About reviewing old mods/wads (and video games in general)

This is a topic that I was thinking about just recently and wanted to discuss about. I also wasn't sure if I should post it here or Everything Else, since this is not just related to reviewing Doom wads, but also reviewing video games in general as well.

 

So we all know MtPain27. Anyone who watches him has noted that he has graded the old classic wads (Such as MM1, Requiem, Icarus, HR etc.) on the lower spectrum being (below B-) for all these wads. And to be honest, if I were in his place, I likely would have given similar views since I don't think their gameplay has aged as well and there are plenty of modern wads (not just high profile ones, but also not so popular ones) that generally surpass these classics in polish and gameplay.

 

But whenever he gave a classic a low grade, there have always been some folks who did not agree with the way the Dean reviewed them since it feels that giving them a low grade undermines their classic status and the innovations they introduced. Which is a fair take imho. MM1 is probably the most notable example of a wad which might have been the most absolute best and polished community megawad at the time of its release (it was made before even TNT: Evilution), but since it's gameplay does not hold up, it ended up getting a D+ from the Dean.

 

Now this doesn't just extend to Doom wads but also to other video games as well. There have been games that introduced groundbreaking mechanics at their time, but also have some elements in their level design or gameplay which haven't aged exactly well imo. I will give two examples here:

 

• Marathon (Bungie's 1994 FPS). I am specifically talking about the first game. This game introduced dual wielding (true dual wielding, not the fake ROTT style), grenade jumping, freelook, friendly AI, terminals rich with story elements, a cool eerie atmosphere and much more. That said, the game is not an easy game to get into. Some of the graphics are amateurish, the level design quality is on average a little better than the better maps of Maximum Doom and the pattern buffers (save points) aspect of the game further make it hard to recommend to most players. That said I still recommend to give it a shot, but it is not an easy recommendation.

 

• Terminator: Future Shock (Bethesda's 1995 fps). This game was so ahead of its time, it's ridiculous. Polygonal enemies and 3D environments before Quake, big levels with indoor/outdoor segments, drivable vehicles which includes a flying one, dedicated grenade button. That said, the game is also very janky and buggy in true Bethesda fashion. For this reason, I recommend to watch a review or video playthrough of the game rather than playing it.

 

 

Also whenever I review a game, I like to take the modding scene of a game into consideration. I know it might not be exactly fair to do this, but one of the reasons why I highly recommend Doom to non-Doom fps players is because it has such a strong and flourishing modding scene. More content that can last ones lifetime and easy to use editors. If Doom didn't had this modding scene, I likely wouldn't have been playing Doom, let alone recommending others to try it out. While most reviews do tend to focus on the aspects of a game's innovations or how a game aged, almost no reviewer tends to take the modding scene of a game into consideration which I wish they did.

 

In the end, I realize that there is no "objectively correct (tm)" way to review anything since all reviews tend to be subjective opinions of the reviewer at the time of the writing. But I still want to hear your opinions. How much weight should be given to a mod/game's innovations vs how that game managed to age with the passage of time. Also how much weight should be given to the game's modding scene.

As far as I'm concerned, critiquing a work based on its community/cultural impact is more of an exercise in history/sociology than criticism proper.

55 minutes ago, ⇛Marnetmar⇛ said:

As far as I'm concerned, critiquing a work based on its community/cultural impact is more of an exercise in history/sociology than criticism proper.

I agree. When I read a retrospective review for a film, for example, I expect that it should be held to a modern standard in most aspects, at least in terms of how the core experience holds up. As long as it's fair - I wouldn't criticize a film from 1962 for having fight choreography and special effects that are below a modern standard, since it's the result of a technical limitation. I also wouldn't criticize such a film for having grainy and flat audio. But I could understand someone criticizing, let's say, the non-linear approach of Pulp Fiction (as long as they are capable of describing why it doesn't work for them). It was innovative, but it's no longer impressive if viewed purely through a modern lens.

