Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
(sniper) 109

which is the best looking source port?

Recommended Posts

The answer to that is pretty subjective, isn't it? After all, depending on the wad being played, sometimes the blocky vanilla-isms of Chocolate Doom look best. Other times, maybe the dynamic lights, high-res textures, and 3D models of Doomsday look better.

It's all going to boil down to the following:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Which do you like best?

Share this post


Link to post

There's not really a definitive answer to that question.

For playing the maps in Doom.wad and Doom2.wad, I'd recommend using Doomsday Engine with the "detail textures" addon. Note that detail textures differ from hi-res texture replacements; these are overlays of grunge and texture that are applied on top of the original graphics to make them appear more detailed. I'm not a fan of the hi-res textures (way too much inconsistency, stuff doesn't match that's supposed to, etc.) or the 3D models, though.

For PWAD maps, I think your best bet is just to play the best-looking maps for whichever source port you use. There are Boom maps that look absolutely beautiful, and GZDoom maps that look like total crap (and the opposite as well, of course).

Share this post


Link to post

I know about both engine's.I just wanted to see if anyone would name a port I haven't played.jdoom for me is so far the best. (especially on my computer) I got all the addon's and stuff,to the point where the only doom part about it are the map's,I've lived my whole life with new ports and addon's for doom.if ever I learn c++ my goal would be to integrate jrender to zdoom.but I highly doubt I will ever be able to do that ,let alone the fact that I know nothing about c++

oh and by the way,will kdikdizd work on jdoom/doomsday?

Share this post


Link to post

I personally like the vanilla/chocolate Doom classic look more than anything else...higher-res graphics and dynamic lighting just never really work for me.

And 3D models detract from the feel of Doom IMO...I tried playing with them once and found that the sprites are far more interesting, and don't have all the ugliness that one associates with early 3D modeling.

Share this post


Link to post

I like Chocolate Doom blockiness just as much as I like smooth GZDoom rendering. My opinion of the appearance of what I'm playing depends on the wad and not on the engine.

Share this post


Link to post

320x200 blur-o-vision does nothing for me (in fact it gives me headaches) but so don't most of Doomsday's enhancements.

I think the 'best looking' Doom is somewhere in the middle - ports that keep the spirit of the original game without being fundamentalist about it but adjust it to more modern hardware.

The main attractions hardware rendering has for me is not fancy visual effects but a smoother looking image and better performance at high resolutions.

Share this post


Link to post

I can tolerate PrBoom at high resolutions when I have to run a WAD that requires it (well, it or Boom, MBF, etc), but I really enjoy Doom as it originally was, so Chocolate Doom all the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Enjay said:

Me after playing at 320x200 for too long (which isn't long BTW). :P

Maybe you should rant some more and get a new addition to your title. Actually, they probably wouldn't count an intentional one. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Nes said:

Quake.

Yeah, I've seen very beautiful screenshots of Vavoom, unfortunately the engine didn't seem very stable last time I tried it -- crash after crash...

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, Doomsday and Vavoom definitely have the most advanced graphics of any source port. As to whether one of them is the "best looking" or not is a matter of opinion, though.

Share this post


Link to post
MikeRS said:

Maybe you should rant some more and get a new addition to your title. Actually, they probably wouldn't count an intentional one. :P

Nah, no rant required. :) It's just that I personally find 320x200 hard on the eyes these days. If I ever fire up a game in that mode it's funny to think back to the days when the huge 256 colour depth of 320x200 on a VGA card made games seem so lush. It just seems so blocky and ill defined to me nowadays.

However, if other people like playing like that, then let them get on with it. It's their game on their computer. It doesn't bother me at all (no reason why it should).

Primarily though, I thought it was a cool pic to post. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Playing 320x200 isn't too bad... unless you have a nice 24" LCD monitor. :D

The ADoom series on the Amiga is nice - it's a compromise between keeping the "classic" look, but supporting things like higher resolutions. I helped work out all the bugs in the high-res support, fixing things like the sky boxes and low-detail rendering.

