PM>  Nope... but I'd say Apogee spent those years making a better game
 PM>  -ROTT- and then created Duke3d, which is a quantum leap beyond Doom.
  How is ROTT better than Doom?  The engine harks back to Wolfenstein 3D, not 
Doom.  No non-orthogonal (i.e. something other than 90 degree angles) walls, 
simpler lighting effects, and no elevation changes.  True, there was 
11-player network play... but how many people used that?  And none of the 
enemies could really scare you like a demon lunging out of the darkness.
 PM>  If they were sitting, where'd ROTT come from?  :)
  It came from a quick, hurried effort to cash in on the 3D action craze - 
not some next-generation, genre-busting game.  
 PM>  (Everyone can bash me for thinking ROTT is better, but it's not going
 PM>  to change how I feel.  I just wish I'd played ROTT first.  There would
 PM>  have been no need to bother with Doom.)
    What's the big appeal to ROTT?  The only thing I could see that was 
better was the weapons, and even then it was just a lot of variations on the 
rocket launcher.
 PM>  For me, the 'tell all' happened when I upgraded my computer to a
 PM>  decent 486 processor, plenty of ram and a video accelerator... and Doom
 PM>  still played as if I had my old 386-33.  :(
  Guess you had a bad 486.  I sure noticed better performance on a 486!
 PM>  ROTT, Duke3d, and Descent all seem quite happy with my system.  :)
  Same here, as well as every Doom-engine game, and Quake.
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------