endured it until I got
that super-fast 100MHz pentium (and, eventually, a 3DFX card).
Not that any of that really made the gameplay more _fun_... but it
made it more _tolerable_ ;-P
Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:I'm sure that's what it was. The 386 was good for the game 'La
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 11:19:09 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:12:26 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Quake was impressive tech for its day, and it featured some many ideas >>>>> that have since become de rigeur for FPS games nowadays, but it was
too focused on arena-combat gameplay and its lore was a mess. Bleh.
;-)
You also *had* to buy a Pentium. I remember throwing my AMD 486DX4-100 at >>>> it and still getting "Mr. Turtle."
You didn't HAVE to buy a Pentium (but boy did it help!)
Some of us were playing Quake on x486 chips. It was... rough, even for
me (and I'm really tolerant of low FPS). But I endured it until I got
that super-fast 100MHz pentium (and, eventually, a 3DFX card).
Not that any of that really made the gameplay more _fun_... but it
made it more _tolerable_ ;-P
I've tried it on my 486 DX4 100. Barely playable. The first machine I
ran Quake on was an AMD K5 100MHz, and it ran it OK at 320x240
resolution, and satisfactorily at 400x300.
That Pentium instruction set and faster cache/memory sure made a
difference.
Cucaracha'. Basically you would eat the cheese minis cracker and
hurgender cheese. Then you fart and they have cracker aesctetic.
Cockroaches will stare at the moon before acknowledgigabyte drives,
carefully stored gigabyte they tell you boards of ca.
On 2025-04-18, Mandrake the Perihelion <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:I'm sure that's what it was. The 386 was good for the game 'La
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 11:19:09 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:12:26 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >>>>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Quake was impressive tech for its day, and it featured some many ideas >>>>>> that have since become de rigeur for FPS games nowadays, but it was >>>>>> too focused on arena-combat gameplay and its lore was a mess. Bleh. >>>>>> ;-)
You also *had* to buy a Pentium. I remember throwing my AMD 486DX4-100 at >>>>> it and still getting "Mr. Turtle."
You didn't HAVE to buy a Pentium (but boy did it help!)
Some of us were playing Quake on x486 chips. It was... rough, even for >>>> me (and I'm really tolerant of low FPS). But I endured it until I got
that super-fast 100MHz pentium (and, eventually, a 3DFX card).
Not that any of that really made the gameplay more _fun_... but it
made it more _tolerable_ ;-P
I've tried it on my 486 DX4 100. Barely playable. The first machine I
ran Quake on was an AMD K5 100MHz, and it ran it OK at 320x240
resolution, and satisfactorily at 400x300.
That Pentium instruction set and faster cache/memory sure made a
difference.
Cucaracha'. Basically you would eat the cheese minis cracker and
hurgender cheese. Then you fart and they have cracker aesctetic.
Cockroaches will stare at the moon before acknowledgigabyte drives,
carefully stored gigabyte they tell you boards of ca.
I used to run Doom on a 386 DX running at 20MHz. Now that was
SLOW. Even in low detail mode, but I perservered because it was better
than not experiencing the game at all.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 15:00:04 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, candycanearter07 wrote:
Sigil II is pretty nice. Good level design. Difficult. It's no "Brutal
DOOM" though.
It's not Brutal DOOM in a good way or bad?
Brutal DOOM totally transforms the game. Sigil II is just a nice map set.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:45:56 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Mandrake the Perihelion <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:I'm sure that's what it was. The 386 was good for the game 'La
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 11:19:09 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:12:26 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >>>>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Quake was impressive tech for its day, and it featured some many ideas >>>>>> that have since become de rigeur for FPS games nowadays, but it was >>>>>> too focused on arena-combat gameplay and its lore was a mess. Bleh. >>>>>> ;-)
You also *had* to buy a Pentium. I remember throwing my AMD 486DX4-100 at
it and still getting "Mr. Turtle."
You didn't HAVE to buy a Pentium (but boy did it help!)
Some of us were playing Quake on x486 chips. It was... rough, even for >>>> me (and I'm really tolerant of low FPS). But I endured it until I got >>>> that super-fast 100MHz pentium (and, eventually, a 3DFX card).
