Classic stuff vs Ports' features

[Orchid87]

So:

-Software rendering
-No jumping
-No freelook
-2D sprites

VS

-OpenGL
-Jumping
-Freelook
-3D models (optional)
-Fancy special effects

What do you prefer?

[printz]

Orchid87 said:

What do you prefer?

There's no set preference. For classic wads I prefer classic behavior, for GZDoom mission packs I prefer modern behavior.

[Gez]

I haven't yet found any model I'd like enough to replace the original sprites. The voxel models from the Doom Voxel Project come close, but they're only usable in ZDoom's software renderer -- when loading them in GZDoom, there's an intolerably long conversion time before the level loads.

[FooAtari]

I prefer classic but with OpenGL rendering. So I use GLBoom+

[40oz]

Classic games are for classic features, modern games are for modern features.

[Gez]

That's a closed-minded and segregationist point of view.

And I wouldn't call OpenGL or jumping modern features. Except maybe in the historical meaning of "modern", which is "the era just after the Renaissance".

Note: Looking up and down, slopes, jumping and flying, 3D floors, level scripting system, dialogue system, advanced inventory management -- all these are features of a 3D first person perspective game older than Doom: Ultima Underworld (1992). Just to continue on the "classic-vs.-modern" theme.

[valkiriforce]

Gez said:

That's a closed-minded and segregationist point of view.

And I wouldn't call OpenGL or jumping modern features. Except maybe in the historical meaning of "modern", which is "the era just after the Renaissance".

Note: Looking up and down, slopes, jumping and flying, 3D floors, level scripting system, dialogue system, advanced inventory management -- all these are features of a 3D first person perspective game older than Doom: Ultima Underworld (1992). Just to continue on the "classic-vs.-modern" theme.

I think you know what he means, mister. In other words, I prefer to play each game just as it was meant to be played.

[Phml]

And I wouldn't call OpenGL or jumping modern features. Except maybe in the historical meaning of "modern", which is "the era just after the Renaissance".

Little known fact : the reason Louis XIV won all these wars was because his artillery could shoot further thanks to OpenGL rendering letting them see far away.

[esselfortium]

I like both, but usually without GL.

[CODOR]

Phml said:
Little known fact : the reason Louis XIV won all these wars was because his artillery could shoot further thanks to OpenGL rendering letting them see far away.

Yeah, ironic that they called him the "Sun King" seeing that he was using SGI hardware at the time...

[jerrysheppy]

I play all maps, even vanilla ones, in GZDoom. I like the way it makes the original sprites look a bit less pixelated while still being the same graphic style, and in general the ability of high-resolution source ports to make distant textures/enemies not look like blurry shit on a modern display. While mouselooking up and down may be 'cheating' it's just such a quality of life improvement that I probably wouldn't have as much fun if I weren't using it. I usually don't jump in maps that weren't designed for it (assuming they allow jumping at all, which it seems they often don't.)

[DeathevokatioN]

Gez said:

That's a closed-minded and segregationist point of view.

No, it's personal taste.

[Gez]

Personal taste would be a phrasing like "I prefer to keep the gameplay the same" or something like that. Saying, however, that "modern" (lol) features are entirely out of place is proselytism.

[Varis Alpha]

I like playing Doom with mouselooking, the ability to crouch and jump, using OpenGL rendering and all that shiznit. It makes the game feel less restrictive and more fun to play, more fresh, up to date.
Sure, it was fine back then in the 90's, but this is 2011, dammit. A few things have changed in FPS games, technology has advanced.

[PRIMEVAL]

Whatever I'm in the mood for.

[lupinx-Kassman]

I enjoy things that are done well.

[Captain Toenail]

Whatever I feel like, I use both, BUT I make sure never to crouch or jump on a map that wasn't designed for this type of movement.

[Graf Zahl]

valkiriforce said:

just as it was meant to be played.

Ugh...

that phrase is utter bullshit in any context. If there is one universal constant in game development it's that no game ever reaches the state in which 'it's meant to be played'. There's always shortcuts, compromises, hardware limitations or whatever else might get in the way.

DeathevokatioN said:

No, it's personal taste.

No. In the way he's stated it it's not.



Back on topic. When playing Doom I want some stuff that none of the classic ports really provides, like 90° mouselook, uncapped framerate and unrestricted use of colors. So inevitably my choice of ports is rather limited.

[Phml]

Sure, it was fine back then in the 90's, but this is 2011, dammit. A few things have changed in FPS games, technology has advanced.

