I always found Doom II to be an odd sequel, doing little to build upon the gameplay of the first, only adding a single new weapon and a number of new enemy types. On top of that, I remembered the level-design being pretty bad, featuring sprawling maps that failed to capitalise on the action-focused mechanical draw of Doom. However, upon a second playthrough I have amended my position considerably.

Regarding level-design, most of the game is far more focused than I remembered. The first and third chapters are mostly fine, with the worst offenders lying in Hell on Earth's second chapter, one contextually established to be set in Earth's cities. While, yes, these levels are annoyingly obtuse, I think I appreciate them in the context of the series. What these levels bring to the table are a move towards representationalism, attempting to de-abstract the human cost of the conflict by setting it on city streets. It's an ambitious attempt at environmental storytelling, one not fully realised due to a lack of environmental detail. In this respect, these otherwise poorly designed maps bring something valuable to the table.

Moving straight from Doom to Doom II, it becomes clear how incomplete the series would be without this title. Sure, it only added a single weapon, but that weapon was the Super Shotgun, arguably the most recognisable weapon in the series aside from the BFG. Enemy-wise, imagine the Doom series without Revenants, Mancubi, or Pain Elementals. It just wouldn't be complete.

This was my first time playing the expansions, so I'll cover those briefly. Master Levels for Doom II is generally regarded as being quite poor, but I think this is a case of recency bias. I found the early levels to be generally quite good, with large, convoluted levels mostly being relegated to the back-end (one of them took me 45mins to complete). Taken as a whole it's not great (probably a 3/5), but I was happy to have played it.

More interesting than it's design, the Master Levels are notable for elevating fan-made content to official status. While I have mixed feelings on the ethics, it's nice that such an enormous part of Doom received official recognition. If this mixed bag was able to receive this status, I think they should just canonise Sigil (and the upcoming Sigil 2) already. This elevation of fan-made content was taken to a new extreme with Final Doom, which I look forward to playing soon.

Finally, Nerve Software's No Rest for the Living was an expansion released in 2010, and to date is the final officially released Doom campaign. I don't have too much to say about it, other than that it's a quality piece of Doom content, if one that is less ambitious than Hell on Earth.

It's hard for me to decide which one of the first two original Dooms i like the most. The first one has almost no flaws for the first two episodes, and it's just in Inferno when it kinda gets a little unpleasant. Doom II instead has more variety: You can be in a fascinating map, then the next is absolutely awful, then the next is kinda forgettable, and then the next has both good and band moments. And the funny thing is that there is no consensus about the quality of the maps, and a lot of them are very polarizing.

When it comes to level-design, there's no doubt that the star here is Sandy Petersen. Since he made 18 of the 32 levels, you can say that he reaches everything from terrible maps to some of the best, and many mediocre ones in between. Downtown, for example, has a lot of problems, but you can't deny how influential it was for other games like, let’s say, Duke Nukem 3D. Some of his maps were pretty much based around a single gimmick, but i don’t see that as a problem, since this is pretty much about having fun but it also showcases how Sandy was the most experimental when it came about map designing. And even some maps with a really ugly desing were fantastic in it’s gameplaying, like Suburbs. I would rank Tricks and Traps, Suburbs, The Citadel, and Barrels O’Fun as some of his best.

American McGee: Not a single bad map on Doom 2. Some of those might not be really memorable, but still i think he made a very good job. And The Inmost Dense is definitely on my personal top 3 of Doom II maps.

And then, there is the John Romero’s maps. I know his maps are overall recognized as being more polished and better-looking than Sandy ones, something i can agree with. But when it comes to gameplay, i think his maps are mediocre at best. The main responsible for the whole first episode of Doom I (probably the best set of levels ever designed) puts a very disapointing work this time. I think his levels are acceptable at best. And while everybody seems to agree on Sandy’s The Chasm as being the worst level in Doom II (a level where i didn’t had that much of a trouble myself), the map i hate the most is definitely Industrial Zone.

Oh and there is also Bloodfalls by Shaun Green, a map i don’t really care about. I enjoyed his maps for Thy Flesh Consumed a lot more.

The cast of new enemies is a great adition, except for that flying meatball who looks like Cacodemon’s unpopular cousin. And the Super Shotgun: Isn’t that enough of a reason to give this game a try? Actually i think the SSG is the reason why i see myself mostly replaying Doom 2 instead of Doom 1. I don’t see myself dealing with the Inferno maps without the SSG.

In conclusion: Doom with more monsters, a new weapon, bigger and more complex maps, and probably twice as long as the first game.

Unless you've hated the first Doom, this is a must play.

It's technically better than Doom 1 with all the things it adds such as the GOAT Super Shotgun, the Mancubi, Pain Elementals, Arachnotrons, etc. but as someone who mostly plays these for the campaigns I certainly didn't enjoy it as much as 1. All the issues I had with Sandy's levels in 1 (which AFAIK is the result of him having to learn id Tech 1 in a short span of time) feel exacerbated here, he still loves tricking the player with traps and monster closets, mix that with his level layouts which not only feel incredibly confusing (e.g. the City levels) but frustrating to navigate (like The Chasm) and it just becomes unfun. I do like McGee's additions though (except for The Crusher), especially the more arena-oriented levels, they make for a nice change of pace from Sandy's. Fine overall but weaker than 1's campaign.

Also FUCK the Arch-vile. All my homies hate the Arch-vile.

It's the original Doom, with an additional weapon, new enemies, and bigger maps! Unfortunately, it feels less like the superlative original trilogy and more like the Thy Flesh Consumed expansion in all its cheap janky glory. The levels have some interesting gimmicks to them, but they're often needlessly sprawling and obtuse, and don't compare favorably to the atmospheric homerun of the original thanks to their largely scattergun approach to design.

Part of this game's level design issues can be attributed to its level structure compared to the original, which had multiple episodes, each 8 levels long. 8 levels was a good length for each episode as you gradually increased the size of your arsenal and faced off against a big boss at the end, and then you would start off the next episode afresh - the beginning of episode 3 which pitted the player against a Cacodemon with nothing but a pistol made a strong impression on me. Doom 2, on the other hand, is made up of one unbroken episode 30 levels long, which leads to two issues. Firstly, you normally attain all the available weapons and ammo upgrades like five levels in, depriving you of the feeling of 'powering up' for the rest of the game. But more crucially, the lack of cadence and pacing created by this single overly-long episode leads to a general lack of direction, and there are so many filler levels that make it apparent that the developers seemed to be running low on ideas.

In the end, this is still Doom. It's still lots of fun, it's still competently designed, it still excels in capturing the feeling of flying by the seat of your pants and always being a mistake away from death - a feeling enhanced by the greater variety of threats and size of enemy formations, although as mentioned above it can sometimes get a bit cheap. But it's also an unfortunate reminder that bigger isn't always better.