Not that any of that really made the gameplay more _fun_... but it
made it more _tolerable_ ;-P
I've tried it on my 486 DX4 100. Barely playable. The first machine I >>> ran Quake on was an AMD K5 100MHz, and it ran it OK at 320x240
resolution, and satisfactorily at 400x300.
That Pentium instruction set and faster cache/memory sure made a
difference.
Cucaracha'. Basically you would eat the cheese minis cracker and
hurgender cheese. Then you fart and they have cracker aesctetic.
Cockroaches will stare at the moon before acknowledgigabyte drives,
carefully stored gigabyte they tell you boards of ca.
I used to run Doom on a 386 DX running at 20MHz. Now that was
SLOW. Even in low detail mode, but I perservered because it was better
than not experiencing the game at all.
I just put on Wolf3D in those cases. Scratches the same itch.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:45:56 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Mandrake the Perihelion <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:I'm sure that's what it was. The 386 was good for the game 'La
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 11:19:09 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:12:26 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >>>>>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Quake was impressive tech for its day, and it featured some many ideas >>>>>>> that have since become de rigeur for FPS games nowadays, but it was >>>>>>> too focused on arena-combat gameplay and its lore was a mess. Bleh. >>>>>>> ;-)
You also *had* to buy a Pentium. I remember throwing my AMD 486DX4-100 at
it and still getting "Mr. Turtle."
You didn't HAVE to buy a Pentium (but boy did it help!)
Some of us were playing Quake on x486 chips. It was... rough, even for >>>>> me (and I'm really tolerant of low FPS). But I endured it until I got >>>>> that super-fast 100MHz pentium (and, eventually, a 3DFX card).
Not that any of that really made the gameplay more _fun_... but it
made it more _tolerable_ ;-P
I've tried it on my 486 DX4 100. Barely playable. The first machine I >>>> ran Quake on was an AMD K5 100MHz, and it ran it OK at 320x240
resolution, and satisfactorily at 400x300.
That Pentium instruction set and faster cache/memory sure made a
difference.
Cucaracha'. Basically you would eat the cheese minis cracker and
hurgender cheese. Then you fart and they have cracker aesctetic.
Cockroaches will stare at the moon before acknowledgigabyte drives,
carefully stored gigabyte they tell you boards of ca.
I used to run Doom on a 386 DX running at 20MHz. Now that was
SLOW. Even in low detail mode, but I perservered because it was better
than not experiencing the game at all.
I just put on Wolf3D in those cases. Scratches the same itch.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 09:47:37 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
<rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:45:56 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Mandrake the Perihelion <jfwaldby@gmail.com> wrote:
Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 11:19:09 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:I'm sure that's what it was. The 386 was good for the game 'La
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 10:12:26 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, >>>>>>>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Quake was impressive tech for its day, and it featured some many ideas
that have since become de rigeur for FPS games nowadays, but it was >>>>>>>>> too focused on arena-combat gameplay and its lore was a mess. Bleh. >>>>>>>>> ;-)
You also *had* to buy a Pentium. I remember throwing my AMD 486DX4-100 at
it and still getting "Mr. Turtle."
You didn't HAVE to buy a Pentium (but boy did it help!)
Some of us were playing Quake on x486 chips. It was... rough, even for >>>>>>> me (and I'm really tolerant of low FPS). But I endured it until I got >>>>>>> that super-fast 100MHz pentium (and, eventually, a 3DFX card).
Not that any of that really made the gameplay more _fun_... but it >>>>>>> made it more _tolerable_ ;-P
I've tried it on my 486 DX4 100. Barely playable. The first machine I >>>>>> ran Quake on was an AMD K5 100MHz, and it ran it OK at 320x240
resolution, and satisfactorily at 400x300.
That Pentium instruction set and faster cache/memory sure made a
difference.
Cucaracha'. Basically you would eat the cheese minis cracker and
hurgender cheese. Then you fart and they have cracker aesctetic.
Cockroaches will stare at the moon before acknowledgigabyte drives,
carefully stored gigabyte they tell you boards of ca.
I used to run Doom on a 386 DX running at 20MHz. Now that was
SLOW. Even in low detail mode, but I perservered because it was better >>>>than not experiencing the game at all.
I just put on Wolf3D in those cases. Scratches the same itch.
Runs great on them, but Doom is so, so much better.
