Doom is like chess

Charging into an unexplored room is like playing a Queen's Gambit against a new opponent.

I think that mapping in Doom is much more like chess than playing it. A good mapper will take into consideration how monsters can be placed strategically to corner the player or control large areas of the playing field (this element of strategic placement is less present, though not entirely absent, in building slaughter maps.) When playing the game, on the other hand, the player's methods of circumventing this placement is based less around strategy and more around agility.

StupidBunny said:

A good mapper will take into consideration how monsters can be placed strategically to corner the player or control large areas of the playing field (this element of strategic placement is less present, though not entirely absent, in building slaughter maps.)

To the contrary, I'd say it's a lot more important in slaughter maps, since strategic placement is what can change overwhelming odds from "impossible bullshit" to "difficult, but feasible if you find the proper route".

A map with a vanilla-like amount of monsters can afford to use monsters a bit haphazardly. It will not have great gameplay and will not get rave reviews; but it'll be playable anyway and people may even forgive the poor monster placement if the map is interesting by other aspects. A map with non-stop combat against endless hordes of monsters, though, it requires a lot of forethought and plenty of playtesting to be successful.

A game of chess is like a sword fight: you must think fast before you move.

In Chess there are horses, some people have sex with them. In Doom there are imps, and you know the rest.

Yeah, ANY thread is good for impse jokes.

I'd say Quake 3/Live is more like chess than Doom (where controlling the map and items and also where the opponent can go is an important part of the game play). But I can certainly see where the OP is coming from.

dew said:

so many people with intimate knowledge of "the game" compare it to chess, why rebel against it because your particular (limited?) experience seems different?

I'm confused...why would you say my experience is limited when you refuse to talk about anything besides map01 duels?

I have played map01 duels and they are awesome, and you're right that the balance can be similar to chess. But still, there are only two pieces on the board so to speak. There doesn't seem to be any analogues for things like pinning and forking, or even just for pieces defending each other. Maybe in an 8 vs 8 team game...but that's getting more like checkers, considering all players move in exactly the same way. Sure, they may have different play styles, but the mechanics of the game dictate that every player is equal. Chess is unique because you have pieces that move altogether differently.

I'm not "rebelling" in the sense that I'm angry people would think this way. I just think that the comparison is not very strong. Doom never really requires you to think along several lines of move logic, where you are looking at tons of possibilities, and that is what I thought made chess a unique game.

magicsofa said:

But still, there are only two pieces on the board so to speak.

You seem to be confusing things here.
There are only two players, but that is equal for chess. PIECES are the weapons and tactics available to the player. and those can be counted far higher than two in a Map01 Duel game.

1-7. (Or about, I mean, there's 9 different weapons, but if all of them are ever used is another matter) The weapons of the game.
8. Sound cues.
9. Spawn system.
10. Positional advantage.
11. Spam control.
12. Movement.
13. Aim.
14. Weapon usage (How to make most out of your weapon, not just slamming the trigger)
15. Health and Armor.
To name the most obvious ones at least.

The biggest similarity I can think of between games like Doom and Quake and Chess is how you have to make moves to reach your goals and be elusive and evasive enough with those moves to make it not obvious to the opponent on what it is you're planning to do, or at the very least unable for him/her to reach you. Because if you're predictable or careless you will be punished by the opponent anticipating your moves and taking away your pieces.

Playing against an opponent who refuses to 'Tip the King' is like a GAWDAMN SWITCH HUNT! AAARGH!

I the mapper, will try to checkmate the player. The monsters are my pawns, the hallways are my squares. I get to be white, I move first. You better study your Sicilian Yugoslav lines.

Red is like blue because they're both colors!
Red is more like blue than yellow is....because they're....both colors!

Everything in this thread is conveniently vague to make Doom (OR Quake Live) seem more like a high-brow fancy pants game of chess.

Pretty much like a cook friend of mine, who argues that since wine becomes vinegar, they must be the same (and substituted vinegar for wine in a recipe).

By this reasoning, since food eventually becomes shit....

I'm really good at Doom and just mediocre at Chess

DOOM can be like whatever you want if you do the proper reasoning which could be a funny subject for a thread.

-DOOM is like shit, all days there's someone making DOOM stuff. Like anal stage, once you try DOOM for the first time, it will be part of your life forever in a way or other even if you repress it. Also most monsters have brown on their sprites. Even kids know how to make DOOM stuff.

