The /newstuff Chronicles #231

[kristus]

Whauzzhat? who me? You must be kidding.

[Nmn]

DD_133 said:

Then release something, mongolotards.

To have a shitty amateurish review? Thank You, no.

[wildweasel]

Chrono_T said:

This guy is french (Trensforme potentiellement des armes et ennemis, sauf que je suis pas sur si modifie bien avec zdoom), but I semi translated his review of WW-DI. He says it doesn't work with zdoom.

-_-

If he could read English enough to work ZDoom, he could at least have figured out from the readme that it requires EDGE 1.29. *shrug*

[Nick Perrin]

Come on, guys! Doom illustrated makes up for all those other wads because it will add replay value to all your favourite maps!! It's a quality weapons mod.

[Xenaero]

Nmn said:

To have a shitty amateurish review? Thank You, no.

You do better then. :p

[Nmn]

DD_133 said:

You do better then. :p

Deal! (at least I won't use the word "suck" in my review) :P

[Use]

ravage said:

Edit2: Am I the only person here who doesnt' give a flying fuck about detail?

nope.

[mystery8]

Anyone else not getting emails when this thread is replied to? It still says I'm subscribed to the thread. Spam filter doesn't seem to be catching them (disabled it).

Lots of detail in maps can be pretty cool, but as Retrograde shows, even maps without it can be fun. I thought the reviews this week were pretty decent. I've certainly seen worse.

[deathz0r]

Nmn said:

Deal! (at least I won't use the word "suck" in my review) :P

Hah, I wish you good luck, literally.

ravage said:

Am I the only person here who doesnt' give a flying fuck about detail?

No.

[iori]

Nmn said:

Deal! (at least I won't use the word "suck" in my review) :P

Some wads purely suck. You cannot give constructive criticism to something like Chris4.wad. Trust me, people have tried (in that particular example).

[SteelPH]

If all else(i.e. Ralphis) fails, I could do a /Newstuff Chronicles.
Not like I have anything that's time consumingly important to do. :P

Plus, I'm friggin' bored.

[Bastet Furry]

Hmm... "quality" map to release....... *wanders off continuing mumbling something into his facial hair* ;)

[Kristian Ronge]

ravage said:
Am I the only person here who doesnt' give a flying fuck about detail?

Gameplay is king. But if the map is also good looking, it's a bonus.

[Nmn]

Detail =/= Nice Looking Level

[188DarkRevived]

Aside from lacking mapper skills, what's up with all those weird titles?????

"YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR" ?????

Yes, we lose our satisfaction this week, indeed.

"WISH YOU WERE HERE?" ????

Wish you didn't phrase that as a question.

[Kristian Ronge]

Nmn said:
Detail =/= Nice Looking Level

True. I read too much into Ravage's post. Sorry.

[Shaikoten]

DarkJedi188 said:

Aside from lacking mapper skills, what's up with all those weird titles?????

"YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR" ?????

Yes, we lose our satisfaction this week, indeed.

That map is based loosely on the part of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where they drink the anti-grav soda and they "lose" the contest, hence the name.

Also, everyone who is bitching about unoriginality; did you even play youlose.wad? Sure, it might look like 1994, or worse, but I'd hardly call it boring (gameplay wise.)

I think it just comes down to the fact that 99.9% of the Doomworld members only remotely care about SP.

[Fletcher`]

I care about SP.

Kristian Ronge said:

True. I read too much into Ravage's post. Sorry.

I didn't say ditch detail completly. It's just that to me, it isn't THAT big of a factor to how fun a map is.

[Use]

It has NO bearing on how fun a map is. Some claim it makes the level 'immersive'. Doom is 12 years old. Detail doesn't change that. the game hasn't lasted this long because you can throw 5000 sectors into one room. Detail will never make a boring map fun.

[Jehar]

Amen to that...

The map im working is highgameplay... not a lot of snazz so far. Which is why i dont have a WIP page for it as of yet.

*very* complex scripting, very alinear. Stay tuned :P

[NiGHTMARE]

Use3D said:

Detail will never make a boring map fun.

Good gameplay will never make an ugly map fun either.

[Nmn]

What detail? What 5000 sectors?

It all resolves around making locations interesting for the eye. You don't have to use 5000 sectors if 10 make a room interesting to view right?

Some older levels are really fun to play even tough they don't resolve around every location being detailed as hell, and they still play nicely.

But if the map has stunning gameplay and I'm only wandering in startan3 covered rooms with ceil3_1 flats everywhere I'm going to flush this waste of hardware space as soon as possible.

EDIT:
Not forgetting, old maps are not only stripped of eye candy. They also reek in gameplay. Back then people didn't know what classifies a good map.
"Omigosh, I'll put 5 cyberdemons and it rules!"
So the protip is just to avoid old maps, with the exception of few really good ones, like Earth or Memento Mori, unless someone is a masochist.

[myk]

A few? I've found tons of old maps that play well.

Rather lately this "detail" thing has been a deterrent in regard to playing enjoyment, both by causing a waste of editing hours spent on worthless doodles as well as by simply propagating said uselessness in the shape of standardized reviews or echoing opinions.

In my view detail is not related to looking good, and sometimes on the contrary. A lack of elegance due to excess details can degrade a map aesthetically as much as functionally.

A good deal of detail can be done well without harming looks, but then again a more simple map may look sleeker while granting the mapper an extra breath for the pursuit of fun and play.

[Use]

NiGHTMARE said:

Good gameplay will never make an ugly map fun either.

Pity is all you get from me.

[Nick Perrin]

I agree with Use3d.

Final statement:

Detail will not make a map more fun, only better.

[june gloom]

my problem with the older FPS games like doom and heretic... is that they don't look like anything. they're random rooms. even wolfenstein had tables and chairs and stoves and whatnot. hexen made an attempt to give some sense of place, but...

[Nick Perrin]

dethtoll said:

my problem with the older FPS games like doom and heretic... is that they don't look like anything. they're random rooms. even wolfenstein had tables and chairs and stoves and whatnot. hexen made an attempt to give some sense of place, but...

Agreed. They're not designed after anything else. Of course, fantasy games have completely original settings, but old FPS's aim to be certain things. They wish to emulate man-made architecture, but they only do so in the barest way. These days, games like Half-Life 2 have such rich and realistic design you could use automaps of their levels as blueprints!!

[NiGHTMARE]

Use3D said:

Pity is all you get from me.

We've been exposed to the same old Doom gameplay for almost a decade and a half now, and it's started to get a tad stale. Must of us need at least a bit visual stimulation to keep things interesting.

Though I must say, a map which is has such terrible architecture it makes me think "bloody hell, was the guy who made this *blind* or just retarded?!?" would never have picqued my interested even 10 years ago.

BTW do you have this same attitude when it comes to women? If so, I dread to think of the kind of *ahem* "lady" you'd be willing to get into bed with... and it'll be you who needs that pity... :P

[Nick Perrin]

Solution: Try to make new kinds of gameplay and detail your maps well. You of course will have to mod the game to change the gameplay.

[Bloodshedder]

NiGHTMARE said:

BTW do you have this same attitude when it comes to women? If so, I dread to think of the kind of *ahem* "lady" you'd be willing to get into bed with... and it'll be you who needs that pity... :P

hahahahahahahahahaha

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA