Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Dubbag

Why does it seem that the DW community prefers Boom over Zdoom format?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, fraggle said:

Hey Dubbagdarrel, I just want to give some feedback here: I found your original post kind of rambling and difficult to follow. I don't want you to take this as some kind of attack because it isn't intended as one, but when you're starting a new thread it's helpful to put a bit of work into structuring your thoughts so that it's clear for us what you're talking about.

 

Specifically I'm unclear about whether you're talking about source ports, or mapping formats, and you seem to mix the two up in a way that makes things unclear. PrBoom is only one of many different Boom compatible source ports, and we don't use the term "PrBoom format" - in general people make Boom compatible WADs that can be used by any Boom compatible source port, including PrBoom and others.

 

And that's the main appeal of targeting Boom compatibility. You said in your opening post that you didn't like the feel of PrBoom and that's okay, but understand that there are others who like that feel and dislike the feel of GZDoom and the other ZDoom ports. Targeting Boom compatibility means that mappers get a nice selection of features they can use, while players get to use their favourite source port and play the levels however they like. It makes for a nice inclusive common standard because it doesn't matter whether you're a purist running plain Boom on a 20 year old DOS computer, or using a top-of-the-line gaming rig running GZDoom with Brutal Doom and 12 different supplemental gameplay and weapons mods - everyone can enjoy the levels just the way they like.

deffinatley, I was just wondering about the reason behind the popularity of Boom over others more or less. I guess I didn't have all the facts.  I have nothing against it just pure curiosity cause I hear about it alot.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Gez said:

???

 

This has nothing to do with optimization. It's not even a correction, it's just a result of having changed the action system to Hexen's, and translating the map format. Hexen separates line actions from line triggers, Doom doesn't. The result is that DR and SR doors are both replaced by the same line special, which works like in Hexen: if tag is 0, it's a local door, otherwise it's remote.

 

But it's unrelated to optimization. I want examples of mapping habits encouraged by ZDoom that result in a map being slower.

I can’t help but wonder if @killerkouhai or @Decay have any of the old Refracted Reality builds laying around. They were prime examples of a lack of optimisation, despite the maps being beautiful. I know Decay and others managed to remove, in some cases hundreds of redundant sectors from certain maps. Granted, redundant sectors are not in any way a GZDoom specific thing, but considering how much grunt GZDoom needs to even run in a first place and the massive effect a high number of sectors has on frame rate, the optimisation was totally necessary. 

 

I think the the main crux of what UndeadRyker was saying is that you can “get away with murder” when you test in GZDoom. Stuff that would crash or otherwise mess up the experience in literally all other ports gets through without issue in GZ, even stuff that really doesn’t fundamentally need GZDoom compatibility. Stuff as simple as untagged doors, other zero-tagged actions like lifts, use of flats on walls - this stuff saves time for a mapper, sure, but indulging in these kinds of habits is senselessly limiting yourself to a GZDoom audience.

 

For people looking to release WADs with wide compatibility, learning to do stuff the “hard but universally compatible” is going to be a necessity. Some mappers, unaware of all the minutia of Doom mapping, might set out to make a classic-style episode, but then they do all this stuff, unknowingly, that makes their map GZD-compat only.

 

It’s not like Doom Builder brings up a window that says “Hey idiot! What you’re doing will crash in a bunch of source ports, just not GZDoom! Here’s the way to do it that will run in everything!” and thus we can say that only mapping for/testing in GZDoom can lead to some “bad habits” that needlessly prevent play elsewhere.

 

I think “optimisation” was just a bad choice of words.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

It’s not like Doom Builder brings up a window that says “Hey idiot! What you’re doing will crash in a bunch of source ports, just not GZDoom! Here’s the way to do it that will run in everything!” and thus we can say that only mapping for/testing in GZDoom can lead to some “bad habits” that needlessly prevent play elsewhere.

 

That would actually be a nice feature, haha. I know I'd appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Doomkid said:

For people looking to release WADs with wide compatibility, learning to do stuff the “hard but universally compatible” is going to be a necessity. Some mappers, unaware of all the minutia of Doom mapping, might set out to make a classic-style episode, but then they do all this stuff, unknowingly, that makes their map GZD-compat only.