This is my reason for *not* liking jumping and crouching in Doom ports. These features, in their rudimentary form, were OKish for the novelty in the 90s, but in 2011 after having played so many games with various levels of body awareness, greater visual information and different uses of cover, I just can't go back to the ackward, primitive jumping and crouching you get in Doom.

Mouselook is great and OpenGL rendering looks nice, but again these things were already popular in the 90s for first person shooters.

Bottomline, I don't get the "technology has advanced" argument for using specific port features. Seems to me that the most advanced Doom ports are roughly equivalent in technology to commercial games that came out in 1996-1998. Is there such a big difference between fourteen years ago and eighteen years ago?

It's funny because I keep hearing the "omg you hate teh zdoom becoz it's moar advanced and modern and you are scaaaared of anything new" argument, but the thing is, if anything, the "new" features that I dislike in ports, I dislike because they aren't advanced and modern enough.

[Gez]

Phml said:

Bottomline, I don't get the "technology has advanced" argument for using specific port features. Seems to me that the most advanced Doom ports are roughly equivalent in technology to commercial games that came out in 1996-1998.

And also earlier, as I pointed out.

Which makes the "modern" argument (either pro as in "this is the 21st century, embrace the future!!!" or con as in "hiss modern games they burn us we hates them!!!") very silly.

The "how it was meant to be played" argument is also silly when you keep in mind that Doom (much like every other game ever developed) has a list of unimplemented planned features at least ten times as long as the list of features actually found in the final version.

[Malinku]

I like using Software rendering as imo I think it looks better then opengl in doom. The rest I don't really care about unless I'm doing a demo then I like to have freelook and jumping off.

side note:
I hate using prboom (why I don't record many demos)

[WH-Wilou84]

Orchid87 said:

-Software rendering
-No jumping
-No freelook
-2D sprites

This.
Jumping is ok on some NS ZDaemon servers or with the occasional NS wad that require it, though. OpenGL isn't my thing, but I'll use it if I'm forced to.

[Alfonzo]

Doomhuntress said:
I like playing Doom with mouselooking, the ability to crouch and jump [...] It makes the game feel less restrictive

Fair enough seeing as it's a game. But if somebody on the street (preferably dressed in a black suit) approached me with the promise of forever removing my jumping and crouching capabilities in exchange for being able to run faster than anything on the autobahn and faster still if I do it sideways or up against a wall, I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t put it to thought.

I'd probably want to retain the ability to look up and down though, even if losing it meant being able to aim vertically to within a meter of everything I face irrespective of its relative height. I'm not a pig.

[Encryptic]

Phml said:

Little known fact : the reason Louis XIV won all these wars was because his artillery could shoot further thanks to OpenGL rendering letting them see far away.

Napoleon only won so many battles because he was playing on I'm Too Young To Die, but then he got overconfident and tried to play the Russia level on Nightmare.

[Seeker_of_Truth]

Currently, I almost always use GZDoom whenever I play, unless I'm playing online then I go Skulltag. I'm am starting to use Chocolate Doom a lot more for the IWADs though. I grew up using Doom95, so when I found out about the source ports and whatnot, I wanted something totally different. Now that I've seen most ports and have the ones I want, I'm starting to lean a little back towards classic game play.

[Xeros612]

For just playing the IWADS, chocolate doom. For anything else, GZDoom. I usually shut off crouching and jumping just because most maps I play don't feel right with such things. Mouselook shifts between horizontal only + autoaim (a.k.a. the way Vanilla used) and full look + no autoaim. The only time I'll even consider bothering with the "way it's meant to be played" nonsense is if I'm playing it for a video.

Also, OpenGL color > 256 colors.

[Snakes]

I prefer files with a .wad extension, unless the extension is .pk3, which is cool too.

[Reisal]

I won't use jump for any reason unless a ZDoom WAD requires such use. Duck is useful for certain maps when you want cover and a 32 unit "fence" is your only cover from hitscan or projectile attacks.

[Technician]

The map that I'm making now uses all ZDoom features. Why rob myself of more game mechanics.

Now, when playing classic wads I don't use ZDoom features. I used to like OpenGL rendering back in the day but no longer use it.

[elic]

I always use ZDoom, unless the I'm playing a wad which isn't supported. ZDoom looks clean, runs smoothly, and removes most vanilla doom bugs, but still has a classic feel without any GL bullshit. Unless I'm playing a map made for a port which supports it, I never jump, crouch, or freelook, and set the compatibility options so that actors are infinity tall.