Mapping Conventions: Natural Vanilla vs. Vanilla

Pretty much a continuation of the discussion that started to take place in the Doom 2 The Way id Did thread starting, roughly, here. There was some... animated debate over the inclusion (or at least the purposeful 'leaving in') of mistakes, similar to the ones the original id mappers would have made. It's an interesting topic, but that thread is about a beta test. So in the interests of keeping the discussion going, while leaving the D2TWiD folks to focus on testing, here's a new thread.

Stupid question to get us started: Is Natural* Vanilla (where a map attempts to emulate the style of an id mapper, "warts and all") a valid form of mapping, or is it somehow grander to cherry pick the best elements and present those instead?

*if you can come up with a better name, go for it. I like 'method-mapping' myself.

One thing would be joining sectors for triggering teleporting monsters. Would that be allowed in a "Natural Vanilla" map?

EvilNed said:

One thing would be joining sectors for triggering teleporting monsters. Would that be allowed in a "Natural Vanilla" map?

It's worth mentioning that we did allow ourselves to cheat a bit with this and some other things that would only be noticed when examining the map in an editor. For instance, the id mappers were able to have a new linedef action coded when they built a setup that needed it, like the Raise 512 special that was coded for map30. In DTWID and D2TWID, we allowed ourselves to occasionally use dummy sectors in lieu of this.

I'm not sure why this is even a thread. Any form of mapping is a "valid" form of mapping. The d2twid team's goal was for "warts and all". Who cares if some people didn't like some of the design choices in d2twid.

Agreed with TOD, what kind of question is that? You can map whatever you want, at least unless you break the law somehow. So, killing people so that you can put pictures of their bodies in your maps is not OK for example.

Memfis said:

Agreed with TOD, what kind of question is that? You can map whatever you want, at least unless you break the law somehow. So, killing people so that you can put pictures of their bodies in your maps is not OK for example.

Awww man. Total buzzkill, Memfis :(

TimeOfDeath said:

I'm not sure why this is even a thread. Any form of mapping is a "valid" form of mapping. The d2twid team's goal was for "warts and all". Who cares if some people didn't like some of the design choices in d2twid.

It's a thread because people wanted to talk about it, but the place they were talking about it in wasn't exactly receptive to some of the ideas expressed, even if that's all they were. Frankly, I understand why someone wouldn't want to put up with a critique of the entire philosophy behind their megawad. Hence, this new thread, where we can puke out any notion that comes to mind - even disagreeing with the existence of the thread itself.

And I said it was a stupid question. This discussion is purely academic. For the erudition of the Doom community, if you will... We know that all maps are valid -- even Terries -- but not everyone agrees on the best way to make an id-style map, and that's cool. That's where this thread starts.

As essel pointed out, there are concessions to newer mapping techniques. So where does one draw the line - at elements that players will never notice in-game, or at elements that would actively annoy most players (instant crushers come to mind), etc.?

EDIT: Buncha stuff.

-actually, ill revise this-

lols Memfis, I hope that never happens

I guess the d2twid crew could have been more strict by using an ancient map editor and without using a vanill-o-meter (chocorenderlimits).

TimeOfDeath said:

lols Memfis, I hope that never happens

I guess the d2twid crew could have been more strict by using an ancient map editor and without using a vanill-o-meter (chocorenderlimits).

This was actually discussed as a joke, but when it comes down to it being more lenient\conservative in your mapping does a good enough job of replicating primitive mapping processes IMO

I'd be interested in seeing a simple list of id's "Warts and All".

NiuHaka said:

I'd be interested in seeing a simple list of id's "Warts and All".

That would be interesting, yes. Then maybe a chart of which errors are the most common, and who the most error prone id mappers were. The Doom Wiki already has a listing for bugs for each level, so it wouldn't be that hard to go through and list them all... If someone really wanted to do it.

Natural vanilla mapping would require emulating the work conditions of the original mappers. NeXT workstations, DoomEd, tight deadlines, and most importantly, being in the year 1994.

You gotta invent a time-travel machine if you really want to make vanilla maps.

Gez said:

Natural vanilla mapping would require emulating the work conditions of the original mappers. NeXT workstations, DoomEd, tight deadlines, and most importantly, being in the year 1994.

