So... why so many vanilla oriented projects?

[Memfis]

I'm genuinely surprised that vanilla compatible projects still appear so often. I bet like only maybe 10% of contributors to these projects use the original executables regularly, so what is going on here? Do you guys really need all this? Or maybe it's just a useless old tradition that you never really thought about? Yeah, of course it encourages clean design without useless little details and more substantial approach (not sure if that makes sense), but... Do you really need the visplane/segs limit to take that approach? Maybe it's easier to just say to yourself "I'm going to make limit removing maps with relatively simple detailing" and then do so? I did that and mapping is a lot more fun now.

I guess this looks like a troll post but that wasn't my intention. I just want to give a little advice and maybe try to understand you, vanilla freaks. :)

[esselfortium]

I like the challenge of it, and I feel accomplished when I've done something well within the limits. I enjoy sourceport mapping too, and did most of my mapping with limits removed or other port features, but I've become comfortable enough with the vanilla limits that I can generally work relatively quickly within them and do what I want to.

[Icytux]

I started off by making zdoom/gzdoom projects, so my thoughts on this is: When you make a vanilla compatible map, you restrict yourself to the most important aspects of mapping, architecture, layout, flow and thing placement. So at one point, I started doing vanilla mapping just because it's good practice to focus on those aspects and restrain yourself from going overboard with anything.

Going limit-removing, and especially zdoom/gzdoom, means that the restraints on what you can do is opened up a lot and the cool new features might come in to mess up the most important basic foundation aspects of the map and the end result might suffer. So basically it is good practice to make vanilla maps in a way. And if you just want to make a classic-style map, why not make it vanilla as it appeals to a wider audience, it can be played with anything and by anyone in that case.

And if your project doesn't need to be limit removing, why make it limit removing?

[Archy]

I can't answer as to why, but I generally prefer vanilla maps simply for the reason you gave, "...it encourages clean design without useless little details and more substantial approach[.]"

I do not have any problem with WADs that exceed vanilla's limits but still meat the above criteria, but if it can't be played with v1.92.x, I probably won't touch it.

There's some good Boom maps but when a new engine is needed for a map to work, it stops feeling lime Doom to me. This isn't necessarily bad, but when a map is just an enhanced "Doom" map, it normally leaves me with a bad feeling. I don't feel like that much towards Boom maps ((though it feeling isn't absent) but Zdoom maps which I usually don't even download. The only Zdoom type maps I enjoy are ones that dramatically change Doom such as PSX Doom for Gzdoom. I would not want to play a Hell Reveled type map that required Zdoom though I'd thoroughly enjoy a Vanilla equivalent.

A great example of a WAD that exceeds Vanilla's limits but still meets my standards would be Scythe 2. It truly wouldn't be the same if Erik Alm was limited by an unhacked Vanilla Doom. The maps he made needed that extra freedom to be (for lack of a better word) good. If he were to make those maps with Vanilla compatibility in mind, just removing the aspects of it that exceeded Vanilla's limits wouldn't be enough to make it good, he would have to redesign most levels if he wanted the same level of quality.

Basically, limit removing maps are fine if they're still on par with what would be considered a good Vanilla map, but I generally prefer WADs within the complevel 2-4 range unless it takes a completely different direction, in the case of PSX Doom.

Icytux said:

...if your project doesn't need to be limit removing, why make it limit removing?

One of my biggest pet peeves are maps that could work perfectly fine with Vanilla but don't because the mapper was too lazy to remove some completely unneeded aspect (sorry for vague term, I don't know much about Doom mapping) of his/her map.

[Xaser]

Limitation breeds creativity. By narrowing the scope of what you can do, you've got to think and come up with cool ways to stretch the rules. That and you can focus more on the core elements; if one is free to do anything, one tends to try and do everything. That's an easy way to neglect important areas of map design, or at least try and do too much at once and end up with a gimmick-fest (Sector, anyone? :P ).

I've found that with limit-removing maps compared to 'nilla stuff, I tend to spend much more time doing minute detailing than it's worth. God knows I've done exactly that with Hacx so far... :P

[Death Egg]

Well, at least in the case of Switcheroom, I do it so more people who don't use anything but the original Doom can have a chance to play it. Plus that just sort of seemed like a project that would be best following those limits.

[valkiriforce]

I use Doom95, so I like to map for that, usually. I've been using Doom95 since I got into Doom so it kind of has a sentimental value to me.

I think it makes for a better appreciation for limit-removing maps when working under vanilla's limited capacity. If you put yourself under vanilla restrictions for a long enough time, limit-removing source ports become that much more limit-removing. Usually mapping for vanilla comes with a lot of sacrifices, but working for anything that lifts those sacrifices usually will inspire you in a greater way than it normally would have. It's kind of like subjecting yourself to living in a tent for a while just to appreciate your house that much more for lack of a better example. I don't think mapping for vanilla is the best thing for a new mapper; but it makes for an interesting encounter when you grow as a mapper. For newcomers I think limit-removing should be the standard; and vanilla is good for challenging yourself later down the road. If they become attached to it, that's cool; if not, then they have something to better appreciate when returning to their limit-removing roots.

