classic style vs new style

[Brewtal_Legend]

Which do you prefer? Classic style megawads like Whispers of Satan and Memento Mori? Or newer style like Legacy of suffering and unloved? (I know they aren't megawads. More like episodes)

Just curious.

I really liked Legacy of suffering, but got a little frustrated and annoyed with the hoards and hoards of enemies. I also really liked City of the Damned Apocalypse.

But overall I find myself going more towards the classic style of megawads. They just seem a little more fast paced and exciting. Don't get me wrong, I like the atmosphere of new style wads, but there is often a lot of back tracking and hunting/searching that can get frustrating.

So I guess my answer would be classic style. What do other people prefer?

[40oz]

classic.

[Herculine]

Classic. Definitely.

[Reisal]

Classic also.

[Snakes]

Also gonna say classic... Though I feel this topic has been touched on quite a lot. MM, MM2, AV, HR, SCYTHE, and... well, the rest of the usual classic wads rock tits. I also enjoy stuff like Void and Demons of Problematique (2) as well, but I find myself going through classic-style wads at a much higher rate than newer wads.

[lupinx-Kassman]

Both. It doesn't matter to me as long as it is done well. I do however find myself playing the classics more then newer wads though.

[Graf Zahl]

Legacy of Suffering is one of the worst examples of 'modern' mapping I have seen recently. It exemplifies nearly everything Doom is NOT about. In that sense I clearly prefer 'classic'. However, modern projects that manage to keep good gameplay are a different matter. It's too bad that they are so rare.

[esselfortium]

Agreed. I love a good modern project, but I wouldn't consider Legacy of Suffering to be anything like what I look for in one.

[Nomad]

I like both. As others have said, it's a matter of execution and how well it's done. I really enjoyed Demons of Problematique 1/2, RTC-3057, Cold As Hell, etc. But also classics like AV are plenty good fun.

[bimlanders]

Classic. I'm playing Fava Beans right now! I just like the oldschool gameplay with emphasis on being fast paced, and not some complex architectural nightmare where if I missed one difficult to notice switch, I end up backtracking and getting lost for a long time. Not fun.

I'll also go on record and say that I prefer Doom 1 textures and monsters. I feel that id had the perfect balance the first time around. And there are plenty of ways of making them a challenge.

[Jodwin]

Classic, but for Doom 2. Still, like said a good modern set is a good modern set. The problem is that most of the time modern sets aren't as good as classics are.

[Guest]

I love a good modern mapset. But I play stuff like AV and MM often also. To me the best mapsets manage to combine both. Ultimate_Simplicity is probably the best mapset I have seen that manages to do this.

Am currently playing RTC 3057, and replaying the original Evilution, for the nth time, so old or new is fine, as long as it is done well.


Question. Which would people say is harder. To do a good modern mapset, or to do a good classic mapset? I know modern mapping has more options, hence is usually more work, what with scripting/lighting/new textures and monsters etc etc but it can be pretty tough to really capture the essence of classic Dooming goodness too.

[Xaser]

Assuming both are done right, then both. Depends on what I'm in the mood for.

[Kira]

Xaser said:

Assuming both are done right, then both. Depends on what I'm in the mood for.

Same here. I play more often classic maps though.

[Jodwin]

Kyka said:

Question. Which would people say is harder. To do a good modern mapset, or to do a good classic mapset? I know modern mapping has more options, hence is usually more work, what with scripting/lighting/new textures and monsters etc etc but it can be pretty tough to really capture the essence of classic Dooming goodness too.

Definitely modern. With modern you have much more features and tools to use, and it's easy to over- or misuse them. With classic "all" you need is a good layout, good pacing and good item placement, while with modern you need all that and good use of modern features. Sometimes it seems like people who make modern maps believe that simply by using modern features they can disregard all the core elements of good gameplay. But no, they can not, because they're just as important as ever.

[kristus]

Graf Zahl said:

Legacy of Suffering is one of the worst examples of 'modern' mapping I have seen recently. It exemplifies nearly everything Doom is NOT about. In that sense I clearly prefer 'classic'. However, modern projects that manage to keep good gameplay are a different matter. It's too bad that they are so rare.

this

[purist]

I prefer classic by virtue of the fact there are more great classic vanilla/limit removing WADs than new style advance-port feature based WADs. I think this true almost beyond opinion - though you never know, great "new style" WADs may catch up one day.

