Doom 2 Sucks 2 - A Critical Analysis

[GermanPeter]

Doom 2 has always been my favorite of the classic Doom titles, but I am completely willing to admit that it has flaws. MANY flaws. So I decided to do an honest, critical review of it, to see how bad it really is, but why I still like it.

 

Would love to hear your opinions on it!

[Li'l devil]

More clickbait

[GermanPeter]

37 minutes ago, Li'l devil said:

More clickbait

ok

Would be cool to get an actual discussion tho lol

Edited March 25 by GermanPeter

[LoatharMDPhD]

// He's got a point though.. Both Doom's were industry standards, yet they have their intrinsic flaws to them... and Doom 2 was not given he fullest attention to detail as the great Quake was brewing and there were only so many lost souls devoted to either endeavor... still a better gaming experience in the 90's and even 2000's than the multitude of dreck that could be found at walmart in the computer entertainment section...

[GermanPeter]

5 minutes ago, LoatharMDPhD said:

// He's got a point though.. Both Doom's were industry standards, yet they have their intrinsic flaws to them... and Doom 2 was not given he fullest attention to detail as the great Quake was brewing and there were only so many lost souls devoted to either endeavor... still a better gaming experience in the 90's and even 2000's than the multitude of dreck that could be found at walmart in the computer entertainment section...

I think Doom 2 makes a great counterpart to Quake: that one was technologically more advanced and allowed more movement and exploration. As the first real 3D shooter, it was a million times more exciting. But combat was also a lot slower and there really weren't that many enemies, nor encounters. Levels were also quite small and claustrophobic. Doom 2 on the other hand is all about shooting as many enemies as possible, in sometimes MASSIVE maps. It doesn't look as great or play as nicely, but it still has its place.

[LoatharMDPhD]

// yeah man, the first time i played quake i was like... i just want to go play Doom 2 now...

[Gentlepoke]

If this is clickbait, I would be interested in seeing what would constitute original content. Quite liked the video, slickly made and very enjoyable to watch. For MAP18, it's likely just a case of it just being a Doom 1 map noting it doesn't use any textures from Doom II. For some of the inconsistencies, it's possible that id Software might have inadvertently some of those in order to lengthen the game (Map 19) by requiring trial / error as well as the 1 mandatory key, 1 optional key solution you have to uncover.

[baja blast rd.]

Quote

Negative #1: Super Shotgun

 

This part of the review points out that the SSG obsoletes every other weapon because it's too powerful. One key soundbite is: "It's fantastic about eliminating demons but doing the same thing to the rest of the arsenal." 

 

A more nuanced take IMO, for a player who does not like the SSG's usage in Doom 2, is that: 

- The levels overload you with shells 
- You get the SSG super early, on map02
- Encounters, the way they're designed, don't often require you to use stronger weapons (this ties into the known concept of how Doom 2's "new enemies" are often introduced or used in relatively toothless ways)

 

All of that combines to allow the player to coast on the SSG instead of being nudged to use a more varied use of weapons. Leaving the criticism at "SSG bad" seems like it misses the actual dynamic going on there. 

 

There's nothing inherently obsoleting about the SSG itself. Play a mapset with more exacting use of enemies or more restrained use of shells and you'll find it can easily fade to the rearview.

 

(I personally don't care that much as a player because when I play Doom 2-like sets I'm probably speedrunning them, which forces you to use bigger weapons. But I think that captures a lot of why the "too much SSG" crowd feel the weapon isn't especially well used in the game.)

 

This section points out that the SSG doesn't have good synergy with the rest of the arsenal, but that is debatable. The SSG is a very good bridge between the higher-tier weapons and the weaker ones, giving the player a reliable option against heavy hitters if rockets and cells are scarce or need to be conserved. With Doom 2 expanding the cast of mid-tier enemies, including some higher-priority ones that need to be killed ASAP rather than e.g. barons that you can just dance around, an extra way of dealing with them seemed like a great call. If someone argued that this isn't always well executed in the levels that would be their call -- but the arsenal itself, and the SSG relative to it, has good composition.

 

There are some major factual errors in this section too.

 

"Even the RL is less useful because the SSG does comparable damage minus the risk of hurting yourself." 

 

The RL does 2.7x more damage than the SSG, and potentially more if splash damage hurts multiple targets. Gotta compare DPS rather than how much damage it does with one shot connecting. The RL has a much higher rate of fire. 