 

You can still applaud a piece of work for the innovation it brought forth while recognizing that it's been surpassed or doesn't quite hold up. Whenever I play an old game or watch an old film, I try to put myself in the mindset of the time when it was released as best as I can, but there will inevitably be times where you say to yourself "damn, I'm glad we've moved past this shit!".

 

But it all depends on what kind of review the reviewer presents it as. Just be straightforward about whether your review is intended to go over the quality of the work when it was released or not. People will understand what you're saying as long as you're honest and fair.

Just don't give low grades to anything and everyone will be happy. Be like IGN.

8 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

...Now this doesn't just extend to Doom wads but also to other video games as well. There have been games that introduced groundbreaking mechanics at their time, but also have some elements in their level design or gameplay which haven't aged exactly well imo. ...

Absolutely. In my view nothing is worst than eluding the positive aspects of an early wad or not highlighting why it left its mark on a Community. Here's an example with Thief mods: 

 

Thief2X (for Thief 2): for its time, Thief2X was earth-shattering (2005). Modders succeeded in making a full-fledged single player campaign with cutscenes and voice acting, just like the official games. It was a major achievement back then (Intro vid).

 

It's just that newer FMs (fan-missions) for Thief reached stratospheric heights since then. 

 

Thief The Black Parade (for Thief 1):

This campaign is the culmination of 24 years of modding. The level design is superb, the architecture splendid, new protagonist, 10 missions, voice acting, etc (release trailer). 

 

To sum up: Both mods set standards. But Newcomers might not notice these qualities. 

So when making a review of a wad, I like it when editors put the mod into perspective. 

Edited March 2 by CrocMagnum

This is an insecurity I often feel when talking about older wads. I didn't grow up with Doom, in fact I discovered it together with the modding scene quite recently. I don't want to be seen as an outsider, who comes in and criticises beloved classics. But it doesn't change the fact I played them for the first time in 2020s and most just don't stand the test of time (Plutonia is the sole exception). I can acknowledge how they compare to other works released at the same time, but the ultimate question will always be "is this entertaining in 2024?".

Reading this thread, I have a feeling that for many people "doesn't stand the test of time" = "difficulty too low," an attitude that should be dropped, although maybe I'm misreading.

1 minute ago, Li'l devil said:

Reading this thread, I have a feeling that for many people "doesn't stand the test of time" = "difficulty too low," an attitude that should be dropped, although maybe I'm misreading.

I think it´s more of a "the level design and combat encounters are outdated" rather than overall difficulty. This was very apparent with a lot of Memento Mori maps that had some pretty big stinkers with stupidly designed combat setpieces

Still, I feel that too many people are viewing the wads only through the lens of gameplay, and not taking into account everything else as important, like art direction, level design (visuals specifically), music, etc.

My view: If we're still recommending these old wads to new Doom players, then they should totally be reviewed under the modern lens.

 

New players are going to review these wads in a modern light anyway, whether it's a "historical classic" or not. Historical context is important totally, but it's annoying when it's used as an excuse to justify something being bad. Classics aren't immune to critique, you're allowed to not like them.

 

newcomer "band are so fucking BADASS"

 

amateur "band's music is very of-its-era, quickly to be surpassed by groups of higher intensity and by general improvements in music technology. You could claim band represent an interesting period piece if you're in search of genre's historical context but, to modern ears, much of their ouvre seems regrettable and even obsolete."

 

expert "band are so fucking BADASS"

 

when you exist in a microgenre or scene where everyone involved hears everything, critical checklist comparison dude is your worst enemy. like you must have noticed by now that there's several well-known authors on these forums or on the discords that ate them and when you try to justify your taste in one thing by hammering another, they hear the hammering and feel like shit. imo just don't grade stuff unless the grade is A* this owns every time

 

modern / old-school perspective doesn't even come into it imo it's more like a shut the fuck up thing

 

edit: i used to make this mistake when I was involved in chiptune stuff and when I think about all the pointless criticism I handed out it makes me feel like a scumbag, no idea who i hurt or how bad

Those wads were the shit during the 2000's when I'd hop on our Skulltag servers with my friends after high-school, put on some loud music and the rest is history. So obviously there will be some nostalgia glasses for those wads from a personal perspective. But I don't mind someone in 2024 saying they are kinda shit, because it's like someone reviewing a drug that has no longer any effect (except to those who experienced it at the time). 

