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

What's really the future of Doom editing?

Recommended Posts

I've noticed an (inevitable?) increase in the visual/gameplay depth of Doom levels. The list of tricks and eye-candy widgets is pretty long. Sometimes I feel as though a level made by a mapper who isn't up to snuff in technical ability wouldn't be considered very good. Perhaps it has impressive classic atmosphere or good gameplay, but that's all it becomes...an exercise in nostalgia or game balance. Yet it seems that without a grasp of the once rare, now commonplace, tricks of the trade, a mapper can never create the elusive and acclaimed immersive experience.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that it deters new mappers who see that there is a long long road ahead of them before they get any respect in the regards of mapping. I like all of the new eye candy and gimmicks but i also love, and prefer, a more classical doom level, not one that you would find in doom2 but one that implements a few tricks but doesn't really base the maps foundations on them or that would otherwise not be good without all the extras. Things such as deep water, bridges, transluctent linedefs, colored sectors, and other semi-simple things like that, or otherwise things that amplify a already well designed map that isn't dependant on or around gimmicks. A mix of modern and classic, IMHO, is an ideal map. It makes the map still feel like doom somewhat and not so much like a quake map or a different game that shares the doom engine. To me, seeing the extremely scripted/ eye-candy filled maps getting really high ratings is all good, but we can't forget about the mappers who either: Haven't learned, can't learn, or choose not to add too many of those things in their maps, they usually make the maps that stick around, the STDOM.wad project for example, is an amazing game type and the maps are beautiful but it is severely underplayed and people usually go right back to their old favorites once the novelty of the new one wares out.

Share this post


Link to post

Well its basically now like "if you dont have good detail your map sux0rs" which I find half true. Granted if a map doesnt look too good on the detail side but has a great layout and feel to it, its still great. But lack of detail or layout shows the mapper didnt put in enough effort or just isnt skilled enough for the task(or those still learning which I understand). It basically just takes having ideas flowing and visualizing an area. But if you've noticed, people show they're trying too hard when it comes to detail and cram every single spot in a room with it that you can't even move anymore. And thats what really grinds my gears.

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect the quest for detail will ebb, and the desired level style will be to re create the feel of the old levels, in tighter line and sector counts, and less overall detail.

Share this post


Link to post

iori said:
the desired level style will be to re create the feel of the old levels, in tighter line and sector counts, and less overall detail.


That would only work for E1-style levels. The majority of other (original) levels are basically platform-style "playgrounds" and not settings.

Share this post


Link to post
Mordeth said:

That would only work for E1-style levels. The majority of other (original) levels are basically platform-style "playgrounds" and not settings.


Bullshit. Theres no restriction to what it would work for, certainly not because you feel the settings werent good enough. And just because wadmakers are trying to go for the old level feel doesnt at all mean they're strictly sticking to only what the IWADs did.

And I can see doom editing moving 2 ways (at the same time). One group will wish to stay in the realm of classic style, heavy gameplay oriented, and less visual effect wadmaking. The other group will move towards more scripted levels with high amounts of effects and beauty. To an extent we have that now, those who consider themselves oldschool and those who consider themselves newschool (or are lumped into either because of what they prefer). I just see a continuation of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Job said:

What's really the future of Doom editing?

I wonder if a more fundamental question is: for how much longer will people create maps for DooM? Granted that more than 12 years after the game was introduced there is a thriving community of players and mappers (including weapons modders, music gurus, etc.) But much of that is a result of source ports that strive to make DooM into a more "modern" game, and the resurgence of DooM's popularity after DooM3 and the movie. Ultimately, DooM will continue to be popular so long as mappers/modders are creative and provide fresh playing experiences. But can all of their creations technically be called DooM editing?

As we move away from the elements of the original game that made it so enjoyable (adrenaline-pumping, fast-paced, occasionally frightening, full of wonder because it was so new) we cease to live in the DooM world. TCs and scripting and marvellous architecture (yes, I admit I am guilty of indulging in all of these) make for a good game-playing experience. But I wonder if they really fit into the category of "DooM editing" in the strictest sense of the word. Now don't get me wrong - I'm no purist, and I absolutely enjoy using sources ports and seeing the creative ways in which people map or mod. But aside from using the resources of the original game (and in the case of TCs even that connection is severed) can the effort really be labeled "DooM editing"?