I played Wolf3D back-in-the-day, and was excited as anyone by its
'novel' first-person action, but equally found its mazelike maps
aggravating, and playing the game too long always gave me splitting headaches. I didn't like its reliance on points, or its use of lives,
and there was a dull sameness to many of the levels thanks to the
limited number of textures, tricks and enemies.
In fact, one of the most exciting things that kept me going through
the game was the soundtrack; not that it was so great (it was okay)
but it was one of the few things that changed from level to level.
What will the new tune be? That's how low the bar was.
My experience with "Doom", though, was completely different. Just the elevation changes made things entirely different. The lighting added atmosphere and character to each map. There were so many more monsters
and weapons too! And the soundtrack; it wasn't just okay, it was
GREAT.
Wolfenstein 3D pretty much dropped off my radar after 10 December
1993. The few times I played it after that date, it was mostly just to
remind myself how much better Doom was than its predecessor.
Although, if I had a 386/20, Wolf3D would be a better fit. Doom could
run on a machine that slow, but you'd have to sacrifice a lot to get a
usable frame rate (detail level low, screen-size = postage stamp). Wolfenstein3D ran a lot better on a computer of that calibre.
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:40:32 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
<rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
I ran Doom with a larger sreen, in fact, as big as it could be with just >>the status bar. Maybe shrunk down one level. It ran like crap, but I >>preferred that over looking at tiny, tiny screen. AFter a while, you
got used to it, and only some levels, like E3M6 really became a major >>headache.
Oh, me too. I've always given 'quality' the edge over 'framerate', and
have been extremely tolerant of low FPS (as I said in an earlier post,
I first played "Quake" on a 486! ;-)
I first saw Wolf3D in the school computer lab, and like you found the 3D >>first person perspective exciting. Nothing like anything else I saw >>before, but I only got to play it during school breaks, ie, every 6
months just for an hour or so.
Oh, undeniably! Wolf3D was very exciting on its release, and it got a
lot of play-time from me too. I was, perhaps, a bit less enthused than
you (games like "Catacombs 3D" and "Ultima Underworld" made the
viewpoint a bit less novel for me) but no other games on market had
the same mix of detail and speed as Wolfenstein. It was an amazing
game, technically, and felt quite revolutionary. But -again, perhaps
because I had games like "Underworld" or Bethesda's 1991 "The
Terminator" to fall back upon, it wasn't as amazing and life-consuming
as "Doom" would prove to be a few years later.
When I first saw Doom, early April 1994 I think, it looked next
generation, something phenomenal and clearly for a far more powerful >>computer. It was like watching black magic, how these "realistic"
scenes were rendered. But I didn't quite get drawn into the aesthetics, >>the demons, the shotgun, and found it to be like a Wolf3D rip off. A >>couple of weeks later, after playing it a little and deleting it, I >>suddenly realised the game was pretty good and got the shareware version >>again and finished it. I was hooked from then on in. More immersive >>levels, flowed and played better. No huge mazes!
Actually, I admit, my initial day-one impressions of "Doom" weren't
too far from yours either. It was very much an "ehn, it's just more
Wolf, but darker and trying too hard to be edgy,* what with the demons
and gore". For all that it's layout is now infamous, E1M1 doesn't
really present "Doom's" strengths very well. I actually remember
playing the game that first time (after a long and arduous download
and install**), and quitting after the first level quite disappointed
at the result.
But Usenet was full of talk about how great this game was, so I
eventually returned to the game.*** The next few levels were similar
(E1M3, which starts in a box-filled warehouse, felt like it could have
been a Wolf3D level). It wasn't until E1M7 that I _really_ started
getting into the game, groking its gameplay and atmosphere fully. By
then I'd started seeing "Doom" more than just "Wolf 4" and more as its
own thing; I could see the technical changes (again, the lighting and elevation changes) and loved how everything came together to create a
mix of brooding, atmospheric horror and off-the-wall non-stop action.
And I've never lost my admiration of the game since, even if I've not
always enjoyed playing it as much.
Wolf3D was neat... but Doom was magic.
* did we even use the word edgy in 1994?
** one of the archives I downloaded was corrupt but I only realized
that after I started installing, requiring me to go back online and
download it again.
*** IIRC, in between bouts of "Wing Commander Privateer" ;-)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 165:39:20 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,525 |