The /newstuff Chronicles #305

hobomaster22 said:

In response to b00mb0dy. You're playing it on easy. The wad was never tested on easy and and I found out from someone that the script breaks. Didn't think it was worth re-uploading. Playing it on easy kind of ruins the experience anyway.

Fixed on my site anyway if you insist though:

http://hobomaster.doomwadstation.com/god_efix.zip

And I can't beleive 90% of this thread is bitching about this port bullshit. Deathz0r wants to skip those wads because he beleives they weren't clear enough in their txts. Don't agree with it? Too bad. Deal with it.

Thanks for your help! It is greatly appreciated.

kristus said:

What is expected is that the TXT file is telling the user what version of Doom it's made to run with. That's not hard, it's not ridiculous, it's not time consuming.

Agreed. Not a single time did I endorse or condone this behavior in my posts. On the other hand, reviewers and players alike must adapt/align themselves to the circumstances of the times, and these circumstances, in good or bad, have marginalized vanilla doom as much as exotic ports like e.g. RoR Doom or cDoom.

kristus said:

And you can't escape the fact that people are still making maps for Vanilla Doom, however small that number of people are. Just in this /newstuff there's actually 3 wads that DO run with Doom2.exe.

Not escaping it, but I wonder how many of these were really designed and playtested with the author's clear intention of running with doom2.exe e.g. "I'm gonna make a vanilla doom map that runs with doom2.exe, period".

After the introduction of limit-removing ports, it was only a matter of time before the appearance of "de facto" major incompatibilities between the mainstream Doom mapping scene and "pute vanilla doom".

Mapping specifically for vanilla IMHO is today almost as marginalized as mapping for unusual and exotic ports such as RoR and cDoom, and if a map happens to work with doom2.exe it's usually just a matter of luck or a coincidence (there are maps not intended to work with doom2.exe that do work, and viceversa).

hobomaster22 said:

And I can't beleive 90% of this thread is bitching about this port bullshit. Deathz0r wants to skip those wads because he beleives they weren't clear enough in their txts. Don't agree with it? Too bad. Deal with it.

Read previous nc/ editions and you will not find it unbelievable at all :-) And yeah, I think I'm doing a damn good job at dealing with it.

Maes said:
Not a single time did I endorse or condone this behavior in my posts. On the other hand, reviewers and players alike must adapt/align themselves to the circumstances of the times, and these circumstances, in good or bad, have marginalized vanilla doom as much as exotic ports like e.g. RoR Doom or cDoom.

In the context of what we're saying, you're (or were, since you now more or less but not so clearly countered that with your initial agreement) endorsing that behavior with your "on the other hand"; it's one thing to acknowledge why some people may not be providing proper info on their text files, and another to say it's ridiculous that they should (implying even that reviewers should change their practices for it). The standard engine is not "marginalized" because its features, including limits, are clearly noted or implied in various places, such as the wiki and including here as we talk about these sujects. Not to mention that it is quite common for people to note "limit removing" in their text files; something that you were tacitly arguing against by saying that if it doesn't say anything it's "limit removing".

Not escaping it, but I wonder how many of these were really designed and playtested with the author's clear intention of running with doom2.exe e.g. "I'm gonna make a vanilla doom map that runs with doom2.exe, period".

All the ones that say that in the text file; the ones not saying it will be saying something else unless they aren't nearly saying enough. When people don't even note or imply what it was tested under, it isn't possible to say whether it will work on anything in particular. You can test something in Doom that will break in ZDoom, for example.

After the introduction of limit-removing ports, it was only a matter of time before the appearance of "de facto" major incompatibilities between the mainstream Doom mapping scene and "pute vanilla doom".

The "de facto incompatibility" applies between all the engines with each other at different levels, so your statement is misleading if you target Doom specifically. The only thing that is close to guaranteeing that it will work on anything, is a plain and "true" Doom wad (if you add DeHackEd you can already discount Doom95 and some early ports and modifications); limitlessness is not guaranteed, because how big a map you can make still depends on the particular engine used. Thus it must be specified.

Note that this discussion stated with a rather murky example; as addressed first by Bloodshedder, and then by myself and Graf Zahl, Wiles says two things; "any source port" plus "tested with ZDoom", which combined make a relatively strong impression that it may fail on Doom, Chocolate Doom and (less likely but still possibly) Boom. And if what Belial said is correct about a switch activated secret, it has to different degrees failed in all three (unless there is some other way to trigger it). If you wanted to point out a valid discrepancy, it would have been that, and not that if it says "works with any port/engine" Chocolate Doom and such can be excluded, as the reviewer makes a critique looking for quality and clarity; he isn't an anthropologist interpreting or deciphering works.