"A rose by any other name!" you exclaim, and I imagine that you are correct. As for me, despite my devil's advocacy, I will continue to look forward to the offerings of my fellow DooMers. And if they happen to be served up on a platter of source ports and high resolution graphics, so much the better. I'll dine heartily on them, and between mouthfuls I will be yelling:

"DooM is dead! Long live DooM!"

Share this post


Link to post
ReX said:

Now don't get me wrong - I'm no purist,

You make it sound like a sin or something.

Share this post


Link to post
HobbsTiger1 said:

You make it sound like a sin or something.

No, nothing like that at all. (However, I'm sure you've noticed that there seems to be little room in the DooM community for purists.) As a matter of fact I have created several maps that are designed to be 100% playable using the original executables, and which use no new resources. I just started another map today that will be 100% Doom2.exe compatible. But I say again - I'm no purist.

Share this post


Link to post

Why don't you people who think scripting wonders and omfg detail are teh only way scuttle back to your theatre where its still accepted as the only way?

If I want to play Doom I play Doom. If I want to play Quake I play Quake. If I want to play System Shock I play System Shock. If I want to play Contra I play Contra. Amazing priciple I know, yet not that hard to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
HobbsTiger1 said:

Why don't you people who think scripting wonders and omfg detail are teh only way scuttle back to your theatre where its still accepted as the only way?

Somehow, though, I sense that the people who will only play a map that has uber-detail and cutting edge scripting are in a very small minority. I believe that most people will enjoy a good map whether it is designed for vanilla DooM or one of the many source ports. [The fact that these people may use their source port of choice to play such a map does not necessarily contradict my point. It just means that they probably want higher graphics resolution and enhanced movement control such as mouselook.]

For better or worse, I think the expanded elements of DooM editing (greater ability for detail, scripting, OpenGL, models, "true" 3D, weapons mods, etc.) are here to stay. That doesn't mean that people should not strive to excel in making vanilla DooM-compatible maps. It just means that there will be a greater variety on the menu.

Share this post


Link to post

You're almost defending me heh.

The fact is people clearly differ on opinion of what a good map is. You might think its good by introducing new elements of gameplay and making into a TC (I really have no idea what you lot like), I like a good fast paced tough "shoot it kill it" wad or perhaps something thats just traditional.

And heh we got off topic.

Share this post


Link to post

It's stupid to be a purist because you miss out on half the terrific levels made for Doom. Source ports have been around for HALF of Doom's life, so they are just as much a part of "Doom" as vanilla. Like Rex said, a good map is a good map, whether you can look up and down or jump or have floor over floor. For all intents and purposes, ZDoom, Legacy, Eternity... are all still Doom... they really don't play any different. If you chose to just play wads that run with original exe, fine but you're a damned fool missing out on 8 years of amazing wads, even if they do let you jump.

Share this post


Link to post

The future of doom editing belongs to whomever continues to edit, weather it be some skulltag noob who knows nothing of the legendary mappers before him, or the classic devoted mapper who painstakingly spends hours within his map fine tuning gameplay and progression. Whatever the case, if you don't like what the community offers, make it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Scuba Steve said:

ZDoom, Legacy,...they really don't play any different.


If you isolate this bit of the post you can see that the entire thing is complete nonsense.

If Legacy doesnt play any different then I suppose predicting monsters is just my nightmare. And if ZDoom doesn't play any different then somebody needs to tell randy that all those changes for "the way it was meant to be" didn't do jack shit. I don't think I need more examples, people with intelligence who know either port know that it changes multiple elements of Dooms gameplay. I'd have said something about eternity but I don't know enough about it to properly speak of it.

It's stupid to be a purist because you miss out on half the terrific levels made for Doom.


