The /newstuff Chronicles, what did you think about it and what happened? A discussion thread

[Endless]

The /newstuff Chronicles used to be a periodic round-up full of reviews by different authors of all incoming WADs back in the day. It ran from 2000 to 2018, reaching 546 editions, a huge number. It's been almost 3 years since the series stopped, and lately I've been thinking about it a lot and reading some old editions. Considering that it started since 2000, The /newstuff Chronicles is an excellent place to observe the change or evolution of both the community and the philosophy around WAD design for almost two decades. Reviewers as prolific as artists as divergent. Some issues were nothing more than week-long flamewars, while others contained fascinating grails of developer commentary.

 

While the first incarnation of /newstuff was done through a select group of private reviewers, in 2008 it took a drastic change that ended up proving to be much more effective than the previous one, allowing anyone to contribute reviews, giving way to many of the current writers we still have today and also allowing for one timers to make any kind of review/contribution.

 

While this system proved to be effective, the work was still quite cumbersome, considering that reviewers were required to write about all kinds of WADs, even bad ones or even trivial unplayable files. While the goal of being able to review everything about everything sounds like a good goal with opportunity for exploration and freedom, it also proved to be limiting and tiring. At the peak of /newstuff's activity, there was an issue every week, some containing more than 20 WADs, while in its last years the issues were published every month, sometimes taking much longer than that and not justifying the content. Finally, as of December 20, 2018, the latest issue of /newstuff Chronicles is issue #546. There have been no recent publications since then.

 

Personally, I was not active when /newstuff was still alive. I managed to read the last issues on their release days and left more than a few childish comments, after that, I did nothing but read past issues, look at the images, play the WADs and enjoy the occasional read. Over time I have become fascinated by the reviews and the history they bring with them, /newstuff is one of the best places in my opinion to learn and observe the history of the community. From events of great significance to simple funny comments of yesteryear. It's an entertaining, simple and effective read if you like to read about Doom and play WADs with a bit of hype in anticipation.

 

Now I wonder, what exactly happened? Why did it end? Lack of reviewers? Internal problems? To this day I only know that it is probably the amalgamation of multiple problems coming together to form a single one that will probably conclude in: it is very difficult.

 

But I would also love to read opinions or experiences from veterans and alike. This kind of history is one of my niches, something that I'm quite fond of.

 

Let's discuss and learn about this.

 

Fun fact:

By 2018, I was already thinking about doing something.

[Nine Inch Heels]

Ultimately, the problem for me was that I had to wait for something I felt like writing about... It had to be "unlocked", and in case it was, I also had to be the claimant for the specific file...

 

After my Miasma review, I checked in like once a week, to see what was on the horizon... Then after a month - and nothing really moved along.

 

When the forum software changed to what we see and use now, I had hoped that the review feature of this site would make newstuff obsolete and for a time that wish came true... There have been some pretty comprehensive reviews of WADs in the sidebar over the course of several months, but ultimately the reviews are what we see nowadays: Very brief, sometimes no more than a line or two, and X stars...

 

I can't fault people for doing these short reviews, I can't even fault people for wanting short reviews... Sometimes, knowing what kind of genre the WAD is based on, and a line or two regarding overall quality is good enough for people to know whether or not something is worth downloading.

 

In a sense, newstuff occupied a space between "bite-sized reviews" and cacoward write-ups, it's a space that is certainly possible to fill with what we have now, but it seems the interest just isn't quite there - neither the writers, nor the readers seem to be interested, at least not when I look at how infrequently newstuff is a topic here or on discord...

 

Would I write for newstuff if I didn't have to wait for the WADs I would like to review while at the same grinding away at content I am not content with..? Yeah... Perhaps once in a while... The old system of newstuff is not something I'm interested in, or in support of - neither as a reader, nor as a potential writer... The idea of reviewing everything seems cute on paper, I can see the merit of having at least 1 review for everything, but if you want people to chip in, you probably ought to let them do that at their own leisure in the first place...

Edited May 30, 2021 by Nine Inch Heels

[Endless]

9 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

When the forum software changed to what we see and use now, I had hoped that the review feature of this site would make newstuff obsolete and for a time that wish came true... There have been some pretty comprehensive reviews of WADs in the sidebar over the course of several months, but ultimately the reviews are what we see nowadays: Very brief, sometimes no more than a line or two, and X stars...

I feel that there is some need to find some way to improve the review system, well, if such a thing is possible. I don't know how long it's been around, but the ''Beta'' Downloads doesn't help at all in terms of new files. There are only reviews of stuff from 2 or 3 years ago.

 

Finding reviews for new stuff gets a bit more complicated. Either you search directly in the publication thread or ask around to see what opinions or discussions you get. I think, in a way, it would be great to have a central downloads and reviews system that is not broken.

 

Quote

In a sense, newstuff occupied a space between "bite-sized reviews" and cacoward write-ups, it's a space that is certainly possible to fill with what we have now, but it seems the interest just isn't quite there - neither the writers, nor the readers seem to be interested, at least not when I look at how infrequently newstuff is a topic here or on discord...

The fact that /newstuff seems so be a part of the ''past'' makes me feel like a relic for some reason.

[Obsidian]

I can tell you exactly when Newstuff stopped occupying my thoughts and that's when the homepage disappeared in the forum software update. I did a decent few reviews over the years and having that reminder when I clicked the Doomworld bookmark was always the boot up my arse that I needed to sit down and do some writing. Sadly there's not really a clean way to bring that sort of prominence back and we're likely to see Newstuff continue to languish unless the software changes again.

[OldDoomer]

If you look at my register date I only recently have joined in the forum discussions. However, I've been lurking Doomworld since around Y2K when /newstuff was just getting up and running. I actually contribute the relative loss of the "front page" and /newstuff to be one of the reasons I never actually joined the forums until recently, as I've discovered a lot more going on that I often simply never paid mind to. To elaborate on that, back in the day if I wanted to see what was going on with Doom all I had to do was check /newstuff and I could get the low-down on what was likely good to play just from the reviews. That's what I remember most about /newstuff. I didn't have to personally dive into the /idgames archive to look for WADs. Others had taken the time to do that, play through WADs, and could give their feedback. Did that limit my perspective on Doom in the past over two and a half decades? Sure, one could argue that. Myself as someone who has been incredibly casual with Doom since it's release and was into adulthood (ex: less time to dedicate to gaming) when /newstuff came along, it was an invaluable resource and I personally couldn't thank enough those that took time to review WADs. I personally was very sad to see the front page & /newstuff cease.

 

Yet if I only had one real gripe against /newstuff, there was often this relative expanse in review length compared to how simply WADs could be reviewed. I actually found this rather strange, considering that WADs themselves since near the beginning of custom WADs has carried a mostly agreed-upon format for TXT files to accompany new WADs uploaded to the /idgames archives. I think /newstuff could have easily gotten along with a similar review style, or say some sort of more set concrete format. Reviews could really trailed at times, and many others were often very short snips or sentences. However a WAD that was say necessarily not that good could have really be critiqued very hard with more accompanying text by it's reviewer, while on the other hand a good WAD could have a reviewer that just said "Hey, this is great. Play it." Even in the /idgames archives you can find a similar spread of reviews, from one sentence to sometimes detailed analysis.

 

I would think to those that ran /newstuff, there was quite a bit more going on that met the eye. You first have to have volunteers to actually play and review new material. It sounds simple enough but you really need people that can not only dedicate the time required but also explain what they played competently. I would also think another issue that could be brought up is relative skill level, especially as Doom got older. For example, most mappers that do not implement skill levels into their WADs for the most part build around Ultra-Violence, however did the reviewer - especially if they were relatively new to Doom - take this into account? It's one thing to play a WAD "made for Ultra-Violence" on I'm To Young to Die, and play the same WAD "made for Ultra-Violence" on Ultra-Violence. I would guess that a few years ago up until now there have been a lot of new players of Doom that weren't even born in the 1990s, whereas in 2000 probably everyone coming to Doomworld had plenty of gameplay time in Doom regardless of where the FPS genre was going during that point.

