First FPS better than Doom?

[Drop Duck]

Unreal Tournament 2004

If we're talking multiplayer UT99 was the same game as UT04 but did it first and better, so I'd go with that.

 

[Drop Duck]

It's true that the first episode of Doom is miles ahead of the next two, which in their worst moments are outright shit, but Doom's still great on its own merits. The selection of weapons, each with different strengths, and the mechanically distinct enemies work brilliantly together. Even if almost all the good maps come in E1, it's still a lot of fun to play.

It's not a bad game at all but it is understandably front-loaded with the best it has to offer since it was a shareware game. The problem with the guns is that everyone else copied that and since it became a standard it's hard to go back to Doom and still feel the same about it as when it was released. Other than the pistol, which was never a good weapon. It's the case of not being able to be as impressed by Citizen Kane since you're used to things it popularized.

 

[Morenatsu.]

sounds like you were all made John Romero's bitches.

‘I don't like Sandy. He's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and he gets everywhere.’

Tom Hall did nothing wrong.

 

[anvi]

Unreal Tournament 2004

If we're talking multiplayer UT99 was the same game as UT04 but did it first and better, so I'd go with that.

Except for Onslaught I think, which was my favorite mode. But UT99 was godly too.

 

[Drop Duck]

Unreal Tournament 2004

If we're talking multiplayer UT99 was the same game as UT04 but did it first and better, so I'd go with that.

Except for Onslaught I think, which was my favorite mode. But UT99 was godly too.

The addition of vehicles was a change that both did the game favors and made it stand out against the competition but it also detracted from the experience by reducing the intensity that started with deathmatches. People don't remember UT03 these days since UT04 made it obsolete but it didn't have them. The vehicle maps and modes were more akin to Battlefield or Tribes than what you would classically have and was almost a different game and I liked them a lot at the time too, but looking back at it, it isn't what the Unreal Tournament series did best and perhaps shouldn't have been the focus going forward, which it was. The real fun UT provides is blasting your friends up close with a flak cannon, not flying around in a hoover vehicle shooting at a tank or buggy in the distance.

 

[Kruno]

Doom 2!

 

[schru]

The opening post does not make it clear what the user means by the question, so please clarify Arbiter. Depending on in which way the FPS is supposed to be better the answer changes dramatically. If we are looking for which game first improved on what Doom did, copying it and doing it better, then the answer would lie right around the corner by its release date in 1993. If you care more for RPGs than action games then it is tempting to answer that ShadowCaster, but that would be unfair to Doom. It's the same deal with Pathways into Darkness on the Mac released in the same year, being closer to a dungeon crawl than Doom. Jumping into 1994 there's another batch of games that are more complex and interesting than Doom, such as System Shock and Marathon, Marathon being a more fair comparison. Arguably Marathon did some things much better than Doom did. Purely based on personal preference Heretic is better simply due to the fantasy setting and would go on to form a much better series than Doom, with Hexen and its sequel later on shaping up to be the ultimate thinking man's shooter.

By 1995 Doom had certainly been surpassed. LucasArts had the money and knowhow to make a better engine and used in in Dark Forces. Cybermage: Darklight Awakening came out and it had a proper storyline and Deus Ex elements, voice acting and cyber magic. It was the Cyberpunk 2077 of 1995 and sadly was forgotten despite what it did so well. You had Wrath Of Earth, terribly underrated game. Hexen, as mentioned earlier, perfected the maze and key elements of Doom in 1995.

As 1996 rolled around there is no argument to be made that it hadn't, Duke Nukem 3D brought unparalleled levels of detail and interactivity, Chex Quest showed that the fun of Doom wasn't in the edgy setting, you got Strife that improved on the proto-Deus Ex formula established by Cybermage and System Shock. Cinematic shooters like Realms of the Haunting did Half-Life before Half-Life, with FMVs and real adventure game-tier puzzles incorporated into the experience. Killing Time also hit the markets that year, as well as the Marathon sequels. Finally there was Quake by id Software themselves, making the move to fully 3D levels and enemies which is the current standard.

Given how simply the question is put and the candidate Arbiter gave, I'd say it's about general, non-specialized first-person shooters that have some manner of a well-executed and straightforward combat system as their focus. At any rate, Doom is the term of comparison.

I would maintain that not a single FPS has been better than Doom so far, taking the game as a whole with the way all of its elements come together. It'd take a rather long time to go over all its strengths, but in summary they are the variety of enemies and their attack patterns as well as the way they ‘work’ together; enemy placement; an arsenal that is focused and in which every weapon has a different utility appropriate for several kinds of situations (the pistol is there due to the way each map was designed as self-contained, which certainly wasn't resolved satisfactorily in the finished game); the very deliberate use of level geometry to facilitate various interesting encounters and hazards; a very well realized sense of presence in the game in terms of movement and weapon feedback; the over-all rhythm and flow of the action; exploration with the somewhat open level design and interesting secrets and traps; the visual style, music, and the heavy metal + demons theme.