So I basically have to "Metallica Black Album" myself. idk

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Dubbagdarrel said:

 deffinatley, I was just wondering about the reason behind the popularity of Boom over others more or less. I guess I didn't have all the facts.  I have nothing against it just pure curiosity cause I hear about it alot.

Well, if you're talking about Boom the source port and its descendants there's a bit of history here:

  • Boom was developed by TeamTNT in the late 90s and established the basic standard of "Boom compatibility" that most source ports now support. It cleaned up the codebase and fixed up a lot of engine bugs which gave a stable foundation for people to make maps for.
  • MBF was a continuation of Boom by one of its developers after the project collapsed. It added a few editing features which kind of get included in what we consider "Boom compatibility". MBF became the foundation for SMMU and Eternity Engine.
  • LxDoom ported Boom to Linux
  • PrBoom was originally a Windows port of Boom but later got merged with LxDoom.
  • PrBoom+ continued PrBoom after the original developer disappeared and focuses on demo compatibility for speedrunning.
  • PrBoom+/UMAPINFO is now continuing PrBoom+ since its developer has disappeared.

So you can see it's a history dating back over the past 20 years where someone continues the work for a while before they disappear and eventually someone else picks it up and continues it. In terms of why it's still popular, PrBoom+ in particular  focused for a long time on demo compatibility and speedrunning and succeeded in carving out a niche for itself among the speedrunning community. ZDoom by design does not care about demo compatibility and lots of people want to be able to watch old demos. There are also a lot of people who just prefer the feel since it's a lot closer to the original Doom than the ZDoom ports are.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, fraggle said:

Well, if you're talking about Boom the source port and its descendants there's a bit of history here:

  • Boom was developed by TeamTNT in the late 90s and established the basic standard of "Boom compatibility" that most source ports now support. It cleaned up the codebase and fixed up a lot of engine bugs which gave a stable foundation for people to make maps for.
  • MBF was a continuation of Boom by one of its developers after the project collapsed. It added a few editing features which kind of get included in what we consider "Boom compatibility". MBF became the foundation for SMMU and Eternity Engine.
  • LxDoom ported Boom to Linux
  • PrBoom was originally a Windows port of Boom but later got merged with LxDoom.
  • PrBoom+ continued PrBoom after the original developer disappeared and focuses on demo compatibility for speedrunning.
  • PrBoom+/UMAPINFO is now continuing PrBoom+ since its developer has disappeared.

So you can see it's a history dating back over the past 20 years where someone continues the work for a while before they disappear and eventually someone else picks it up and continues it. In terms of why it's still popular, PrBoom+ in particular  focused for a long time on demo compatibility and speedrunning and succeeded in carving out a niche for itself among the speedrunning community. ZDoom by design does not care about demo compatibility and lots of people want to be able to watch old demos. There are also a lot of people who just prefer the feel since it's a lot closer to the original Doom than the ZDoom ports are.

that's what I figured

Share this post


Link to post

The optimization issue that has been mentioned is not a GZDoom issue, it is most likely a renderer issue.

Just take Frozen Time as an example. It runs at perfectly acceptable frame rates in both GZDoom and PrBoom+ with hardware rendering - but switch to the software renderer and the frame rate will completely tank.

 

For a modern graphics card it doesn't cost much to render 10000 polygons - but the software renderer has to do a lot of work for any one of them, even if they only result in a handful of pixels being drawn.

 

Frozen Time was at least honest about this and came with a disclaimer "needs hardware rendering", but many people who never used the software renderer simply do not realize how much more sensitive it is to such maps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, UndeadRyker said:

For a small example, ZDoom has a tendency to always "correct" common mapping mistakes and errors resulting in outright unoptimized maps and your maps could end up breaking for other people and you would have no clue why. I would have no clue why my doors would break the entire map in other source ports when I would finally realize that if I put a SR line action on a door wall itself, then I must put a tag on the door sector itself but ZDoom just automatically always made that door line action correctly self-referring without even putting a warning in the console.

Wasn't this default Doom engine behaviour?  I definitely remember that when I mapped for this game in the 90s.

Anyway, this was something I was worried about myself when I released my map because I didn't want to accidentally alienate players.  Because I didn't play Doom as much I have a less concrete idea of what Doom should feel like, so subtle differences between Doom or PrBoom+ and GZDoom are missed by me.

