The Doom Confessional Booth

[DoomedFox]

I unironically enjoy Doom on the snes and the port of doom 2 on the gba. Both Ive beaten on the orginal consoles alone respectively. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by DoomedFox

[baja blast rd.]

4 hours ago, Inno said:

(1) People talking about difficulty on a forum *really* shouldn't be that stressful for you. Chill.

 

(2) It's mostly a one-man effort, however, as the vast majority of the maps are made by skillsaw.

 

(3) You erroneously appear to have the idea in your head that my problems are on some maps, and things I enjoy are on another. Or that I'm not aware of which maps are skillsaw's, and which are not. Don't jump to conclusions so quickly next time. No, my problem is that, in a single map, there can be displayed brilliance both in map design and in occasional encounter design, but also total shit. Pure and simple. You have made it very clear that you like hard maps, and that you're oh, so professional at playing a video game. That's great, bud, that's what the higher difficulties are for, and I'm glad you are catered to. The more people enjoying Doom to their liking, the better. But on 'normal', it should play well. Occasionally, the wad does. Mostly, however, it doesn't. Simple rule is that if getting through your encounters isn't just 'tiring' (Serious Sam can be 'tiring'), but *tedious*, then you've fucked up. Ancient Aliens is mostly tedious, most of the time. Period.

 

(4) I'm well aware of the "mindset" that different levels have. You mention ammo starvation in the early levels. Yes, that's present, and I don't have a problem with it. My complaint isn't about ammo starvation, it's about enemies placed poorly. 

 

Nope. I just think everyone else's tolerance for enemy placement bullshit is higher than mine. Trying to go, "Well, it's well-liked by others, so that means that it's actually super good" is also not a good platform upon which to base your argument. Hell Revealed is also quite well-liked, but it doesn't stop the fact that the enemy placement is the hottest of garbage after the first several maps in that, too.

 

Now, you can all complain about what I've said all you like, but I'm frankly not invested enough in the subject to continue arguing with people over the placement of enemies in a video game. I'm fine with discussion about it, but it's clear you and NIH aren't, so I'm just not going to reply to any further fussing about it, especially not in a thread entitled 'The Doom Confessional Booth', where the expression of unpopular Doom opinions is intended, without others responding like bothered children. Waste your time as you wish, but I'm not going to waste mine for you.

 

(Bolding mine.) I was sympathetic to Ancient Aliens' gameplay not being your cup of tea. But you are arguing that its badness is an objective truth, much like 'goats jump on things' and 'cats have claws', rather than a matter of taste. And that is something I can't get behind at all. Especially not if you are just going to make loud assertions, rather than supporting your claims with examples and analysis. Especially not if your reasoning for why others might like it amounts to Oh, it's not that it's good, it's just that such people have a higher tolerance for garbage!

[Cynical]

At the same time, it doesn't do a lot of good to claim "AA's monster placement is great!" without any further explanation.  There's certainly room to argue that a lot (although not all!) of its more "choreographed" encounters, especially in some of the maps that almost feel like "Ribbiks-lite", lack interesting dynamics beyond "here's a parcel of monsters and a lock-in, manage your space and get it infighting!".  Even some of the ones with gimmicks have gimmicks that aren't expressed strongly enough; the guest map by AD79, for instance, has those barrels that cover up the spawn points of other monsters, but a whopping two arch-viles in a giant melee where I've got plasma and rockets and even a sphere IIRC is too scarcely felt to even register.

[Nine Inch Heels]

9 minutes ago, bonnie said:

if you'd like to fill us in on the extremely important context i'm apparently leaving out, I'd love to hear it

Context is this criticism of Ancient Aliens:
 

Quote

I don't mind 'hard' if there's a genuine difficulty to it. I'll probably still die, because I know I'm probably only an above-average player, but that's fine. If I die too much, even on fair, but really hard wads, I'm not averse to the idea of bumping it down to HNTR. AA is 'harder' because the enemy placement is isn't very good.

My response (at least the bit you quoted):

Quote

But all of this is entirely subjective, and has very little to do with "genuine difficulty"as if that was an objective thing that existed (because it doesn't).

Since I don't think I need to remind you what your response was, let me just reiterate: You're telling me I don't know what something is, based pretty much solely on the quote above, while you yourself do not deliver an actual definition of your own. So there's one issue already, namely, you had nothing to show yourself, but you still felt like parachuting in because reasons, and to top it off you never even played the WAD that's been discussed to begin with. But let's move on, shall we?

 

My point has been that people use these terms (artificial/genuine) because something is difficult for reasons they do or don't like, or in other words: It's merely a euphemism for "not my cup of tea". Which, lo' and behold, is entirely subjective as I already pointed out, and that's what's been the whole deal the entire time as you'll see a bit further down the line here.

 

To make it a bit more clear, I don't think these "concepts" actually exist, a game is either difficult or not, for reasons one may or may not enjoy. And honestly I can much rather get behind expressions such as "difficult for the wrong reasons", in example when something is difficult to react to because it's almost impossible to see. Like a 1 pixel sized projectile that instantly kills the player, to give one example.

 

I am well aware when and why people use terms like "artificial difficulty" though. Therefore, the point you were trying to make how I was flip flopping anything is moot. I have a pretty clear cut idea why the person I was responding to put "harder" in quotation marks. More context from the very same person I was responding to:

Quote

Oh, good, I'm not alone. I mean, look, don't get me wrong, I like his map design itself, but he [skillsaw] completely shits the bed when it comes to the element I'm *extremely* critical on: enemy placement. Nothing about playing Doom is more disappointing than a good map being a chore to play because of enemy placement that doesn't take the design of each area in mind, and/or throws so many enemies at you at a time that fighting them off becomes tedious. Ancient Aliens is a wad, in particular, is a wad I want to adore, but I refuse to finish it as it is. At some point, I'm going to go into Doom Builder and just unfuck the enemy placement, because I honestly think it's absolute garbage-tier.

 

So there's the context you've conveniently left out of your comments. That's why I don't think "artificial" or "genuine difficulty" actually exists, since it's obvious what's truly been driving the notion of AAliens being "artificially difficult" in this case.

[Cynical]

Heels, let's say I made a long map where, at the end, I had 10 switches; somewhere in unplayable space, I had an awake Lost Soul and some walkover-line voodoo-doll trickery so that, at random, one of the switches would finish the level and the other 9 would kill you instantly.  Do you not think the term "artificial difficulty" would be appropriate in that scenario?

[Nine Inch Heels]

18 minutes ago, Cynical said:

Do you not think the term "artificial difficulty" would be appropriate in that scenario?

It's plain "random".

[Cynical]

How can you claim that it's not a form of difficulty, given that it makes doing a successful run of the map only 10% as likely as it would otherwise be?

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 minute ago, Cynical said:

How can you claim that it's not a form of difficulty

Because the player has no way to influence the likelyhood of success.

[bonnie]

45 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

So there's the context you've conveniently left out of your comments. That's why I don't think "artificial" or "genuine difficulty" actually exists, since it's obvious what's truly been driving the notion of AAliens being "artificially difficult" in this case.

oh good, so i didn't actually miss any context whatsoever. it's abundantly clear that you've missed the point entirely, so let me reiterate it: i wasn't criticizing your criticism of the other guy's criticism of aaliens, i was criticizing this part right here:

 

45 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I don't think these "concepts" actually exist, a game is either difficult or not, for reasons one may or may not enjoy.

this may shock you, but artificial difficulty isn't a concept unique to doom, it exists in all games. the problem isn't what you believe the reasons are behind the other guy saying that aaliens has artificial difficulty, it's the fact that you've repeatedly stated that you don't believe artificial difficulty exists at all, which is what i was originally responding to. aaliens is virtually irrelevant to this conversation because of this fact.