Since a good 80-85% of all my wads require at most limit removing I seriously doubt that. In fact if it werent for Boom my total of port specific wads would be 32 out of more than a thousand wads. I am honestly not sure why I have 32, some of them are quite meh.

If you chose to just play wads that run with original exe, fine but you're a damned fool missing out on 8 years of amazing wads, even if they do let you jump.


And you're a damned fool if you think only running the original exe is what being a purist is. I doubt theres a single person whos that extreme here, certainly not enough to make a group.

Share this post


Link to post

HobbsTiger1 said:
Bullshit. Theres no restriction to what it would work for, certainly not because you feel the settings werent good enough.


I didn't say the settings weren't good enough, I said most original Doom/Doom2 levels, with the notable exception of E1, didn't have a setting. They were a big playground, with most buildings just being contraptions. Doom2 taking place in a city on Earth? You can only tell by looking at the sky texture.

I really do not think that people want to recreate this stuff on newer or updated engines, but rather go for more immersive settings.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I don't see DOOM as having a future as its greatest stength in my opinion has always been that to a good degree it has been able to maintain a healthy present. Additions and variations bring more life to it, but essentially it persists because it is, in itself, enjoyable and worthwhile to play.

ReX said:
But much of that is a result of source ports that strive to make DooM into a more "modern" game, and the resurgence of DooM's popularity after DooM3 and the movie.

Both help add people to the game, as do the consistency of "purism" (and the solid demo scene associated to it).

As for me, despite my devil's advocacy, I will continue to look forward to the offerings of my fellow DooMers. And if they happen to be served up on a platter of source ports and high resolution graphics, so much the better.

I don't get why that would be a "devil's advocacy". Not being able to distinguish the varying elements of the game, and how they differ from it in degrees (from mere layout variations for the game as it is to TCs that basically produce another game with the game), would be rather insane at this point.

However, I'm sure you've noticed that there seems to be little room in the DooM community for purists.

How so? There're tons of wads and possibilities for "purists" of different shades. Now there're even ports that can handle "purist" requirements very well, even, which wasn't really the case a few years back when people started switching to Windows 2000/XP, and even the engines that deviate most have taken steps to support classic stuff more effectively lately.

If I've been left out in the cold perhaps I'm quite the retard that Scuba Steve describes, and thus haven't noted it yet.

Somehow, though, I sense that the people who will only play a map that has uber-detail and cutting edge scripting are in a very small minority.

People who look for that specifically are more eager for novelty than they are to play a game. That's the first type of people who eventually move on or out, if they haven't already.

Scuba Steve said:
For all intents and purposes, ZDoom, Legacy, Eternity... are all still Doom... they really don't play any different.

Those engines aren't equivalent, and sure they're DOOM, but less so than the game itself, and their add-ons generally less so than more conservative add-ons. Because they have been changed more; and if you change something it is more of something else.

If you chose to just play wads that run with original exe, fine but you're a damned fool missing out on 8 years of amazing wads, even if they do let you jump.

I certainly don't mind letting pass some stuff that might have its relative worth if that'll allow me to more thoroughly play other stuff I consider more to my taste. As long as the choice is made from experience, nothing will really be missed. Being a purist, if one knows what he's doing, isn't so much a negation of something else (noveltist wads) as much as it is a specialization and an in-depth dedication to classic DOOM playing.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

I don't get why that would be a "devil's advocacy".

In my post I was suggesting that creating maps and mods specifically for source ports could not, in the strictest sense, be considered "DooM editing". In a way, I was encouraging (advocating) the development of maps for vanilla DooM. The devil's advocacy was in my support of the opposing view, i.e., development of maps for source ports.

There're tons of wads and possibilities for "purists" of different shades.

From what I have observed, there are few new maps that are 100% vanilla DooM compatible. Moreover, such wads are typically created by those that are new to DooM editing, and (for good reason) tend to be less fun than maps by seasoned mappers. [E.g., NewStuff Chronicles #280, #281, #283, and #284 do not have a single wad that is vanilla DooM compatible; of the 15 wads in NSC #282, 6 are compatible with doom.exe, doom2.exe, or doom95.exe, and of these 6 wads, 4 are by authors new to DooM editing). In NSC #279, out of 11 wads only one was vanilla DooM compatible, and that was by a newbie.] My point is that fewer and fewer new maps by experienced mappers are becoming available for the so-called "purists".