 

edit: Oh never mind, I checked, and I see the distinction you were talking about.  SR vs DR line.  I think ZDoom also adds this feature for lifts as well.

I will mention, while yes at first glance, it kind of feels like a fix for lazy mappers, it can be super useful if you need to have your sectors tagged for other purposes like floor/ceiling portals.  Having the lifts work automatically without needing to make new set portal lines is awesome.

Edited by necros

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Gez said:

???

 

This has nothing to do with optimization. It's not even a correction, it's just a result of having changed the action system to Hexen's, and translating the map format. Hexen separates line actions from line triggers, Doom doesn't. The result is that DR and SR doors are both replaced by the same line special, which works like in Hexen: if tag is 0, it's a local door, otherwise it's remote.

 

But it's unrelated to optimization. I want examples of mapping habits encouraged by ZDoom that result in a map being slower.

I had a poor choice of words there.  @Doomkid hit the nail on the head with what I was trying to say. I meant optimized as getting the map to work in all source ports, as in an optimized use of time spent by the mapper to produce a map that works for mostly everyone. But now that you say it, why does ZDoom even behave like Hexen to begin with in terms of just doors? That just causes so much mass confusion and that's why you have purists who shoot down ZDoom calling it "not real Doom". Don't get me wrong, ZDoom is a powerful engine, but the more it automatically does everything under the hood, the more you just have confused people, the more you have people like me who say that ZDoom is misleading other people.

 

ZDoom was always advertised to *be* Doom. So why does it nearly not behave like Doom when it runs Doom out of the box? Why does it allow so many things that Doom does not? ZDoom advertising itself to literally be next-gen Dooming and the definitive way to play Doom is partly the reason why there's so much mass confusion and culture shock when a ZDoomer meets someone who plays any other source port other than Doom. Did you expect me to automatically know that ZDoom, when running any Doom IWAD would treat its line action specials like Hexen does?

 

48 minutes ago, Gez said:

That's a fundamental confusion with what the compatibility options are for. Compatibility isn't the same notion as emulation.

Usually when people say compatibility, it means "to run along side with", "good chemistry", "running without any further modification". So when you see a preset in Compatibility Options like Boom, why is it wrong to assume that since the "compatibility" is set to Boom that it should be compatible with Boom, and therefore run like Boom runs? It's another product of ZDoom not really doing what was advertised. And for the record, I don't care about demos in ZDoom. It's well known by many that ZDoom demos are nearly a myth.

 

Personally I feel like ZDoom should acknowledge the responsibility it has as being the most popular source port used by people who want to play Doom and come with a whole bunch of asterisks and disclaimers. It should be made somewhat more obvious and accessible to Doomers (me included) who aren't programming-savvy and just want to play Doom about the differences between ZDoom and the rest of the Doom source port family. If something like that can be done, it can put a lot of us at ease and clear up confusion and debates.

Edited by UndeadRyker : grammar

Share this post


Link to post

I guess it's just my own bias considering the fact that I have used zdoom since I was a child.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, UndeadRyker said:

Personally I feel like ZDoom should acknowledge the responsibility it has as being the most popular source port used by people who want to play Doom and come with a whole bunch of asterisks and disclaimers. It should be made somewhat more obvious and accessible to Doomers who just want to play Doom about the differences between ZDoom and the rest of the Doom source port family.

That is simply not going to happen. No source port developer who thinks that ports "compete" for a user base (and therefore port features need to be competitive to be worthwhile), is going to tell their supposed user-base upfront that what they're about to use might not be "the real deal", but is an approximation instead (regardless of how close).

 

Ever since Karl Jobst started publishing doom-related content on YouTube, as well as hosting a challenge of his own, we've had a pretty noticeable increase of activity on the speedrunning discord. And one of the first issues new runners come across when trying to pick up speedrunning this game is coming to terms with the simple reality that ports like (G)ZDoom, Zandronum, or Zdaemon, are only supposed to be used when the WAD in question absolutely requires it. Essentially, in that case we're the ones who have to be the bearer of bad news, and I'd very much prefer if that was something we didn't have to deal with, because some folks spent a good amount of time on demos that weren't "eligible" for an official category, and telling them that their last 5 weekends worth of grind were all for naught (hyperbole here) fucking sucks.

