Is Doom style level design antiquated?

By "Doom style" I am not talking about the "find keycard or switch to unlock door" gameplay formula of games like Doom, but rather I am talking about the visual and map design itself (no true 3D room above another room, no sloped geo, maze like levels etc). I am seriously split on this.

On one hand Doom is a classic, and I have played countless user made mods and wads for it over the years using modern source ports. One the other hand, I can't help but feel that the look and design of the original campaigns just hasn't aged well whatsoever. Many people claim Doom has abstract level design, but even abstract designs still generally resemble reality in at least some way (Duke Nukem 3D's levels are a good example of this). Doom's levels for the most part don't. There are a few levels in the first episode that sort of resemble a space base, but otherwise there is no real way to tell what is suppose to be going on. Even the texture design is often not not very good at telling you where you are suppose to be. It all feels very crude and random.

I also can't agree that the level design is a stroke of genius gameplay wise. Fans claim the level design and encounters are expertly put together, but as far as I can tell most levels just consist of walking into a room, gunning down all the monsters, walking into another room where you also gun down the monsters, activate a trap here and there that might open up a wall or teleport some monsters in etc. I'm just not seeing where the depth is.

Now, keep it in mind this doesn't mean Doom isn't fun. The other elements of the game have actually aged pretty well in my opinion. I am ONLY talking about the level design itself.

What is your take on this subject matter? Is Doom style level design still legit, or is it just a relic from history?

 

Anything is a valid design choice if you do it well. Project Warlock does this and it's pretty well received.

 

The lackluster level design is actually a pretty big part of the reason I did not like that game. It's level design is like an in-between of Wolf-3D and Doom. It's simplistic to a fault. There were other reasons I did not like that game as well though they are mostly gameplay related.

 

I've never played doom, but I can say that Halo CE had similar aesthetics/designs. At least the multiplayer levels. Seems to be a thing of the times. I still love that simplistic aesthetic. It leaves things up to your imagination. Halo 4 and Halo 5 have waaayyy too much detail.

It seems to me that levels can try to look like something that might exist in reality, or might be so abstract as to only be particularly and practically suited for gameplay. I recall you could do some really creative things back then with map design and players would just accept it and say its cool.

The thing that I really hate about American culture is everything has to be about that american way of life. Look at The Bee Movie... its literally a replication of American life in the world of bee's, and to me that is ridiculous and requires no conceptual imagination on the artist and writers part (apart from the character/vehicle/scene designs).

Many movies and even games today follow that format... ugh.

I want to mention that I love threads like this. Thoughtful. Keep em' coming!

 

There are no new fads.

If its the right thing at the right time, goodie for you. If it's not, try again.

Personally I think Doom has aged pretty well, considering. To me graphics don't need to be realistic to be immersive, they just have to have a certain quality... gesamtkunstwerk. Don't think there is an english equivalent. But this comes from overall game design, not graphics or level design alone.

Did Doom represent some high level of game design refinement? I dunno. It was like, the first (3d shooter). It's still fun to play today, so it can't be that bad. Modern games have come a long way -- a lot of crap I don't like has been added but a lot has been improved as well.

Personally I like level design that keeps me moving forward without extreme effort but expects me to pay attention just enough to not get lost. I don't care if the levels make perfect snse realistically it or not. Doom did this pretty well. You can mostly just zone out and blast your way forward, but occassionally you got to slow down, pay attention and do some low-effort memory exercise. Not a big deal, just enough to keep you engaged and make you feel like your oh-so-smart.

When it comes to shooting I like dynamic gameplay wthat allows me to circle around and "outsmart" the bad guys. Don't need any genius here, just big open areas and some cover. Nowadays most games have more vertical environments so there's added degree of complexity.

Doom had a nice strafey-dance that felt pretty good and had plenty of variety given enemy and weapon types. I think that's what's most important in a shooter -- a good game feel that's enjoyable to replay the 1000th time and doesnt hinge on "upgrades" and "progression."

 

It is legit. Even more than so, but one quote comes to mind from John Romero after Quake came out:
"If you can make same level in Doom - you've failed".

This comes to the 3D aspect of the design.
Because of how original Doom engine works, you cannot have one place above / below another.
So they're basically horizontal. Modern games usually mash together vertical design and horizontal almost equally. That's why they do not look like Doom anymore.