I actually have both the limit-removing version of Doom Core and the vanilla version on my hard drive. I released the vanilla version because I figured that would be a more acceptable first release when contrasting between comments like "there's so much more you could have done with this area" and "wow, this level really puts vanilla on the brink". I recently compiled the rejected maps of Doom Core for personal use, which is limit-removing, originally. But I decided to do the same thing I did with Doom Core in making a vanilla version of the WAD because I think it's kind of fun to have two different versions of a WAD.

Ultimately, though, I'm a vanilla freak since I learned that there was actually a difference between testing a map in ZDoom and playing it in Doom95.

[Obsidian]

I got Doom95 when I started as well, but I loathe the bloody thing: having the screen go technicolour on you all the time is not fun. I've been happy as a clam ever since I got Chocolate Doom though. =D

[valkiriforce]

Yeah; I wouldn't recommend Doom95 as a vanilla source port, obviously. That's my personal thing.

[PRIMEVAL]

Real answer:
Why the hell not

[printz]

it's much easier to make levels with the very few features vanilla doom has. fewer choices to make saves time.

[C30N9]

I never looked at vanilla limits while mapping because I'm %100 sure that I'm not exceeding the limits. The only reason I ask people to make vanilla maps is just to make them make a not so complex map and not huge sized maps.

I might remove the rule about "Vanilla-compatible" in Go # It project but tell people just make a good map.

[Archy]

C30N9 said:

I might remove the rule about "Vanilla-compatible" in Go # It project but tell people just make a good map.

Please don't, I've seen this happen with other projects and it always goes downhill.

[Scypek2]

Memfis said:

Maybe it's easier to just say to yourself "I'm going to make limit removing maps with relatively simple detailing"

It's easier to say this to yourself. But then you also have to say this to others.

Why vanilla? Because in vanilla you can make a simple map and it's ok, but when you make a simple boom/zdoom map, then it's suddenly not okay, not enough detail, new monsters not good enough. What kind of broken logic is that? Well, vanilla is so simple that people are used to reaching the upper capacity, while in zdoom it's quite impossible, so it may seem more incomplete. But when two maps are the same, why would one like the first and dislike the second, sometimes even quite drastically? There's one reason, but this reason is invalid, because downloading a source port is NOT a problem, just 10 minutes of downloading/setting up the keys. Well, I think it's better in every way than discouraging innovative modders.

[purist]

I guess this applies to my present attitude to playing and mapping for Doom. I can't satisfactorily validate my vanilla-bias so instead I'll try to explain it without claiming any right or wrongs in my...

Purist: a brief source port history

1. I never used source ports when I joined DW, hence the title. This was pretty much a stubborn unwillingness to try new things rather than an informed decision. I played using the original .exe and mapped with WADEd and was quite content with that.

2. Eventually I was seduced into downloading ZDoom because of seeing screenshots of smoother graphics with cool lighting and blood decals on walls. I moved onto Doombuilder, toyed with DECORATE and made a ZDoom episode.

3. I wanted to integrate myself more into the community so I signed up to the PCCP, which was Boom compatible so I downloaded PRBoom+ purely to test in, but I liked how it felt in game and mapping-wise the removal of vanilla limits and extended line specials hit the sweet spot between Doom purism and artistic freedom.

4. Vanilla seemed to come back en vogue a couple of years back and the community projects I was interested in not only specified vanilla but celebrated it. I downloaded Chocolate Doom and Chocorenderlimits to test my D2TWiD, Interception and TNT2 submission.

5. Where I am right now is that I want to continue to contribute to projects that interest me but I also feel ready to make something significant of my own. When I do I will make it for vanilla because the original engine can serve my purposes and I want to make it on a similar (if not quite level) playing field as the IWADs and classic megawads like Requiem, Alien Vendetta and Scythe.

[Dragonsbrethren]

To be honest I'm not entirely sure, but liking the aesthetic that vanilla limits often force probably has a lot to do with it, and even though my maps never come anywhere near them, I do like pushing boundaries.

That's also why I work on bizarre things like making the Jaguar TC target multiple ports and also work with vanilla. (Harder than you'd think, due to odd port quirks.) Or the map set I was working on before moving onto the PSX Lost Levels, where I did vanilla maps that would be "PSXized" by loading them into GZDoom (no doubt to the ire of ZDoom users who dislike PSX Doom). Probably more effort than just releasing the same map set twice, but where's the fun in that? I've seriously considered doing a vanilla compatible version of the PSX TC (Saturn TC, I suppose).

[Memfis]

Ok, so there is at least some benefit from segs/visplanes limits (although it seems like they breed view-blocking pillars more than creativity, but whatever). What about tutti-fruttis, medusas, numeric overflow crashes? You can't possibly say that they're good things as well? Can't put certain textures in the middle - that's just stupid, right? Well, then you should at least switch to prboom-plus but use its IDRATE cheat to check the visplane and segs numbers. And maybe you could even exceed the limits a little in the areas where you really don't want to sacrifice anything (you will not be murdered for that, honest!). Unless you are really a frequent vanilla user, choosing to deal with stupid things like medusas is just masochism IMO.