Edited March 2 by OniriA

Well, as someone who has been reviewing other stuff unrelated to doom for half a decade, I have to tell a review will never be "completely objective trademark", and if your perspective doesn't represent a "historical overview" of any given product you review, then you are in your own right to give whatever angle you want to your reviews.

 

Historical importance not always lines with quality, it's really rare when it does actually. 

 

You as a reviewer, want to give your own perspective, thought in your own way to think about what you are reviewing, following your own consistent criteria, in the most honest way possible. If people disagree because they have their own perspective and a different way to view that product, is right to do so, like is right for you to have that perspective.

 

That's why I think is pretty valid for someone to say "this aged poorly" since like people said above, new people experiencing things from 30+ years ago have their own way to see things because of what they want from a product. Memento Mori can be enyojable for people that may play it in its years of prevalence in the early 00's and late 90's, but in your fresh perspective that is not influenced by that way of thinking, having seen a lot of stuff that surpassed it in a way or another, even stuff that tried to emulate it and had better results than that product, you have your right to say if you consider it "bad" or not, and explain why it is the case.

Edited March 2 by Cutman 999

@Cutman 999: I agree, giving your own perspective is legitimate. Still it goes beyond historical importance I'm convinced.

You see when it comes to a thriving modding community, mods usually get better and better over the years. Modders get better at their craft and the tools improve too. 

Just look at the Cacowards recently, the overall quality is sick (or maybe this is a Doom thing^^). 

 

What I'm trying to explain is that some wads raise the bar so much that other modders take note and incorporate these innovations. 

Take for instance, Ancient Aliens. Its visual style is so distinct and has been reprised in a few other wads. 

 

To sum up: Newer mods sometimes stand on the shoulders of their predecessors. When the references are evident, I humbly believe the knowledgeable reviewer should point them out. It's also about giving credit where it's due. Giving your own opinion is what matters most, of course. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Mr Masker said:

My view: If we're still recommending these old wads to new Doom players, then they should totally be reviewed under the modern lens.

 

New players are going to review these wads in a modern light anyway, whether it's a "historical classic" or not. Historical context is important totally, but it's annoying when it's used as an excuse to justify something being bad. Classics aren't immune to critique, you're allowed to not like them.

 

I have similar view. If I am introducing an old wad to a newcomer, I tend to focus less on the historic context and more on how it hold up (in my perspective of course).

 

I am a frim believer that when reviewing anything, one should be honest about their experience. Don't sugarcoat if the experience was rough, just don't pass the opinion as an objective fact and don't attack the creator for it.

8 hours ago, CrocMagnum said:

Thief2X (for Thief 2): ...

 

I'd forgot about Thief 2. I've never played it but remember when it came out and watching a friend play it.

The whole gig about "hiding the bodies" I found hilarious as well as my friend's take; "It's not a twitch-kill game!"

 

8 hours ago, Celestin said:

... I didn't grow up with Doom, in fact I discovered it together with the modding scene quite recently. I don't want to be seen as an outsider, who comes in and criticises beloved classics. But it doesn't change the fact I played them for the first time in 2020s and most just don't stand the test of time (Plutonia is the sole exception). I can acknowledge how they compare to other works released at the same time, but the ultimate question will always be "is this entertaining in 2024?".

 

will address below...

 

7 hours ago, Li'l devil said:

Reading this thread, I have a feeling that for many people "doesn't stand the test of time" = "difficulty too low," an attitude that should be dropped, although maybe I'm misreading.

 

Again, see below...

