Things about Doom you just found out

[damerell]

6 hours ago, RjY said:

@Avoozl Yeah it's more of an E1 thing.

In the ID levels, isn't it always bright? It looks odd in Avoozl's screenshot because the lighting level is low.

[Xyzzу]

@kb1 This is where I first seen the trick.

 

[Gez]

25 minutes ago, kb1 said:

Woah, that's a thing I just found out - very cool and slick! I'll be adding that to my bag of tricks. This will elevate me from crappy player to crappy player with an extra trick! Did you do this first, or if not, where did you first see this technique? I'd love to see a demo :)

The earliest memory of doing this trick deliberately was Reverie MAP16 to get rid of some zombies when you teleport on the road without waking up the chaingunners and the teleport ambush monsters. Then you can pick up the key, ride the teleporter to the chaingunner's vantage point, and then you can get rid of them and all the teleport ambush monsters will swarm impotently in the road you've left. This completely trivialize the entire encounter; I made sure not to tell valkiriforce about it while Reverie was in playtest phase. :D

[Lila Feuer]

Time to improve my BFG life.

[Gaia74]

The fat Shots Is In Doom 1 xD

[kb1]

2 hours ago, Gez said:

The earliest memory of doing this trick deliberately was Reverie MAP16 to get rid of some zombies when you teleport on the road without waking up the chaingunners and the teleport ambush monsters. Then you can pick up the key, ride the teleporter to the chaingunner's vantage point, and then you can get rid of them and all the teleport ambush monsters will swarm impotently in the road you've left. This completely trivialize the entire encounter; I made sure not to tell valkiriforce about it while Reverie was in playtest phase. :D

Heh - sneaky! Nah, I believe that being able to master such tricks reaches in the very heart and soul of Doom. There's nothing better than watching a demo of a master Doomer using all tricks and tools he can to plow down hordes of demons like a kung fu master - laying waste to everything in sight. These tricks are what makes Doom interesting. To me, that's why you have to be *very* careful mucking around with the source, to be sure that you don't break such tricks. The culmination of all these methods and tricks... and even the flaws, is what defines Doom.

[geo]

On 6/20/2017 at 3:26 PM, 42PercentHealth said:

The rocket launcher sprite has an open "see-through" bit at the top when firing, but this is closed when not firing. What's up with that?

And wh;y arnt there more bad reviews mentaniong it?

[dpJudas]

4 hours ago, kb1 said:

Heh - sneaky! Nah, I believe that being able to master such tricks reaches in the very heart and soul of Doom. There's nothing better than watching a demo of a master Doomer using all tricks and tools he can to plow down hordes of demons like a kung fu master - laying waste to everything in sight. These tricks are what makes Doom interesting. To me, that's why you have to be *very* careful mucking around with the source, to be sure that you don't break such tricks. The culmination of all these methods and tricks... and even the flaws, is what defines Doom.

On the other hand, you could argue none of those "tricks" were intended by the original id software developers, and as such not an intended part of the Doom gameplay. If you like that sort of thing, good for you, but please don't pretend that something like say Doom 1.2 isn't the real Doom thing just because it doesn't have demo compatibility or allows every single bug ever implemented in the game.

[Doomkid]

7 hours ago, Xyzzy01 said:

@kb1 This is where I first seen the trick.

There are certain deathmatch maps (especially in exec and brit) where you can pretty easily take advantage of the two-phase BFG attack SO cheaply because some have several teleporters, it's really satisfying to do. One-click ultra kills/monster kills are the ticket to winning quite a few maps in deathmatch! This is one I actually managed to learn myself a few years ago, specifically while playing on pobla8.

[RjY]

10 hours ago, damerell said:

In the ID levels, isn't it always bright? It looks odd in Avoozl's screenshot because the lighting level is low.

In E1M2, E1M3, and E1M7, the sectors it faces have light levels 208, 224 or 255 in all cases (some are flickering but I avoided it in my screenshots).

In E2M7, the only other place it is used in the game, and the source of Avoozl's screenshot, the sectors it faces have light levels 144, 160, and 208.