 

If you're feeling the RL is less useful, it probably ties into you feeling that Doom 2 doesn't incentivize it often enough. But suggesting they do comparable damage is a big mistake! 

[Li'l devil]

19 minutes ago, GermanPeter said:

ok

Would be cool to get an actual discussion tho lol

Could've at least name it "Doom 2's Flaws" instead of a very baity title. Titles like this make people like me want to completely ignore the video. Oh well.

As for discussion, best to discuss individual aspects, and every week or so somebody creates a thread about how something in Doom 1/2 sucks, so we have a plenty of that. But anyway, flaws are a subjective thing. Some people enjoy what other people see as flaws, including stuff like obvious bugs. It's obvious that a game enjoyed by so many people isn't bad.

 

4 minutes ago, Gentlepoke said:

If this is clickbait, I would be interested in seeing what would constitute original content.

Clickbait is the title of the video, not the video itself.

[Gentlepoke]

1 minute ago, Li'l devil said:

Clickbait is the title of the video, not the video itself.

Gotcha, that would make more sense.

[LoatharMDPhD]

// "8 weapons"? .. Nein, nein, Nine weapons...

[Donowa]

45 seconds in and already i doubt your points by implying that doom 2 is worse than tnt or master levels

[PsychEyeball]

I've never not wanted to click on a video faster than this. The video's title alone just means to me you're looking for arguments out of bad faith instead of actual discussion.

 

What's next? A video that says "You can't win this" and "illegal!" in the thumbnail?

[GermanPeter]

24 minutes ago, baja blast rd. said:

 

This part of the review points out that the SSG obsoletes every other weapon because it's too powerful. One key soundbite is: "It's fantastic about eliminating demons but doing the same thing to the rest of the arsenal." 

 

A more nuanced take IMO, for a player who does not like the SSG's usage in Doom 2, is that: 

- The levels overload you with shells 
- You get the SSG super early, on map02
- Encounters, the way they're designed, don't often require you to use stronger weapons (this ties into the known concept of how Doom 2's "new enemies" are often introduced or used in relatively toothless ways)

 

All of that combines to allow the player to coast on the SSG instead of being nudged to use a more varied use of weapons. Leaving the criticism at "SSG bad" seems like it misses the actual dynamic going on there. 

 

There's nothing inherently obsoleting about the SSG itself. Play a mapset with more exacting use of enemies or more restrained use of shells and you'll find it can easily fade to the rearview.

 

(I personally don't care that much as a player because when I play Doom 2-like sets I'm probably speedrunning them, which forces you to use bigger weapons. But I think that captures a lot of why the "too much SSG" crowd feel the weapon isn't especially well used in the game.)

 

This section points out that the SSG doesn't have good synergy with the rest of the arsenal, but that is debatable. The SSG is a very good bridge between the higher-tier weapons and the weaker ones, giving the player a reliable option against heavy hitters if rockets and cells are scarce or need to be conserved. With Doom 2 expanding the cast of mid-tier enemies, including some higher-priority ones that need to be killed ASAP rather than e.g. barons that you can just dance around, an extra way of dealing with them seemed like a great call. If someone argued that this isn't always well executed in the levels that would be their call -- but the arsenal itself, and the SSG relative to it, has good composition.

 

There are some major factual errors in this section too.

 

"Even the RL is less useful because the SSG does comparable damage minus the risk of hurting yourself." 

 

The RL does 2.7x more damage than the SSG, and potentially more if splash damage hurts multiple targets. Gotta compare DPS rather than how much damage it does with one shot connecting. The RL has a much higher rate of fire. 

 

If you're feeling the RL is less useful, it probably ties into you feeling that Doom 2 doesn't incentivize it often enough. But suggesting they do comparable damage is a big mistake! 

Fair point about the level design! Honestly, I think Doom 2 does challenge the player with enemies quite a bit, especially on UV. It's just that the SSG is so good at dealing with even several Barons and Cacos at once. Plus, I felt this way about the SSG in Doom 64 as well.

 

Plus, yes, if the level design was different, then of course the power of the SSG would be different as well. But I'm looking at Doom 2 as-is here, not the arsenal as a whole. If cells had been extremely common and you'd have received the Plasma Gun in the second level, I'd be singing a different song as well.