You might argue that a map for any "limit-removing source port" is technically a vanilla DooM map with unlimited detail possible (re: 'possibilities for "purists" of different shades). However, to a purist I imagine that a map that incorporates detail the original DooM engine cannot handle will lack the look and feel of the original, and therefore not be "pure". In other words, at the extreme end of the spectrum a purist would prefer a map that is 100% vanilla DooM compatible (even though he/she may play the map on a source port). But I'll grant you the fact that there are shades of purists, and there are new and good maps that would satisfy them.

Judging by the underwhelming number of new maps that are 100% vanilla DooM compatible and the overwhelming attention given to new maps that are meant for source ports (including those maps that simply require a limit-removing source port) I stand by my original assertion that purists are in the minority, and seasoned mappers are generally not targeting this demographic. I might be among the handful of seasoned (after almost 60 released maps I believe I can call myself that) mappers that design some of their maps to be 100% vanilla DooM compatible.

HobbsTiger1 said:

You're almost defending me heh.

What's to defend? If you have a preference for old school maps, good for you. Contrary to defending you I was simply pointing out that I enjoy creating and playing old school maps as much as I enjoy mapping for source ports.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not really sure which side I stand on, but I admit I can't help but find it a little amusing that the average mapper has become so much better than the original id mappers, that those game content maps are often criticized (usually with the exclusion of e1). It seems our favorite part of the original maps are whatever emotional sentiment we derived from them...and in trying to surpass them or recreate them, it seems that we are also trying to recreate that first emotional sensation - and failing, perhaps. At least that's where I stand with mapping. I try more to recreate my original emotional response than to forge ahead, admittedly.

Share this post


Link to post

ReX said:
In a way, I was encouraging (advocating) the development of maps for vanilla DooM.

Well, my clarification was that by saying that you were more so displaying your understanding of different perspectives in the community than advocating anything. Those who argue that any DOOM add-on is as much DOOM as any other are missing the point in most "this is DOOM, that isn't" comments and are generally the ones to call "purists" names instead of acknowledging that they prefer the game in a purer form (and thus more like DOOM itself).

You might argue that a map for any "limit-removing source port" is technically a vanilla DooM map with unlimited detail possible (re: 'possibilities for "purists" of different shades). However, to a purist I imagine that a map that incorporates detail the original DooM engine cannot handle will lack the look and feel of the original, and therefore not be "pure". In other words, at the extreme end of the spectrum a purist would prefer a map that is 100% vanilla DooM compatible (even though he/she may play the map on a source port). But I'll grant you the fact that there are shades of purists, and there are new and good maps that would satisfy them.

And currently most limitless but otherwise standard level wads are as "purist" as a standard level with a DeHackEd patch, ever since Andrey Budko hacked Doom to raise its limits, if not a bit more, because merely expanding the possible scale or size of maps is a more subtle change than altering mechanics through DeHackEd's info swapping process.

Plus keep in mind that while this thread somehow took a turn towards wad-production, DOOM's activity isn't merely wad-making (which per se is muchly about modification); other things, such as coding, demo recording, discussion, influence on other engines and designs, and general information also show a healthy degree of activity and progress on the purist scale of things. In many ways the development of engines with more features and their wads has defined "purism" more specifically than ever, giving it a clear place among our activity.

Share this post


Link to post

Job said:
the average mapper has become so much better than the original id mappers

That's not so much the case as the average mapper having far superior tools than the original id mappers. I know from my own experience that it's nigh on impossible* to produce with Yadex - by its own admission, a fairly low-level editor - the quality that people seem to squirt out in a matter of hours with editors like Doom Builder that do all the boring repetitive stuff for you.

