Are the new source ports getting TOO good?

[Enjay]

elbryan42 said:

The ports ARE changing the game too much.

Only if you use them, and you don't have to. Doom hasn't changed, not for years, but there are new options. If you don't like 'em, don't use 'em.

elbryan42 said:

I can handle cosmetic differences, like JDoom's lighting and MD2 models. What I can't handle is gameplay changes.

To me those changes in some ways are more significant than the changes you mention in Zdoom. JDoom's ability to look straight up and down, the way the mouse responds to that kind of movement and so many other things have a huge impact on the feel of the game. The cosmetic changes are not just cosmetic IMO. They actually change Doom to the core. The blended textures the actual 3D solid looking models, the particle and lighting effects are all very different from the original doom. They maybe don't directly change the speed at which the player moves from a to b, or how accurate you need to be with a shotgun, but the change is profound. But I don't dislike it. Again, it's just another option for me.

elbryan42 said:

JDoom is helping us make a true product that's as close to the original as possible.

So, JDoom is allowing you to change Doom to the point where it feels as close to the original as possible. The original of course, being an entirely different game: Doom 64. Again, I don't have a problem with that. In fact I am very much looking forward to the Doom 64 TC, but it seems odd to support an argument about the ports changing Doom too much by saying how much the port you favour can make Doom feel like another game.

I guess that was covered by

boris said:

Heh, as if Doom64 is Doom.

Shaviro said:

Zdoom is not Doom
Zdoom is Zdoom

I like that quote.

[elbryan42]

I'm not talking about mouselook and md2 models. You can turn that stuff off and ignore it if you wish.

I'm just not happy with the many "improvements" ZDoom has added to the source that you CAN'T turn off. Being someone who plays only the original iwads (and obsessively plays them, not wads, it's the kind of person I am), this is important. The game plays more like Hexen now.

Example 1. E1M3. The secret window you open up to kill the zombies in the secret room. You can't shoot the zombies like in the vanilla. Why? Because you're constantly shooting the bottom of the window because the enemy is below you.

Example 2. Dead Simple. One of the improvements they added is that you can't pick up an artifact while you have one already activated. You decide to play Dead Simple with no invisibilities, the fun way. You kill everything off, and the completist in you wants 100% items. But you can only pick one up at a time, and have to wait to pick up the others. Ugh.

There are many other changes. But I can't remember them at the moment, since I'm ready for bed.

At least they fixed the backpacks giving only 1 of each ammo. Damn annoying.

I wasn't aware that they got rid of ghosts in some ports. Glitches should stay. It's Doom. Having a ghost after you is something you accept.

If I play a source port, I want to have the ability to set it back to vanilla doom. Every port allows you to turn off looking up and down. Fine. Every port allows you to turn off special graphics like lens flares, mipmapping, and md2 models. Fine. But when they change the way the game reacts, and how you play it, it's no longer doom. Cosmetics, mp3 music, etc means nothing if the gameplay remains intact. You screw with the formula, you screw with perfection.

[Chisato]

Erm... hate to be random (Actually, I don't. I _live_ for it. Just trying to be polite and avoid being yelled out)... but... speaking of Alien TC, is there anywhere I can still find it? x.X I _loved_ that. I played that sucker more than the "real thing" back in the day. *.*

EDIT: Oh, and as for more randomosity, and back on topic this time, I like the ports. Mouselook and jumping are fun... although I don't use jump when it's truly counter-intuitive to the level design. For example, I don't use it for new shortcuts or to clear Dead Simple without fighting. I _do_ use it to get out of dying in a slime pit when possible, 'cause dying sucks and that isn't really "cheating", or as a "boost" to my running off platforms. Oh, and I like using female skins in single-player ZDoom. Just wish I could find one that's non-ugly and changes the status image. x.X Anyways... @.@

[GooberMan]

*sigh* I've lost count of the amount of times questions like these have popped up...

One of the main selling points of Doom was it's ability to be edited and changed by the user. The source release made it even easier to do so. How can one go too far when the creators of the game have given everyone free reign?

[Captain Red]

Chisato said:

Erm... hate to be random (Actually, I don't. I _live_ for it. Just trying to be polite and avoid being yelled out)... but... speaking of Alien TC, is there anywhere I can still find it? x.X I _loved_ that. I played that sucker more than the "real thing" back in the day. *.*

happy birthday mr. preserdent!!!

[stphrz]

I think the direction source ports are taking Doom is good. Change and the additional options are what is feeding the community's creativity. I can only see one drawback and it is a very minor one. That drawback is there are some people who for whatever reason get fixated on *one* port or type of port and refuse to use anything else. For example they may refuse to run the game in anything but GL mode, or won't play a level that requires Legacy because they "hate" Legacy or whatever. I see this all the time. So, while it's easier than ever to be original when putting together a Doom project, it's not any easier to reach whole community. To do that you pretty much have to make it compatible with the original executables.

[Draconio]

elbryan42 said:

I'm just not happy with the many "improvements" ZDoom has added to the source that you CAN'T turn off.

Aye, I think this is the heart of the matter right here. If I don't like a feature, I shut it off, but sometimes they can't be shut off. That's why I prefer PrBoom / Eternity, because they're the most configurable.

[Chisato]

Ct_red_pants said:

happy birthday mr. preserdent!!!

THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU! *Glomps.* *.* Erm... I mean... Uh.... *Backs away slowly, then runs.*

[myk]

Draconio said:

Aye, I think this is the heart of the matter right here. If I don't like a feature, I shut it off, but sometimes they can't be shut off. That's why I prefer PrBoom / Eternity, because they're the most configurable.

Well, not everyone is saying exactly the same thing here, some people are saying that, some others are voicing their preference for a style of play (which is generally achieved or not according to what features are used when designing.)

stphrz said:

So, while it's easier than ever to be original when putting together a Doom project, it's not any easier to reach whole community. To do that you pretty much have to make it compatible with the original executables.

Yeah, after all, we're all familiar with the basic features of DOOM, so it can be expected that we all like them, or have liked them and still do so to an extent, whereas new features are more at the mercy of the random tastes of players.

[Fredrik]

Example 1. E1M3. The secret window you open up to kill the zombies in the secret room. You can't shoot the zombies like in the vanilla. Why? Because you're constantly shooting the bottom of the window because the enemy is below you.

I could be wrong, but I think it'll work if you enable full autoaim.

Example 2. Dead Simple. One of the improvements they added is that you can't pick up an artifact while you have one already activated. You decide to play Dead Simple with no invisibilities, the fun way. You kill everything off, and the completist in you wants 100% items. But you can only pick one up at a time, and have to wait to pick up the others. Ugh.

This is one feature of ZDoom which I really like. It always annoyed me when playing regular Doom that I tediously had to walk around artifacts if I already had them, in case I wanted to save them for later use. There's little point in caring about the 100% item count the way I see it anyway...

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Fredrik said:

This is one feature of ZDoom which I really like. It always annoyed me when playing regular Doom that I tediously had to walk around artifacts if I already had them, in case I wanted to save them for later use. There's little point in caring about the 100% item count the way I see it anyway...

Unfortunately that's been removed with the newer versions, you now have to tiptoe around them (or noclip through them) once again.

[Fredrik]

Darnit, oh well, I guess at least that will please other people. Would be cool if it was an option, still.

[Enjay]

elbryan42 said:

I'm not talking about mouselook and md2 models. You can turn that stuff off and ignore it if you wish.

elbryan42 said:

I can handle cosmetic differences, like JDoom's lighting and MD2 models.

OK, you did say they can be turned off, but you were talking about them :-P

elbryan42 said:

I'm just not happy with the many "improvements" ZDoom has added to the source that you CAN'T turn off.

But they CAN. It's called playing a different port. (Which is obviously what you have opted to do - your choice). No one is forcing anyone to play Zdoom, or any other port. It's optional. Don't like it, don't play it. The original is still there. It hasn't changed. As soon as you decide to play ANY port, you are not playing the original EXE and there are differences. Even the ones that try and stay as close as possible to the original game are different, and it's noticable. It's not a problem because if you don't like it, you don't have to play it.

elbryan42 said:

Being someone who plays only the original iwads (and obsessively plays them, not wads, it's the kind of person I am), this is important. The game plays more like Hexen now.

OK, so once again, it's not compulsory to play with Zdoom. There are choices (the very essence of a range of ports - and still having an original exe.) I too play the original WADs. I've played Doom1 3 times this week (ok so I'm off work ill) and I love the way it plays in Zdoom. IMO, the Zdoom changes are improvements. I opt to play with the changes and rarely use the original exe these days because it is limited, and has felt so for some time - even before ports were available.

elbryan42 said:

Example 1. E1M3...

As has been said, autoaim is adjustable, but I've never really had any problems with those guys.

elbryan42 said:

Example 2. Dead Simple...

I liked the way Zdoom was dealing with that, but it was a bug, and I have to confess I reported it a number of times to Randy, and sent him an example file to help illustrate the problem. The original exe behaviour has now been restored as said.

elbryan42 said:

At least they fixed the backpacks giving only 1 of each ammo...