Nobody can forbid you from making completely horizontal levels, but a bit of verticality spice will never harm anyone. Just make sure you do not over do it, because you might end up confusing on there player should go in the end.

Also, here's how to make good looking maps in Doom. Funny enough, these rules quite decently transition even to the modern days engines:

 

This kind of level design is considered retro. AFAIK, modern FPS games never use it. If your game is retro then it may work, but it will have a very niche appeal.

 

We used to call that niche "mainstream" at least in gaming circles. Haha

 

There's no yes or no for indies, and that's a fact. People get indie games for a reason.

 

Modern shooters tend to oversimplify things, streamlining whole process. (Run forward to win)
Oh, and backtracking. Almost doesn't exists nowadays, but if made correctly it can be very powerful use of space.
(Not like Skyrim though, ugh)

Personally, I almost always prefer retro-style level design in games.
E.g. lots of stuff to explore, traps, secrets, keys etc.

It's a shame that most of the AAA games do not do this kind of stuff anymore.

I guess the main issue for me is that levels that you play do not evolve drastically as you play.
(Like in realtime, not by swapping scenes on next level reload)

There's no platform lowering, no enemy ambushes from the locked rooms, etc.

 

AAA doesn't do it but that's because indies can and should fill that void

 

Niche games don't necessarily mean the niche is small, though, so... don't worry too much about that? The game DUSK, a retro FPS inspired by games like Quake and Blood, sold 70,000 copies in a single month, which is nothing to shake a stick at.

 

It was all originally based on the BSP Binary Space Partitioning tree, which was sort of similar to a height map but with walls. And this was then used as part of the rendering system to raycast into the BSP tree to find wall intersections ie surfaces.

The BSP level editors are I think fairly simple to use given you one have to think about one sort of 'level', I imagine it becomes more complex as you start to have multiple levels in a building or whatever.

Also note that BSP generally didn't lend itself well to any-angle polygons like you might find in an outside environment, which was why these games tended to be mostly indoor or at least no 'terrain' part to it. I think since people have moved to simply using triangle-based GPU's for rendering all that sort of went out the window, so to speak, and now you can do any kind of 3d environment as models.

 

Of course its antiquated. Its old and it was very much a product of the available technology at the time. Had the engine been capable of looking up/down, you can bet the designers would have used it. That's pretty much the definition of antiquated.

Antiquated doesn't mean bad. Some people like vintage cars. An you can certainly make an absolute mess of level design with modern engines. But it does mean it won't fly today on the modern mass market.

 

How many people do you think would even notice, though?

 

Yes, it depends on the genre. In collectable hero games the levels are just 3 fights in a row. But many have fully 3D maps, with twists and turns, which your toons auto-run through. In most pocket MMO's you run through a linear map - maybe a rock pillar which you can run around on ether side, which merges back. But they have complex switchback stairs, running up and down hills, hard to find cave entrances (which is the only way forward).

I remember when you were expected to get graph paper for the map - like Wizardry or Bard's Tale. Now you have to know the map in MOBAs, and first-person PvP games, but what else?

 

On mobile, you'd be fine.

If you tried to put a Doom level into Overwatch, COD or PUBG, you'd get hammered.

 

A large part of that is because of the type of game play it is crafted toward. Such a open world, multiplayer, or cover shooters, etc. Doom was not conceived as a these, but instead of what they are now calling, push forward combat.

OP should checkout this, to see how things evolved. (IMO, mostly flat is ok, but some height should be used for anything that wants to be 'modern').

 

I seem to recall Doom levels using height a fair bit. It's just overlapping areas that it couldn't do, right?

 

Yup, same with the Build engine.

 

Doom used a lot of height for navigational purposes. The height was almost irrelevant for combat purposes. Doom guy had no ability to aim up or down, the engine automagically fixed your projectile trajectory to hit a target. Plus there were no ramps, and very little that could be termed as cover. Its the lack of practical useful elevation that would bother today's audiences.

The lack of multilevel structures would be a lesser problem, which could be designed around with some effort. But you would still be missing out on some of the more interesting set pieces and multiplayer maps from modern FPS games. Overlap allows more options to be built to achieve the same objectives, which is generally good level design.