What you see with ports like ADoom is an increase in clarity at greater distances (can see the bad guys and other objects from further away), a decrease in stair-steps in diagonals in walls and flats, while still maintaining the original look of Doom. Just look at the seam between the wall and the floor or ceiling at 1280x1024 for an example of how high-res helps. Look at barrels from way far away. Then switch back to 320x200 and do the same. :)

That's one reason I used ADoomPPC as the base for my conversion to the PSP: I was familiar with it (having done quite a bit of the work on that), and I wanted the TV out on the Slim to take advantage of the high-res support.

Share this post


Link to post

Source ports are files (or groups of files)... how can they be good or bad looking?

By the icon they use? In that case Chocolate Doom is certainly the best looking.

Share this post


Link to post

I used to hate the way EDGE looked -- now it looks great and the new dynamic lights are so awesome. I hardly have to use Sector-based lighting for any of my projects now. =)

Share this post


Link to post
EarthQuake said:

Protip: you don't have to suffer 320x200 in Chocolate Doom.



No? Pixel doubling doesn't count as increased resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
EarthQuake said:

Protip: you don't have to suffer 320x200 in Chocolate Doom.

Yes you do.

Share this post


Link to post

I like GZDoom without texture filtering, jumping, decals and rocket trails.

Share this post


Link to post

I like Gzdoom with only anisotropic filtering to avoid that
gruesome glitching on large areas.
Only zdoomgl hq2/4x looks good for me as a filter.

I also hate how gl fog look in gzdoom because you see somekind
of ugly color mess on floor and ceiling I dunno what it is
exactly, if it's inherent to gl rendering.

zdoomgl is the best gl renderer IMO, if you only consider how it look
and that you can adjust texture contrast.

Share this post


Link to post
DoomKn1ght said:

I like Gzdoom with only anisotropic filtering to avoid that
gruesome glitching on large areas.
Only zdoomgl hq2/4x looks good for me as a filter.


You like these ultra-ugly filters? Hm, tastes differ. Anyway, they are useless because the code is GPL.

I also hate how gl fog look in gzdoom because you see somekind
of ugly color mess on floor and ceiling I dunno what it is
exactly, if it's inherent to gl rendering.


Let me guess: You got an ATI card, right? This is a long standing driver bug which ATI has been refusing to fix for years.


zdoomgl is the best gl renderer IMO, if you only consider how it look
and that you can adjust texture contrast.


Which ZdoomGL? The old one (0.66) or Timmie's new version? The old one looked great but was close to useless. It crashed so often that there was no chance to play with it...

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

You like these ultra-ugly filters? Hm, tastes differ. Anyway, they are useless because the code is GPL.


Yeah, I really like how it look with details textures over existing hires textures packs. I should continue my project of making a program that convert all graphic of doom with hq4x code and make a pk3 of it. Besides, with help TEXTURES lump features.So that I can play that with in zdoom and gzdoom without lagging.

[i]
Let me guess: You got an ATI card, right? This is a long standing driver bug which ATI has been refusing to fix for years.
[/B]


Damn ATI, this is really jerky! :(

[i]
Which ZdoomGL? The old one (0.66) or Timmie's new version? The old one looked great but was close to useless. It crashed so often that there was no chance to play with it... [/B]


I only speak about the "texture contrast" option in 0.81 in "gl options" and "textures options",which make the overall look good ie textures colors and dynamic lights look more intense.

In Gzdoom the problem is that when I set the main contrast over a thresold, It become all dark and as it was posterized. Even more if the sector brightess is low.whatever brightness and gamma settings are.
I am sure it will be hard to notice the difference with a screenshot,
though

I already said this before but maybe it's another ATI fail.

I only prefer zdoomgl looking over gzdoom one because of those two reasons.

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
×