[damerell]

38 minutes ago, RjY said:

In E1M2, E1M3, and E1M7, the sectors it faces have light levels 208, 224 or 255 in all cases (some are flickering but I avoided it in my screenshots).

In E2M7, the only other place it is used in the game, and the source of Avoozl's screenshot, the sectors it faces have light levels 144, 160, and 208.

Found it! It's after the crate room full of pinkbeasts, a balcony above where you go to invulnerably berserk punch a baron and two tomatoes. I think Avoozl's renderer just makes it a bit darker.

[yakfak]

if you have a DWANGO texture in your level you can manipulate it to write "wang gonad" on the wall

[baja blast rd.]

10 hours ago, dpJudas said:

On the other hand, you could argue none of those "tricks" were intended by the original id software developers, and as such not an intended part of the Doom gameplay. If you like that sort of thing, good for you, but please don't pretend that something like say Doom 1.2 isn't the real Doom thing just because it doesn't have demo compatibility or allows every single bug ever implemented in the game.

 

But who cares about what "original designers" think, right?! ;)

 

On 12/31/2017 at 11:32 AM, dpJudas said:

I'm sorry, but I play maps the way I find them most fun regardless of what the original designer had in mind.

Most wads released today aren't an "intended" type of Doom gameplay. The developers couldn't have foreseen all the ways Doom could have evolved over the years. This ends up being the case with every game that has depth. The original bugs and exploits that have tactical uses should be left alone, because lots of players have worked them into their feel and muscle memory and appreciation for the game.

 

[dpJudas]

12 minutes ago, rdwpa said:

Most wads released today aren't an "intended" type of Doom gameplay. The developers couldn't have foreseen all the ways Doom could have evolved over the years. This ends up being the case with every game that has depth. The original bugs and exploits that have tactical uses should be left alone, because lots of players have worked them into their feel and muscle memory and appreciation for the game.

My main point is just that I keep reading on this site about how some ports are oh so more vanilla than others, yet by the definition they are using I apparently didn't play vanilla Doom back in 1993. I get that some people like the exploits they've discovered, or that speed runners absolutely need demo compatibility to be able to compete and compare their results, but id software themselves broke those things all the time. The only reason that level of compatibility became stable at the end of the Doom versions is because they stopped coding on it and moved on to Quake.

[kb1]

16 hours ago, dpJudas said:

On the other hand, you could argue none of those "tricks" were intended by the original id software developers, and as such not an intended part of the Doom gameplay. If you like that sort of thing, good for you, but please don't pretend that something like say Doom 1.2 isn't the real Doom thing just because it doesn't have demo compatibility or allows every single bug ever implemented in the game.

A much stronger argument is that changing vanilla gameplay is a fraudulent representation. Here's why: Id Software did change their engine from 1.0 to 1.9. These were the most minimal changes to fix glaring bugs. But, once they stopped, and released 1.9, they 'sealed Doom gameplay in concrete'. At that point, and in the years before the source was released, *all* maps, Id-made and user-made, were designed against Doom.exe, or Doom2.exe, of some version, and many were re-released after having been tested with the latest .exe. Maybe some people didn't care, and maybe some people did very stringent testing - against Id's .exes. Therefore, the *only* legitimate gameplay of those maps is the gameplay of vanilla Doom/Doom2. And, because there's no way to tell (and the fact that Id's changes were as minimal as possible), v1.9 is typically the gameplay one would be most correct to suggest. (In reality, there's more than one version of 1.9, so exactness is not easily possible on the first try.)

 

Therefore, *any* changes to the various vanilla gameplays suggests that *EVERY* map on Earth must be re-tested and adjusted... or you have 3 options:

1. Play the map with an engine that actually respects map authors, and attempts to exactly re-create the environment most like used when said author developed the map.
2. Fix the ports that freakishly alter this environment for vanilla-compatible maps.
3. Say "Fuck It", hope for good gameplay, forget or re-learn your vanilla movements, adjust your aiming, tricks, etc.