 

7 hours ago, Andrea Rovenski said:

"does it hold up?" is not even a real question because everyone's sensibilities and tastes are different. I don't play any new games at all, the closest thing being doom wads, so my tastes are very different to a lot of people, but old wads are just as good as new ones, they're just in different genres. Comparing a game from 1995 to 2024 with expectations attached is just silly. It's fine to prefer a genre to another one, but a lot of the time these discussions fall into the feigned "objectively, it's bad because-" hand-wringing that the internet likes to promote in general. Taking in to account the history of an art is a crucial and mandatory exercise for truly understanding that piece of art, and without it, you're missing a ton of information. I regularly play new(to me) 1994 and 1995 wads and most people would call them bad, but when you take into account these are the first things people produced in an entire industry of fan-made fps levels, it's amazing what people were doing so quickly. 

 

 

More on this below...

 

7 hours ago, Mr Masker said:

My view: If we're still recommending these old wads to new Doom players, then they should totally be reviewed under the modern lens.

 

New players are going to review these wads in a modern light anyway, whether it's a "historical classic" or not. Historical context is important totally, but it's annoying when it's used as an excuse to justify something being bad. Classics aren't immune to critique, you're allowed to not like them.

 

 

Good point!

 

4 hours ago, Cutman 999 said:

...You as a reviewer, want to give your own perspective, thought in your own way to think about what you are reviewing, following your own consistent criteria, in the most honest way possible. If people disagree because they have their own perspective and a different way to view that product, is right to do so, like is right for you to have that perspective.

 

As a resident curmudgeon who hangs out here, I have to say I don't watch YT reviews of wads. Actually, I don't watch much of any video

games played on the video player platforms. I have a friend who spends quite a bit of his free time with the Twitch TV but I generally find

that boring. I have another friend who might consider the act of watching reviews of video games as a copout or a ripoff because in her

words, "you're living your life through the experience of others and missing out on your own experience."

 

@Celestin , you're an outsider! But you're welcome here anyways :-P

 

I agree with @Li'l devil on the importance of dropping the difficulty too low attitude. I had a hard time conveying the necessity of dissimiliar

difficulty levels to my mapping partner in a recent community project. I notice too the mention of "recommending old wads to new Doom

players" critique. The question is for what purpose is one recommending which wads to new players? Is the purpose to impress them with

"look what this map author was able to do!" or is the recommendation meant to help ramp up the skills of the new player through a

graduated process?

 

I've been monkeying with Doom editing so long that in my head, it's almost divorced from video games as a whole. My view of fun in video

games is probably closely aligned with Andrea's thoughts above. I too play old wads I dig up mostly from the idgames database. I tend to

try out a lot of "baby's first Doom map" entries in the Wad Releases & Development forum here. One of the reasons for this is the amount

of time commitment I'd want to spend playing, especially how much at one sitting. But I could be just as happy playing some old underplayed

arcade games I knew nothing about at the time they were produced, such as NeoMr.Do! or Bubble Bobble. What I won't be doing is playing

any AtariVCS/2600 titles because it pains me to see what horrible shoeboxes the designers were forced to port arcade titles into due to the

absolute lack of hardware resources available to the job.

 

Now everyone here reading this, go make something cool!

 

In my opinion, if something inspired you or captured your imagination as a kid, it deserves to be lauded for making a personal change, and is not invalid for that reason.  But it's also important to be circumspect, and not be butthurt if people don't love something just the same as you.  Climates of opinion and personal tastes all affect how and why we enjoy things, after all.  So like what you like and be happy that it lives as something uniquely inspiring to you. 

 

tbh if you're gonna try to review something based off of its own merits, i really think that you should at the very least review it within its own genre. don't come in saying "oh well this is bad because weird progression puzzles bad combat boring looks like shit" if you don't like the amateurish dungeon crawler style that was prevalent at the time. it's like reviewing a punk album and saying it's bad because of the lack of musical complexity. like...why review it if you're not even gonna understand the genre or enjoy the musical scene that spawned it in the first place?

 

this isn't a jab at mtpain27 btw, despite my embarrassing whining in the past. this is something that extends far outside of doom and into reviewing in general; just look at the ign review of god hand to see what i mean with this. people need to at least understand what they're playing in the first place instead of trying to apply norms from a totally different genre to them.