 

The current issue I have with the sidebar and star system is it can pull file reviews from effectively the entire gambit of the /idgames archives, and it doesn't serve that feedback from relatively "new" material. As I type this reply there is even a review for Doomsday of UAC. I personally don't need to see a review for Doomsday of UAC; I remember playing it not long after it was uploaded back in the day. I truly don't know how effective someone reviewing say Doomsday of UAC, or Icarus, or Requiem, is in 2021. Much older levels have been critiqued inside & out and forwards & back.

[Endless]

59 minutes ago, Obsidian said:

I can tell you exactly when Newstuff stopped occupying my thoughts and that's when the homepage disappeared in the forum software update. I did a decent few reviews over the years and having that reminder when I clicked the Doomworld bookmark was always the boot up my arse that I needed to sit down and do some writing. Sadly there's not really a clean way to bring that sort of prominence back and we're likely to see Newstuff continue to languish unless the software changes again.

I do wonder if a software change would be enough. Is it even possible at this point ?

 

41 minutes ago, OldDoomer said:

The current issue I have with the sidebar and star system is it can pull file reviews from effectively the entire gambit of the /idgames archives, and it doesn't serve that feedback from relatively "new" material. As I type this reply there is even a review for Doomsday of UAC. I personally don't need to see a review for Doomsday of UAC; I remember playing it not long after it was uploaded back in the day. I truly don't know how effective someone reviewing say Doomsday of UAC, or Icarus, or Requiem, is in 2021. Much older levels have been critiqued inside & out and forwards & back.

Same gripes. While I appreciate a review of a classic WAD, simply to read the perspective and the change it has had in the eyes of today's doomers, I also consider it vital that new WADs or projects are reviewed in order to give them as much exposure and criticism as possible. Not only is it a good way to know what's worth playing and what's not, but it's also something that the authors are very grateful for. Unfortunately, the current Downloads does not allow such a thing. I don't know what exact technical glitch it has, but now you can't review new WADs here and neither in /idgames. You have to do it yourself either at the WAD source or some other indirect way.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Endless

[roadworx]

i actually quite liked /newstuff, however i really only have the perspective of a mapper and not as a reviewer or reader. when you uploaded a new map to /idgames you'd be guaranteed a review that was longer in length than anything you could get on the archive due to the tiny character limit. it was actually really helpful, i know both to me and to other mappers as well.

 

i'd say that the biggest contributing factor in its demise is pretty much due to the software update making all that effort essentially go to waste (if the software actually worked, anyways). we no longer have a homepage and thus the /newstuff reviews are gonna be bound to have far less readers than it originally would've had, and the newer beta downloads page would've made the entire thing obsolete - in theory, that is. while i'd be fine with the /newstuff chronicles being on indefinite hiatus if the downloads page wasn't completely screwed up, that's unfortunately not the case. the new forum software has a lot of issues and even some missing features that linguica got promised it'd have (iirc anyways, i may be wrong about this), and considering how long the beta page has been broken i think it's safe to assume that linguica has either given up or he literally cannot do anything about it - i'm leaning much more towards the latter due to a variety of reasons.

 

going back to the "missing features" thing, i'm pretty sure that the section being fucked up has something to do with that. i remember reading a post he made about how he was pretty much lied to by invision about something regarding the reviews feature, and i have a very strong feeling it has something to do with that.

 

58 minutes ago, Endless said:

I do wonder if a software change would be enough. Is it even possible at this point ?

i think that it's less about if it's possible or not and more a case of whether or not it's actually worth it. while i'm sure it's more than possible to update the forum software, i remember the update being a bit of a shitshow when it was first implemented. i highly doubt the admins wanna go through that again, especially seeing as how the number of people actually running doomworld isn't that large. it's like...a few people lol. running a forum is already a big enough task, and i assume updating it without screwing everything up will just add too much strain on the admins. they have lives outside of doomworld: families, pets, jobs, etc. add to that the fact that they're growing older and can't handle as much as they used to, and...yeah.

 

i think that we just have to live with the fact that things are a bit fucked up. i'm not sure if it'll ever be fixed, honestly.