I don't know, myk, but somehow I wouldn't spontaneously say "It's OK not to specify the intended source port in the descriptive .txt". I also know that none of us will really yield on this argument, so I'll try to find a painless way to end it:

I can't get over the fact that deathz0r just used the "doesn't run on intended source port" argumentation to skip reviewing some maps when a source port wasn't, in fact, specified. I'm not saying it's deathz0r's fault or something done out of spite, but just a loophole or "grey zone" in a (self-imposed) rule, which didn't need to be adressed before now.

In that case, it would be better to adapt the rule not to revert to vanilla doom in case of non-specified source port, or at least state clearly if reviewers should/should not revert to it.

Once this has been cleared up, then it's really only a mapper's fault if a reviewers reverts to e.g. Chocolate, vanilla or even RoR or cDoom for testing and the map subsequently bombs.

Maes said:
I can't get over the fact that deathz0r just used the "doesn't run on intended source port" argumentation to skip reviewing some maps when a source port wasn't, in fact, specified.

Heh, why the hell would he skip Wiles' level, of all of them? He clearly implied Richard is a very good mapper. Reviewers aren't even obligated to review all the files. Had he wanted to he could have merely reviewed what he thought were the best releases, skipping others due to time constraints or whatever.

Once this has been cleared up, then it's really only a mapper's fault if a reviewers reverts to e.g. Chocolate, vanilla or even RoR or cDoom for testing and the map subsequently bombs.

It's already been cleared up; if it just says "works with any port" and it doesn't do so because it uses either specific features or exceeds standard limits (the two most basic and evident reasons, other than hard to find quirks), the text file is lacking. In that case the reviewer, if he's observant, will do something about it, such as note it in the review, or simply state that it's broken, as deathz0r did (better in Bloodskull's example than in Wiles' due to the reasons noted previously).

Any port includes Doom, Doom95, Chocolate Doom and any other similar engines, such as ports to other systems, that are based on the Doom v1.10 source or Chocolate Doom itself, and are definitely not uncommon at all, so the text files need to clearly state theat the wads won't break in these (or any) engines, so "any port" is equivalent to them at least, and not to "limit removing". The fact that you (or whoever) may think limit removing is better or "the thing" now, is irrelevant.

myk said:

Any port includes Doom, Doom95, Chocolate Doom and any other similar engines, such as ports to other systems.....the fact that you (or whoever) may think limit removing is better or "the thing" now, is irrelevant.

More source for ambiguity and controversy here...this isn't going to end, isn't it?

I belong to the school of thought that considers Doom (vanilla) "The" source port instead of just "a" source port, meaning that it's the standard upon other source ports are supposed to extend or improve upon (except if close behavior and limit replication are sought after), so it's really a case apart.

The problem I see here is that some people are applying their own restrictive rules to something that isn't really that clear.

First, most Doomers don't consider Doom or Doom95 'ports'.
Second, Chocolate Doom is more or less a niche-product aimed at a very specific target audience and you can bet that most Doomers never heard of it or consider it a total waste of time and effort.

Logically, if someone writes 'works with any port' and decent reviewer should exclude these by default and assume 'limit removing'.

I agree with Maes on one point: If something is supposed to work with Doom2.exe the text file should state so. Assuming this by default is doomed to fail (for the obvious reasons that have been stated repeatedly here) and will spark many more /newstuff debates.

And to be blunt: I as a /newstuff reader don't care about this nonsense. I want to know what I can expect from a WAD and 'DOES NOT RUN WITH INTENDED SOURCE PORT' is something nobody can be satisfied with: It doesn't tell me anything, it pisses off the mapper and it causes disturbances here on the forum. It's a lose-for-all situation.

Graf Zahl said:

...Chocolate Doom is more or less a niche-product aimed at a very specific target audience and you can bet that most Doomers never heard of it or consider it a total waste of time and effort.

Are you sure that's 'most doomers' or just Graf Zahl?

Graf Zahl said:
First, most Doomers don't consider Doom or Doom95 'ports'.
Second, Chocolate Doom is more or less a niche-product aimed at a very specific target audience and you can bet that most Doomers never heard of it or consider it a total waste of time and effort.

