We need convenience

[Blastfrog]

Da Werecat said:

With new switches and animations that can't be added without screwing with the old ones.

Yeah, but few people map for Final Doom, I don't think its conflicting textures are worth two new IWADs over.

[Da Werecat]

It's unclean.

[frithiof]

Da Werecat said:

With new switches and animations that can't be added without screwing with the old ones.

That's one of those things I never really understood... it seems like the TNT/Plutonia textures were simply added to Phase 2, but actual compatibility with TNT/Plutonia PWADs is still a little dodgy.

Sodaholic said:

Yeah, but few people map for Final Doom, I don't think its conflicting textures are worth two new IWADs over.

What about possibly making PWADs that enhance compatibility?

[fraggle]

chungy said:

If I might say, the compatibility goal with Doom is also probably not that valuable. I'd rather see something (Freedoom or a fork of it) turn into a well-rounded game without the baggage of being compatible with Doom, which is also limiting it to feeling like a mere copy, no matter what kind of artistic directions might be taken so the graphics and story doesn't really resemble Doom, the level structure and game play will always give it away.

I've been thinking about this comment a lot today and it's taken a while for my thoughts about it to fully congeal.

I think you're probably right about this. The project has been run from the start around this idea of "replacing" Doom. Doing so has provided a very useful framework for the project to develop in - in the early days of the project we had text files with big long lists of all the different resources (maps, textures, etc.) with who was assigned to what, and what "percentage" we were at towards completing each, etc.

Here's the thing though - that framework for the project's development is usually provided by artistic direction. We've sidestepped the need for artistic direction entirely by just doing what Doom does. Hence the "hollowness" of the project in that sense. We still don't even have a story. I'd argue that things have improved somewhat recently but it's mainly because raymoohawk has stepped up and overhauled a lot of the project's most prominent artwork.

The excuse we make for all of this is "compatibility" - that we can't grant ourselves greater artistic direction because there might be a mod out there somewhere that depends on a texture looking a particular way, etc. But I think it is just an excuse we make to justify the status quo. It's a status quo that's a legacy of decisions made early in the project's development. Although having a compatible IWAD is a cute technical achievement, and I'm touched to see that there are people in this thread who play WADs this way, the fact is that most people who are going to play Doom levels are going to do it with Doom.

Put bluntly I think there's a deep cultural issue in the project that we need to fix to take it to the next level: the "compatibility" thing is one example, but it's even right name in the project name "Freedoom". If you're talking about "Freedoom Phase 3" you're not getting it. What's needed is a top-down reorganization and reimagining of the whole project and a fork is probably the best way to do it.

esselfortium's plan for rebooting the project sounds like a solid one.

[raymoohawk]

we can do all that and keep pwad compatability, by using mostly new textures and keeping the old textures in just for compatability. when making new maps we could just pretend the old textures aren't there and use new one

[Blastfrog]

raymoohawk said:

we can do all that and keep pwad compatability, by using mostly new textures and keeping the old textures in just for compatability. when making new maps we could just pretend the old textures aren't there and use new one

Yeah, I fail to see how keeping compatibility conflicts with taking things in a new direction. I'd rather not see the project be officially killed and replaced.

fraggle said:

Although having a compatible IWAD is a cute technical achievement, and I'm touched to see that there are people in this thread who play WADs this way, the fact is that most people who are going to play Doom levels are going to do it with Doom.

I'm disturbed by how quickly you seem to dismiss compatibility. It's one of the core parts of Freedoom, take that away and nobody will care about it. I always thought that Freedoom should be a viable alternative for those unwilling or unable to acquire Doom.

I think the project loses any and all appeal if turned into a generic standalone TC without any compatibility. There's nothing wrong with doing a project like that, but at that point I don't see what it has to do with Freedoom or what its original purpose was. I'm not opposed to such a project, just opposed to it being a replacement for Freedoom.

[esselfortium]

Sodaholic said:

Yeah, I fail to see how keeping compatibility conflicts with taking things in a new direction. I'd rather not see the project be officially killed and replaced.

I'm disturbed by how quickly you seem to dismiss compatibility. It's one of the core parts of Freedoom, take that away and nobody will care about it. I always thought that Freedoom should be a viable alternative for those unwilling or unable to acquire Doom.

I think the project loses any and all appeal if turned into a generic standalone TC without any compatibility. There's nothing wrong with doing a project like that, but at that point I don't see what it has to do with Freedoom or what its original purpose was. I'm not opposed to such a project, just opposed to it being a replacement for Freedoom.