 

the worst part? you flip flopped again between sentences:

45 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

To make it a bit more clear, I don't think these "concepts" actually exist, a game is either difficult or not, for reasons one may or may not enjoy. And honestly I can much rather get behind expressions such as "difficult for the wrong reasons", in example when something is difficult to react to because it's almost impossible to see.

you continue on as usual about how you think artificial difficulty is "merely a euphemism for 'not my cup of tea'" but then suddenly snap out of it for two seconds and admit you do understand the concept of something being difficult for the wrong reasons, something being difficult because it's unfair, something being difficult because it's not actually challenging your skill. something like what Cynical said, which you responded by saying:

 

14 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

It's plain "random".

~

Because the player has no way to influence the likelyhood of success.

even though it's still a form of difficulty as it's technically making it harder for a player to actually finish the level, but harder in a way you cannot control. for two sentences, you displayed that you understood that this is difficulty that is not created via means of challenging the player, thus being artificial difficulty. But then you immediately go back to saying that people only use terms like artificial difficulty because they don't like it.

 

45 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

But let's move on, shall we?

maybe you should take your own advice.

[eharper256]

I'm amazed to get back from work to find this topic is a shitstorm 0_o'. I was basically just voicing my unpopular opinion (which is what this thread is for, right?).

 

(shrugs) Well, at least its good to provoke some discussion on this issue I suppose. AA isn't my favoured cuppa; but I realise it is popular for the same reason people like Dark Souls.

 

Heck, I apparently self impose difficulty because I play a certain way. I mean, take the Mancubus/Cybie in AA1. When I played AA, I saw a Mancubus, and my thought process immediately assigns it as a priority target. I must kill it immediately, because it is too dangerous to just leave it in this area. I cannot concentrate knowing it is just able to blast me up the ass when I'm running away or trying to figure out the level layout. Maybe, once you know what you're supposed to do on the level, you can happily ignore it. But on a first playthrough of any wad, I am not running and gunning, I am creeping around corners, immediately backpedelling from potential traps, and clean sweeping areas meticulously, because without doing that, I cannot concentrate on figuring out the puzzles, switches, teleports, and layout. So, hence, my options are literally limited to pillar dancing the Mancubus whilst plinking it with the pistol, and because of that, I become irritated. So yes, for me, playing my way, AA becomes a 5/10 wad.

 

Understandably, not everyone plays a wad this way. But similarly, not everyone is a doomgod who can instantly figure out they're supposed to ignore it and move on, and also happily dodge projectiles they can't see coming from behind.

 

I'm also not a fan of 'artificial difficulty' as a term. Or heck, difficulty as a concept in general. This was another reason I never proceeded with the 'slaughter h8'; as has been noted, what is the benchmark for hard? Again, some people enjoy anal sex, who am I to judge? Whatever floats your boat.

 

But me, I play Doom to kill stuff and feel like a badass whilst perusing pretty levels and enjoying nostalgia combined with hilarious mods. I don't play to give myself heart-attacks and rage-inducing challenges. That's what Fire Emblem and Darkest Dungeon is for. XD And I don't intend to 'git gud' any time soon. I'm a filthy casual and proud of it.

[Cynical]

...why on earth do you have to pillar-dance against a Mancubus in the open?  Even if you insist on fighting it for some incomprehensible reason, why can't you just left-right-left through its volleys? 

 

I mean, given the Mancubus fireball clipping bug, abusing a pillar for the kill seems like the worst option possible there...

[eharper256]

7 minutes ago, Cynical said:

...why on earth do you have to pillar-dance against a Mancubus in the open?  Even if you insist on fighting it for some incomprehensible reason, why can't you just left-right-left through its volleys? 

 

I mean, given the Mancubus fireball clipping bug, abusing a pillar for the kill seems like the worst option possible there...