Of course, there have been many particular improvements over Doom in various other games, whether to the same or similar formula, or completely new and fun gameplay mechanics or technological changes that made different things possible. Of all the games mentioned, I'd only hesitate regarding Quake as it's very close in terms of the outlook behind it and strengths of its combat and enemy roster, but playing them close together and comparing them made me feel that Doom had the better balance.

Nearly all pure shooters that were released in the years immediately following Doom typically had very bland combat, being closer to Wolfenstein 3D, just with better audio-visual presentation. As for the specific games mentioned:

- System Shock is certainly a great game, but the actual implementation of first-person combat is abysmal in comparison to Doom's.

- Marathon has an interesting style, but it's also rather simplistic in comparison, with a very basic engagements and levels that might be interesting to explore, but which come down to rather plain corridors when it comes to most specific areas.

- I found Heretic to be very disappointing after rediscovering Doom as I was looking forward to similarly strong combat mechanics, but Raven Software is rather inept in this regard in most its games. The Tomes of Power have very nice effects on the weapons and its fun to use them, but if anything, they're designed in a way to make the bullet-spongy enemies less of a bother to deal with. However, the levels are pretty fun to explore. The way the dark fantasy theme is done doesn't have the same kind of iconic feeling or edge as Doom's style had either.

- Hexen was more interesting stylistically and it had nice, exploration-focused level design. The weapons had a lot of work put into them and feel quite nice to use, but the combat unfortunately is again rather dull and repetitive, relying mostly on large numbers of enemies.

- Dark Forces in no way surpasses Doom in terms of combat gameplay. The atmosphere is quite excellent and the levels are very impressive and fun to explore, but even then they don't connect to the combat in such an elaborate way as the level design in Doom does. The weapons and enemies look and sound good, but that's pretty much all that can be said for the combat's strengths—it's just very simplistic and doesn't come even close to Doom.

- Cybermage: Darklight Awakening looks interesting and those additional elements definitely make for an interesting interactive adventure, but again, the combat is very basic.

- Wrath of Earth. Interesting visual style, but the gameplay looks closer to shooters based on modified versions of the Wolfenstein engine.

- Duke Nukem 3D is certainly a major candidate as it is much more in the spirit of Doom than the other titles. It's a great shooter and all its innovations like the more realistic levels with more substantial vertical movement, or the various kinds of interactivity, are all excellent. And yet, the combat leaves quite a bit to be desired; compared to Doom's, the elimination of enemies is much more straightforward and the technological implementation feels rather flimsy, but what saves it is the good flow and great sense of style.

- Chex Quest. Again, the combat doesn't at all seem to be on the same level.

- Strife has some attempts at RPG elements that look promising at first, but it ends up being once again a very rudimentary and quite mediocre shooter. The stealth sections were a nice change of pace and the two attributes that can be increased are nice additions, but I wouldn't really put it anywhere close to System Shock either.

- Realms of the Haunting. A very unique first-person adventure game with some combat, but I wouldn't put it in the same category as Doom. At any rate, once again, the combat can't compare to Doom's.

- Killing Time is another one of those much less elaborate shooters that relies more on an interesting theme and setting.

- The other Marathon games have interesting expansive levels with puzzles, which is certainly a valid direction for ‘regular’ FPSes, but their combat again seems more like a curiosity than something that could stand up to Doom.

- Quake. Given this overview of the other shooters of the period, it's certainly notable how much better in terms of technology and implementation of the core gameplay Id Software were than basically any other developer.

- Half-Life. It's a game I like a lot and consider its way of handling set pieces and the over-all flow of action to be close to ideal, but the quality of its combat and enemy design is very uneven.

Just to be clear, I don't want to be dismissive of these games as I do like many of them. I used to think very little of Doom myself, assuming it to be too simplistic and that its status was only due to what it did at the time. But having played various more intermediate and recent games from the genre and feeling frustrated with the newer trends, I was really surprised to discover just how strong the basic gameplay ‘loop’ was.

Judging Doom by itself, without the context of its place in history and the impact it made on the video game industry it's not that great of a game. The first episode with the levels by John Romero is iconic but the game doesn't get much better after that. It's telling that one of the most popular mods makes the guns feel less weak in the game and completely changes the flow of the game. If we also judge the game by modern standards the weapons are rather bland, but you can't fault one of the big icons that came to shape the entire genre for being standard.

Doom 2 was a terrible sequel, introducing more annoying hitscanners but without the finesse of those in other competing shooters as well as other enemies that are more annoying than anything else. Dropping the episodic format for a more bland dragged out experience. In the original Doom the episodes were themed and provided different experiences but in this first step towards what shooters would become Doom 2 merged it all into one much more forgettable campaign.