[Not Jabba]

Writing for /newstuff was a good experience and I appreciated the communal aspect of it -- particularly the principle that every project uploaded to /idgames would have the equal chance to get a community review, from high-profile releases to My First Maps -- but it ultimately was not a sustainable system or one that would continue to draw people as readers or writers when better options were becoming available, and it was on its last legs long before the new forum software. The main issue was lack of flexibility -- writers were obligated to cover every release (when there were always some that nobody really wanted to play), and every release could only get one review (when there were plenty of things that multiple people wanted to write about). As a reader, something that always bothered me with the community reviews was seeing somebody claim a wad I liked just to give it a hatchet review because they hated it -- and then that would become the only official review of that project. I remember when I claimed Ancient Aliens, someone expressed frustration that I had grabbed it so quickly to ensure that it got a thorough, positive review when they had wanted to give it a more negative one (which was exactly what I was interested in preventing). The whole experience with /newstuff was important for me, and it's one of the reasons I prefer to only write about things I feel positively about. NIH mentioned having to wait for things to become available to review, which was a very real frustration, but was also necessary to keep the queue from building up a massive backlog of reviews nobody wanted to claim -- everyone had to review the random older stuff in order to push the queue forward to the things they wanted to write about more.

 

These types of issues always made it tough to keep a crowd of people interested in writing for /newstuff, but that only compounded the bigger problem, which is that we just couldn't write fast enough to keep up with the community's creative output. The review queue had months of backlog by the time I started writing for it -- something like 150 wads in need of reviews, say 8-9 more coming in every week, and at a relaxed pace we might get 6 reviews done in that same week. If we really pushed ourselves, we could get like 10-12 reviews done in a week, so around the time I joined, I and gaspe and CSG and several other people started pushing that pace and gradually reduced the backlog. At one point we got it down to about half of the original huge backlog, but at that point, I at least was exhausted from it, and especially from writing obligatory reviews for wads I wasn't excited about or didn't like. Other people must have been tired too, because the reviews slowed down and the backlog started building again. I think even before the new forum software, the staff had already stopped adding new releases to the queue due to the lack of interest and to keep the backlog from continually building. We were never going to be able to keep up.

In all honesty, with as many wads as the Doom community releases, it's best for people to be able to choose what they review and how they review it. As important as the principle of The /newstuff Chronicles was, reviewers aren't robots and can't crank out reviews of every wad people make like it's a job; they're going to want to find options that offer more freedom and flexibility. I think for the most part, readers benefit more from enthusiastic, dedicated writers than from a random lottery as well. Stuff like the Wadazine is a much better way to find out about good maps to play in this day and age than /newstuff was.

[roadworx]

i guess i was wrong as to why it stopped - @Not Jabba has the correct answer, seeing as they were an actual reviewer for it :p

[Endless]

@Not Jabba What you mention about the backlog seems to be one of the most important reasons why it has ceased to exist. Especially considering that content never stops and on the contrary, there is more and more of it. That, at the same time, makes me think that if they achieved this for 18 years, it's a completely respectable milestone. The fact that they have kept it going for so long despite the difficulties and changes is amazing.

 

47 minutes ago, Not Jabba said:

 Stuff like the Wadazine is a much better way to find out about good maps to play in this day and age than /newstuff was.

<3

 

49 minutes ago, roadworx said:

i think that we just have to live with the fact that things are a bit fucked up. i'm not sure if it'll ever be fixed, honestly.

I'm one for changes. I know it takes time and work, but most of the times changes come for good. Sadly, this is not the case for the Doomworld software. While sure, it looks modern, I have to be honest, it really rubs me wrong how such an important thing like Downloads is broken and a frontpage is missing.

[TheNoob_Gamer]

1 minute ago, Endless said:

While sure, it looks modern, I have to be honest, it really rubs me wrong how such an important thing like Downloads is broken and a frontpage is missing.

It might be worth noting that few people are actually capable of managing the site itself and all of them got their own businesses to tend to. In the case of the Downloads section, I believe the staff considers fixing it a not-so-high priority as alternatives are available - /idgames, and various file storing sites like Drive, MEGA, etc. 