 

Because I don't have that kind of manual dexterity? There's a fireball clipping bug in GZDoom? Huh... I had no idea. Ducking behind a pillar and peekaboo'ing just seemed the most sound strategy.

[Cynical]

It's not GZDoom specific, but there's a fairly common bug with Mancubus fireballs where they have a tendency to clip through relatively thin walls because of their speed and width.

[eharper256]

1 minute ago, Cynical said:

It's not GZDoom specific, but there's a fairly common bug with Mancubus fireballs where they have a tendency to clip through relatively thin walls because of their speed and width.

 

Hmm, guess that explains a few mysterious mancubus deaths then. I generally stand back from walls when pillardancing, of course, because explosions tend to wrap around cover sometimes anyway.

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

26 minutes ago, eharper256 said:

But similarly, not everyone is a doomgod who can instantly figure out they're supposed to ignore it and move on, and also happily dodge projectiles they can't see coming from behind.

Easy way to figure out if you're not supposed to fight:

Pistol < Cyberdemon

Shotgun < Cyberdemon

Pistol < Fatso

 

This is an oversimplification, but it should get the point across.

 

28 minutes ago, eharper256 said:

I'm also not a fan of 'artificial difficulty' as a term. Or heck, difficulty as a concept in general.

Wut. That makes no sense.

 

And that fireball clipping bug isn't one I've observed in ZDoom and its derivatives, but I do know it can happen in Crispy Doom and I think in PRBoom.

[rehelekretep]

2 hours ago, gaspe said:

 

Nothing wrong with that, and he isn't the only one ;) aa sucks.

now youre just trolling :p

[rehelekretep]

2 hours ago, mrthejoshmon said:

I have yet to play any of the more popular and loved megawads or more hardcore megawads all the way through, I have only really played older more "user friendly" (or "more comfortable" you could say) like Icarus Alien Vanguard or The Rebirth, the typical "starter" megawads you could say, I prefer the laidback yet still engaging gameplay.

 

I need to play stuff like Alien Vendetta, Momento Mori, Ancient Aliens, Hell Revealed... I wish there was convenient tool or site that did something like a list of wads you've played and reviews of them (like just star ratings), something like this site would be cool and it would give me more incentive to play more wads.

 

EDIT: Jesus Christ what is this argument?

have you checked out @kmxexii's website? its pretty good for that sort of thing.

[AD_79]

1 hour ago, Cynical said:

the guest map by AD79, for instance, has those barrels that cover up the spawn points of other monsters, but a whopping two arch-viles in a giant melee where I've got plasma and rockets and even a sphere IIRC is too scarcely felt to even register.

 

Honestly? Yes, the fight may have been a little underwhelming in execution to some (and a bit to me now, sure), but it's possible that adding more would have made the encounter more frustrating than it needed to be. I make maps to be fun for myself (as I'd hope most people would do). And you know, for the average player, those viles are likely to be some sort of threat.

 

Also, this is late but I'd just like to say that the talk of "Skillsaw having bad monster placement" is beyond frustrating to me. Stop trying to place the blame elsewhere and recognize that maybe you're not the best at this game. If your playstyle doesn't gel well with his mapping style? Please accept that. Sorry, I'm just beyond tired of people constantly complaining about things when it's kinda their problem, not the creator's.

[rehelekretep]

i had thought aaliens was one of those wads where the gameplay was quite forgiving and not that hard - apparently not lol.

imagine these guys trying to play sunlust or nochance 🤔

[Cynical]

I didn't even realize that those viles weren't a standard/mandatory part of the fight until I saw people talking about it in the forums.  I blasted through that fight without a second thought, figured the delayed viles was just to give them some bodies to get some rez-action going, and was thoroughly confused by what the holograms were supposed to represent.  Then I saw some posts about it in the forum and said "oh, that's what that was there for".