 

That being said, I'd like it if ports were a bit more transparent with regards to how they "do stuff", but as I said, it isn't going to happen, because reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

That is simply not going to happen. No source port developer who thinks that ports "compete" for a user base (and therefore port features need to be competitive to be worthwhile), is going to tell their supposed user-base upfront that what they're about to use might not be "the real deal", but is an approximation instead (regardless of how close).

 

Well said. From a publicity point of view it'd be harakiri to do such a thing. In short: Will never happen!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, UndeadRyker said:

But now that you say it, why does ZDoom even behave like Hexen to begin with

Because way back then, in the previous century, people were kind of eager to extend Doom with new features, and also to fix bugs. I know, this seems weird and hard to believe, but it was a different era. And Hexen had a lot of very interesting features. ZDoom pioneered using the Hexen format for Doom maps (so-called "Doom-in-Hexen", though it just uses the Hexen map format, not the Hexen game) and with it stuff like ACS. This was revolutionary.

 

Not that it was the only scripting option available. There was also, for instance, FraggleScript which, on some points, was better than ACS: no need for a different map format, no need for an additional lump, no compiler step so source code is never lost, etc. On other points, however, it was worse, most importantly it was a lot less robust. Ultimately, FraggleScript was adopted by two ports, Doom Legacy and Eternity Engine. Doom Legacy was very popular for a while (it was kind of like the Zandronum of its day, attractive for both its multiplayer scene and its advanced features) but ultimately its many bugs and tendency to crash, combined with an unfinished attempt at rewriting it from scratch, resulted in it behind left behind. As for Eternity, it eventually ditched FraggleScript to replace it with SMALL, an off-the-shelf scripting language, which was deemed superior until it was found out that it suffered from major incompatibility between 32-bit and 64-bit, causing it to be ditched in turn. So FraggleScript kinda died off, and ACS remained.

 

Nowadays, of course, things have completely changed. What was called bugs before are now called features, and what was called features before are now considered bugs. So be it.

 

21 minutes ago, UndeadRyker said:

Usually when people say compatibility, it means "to run along side with", "good chemistry", "running without any further modification". So when you see a preset in Compatibility Options like Boom, why is it wrong to assume that since the "compatibility" is set to Boom that it should be compatible with Boom, and therefore run like Boom runs?

It runs like Boom runs as far as what's required for a map to be playable without noticeable glitches is concerned.

 

People who know a lot about how the engines run and the weird barely-noticeable quirks you can get in edge cases are able to create maps that are not playable in ZDoom because you don't get elastic collisions or thingrunning or whatever. This is enough to make them declare that ZDoom is Not Doom and whatever. Well, more power to them. For most people who don't reach this technical level, it's tantamount to saying that a Super Mario version isn't really Super Mario because you can't do the flagpole glitch.

 

37 minutes ago, UndeadRyker said:

Personally I feel like ZDoom should acknowledge the responsibility it has as being the most popular source port used by people who want to play Doom and come with a whole bunch of asterisks and disclaimers. It should be made somewhat more obvious and accessible to Doomers who just want to play Doom about the differences between ZDoom and the rest of the Doom source port family. If something like that can be done, it can put a lot of us at ease and clear up and confusion and debates.

https://zdoom.org/about

 

Quote

ZDoom is a family of enhanced ports of the Doom engine for running on modern operating systems. It runs on Windows, Linux, and OS X, and adds new features not found in the games as originally published by id Software.

[...]

Many more all-new editing features such as:

[...]

All Doom limits are gone.

[...]

High resolutions.

Quake-style console and key bindings.

Crosshairs.

Free look (look up/down).

Jumping, crouching, swimming, and flying.

 

[...]

Walk over/under monsters and other things.

It's pretty clear that it presents itself as Doom with more features and with some important gameplay changes.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Gez said:

Nowadays, of course, things have completely changed. What was called bugs before are now called features, and what was called features before are now considered bugs. So be it.

 

 

Some people may see it this way - and that's the fundamental difference to the ZDoom family of ports which shares Boom's original vision that somehow has gotten lost in all this demo compatibility thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Revenant100 said:

My measure of a port is defined strictly by how many Revenants it can support, and in that regard, PrBoom+ far and away leads the pack.

 

How many hundreds of Revenants do you like seeing in your maps boss :p?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Graf Zahl said:

Errrr..