What appeal does it currently have, though? How many players really use Freedoom as a substitute for Doom? And how can a standalone game built around its own custom ideas and behaviors be more "generic" than one that is made solely to clone what already exists?

But with that said, this would be a fork, with its own purpose and its own goals, so it wouldn't necessarily affect Freedoom itself. I think there's a substantial enough difference in goals between those who want Freedoom the IWAD replacement and those who'd want to fork it to make a new free game, that there's probably not going to be all that much contributor overlap between the two anyway, and the fork succeeding would mean lots of new content that could potentially be pulled back into the original Freedoom if you guys want any of it.

[frithiof]

^^^^^ - That sounds like a decent idea.

raymoohawk said:

we can do all that and keep pwad compatability, by using mostly new textures and keeping the old textures in just for compatability. when making new maps we could just pretend the old textures aren't there and use new one

That would probably be the best compromise: Freedoom would still have backwards compatibility with Doom 1/2, and it could also function as a Total Conversion that was constantly being updated and made better. Giving people the option of working on one side of the project or the other might encourage more creative developments.

I think it would be kinda cool if you could have something like a MegaFreedoom2.wad, which would load up the new TC version when you pulled it up with something like gzdoom (and no pwads), but if you loaded pwads or mods, it would be Doom compatible, and/or allow mappers to use a combination of old and new textures and monsters.

[Blastfrog]

esselfortium said:

And how can a standalone game built around its own custom ideas and behaviors be more "generic" than one that is made solely to clone what already exists?

I suppose "generic" isn't really the word for what I meant. I meant it'd be "generic" in the sense that it'd be just another 2.5D shooter, rather than one with a specific purpose of being a viable alternative to Doom.

esselfortium said:

What appeal does it currently have, though? How many players really use Freedoom as a substitute for Doom?

To me, the appeal is that it's free software, can be played as a game on its own or play a huge library of user made content without relying on proprietary data. For general players, I suppose the appeal is that it's a cool game that comes with some Linux distros.

I feel that it would be more popular with some serious consistency and quality, which will come over time through refinement.

esselfortium said:

But with that said, this would be a fork, with its own purpose and its own goals, so it wouldn't necessarily affect Freedoom itself.

Very true, I probably shouldn't be as worried as I was.

[RestlessRodent]

esselfortium said:

What appeal does it currently have, though?

None of that evil non-free proprietary stuff which sucks in your rights like a black hole that crushes your very soul and rips the freedom of life.

Also, I could distribute Freedoom with a port and not get sued to hell. Seeing that it is illegal to distribute even the shareware WAD due to take downs, Freedoom is the way to go.

However, I believe Freedoom would go better with Vanilla compatibility.

Plus, the IWAD is pretty much the only thing holding a fully free Doom back. If Vanilla compatibility is obtained then every port will truly be free.

esselfortium said:

How many players really use Freedoom as a substitute for Doom?

Richard Stallman would probably be the most well known. I myself have met some other users who refused to have the proprietary IWAD, everything had to be open source. These users in the past have joined #remood and have asked if my port supports Freedoom because of this reason.

[esselfortium]

GhostlyDeath said:

Richard Stallman would probably be the most well known. I myself have met some other users who refused to have the proprietary IWAD, everything had to be open source. These users in the past have joined #remood and have asked if my port supports Freedoom because of this reason.

Well, that's just plain silly. Do these people also avoid going near any non-Free-licensed music, movies, books, or other art? How about non-Free hardware? Foods made with non-Free recipes? Clothes with non-Free designs on them?

[dew]

GhostlyDeath said:

Richard Stallman would probably be the most well known. I myself have met some other users who refused to have the proprietary IWAD, everything had to be open source. These users in the past have joined #remood and have asked if my port supports Freedoom because of this reason.

And you people wonder why no one takes Freedoom seriously, not even mentioning wanting to participate on it. Maybe RMS will make maps for you?

[Gez]

Going for vanilla compatibility would make it harder to give it a distinctive identity.

[Blastfrog]

Gez said:

Going for vanilla compatibility would make it harder to give it a distinctive identity.

How so, exactly? It just means less features and detail. I think the art style and aesthetics have a lot more influence than the map format.

[Gez]

Sodaholic said:

How so, exactly? It just means less features and detail. I think the art style and aesthetics have a lot more influence than the map format.