[rehelekretep]

also what is artificial difficulty?

im thinking it cant be a random thing.

maybe an arena or fight designed around doom's worst traits:

like a pillar surrounded by imps underneath that you cant kill but have to somehow move them around to jump off.

or a fight against some revs on a cliff above you but you can barely get autoaim to catch them because there isnt enough space to bring them into your vertical view unless you go right back?

[Nine Inch Heels]

30 minutes ago, bonnie said:

artificial difficulty isn't a concept unique to doom, it exists in all games

You can keep saying "it's a thing that exists" for all I care, you have yet to provide a definition as far as I'm concerned.

32 minutes ago, bonnie said:

you continue on as usual about how you think artificial difficulty is "merely a euphemism for 'not my cup of tea'" but then suddenly snap out of it for two seconds and admit you do understand the concept of something being difficult for the wrong reasons, something being difficult because it's unfair, s

If something is difficult for the wrong reasons, then it is "difficult for the wrong reasons". If it is "unfair" then it is "unfair". Nothing is "artificial" here. Unfair = Unfair

If I put you in a pit with 100 revs around you no health and no ammo no room to dodge whatsoever, then it's "unfair", or in this case impossible, but it's not artificial, it's also not "artificially unfair".

35 minutes ago, bonnie said:

something being difficult because it's not actually challenging your skill. something like what Cynical said, which you responded by saying

Next thing you're gonna tell us is that winning the lottery is "artificially difficult", or that getting hit by lightning is "artificially difficult", because that's where you're headed.

36 minutes ago, bonnie said:

harder in a way you cannot control

It's not "harder" it's "less likely". Since when is rolling 10-sided dice "difficult"?

[WH-Wilou84]

26 minutes ago, Cynical said:

 Even if you insist on fighting it for some incomprehensible reason, why can't you just left-right-left through its volleys?

I'm just gonna add my 2 cents here, but you can't expect everybody to be as good at Doom as some of the most seasoned players here. I mean, things like the Cyber 2-shot kill or the Mancubus dance should never be considered for granted by the audience, unless you're designing something calibrated for good players.

[eharper256]

7 minutes ago, rehelekretep said:

i had thought aaliens was one of those wads where the gameplay was quite forgiving and not that hard - apparently not lol.

imagine these guys trying to play sunlust or nochance 🤔

I agree with Mr. Icarus on Youtube that Sunlust is supposed to be enjoyed with Russian Overkill. It is beyond the ken of us casual mortals.

[leodoom85]

Can we just say that players that who are not capable of taking mapsets that are above the standard difficulty skill avoid them?
It's not hard. Myself, at least I can try some of those at UV skill. If I can't, then I practice or lower the difficulty and try again. 

And this argument is repeating itself whatever really hard wads are touched...let them go...

 

*big shrug*

[Cynical]

Eh, the Cybie 2-shot is a bit esoteric, but I figured out the left-right-left Mancubus dance on my own during my very first PWAD experience.

[leodoom85]

2 minutes ago, Cynical said:

Eh, the Cybie 2-shot is a bit esoteric, but I figured out the left-right-left Mancubus dance on my own during my very first PWAD experience.

Same. I like that dancing pattern hahaha

[rehelekretep]

4 minutes ago, eharper256 said:

I agree with Mr. Icarus on Youtube that Sunlust is supposed to be enjoyed with Russian Overkill. It is beyond the ken of us casual mortals.

well its not, because Ribbiks and Danne designed it specifically to be played in a source port with a boom compatibility because they enjoy(ed) mapsets like it.

[rehelekretep]

1 minute ago, leodoom85 said:

Same. I like that dancing pattern hahaha

i love cyber dancing. i could watch TimeofDeath bfg dance cybers all day.

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 minute ago, rehelekretep said:

because Ribbiks and Danne designed it specifically to be played in a source port with a boom compatibility because they enjoy(ed) mapsets like it

I'm not 100% sure here, but I think I remember reading something like "UV is designed for uber doomers or for use with OP gameplay mods like Russian Overkill" in the SunLust readme.