That bug was years ago wasn't it? (Unless it reared its head again recently).

elbryan42 said:

I wasn't aware that they got rid of ghosts in some ports. Glitches should stay. It's Doom. Having a ghost after you is something you accept...

It's not something I accept. Glitches should stay? Like crashing every time the view contains too many visplanes? That's a glitch just as much as ghosts. Yes the visplanes thing limits the mapper. Should it have been removed? I think yes, but you could put up a purist argument to say that those were the limits and people had to edit within that. You could say allowing uber detail by removing the limit leads to non doomy levels. I say fine.

elbryan42 said:

If I play a source port, I want to have the ability to set it back to vanilla doom....

So why play the port? As I said, any EXE that is not the original has some differences, even with full compatbility modes enabled. Let's face it, the different versions of Doom from id felt different. Some early versions felt quite different to play compared with later ones. There's even different bugs depending on which 1.9 exe you are running. Which one is the definative article?

elbryan42 said:

Cosmetics, mp3 music, etc means nothing if the gameplay remains intact. You screw with the formula, you screw with perfection.

"Cosmetics", as I said before are not just cosmetic. They have a fundamental impact on the way the game feels. As far as an impact on gameplay goes, fine, I'll take it. It gives me more choice. Implicit in that is the option to not use it. That's why I rarely use legacy - I don't like how it feels. That's why I use Zdoom - I love the way it feels.

And the original is still there. Nobody has taken it away!

Not aimed at anyone in particular...

I just don't understand the viewpoint that so often accompanies these discussions that if a port changes the game it is bad. Of course a port changes the game. That's the point! If you don't want change, the original EXE is there (although it did evolve during it's "lifespan").

I don't understand when people say I like this, this and this, but that, that and that must not exist as they change too much. It's all optional, as is playing doom in the first place.

Certain options should not exist? Why do you want to limit my choices? You have an original exe that isn't changed. I would like to try other things. Why shouldn't I have that option?

Bah! pointless discussion anyway. The ports exist. They have brought changes to Doom. They aren't going away, because they exist on my HD.

Vive la difference!

[Enjay]

Enjay said:

The original is still there. It hasn't changed.

Enjay said:

Let's face it, the different versions of Doom from id felt different. Some early versions felt quite different to play compared with later ones. There's even different bugs depending on which 1.9 exe you are running. Which one is the definative article?

Heh!

[myk]

Enjay said:

OK, so once again, it's not compulsory to play with Zdoom. There are choices (the very essence of a range of ports - and still having an original exe.) I too play the original WADs. I've played Doom1 3 times this week (ok so I'm off work ill) and I love the way it plays in Zdoom. IMO, the Zdoom changes are improvements. I opt to play with the changes and rarely use the original exe these days because it is limited, and has felt so for some time - even before ports were available.

Note that on this thread people are noting some features they don't like about certain ports (in this case mostly zdoom... probably as a reply to its recent popularity increase), and though I agree some of the reason given aren't truly central in this discussion, I don't think the discussion here is about using the engine or not using it.

As you state above, you believe many of zdoom's features are improvements, and in a similar manner, others have a different opinion and also voice it. The main point of the thread to me seems to be the question whether there's other people interested in forms of play that differ from the ones that have lately become fashionable among many mappers posting here.

Enjay said:

It's not something I accept. Glitches should stay? Like crashing every time the view contains too many visplanes? That's a glitch just as much as ghosts. Yes the visplanes thing limits the mapper. Should it have been removed? I think yes, but you could put up a purist argument to say that those were the limits and people had to edit within that. You could say allowing uber detail by removing the limit leads to non doomy levels. I say fine.

But you must admit there's a difference between VPOs and ghosts. VPOs just crash the game. Ghosts are used in some of the major existing megawads as a feature. I'm fine with zdoom not having ghosts... although, hmm, I guess this ruins zdaemon coop unless someone fixes it there. But for a fan of zdoom, it means you can't properly play WADs like Requiem. I don't see how a "ghost" option like in prboom would hurt. It's already an option hog, one more can't hurt and would make it more universal, which seems to be one of its aims.

Enjay said:

There's even different bugs depending on which 1.9 exe you are running. Which one is the definative article?

It depends on what game you are playing. Just like zdoom is the definite article when playing a zdoom specific WAD.

Enjay said:

I don't understand when people say I like this, this and this, but that, that and that must not exist as they change too much. It's all optional, as is playing doom in the first place.

Certain options should not exist? Why do you want to limit my choices? You have an original exe that isn't changed. I would like to try other things. Why shouldn't I have that option?