 

Oh, my bad about the rocket launcher then, I think I misunderstood a quote by Civvie then. Either way, I only really use that one on groups of enemies and not so much on single, tanky foes like I would have in Doom 1. Honestly, I feel like the rocket launcher is a bit left out of the game in general.

[GermanPeter]

31 minutes ago, Li'l devil said:

Could've at least name it "Doom 2's Flaws" instead of a very baity title. Titles like this make people like me want to completely ignore the video. Oh well.

As for discussion, best to discuss individual aspects, and every week or so somebody creates a thread about how something in Doom 1/2 sucks, so we have a plenty of that. But anyway, flaws are a subjective thing. Some people enjoy what other people see as flaws, including stuff like obvious bugs. It's obvious that a game enjoyed by so many people isn't bad.

 

Clickbait is the title of the video, not the video itself.

The title was a reference to my Doom 64 video. Not saying it's not clickbait, it definitely is, but I don't really mind if people don't click on it because of that.

I just made this video to show that even if I praise Doom 2 all the time, that doesn't mean I think it's flawless, which many viewers of my 64 video claimed.

 

15 minutes ago, Donowa said:

45 seconds in and already i doubt your points by implying that doom 2 is worse than tnt or master levels

I'll be honest, I keep forgetting these are even a thing. I also don't consider them part of "Classic Doom", as they were kind of their own thing.

 

4 minutes ago, PsychEyeball said:

I've never not wanted to click on a video faster than this. The video's title alone just means to me you're looking for arguments out of bad faith instead of actual discussion.

I'd recommend watching it anyway, because Doom 2 is actually my favorite of the classic Doom titles ;)

 

Also sorry mods I just remembered I could quote several comments

[GibFrag]

Flaws and yet it sold really well and is still utilized by mappers and modders all these years later. Flawed but was many people’s first Doom game since it was more widely accessible than the first game was (until The Ultimate Doom). 

[JadingTsunami]

Video title seems fine to me.

 

Overall points made seem fair, and are the most common ones that are cited in my experience.

 

Doom 2 is an outstanding modding platform, but as a standalone game, Doom 1 is superior. Doom 2's levels are a mishmash of avant-garde muddles and gimmick maps. The texture palette is narrow and dull and averages out to a goopy gray/brown porridge. The storyline is flat out nonexistent and there are no threads of logic connecting anything to anything else.

 

I enjoyed it, but it has serious flaws.

 

Video Summary:

Spoiler

Positives:

- SSG

- Bestiary (varied and balanced)

- Level count (more content than Doom 1)

- Level size (bigger maps with larger arenas)

 

Negatives:

- SSG (overpowered; negates other weapons too much)

- Level presentation (wasted space, pointless areas, no consistent visual language)

- Unfair moments (inescapable traps, teleports to ambushes, etc.)

- Level progression (confusing, inconsistent)

 

[cannonball]

In hindsight Doom 2 was probably a little too easy for its own good and the early SSG does lend to being a weapon that is essentially the workhorse through the entire game. That said back in the day it was probably going to be tough to gauge the correct difficulty level for 1994. I am glad that many wads these days do tend to prioritise other weapons (Rocket launcher or even the plasma gun).

Alternatively play on nightmare, at which point the SSG is probably a little too slow to do the job.

[bofu]

I commented my thoughts on the video, but the non-episodic structure definitely had some setbacks. When you get the rocket launcher in MAP01 and then the most versatile weapon in the game in MAP02, you really need to limit the situations where the player can use those powerful weapons so they don't become a crutch, or build your encounters to match. And since the SSG shares ammo with the shotgun, you can't even limit ammo for it without making the shotgun less useful as well, when it should be a workhorse.

 

I feel like Doom 2 is the reason why pistol starting has gotten so prevalent. If you pistol start later levels, they're actually a bit of a challenge until you find resources (perhaps too much so in some cases). I am an unabashed SSG fan, and I love giving it to the player in my levels, but I also try to balance my combats in such a way where you can't use it in every situation. Stock Doom 2 doesn't really do that with a few exceptions.

[GermanPeter]

8 minutes ago, bofu said:

I feel like Doom 2 is the reason why pistol starting has gotten so prevalent. If you pistol start later levels, they're actually a bit of a challenge until you find resources (perhaps too much so in some cases). I am an unabashed SSG fan, and I love giving it to the player in my levels, but I also try to balance my combats in such a way where you can't use it in every situation. Stock Doom 2 doesn't really do that with a few exceptions.