 

Who uses it? The most recent title I can think of is kristus's Curse of D'Sparil, and even then it was only the [level info] sections, not the actual script section.

 

I know it's technically possible to use it in ZDoom maps, but people who want to script ZDoom maps will use ACS for that, not FS. FS was for people who wanted to make scripted Legacy maps.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's a bit presumptuous to make claims about preferred source ports, when it comes to the giants like Boom, Zdoom, GZDoom, etc. Certainly there are instances where there's a community consensus on something. For instance, most of us think HDoom is a bit icky; most of us see the 3D model packs/HD textures as tacky; most of us find texture filtering unnecessary for such an old game. But source ports? I'd say the three I mentioned, along with Chocolate and Crispy Doom, are all on the same general tier of importance and usage. Boom does seem a bit old hat at this point, but I think its tendency to preserve the look and feel of the original while adding a slew of features is important to a lot of players. Personally I've been addicted to GZdoom's paletted tonemap + ambient occlusion + lights.pk3. It makes the game look amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, seed said:

How many hundreds of Revenants do you like seeing in your maps boss :p?

Aleph null hundreds of Revenants minimum.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I just map under vanilla limitations, that way anyone “should” be able to play the map regardless of the port. I can see and understand the appeal of more advanced features, I just can’t bring myself to implement them in my maps. I’d say I lean more towards boom. That’s not to say I won’t ever play gzdoom maps, but I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Gez said:

It runs like Boom runs as far as what's required for a map to be playable without noticeable glitches is concerned.

Stuff like that is what I meant. It runs like Boom*.

 

12 minutes ago, Gez said:

https://zdoom.org/about

It's pretty clear that it presents itself as Doom with more features and with some important gameplay changes.

Yeah, it is pretty clear that it presents itself as Doom and that's why I have a problem with that. I'm talking about the things ZDoom changes from Doom itself. People only focus on what what GZDoom adds, and with that, apparently more is always better, as you conveniently bolded. And so, that page furthers the arguments and divisions and promotes the ZDoom elitism we see today. I want to see a little list that has differences from regular Doom that it changes by default at least. Stuff like "Projectiles no longer go through decorations like trees and solid corpses", "Items dropped by enemies get tossed up in the air in random directions" more of the obvious stuff like that. I'm not talking about minor things like flagpole glitches and frame perfect maneuvers.

 

Most of the people who play ZDoom has just gotten back into Doom itself. To name one distortion that ZDoom really has on people, John Romero plays Doom using ZDoom and he designed his recent maps using ZDoom. There were a few times on his Sigil streams where he used ZDoom features like projectiles being blocked by decorations to take cover, in a map he was designing that was meant to be played with nearly any source port. I wonder if he was even aware of the difference? It's unlikely that he noticed the little things like that because he hasn't played Doom seriously in years.

 

ZDoom has been so effective at changing the overall perception of what Doom really was, which causes those all of these misunderstandings, all just because nearly everyone who worked on ZDoom wanted ZDoom to be a household name. Like it or not, that's why I take stuff like ZDoomisms seriously. There's no denying that ZDoom behaves extremely different from Doom itself, but the way it clouds what Doom was makes it infuriating to troubleshoot what is wrong with the maps, the gameplay, the mods, and so much more.

Share this post


Link to post

Fortunately most players do not get this worked up about these things. You are also completely missing that most players using Eternity do not use the compatibility mode but the modern mode that in Eternity's case enables many of the same thing you list here. Just because an engine has "demo compatible" on its list of bullet points doesn't mean you get demo compatible gameplay out of the box, or even as a readily available setting.

 

And unlike you, 99% or more of all players would never ever notice the things that are important to you.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

 

Errrr..

 

I still think it would be less work to find all the WADs out there which use FraggleScript and switch them over to ACS than to continue supporting it in gzdoom :)

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, UndeadRyker said:

Yeah, it is pretty clear that it presents itself as Doom and that's why I have a problem with that.

Pretty disingenuous to cut out the "more features and important gameplay changes" part. It shows your problem isn't with a honest mention of changes, it's with ZDoom daring to present itself as a Doom port. What you want is for the about page to say "ZDoom is crap, it sucks, everyone who use it is dumb, don't download, get a real Doom instead" and as long as it will not say this is these exact terms, you will not be happy.