-DOOM is like Pacman, creatures from the other world chase you (ghosts, demons), you pick up items that help you win the map and beat the bad guys, even though its simple you need strategy, in classic DOOM you can know the maps as much as you do in Pacman. Both are popular, both were ported in a lot of consoles, etc.

-DOOM is like a Metro, there's a lot of people in, and so far modern stuff didn't replace it.

DOOM is like Chess boxing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing

The closest Doom gets to chess is those checkered marble floor textures.

Vegeta said:

In Chess there are horses, some people have sex with them

I don't remember that move.

I've only seen it used once - in a remote mining camp after both queens were removed from play early in the game.

I'd say that Doom MAPPING is much like chess. To be interesting, I try to plan fights that exert pressure on the player on multiple fronts at once. And it's fun to experiment with different pairings or three-monster challenges: what's it like to fight a lost soul and a former human? What's it like to fight a lost soul and a Cacodemon? I just find it fun to experiment with different combinations.

I was drunk when I posted this topic. I meant to say that compared to modern games, you require more thought into your moves and opening up possible future moves. In doom you have to decide on a kill order where in modern games (that I've played) you just kill the enemies as they appear, or you'll fight a bunch of the same type of enemy.

While I dislike Chess (a formulaic game based on memorisation), there's some grain of truth in here.

DooM and Heretic (not Hexen, which is heavily scripted and linear) are very nice in that there are multiple paths through a level. It's very ironic that Hexen, a game that - in theory - allows you to visit levels in any order - in practice is the most linear and limiting. From my perspective, the disease started with Hexen (a game which I like very much for other reasons).

DooM1,2 feels a lot more like a game. Because (I presume) it was initially designed around having limited lives and player respawn, levels can be cleared with a naked marine (idclevxy, there are some weapons to be found). This is worse in Heretic, and much worse in Hexen, where weapons are very rare. I think one reason Hexen feels so dull action-wise is that it doesn't have the episodic structure of DooM1 and Heretic. In those games you keep finding the same weapons over an over, you're constantly improving your arsenal.

----------
But let's not get too carried away. Part of the reason why there's so much freedom in DooM and Heretic is absurd movement speed. Unless levels are carefully tailored to prevent that, you can run in circles around monsters. Actually it's a bit sad you don't even have to run to move faster than Demon and Arch Ville.

This is worth a separate thread, but perhaps a bold font will suffice:

Has anyone tried completing DooM 1 or 2 without using run mode ?

I tried some initial levels and Oblige-generated ones, and it was a lot harder, revenants in particular made me sweat. I think running speed is the core reason why stock DooM1,2 levels are laughably easy for moderate player using mouse.

b0rsuk said:

Chess (a formulaic game based on memorisation)

What the fuck? This statement made me too incredulous to read the rest of your post. Yeah, you have to memorize the RULES. You have to get to a rather advanced level to start memorizing openings and stuff, and even then, you are supposed to be paying attention to what your opponent does and responding by adjusting your opening if necessary. I can't imagine how you arrived at this conclusion since you obviously suck at chess, and people who suck at chess tend to have zero knowledge of openings and other things you could possibly memorize.

magicsofa said:

What the fuck? This statement made me too incredulous to read the rest of your post. Yeah, you have to memorize the RULES. You have to get to a rather advanced level to start memorizing openings and stuff, and even then, you are supposed to be paying attention to what your opponent does and responding by adjusting your opening if necessary. I can't imagine how you arrived at this conclusion since you obviously suck at chess, and people who suck at chess tend to have zero knowledge of openings and other things you could possibly memorize.

First, you're already on my ignore list for unnecessary insults and personal attacks instead of argumentation. If Chess was a Blizzard game, you'd ask me for my BattleNet profile (you sound like you have one). So these words are my "goodbye" to you. I'm writing this mostly for the others. Gone are the days where I would try to convince the people who I feel are not worth my time.

Chess is highly overrated.

I read a scientific study which analysed brainwaves of chess players of various levels. They concluded that novices used parts of brain responsible for creativity, while grandmasters worked mostly with their memory. I don't remember the exact keywords to Google it, though. Maybe later.