Pistol-starting levels is something I absolutely can't get behind and wouldn't do in any game EXCEPT Doom 2. I don't think Doom 1 would really work well in that regard, but thanks to Doom 2's more open-ended levels, you're more likely to get your hands on certain guns early on.

[Monsieur E]

Some of you must be fun at parties. Doomworld learns what youtube engagement is chapter 2 (funny your doom64 episode had the same discourse, all about video thumbnail and title than the actual argument).

I haven't watched the video fully admittedly but I did watch the Unfair Moments point and I disagree on a lot of them. Also pardon if I phrase sentences wrong, I'm kinda tired rn :P 

1) The platforming segment at the end of Tricks and Traps can literally be walked straight across. The instant you notice it's lowering, you can press forwards to get off the platform. The first platform is a small square you can easily walk off of, you understand the platforms here will lower once you step on. Enforced again with the second square; and the only dangerous part is the sorta L shaped platform but by then you've already realized the floors are lowering. I was able to do this with autorun turned off too. 

2) The nukage pit in The Citadel is in a vat, with the wall texture marked as poison, with the floor texture as nukage, and the rocket boxes are not even that easily visible owing to the depth of the floor coupled with the flashing lights (especially if you aren't playing with freelook on which is how every player in 1994 played on DOS and how the game was designed). Maybe it's somewhat ambiguous but if I were a first time player, I would think twice before dipping in. And if you walk forwards up the stairs and take left to the platform, you'll find a switch which raises the nukage and eliminates the damaging floor entirely.

3) The trap at the start of Barrels of Fun is at the start, which opens with you facing where the mancubi is revealed to be infront of a large amount of barrels. So you're already queued in that him firing is gonna setoff barrels, the barrels behind you when you turn around gives you a cue to run forwards or get caught in the chain reaction. Rude sure, but hardly unfair if you're told your assignment and just need to be fast when acting to it :P. Besides, since it's the start of the level, anybody who dies can retry it right away.

4) I'd argue that the teleport traps "telling you to always have your BFG out" to paraphrase your words is fine actually, I mean you should expect the unexpected and all that when entering a teleporter since you don't know what's on the other side. The examples you listed for Nirvana and The Living End also give you enough space to maneuver, unlike The Factory which I do agree is more unfair since it ends up raising the chance of receiving damage without enough leverage to react. But I don't have an issue with the idea, just with that particularly implementation in Map12

5) Romero doesn't need to add a teleport back up, it's the penultimate level of the game. Doom2 has already given you quite a lot of catwalk scenarios. It's about as valid as any other gameplay challenge in The Living End. 

Anyways, the broader point I want to make and what I ultimately disagree on the notion of unfairness is I don't believe that Doom2 HAS to be so forgiving and lenient when presenting you with challenges. Sure you may not enjoy it but it's hardly bad game design to ask their players to be faster when reacting and being more precise. There's also the fact that Doom2 was designed for computers on DOS, so you bringing up the console ports is a moot point. On a more subjective note, I actually quite enjoy doom2's general air of hostility, experimentalism and outright bizarreness, it feels like the maps themselves are as much an antagonistic force as the demons, fitting quite well into the Hell on Earth premise. I'd recommend you read Roots which helped me appreciate doom2 more. One more thing, please don't misunderstand this as an attack on your character or channel, just a disagreement on a particular point you made. Cheers

[ZioMcCall]

1 hour ago, GermanPeter said:

Oh, my bad about the rocket launcher then, I think I misunderstood a quote by Civvie then. Either way, I only really use that one on groups of enemies and not so much on single, tanky foes like I would have in Doom 1. Honestly, I feel like the rocket launcher is a bit left out of the game in general.

Never.
EVER.
Use Civvie 11 as a informative source regarding Doom.
Dude literally believes the "Doom is not 3D" lie.

[GermanPeter]

21 minutes ago, Monsieur E said:

Some of you must be fun at parties. Doomworld learns what youtube engagement is chapter 2 (funny your doom64 episode had the same discourse, all about video thumbnail and title than the actual argument).

I haven't watched the video fully admittedly but I did watch the Unfair Moments point and I disagree on a lot of them. Also pardon if I phrase sentences wrong, I'm kinda tired rn :P 

1) The platforming segment at the end of Tricks and Traps can literally be walked straight across.

