The Dean of Doom series (companion thread)

[Firedust]

9 hours ago, Doomkid said:

Every single Doom wad out there was made for fun's sake

Doomkid hit the nail on the head with this one, I feel. The comments on the most recent DoD episode in this thread have really reminded me of the comments sections of music websites in which the staff reveal their end-of-year list or post a review that goes strongly against a specific group's opinions. Just because the evaluator's philosophy of enjoyment does not align with yours, because -spoiler alert- the whole concept of fun is entirely subjective, it should never trigger any butthurt or lessen your love of the object of the review. Enjoy what you enjoy and don't let anyone tell you that fun is X, not Y. All mappers condition their creations to their own tastes one way or another, which by default inaugurates a division of opinions around their body of work.

[danidf96]

I have nothing of substance to say

[Mr Masker]

Doom Forum debating is fun, looking forward to the next episode.

[Chalibluefin]

8 hours ago, Decay said:

Not true. There are definitely times where mapper egos get in the way and they fuck up maps or make shitty game play because they either don't listen to others' feedback, don't care to, or just generally think they are infallible. This has even been alluded to in the cacowards.

 

I have no stake in this argument though. I've not played BTSX, and I'm not saying this is a valid case here, but sometimes it is totally a valid criticism, though usually more so when you are more familiar with the mapper themselves.

This in particular.

I've experienced a few times where I feel like I've played maps that felt like "design for the sake of design" because the map ARTIST really wanted to indulge in creating "the best map cacoaward winner 2015". Said maps usually run less than suboptimal on the average doom player's computer. In one instance I've seen projects get derailed because an author refused to take criticism or make changes to their gargantuan maps so that they'll run better. Instead, opting to pull out of the project entirely and leaving the rest of the project to dry and fill the holes. That's how we were gifted Slaughter Spectrum.

That being said I most certainly think the later half of BTSX ep2 isn't NEARLY as an offender in that sense but there were several moments where I'm running through maps and I felt the act of design really overtook the focus off of gameplay. With mini magna opera strung together in what really plays as an exhausting drive between the nearest city and the next gas stop. At the time of playing before the Dean's video ever was a concept, I thought to myself "A big sense of pride and self indulgence really reeks is prevalent in these maps," or some semblance of over-saturation in design than the actual gameplay itself. After seeing MtPain27's video on the wad I saw that I wasn't the only who sensed the same issues and saw the maps for what they appear to be. It is not a bad thing to be prideful in your craft and wanting to put out the best product you can for your namesake but it feels like map authors took that concept in an ordeal to sort of out do one another and string together large, exhausting maps that don't necessarily play as fun gripping maps, but slogs that are held together by architectural beauty and showcased by the map maker's ability to make maps altogether. I'd say the word "pretentious" is quite accurate in this sense when playing said map set, you don't feel like you're having fun at your own pace but having fun at THEIR pace. You can say that the large amount of freedom and adventure is "giving the player a chance to explore as he so chooses" but eventually that magic just wears out and the player would rather move on then see the same architectural masterpiece over and over. While it's no salt slicked jab at the author's themselves, I would feel the minds behind the magic ought to take the thoughts into consideration.  

I am in no position to tell map makers who have been mapping and creating doom content a lot longer than I have how they should make their maps.
They know tricks of the trade and every single factor that come's into making the magic happen. There have been great wads made by these same people being put under the microscope in this review. However, at what point would you consider that you've spent more time making the maps than playing Doom itself? If not in the literal sense but metaphorical? People like Mt. Pain I feel don't go into a map assuming the worst in terms of design but the overall experience you have will leave you some sort of imprint from the map maker. I've heard this dreaded saying everywhere I go but it works perfectly here: PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

On a side note, the ending in particular to this wad always rubbed me the wrong way. I describe it as having post nut clarity with a hooker. The rising action until the climax is overstimulated and exciting. However, at the end she takes the 200 dollars and leaves you, feeling absolutely nothing. 