Scypek2 said:

Why vanilla? Because in vanilla you can make a simple map and it's ok, but when you make a simple boom/zdoom map, then it's suddenly not okay, not enough detail, new monsters not good enough. What kind of broken logic is that?

You're absolutely right, that logic is completely broken, therefore there is no need to take opinions like that into account! Choose what is more convenient for you.

[Evolution]

Why so many single-player oriented projects? Where's the love for co-op oriented stuff. 2013 already, jings! ;__;

[Phml]

I would love to have incentive to make co-op oriented maps in Doom.

Most of the time, when I loaded up Skulltag (can't stand software rendering), there was a grand total of 0 people playing the same stuff I'd want to play at an acceptable ping - basically that one "oblatek" server running Alien Vendetta survival. Everything else, it's all american servers, jumping stuff, mods deviating significantly from Doom gameplay, addons or server rules throwing balance out of the window, or wads I find uninteresting.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about people liking different things than I do. All I'm saying is, from where I stand, there isn't an audience for the kind of stuff I like to make and play; to the extent I wouldn't even be able to *test* my maps.

[Scypek2]

Well, most SP wads support co-op.

[Evolution]

Phml: lulz

Scypek2: Yeah, the STARTS are there. The gameplay often isn't. Narrow areas built with single-player in mind, no puzzles requiring other players, etc.

[duh]

[BaronOfStuff]

Evolution said:

Scypek2: Yeah, the STARTS are there. The gameplay often isn't. Narrow areas built with single-player in mind, no puzzles requiring other players, etc.

Puzzles that require multiple players to solve are an awful thing if it means that a map (and with it, the WAD) can't be completed in SP. I'm all for designing WADs with co-op play in mind (because it's always more fun), but having areas that can only be passed by having several players running around? That sucks.

[Ribbiks]

XCOPY said:

Tablets and PSP are still too weak to handle zdoom and sometimes even boom related stuff.

That's a good reason isn't it?

That's why I only make maps that can be played on a TI-83

[BaronOfStuff]

XCOPY said:

Tablets and PSP are still too weak to handle zdoom and sometimes even boom related stuff.

That's a good reason isn't it?

A good reason to buy a PC, yeah.

[Doomkid]

Personally, I like making vanilla compatable maps because I'm a huge DOS Doomer, but very very few maps I've made are vanilla compatable. It's sort of like the reason Doom is so good in the first place.. The restriction didn't really allow any space to add the boring, not-so-fun bells and whistles, just keeping the 'meat' so to speak. Obviously not everyone works better under restrictions, but I feel that I do to a degree, and it seems ID did as well, because Doom is their funnest game.

All that said, mapping (like eveything) is all about moderation. If the colored lights, crazy effects, and things done in decorate act as 'icing on the cake' for a great mapset, I really love it. Cybercrime is a nice example of something new-ish and fancy-ish without being a damn Michael Bay wad, so to speak. :)

Evolution said:

Where's the love for co-op oriented stuff. 2013 already, jings! ;__;

Where's some new, classic-grade DM material, that's my question.

Phml said:

...there was a grand total of 0 people playing the same stuff I'd want to play at an acceptable ping[..]mods deviating significantly from Doom gameplay, addons or server rules throwing balance out of the window, or wads I find uninteresting[..]from where I stand, there isn't an audience for the kind of stuff I like to make and play; to the extent I wouldn't even be able to *test* my maps.

Again, just how I feel about making oldschool DM maps these days. Coop was so much fun to me as a kid, but SP and DM are the real pateince testers, the rage-makers, the skill improvers. That's the shit I can't get enough of, the stuff that keeps improving my Dooming senses even further after thousands and thosands of days of playing this damn game!

[Acid]

tbh, I've never truly pushed a Vanilla oriented map, but rather sticking to Boom limitations. Guess I'll have to try it out :)

[Doomkid]

BaronOfStuff said:

Puzzles that require multiple players[..]running around? That sucks.

I don't often say this, but: Quoted for truth. That shit is boring, all players should be able to manage their way from start to finish at any time, alone or with buddies.

BloodyAcid said:

tbh, I've never truly pushed a Vanilla oriented map, but rather sticking to Boom limitations. Guess I'll have to try it out :)

The great thing about Boom compatability is that so, so many source ports use it as a base. Universal mods are always my preferred choice because everyone out there can give it a shot no matter how they like to do their Dooming.

[ASD]

I've recently thought the opposite: Why are there so much limit removal nowadays?

[BaronOfStuff]

ASD said:

I've recently thought the opposite: Why are there so much limit removal nowadays?

Because while it can be fun to work within the old limits every so often, they're also too strict for more ambitious projects to work/look as intended and (as much as I detest them) Slaughtermaps to be slaughter-filled.

The original v1.9 linetype variety simply doesn't allow anywhere near as much creativity/flexibility as the next thing up (Boom).