Compare PSX Doom and PC Doom. That'll give you the power of features like translucent walls and colored light can give to make something different from Doom.

Admittedly the colored lighting implementation in Boom is a bit limited, but it's still there.

[frithiof]

dew said:

And you people wonder why no one takes Freedoom seriously, not even mentioning wanting to participate on it. Maybe RMS will make maps for you?

Yeah, maybe Stallman isn't the best person to reference...

wikipedia said:

After initially accepting the concept,[90] Stallman rejects a common alternative term, open source software, because it does not call to mind what Stallman sees as the value of the software: Freedoom.[91]

When asked if he was Jewish, Stallman said he was "an atheist but of Jewish ancestry".[101]

Stallman chooses not to celebrate Christmas, instead celebrating "Grav-mass" on December 25.

When asked about his influences, he replied that he admires Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich

Stallman recommends not owning a mobile phone,[106] as he believes the tracking of cell phones creates harmful privacy issues.[107] Also, Stallman avoids use of a key card to enter the building where his office is located.[46] Such a system would track the locations and times of doors entered. For personal reasons, he generally does not browse the web with an active connection on his personal computer; rather, he has a server fetch web pages with wget and send them to his e-mail mailbox, claiming to limit direct access via browsers to a few sites such as his own or those related to his work with GNU and the FSF.[108][67]

[RestlessRodent]

frithiof said:

Yeah, maybe Stallman isn't the best person to reference...

He would be on the extreme end of the scale.

However, you cannot dismiss a part of a community just because they are a small part of it. There are few here (not just Doomworld) that are for free software/hardware at varying levels.

esselfortium said:

Well, that's just plain silly. Do these people also avoid going near any non-Free-licensed music, movies, books, or other art? How about non-Free hardware? Foods made with non-Free recipes? Clothes with non-Free designs on them?

There is a difference between software/hardware and items such as food and clothing.

For clothing: How many companies, users, and such do you know of that wear solid color and/or plaid clothing? Or those who have made their own clothing such as sweaters from yarn?

For food: How many people do you know that can make an egg sandwich with cheese in it. There are secretive recipes but they are very few compared to the ones that are known everywhere.

Clothing and food are effectively free, open source, and public knowledge in those cases.

For music: There are number of Public Domain (if available, or an alternative if unavailable in a country), CC-BY-SA, etc. artists. The same goes for books and movies.

How difficult would it be to obtain legally the information required to build a house compared to say something which runs PalmOS programs? How about instead of software, how about building a hardware board that can run your software which runs PalmOS programs?

[frithiof]

I'm not entirely sure this is the direction this thread needs to go in...

As an outsider who is more of an end-user of Freedoom (and a cheerleader, I suppose), I support the idea of forking Freedoom, with one fork being dedicated to the original mission of creating Doom 1/2/TNT/Plutonia compatible IWADs, and one fork dedicated to taking Freedoom in a different direction.

I agree that it probably would make sense for them to develop separately, and maybe share resources here and there. Perhaps some artists would feel less restricted if they didn't feel obligated to make things vaguely Doom-like, and maybe some of those things might end up fitting in Freedoom, or vice versa.

That being said, if the fork of Freedoom might crank things up to 11, maybe Freedoom really should consider making most of the maps vanilla, to increase compatibility.

VVVVV - I actually kinda like Freedoom because it's kinda like what you would get if people kept trying to improve Doom after it was released. At this point in time, I feel confident that Freedoom has the potential to be better than Doom in some ways.

Also, Doom is cool for what it is, but I really only play the shareware episode when I'm feeling nostalgic. Doom 2 had the SSG, but some of the levels kinda stunk. Nowadays it's mostly mods/maps/OBLIGE... stuff you don't really need the original IWADs for most of the time anyway.

It also seems weird to want to cancel the project when over the last couple years it has gotten significantly closer to being an actual, functional set of IWAD replacements.

[chungy]

The funny part is that Richard Stallman has actually said that since game data is art, so it doesn't have to be free even if it's nice to be so. ESR has a similar stance, but expands out to game engines which are unlikely to pose a major risk. But you know, let's keep presuming what big-name free software and open source advocates would think even if it differs from reality.

Yes, I do believe an open game serves a nice cultural value. In this day where copyright law has run rampant into absolutely insane levels, it is good to be able to have some common works in the public hands to derive from and enjoy without multi-century copyright terms getting in the way. The issues of free software and open source don't apply to Doom or Freedoom; presenting an alternative to Doom for the strict purpose of avoiding proprietary game data is, frankly, silly.