I do think there's more to it than this though. I think it's that you know roughly what sort of gameplay to expect in classic WADs so you can download them when you're in that sort of mood.

If I'm in the mood for Doom gameplay I feel as though I have to take more of a chance with WADs based on advanced features. Since they're not necessarily reminescent of Doom they may disappoint me, even if they play well.

If I'm not in the mood for Doom gameplay I probably wouldn't download a PWAD at all so generally I only want to play them if I feel oversaturated with classic gameplay and fancy a change.

[_bruce_]

Classic - unless the style is totally unrelated to the old Doom... then it's cool.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Modern. I kinda get bored nowadays with wads that just go through the motions of standard gameplay and map design (regardless of sector count).

If it's a classic style wad that does things a bit differently (eg. Bicycle Mystery 2, Doom 2 Reloaded) or has a specific concept (eg. 1024, 1monster) then that's cool, likewise with wads that are hard (which I'm always partial to).

Modern maps need to be done right ofc, but so do classic ones. (same rules apply, the fact it's classic or modern doesn't mean it's good)

LoS

All that needed was some decent maps...the gameplay itself is quite fun once you get used to it, and the atmosphere is top notch (apart from the lack of those message logs).

[Graf Zahl]

The Ultimate DooMer said:

All LoS needed was some decent maps...the gameplay itself is quite fun once you get used to it, and the atmosphere is top notch (apart from the lack of those message logs).

Well, in this case I'd have to say that map design and gameplay are not separable. The gameplay revolved around arena fights in cramped rectangular spaces. Once you create decent levels you can't do this type of gameplay anymore because decent levels do not contain empty rectangular rooms.

For a recent WAD that did arena fights *right* I recommend Awakening. That one executed this style perfectly, looked great and was fun to play - because the arenas were designed well and offered the player some more options of strategy. Hell, even the arena in the ZDoom community map was done better...

[pavera]

Vlasic. That's the tastiest crunch I've ever heard!



err. Classic. I get bored in most modern wads built for GZDoom, etc.

[PRIMEVAL]

As long as the wad is fun, I don't really care.

[Brewtal_Legend]

I wonder if classic wads and such could be divided into sub-categories?
Like how Hell Revealed might be more of hardcore slaughterfest type of levels that are difficult with hoards of enemies and Eternal Dooom has huge complex levels. Then there are things like Requiem and Memento Mori that are a bit more balanced towards the more average player I would think.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Hell Revealed style although I do like a challenge. I have to be in the right mood to play Eternal Doom since the levels are so big. I guess the ones like MM are my favorite style.

[Torturephile]

Classic.

[TheDarkArchon]

Graf Zahl said:

Well, in this case I'd have to say that map design and gameplay are not separable. The gameplay revolved around arena fights in cramped rectangular spaces. Once you create decent levels you can't do this type of gameplay anymore because decent levels do not contain empty rectangular rooms.

Even then, it could have been made more tolerable by, for example, not ridiculously railroading weapon usage by providing ammo for one and only one weapon at a time.

[Philnemba]

I prefer mostly classic wads(as in vanilla and Boom stuff) however there are a few exceptional modern wads I sometimes like playing such as Knee Dead in Zdoom, Eternal Doom 4 demo and some Skulltag invasion maps.

[Technician]

If it's designed to be classic, then classic. If it's designed to be modern, then modern. Seriously, what could possibly be the conflict?

[Brewtal_Legend]

Technician said:

If it's designed to be classic, then classic. If it's designed to be modern, then modern. Seriously, what could possibly be the conflict?

I don't see any type of conflict. There is none. Just curious about personal opinions in a friendly discussion.

Maybe it should be elaborated on what actually defines a wad as modern or classic style?

Personally I find it a bit hard to define exactly. To me, a classic type of wad almost has some sort of intangible quality about it that's hard to describe, but just feels "right". Hope that made sense. I also think there can be new elements such as new enemies in the same vein as the original but still have the wad be considered classic.

[Guest]

To my mind, a classic wad could be defined as one that remains vanilla compatible , and a modern wad is anything that extends beyond this.

Of course there are gray areas. Whispers of Satan could be considered classic, but it does use extended Boom functions.

Ultimate Simplicity has a classic feel to the maps, but obviously this mapset uses a lot of scripting etc etc.

[Gez]

Something like Cyberdreams is perfectly vanilla compatible, yet it's not classic gameplay.