A centralized place to store Doom mods would be neat though.

 

For the OP, it seems one of the contributing factors is that few people have creativity and talents to write WAD reviews in the first place. Writing, after all, is not an easy thing to do, enjoy, and capture people's interest.

[roadworx]

14 minutes ago, TheNoob_Gamer said:

In the case of the Downloads section, I believe the staff considers fixing it a not-so-high priority as alternatives are available - /idgames, and various file storing sites like Drive, MEGA, etc. 

A centralized place to store Doom mods would be neat though.

ehhh...idk. i think that if fixing it was an option (which, again, i really don't think it is - there may be a file cap or something like that involved) they would have it as a higher priority, because not being able to give feedback on newer stuff is kind of a big deal

[TheNoob_Gamer]

Just now, roadworx said:

because not being able to give feedback on newer stuff is kind of a big deal

I suppose that is why newer stuff tend to be posted directly as a forum thread, and people chimed in to give their thoughts and feedbacks in the form of comments.

[Endless]

21 minutes ago, roadworx said:

ehhh...idk. i think that if fixing it was an option (which, again, i really don't think it is - there may be a file cap or something like that involved) they would have it as a higher priority, because not being able to give feedback on newer stuff is kind of a big deal

I dream of the day a Ling posts appears out of nowhere: ''Update: Downloads fixed.''

[Doomkid]

I remember leaving file reviews into the wee hours of the morning on the old /idgames frontend.. Just clicking that “random” button and seeing where it takes me.
 

The reviews almost served as breadcrumbs to remember what I had and had not already played, as much as actual reviews. Occasionally I’d stumble across one or two other people who had been to the same old forgotten 90s file years earlier and left a “breadcrumb review” of their own. It felt like how you’d find a rock or something that every hiker leaves a mark on while hiking a rarely used trail or something.

 

The random button+short review combo was one of my favourite Doom things. I hope it comes back in some form, some day. The beta downloads section being up to date and having a random file button would really reignite a certain Doomy spark in me.

 

As for old reviews being “sufficient” for old files, I’d have to disagree pretty firmly as a guy who spent lots of time leaving newer reviews on older files :) A 1997 Doomer’s bar for what is and is not “amazing Doom design” is going to be a much, much lower bar than a modern Doomer’s bar.
 

I’d go as far as to say, other than a fun historic reminder of how low standards were back then, old reviews are pretty useless compared to reviews from modern players who have much more stringent standards on average for what constitutes a decent Doom experience. The wad not being full of HOMs and soft locks was enough to please the average 90s player! Not exactly an accurate reflection of how today’s players are going to perceive that wad.

[Endless]

1 hour ago, Doomkid said:

I’d go as far as to say, other than a fun historic reminder of how low standards were back then, old reviews are pretty useless compared to reviews from modern players who have much more stringent standards on average for what constitutes a decent Doom experience. The wad not being full of HOMs and soft locks was enough to please the average 90s player! Not exactly an accurate reflection of how today’s players are going to perceive that wad.

Completely true.

 

Finding a review that says ''This WAD still plays nice 28 years later'' really sparks my flame.

[Biodegradable]

Endless, you and your team at the Wadazine have done a phenomenal job filling in the void /newstuff Chronicles left behind and providing a much more significant service to the community chock-full of lovely extra content. The Wadazine is the spiritual successor that had to happen.

[Endless]

37 minutes ago, Biodegradable said:

Endless, you and your team at the Wadazine have done a phenomenal job filling in the void /newstuff Chronicles left behind and providing a much more significant service to the community chock-full of lovely extra content. The Wadazine is the spiritual successor that had to happen.

You honour me with such words. Thanks good ol' Bio. I hope I can sustain this legacy for much longer.

[baja blast rd.]

22 hours ago, OldDoomer said:

As I type this reply there is even a review for Doomsday of UAC. I personally don't need to see a review for Doomsday of UAC; I remember playing it not long after it was uploaded back in the day. I truly don't know how effective someone reviewing say Doomsday of UAC, or Icarus, or Requiem, is in 2021. Much older levels have been critiqued inside & out and forwards & back.

