myk
volveré y seré millones
Posts: 14424
Registered: 04-02 |
Essel, they do in two senses. Firstly, newly available features make their way into the community, changing design habits. They're all optional, but since they're there, they're more or less unavoidable as far as they're useful to those who have them at their disposal. Secondly, their implementation often demands changes to the behavior of the engine in ways which impact how the game is played, sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes in an obvious way. Designers using the new features can specifically try to imitate or follow the more classic behavior, and might do so in some respects, but it'll be different. If they want to create that original type of behavior, they're better off just sticking to its specs.
Solarn said:
And I think your distinction between "DOOM" and "Doom" is a cheap way to say that a WAD is not Doom while maintaining that that's not what you meant at all.
What? I use Doom in any context for the original executable, not just to say something about a WAD.
Doom is Doom, no need for alternative capitalizations.
Need? I've always spelled the game as DOOM, as in the official documentation and within the game itself, unless the context demanded otherwise (the Doom wiki always uses Doom, for example.) It only came naturally to say "Doom" for the engine. It's curious that you've become argumentative about my personal spelling usage. It's how I spell those things and distinguish between game and engine. Me, not anyone else.
Is it that hard to call vanilla compatibility vanilla compatibility and thus avoid sounding like you're elevating it above the rest?
To name Doom, the DOS executable? I use "Doom" all the time for the "vanilla engine" because I name it often. I might say "Doom doesn't run this WAD" of a WAD that requires a port. Sure is shorter than "the original executable doesn't run this WAD." Sometimes I do use other epithets or phrases, of course, if the context isn't clear.
Otherwise why would not being vanilla compatible be a valid complaint against a mapset specifically made for a non-Vanilla port?
What complaint, specifically speaking? The use in this thread came for a project for which the design orientation isn't defined yet and not for something that is established to be for an advanced source port. The original post suggested possibly using advanced port features and someone said he'd prefer otherwise, using the slogan we're discussing.
And I maintain that, since being a purist means you think "MY way is the right one and everything else is just cheap and wrong". That's what a purist is. If you simply enjoy vanilla mapsets the most, but acknowledge source ports as valid, then you're not a purist.
A purist is someone who strictly sticks to a certain form, it does not necessarily imply he'll try to force it on others. The term purist (sometimes "old schooler") has been consistently used in this community to refer to those who demand all sorts of compatibilities in the game to sustain game play consistency. Whether they've been intolerant of other people or not is an individual matter and not very different than in people who have been pushing to make changes to the game, who on the other hand can become intolerant by projecting an idea that the old game that hasn't been updated is a buggy piece of crap.
Then what exactly is "Boom" in your opinion?
Boom is that executable TeamTNT released in the late 90s.
One could make a similar map in vanilla Doom too.
If you were to do so, playing it would be under Doom's functionality (or could be, as that depends on what you use to play it.) None of the physics would be altered and Boom features would not be intervening.
KDiZD (or ZPack or Cheogsh or Daedalus or anything else) doesn't feel like the Doom they remember playing in 1994, so they refuse to admit it might be fun and indeed appropriate for the engine it's created for.
That statement assumes you know better about what they should like than they do. Try to avoid falling into that dogmatic pitfall.
At times, it feels like the community is geared towards the hardcore speedrunners/demo creators, which can discourage more casual fans like me from taking part in it at all.
A bunch of very productive or active guys that stick around here often like that stuff. Let me know when somebody tells you to fuck off for choosing to use or mod for any certain engine or the like, and I'll personally kick their butt. Try to think positively about what you'll do in regard to what you like, instead of moping negatively about different activity others create.
Also, port-specific stuff often ends up in the forums of the sites of those ports, when they have one. Don't blame Doomworld for ZDoom having its own forums.
In my opinion, neither source ports nor maps should be created with these people foremost in mind. The majority of fans are more interested in neat features and bugfixes than demo compatibility and the availability of speedrunning tricks.
That's totally up to the guy making the level set or coding the engine, and not to someone to dictate in general. I definitely wouldn't make a level set that's not geared toward what I enjoy, other considerations coming after that. See? Demanding or hoping that people interested in this stuff should have no engines or levels at their disposition really is narrow-minded!
|
08-02-09 14:18 