This post will invariably be misinterpreted by some, so here's the preemptive attempt to clarify:

I have no problem with the fact that some ports choose to provide bugfixed versions of various Doom mechanics. And, in most cases, (but not all), it's fairly easy to make a determination that, yeah, the developers probably goofed here, and really did not intend for Doom to play this way.

 

But, no, there's no valid argument. It either is Doom gameplay, or it's "like-Doom" gameplay. You can argue what's better, but not which is legitimate.

 

It has nothing to do with what anyone personally likes, or if you played Doom in '93, or any of that nonsense. The released executable is a list of instructions for a PC to process, and that definition is quite specific. If we limit our discussion to gameplay, Doom can be boiled down into a very long list of exact steps, and, in fact, it is. That is "Doom". (Brundle, and Fly) Anything else is "Not Doom" (BrundleFly).

Edited January 12, 2018 by kb1

[Arctangent]

25 minutes ago, kb1 said:

But, no, there's no valid argument. It either is Doom gameplay, or it's "like-Doom" gameplay.

I await the time when people start yelling at Youtubers for clickbait for using anything that isn't Chocolate Doom and map authors for calling their maps "Doom maps" when they're Boom-compat.

[Gez]

You're always entertaining.

 

35 minutes ago, kb1 said:

fraudulent... engine that actually respects map authors... freakishly... "Not Doom" (BrundleFly)

 

35 minutes ago, kb1 said:

This post will invariably be misinterpreted by some, so here's the preemptive attempt to clarify:

I have no problem with the fact that some ports choose to provide bugfixed versions of various Doom mechanics.

 

"I do not have any problem if you blasphemous miscreants sully the Holy Name of Doom with your counterfeit programs that insult all map authors the world over. It is entirely acceptable if you choose the perversion of heresy instead of embracing the light of the Holy 1.9 Trinity. I can tolerate the unfortunate existence of your wretched, monstrous creations. It's just that you better not dare pretend that they are for playing Doom."

[kb1]

21 hours ago, Gez said:

You're always entertaining.

At least I got that going for me...? Heh.

 

Quote

"I do not have any problem if you blasphemous miscreants sully the Holy Name of Doom with your counterfeit programs that insult all map authors the world over. It is entirely acceptable if you choose the perversion of heresy instead of embracing the light of the Holy 1.9 Trinity. I can tolerate the unfortunate existence of your wretched, monstrous creations. It's just that you better not dare pretend that they are for playing Doom."

Ok, my wording was too harsh. I was in a mood. I should have described the situation in scientific terms, cause that all I really mean.

 

Imagine an E1 contest with, say 8 people, with some specific goals of merit: Most efficient ammo usage, fastest 100% kills, whatever. Maybe set a prize of $1,000.00.

 

You would want everyone to have the same difficulties, same rules, etc. There are only 2 ways to be 100% fair:

1. Everyone use the same executable.
2. Everyone use executables that present the gameplay in an exact way.

Id Software's release is, for better or worst, a standard that can also be achieved in source ports. It became *the* standard when it was released, it is currently the standard, and in 50 years, it will still be the standard - the only standard, from which everything else is derived.

 

When a port claims that "Bug X is fixed", what that eventually means is that the port changed the behavior of "the standard, original, vanilla version of X". You have to have a starting place to be able to make a comparison.

 

These discussions seem to dissolve into "My port's better than yours." There's nothing wrong with a port being different, as long as it's understood that it is, in fact, different.

 

It could be said, or assumed that good mappers include an implied "guarantee of fitness" for their creations, related to a pride in workmanship. This occurs as a product of many iterations of the map/test cycle. To ensure the highest level of quality of this guarantee, either the test engine environment must be able to be exactly duplicated in every port a player might use, or the mapper must create engine-specific maps.

 

I argue that the inability to produce an exact, vanilla-compatible environment places an undue burden on both mapper and player, *for every vanilla-like PWAD!* Ideally, this is resolved engine-side - there's only a handful of ports, but there's many thousands of vanilla PWADs.