Bah! pointless discussion anyway. The ports exist. They have brought changes to Doom. They aren't going away, because they exist on my HD.

See? Why make the discussion into a matter of ports existing or not... people "defending" zdoom brought that up, the others just said they didn't like it, or some of it, meaning they don't use it or that they use it less (and them some people redundantly told them not to use them), and that they prefer to see releases that use what they like. It doesn't mean they are trying to ban other sorts of releases or that they wish to force others not to use other engines.

Enjay said:

Vive la difference!

Sure thing, I agree, and thus I'm sure you accept other people's tastes, like not liking something you might like.

[Dash|RD]

Are the NEW ports TOO GOOD?

What the fuck.

You're a god damn retarded asshat.

Like, go back to your cave and suck your moms dick some more, it'll give you more protien then whining about a 6 year old game that is evolving.

[Fredrik]

I agree with Enjay. Especially this:

"Cosmetics", as I said before are not just cosmetic. They have a fundamental impact on the way the game feels.

Doom with crappy MD2 models is certainly not Doom to me.

[Amaster]

Fredrik said:

Doom with crappy MD2 models is certainly not Doom to me.

I still dont understand that position. Sure the graphics are different, but I dont think the gameplay is affected much, if at all.

[Enjay]

myk said:

Sure thing, I agree, and thus I'm sure you accept other people's tastes, like not liking something you might like.

Absolutely. I'm not objecting to anyone not liking port X or port Y. That's up to the individual. All I object to is people saying port X and port Y either shouldn't exist, or shouldn't change specific things. In other words, I shouldn't have the option to take advantage of that change. The original exists in all its (flawed?) glory. People who want that already have it. If somebody wants to change something, let them go ahead. That doesn't remove the original from anyone.

Let me decide whether I want to take advantage of the new options or not. I don't see how having more choices can b a problem when the original still exists as a choice. If someone had made a port that changed gameplay, then somehow scoured everybody's hard drive to remove the original exe, then I'd object as much as the next person. But that hasn't happened. Choices have been provided, and people complain that the game is being changed.

Again, to be clear, that wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, but it is a reply to the flavour of comments that often accompany such threads.

Heh, too good? I think if I was worried about things being too good, I would lock myself in a room, wear a hair shirt and flagellate myself until I felt suitably repentant. Those repentant monk types from "The Name of the Rose" etc. know how to deal with things being too good.

[myk]

Enjay said:

All I object to is people saying port X and port Y [...] or shouldn't change specific things.

Well, as I see it, pointing out problem features (which include features that aren't liked for some reason) often allows the coder to know part of what people might want (the rest being requests for additional features or enhancements.) You just mentioned talking to Heit about the problem with changed power up pick ups... plus these things can often be resolved with options within the engine, especially when new features get in the way of certain compatibilities (like the one I mentioned above) thus not hampering the added features.

Enjay said:

Heh, too good? I think if I was worried about things being too good, I would lock myself in a room, [...]

Yeah, I know what you mean, but as I understand it, that "too good" was rhetorical speech for too complex or overly elaborate, since how good something is has to do with one's tastes.

[Enjay]

myk said:

Well, as I see it, pointing out problem features (which include features that aren't liked for some reason) often allows the coder to know part of what people might want.

True, but people who don't like things tend to shout louder than those who are happy. A friend was told recently at a marketing seminar that an unhappy customer will tell 10 people about their dissatisfaction for every 1 person a happy customer tells about their satisfaction. And indeed, a popular feature is still only going to be liked by a subset of people, who chances are will be outnumbered by the people who either don't care or actively dislike it.

And then of course, that assumes the coder is trying to satisfy an audience. I think most, if not all of them do a fantastic job of listening to peoples' input and accommodating their requests. Let's face it, none of them have to do any of this. There are certainly things I have asked for over the years that have been included in a number of ports. The option that someone may just be coding the engine they want, and damn the rest of us does exist though. Heh, I think if I had the skill, I'd do what I wanted and because I wanted to. I'd probably release it, but any features that were part of it would be there because I wanted, and liked them. I'm pretty sure I wouldn’t remove a feature I liked because someone else didn't. I certainly wouldn't lose sleep over someone telling me that a certain quirk of the doom engine wasn't the same in my engine as the original exe, unless I wanted that quirk myself. I don't even think I'd be magnanimous enough to include "compatability" options. Maybe it's just as well I can hardly write a script, let alone code a new game engine. :-)

But whatever, I think all points have been made (again). Ultimately, a lot of it comes down to a question of taste, which is a closed argument.