Not very relevant, especially with the term "port". Various ports to different systems are based on the plain source, since Doom is being ported even beyond the PC, and wads may be loaded there too. Doom95 is totally a port, though.

Logically, if someone writes 'works with any port' and decent reviewer should exclude these by default and assume 'limit removing'.

Both you and and Maes have a clear bent that puts Chocolate Doom and such as "niche stuff", thus it's "logical" for you guys in particular.

I agree with Maes on one point: If something is supposed to work with Doom2.exe the text file should state so. Assuming this by default is doomed to fail (for the obvious reasons that have been stated repeatedly here) and will spark many more /newstuff debates.

It's bound to fail sometimes, like anything will, but assuming nothing means "limit removing" fails the other way, badly. Aditionally, changing this is inconsistent with the game itself and the tons of wads released during the 20th century and beyond, most of which clearly state if some particular engine or limit removal are required. There is no reason to drop a useful practice that we've been following since the source allowed changes to the game core.

it pisses off the mapper and it causes disturbances here on the forum. It's a lose-for-all situation.

That depends on the mapper, obviously, as they may well be interested in knowing people are having issues with it. I agree perhaps not reviewing at all is not too helpful, but that depends on the reviewer obviously, as he manages his time, and replaying with other engines uses up more time. I'd resort to noting it clearly in the review, perhaps like deathz0r did in bold letters, but might still revierw it, if I had the time.

/newstuff needs a disclaimer of some sort, reminding people that these reviews are provided as is, for free by people who volunteer. It may also need to remind them to STFU.

Maes said:

this isn't going to end, isn't it?

Whether it ends or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that your arguments are unlikely to change deathz0r's stance on the review format. If you don't like it, don't read it. Do your own reviews if you think you can do any better.

Graf Zahl said:

And to be blunt: I as a /newstuff reader don't care about this nonsense. I want to know what I can expect from a WAD and 'DOES NOT RUN WITH INTENDED SOURCE PORT' is something nobody can be satisfied with: It doesn't tell me anything, it pisses off the mapper and it causes disturbances here on the forum. It's a lose-for-all situation.

I as a /newstuff reader am quite satisfied. Someone took the time and effort to review 16 WADs and I appreciate that. If it pisses off the mapper, maybe they'll learn and try harder next time. The reason it causes disturbances on the forum is the same reason all the other completely inane arguments cause distubances, INTARNETS ARE SERIOS BISNESS.

I as a /newstuff reader fully support the DOES NOT WORK IN INTENDED SOURCE PORT thing. It makes wad creators think what they are doing when they write thier docs, hopefully resulting in clearer ones for all. I think Deathzor's port policy should be adoped by all reviwers

deathbringer said:

I as a /newstuff reader fully support the DOES NOT WORK IN INTENDED SOURCE PORT thing. It makes wad creators think what they are doing when they write thier docs, hopefully resulting in clearer ones for all. I think Deathzor's port policy should be adoped by all reviwers

Graf Zahl said:
And to be blunt: I as a /newstuff reader don't care about this nonsense. I want to know what I can expect from a WAD and 'DOES NOT RUN WITH INTENDED SOURCE PORT' is something nobody can be satisfied with: It doesn't tell me anything, it pisses off the mapper and it causes disturbances here on the forum. It's a lose-for-all situation.

The mappers who make these mistakes should know by now that they need to make sure that their wads DO work in the source ports they've specified. Boom is not the same as Zdoom. Edge is not the same as Skulltag. If the reviewer said "DOES NOT RUN WITH INTENDED PORT", then that's the mapper's fault. There's no reason to make the repeated mistake of saying "So and so will work with any port" when it is intended for a source port with Boom support.

/newstuff isn't about educating the mappers (most don't care anyway.)
It's about informing the potential users about the maps and deathz0r's attitude doesn't do it. These are no longer reviews for the common user base - they are merely for a small group here that tries to make a futile point.

Graf Zahl said:

/newstuff isn't about educating the mappers (most don't care anyway.)
It's about informing the potential users about the maps and deathz0r's attitude doesn't do it. These are no longer reviews for the common user base - they are merely for a small group here that tries to make a futile point.