 

It's an unnecessary (EDIT: maybe not 'unnecessary', but 'unfortunate') burden - that's my only argument. Stated differently, I want to play a mapper's maps exactly as the mapper desired. And, if I mess with settings, I do so at my peril. I want there to be a set of options that, if set properly, allows the engine to render the mapper's environment exactly. It's the only trustable viable option, if you care about precision.

 

Precision, not Religion. (it has a catchy ring to it :)

Edited January 12, 2018 by kb1

[Gez]

2 minutes ago, kb1 said:

Imagine an E1 contest with, say 8 people, with some specific goals of merit: Most efficient ammo usage, fastest 100% kills, whatever. Maybe set a prize of $1,000.00.

 

You would want everyone to have the same difficulties, same rules, etc. There are only 2 ways to be 100% fair:

1. Everyone use the same executable.

That's what would happen. When you start involving monetary rewards, the whole thing becomes quite controlled. And it's not just a question of game mechanics -- stuff that would have 0 impact on demo playback but could still be used to cheat would be watched closely. For example, a simple COLORMAP replacement lump can render the game fullbright. This will be a big help to the player in most cases, but it will not change the gameplay one bit. If you start being allowed to change the executable as long as demo playback is unaffected, then the sky is the limit -- wallhacks, aimbot (that modify the player's input to make him face exactly the right angles), and so on.

 

So, the gameplay itself is not enough.

 

For the rest, I'm not going to repeat all the same points; we've had this discussion before. Excessive conservatism is bad, as it leads to stagnation; fortunately we've got a plethora of source ports, some of which preserve the original experience with exacting exactitude, others who innovate and experiment, so everyone can find what they want. And vintage Doom shouldn't be narrowly understood to be just one program, since there were many console ports that all subtly changed the mechanics. Some even weren't based on the Doom engine at all and play very differently as a result! And it's okay. They're still Doom.

[dpJudas]

21 hours ago, kb1 said:

It has nothing to do with what anyone personally likes, or if you played Doom in '93, or any of that nonsense. The released executable is a list of instructions for a PC to process, and that definition is quite specific. If we limit our discussion to gameplay, Doom can be boiled down into a very long list of exact steps, and, in fact, it is. That is "Doom". (Brundle, and Fly) Anything else is "Not Doom" (BrundleFly).

I can thus conclude that you think Doom 1 retail, as released in 1993, is "Not Doom".

[kb1]

20 minutes ago, Gez said:

That's what would happen. When you start involving monetary rewards, the whole thing becomes quite controlled. And it's not just a question of game mechanics -- stuff that would have 0 impact on demo playback but could still be used to cheat would be watched closely. For example, a simple COLORMAP replacement lump can render the game fullbright. This will be a big help to the player in most cases, but it will not change the gameplay one bit. If you start being allowed to change the executable as long as demo playback is unaffected, then the sky is the limit -- wallhacks, aimbot (that modify the player's input to make him face exactly the right angles), and so on.

 

So, the gameplay itself is not enough.

 

For the rest, I'm not going to repeat all the same points; we've had this discussion before. Excessive conservatism is bad, as it leads to stagnation; fortunately we've got a plethora of source ports, some of which preserve the original experience with exacting exactitude, others who innovate and experiment, so everyone can find what they want. And vintage Doom shouldn't be narrowly understood to be just one program, since there were many console ports that all subtly changed the mechanics. Some even weren't based on the Doom engine at all and play very differently as a result! And it's okay. They're still Doom.

I get, and respect the points you've made, and I also recognize that you've kind of exploited the weaknesses in my abilities/patience to exactly describe and contain my points. As much as I would have liked to scientifically provide rigorous definitions and proofs, I instead chose terms like 'gameplay' to loosely describe a faithful rendering of Doom with all the neat-o tools and tricks the masters use.