2) The nukage pit in The Citadel is in a vat, with the wall texture marked as poison, with the floor texture as nukage, and the rocket boxes are not even that easily visible

3) The trap at the start of Barrels of Fun is at the start

4) I'd argue that the teleport traps "telling you to always have your BFG out" to paraphrase your words is fine actually

5) Romero doesn't need to add a teleport back up, it's the penultimate level of the game.

Anyways, the broader point I want to make and what I ultimately disagree on the notion of unfairness is I don't believe that Doom2 HAS to be so forgiving and lenient when presenting you with challenges. Sure you may not enjoy it but it's hardly bad game design to ask their players to be faster when reacting and being more precise. There's also the fact that Doom2 was designed for computers on DOS, so you bringing up the console ports is a moot point. On a more subjective note, I actually quite enjoy doom2's general air of hostility, experimentalism and outright bizarreness, it feels like the maps themselves are as much an antagonistic force as the demons, fitting quite well into the Hell on Earth premise. I'd recommend you read Roots which helped me appreciate doom2 more. One more thing, please don't misunderstand this as an attack on your character or channel, just a disagreement on a particular point you made. Cheers

 

1) Yeah, IF you know that it's happening. I had the same issue in Doom 64, the floor just lowers, and you have like half a second to react. If you panic, too bad, do the whole level over if you didn't save yet. Seriously, that part was IMPOSSIBLE on PS1, I had to use cheats to even proceed. Not fun. An optional secret? Sure. But not RIGHT BEFORE THE EXIT.

 

2) I just don't think death pits without a single way out are fun or fair. Even if you accidentally fall into it, you get punished too severely for my taste.

 

3) Will agree that it's less frustrating because it's at the start.

 

4) Those three instances were where I always died back on GBA. It just comes back to what I said in 1), you have a split second to react, and if you don't, sucks to be you.

 

5) No, he doesn't. But it doesn't make for very enjoyable gameplay in my opinion. Not a fan of Romero's level design in general, dude loves toxic pits and tightropes, it's a surprise he didn't design The Chasm.

 

I love Doom 2 is the thing, even despite all its flaws. Some of my favorite maps are ones most people hate, for instance. I don't need to be convinced to give it a chance or anything, but it doesn't mean I don't see these as issues, because I think they are. Because if someone these days goes into these games, having experienced several decades of quality game design, they will stumble over these the same way.

[genitalgrinder]

The biggest issue with Doom 2 always has been chalked up to the level design. The level design just fucking sucks. Out of Doom 2's 32 maps I have only ever heard The Inmost Dens spoken of fondly.

 

A quarter-and-a-half of these maps are irredeemably mediocre and the remaining quarter are gimmicky garbage.

 

Conceptually, maps like The Crusher and Gotcha! are on par with the genius of Paul Thrussell and his "illusio-pit." I think The Chasm alone is quite commendable, though if only for its constrained precariousness in a megawad that hardly pays no focus to movement otherwise.

[Archvile Hunter]

Every single point made in the video against Doom II has roots in the level design, even the first point about the SSG being overpowered. The SSG isn't actually OP, it's just the levels have an abundance of shotgun ammo, and they rarely put the player in a scenario where they feel the need to use anything stronger than the SSG. Doom II's core mechanics, resource management, weapon balance, and bestiary are all damn near perfect. But the level design, which is where all these components are supposed to come together, falters severely.

[GermanPeter]

21 minutes ago, genitalgrinder said:

The biggest issue with Doom 2 always has been chalked up to the level design. The level design just fucking sucks. Out of Doom 2's 32 maps I have only ever heard The Inmost Dens spoken of fondly.

 

A quarter-and-a-half of these maps are irredeemably mediocre and the remaining quarter are gimmicky garbage.

 

Conceptually, maps like The Crusher and Gotcha! are on par with the genius of Paul Thrussell and his "illusio-pit." I think The Chasm alone is quite commendable, though if only for its constrained precariousness in a megawad that hardly pays no focus to movement otherwise.

Couldn't agree less, actually. Yes, they're super flawed, but there are many large, open-ended maps that give you a lot of room to explore and fight.

 

8 minutes ago, Archvile Hunter said:

Every single point made in the video against Doom II has roots in the level design, even the first point about the SSG being overpowered. The SSG isn't actually OP, it's just the levels have an abundance of shotgun ammo, and they rarely put the player in a scenario where they feel the need to use anything stronger than the SSG. Doom II's core mechanics, resource management, weapon balance, and bestiary are all damn near perfect. But the level design, which is where all these components are supposed to come together, falters severely.

