After much hemming and hawing, last week id Software announced that its future project, after the soon-to-be-completed Quake 3 Team Arena, will be the "next incarnation of Doom."  While the concept of "Doom 2000" had long been bandied about, I'll admit to being a bit taken aback by John Carmack's announcement that id would be devoting its energies to developing the next Doom.  After all, it was just last November when id designer Graeme Devine told me for the Final Hours of Quake 3, "We need to challenge ourselves on the next product to move outside the world of Doom and Quake." While id might have challenged itself, it ultimately fell back on what it knew would work.

For those of us who were truly excited by the possibility of id taking two years to craft an epic single-player game that oozed of story, character development, and emotion, the announcement of the next Doom seems anti-climactic; the safe bet.  Although a new Doom could include all these elements, Doom 2000 strikes me as running the risk of being more of a retrofit than a fresh new design.  I just hope the new Doom doesn't turn into a technology showpiece with little heart.   While I might be proven wrong, I'm not fully convinced Doom is the right universe to use as a vehicle to reach the goal of an epic single player game.

What Did Doom Represent?
Over the past few days I've asked myself, 'What did Doom represent?'  Doom was a game that had an indelible impact on my gaming career.  I still remember seeing the first screenshots of the game in a downloadable magazine called GameBytes in 1992.  I called up those 256 color screenshots on my computer and just sat in awe, imagining what they would look like fully animated.   When the game did finally arrive, it made such an impact that I remember the date it hit the Internet: December 10, 1993.  Tell me this: what other exact release dates of games do you remember?  Doom had this symbiotic bond between design and technology that made it an masterpiece for its time.

But the design masterwork in Doom was in the level design, the play balance, and the artistic look and feel – not in character or plot development.   Games like Mario or Zelda have successfully transitioned through time because the central focus is on a character, an identifiable icon that transcends the gaming platform.  Doom doesn't have that rich character, as our hero was a faceless green-suited Space Marine.  The argument could be made that levels and monsters are all that is needed to create the look and feel of Doom, but one has to remember how far gaming has progressed since the game's release in 1993.  With Doom there was really no story to follow; no epic struggle between good and evil; no character to care about. In 2000, all these elements are vital if a game is to succeed as a single player experience.

  Next, Geoff asks, 'Why Toy With a Classic?' >>>