 

26 minutes ago, UndeadRyker said:

I want to see a little list that has differences from regular Doom that it changes by default at least. Stuff like "Projectiles no longer go through decorations like trees and solid corpses", "Items dropped by enemies get tossed up in the air in random directions" more of the obvious stuff like that. I'm not talking about minor things like flagpole glitches and frame perfect maneuvers.

The two examples you listed are things that can, actually, be changed with the compat options. But you complain that the compat options are not enough.

 

The biggest thing that can't be compat-optioned is the glitches in the original movement code allowing things like wallrunning, thingrunning, void glides, and so on. Even then there's an option to approximate wallrunning.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, UndeadRyker said:

ZDoom elitism we see today

 

??????????

Share this post


Link to post

I would love to see someone explain why trying to preserve the original gameplay experience is being unreasonable but keeping the "fling items in the air" ZDoomism as a default is unquestioned. And if your answer is "people are used to it" then congrats because you are literally saying the ZDoom experience is more important than Doom.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Gez said:

People who know a lot about how the engines run and the weird barely-noticeable quirks you can get in edge cases are able to create maps that are not playable in ZDoom because you don't get elastic collisions or thingrunning or whatever. This is enough to make them declare that ZDoom is Not Doom and whatever. Well, more power to them. For most people who don't reach this technical level, it's tantamount to saying that a Super Mario version isn't really Super Mario because you can't do the flagpole glitch.

I mean, declaring that ZDoom isn't Doom based on something like elastic collisions doesn't make sense, at least not in >99% of all the cases. At the same time, I feel like you're oversimplifying a bit there.

 

Many of the changes that come with ZDoom and "higher" are definitely something even casual players can and probably will notice, for example 1-shotting a spider mastermind in E3M8 (Or Sigil's final map) with a BFG, try that with Crispy Doom. Or try punching anything, you'll notice that the hitboxes have been "corrected" in ZDoom. This isn't "fringe stuff" that happens and matters only in hyper-tuned challenge maps. Likewise, things like "free-aim" can greatly affect how the difficulty of a map is perceived, even to the point where some "gimmicks" become entirely meaningless, like for example when fighting the IOS in Doom2: You don't even need the small lift to deal damage to the IOS, you just climb the up giant stairs to where the switch is, and shoot it from there with no issues whatsoever. Basically, we're now in the realms of "not playing the fight as was intended by id". And you might be thinking that IOS fights are fringe cases, but a quick look at "modern releases" as well as classics like scythe or Alien Vendetta is sufficient to see just how impactful of a change "free-aim" can be. And don't get me started on jumping, which is yet another can of worms in its own right that constantly gets underestimated by players and mappers alike.

 

Don't forget that there are people out there who think that jumping and freeaim are core features of Classic Doom, because all they do is watch a YouTube tutorial about how to set up and run (G)ZDoom while not paying any attention to whatever text file or feature list belongs to the port they're about to use. Of course I don't fault a port or its features for how it's being used, but the claim that people need "a lot" of knowledge to be able to tell differences is a stretch as far as I'm concerned.

So, as much as I disagree with the notion that ZDoom isn't Doom, there are definitely aspects, some of which are pretty obvious, that make me at least agree with the notion that it is "not 100% the same". None of the examples I pulled up here are limited to the realms of speedrunning, fwiw.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

for example 1-shotting a spider mastermind in E3M8 (Or Sigil's final map) with a BFG, try that with Crispy Doom.

 

This right here, by far the one aspect of ZDoom that annoys me - or, to rephrase that, its new RNG system.

 

Granted, Boom also replaces it and the original values are only used in vanilla complevels afaik, but it's still nowhere near as bad as in ZDoom where even with the right compat settings it's STILL too easy to one-shot SMMs. The chance to one-shot them is just far too high, whereas in vanilla it was a somewhat rare occurrence.

 

So, TL;DR, my problem essentially boils down too ZDoom makes some things objectively easier than they were intended. I don't crave accuracy in ZDoom (let alone demo compat), but some more OG behavior would definitely be a plus for me...

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Linguica said:

I would love to see someone explain why trying to preserve the original gameplay experience is being unreasonable

Nobody said that.

 

There are several ports that do that job very well, chief among them Chocolate Doom. Nobody's complaining that Chocolate Doom doesn't have Boom stuff or other extra modding features.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×