 

I agree that it made no difference to the input, but I think it made plenty of difference to the combat itself. Randomly pulling up some videos on YouTube, 4 of the 5 levels I've seen so far made significant use of height as a design element - including two where the player was manipulating an elevator which was central to the arena. Using level geometry as "cover" is also a thing, though I agree it's more about the shape of the level than specific cover objects.

 

Original Doom's level design was to fit within some significant constraints. Weak hardware, lack of supporting software, and a short development cycle.

They completed a custom 3D engine using CPU based rendering, designed to run acceptably on a 25 MHz 80386 without an FPU. They developed the game in about a year, including any of the tools they needed, finishing the engine, and all of the game content, without any existing examples of the type of game they were building. All while including about double the levels of most modern shooters.

It is very impressive what they built all things considered, but everyone working on Doom was literally learning as they went, using new tools and breaking new ground. Anyone who has played any of the better Doom mods (Aliens Total Conversion, etc) knows the engine was capable of better level design than was put out with the game, but not by a whole lot.

So all that said, I am of the opinion that the level design was the best they could do with the constraints they were under, and they didn't have the benefit of seeing what would come over the next few years.

 

The thing is about doom is that - yes you will get limited with levels that cannot overlap but in another way, there is less confusion when you are playing. So really it boils down to having a good map designer to begin with rather than should we blindly copy something or not.

 

Also worth noting that with both Doom and Build, there's a long-standing tradition of playing with how the level geometry works and intersects. A lot of Build mods are designed around the idea of spaces that may end up being bigger on the inside, for instance.

Those same limitations that the engines had brought forth a lot of side effects that can change how you design levels from that perspective.

 

The design of the original Doom is indeed antiquated. But it is by no means bad, simply old and somewhat based on technical restrictions. The developers and designers used their limitations effectively and altered the game to take advantage of those restraints instead of fighting against them.

Doom works, and is fun to play, because of how it was designed. The same level design would not work with modern controls, which is where some of the disparity exists. Original Doom's level design worked because you didn't have to worry about aiming up or down. It worked because you could move so fast, and could potentially dodge enemy fire. You could still use a similar approach to level design, but you would have to tie your gameplay loop into that design. Modern stop-and-pop games would not work with the same level layouts. Neither approach is superior, they simply provide different experiences. Whether a player favors one experience or the other is just a matter of preference.

What is important is thinking carefully about your level design, and pairing it properly with your gameplay. Halo worked because it changed up its gameplay, and then tailored its level design accordingly. The two worked in tandem. The same was true for original Doom, and even modern Doom. Modern Doom doesn't play exactly like original Doom, and it shouldn't. It's level designs are different, and that is for the best. Think carefully about what type of experience you are attempting to craft, and then work that into how the game plays, and how the levels are laid out.

 

Aaaaand it sucks.

Don't get me wrong, its okay-ish game. Is it a "Doom"? No, not really.
Comparing to some mods for original Doom it really falls back in both design, gameplay, and level design.
It might be the closest of how it could be in the modern world / for mainstream audience.

What works for the 2016 version would never work for original Doom, otherwise it would be boring as hell.
There's even mods that move gameplay of 2016 version of Doom to original one.
And they're not as fun to play compared to some other mods, like Guncaster, or Demonsteele.

Maybe it boils down to personal preferences, but Doom (Original) >>>>>>> Doom 16 for me.

I agree on the point that both gameplay and level design should be tied nicely together to tailor full experience.

 

The thing is Doom is 1990s era level design, based on the cutting edge technology of the day.

Shouldn't we really be talking about cutting edge modern FPS level design e.g. Doom 2016, PUBG, Fortnite, Battlefield V?

 

No, because this topic is about Classic Doom's level design and also modern level design is ridiculously homogenous due to casting genres that don't generate ultra-profits from the widest possible audience.

You can, of course, start your own thread.

 

Doom 3 was the best Doom. Just loved the design of the mars station. Still holds today. Have played it many times in VR

 

Nothing like a sweet nordic basement simulator.

 

That's interesting. Doom 3 is widely regarded as the black sheep of the franchise.