The original exists, the ports exist, changes have been made, changes will continue to be made. Anyone can opt to stick with the port, and even the version of the port they like along the way, or stay with the changes as they are made. Some people will like the changes, some won't. We all pick the one we find the most fun to play, and surely that's what it's about.

Are the ports too "good"? Clearly, yes, for some people, clearly no for others. So be it Jedi. That's the benefit of there being a range of options for a range of people.

[Zaldron]

Completamente fuera de tema, che myk a quién le pensás votar? (si es que estás viviendo en Arg) No sé vos pero yo ya me cansé de votarle al menor Mal.

[LorD BaZTArD]

Here's my take on the opinion, Ports are good. So is the original version. Although from all the games sites I've been too, Doom is one of the only ones where people OPPOSE the ports. It's comical. Okay, people are allowed to have opinions, I accept this. However it's the new features that ports allow, make new episode styles that have never seen before, like Licence To Spell Doom. These are good, because they ARE different. Doom isn't the only game that can be changed differently, that's what I like about Moddable games, you can make crazy things, things that people wouldn't normally consider possible. I mean, for example, Look at:

Airquake/Quakerally/Nehahra for Quake.
Natural Selection for Half-life.
NeoCairo for UT/Ut2k3.
Chaos for Quake2/Unreal.
Stroggwar/Artofwar for Quake 3.
Rtc-3057/LTSD for Doom.
Any of Lilwhitemouses projects for Zdoom.
SRB for Doom Legacy.

Features are not bad things. If they can make new things possible to enable anyone who is dedicated/creative enough make something really cool, then go for it.

On the other hand, sticking to vanilla features does have it's advantages as well, I mean the "Different" mods are taking a risk in that they may not be received well, where as good levels that make use of existing features don't have that risk, as they are easily recognisable as the game they are made for. It just depends on your opinion I guess.

[myk]

Zaldron said:

Completamente fuera de tema, che myk a quién le pensás votar? (si es que estás viviendo en Arg) No sé vos pero yo ya me cansé de votarle al menor Mal.

Sí, últimamente ya estuve votando a partidos pequeños, que no pueden más que, con suerte, meter uno o dos diputados para que se planten en el congreso y de vez en cuando le digan a los otros "che, qué carajo están haciendo acá?" o que propongan alguna ley relativamente razonable (aunque esta probablemente sea ignorada.) O quizá ni vote (como "voto reproche" a la idea de votar en estas condiciones.)

[Shaviro]

Assmaster said:

I still dont understand that position. Sure the graphics are different, but I dont think the gameplay is affected much, if at all.

No, but it looks wrong (not at all doomish), not to mention crappy!

[Enjay]

LorD BaZTArD said:

I mean the "Different" mods are taking a risk in that they may not be received well, where as good levels that make use of existing features don't have that risk, as they are easily recognisable as the game they are made for.

Agreed, although one advantage of modding is that you can take the risk of your project not being well received. If you make something you think is great, then fine, you have made a mod you enjoy.

You release it, and people tell you it suX0rz. So be it, Jedi. At least a modder is in a position to be able to take that risk.

A commercial company could never do that because they are going to plough a fortune into the game's development, and can't afford it to flop. So you'll never see "Crack Whore Skateboarders on Dope Versus Sonic the Hedgehog, - the Mars missions" produced by a commercial company, but someone may just make a mod of it. :-)

[myk]

Doing a classic add-on is quite a challenge as well, and has its risks too. Each time you make one you are going to be compared to the better stuff made before it, since the standard style has been worked on a lot and originality is hard to achieve without the help of a new or modified "platform."

As for commercial releases, I don't see a big difference. Again relatively simple stuff is usually more popular for the same reason as in add-ons; it usually sticks more closely to what defines the gerne of the game type. And there's always niches for stranger or highly elaborate things that will sell less, but they still have their place in the market (as long as the gerne is popular enough for these variations.) I'll grant that commercial releases inevitably demand limitations based on selling the product, but there's still space to experiment if the designers are shrewd enough.

[GooberMan]

Enjay said:

So you'll never see "Crack Whore Skateboarders on Dope Versus Sonic the Hedgehog, - the Mars missions" produced by a commercial company, but someone may just make a mod of it. :-)

I dunno, if that BMX XXX game sells enough they might be tempted... :P

[Enjay]

GooberMan said:

I dunno, if that BMX XXX game sells enough they might be tempted... :P

Heh, well maybe you could persuade your new bosses that "Crack Whore Skateboarders on Dope Versus Sonic the Hedgehog, - the Mars missions" NEEDS to be made. Your first project? :-)

[pritch]

Ports are fine as long as they enhance the original experience, rather than changing it. IMO ZDoom is just fine.