[Budoka]

43 minutes ago, Chalibluefin said:

PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

On a side note, the ending in particular to this wad always rubbed me the wrong way. I describe it as having post nut clarity with a hooker. The rising action until the climax is overstimulated and exciting. However, at the end she takes the 200 dollars and leaves you, feeling absolutely nothing. 

To the above: a demonstrably false statement. Counter-example one: our perceptive organs feed us the physical world in 3D form, meanwhile formal observations show us that its true nature is at the very least 4D if not even more complex. So in that instance, we know perception is a lie. Counterexample two: our entire collective intellect cannot find a way to reconcile astrophysics with quantum mechanics without generating irreducible contradictions in logic, yet we know for a fact that all three disciplines yield true information. Reality is reality, irrespective of whether us human beings have the capacity for understanding its true nature, or whether we don't.

 

To the below: do keep in mind that it's not supposed to be any kind dramatic big deal ending, lest we forget the development cycle of the BTSX trilogy was supposed to be over much quicker than it turned out, even to the point of potentially being all a single release.

[philcul]

Wow, reading all this "controversy" makes me really want to replay BTSX Ep2 again: everything that was criticized ("magnum opus syndrom", "pretentiousness", maps that don't care if the player doesn't find every percentage of content) points to the maps being right up my alley. :)

I've played BTSX Ep2 before, but it's been some time.

[Horus]

1 hour ago, Chalibluefin said:

In one instance I've seen projects get derailed because an author refused to take criticism or make changes to their gargantuan maps so that they'll run better. Instead, opting to pull out of the project entirely and leaving the rest of the project to dry and fill the holes. That's how we were gifted Slaughter Spectrum.

I don’t claim to know what went on behind the scenes of that particular project, but I don’t see anything wrong with rehoming maps out of a specific project to a standalone release, if the mapper believes that they would be better placed that way. I can think of two fairly recent examples where that happened in Ar Luminae and The Hate Flow, two well regarded maps where the decision to make them standalone benefited both the map itself and the original project.

[Nirvana]

I thought grading things was supposed to be fun :'(

[Steveb1000]

10 minutes ago, Nirvana said:

I thought grading things was supposed to be fun :'(

 

ranking things is fun; get thee to a saltmine.

[Dynamo]

On 9/4/2022 at 12:58 AM, Chalibluefin said:

Doomworld not gonna like this one 

Ohhh boy

This ended up being prophetic, all told.

18 hours ago, Use said:

:)

But I think this is still the best response in the thread. :P

[Thelokk]

16 minutes ago, Nirvana said:

I thought grading things was supposed to be fun :'(

 

Dunno, to be honest I always found it an exercise in futility, within and without Doom. 

[philcul]

33 minutes ago, Thelokk said:

 

Dunno, to be honest I always found it an exercise in futility, within and without Doom. 

 

Yeah, ranking and grading things always seems like such a futile undertaking. You can try to say a lot of interesting things about a wad even in just a few sentences but a grade will always feel kind of meaningless to me. A qualitative approach always seems to be more fruitful to me compared to a more quantitative approach when you're trying to articulate the experiences you had with something, especially media. Everytime I watch or read a review - be it music, a movie or a doom wad - everything the reviewer actually says and expresses in language, tone and so on is so much more substantial: but the rating at the end adds nothing.

Listening to what a reviewer has to say about the qualities of a work can be interesting and can help me see a work in a new light, but ranking things to me is never fun, neither when I consume the ranking or nor when I have to do it myself.

[Deadwing]

That was a fun watch for me! A lot of the maps were still stuck in my mind, which is a great thing, IMO. I'll disagree hard with the finale as it was a really memorable map and while the final fight is a bit weird, it worked for me.