*okay, not impossible, but taking a prohibitively long time and more reserves of patience than even the most serene of Zen masters have...:)

Share this post


Link to post

Aside from crashing bugs, hard limits, and the user interface, EE can be made to act pretty much identical to DOOM, or at least as close as possible outside of DOS (don't look for FM, OPL, or PC speaker emulation :) The last release even addressed several previous compatibility issues, such as the inability to disable the new automap widgets. I am always working to keep it possible to use EE as a purist port, yet for some reason people are ignoring that facet of the project simply because we also support advanced editing features.

Practically the whole reason I work on EE is to show that the two are not mutually exclusive goals.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

I certainly don't mind letting pass some stuff that might have its relative worth if that'll allow me to more thoroughly play other stuff I consider more to my taste. As long as the choice is made from experience, nothing will really be missed. Being a purist, if one knows what he's doing, isn't so much a negation of something else (noveltist wads) as much as it is a specialization and an in-depth dedication to classic DOOM playing.

I don't even know what the fuck everyone is whining about anymore, so I'll just wrap this up... there's as much crap for ports now as there is for vanilla (take a look at all the wads uploaded by funduke from 1995). Love it or hate it, ports are just as much a part of Doom as vanilla features. Doom's modability was always a strength, and this is just a continuation of that. Nobody is saying vainlla is crap or stop playing/making vanilla maps, but to pretend that current ports aren't Doom is ridiculous. Void is a DOOM mod just as much as something like Suspended in Dusk, one just has more features? Is dehacked not Doom? is Boom not Doom? How about glass floors, I never saw them in the original game!

Vanilla/port arguments are stupid, because there is no "traditional" Doom "way", just a progression. New features and scripting are just where Doom editing has been taken, no different than what has always happened... idmaps; engine hacks (glass floors and crap); dehacked; Boom; ZDoom/etc... since Boom is now "Vanilla enough" will everyone be screaming in 10 more years, "Bah, 3DrDOOM2+ isn't Vanilla! Only Eternity Features are Vanilla and nothing more!" Scripting and enhanced features are here to stay and are just as much a part of Doom as anything else, and like I said limiting yourself to only "Vanilla" only hurts you for missing out on terrific mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Scuba Steve said:

I don't even know what the fuck everyone is whining about anymore, so I'll just wrap this up...

Only person I see whining here is you.

there's as much crap for ports now as there is for vanilla

The idgames archive disagrees with you. I'll take its word over yours.

Love it or hate it, ports are just as much a part of Doom as vanilla features. Doom's modability was always a strength, and this is just a continuation of that. Nobody is saying vainlla is crap or stop playing/making vanilla maps,

Still looking for the point of this part.

but to pretend that current ports aren't Doom is ridiculous.

They are Doom, but like myk said, less so than the game itself. Doom is Doom. ZDoom is ZDoom. ZDoom is not Doom, but it contains a lot of Doom. I don't know why I'm trying to tell you this, you'll just call it ridiculous because you're blind.

Void is a DOOM mod just as much as something like Suspended in Dusk, one just has more features? Is dehacked not Doom? is Boom not Doom?

Back to that less so than the game itself.

How about glass floors, I never saw them in the original game!

If you mean crystal sectors (god knows you butchered that name) then no, its an engine hack of the original. I'd certainly call it closer to Doom than any source port feature.

Vanilla/port arguments are stupid, because there is no "traditional" Doom "way", just a progression.

I have always loved when a single person has felt they have the godly right to speak for the community as a whole.

New features and scripting are just where Doom editing has been taken, no different than what has always happened... idmaps; engine hacks (glass floors and crap); dehacked; Boom; ZDoom/etc...

WHERE IS THE POINT?!?!

since Boom is now "Vanilla enough" will everyone be screaming in 10 more years, "Bah, 3DrDOOM2+ isn't Vanilla! Only Eternity Features are Vanilla and nothing more!"

Who the fuck said Boom was vanilla enough. Besides you.

Scripting and enhanced features are here to stay and are just as much a part of Doom as anything else,

I think this is a point ladies and gentlemen! Its wrong but its a point! /me claps

and like I said limiting yourself to only "Vanilla" only hurts you for missing out on terrific mods.