Why do the users need to be informed about whether or not the wad is worth playing? You don't have to pay 60 bucks for every wad you get like you do with games. You download them, you play them, and if you don't like them you just delete them. No harm, no foul. Why the hell do you need to have a reviewer telling you what's fun and what's not fun?
Besides, what good are you doing by flaming and insulting Deathz0r? It's all been said before. Sobbing and whining about how Deathz0r's reviews aren't fair is NOT going to make him go away.

Graf Zahl said:
These are no longer reviews for the common user base

Regardless of what you may think about the reviewer not reviewing wads he thinks are broken and how that serves the community, you're going to have to admit that noting when a wad requires "limit removal" is convenient for the common user base, because that base will include users using plain engines, and if not informed, after a crash they may well delete the wad and go on with life to do something else. If it explains they need another file to run it they'll either take the appropriate measure (load up PrBoom, ZDoom or whatever) or they'll say "ah, so now I can go look for one of these limit removing things" (probably finding and getting informed about all the community supported engines and ports), if not, they won't even have that notion and are one step behind. And this extends way beyond the Doomworld, ZDoom or DRDTeam sites and forums where more people are familiar with all sorts of addons. The archive is independent, and while linked to these, can be linked to other communities, or people not part of communities, that probably only have the game off the box. In the end, the discussion deals both with the reviews and the text files that present the wads to players.

Graf Zahl said:

These are no longer reviews for the common user base - they are merely for a small group here that tries to make a futile point.

You and Maes are the only ones holding the argument. Hardy a user base I'm afraid. That's two broad generalizations in one thread, such a bad habit.

Use3D said:

You and Maes are the only ones holding the argument. Hardy a user base I'm afraid. That's two broad generalizations in one thread, such a bad habit.

That's because the rest of the community has already wandered off. All that is left is a small group of people sharing the same quasi-fundamentalist beliefs that will eventually be Doomworld's demise.

I only see the same idiotic statements posted over and over and over again. If what I read in this thread is the future of Doomworld all I can say is 'screw it!' This website has lost most of its appeal to me by now.

Graf Zahl said:

That's because the rest of the community has already wandered off. All that is left is a small group of people sharing the same quasi-fundamentalist beliefs that will eventually be Doomworld's demise.

I only see the same idiotic statements posted over and over and over again. If what I read in this thread is the future of Doomworld all I can say is 'screw it!' This website has lost most of its appeal to me by now.

oh, ok. bye :)

Graf Zahl said:
That's because the rest of the community has already wandered off. All that is left is a small group of people sharing the same quasi-fundamentalist beliefs that will eventually be Doomworld's demise.

Doomworld is a stopping place for all sorts of DOOM fans. I know this clearly because from here, the other side, I often see elements, actions and groups that represent the interests of people with a different outlook than me and those who more or less share my interests. But you know what gets in your way? You're so involved in your own thing that you start to think other things are minority stuff or less important.

Getting thus deeply involved helps you be productive and keep focused, but can also blind you and make you stupid if you don't develop means with which to deal with all the different groups in the community.

And unlike the "dark age" where Windows 2000 and Windows XP made it possible for people caring mostly for novelties pretend no one else cared otherwise, now a more classic outlook is more possible, with more solid information (in wikis and such) and with the development of engines like PrBoom and Chocolate Doom. And people who in their minds and in that sense are in the past can't see that, and display anger against these people who value the game "as is" instead of preferring more "advanced" things like they do.

But you'll agree you'll do yourself a favor if you just go off to do your stuff instead of posting flamey rubbish, coming back when you have something intelligent to say.

It is only a matter of time before this thread gets closed, and I surely never expected deathz0r to end up saying "uhh...I'm terribly sorry, Sir, it won't happen again, Sir" so let's end this here.

So I guess we'll be seeing more of this:

A map doesn't specify a source port ->
reviewer tries (or claims to have tried) the mapwith doom2.exe ->
the map bombs ->
"doesn't work in intended source port"

If that doesn't look wrong to you...then I don't know what else to say.

It's a bit like trying to divide by zero.

"Let's give 5 candies to 0 children, how many candies does each child get?"

Now try to answer what you mean by "each child" when you have zero children...doesn't make sense, right? Ofc you can say that zero equals one or 248723842376238 and proceed but that's just plain wrong.

Genesis of descent, monolith6 and Zap18 are well worth playing through, good stuff.

Maes said:
A map doesn't specify a source port ->
reviewer tries (or claims to have tried) the mapwith doom2.exe ->
the map bombs ->
"doesn't work in intended source port"

If that doesn't look wrong to you...then I don't know what else to say.