Also, I didn't mind much the large maps, but then I wasn't looking for 100% so I could always "skip" the less interesting sections and not look for the secrets. I felt this episode was a nice expansion, being more ambitious while also being more balanced than BSTX1. I honestly thought I was not going to enjoy it because of the many complaints against Arch-Ville abusage and big maps, but I actually thought everything worked really well and the main setpieces were more varied this time.

 

I'm not sure what to think about calling some of the maps "pretentious". On one hand this is definitely a good thing as there are elements from the map that stands out from the set. In another hand, these elements might be too distracting I guess, but from what I remember of BTSX I didn't have much trouble with anything like that. I always thought of BTSX as pretentious as fuck, tbh, and it's one of the reasons why it works so well? (especially the second episode for me)

 

There are always going to be things people will not enjoy and players can be really sensitive with some elements, such as non-linearity (finding your way), regular arch-ville usage, size of the maps, etc, but then I don't think you can do much as a mapper except trying to pace the best you can through the maplist.

[Wilster_Wonkels]

I gotta say after going through this thread tat you guys are right, mt pain was way off. Giving BTS a B score is much too high.

[Thelokk]

Just now, Wilster_Wonkels said:

I gotta say after going through this thread tat you guys are right, mt pain was way off. Giving BTS a B score is much too high.

 

Judging a wad by reactions to a review? Now that's what I call a disconnect.

[i suck at nicknames]

So...what'd I miss? 

[Thelokk]

2 minutes ago, i suck at nicknames said:

So...what'd I miss? 

 

A shitstorm, a few trolls, a whole lotta missing the point. Not much tbh.

[Mr Masker]

14 minutes ago, i suck at nicknames said:

So...what'd I miss? 

A whole bunch of debates at once with no real resolution to anything. So not much. was pretty fun though.

[baja blast rd.]

Some general and assorted thoughts that are more related to comments I've seen (although not the video): 

 

Every map/wad has both 'success modes' (reasons why people who enjoy it will enjoy it) and 'failure modes' (reasons why people who dislike it will dislike it).  

 

For example if you love Darkwave0000's style of slaughter combat (hi), when it works well it's a kinetic, satisfying blast full of viscerally pleasing combat and just super fun on any given moment. His setups look 'crude' (because people imo sometimes overvalue how obvious 'specific monster roles' are in assessing the 'smartness' of gameplay) but I'd argue they are really smart as emergent systems that are really engaging and are very robust towards many different ways of playing them. 

 

If you don't love it, it probably reads as monster spam that overuses archviles and pain elementals (and which tend to carry much of the threat, which certainly doesn't look like sophisticated design).  It can easily read as baggy and bloated and like monster spam haphazardly selected to fill spaces. Not to mention all the insta-pops.

 

There are a lot of people who like [insert a specific wad that looks simpler/cruder visually but plays very well according to those who like it], but as someone who doesn't like [insert one of those], I actually found it simple but comfy and appealing aesthetically but -- contra the "gameplay over visuals" way of looking at it -- bland and unenjoyable in the gameplay department.

 

Someone who loves the longer BTSX e2 maps is going to find them to be atmospheric, immersive delights w/ great architecture design that also play well in their basic moment-to-moment mechanics (hi!). (Okay fine I didn't enjoy Broken Circles that much. :P) What one person might perceive as "design for design's sake" might by really appreciated by others; for example one of my joys in Doom is lingering in well-crafted spaces and studying how they are built, and what they do to be good, on the level of shapes and structures and textures and materials and all of that. It's just fun to unpack scenes and designs that way sometimes while making no progress in maps. So BTSX (e2 more specifically) really excels at allowing me to enjoy maps on that level -- allowing me to enjoy the craft of maps. I don't see that as indulgence but rather intentionally catering to a very real source of appeal in playing maps. 

 

Whereas someone who wasn't into them will likely see them as prioritizing certain aspects of aesthetics over gameplay in so many of the ways that have been mentioned already in this discussion. 