If we instead of the qualities of the game talk about shooters being more impressive and having a greater impact on the industry the next game that would make as big a splash as Doom, if not much bigger in some ways, that would be Quake. None of those games mentioned as being incrementally better, or just better experiences in general than the Doom one, had remotely the same astronomical effect on the genre and gaming in general. Quake would be so important that the code would still be used in later Call of Duty games years later. It was barely a better as a game than Doom though, the bosses in particular were a great step down and the enemy design entirely inferior.

As I indicated above, I would actually argue that it remains one of the best first-person shooters ever made regardless of its place in the history of games. The first episode is certainly iconic and well designed, but it doesn't even include all the enemies, weapons, or level design tricks; the later episodes are certainly also iconic and they have a great variety of things to offer. Romero is a good level designer, but recently it seems like the opinion that the others didn't do quite an adequate job with their levels has spread without a clear reason, a bit like a meme diffused by things repeated in retro gaming commentaries on YouTube. Peterson's levels in Quake do compare somewhat unfavourably to Romero's, but even they have their own interesting flow which I think became inseparable from the game.

If the mod you have in mind is Brutal Doom, it has good æsthetics and does a lot of viscerally fun stuff, but its take on the gameplay is inferior. I wouldn't really criticize it for that as I think the aims of the mod are different and it's just supposed to be more intense and have cool effects without pretending to replace the original game. At any rate, the weapons in the original are very well designed mechanically, but they can certainly feel a bit weak in comparison to what is possible on more advanced engines. Nevertheless, I think that minimalist arsenals where each weapon has a well though out purpose shouldn't be underestimated, as it's much easier for a developer just to include all the half-baked weapon ideas that may seem fun in theory, but which never work that well in the game.

I'd agree about Doom II's being a bad sequel. It's a very decent addition to the first game, but it's not very satisfying as the No. 2. The new enemies certainly are designed to be more vexing and I do think that it spoils the original formula somewhat, but on the other hand they are well designed in their own right and a lot depends on how a level designer utilizes them. I also agree that the game was quite unsatisfying in how it handled the whole ‘Earth overrun by demons’ theme, especially compared to the progressive infestation of the base in the first game and how things change once the player arrives in hell.

I think the enemy design in Quake represents the same high quality as that in Doom (only the Vores seem somewhat sloppy), it's just that there aren't that many of them, which limited the designers in what they could do with the encounters.

 

[Lemming42]

Romero is a good level designer, but recently it seems like the opinion that the others didn't do quite an adequate job with their levels has spread without a clear reason, a bit like a meme diffused by things repeated in retro gaming commentaries on YouTube. Peterson's levels in Quake do compare somewhat unfavourably to Romero's, but even they have their own interesting flow which I think became inseparable from the game.

You might be right, but for my part, I played through Doom again recently and was quite struck by the drop in quality after E1, free of any YouTube essay influence. I already thought the subsequent two were worse, but on my most recent playthrough I was just outright irritated by certain maps. E2 and E3 still manage some memorable encounter design and carefully thought out packs of enemies, but the actual map layouts themselves (with some notable exceptions) don't even match up to the average fan WAD - case in point being Thy Flesh Consumed as well as the two Final Doom campaigns, which all typically offer better maps IMO.

System Shock is certainly a great game, but the actual implementation of first-person combat is abysmal in comparison to Doom's.

I think it's got much more interesting combat on the face of it than Doom - leaning, crouching and jumping all add to the game massively, and being able to manually direct your fire anywhere on the screen is a big step up over Doom. Similarly the weapons are complex in a way that no other FPS game has really managed, from being able to swap out ammo types to being able to set the exact power output level of the phaser. Weapons on offer are more varied than in Doom, plus the addition of numerous grenades and drugs and augs to give the player certain temporary abilities that greatly alter the rules and texture of combat. Where System Shock falls down, IMO, is in the unbelievable blandness of the enemies, that's the one area where it definitely can't stand up in a one-to-one comparison against Doom, which obviously had a far stronger and more varied enemy roster. The end result is that System Shock combat can feel very samey no matter which enemies you're up against, and I never liked the respawn system at all.

Obviously, I don't think Doom needed leaning, crouching, jumping, or manageable weapon settings, but the OP's question was so vague that "better than Doom" could mean just about anything.

 

[Morenatsu.]

It's not that System Shock has ‘bland’ enemies, it's that the execution has little to it. You're thinking of it entirely in terms of the quantity of pieces one can use, but not how it actually plays out in practice. It's basically like what FPS combat would be if it were in a point-and-click adventure game or non-action RPG. Play with some menus and pick out some items to click on some things. Everything that makes it relatively interesting has nothing actually to do with ‘action’.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Heretic was incrementally better than Doom, removing hitscan shit, allowing for looking up and down, and adding the inventory system which allowed for more interesting item pickups. The alternate fire modes for each weapons during Tome of Power was brilliant. People tend to gloss over it because it's "just a Doom clone".

