Graf Zahl
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!
Posts: 7130
Registered: 01-03 |
DaniJ said:
I don't agree. IMO 'features' covers every aspect of a source port not just the "small" area of editing features.
You are forgetting one important aspect of this 'small' area: The end user gets to exprience it in the maps that use them!
Features like Linux/MacOS support are very important to me, as are features like hardware accelerated rendering and high quality 3D sound, so that I can make the most out of my expensive set up. For me True colour support is a must as well. Which as Deep pointed out are by far the most "non-vanila" features any port has to offer other than Vavoom's true 3D - Quake style.
Why are you still playing Doom if this stuff is so important. In nearly every aspect it should be the wrong game for you! ;)
Seriously, if I could get a source port that combines hardware rendering with good compatibility I wouldn't hesitate to use it. The 8 bit palette is one of the biggest annoyances Doom is suffering from. But so far the only hardware accelerated Doom port that comes close to my needs is Risen3D. But with that I still can't play all the ZDoom maps I like to play and ZDoomGL is still too unfinished.
I just wanted to point out that you assumed he was only interested in the same things you are.
Again this is a matter of opinion. I'm not denying that Zdoom has a wider variety of editng features IF all your interested in is making new mods/levels.
I repeat myself:
Although as a programmer I like to do stuff with the source my main interest in Doom is as someone who likes to play it. You make it sound that editing features are only of use to mappers. And that is total nonsense because all those features get exhibited by maps which use it to enhance and intensify gameplay.
If you were to look at this objectively you'd quickly realise that Zdoom has a very narrow scope when it comes to "non-vanila" features.
Only if you count hardware rendering and its benefits as the only valid non-vanilla features. But that's something you can't build a map on!
Ports like Risen3D, jDoom (Doomsday) and Vavoom offer a much wider variety of features.
It's fairly obvious that you are utterly dismissive of everything that does not involve hardware rendering. So please don't lecture me if you do exactly the same from the other side.
To say that jDoom has nothing in the way of editing features is completely untrue. InFine for example is an extremely flexible and fully scriptable system that can be used for a huge variety of different things including intros, animations, scripted sequences, playing demos, overlaid HUDS etc etc.
Yes the same results can be achieved using ACS (well to some degree) but it is a hell of a lot easier to use InFine and is far more advanced at stuff like that.
OMG, I have to recover from the big laugh I just had. You just sound like an advertising guy who tries to sell his crap without success.
So where is the great stuff that can be done with InFine. I haven't seen it and I doubt I will ever see it.
You know 'ease of use' is a purely subjective matter. You may think that JDoom's definition syntax is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I find in impenetrable to understand and even harder to read.
The point I'm trying to make is that although it could be argued that Zdoom has more features, you need to look at whats possible with the features each port DOES have and how good they are at what they do. Yes ACS is great but it's very generalised and not exactly easy to use when it comes to doing very specific editing tasks.
Cases in point:
2D scripted sequences.
Doomsday - Has an entire subsystem to use for exactly this purpose. IMO it's very easy to use and very powerfull.
Zdoom - You can do some really nice stuff using ACS but it requires a lot of heavy scripting.
Particles:
Doomsday - Has an entire subsystem in place so you can create any effect you can imagine even model particles.
Zdoom - Do you want a red fountain, a blue one or a spark effect?
You know, I won't even pretend that ZDoom is perfect. There is a lot of stuff that could (and should) be improved. The particle stuff in particular is a good example of that.
As for the 2D-scripted sequences, what's the point of something like that if you can have 3D-scripted sequences with the same amount of work! ;) I doubt any other source port comes even close to having something like ZDoom's moving cameras.
Much the same can be said about editing features Graf, this carries no weight what-so-ever. I think I'm right when say that most players don't actually make mods they PLAY them. Which means they don't care how something was made as long as it plays well (and with a bit of luck looks and sounds good too).
You continue to make the same mistake. With a reduced set of features you will have a reduced set of ways a map can play.
Exactly, YOUR opinion and a miss-informed one at that, as shown by your obvious lack of knowledge regarding any port other than Zdoom. You seem to have built up some sort of mental barrier over this because despite various peoples attempts to correct you, you still choose to believe what you want to about these "other" ports and continue presenting them as fact.
Look who's talking! At least for me the gameplay factor is the most important thing, not some high-tech crap that made Doom3 one of the most abysmal gaming experiences I ever had!
Why is it that every time a question such as this arises you feel you need big up Zdoom and ignore the obvious achievements of the "other" ports in such a dismissive way?
You started this, not me. If you can't stand that JDoom is easily dismissed because it is perceived to provide nothing but eye candy, then for god's sake, do something about it! Add some stuff that makes it more appealing to mappers. You have an engine at your hand that could be the greatest source port of all times and yet, right now it is far too limited in the choice of maps it is willing to play!
|
01-23-05 21:40 