 

How exactly does 'nearly-perfect emulation' equal 'excessive conservatism', or 'excessive anything'? And, why can't you have nearly-perfect emulation, and also tons of innovation and experimentation? One does not have to exclude the other. Finally, vintage Doom did, in fact, begin as one concept, and one source. And it blossomed into a rich ecosystem. And they play differently. And, yep, it's okay. Yes, they are still Doom.

 

But, once one of those vintage games is released, people begin to play them, study them, master them, write about them, make movies about them (heh), and it's all good.

 

So, why do some people want to act as if portions of that never happened? Why do some people want to claim that I'm some purist asshole, because I think it's important to preserve these cool tricks that people learned as they spent their valuable time finding these new techniques. I guarantee that every one of those discoveries was met with wonder and enjoyment. Some people want to erase that.

 

All I really wanted to do is highlight the ridiculousness of this quote:

On 1/11/2018 at 3:43 AM, dpJudas said:

On the other hand, you could argue none of those "tricks" were intended by the original id software developers, and as such not an intended part of the Doom gameplay. If you like that sort of thing, good for you, but please don't pretend that something like say Doom 1.2 isn't the real Doom thing just because it doesn't have demo compatibility or allows every single bug ever implemented in the game.

dpJudas argues that we all know what Id Software intended, and that it is different than what we actually got, and that "Doom 1.2 doesn't 'have' compatibility", or that Id Software "implemented" bugs (suggesting that they were, in fact, intended). I like the "good for you if you like it" bit, as if Doom, as-is, is not likable on it's own.

 

I especially like how, in the very same paragraph, vanilla is both reprimanded ("...unless you like that sort of thing..."), and immediately afterwards defended against: ("...Don't pretend Doom 1.2 isn't the real Doom thing...").

 

@dpJudasI think you are just arguing against me, vs. having a logical stance, but I'll break it down, anyway: Here's where your story misses the boat:

I see merit in vanilla, *and* in the "bug-fixed" ports, and everywhere inbetween. For better or worse, *all* of it is part of a larger picture: The entire legacy of the game. For years, players slowly learned techniques that helped them become better players. That knowledge was eventually made common. Do you think the players were "willingly exploiting bugs" when they discovered these "tricks"? The masters became such, by exploiting all of their talents, and tools available to them. You see, when you release a game, you give up some control to your audience. The game becomes ours, somewhat. The techniques we learn are our accomplishments, and they should be rewarded, or, at least, allowed to continue to exist. Not erased from history.

 

Some people believe that those legacy masters should be handicapped because of their cleverness. Some people want to label these techniques as "dirty little secrets", holes that should be plugged up.

 

I hardly knew any of these techniques, yet I will vigorously defend and support the techniques, and the players that learned and used them, because the sum of all of the skills, techniques, tricks, and bugs collectively makes up the gameplay that has been presented to the public for 25 years as "Doom". Whether these tricks are bugs, intended or not, whether you or I started in 1993, whether we like them or not, is irrelevant. It is what it is. The only pretense I see is that some people want to pretend that some of Doom's behaviors never existed.

 

[Gez]

29 minutes ago, kb1 said:

So, why do some people want to act as if portions of that never happened? Why do some people want to claim that I'm some purist asshole, because I think it's important to preserve these cool tricks that people learned as they spent their valuable time finding these new techniques. I guarantee that every one of those discoveries was met with wonder and enjoyment. Some people want to erase that.

Who are "some people"? Anyway, these stuff are preserved. We've got Chocolate Doom that aims to preserve the exact gameplay and rendering of the original game while allowing it to be played on modern systems, future-proofing the executable. We've got a wiki that documents every aspect of the game, from the broadest concepts to the most obscure quirks. Don't worry about that. And again, who are "some people" and how do they think they can achieve the goal you are ascribing to them?

[Randy87]

Guys, I actually like this thread...

[UndeadRyker]

Well... I found out that any value under 100 using -turbo makes you slower and it DOESN'T announce that you're using the turbo cheat. I might have some fun with that next time I deathmatch with friends just for laughs.

