Doom II

It's very rare that a developer gets it right on the first try.

Look at my 10's list, or even a typical critic's list of the greatest games of all time and you will find very few inaugural titles. Super Mario World, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Resident Evil 4, Super Metroid, it's almost always a second, third, fourth, even fifth title in a series that's featured on those lists. I can only think of a few games where a series just knocked it out of the park on the first try. Deus Ex is one, we will definitely be discussing that at some point, probably next year. Chrono Trigger is another, I poke fun of the cult-like obsession with the game but that doesn't change the fact it's an all-time classic and one of the greatest video games ever made. But today, we are going to talk about the sequel to another all-time great series first: Doom. I think I've made my love for the original Doom pretty clear, it's one of my favorite games ever. It's definitely a case of a developer getting it right on the first try. I guess it wasn't REALLY Id Software's first try. You could, in theory, look at Doom as something of a sequel to Wolfenstein, but I don't. Of course, a game as groundbreaking and popular as Doom was going to get a sequel, with Doom II hitting PCs in 1994 and Macs in 1995.

Doom II, subtitled "Hell on Earth," was both critically and commercially successful. While it is largely a well-regarded game, the praise it receives is far less than that of its predecessor. Everyone, and I mean everyone, I knew that played video games in the 90's had some level of familiarity with Doom. Far fewer knew it had a sequel, especially those of us that were primarily console gamers. But why is that? Doom II has essentially the same graphics, game engine and style as its predecessor. It has more content as well, especially when you consider all its expansion pack and master levels releases. So why is it merely considered a good game, while the first Doom is considered great? What is it about the original that causes us to still talk about it to this day while its sequel is somewhat forgotten? Why do people insist on trying to get the original Doom to run on a digital pregnancy test and not Doom II?

First, let's talk about the positives Doom II offers. For one, it's 32+ more levels of demon blasting action that plays just like the first game. There are no new movement abilities, no new controls, no additional gameplay functionality, it's more Doom. There's something to be said for innovation, but there is just as much to be said for not trying to fix what isn't broken. There are tons of new enemies, all of which are awesome. And they added new enemies at every level, not just new grunts or more powerful ones. You have new former humans in chain gunners, slightly weaker versions of the Barons of Hell in Hell Knights and scaled down versions of the Spider Mastermind in Arachnotrons. There are also plenty of completely original designs. Mancubus are big fat monsters that dual wield flamethrowers, they are powerful but also a nice wide target for rockets. Revenants are strong enemies that pump out rapid fire rockets at range and throw nasty right hooks up close. Pain Elementals might be the best designed enemies in the series, these even-uglier cousins of the Cacodemon spit Lost Souls, and release hordes of the little buggers when you defeat them. But no Doom II enemy makes quite the impact like the Arch Vile. I used to have nightmares about these guys, they have an undodgeable thunderclap attack, they revive dead enemies, and they just look generally creepy. All of these monsters are well designed, well balanced and welcome additions to the game.

So, with all these great new enemies, a proven gameplay formula that remains intact and a new weapon (the double barrel shotgun), why isn't Doom II as good as, or better than, the original? The biggest culprit here is level design. Simply put, Doom II just can't match the outstanding design of the original. I know some people complain about the later levels in Doom, I never realized how much everyone hates Slough of Despair, but even at its worst Doom outclasses its successor. Many of the levels in Doom II feel just randomly slapped together, like they just threw a bunch of obstacles at the player that, while challenging, don't really fit together. There seems to be a lot of circular layouts and unnecessary backtracking, which is amplified because the maps are larger this time around. One of the coolest things about the original Doom is the use of trap doors, which release enemies when you reach a certain point in the level or pick up an item. But Doom II absolutely overdoes it, it seems like you can't pick up a single meaningful item without triggering a horde of enemies behind you. This is both frustrating from a gameplay perspective and problematic for the atmosphere, as it starts to lose its shock value when it happens constantly.

Speaking of the atmosphere, that is another area where Doom II lags behind the original. It picks up the story of Doom, with Doomguy (OK, I guess his name is the Doomslayer now, that's way cooler I GUESS) defeating the spider mastermind and returning to Earth...only to find it has also been overrun by demons. He takes up arms yet again, aiming to beat the armies of hell back to whist they came. So, yeah, Hell on Earth. While this is a logical continuation of the story, it also means the levels are set in a more, well, down to Earth environment. It just doesn't feel as threatening or add to the atmosphere like the depths of hell in the first game. It's not necessarily bad, but it just doesn't have the same vibe as the first game. Some games would be able to get past this, but so much of Doom's appeal is its atmosphere, especially at the end of the first game. A lot of that is lost in Doom II.

Speaking of which, the music is also a major part of the atmosphere and I think it took a little bit of a step back. I talked in my review of the original Doom about how many of the tracks were modified versions of popular heavy metal songs. Again, that went a long way in making Doom stand out from its contemporaries and really added to the whole "hell" atmosphere. It also lent itself well to the pacing of a run and gun, blast everything that moves kind of game that Doom is. Much of the music in Doom II are also modified versions of popular songs, but this time they lean a lot harder on grunge songs. Look, I love grunge as much as the next person. If heavy metal isn't my favorite genre of music, grunge most certainly is. But even a great grunge song like 'Them Bones' just doesn't match the pacing of the game like say 'No Remorse' or 'Mouth for War' do. I know there are no lyrics, but when I'm running around hell blowing the crap out of demons, I want to be thinking about James Hetfield screaming about war while Kirk Hammet shreds on guitar and not Layne Staley being a sadboi. A band like Metallica just fits the pace and atmosphere better for blasting demons out of existence like Lars Ulrich did to Napster.

That's a lot of negativity, but I want to reiterate that Doom II is an excellent game and a must play. It's still fun, exciting and action packed. It just doesn't match up to the all-time greatness of Doom 1. It goes to show how minuscule the difference is between good and great games. I had to dig into some pretty deep water to find the difference between a 10 and a score in the low 9s. Doom II is going to be a contender for game of the year when I do my year-end review in a few weeks.  I would recommend that anyone with even a passing interest in FPS', old-school games or the newer Doom titles play Doom II ASAP...just play the original first.

9.25/10