Doom's gunplay and enemy design shits all over Heretic, sorry.

 

[Lemming42]

As long as Brutal Doom got brought up, what's the Kodex Konensus on it? People in general seem to give it a lot of flak for being shit. I've been playing the latest version on and off recently and I don't really know how to feel about it. The "realism" difficulties were so odd, essentially making everyone (both you and enemies) die in one or two hits. Just feels so viscerally wrong for Doom. There's also the "Purist" setting, which removes (most of) the new weapons, but the way the weapons handle differently from the original makes the game comically easy on anything less than Nightmare and still pretty easy on Nightmare, even though the enemies apparently have the same health values. I hate the gore too, it's just awful and faintly embarrassing.

Worth mentioning for anyone who isn't aware that there's also a Brutal Heretic and Brutal Hexen (made by a different, less gore-obsessed person), both of which add a weird XP/level system which feels completely unnecessary (a bit less so in Hexen). It's amazing how much better this makes the weapons feel in Heretic, but like with Brutal Doom, the changed mechanics end up with the game being way too easy even on Black Plague Possesses Thee.

It's not that System Shock has ‘bland’ enemies, it's that the execution has little to it. You're thinking of it entirely in terms of the quantity of pieces one can use, but not how it actually plays out in practice. It's basically like what FPS combat would be if it were in a point-and-click adventure game or non-action RPG. Play with some menus and pick out some items to click on some things. Everything that makes it relatively interesting has nothing actually to do with ‘action’.

True. Again, it's a bit to do with the openness of OP's question - Doom is a much tighter game than SS and much more successfully focused on achieving its design goals, and in that sense offers a much clearer vision of what it's trying to do and a more cohesive "action" experience. System Shock just leapt out to me as the first game that's "better" in the sense that it offers so many technical and mechanical features over Doom, but after thinking about it more, the two games feel like a weird comparison since they have such different goals. Same for the Half-Life vs Doom comparison that's been made in this thread.

 

[Derringer]

I heard from a very reputable source that NOLF is actually overrated.

Monolith games are all overrated to an extent from people that enjoyed their software growing up but they're enjoyable enough and well designed for 'cinematic' fps, similar to Raven Software's games.

 

[Lyric Suite]

NOLF is not overrated. "Reputable" source my ass.

 

[Morenatsu.]

NOLF is not overrated. "Reputable" source my ass.

Ok foorgetter

 

[DJOGamer PT]

I think the FPS genre is way too broad to make these types of comparasions and decisive statements
Not every FPS is gunning for the same experience Doom is, so ultimately not every FPS values the same elements Doom does
That doesn't make those FPS inferior or superior to Doom, it just makes them a different experience or even sub-genre within the FPS genre
Ergo, for this discussion we should only take into account FPS that can be classified into Doom's subgenre - which means, titles like Half-Life and System Shock are irrelevant in this matter

 

[vortex]

Which one has best level design ?

 

[DJOGamer PT]

More of a Stealth game than a First Person Shooter
But still, it proves my point that if we include every game under the FPS umbrella in this discussion, we are bound to make senseless comparasions

 

[SlamDunk]

Half-Life is the only correct answer.


EDIT:

why do people on this website hate half-life? you people are zoomers faggots.

Fixed.

 

[Morenatsu.]

Doom Registered is better than Doom Shareware!!

 

[d1r]

Not better, but as good as Doom:

Prodeus

Great level design, great soundtrack, great weapon variety, great art style, and a level editor. Too bad it's still in EA.

 

[Star Citizen]

The ultimate FPS, BLOOD

 

[Star Citizen]

Not better, but as good as Doom:

Prodeus

Great level design, great soundtrack, great weapon variety, great art style, and a level editor. Too bad it's still in EA.

Stopped playing dat when I respawned after dying. Seemed fun tho.

 

[d1r]

Not better, but as good as Doom:

Prodeus

Great level design, great soundtrack, great weapon variety, great art style, and a level editor. Too bad it's still in EA.

Stopped playing dat when I respawned after dying. Seemed fun tho.

Just restart the map bro.

Spoiler

and git gud

Spoiler

quick save hopefully soon

 

[Star Citizen]

Not better, but as good as Doom:

Prodeus

Great level design, great soundtrack, great weapon variety, great art style, and a level editor. Too bad it's still in EA.

Stopped playing dat when I respawned after dying. Seemed fun tho.

Just restart the map bro.

Spoiler

and git gud

Spoiler

quick save hopefully soon

I don't save scum in FPS, I pistol start when I get shrecked.

 

[Morenatsu.]

I savescummed ur mum