"Aged badly" and "aged great" tend to get used as a crutch when a game that's clearly older, reflecting design/presentation/cultural trends from its time, or are new retro experiences in those styles ends up disappointing the player. For me, there's a difference between The Student of Prague and The Birth of a Nation: both are ancient silent films known for narrative and technical innovations, but one's a charming if slow/basic 1910s horror flick and the other, uh, glorifies white supremacists and sidesteps any worthwhile story for hate's sake. I see this even today when a genre film either avoids pitfalls or even tackles trickier subject matter with subtlety vs. an overproduced epic that doesn't know when to stop or how its framing of content can indirectly/tangibly hurt viewers.

 

But the difference between those formative classics and the first big Doom WADs is that I can skip past the crummy bits without fear of missing anything. Memento Mori, on the whole, isn't very good; it benefits from having some stellar maps in-between the disappointments, though. A medium's format and communal expectations for critique can make all the difference in how much the "aged [x] amount" arguing comes into play. Sure, it'd be nice if Vanity Fair had less "filler" on the whole, but most anyone reading that can intuit which sections are worth skimming and which deserve concentration. I can't easily say the same for long-form TV shows where each twist and turn in the plot can mean a lot! With most genres and eras of interactive media, I find it much easier to appraise both the individual pieces and greater whole because (usually) it's possible to indulge distinct sequences (ex. maps, levels, etc.) and then worry about them in relation to each other.

 

As @roadworx just said, it's less than fair to rag on something you've played with the mentality of wishing it was something different, or specifically the genre/style you most prefer. Just say it's not for you, and that it'd be a disservice to the author if they continued criticizing from that angle, before moving on. Sometimes I wish I liked the hardest of hard slaughtermaps more than I currently do, but it's no biggie since I can always make my own maps that play the way I like if necessary. From the viewpoint of just playing what you find immediately fun, there's no reason to first try something more abrasive and then complain about it unconstructively. I'll keep playing slaughtermaps (and hopefully warming up to the ball-busting stuff) because I want to eventually make some of my own, plus appreciate standout cases balanced for a difficulty level that fits me better.

 

21 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

Also whenever I review a game, I like to take the modding scene of a game into consideration. I know it might not be exactly fair to do this, but one of the reasons why I highly recommend Doom to non-Doom fps players is because it has such a strong and flourishing modding scene. More content that can last ones lifetime and easy to use editors. If Doom didn't had this modding scene, I likely wouldn't have been playing Doom, let alone recommending others to try it out. While most reviews do tend to focus on the aspects of a game's innovations or how a game aged, almost no reviewer tends to take the modding scene of a game into consideration which I wish they did.

 

Thankfully more commentators are clueing in to modding scenes old and new, not just for FPS games either. ZZT, for instance, would be nothing but a historic footnote if not for how many unique creators and their spaces came from it (let alone presaging the early Internet homepage cultures). Over in the corner, our friends working on Sonic Robo Blast 2 maps arguably interact more with Sonic fangame creators, but enough of the creative and playtesting processes evoke the same wonder for anyone writing about them, whether as an outsider or not. One of the great tragedies is how much Media Molecule's creation-driven games (Little Big Planet series and now Dreams) give new and experienced developers so many possibilities, yet the mainstream enthusiast press treats those creations like sideshows. (Meme-y stages made in Super Mario Maker get way more coverage, even now that the novelty's worn off.) I think the general troubles in the AA/AAA gaming sphere and wider acceptance of indie projects and game jams has made it harder to blanket dismiss Doom mods, and anything of the sort, as inconsequential and somehow less deserving of appreciation on their own terms.

 

MtPain27 is well within his right to tear into Memento Mori: it's a show about him trying to enjoy Doom releases on his own terms, even while acknowledging the historic importance and creators' hard work that keeps MM.WAD relevant today. And it's not like he recommended against playing it at all IIRC, just that anyone used to the polish and quality-of-life of newer community projects should approach this one more carefully. If the worry is that harsh criticism necessarily equals an unacceptable number of players ignoring or copycat lambast something, I understand but somewhat disagree with that assertion. That megawad's old enough, with nearly all its creators no longer actively tinkering with Doom or similar games, that it's hardly as if he's obligated to give nothing but constructive advice. If I made the video, maybe I'd downplay my negative thoughts by showing what I'd do different via the map editor, but that's just one valid approach to this critique.