 

Of course weapon balance comes down to the level design. Like I said in another comment, if you had received the Plasma Rifle early on and cells were aplenty, it'd be equally overpowered.

[Hebonky]

Maybe because there were only 4 level designers. John was deathmatching and Shawn Green had to do business stuff, so more like 2, so Sandy and American had to make basically every single level in Doom 2 in less than 11 months. You can imagine Sandy could never put his all into any levels, and American Mcgee just made less, but higher quality levels. 

Out of all the levels my favorites are all made by American Mcgee except for the Chasm and the Living end!

 

SSG is also pretty balanced, it has god awful pellet spread, and you have a long reload time, with the advantage of it being comparable to a rocket launcher

[Murdoch]

2 hours ago, GermanPeter said:

ok

Would be cool to get an actual discussion tho lol

 

The YouTube community you serve may be unaware of the points you raised, but we're not. This topic has been done to death here. Even it's fans generally accept that it has issues and have done so for decades. People (myself included) were willing to overlook them due to the sheer excitement of "hey look more Doom!!".

 

The usual consensus is Doom has the overall better maps, Doom 2 has the better variety of resources thus making it the better choice for modding.

[Xaser]

What on earth is up with all these "the iwad maps SUCK WAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGH" posts lately? Y'all really need to get some perspective here -- Doom 2 came out way back when the entire idea of an FPS was brand-new, i.e. the id guys were throwing shit at a wall to see what stuck because there was no science at all on how to make a game like this. We've since had thirty years to define and refine what makes a doom map good, so of course the original levels are going to pale in comparison to what the community can crank out even as a speedmap these days.

 

Ranting about how Objectively Bad an IWAD level is, without either acknowledging the historical context or at least diving into some sort of interesting aspect (e.g. what community-made maps did the concept better? what parts don't suck? what could the mapper have fixed to make the map good?) is like, below bare-minimum standard of commentary. "Baaaah, The Chasm Sucks!" -- Yes, we've heard that one before. You hate something about the game this site is dedicated to. So why are you here?

That last question is not rhetorical. I'd like to see folks spend more time answering it, instead of ranting in circles. ;P

 

[post-disclaimer: not necessarily talking at the OP here, dunno if this applies since I haven't watched the vid :P -- this is just the latest in a bunch of recent threads that are attracting this sort of post, and it's getting grating.]

[Monsieur E]

26 minutes ago, GermanPeter said:

 

1) Yeah, IF you know that it's happening. I had the same issue in Doom 64, the floor just lowers, and you have like half a second to react. If you panic, too bad, do the whole level over if you didn't save yet. Seriously, that part was IMPOSSIBLE on PS1, I had to use cheats to even proceed. Not fun. An optional secret? Sure. But not RIGHT BEFORE THE EXIT.

 

2) I just don't think death pits without a single way out are fun or fair. Even if you accidentally fall into it, you get punished too severely for my taste.

 

3) Will agree that it's less frustrating because it's at the start.

 

4) Those three instances were where I always died back on GBA. It just comes back to what I said in 1), you have a split second to react, and if you don't, sucks to be you.

 

5) No, he doesn't. But it doesn't make for very enjoyable gameplay in my opinion. Not a fan of Romero's level design in general, dude loves toxic pits and tightropes, it's a surprise he didn't design The Chasm.

 

I love Doom 2 is the thing, even despite all its flaws. Some of my favorite maps are ones most people hate, for instance. I don't need to be convinced to give it a chance or anything, but it doesn't mean I don't see these as issues, because I think they are. Because if someone these days goes into these games, having experienced several decades of quality game design, they will stumble over these the same way.

Guess it's a broader difference in perspective, I'm fine with maps being demanding and asking for split seconds reactions as you put it from players but you're not heh. Although I do disagree for a hypothetical modern player having the same reactions as you do, I wouldn't even say they'd have the same opinions as me, just that we shouldn't be immediately dismissive of certain design choices as bad game design (not that you specifically said this, but I do see this sentiment every so often). Hell, I'm technically that hypothetical modern player since I first played the game in 2020 due to that cool Doom Eternal easteregg and I'm very fond of it. So yeah, we can't be too assumptive of what any player could think until they actually have :P.