[kb1]

14 minutes ago, Gez said:

Who are "some people"? Anyway, these stuff are preserved. We've got Chocolate Doom that aims to preserve the exact gameplay and rendering of the original game while allowing it to be played on modern systems, future-proofing the executable. We've got a wiki that documents every aspect of the game, from the broadest concepts to the most obscure quirks. Don't worry about that. And again, who are "some people" and how do they think they can achieve the goal you are ascribing to them?

Are you looking for a list of names? I'd rather let them speak for themselves. Or not. A person could find their way on such a list by advocating for the unconditional modification of certain original gameplay behaviors, identified by some as bugs, especially when it's touted as "The Way Id Software intended", when, often it's just a personal preference.

 

Even if it is a genuine bug, in some sense, the "fixing" of it immediately creates a bug of a different nature, in that some previous behavior has been removed. Denying that fact should land a person a spot "on the list" too. It especially sucks when pointing out this fact labels you as a "purist", and not a forward thinker, which is utterly ridiculous.

 

The worst part of all is that, everyone knows everything I've said here, and yet continues to deny the facts. And, like a fool, I keep doling out benefit of the doubt, and explaining it yet again. That's what creates stagnation.

[Arctangent]

16 minutes ago, kb1 said:

The worst part of all is that, everyone knows everything I've said here, and yet continues to deny the facts.

have you considered that perhaps while the the basic facts of what you says aren't necessarily wrong, it's your conclusions and the way you label things that fly all the way to pretentious purist land

[kb1]

2 minutes ago, Arctangent said:

have you considered that perhaps while the the basic facts of what you says aren't necessarily wrong, it's your conclusions and the way you label things that fly all the way to pretentious purist land

Yes, many times. It's like a double-edged sword: My respect for the intelligence of the majority of people here, leads me to expect them to understand the concepts I put forth. I believe the conclusions are spot on, but I'm pretty sure my confidence pisses people off.

 

These tired arguments are like roller coaster rides. Sure, they might start out fun, but, essentially, you start and end at the same place, and you take the same boring turns at the same points.

 

Some people have to be right. Some people have to be different. Some people just like to stir the pot.

 

Some people play dumb, prompting naive people like me to type in a book, trying to explain a concept everyone already understands. That's downright disrespectful: posting takes up a lot of time, man!

 

I'll be the first to admit to being wrong when I'm wrong. I'm proud of that fact. If you convince me, I'll change my stance in a heartbeat.

 

Doom is such a vast interesting subject that I expect us to be able to transcend the tired boring bullshit, find some common ground from which we can communicate, and then move forward towards the good stuff.

 

Leave all that petty stuff for real life, I say. Doomworld isn't a personal therapy session :) Doom is fun time (it's supposed to be anyway).

 

This has gone way off-topic - I must stop.

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

So, why do some people want to act as if portions of that never happened? Why do some people want to claim that I'm some purist asshole, because I think it's important to preserve these cool tricks that people learned as they spent their valuable time finding these new techniques. I guarantee that every one of those discoveries was met with wonder and enjoyment. Some people want to erase that.

As the unofficial "boom radicalist" that I think people like to see in me, I'm gonna have to point out that different people have different ways to look at, and feel what doom is/was supposed to be or not.

 

You know, I feel like there's a certain irony in the fact that you are into source-port design yourself, while you ask why additional features can't be had without touching anything else in the game as a consequence (Voodoo dolls come to mind which made it such that monsters could be pushed off of ledges for example).

 

You can't really blame people for having different ideas and maybe even ideals than you do. You can't blame people for considering a quirk as a "feature worth abusing" as much as you can't blame somebody else for wanting to get rid of said quirk to prevent exploits.

It's got nothing to do with erasing anything though. Where were you when the notable demos of 2017 were nominated by those interested in speedrunning? Accomplishments made possible due to the tricks you seem to want to protect so much... Regardless, none of that is gonna get erased, it's just that some people know about these things and others don't. As a consequence, some people care and others don't.

 

If you care about these quirks and want to preserve and enjoy them, good for you, you know. But the worst thing you can do to yourself is starting to care about somebody else's approach and POV as much as you do and get tangled up in nonsensical arguments over what should be "fixed" or not.

