I think there's a couple of things. Firstly the higher resolution of Doom 3 shows up the imperfections too. If one excuses the lower resolution of the Doom 2, then yes, you can see it as being a good quality more realistic image that's been scaled down. But I wonder what Doom 3 would look like if you played it at the same very low resolution? Would that hide the imperfections such as the jagged polygons, and show something that looks more similar to Doom 2?

Secondly, 2D has the advantage that an artist can create something of good quality. But part of the advantage of 3D (and part of the reason for games switching to it, I believe) is that it's much easier to create a range of different animations, and orientations.

So I'd argue it's unfair to judge just by static images. When you play the games, Doom 2 feels like you're playing against flat cardboard-cutouts that always turn to face you. Doom 3 feels like playing against real physical enemies that move about more realistically, even if they look a bit blocky.

I think there's a couple of things. Firstly the higher resolution of Doom 3 shows up the imperfections too. If one excuses the lower resolution of the Doom 2, then yes, you can see it as being a good quality more realistic image that's been scaled down. But I wonder what Doom 3 would look like if you played it at the same very low resolution? Would that hide the imperfections such as the jagged polygons, and show something that looks more similar to Doom 2?

Secondly, 2D has the advantage that an artist can create something of good quality. But part of the advantage of 3D (and part of the reason for games switching to it, I believe) is that it's much easier to create a range of different animations, and orientations.

So I'd argue it's unfair to judge just by static images. When you play the games, Doom 2 feels like you're playing against flat cardboard-cutouts that always turn to face you. Doom 3 feels like playing against real physical enemies that move about more realistically, even if they look a bit blocky.

I tried resampling some Doom 3 screenshots to similar resolutions and settings to those in Doom 2 (320x200 at 256 colors).


as for sprites vs models:
yes, for a single sprite it isn't too hard to deliver higher quality with less effort than a 3D model.

when multiple angles and animations come into play, 3D models have an advantage (generally easier to create and animate). however, with regards to fine details, and many kinds of animations, 2D graphics art still has an advantage (so, it makes sense to instead work on putting a lot of detail into the textures, or use an animated texture or looping video-source for the animation, in place of using large numbers of triangles).

granted... most of my own 3D models are pretty lazy.


IIRC, the original Doom 1/2 characters weren't drawn directly as sprites though, but were in-fact first made out of modeling clay, and then pictures were taken of them from various angles. they were then deformed for the various animation frames.

some other games from a similar timeframe (such as ROTT) had instead used actors in costumes.

I know it's kinda old now, but my opinion:

Doom 1/2

Good:

- Challenging gameplay

- Lots of secrets

- Lengthy game

Bad:

- Perspective gave me a headache

- Wasn't very in-depth story wise

Doom 3

Good:

- Spooky (especially at night with all the lights off).

- Random challenges

- The chainsaw didn't suck!!!

Bad:

- Too short, too easy

- Replay value wasn't as high as before

I can't really decide which I like better though.

When it comes to graphics, yes, Doom 3 is miles away. No discussions there.

But I wouldn't be so fast to go hard on the art design of Doom 1&2, particularly the first one.

One detail I noticed was the clever use of circular shapes. Like it was said before, one of the problems with that game was the sprites awkwardly "turning" with you. But that isn't so noticeable with circles, since they don't have clear sides. So, what are the objects most frequently found? Barrels, barrels on fire, torches, lightposts, stakes... the dead trees and impaled guys look awkward, but even then (If i recall correctly) they tried to locate them in places either unreachable, or hard to circle.

The fixed camera helped to avoid many of those awkward angles too, unlike in, say, Duke Nukem 3D. But I think that was hardly their intention. A good but unintended side-effect, if you will

Then there's the color palette. Most walls in Episode 2 are green, with dead guys/blood to add some red. Same deal with some enemies for that matter, like the regular zombie (green/red) and cacodemon (red/blue), wich also had distinctive shapes to make them easier to tell apart. Maybe because of this is why I found all the more baffling the look of Quake, wich as far as I remember is a big brown mess (Though that was probablly because of technical limitations).

Now, I haven't played Doom 3, so I can't really voice an opinion on that one, other than acknowledge the previously mentioned advanteges/disadvanteges of 3D models. From what I heard and seen is dark as all hell, and as long as they used it to creat atmosphere, I'm okay with that. It sounds to me like a good way to hide the edges, too

While I agree the visuals in Doom 1&2 seriously show their age now, they're not a deal breaker to me, mostly because of those decisions. Still, I just felt like playing the Devil's advocate with the original Doom visuals for once, since most of the time all I hear around the web is it being a pixelated mess with cardoard pictures.

Just my 2 cents...