I enjoyed it, but I think the latest iteration is the best. And by best, I mean the one I got the most replay value from. Only metric I really care about. I think in all of them, the only thing i get from the art and level design is a sense of theme. the fun for me comes down to the weapons handling and movement. There's got to be a satisfying dance between the player and the enemies. IMO, too m uch verticcality or junk in the level design just stymies that.

and that's why the plasma rifle has been my favorite weapon in all games. It's got just a little lag so you can make really cool lead shots that are just so satisfying and in perfect harmony with the kind of strafing you are already doing.

 

Doom 2016 is just a arena shooter. meh in my opinion

 

A really polished, visually stunning, beautifully running arena shooter.

Doom 3 was a slow paced wanna-be horror show with limited replay value. JMO, of course.

Neither are bad, but Doom 3 tried to capitalize on the spookiness that so many felt from the original games but kind of missed the mark.

 

It has great replay value, I have played it probably 10 times not included DLC. and even in COOP. edit: its not that scary no , but neither was the orignal, and I was 13 at the time

edit: I won the swedish championchip in Doom II in 95 by the way. So I'm a old school doom player

 

You did. But most didn't. Which is why I made a point about it being interesting that your review is against the mainstream opinion.

I'm not trashing on the game. I just think it was the least skillfully executed game in the franchise. So far.

 

Well, when did the big mass ever get anything right?

 

I dunno, but for big publishers that is where the money is. And in this case, I agreed with most critic and user reviews that Doom 3 missed the point it seemd to be trying to make.

 

IGN gave it 8.9 not bad at all

 

haha, you don't trust the "masses" but you trust IGN?

again, I didn't say it was a bad game. Just the weakest of the bunch and there was a pretty focused point to most critic and user reviews about it missing the mark. It tried to be horror but wasn't so great at that and then the left-over shooting was kind of ho-hum.

 

nah, I just ment for a game that didn't appeal to the mindless drones of the general public 8.9 is pretty ok. The weakest one was 2016.

 

Reported for nonsense lies

 

Since the first two Dooms helped to define "just arena shooters", that explains why the one that doesn't fit that description is the one least appreciated.

Aside from the theme there was a lot in Doom 3 that was fundamentally different to it's predecessors. It was slow rather than fast, claustrophobic rather than open, level structures seemed quite different. Not necessarily bad things (plenty of highly successful, well regarded games have these characteristics) but probably not what fans of the earlier Doom games were after.

While it's still quite different, personally I really enjoy Doom (2016) as a modern take on the speed and openness of Doom 1 and 2. Yes, it's an arena shooter, but it manages to hit notes that the first two games did and which are absent from most FPSs since things started turning "cinematic".

 

The first two was not pure arena shooters no, though the games at that time was so simple so its hard doing a comparison

 

Ahem.

A little bit about that: I played Doom 2016 recently. Every map I went through, I was seeing how it would have been done in DOOM. Eventually, I got curious enough to try whether the gameplay ports back well (without code mods). And it does!

The arenas DOOM 2016 puts you in, with the multiple levels removed or shifted around, they do work quite well with the usual strafe-dancing and projectile monsters in vanilla DOOM. The only "unfair" enemy really is the chaingunner so that one needs to be used lightly, and thankfully no Archviles and brown Cacodemons spitting out Lost Souls (both just annoying AF and not the least bit satisfying to kill).

 

My point stands.

That's not what Doom's all about.
Each level in original Doom or Doom 2, or Final Doom has its own unique flow.

Video reminds me of Zone 300 wad (where level consists of 300 linedefs max).
And even then, in comparison to, its pretty darn poor.

Too many barrels, too many stairs, too many micro-details for the map of this size & scope... in the end feels claustrophobic just by looking at it. Try running around the arena non-stop (not peek & hide behind the corners, which is also a sign of poor map design!). You'll understand quite fast enough by getting constantly stuck on a random clutter.

I mean I get the idea, its playable. But is it really enjoyable?

 

It is quite enjoyable! You may not remember how claustrophobic Doom maps were. I was just playing Episode 2 with friends. tiny corridors, not even wide enough to strafe-evade anything, with extremely low ceilings too, and dark AND blinking, insane enemy pits in tiny rooms that you get teleported into, labyrinthian mazes, long acid pits, crushers with tight timings, secret within secret within secret within secret within secret.