 

I mean what the hell dude, some people these days don't even know what SR40 means and how and why it works... Leave this discussion behind with your sanity still intact, because it won't go anywhere.

[kb1]

On 1/12/2018 at 9:39 PM, Nine Inch Heels said:

As the unofficial "boom radicalist" that I think people like to see in me, I'm gonna have to point out that different people have different ways to look at, and feel what doom is/was supposed to be or not.

 

You know, I feel like there's a certain irony in the fact that you are into source-port design yourself, while you ask why additional features can't be had without touching anything else in the game as a consequence (Voodoo dolls come to mind which made it such that monsters could be pushed off of ledges for example).

 

You can't really blame people for having different ideas and maybe even ideals than you do. You can't blame people for considering a quirk as a "feature worth abusing" as much as you can't blame somebody else for wanting to get rid of said quirk to prevent exploits.

It's got nothing to do with erasing anything though. Where were you when the notable demos of 2017 were nominated by those interested in speedrunning? Accomplishments made possible due to the tricks you seem to want to protect so much... Regardless, none of that is gonna get erased, it's just that some people know about these things and others don't. As a consequence, some people care and others don't.

 

If you care about these quirks and want to preserve and enjoy them, good for you, you know. But the worst thing you can do to yourself is starting to care about somebody else's approach and POV as much as you do and get tangled up in nonsensical arguments over what should be "fixed" or not.

 

I mean what the hell dude, some people these days don't even know what SR40 means and how and why it works... Leave this discussion behind with your sanity still intact, because it won't go anywhere.

I don't blame people for having different opinions (even if they're wrong - heh). I don't blame devs for thinking something should be done a different way, or even implementing something different.

 

But none of this has to do with opinions, ideals, or interests.

 

But it is, in fact, presumptuous and dangerous to decide "This is a bug: I will remove/alter it." This creates a fork in the road, and effectively spawns another bug, for zero or more people, a number which cannot be determined. By either leaving the "bug" alone, or providing a fix *as an option*, you avoid the second "bug". With care, this can even often be automated. It's the fork in the road, and the attitude that's dangerous.

 

Hell, let's get rid of SR40 and SR50 - they're basically double accumulation hacks, right? Imagine the outcry: "No, man those are legit...because...they're...cool... because... I'm good at 'em." I give up ("Keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle at all times. Fasten your seat belts. Bla bla.")

Edited January 15, 2018 by kb1

[Nine Inch Heels]

14 hours ago, kb1 said:

It's the fork in the road, and the attitude that's dangerous.

Funnily enough I see it from a totally different persepctive. I much prefer to have several source-ports to choose from, all of which being competent at what they do, as opposed to having one single port that is, in theory, able to emulate all the behaviours, but ends up not doing so anyway because people can't be bothered to toggle certain options for certain WADs.

 

In essence, I like it when things are more clear cut when it come to ports, rather than blurry by virtue of having a "standard" that actually is no standard at all, but rather an amalgam of all sorts of behaviours and quirks etc (even though it's probably gonna be fun to mess around with).

 

Forks in the road... I dunno man... What's so bad about having different things that do what they do well? Isn't it more an issue on the player's end if they play a map the wrong source port, or with wrong compat flags to start with? I mean, I surely am in the camp of "play that stuff in the intended source port in the intended way", certainly more than most others are, but I still don't see there being issues with different "platforms" for people to design their stuff around.

 

As for attitude: I get where you are coming from, and I think that some things that have been "fixed" might not have been necessary to fix, but at the same time, the attitude that people shouldn't fix something because "that's how it always was", is a double edged sword as well. Like, if I designed a platforming section for SR40, and some port "fixed" SR40, then said port is incompatible with my map (and many others for that matter), which is why I think that such steps are actually taken somewhat carefully (at least I hope so), because something tells me people want their sourceport to be as widely useable as possible (and if not that's to their disadvantage).

Edited January 13, 2018 by Nine Inch Heels