The fact of the matter is that MM1 and 2, Icarus, Requiem, Plutonia and yes, even TNT are historical masterpieces, and not acknowledging them as such simply shows your ignorance and general ass-hattery.

I think it's still fun to grade the levels but I do think that rating some of the old wads on the same scale as modern wads is pretty unfair considering how much easier it is to make maps nowadays compared to back then. It's like how some people say Tom Brady or Patrick Mahomes are better than Joe Montana, but when you look at different eras of sports the QB was hit pretty much every play, making being great a lot harder than it is now, where the defense is way more restricted than it was back in the 80s and 70s.

6 hours ago, roadworx said:

tbh if you're gonna try to review something based off of its own merits, i really think that you should at the very least review it within its own genre. don't come in saying "oh well this is bad because weird progression puzzles bad combat boring looks like shit" if you don't like the amateurish dungeon crawler style that was prevalent at the time. it's like reviewing a punk album and saying it's bad because of the lack of musical complexity. like...why review it if you're not even gonna understand the genre or enjoy the musical scene that spawned it in the first place?

 

To be fair, it is hard to put some Doom wads into a particular genre. Sure we have genres like slaughterwads/high difficulty wads, popcorn combat wads, puzzle wads, platforming wads, nostalgia focused wads, easy-going wads, atmospheric wads etc.

 

But some wads don't really fit into one category. And then there is also the case of wads belonging roughly in the same genre, but released many years apart (for example HR vs more modern lite-slaughter wads).

 

6 hours ago, Maximum Matt said:

The fact of the matter is that MM1 and 2, Icarus, Requiem, Plutonia and yes, even TNT are historical masterpieces, and not acknowledging them as such simply shows your ignorance and general ass-hattery.

 

Absolutely. One should acknowledge their classic status, but I feel that one shouldn't hide their true feelings just because of it, because that would be being dishonest.

On 3/2/2024 at 8:15 AM, Andrea Rovenski said:

"does it hold up?" is not even a real question because everyone's sensibilities and tastes are different.

I think it's a valid question, "does it hold up" asks if something meets perceived modern expectations/standards, which itself is based on popularity basically. There will always be people who enjoy riding up a slow lift multiple times in a map and then getting to the top and being met with a mancubus in a tiny corridor with nowhere to move, but if that's like 1% of people versus 99%, and many designers now try to design away from those types of scenarios, then you can't really say it's a modern standard/expectation, thus you can't say it holds up. "does it hold up" simply asks if most people enjoy it today based on popular preferences (or the reviewer's own modern biases), which is perfectly fine imo. 

 

On 3/2/2024 at 8:15 AM, Andrea Rovenski said:

It's fine to prefer a genre to another one, but a lot of the time these discussions fall into the feigned "objectively, it's bad because-" hand-wringing that the internet likes to promote in general

Yeah I feel people should try to use more language that directly conveys that what they are saying is "just my opinion bases on my preferences and biases", but also as a reader of a review or whatever that's always something to have an asterik with in your mind when reading the review anyways:

 

ex) reviewer: "sunlust is very cheeks and has a bunch of cheap difficulty spikes that the player can only get through using save-scum and the map authors really rely too much on revenants, archviles, and cyberdemons to make fights difficult due to their inability to think of more ways to kill the player. Also, why is there a secret not tagged as a secret in Map14? Secret areas should always be marked as secrets. Looks like that map is getting an F"* <----- asterik added by reader in their own mind

 

*well that's just your opinion buddy

On 3/2/2024 at 8:23 AM, yakfak said:

like you must have noticed by now that there's several well-known authors on these forums or on the discords that ate them and when you try to justify your taste in one thing by hammering another, they hear the hammering and feel like shit. imo just don't grade stuff unless the grade is A* this owns every time

 

modern / old-school perspective doesn't even come into it imo it's more like a shut the fuck up thing