I couldn't believe it myself but essentially most of episode 2 was crap with only few areas that stood out. Not looking forward to episode 3 because I remember that as the worst ...

While playtesting, I thought that some corridors could be wider, but didn't want to have to change a lot of geometry considering Doom's overall tightness.

 

Ep2 was designed with that in mind.

E02M01 is pretty much straight forward, but sets a tone;
E02M02 is a large mazy warehouse, but its still fun to navigate around;
E02M03 has those cacos trapped inside & unique texture used only in one place, layout is pretty okay-ish too;
E02M04 uses pretty open areas to traverse;
E02M05 has too brown sections, and a bit claustrophobic. Yep.
E02M06 has open & closed sections, a bit claustrophobic as well;
E02M07 is large, same-y as E02M06, but better & much more interesting.
E02M08 is iconic. Nuff said;
E02M09 is iconic as well.

So overall, 2 maps out of Ep2 is "kinda" like that. But they're still overall, nice to navigate & explore.

Ep3 is pretty cool too:
E03M01 is pretty straight forward, sets a tone to the lack of ammo;
E03M02 map "the hand", open.
E03M03 has tight areas, still traversable;
E03M04 has tight areas, still traversable;
E03M05 map with teleport traps & lots of backtracking;
E03M06 "fireblue" the map, cool concept, plenty open. Also, secret exit;
E03M07 somewhat straight-forward;
E03M08 nobody cares;
E03M09 cool "gotcha" map;

Ep4 is where real pain starts. Ammo & health starvation, tightly packed areas, lots of enemies;
Ep5 is the "why" of all. Pretty much challenge to play on UV. Lots of tricks to mess around with the player. But I guess that's just a tribute from Romero.

For the Doom2, I'm pretty sure everybody remembers Entryway, Underhalls, Crusher, Dead Simple, Tricks & Traps, Circle of Destruction, abysmal city levels (Downtown with an arrow pointing lmao), Barrels o' Fun, abysmal The Chasm (hello 1px-wide platforming), Abandoned Mines and disappointing Icon of Sin.

For the Final Doom, there are a bunch of maps as well, such as "Hunted" that are unique to this day as a concept.

Tl;DR:
Its not that bad for the Ultimate Doom.
There are a some of maps that can be tricky to find a way, but they're cool to explore. Maps that burn into your memory and still recognizable years after. Not some generic arena's that nobody remembers already (5 years have passed from D16!)

Key-factor back then was:
Run, explore, collect & enjoyably destroy lots of hellspawn;

Key-factor now:
Run around in a tight repetitive arenas, do mario platforming, mash buttons, switch weapons, play monster chess (why), cringe at attempts of nostalgia and color palette. Oh, and also watch short cutscenes each 30s because designers were too lazy to place item pickups.

Maybe that's just me, cause I've replayed OG Doom too many times.

 

I've been a big DOOM buff and played it back and forth, but haven't replayed the original episodes in well over 20 years so that experience was more frustrating than I expected. In particular those extremely narrow corridors, and the seizure inducing pitch-black to fullbright blinking sections, and in part terrible navigation. In coop we got lost all the time, that didn't happen in episode 1.

Episode 2 had a lot of the "open a trap full of monsters" encounters (particularly big mobs in narrow spaces) so that was pretty annoying too given that often it was just one of us in that encounter while the other were trying to find their way back (or forth).

 

It depends sort of who your audience is. Sometimes a simpler tool with limitations can appeal to certain niche audiences. Using binary space partitioning or whatever with a sort of plan-view map. .. you can create plenty of interesting games with that. Let's not forget unity's terrain system is still based on a single texture layer with no overlaps or holes. And it may be simpler and easier for many people to create levels with than if they have to deal with a quake-level technology allowing multiple layered floors etc. If I recall the main jump between doom and quake was that doom originally was a single layer using BSP quake introduced more variegation in the geometry. At least before the later versions of doom etc. A simple map editor e.g. where you just take the mouse and "draw" freehand the outline of some kind of cave or room system etc, that's gotta be a big time saver and quite easy to use, compared to some other level editors. It just depends if there is enough flexibility to appeal to some people who are okay with the the tradeoff of limitations vs possibilities.