 

I'm not going to offer any prescriptions, but I've personally always valued understanding that wads contain multitudes this way. (And I gave just one positive and one negative for each of those wads, because otherwise this post would be way too long for me to ever finish it. I'm sure there are like several+ each.)

 

*

 

A mistake as a mapper would be feeling that a particular failure mode is worse just because it 'sounds' worse (for example 'mapping to show off' sure sounds worse than 'not that good at aesthetic design, yet persists in spite of that'), and then trying to figure out how to soften that up. Because when you do that you're just mapping defensively and mapping to be disliked in a more acceptable, respectable way among those who dislike your wad -- instead of catering to the audience who will like and love it. 

 

*

 

Random thought: 

 

(Btw "prioritizes aesthetics over gameplay" will be the most common "how people who don't like this will see it" mode for higher-effort projects -- due to the way that visual/aesthetic/architectural appeal tends to be easy to grok even when it's not your thing personally, but the same isn't anywhere near as true of gameplay, especially if it's not in some easily understood "I don't like this but I get why others enjoy it" area like slaughter.

 

If you've ever wondered why "this project seems to be prioritize aesthetics over gameplay" is such an overly common take/criticism among hot takes about wads, but the opposite take isn't common, it's not because projects can fall into a trap of caring overly much about presentation more often than the converse; it's more that there's a big difference in how broadly and easily aesthetics and gameplay will be appreciated by people playing wads, and a big difference how far and how easily people can see outside their own preferences when it comes to those. When something looks nice, you grasp the appeal easily, even if it's not your cup of tea. But the same isn't true of gameplay. One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that on average players are way more fussy and picky about gameplay modes and how gameplay engages with the player; for example, the "aesthetics over gameplay" comments in the thread/comments are funny because BTSX is one the most meticulously playtested / gameplay-overhauled wads. With a wad that cares about both presentation and gameplay equally, the average person will still be way more likely to find gameplay as a potential sticking point. So in other words the only way for that criticism to be consistently dodged, because everyone has their own gameplay preferences, is for something to be crude/simplistic visually, which is hard to say is an improvement but it sure is a more "acceptable" way of failing. ;) I notice sometimes that even mappers who have developed super streamlined visual-design processes that allow them to spend more time on gameplay while still making wads that look decent still get the "it looks nice but it doesn't play well" criticism. In 2020+ that basically means "I didn't enjoy this" and relays no more info beyond that.)

 

*

 

"Niche wads" kind of have it easy this way. You open Sunder. It has zillions of monsters. You get that you don't like this sort of thing, but it's well-designed """objectively""" and other people like it. There's already a broadly understood narrative of how and why it can be disliked. (And since it's 2022, some people come to hard-won opinions and conclusions ... based on having watched Decino play it.) 

 

But a wad like BTSX is on the surface more an "everyperson's wad" so some slice of every audience plays it...and then half the audience ends up being deflated by some aspects of it. 

 

Imo there's no real difference there. "Niche vs. common appeal" is a bit of a myth, I think. Every wad is niche! Some wads are just more obvious and self-selecting about their niche than others. 

[philcul]

2 hours ago, baja blast rd. said:

Someone who loves the longer BTSX e2 maps is going to find them to be atmospheric, immersive delights w/ great architecture design that also play well in their basic moment-to-moment mechanics (hi!). (Okay fine I didn't enjoy Broken Circles that much. :P) What one person might perceive as "design for design's sake" might by really appreciated by others; for example one of my joys in Doom is lingering in well-crafted spaces and studying how they are built, and what they do to be good, on the level of shapes and structures and textures and materials and all of that. It's just fun to unpack scenes and designs that way sometimes while making no progress in maps. So BTSX (e2 more specifically) really excels at allowing me to enjoy maps on that level -- allowing me to enjoy the craft of maps. I don't see that as indulgence but rather intentionally catering to a very real source of appeal in playing maps. 