There is certainly a point where a reviewer or criticism must not get so negative and unnecessarily berating of the content/author being reviewed, because stuff does happen where creators get beat down from unnecessarily mean/aggressive/unfair criticism that causes them to stop all together and makes them feel bad. But, there is also some responsibility on people who read/consume the reviews to have a bit thicker skin against negative criticism/review. I think grades are fine as well, I think over obsessing over grades is an issue, but grades themselves, on the Dean's show for example, act as a concise summarization of how much they enjoyed a map/content. Oh, Mt Pain gave this map an A? Looks like he liked it. Oh, Mt Pain gave my map a D? Looks like he did not like it. Grades simply convey how much someone liked something concisely using imprecise measures. So if people shouldn't grade stuff unless it's an A -> don't say anything if you don't have anything nice to say...which is very much true in many circumstances, but a "i really didn't like this map and the texture alignment was an epic fail and the map is getting an F" isn't really anything to cry over imo. Again, the exception is when a reviewer really starts ripping into some content unfairly/with too much meanness or aggression. There's also the confounding variable of authority of the reviewer that factors in...some reviewers hold a lot of weight with their opinions that magnify their praise but especially their negative criticism...they have to think more carefully and critically about what they say since their words are more potent when they have more "authority".

On 3/2/2024 at 1:25 PM, Li'l devil said:

Reading this thread, I have a feeling that for many people "doesn't stand the test of time" = "difficulty too low," an attitude that should be dropped, although maybe I'm misreading.

 

I don't think that has much to do with it. MM1 for example has plenty of moments where it tries to spice things up a lot more than the IWADs that inspired it, and those tend to be complete BS (looking at you MAP12, and also MAP28...). In the same vein, Hell Revealed II is considerably harder than the first HR and has a more modern aesthetic, but while the first HR is merely divisive (and justifiably so considering it's flawed in many ways), HR2 is reviled almost universally, maintaining an extremely niche fanbase. It tends to be viewed as the pinnacle of everything wrong with the mid-2000s type "make literally everything as hardcore as possible no matter the cost" mentality (see also NewDoom, coopbuildm...), and is often ignored the current day conversation, in sharp contrast with is apparent spiritual siblings Scythe 2 and Plutonia 2, the good reputation of which keeps growing as the years pass.

 

Similarly, compared to then-recent blockbuster megawads such as Resurgence, Valiant, Sunlust, Ancient Aliens or Struggle, well... Eviternity is almost a cakewalk, and yet is generally rated even higher by critics and players alike.

 

As a matter of fact... I think it's perfectly fine to rate older WADs with current standards, because some pass that test just fine. Even now, I can without hesitation replay Alien Vendetta, Scythe II, or even Memento Mori II and enjoy them exactly as much as my modern day favorites. By contrast, the first MM, Requiem, or Hell to Pay are a much different story....

 

and I realize the former category here is always going to be a tiny minority compared to the latter, but still, since works just as old as they are have lasted much longer than they have, the latter are void of a valid excuse in my eyes. That doesn't mean it's impossible to play them nowadays and even genuinely like them for what they are, but the fact remains that their flaws and limitations only keep becoming more apparent as mapping keeps evolving, and that this is more true of some old WADs than it is of other old WADs.

 

 

I've reread the OP and tbh, since, when reviewing a wad you're just sharing your subjective experience with it, I think you're free to rate and criticize it for any reason and without any considerations, including its age (but it's always best to understand why other people like what you didn't like). As long as you're not trying to present your opinions as objective and try to convince other people that some wad is objectively bad, then yeah, I see no problem with not considering wad's age or anything else. So now I'm not sure why is this an issue to begin with.

I generally try to review any given WAD for where it stood at the time. Something like "Trinity College" is awful and possibly unplayable today, but at the time, it was a genuine attempt to do something different with the Doom engine, and deserves credit. Even something like "nuts" was testing the limits of the Doom engine, even if the actual gameplay is silly. It's always easy to say "these WADs from the mid 90s suck!" and that's likely true compared to modern ones. But for the time, many of them were impressive or interesting.