«

[samtam90]

I simply can't agree with the 3... for a masterpiece like this there should be at least a 4. The lack of plot is intentionally: Doom was tought as a mindless shooter and it's the one of the best FPS ever. It's so fun because great level building, secrets, enemies. Mark it whit a 3 only for lack of plot and not as good as other FPS (I think it's absolutely not true, because apart System Shock and few others there weren't shooters as good as this in 1994).

Originally Posted by samtam90

I simply can't agree with the 3... for a masterpiece like this there should be at least a 4. The lack of plot is intentionally: Doom was tought as a mindless shooter and it's the one of the best FPS ever. It's so fun because great level building, secrets, enemies. Mark it whit a 3 only for lack of plot and not as good as other FPS (I think it's absolutely not true, because apart System Shock and few others there weren't shooters as good as this in 1994).

I agree fully here.

4 would have been more than fair.

Indeed, but that doesn't make them better games does it? In the case you mentioned, Hexen, I liked the game but got bored with it very quickly in relation to Doom 2 (or 1). Matter of taste I guess.

and another agree.

Doom 2 still lives nowadays and has the most maps and mods and multiplayer is still played too much. This should show how good doom 2 actually is.

innovation was the damn nice new monsters, the absolutely awesome super shotgun and that awesome leveldesign. Hell on Earth was a very interesting theme especially on that time. Remember maps like downtown etc. That was very nice :-)
storyline was more than enough for this type of game. The story expands in textform in later episodes too. Not much, but also not much necessary.

Your 2 points doesnt make the game a medium score title. And you gave it with 3 just medium.
Doom 2 should have 4 not 3..