 

Thanks for articulating so well something that is very near and dear to my heart but that I hadn't seen put into words before. Doom for me is more than an arcady shooter game where it's all about well designed fights etc.

To add to that from my side: It, Doom, to me is also a toolbox for creating architecture in virtual spaces that can be admired; or for creating atmospheres and aesthetic experiences that are built out of visuals, sounds, music, geometry, architecture and sometimes also fights themselves - because yes, I believe that there shouldn't be a rigid or hard distinction between aesthetics/atmosphere on the one hand and gameplay/combat on the other hand. In the best cases both interpenetrate each other.

Edited September 5, 2022 by AdNauseam

[KeaganDunn]

Seems like Pain's caveat of "disagreeing is part of the fun" has become just as ignored as some mapset caveats, like "lower difficulties are recommended" or "This set is not for everyone".

 

I'm seeing the same thing in this thread over and over again, and I'm surprised this hasn't been locked...again.

[Mr Masker]

22 minutes ago, KeaganDunn said:

Seems like Pain's caveat of "disagreeing is part of the fun" has become just as ignored as some mapset caveats, like "lower difficulties are recommended" or "This set is not for everyone".

 

I'm seeing the same thing in this thread over and over again, and I'm surprised this hasn't been locked...again.

it's now, "Watching people disagree is part of the fun"

 

ok I'll stop

[Budoka]

3 hours ago, baja blast rd. said:

(because people imo sometimes overvalue how obvious 'specific monster roles' are in assessing the 'smartness' of gameplay)

Very true. Generally speaking, a combat setup that doesn't flaunt its level of subtlety upfront can contain just as much depth, or more even, than one which does. We should all be aware of this, considering it applies to classic Doom as a whole with its deceptively straightforward mechanics relative to many modern FPS games that age far quicker in spite of all their bells and whistles. I'd say the combat in BTSX E2 is overall very well calibrated, even most of it looks unassuming on the surface.

[Doomkid]

4 hours ago, Wilster_Wonkels said:

I gotta say after going through this thread tat you guys are right, mt pain was way off. Giving BTS a B score is much too high.

 

4 hours ago, Thelokk said:

Judging a wad by reactions to a review? Now that's what I call a disconnect.

I’m wondering if it would have been humanly possible for Wilster to make it more obvious that this is a joke.. He said BTS ffs (that K-Pop group) rofl

[indigotyrian]

back to saturn x would be improved if the level names were instead inspired by kpop

[baja blast rd.]

Imo part of why Mechadon is such a good "long map maker" is that his maps are reliably great at announcing smaller 'sub goals' being reached / attained / conquered. Part of that is flow and pacing and how it seems like big moments are evenly spread throughout the map and 'mid-sized' moments are evenly spread between those, so you're always expecting something and that expectation is always backed up; but also part of it is dynamics.

 

For someone who's so good at static architecture, his maps have a surprising tendency towards areas reinventing themselves and parts moving around in general. I say surprising because it seems like very involved static construction, and dynamic transformations, don't always play nice together. Stuff like this (from Catk 02) just looks / feels cool and probably does more than it looks to make longer maps engaging.

 

(Not all of this has to be watched. I was planning on stopping at some point but I just didn't feel like quitting.) But in the first 2-3 minutes of that, at least a half dozen dramatic things happen. 

 

 

Dynamics/transformation is one of the more underdone good things even in good mapping imo.

 

In BTSX e2m25 this inclination towards the dramatic/theatrical is evident right way, even if it has to be more subtle because of vanilla. And it's not just dynamics at all but well-chosen ones. It's actually a lot more obvious now that I'm looking for it -- basic things like how one little four-pinky skirmish is introduced by blazing-open fast doors because that probably feels better in that exact moment than lowering floors or a slow door.

 

His smaller ambushes are really well staged. Fun fights are one thing, but good staging makes it feel like encounters are organic parts of the layout, rather than just meat in the way. And a "meat in the way" feeling is maybe more likely to contribute to fatigue, even regardless of how enjoyable the encounters are in isolation? 