Looks good to me. If it doesn't specify a port to use, then it's intended to work with all ports...

CODOR said:

Looks good to me. If it doesn't specify a port to use, then it's intended to work with all ports...

Or with some ports...probably. and we're back to square one. ;-)

It's exactly like trying to answer to the "zero children" and their candy question: the answer is "Mu": it cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions.

Expecting that something unspecified will run on doom2.exe is just an arbitrary choice with no substantial backing up. Shouldn't be, but source ports have become so divergent from the original .exe that it takes very little to break things up, and since deathz0r undoubtedly knew this, it just appears as a convenient way to skip reviewing.

I don't believe he actually bothered opening DOSBOX and typing "doom2 -file WAD_TO_BASH.WAD" to "test" these wads...and if he did, well, it was still an arbitrary and random choice by my standards.

Maybe justified by the fact that doom/doom2.exe was once the standard, but now it's more like the "minimum common denominator" of source ports, aka the very minimum thing you can call "doom". So minimum, in fact, that it's pretty much guaranteed it won't run things that aren't custom-tailored for it :-)

@myk: regarding an older post, is there some actual example of a map that will run only on vanilla doom? By "run" I mean being completely unplayable/crashing on anything BUT doom/doom2.exe, and I specifically exclude exact bug/glitch replication or well-known things like sector tag 666.

Of the ones I have played so far, Genesis of descent, monolith6 and Zap18 are excellent. In fact, I grabbed the rest of the zap series maps at Kristian's recommendation and they are all good.

Just started "Valley of the damned" and it looks interesting too. I'll try "Horror" and "Templed" after that. They looked like they could be a lot of fun.

Maes said:
It is only a matter of time before this thread gets closed,

You'll probably get losered for backseat modding or some other stupidity way before that.

@myk: regarding an older post,

Good thing you're reading up to the posts you obviously missed (otherwise you wouldn't be blathering).

is there some actual example of a map that will run only on vanilla doom? By "run" I mean being completely unplayable/crashing on anything BUT doom/doom2.exe, and I specifically exclude exact bug/glitch replication or well-known things like sector tag 666.

Why would you leave out bugs and want to know only if they utterly crash? Any level that uses a tag or line that doesn't work as tested can break if without cheats you get stuck (thus engines have some compatibility modes, not always all the required ones), others simply have their gameplay wrecked. I recall a level that without some measure of compatibility would allow the monsters to hear the player way before they should in Boom or ZDoom (and likely other engines), teleporting out at the wrong moment.

Oh, one paragraph that may help clarify your confusion, now that I'm at it: The documentation needs to inform the user if the addon he's getting requires additional files. Since extended engines do not come with the game, they must be specified, in order to get people to run it right.

OK this is clearly getting nowhere and I'm not the one holding the knife from the handle, so I yield.

I guess I could mention my personal picks for this NC...let's see:

"Elegy for them Vigil", as I helped Jodwin playtesting it and saw the map taking shape under my eyes.

Gamarra's Soul 3, for obvious reasons.

All Ruba maps, since he mentions me too, and I always find something entertaining in them, even for a brief while. Yep, simple tastes, I have.

Maes said:

OK this is clearly getting nowhere and I'm not the one holding the knife from the handle, so I yield.

I guess I could mention my personal picks for this NC...let's see:

"Elegy for them Vigil", as I helped Jodwin playtesting it and saw the map taking shape under my eyes.

Gamarra's Soul 3, for obvious reasons.

All Ruba maps, since he mentions me too, and I always find something entertaining in them, even for a brief while. Yep, simple tastes, I have.

You picked those wads because they referenced you?

The thing I love most about /newstuff threads is that debates over my reviewing style are always regarding what are considered popular/good WADs and never the bad ones, even though I've been doing this practice for a good seven months and nobody has complained about this until now. Why is that? An answer like "because the WAD in question is popular/good" is not a response I'll accept.

Craigs said:

You picked those wads because they referenced you?

Who wouldn't? Well, I bet Wills wouldn't pick "Gamarra Soul 1" for obvious reasons, but my in my case it's different. Plus I really like Gamarra maps (especially the new Gamarra's Soul series, not the older Gamarra 1-10 series).

Same thing with Ruba :-) I think he's a really good mapper and he's just teasing the community by releasing first a good wad then a crappy wad. Humor in the .txt also counts.

And hey, in the end those are only my opinions as a random WAD-downloading grunt right?