I'll stick to my guns. Chess is the same every time, and it's a game which can be solved in the mathematical sense. One day there will be lookup tables for Chess and optimal move for each situation. Even today there are 20-something openings considered the best and the real play starts later.

Checkers is already a solved game. With optimal play, every single game ends with a draw. So it's not just Tic-Tac-Toe.

There's a chess variant called Chess960 which tries to remedy this:

Fischer Random Chess is a variant of Shuffle chess defined by former World Champion Bobby Fischer and introduced formally to the chess public on June 19, 1996, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Shuffle Chess had been played for quite some time before this, as early as 1842.[1] Fischer's goal was to eliminate what he considered the complete dominance of openings preparation in chess today, and to replace it with creativity and talent. His belief about Russians fixing all international games also provided motivation. In a situation where the starting position was random it would be impossible to fix every move of the game. Since the opening book for each possible opening position would be too difficult to devote to memory (960 "book opening" systems), each player must create every move originally. From the first move, both players have to come up with original strategies and cannot use well-known thinking patterns. Fischer believed that eliminating memorized book moves would level the playing field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960

As for me, I prefer multiple other games, like Tigris and Euphrates . This particular game can be played by up to 4 people, avoids the issues with players ganging up on another, has minor luck element (and bluffing).

A UV Tyson match!

EDIT: removed link

b0rsuk said:

I read a scientific study which analysed brainwaves of chess players of various levels. They concluded that novices used parts of brain responsible for creativity, while grandmasters worked mostly with their memory.

If it was a scientific study, you presumably misread it. Probably what you're referring to is pattern recognition, a vital skill in many fields, and very important in chess. But it merely provides a mental clue to what might be pertinent to a position - a starting point for the intuition and a guide for the actual work of deciding what to do in a position. Calculation is paramount in this process, and, believe me, strong players do a hell of a lot of it in a tournament game.

b0rsuk said:

Chess is the same every time, and it's a game which can be solved in the mathematical sense.

An awful lot of things can in principle be solved in the mathematical sense (including, say, the optimal path through Doom2). Doesn't mean it is a practical proposition.

b0rsuk said:

One day there will be lookup tables for Chess and optimal move for each situation. Even today there are 20-something openings considered the best and the real play starts later.

One day? I presume you are referring to tablebases. So far, these are complete up to 6-man (having started with 3-man), with 7-man being worked on now. That means the result is known for all positions with six pieces or fewer (including kings) on the board. With the addition of each extra piece, the time needed to generate the tablebases grows exponentially, as does the size of the datasets generated. The 6-man tablebases took about a decade. All 6-man tablebases are more than a terabyte (if you include ones where one side has a bare king). Only when the 32-man tablebases are generated can chess be said to be solved. You're welcome to speculate on how long that will take, making any assumptions you like about speed improvements, and how much of the world's computing resources are devoted to it. And how the data would be stored is another question you might like to ponder.

Consider also that the human genome has been fully mapped out. Does that mean it is a trivial thing, or that it is fully understood? Q+P vs Q endings have had a tablebase for more than a decade, yet no one truly understands them (including my colleague John Nunn, who is regarded as the world's number one expert in this type of data mining).

b0rsuk said:

[stuff about shuffle chess and Fischer and his claims of match fixing, etc.]

Quite a number of former champions, even ones without Fischer's psychoses, have made claims in their later life that chess is worked-out, dead, etc. Back in the 1920s there were claims of inevitable draw death. Yet modern chess is livelier and more combative than it was back then. Fischer's specific claims about the Karpov-Kasparov matches are considered laughable by even those sympathetic to many of his other chess-related ideas. No one in the chess world takes them seriously.

Yes, some opening lines have been studied way beyond move 20. I'm responsible for some of this myself! But these are a few out of a great many possibilities, and the ones that currently seem of most interest. But the topical lines change, and there is no feeling that the currently "hot" lines have in any way been established as objectively best. Often a completely new approach will be developed at a very early stage, and it quickly becomes a main line, and extensively developed - and this is a highly creative endeavour in its own right. This is an ongoing process, with ever-richer and more surprising results.

In the rare instances when there have been shuffle chess tournaments, the games tend to be not so exciting. Players tend to develop in more or less standard patterns. The players' greater experience with the themes of standard openings and positions from the normal starting position enables them to play more boldly and creatively, rather than the reverse.

b0rsuk said:

So these words are my "goodbye" to you.

:(