You gotta invent a time-travel machine if you really want to make vanilla maps.

DTWiD needed a nonstop heavy metal soundtrack with John Romero playtesting every map without sounds, making all the noises himself

Well I made all my D2TWID maps in like a week to emulate the tight deadlines.

Edit:

schwerpunk said:

That would be interesting, yes. Then maybe a chart of which errors are the most common, and who the most error prone id mappers were. The Doom Wiki already has a listing for bugs for each level, so it wouldn't be that hard to go through and list them all... If someone really wanted to do it.

The wiki doesn't have even remotely all the bugs. And it doesn't even mention some of the best fuckups in Doom2, I mean Nirvana's page doesn't even mention the egregiously large unclosed sector in the rocket launcher area nor does Spirit World's page mention the fact that the entire SSG platform is missing upper textures.

The target/recommended hardware for DOOM II was what, a 486 with 8 MB RAM? That's the main technical limitation, and the end result should run well on that hardware. The rest will drive you crazy, if everyone has to setup VMs and do every little thing in NeXTSTEP and DOS, using only old versions of old tools, including some that haven't been released to the public (like that map editor Romero might still have a copy of).

Of course the engine version can have some impact too. Maybe the maps would have turned out differently if they started with v1.9. This would probably be more apparent in DOOM rather than DOOM II, since v1.2 and previous were very limited compared to later releases. But I don't think that's as important as just making sure the maps run well on a 486.

As far as style emulation, I guess you just get as close as possible, but not to the point where it gets annoying/unfun to map. Stuff the player never sees won't matter.

@kmxexii: don't forget also he has to DM everyone, and scream "Suck it down, bitch!@#%@" every time he kicks their ass! ;-)

I wouldn't want to play a map with intentional HOMs, missing textures, misalignments, things not tagged with a difficulty setting or awkward texture choices.

So you are telling me D2TWID isnt created with ancient editors, on ancient computers and without help tools like the chocorenderlimits?

Total boycott!

I really wish the original Doom editor gets released, in its current source code. Maybe it can be revived!

Anyway, vanilla with emulation of id's schedule is, to put it bluntly, stupid. Nobody should try to emulate other's style.

Let alone that even by restricting yourself to ancient tools etc. (like DEU), you will discover that there were actual 1994 authors and maps that used some or all of the techniques you call as "cheating" or as "too advanced" in valid True Vanilla maps.

UAC_DEAD.WAD, anyone? And certainly if you examine all 1994 WADs, you'll discover maps using joined sectors, deep water, weird crushers etc. all discovered by experimenting and tinkering.

Well in the case of id, their editor was physically incapable of doing certain things like self-referencing sectors and merging sectors.

They couldn't make a rectangular sector, then make a square sector in the middle so that the rectangular sector is split into 3 squares, then delete the middle sector?

TimeOfDeath said:

They couldn't make a rectangular sector, then make a square sector in the middle so that the rectangular sector is split into 3 squares, then delete the middle sector?

I don't believe so. Their map editor didn't edit sectors directly at all -- they set floor/ceiling properties on lines instead, using a floodfill function for convenience, and the sector references were created automatically when the map was compiled into the game's format. This is why some of the IWAD maps have dummy tags like 999 on alternating sectors for stair builders, to trick the compiler into making them separate sectors in spite of their sharing the same properties.

Maes said:

UAC_DEAD.WAD, anyone? And certainly if you examine all 1994 WADs, you'll discover maps using joined sectors, deep water, weird crushers etc. all discovered by experimenting and tinkering.

Just wait for TETWTTD!

Gez said:

Just wait for TETWTTD!

?

TNT Evilution the way Team TNT did I guess. Bonus points if it is made by the members of Team TNT themselves.

"Evilution the way TNT Did" is going to be the title, along with "Plutonia the way the Casalis did" and "Doom 64 the way id would".

The most fun thing about a TETWTTD (aside from the acronym) would be the ability to become Drake O'Brien and submit some hilarious maps.

(Actually, I like MAP20, but Mount Pain still makes my lungs chafe.)

Memfis said:

So, killing people so that you can put pictures of their bodies in your maps is not OK for example.

UAC Ultra 2 MAP31. I map with NO RULES.

I'm telling.