Who said purists only limit themselves to vanilla (again, besides you)? Also, if Boom is Vanilla enough then we arent limiting ourselves strictly to vanilla now are we? I suggest you quit contradicting yourself before you try to contradict others.

Share this post


Link to post

Like it's been said, people will play the game and all its variants as long as they have interest in it. And as long as they have interest, some of them will look to improve upon it or create something new. And not all these people have been playing Doom long. Many young people (and some older ones) are just now discovering Doom. They've heard about it before but are just now playing it, and many of them will like Doom far more than they initially thought. As long as the franchise attracts fresh players, it will live.

Share this post


Link to post

Hobbs: What are you? Retarded? Let people play the game however they want.

Share this post


Link to post

Scuba Steve said:
I don't even know what the fuck

Yes, I noticed your lack of understanding.

Doom's modability was always a strength, and this is just a continuation of that.

Certainly.

Is dehacked not Doom?

Less so than the plain engine.

is Boom not Doom?

Thay are both engines that run DOOM; one being a modification/expansion that made a mild degree of purist concessions, instrumental to both allowing the persistence of "purism" while encouraging intelligent innovation. That was, I think, Team TNT's (to a great deal Lee Killough's) greatest contribution , code-wise. The other is the bare code, or the engine out of the box as presented by id Software, and the basis for purist standards.

Vanilla/port arguments are stupid,

Arguments are only as stupid as you make them.

because there is no "traditional" Doom "way",

That's not essentially true, since the game out of the box can't be changed.

just a progression.

There's no rule that states this progression must be followed indiscriminately just like there's no rule barring this progression from being taken anywhere.

Scripting and enhanced features are here to stay and are just as much a part of Doom as anything else,

In essence this is what you've been repeating, and there's basically a perspective behind it; on the other hand I'd say DOOM is DOOM the game, then you can apply add-ons (like when you apply adjectives to a noun) and you've got something which is related to it but new, from DOOM with a standard PWAD (keeping Doom's mechanics intact, other that the playing board), through one of those with DeHackEd modifications (keeping the core engine intact but rearranging some mechanics) to modifying the code in such a way that the game is changed radically and fundamentally. These changes have effects on how we deal with the game and what we do with it. For example, a modified source-based engine gives you a broad spectrum of features and possibilities to tinker with from a creative perspective, allowing the wad-maker to produce distinctive add-ons, while sticking to a more conservative format will allow DOOM's simpler blastathon gameplay (and accompanying styles) and an easy exchange of playing activity, permitting consistent competition and thorough play. Thus people make choices on what type of add-on they want to make, what engine they will be using (most or exclusively), what direction they'll drive their coding project, and so on, depending on what they prefer. It's a matter of choice (and of degree in that choice), and not either that way or the other as a fact. Without any distinctions ("anything is DOOM") you'll have to bag it all into one perspective, which is not possible since we all make all sorts of distictions, either broad (e.g., purist/noveltist) or more specific (exactly what we do in regard to the game).

and like I said limiting yourself to only "Vanilla" only hurts you for missing out on terrific mods.

I'LL NEVER PLAY ACTION DOOM!!!1

GGG said:
And not all these people have been playing Doom long. Many young people (and some older ones) are just now discovering Doom. They've heard about it before but are just now playing it, and many of them will like Doom far more than they initially thought. As long as the franchise attracts fresh players, it will live.

Aye, plus you don't have only the franchise to attract people, the FPS gerne in general, or video gaming in broader sense, will also attract people due to the games basic nature (fleshing out the FPS gerne); while it's easy to associate DOOM to DOOM 3 or the movie, it's not hard to arrive to it through any other FPSs and other games. And with the progress (either in adding features or simply by porting) made with the source code by the community it makes it even easier as it makes DOOM almost ubiquitous and gives it possibilities akin to other more modern games', all of which attracts people in itself, and acts as a bridge even to further innovations as well as possible purist players or designers that might end up appreciating the core game's functionality, universality, and simplicity.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×