 

To add on to what others have said, amusingly that review is my favorite Doom review I've read in a couple of months -- and I say that as a frequent reader -- to the extent that I scribbled thoughts about it before this thread was started. (I included those below, in case anyone is curious.) But stuff like this is part of the appeal of multi-coverage to me. The idea of the community contributing to a rich discourse about a wad, far more thorough than even a single great review can do on its own, is fantastic. 

 

Spoiler

It is well informed and insightful: I knew many of these things already, but I still learned novel bits of background, like the Romero comment.

 

It makes its points with specifics: for example, it doesn't just say "there are cool engine tricks," but that many of its engine tricks would go on to become prominent, while providing specific examples of tricks. When it says the map has a clear narrative, it summarizes that narrative (without being too spoilery). 

 

On an organizational level, it is easy to find the author's main points: a thesis/recommendation stated early (late would be fine too). Each paragraph's point stands out. 

 

It is not afraid to be personal and subjective, like: "I can't imagine what seeing this for the first time in 1994 must have been like." That is a cool option in reviews -- you don't always have to adopt an objective/omniscient guise.

 

When it gets negative, it's not rude or disrespectful, and it has nuance: note the comment that the open bare areas, despite their negatives, show off the skybox well and give the maps a grand scale.  

 

There is correlation between what is covered in the review and what is important about the wad: the writer doesn't spend chunks of the review dwelling on a minor aspect of the wad that isn't important to the review's overall argument.  

 

And despite doing all that, it is relatively brief, at just over 300 words long. 

 

[Endless]

2 hours ago, rd. said:

 

To add on to what others have said, amusingly that review is my favorite Doom review I've read in a couple of months -- and I say that as a frequent reader -- to the extent that I scribbled thoughts about it before this thread was started. (I included those below, in case anyone is curious.) But stuff like this is part of the appeal of multi-coverage to me. The idea of the community contributing to a rich discourse about a wad, far more thorough than even a single great review can do on its own, is fantastic. 

 

  Hide contents

It is well informed and insightful: I knew many of these things already, but I still learned novel bits of background, like the Romero comment.

 

It makes its points with specifics: for example, it doesn't just say "there are cool engine tricks," but that many of its engine tricks would go on to become prominent, while providing specific examples of tricks. When it says the map has a clear narrative, it summarizes that narrative (without being too spoilery). 

 

On an organizational level, it is easy to find the author's main points: a thesis/recommendation stated early (late would be fine too). Each paragraph's point stands out. 

 

It is not afraid to be personal and subjective, like: "I can't imagine what seeing this for the first time in 1994 must have been like." That is a cool option in reviews -- you don't always have to adopt an objective/omniscient guise.

 

When it gets negative, it's not rude or disrespectful, and it has nuance: note the comment that the open bare areas, despite their negatives, show off the skybox well and give the maps a grand scale.  

 

There is correlation between what is covered in the review and what is important about the wad: the writer doesn't spend chunks of the review dwelling on a minor aspect of the wad that isn't important to the review's overall argument.  

 

And despite doing all that, it is relatively brief, at just over 300 words long. 

 

 

As a reviewer, I'm taking notes out of this so thanks :P

 

Quote

The idea of the community contributing to a rich discourse about a wad, far more thorough than even a single great review can do on its own, is fantastic. 

It is one of those things that I really enjoy. Part of my nostalgia for /newstuff comes from the comments and discussions. Heck, sometimes reading the dumbass flame wars was fun enough, but I really loved those times the authors and the community would engage in interesting debates about the WAD and more. One of the reasons I like the DWMegawad Club so much is just that, the option to be part of a greater discourse that allows you to better understand the WAD and even the community. It's even better when great writers get into the action.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Endless

[LadyMistDragon]

10 hours ago, Biodegradable said:

Endless, you and your team at the Wadazine have done a phenomenal job filling in the void /newstuff Chronicles left behind and providing a much more significant service to the community chock-full of lovely extra content. The Wadazine is the spiritual successor that had to happen.

We're doing our best!!