 

*

 

Also a sillier way to look at it is also that every Mechadon map that many people have actually played is really a short map. 

 

This is the guy who was making Vela Pax of all things! 

 

So something the length of BTSX e2m25 or 50sog map10 or Fomalhaut or a longer Counterattack map would be a magnum opus in some other person's hands, but it might require no more exertion than a mortal mapper needs for something smaller. 

[ZeMystic]

32 minutes ago, segfault said:

back to saturn x would be improved if the level names were instead inspired by kpop

 

Ah yes, my favorite BTSX map is Boy With Luv.

[ZethXM]

Everyone's fine with the subjectivity of art until pretentious comes along to piss in the cereal.  It's a special kind of criticism that reveals the artist, art, and observer are all bound in ways we cannot compartmentalize the way we prefer in order to maintain polite and orderly discourse.

 

It's been bog-standard musical banter for going on half a century that prog rock is up its own ass, that it's "soulless", that it reduces music to a vehicle for musicians to subject you to pointless displays of their virtuosity for as long as they please, with plenty of adverse inferences drawn about said musicians' egos for doing so.  This isn't a novel mode of criticism we're talking about here, calling a work "masturbatory" is quite straightforward.

 

Video games and their creators are not exempt from that mode of criticism; just ask Hideo Kojima, David Cage, or the Allanson brothers.  Or Jonathan Blow.  Or even John Romero circa Daikatana.  Or how about George Broussard? 

 

Even so, people like pretentious shit and the people who make pretentious shit.  People loved ELP concerts with Keith Emerson suspended in the air playing keys spinning all around.  People like watching Michael Angelo Batio shredding a guitar with sixteen fractal necks or whatever.  People love to jerk off about how skillful the musicians of Dream Theater are (while reliably pausing to slag Mike Mangini for being a soulless drum machine).

 

And brother, people love talking about the sophistication and calibration of doom wads. 

 

We love to enshrine the mapping understanders that make those wads with a yearly awards show, and wonder aloud at the inscrutable workings of their thoughts.  It's actually impossible to talk about why a map or mapper is good in your estimation without arriving at a consensus with (or divergence from) others and beginning the germination of a genre which may or may not take root, blurring the lines of subjective and objective. For example, music theory is a push and pull between observing the physical impact of a series of tones on your emotional state and formulating the intent of their synthesis so you can reproduce that state.  Projecting authorial intent is inextricable from the process of internalizing that knowledge.  Hell, the CC1 episode comments section is absolutely soaked in thoughtful speculation as to Magikal's intentions in designing CATEOE the way he did.

 

Further, every genre in every medium has an embedded enclave of creators codifying and elevating its trappings until it gets too far up its own ass and people desire a return to some version of simplicity just to start complicating things anew.  Classical giving way to Jazz giving way to Rock giving way to Punk. Collectathon platformers getting bigger and more extravagant until DK64 happened.  Boomer shooters leaning further and further into narrative experiences, giving way to cover shooters until the recent resurgence of older, "simpler" ideas of fun.  GZDoomism vs E1M1ism.

 

This is a timeless conversation we've more rediscovered here than started, it's an utterly normal one to have, and the discussion of pretension is a natural part of it.

[jazzmaster9]

"overrated", "pretentious", "souless" = I don't like it, but I have to put blame on the creator for utterly failing to entertain me and not my personal taste and preferences. 

[Lucius Wooding]

2 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

"overrated", "pretentious", "souless" = I don't like it, but I have to put blame on the creator for utterly failing to entertain me and not my personal taste and preferences. 

Playing devil's advocate here, but:

"You're at fault if you don't like my work" = pretentious

 

Also I think it'd be cool if this conversation had its own thread, since it's a much bigger topic and some interesting discussion could come of it.