[fraggle]

esselfortium said:

Well, that's just plain silly. Do these people also avoid going near any non-Free-licensed music, movies, books, or other art? How about non-Free hardware? Foods made with non-Free recipes? Clothes with non-Free designs on them?

You'd be surprised.

esselfortium said:

But with that said, this would be a fork, with its own purpose and its own goals, so it wouldn't necessarily affect Freedoom itself. I think there's a substantial enough difference in goals between those who want Freedoom the IWAD replacement and those who'd want to fork it to make a new free game, that there's probably not going to be all that much contributor overlap between the two anyway, and the fork succeeding would mean lots of new content that could potentially be pulled back into the original Freedoom if you guys want any of it.

Yes, this sounds like the best way to go. Honestly I think an outright fork is probably the best option, because (1). it makes unambiguously clear that this is a different project with different goals and a different design philosophy, and (2). there's enough existing content in Freedoom as it stands today that probably it's worth keeping that around with the assumption that there will be some people who prefer it (essentially the reasons you describe).

I like the idea that the two projects can be license compatible, allowing the old Freedoom project to cherrypick the best bits in and continue to improve.

Sodaholic said:

I'm disturbed by how quickly you seem to dismiss compatibility. It's one of the core parts of Freedoom, take that away and nobody will care about it. I always thought that Freedoom should be a viable alternative for those unwilling or unable to acquire Doom.

I want to make clear that I'm not dismissing it casually or out of hand. It's something that for me has been an important aspect of the project as well. But I'm really just asking some tough questions about the nature of the project and trying to be as honest and open minded about them as possible.

You're absolutely correct when you say that compatibility has been one of the core parts of Freedoom since the beginning. But that's never been the sole goal of the project. Freedoom itself is supposed to be a completely free game that stands on its own, as something that people want to play.

The assumption has always been that these two goals are independent. But I'm not so sure that they are. I think that the compatibility goal holds us back from making a better game. So the question is which of these goals is more important, and I don't think compatibility is the answer.

Moreover it's not really compatibility I'm criticizing. Compatibility is only one facet of the overall philosophical direction of the project that I believe holds it back - ie. our shared conception of what we think of Freedoom as being. That's why I think a clean fork is probably the best approach.

[Blastfrog]

Gez said:

Compare PSX Doom and PC Doom. That'll give you the power of features like translucent walls and colored light can give to make something different from Doom.

Admittedly the colored lighting implementation in Boom is a bit limited, but it's still there.

Poor example, colormaps are rarely used in Freedoom and are not viable for anything more than crudely colorizing the whole render.

The biggest things we'd lose by the switch are deep water and conveyor "scripts", and the former can be partially reproduced with self-referencing sectors.

chungy said:

The issues of free software and open source don't apply to Doom or Freedoom; presenting an alternative to Doom for the strict purpose of avoiding proprietary game data is, frankly, silly.

FWIW, I wasn't saying that people should avoid Doom, just that those people exist and that an alternative can and should exist.

fraggle said:

So the question is which of these goals is more important, and I don't think compatibility is the answer.

I apologize, I misunderstood what you meant. I agree the focus should shift and should be a good game of its own. I still don't see a clean fork as necessary, though it could help with the focus. I still advocate for evolving the current branch into something significantly unique from Doom.

[raymoohawk]

backwards compatability should be kept, it doesnt hurt freedoom and increases the mod count in freedoom's favour, theres several people who have commented already that they enjoy running pwads with freedoom just to see what it looks like

about free art, you have no clue how hard it is to find freely licensed art (specially sprites) that fits the doom engine, and as someone whose interested in seeing the doom engine used in indie game development, my sprites are my small way of contributing to that

i have a question if we where to keep the boom format would we be able to incorporate aditional enemies? that could be a way to vary the gameplay some more, like fill in the blanks in the original bestiary

[Da Werecat]

You can't just add things in Boom. It's not very different from vanilla in this regard.

[raymoohawk]

ok just a doubt i had

i still think we can make a good game that feels like its own thing without getting rid of compatability. many of the best megawads like going down play very differently from the iwads on the strength of the mapping alone, despite having the same game mechanics. perhaps we should consult with such authors for advice on how to give freedoom more of its own feel without sacrificing compatability

[HorrorMovieRei]

Although limited, you could use dehacked to change some rare, barely used actor into an actual monster(eg. the commander keen, romero's head), that's what they did in the old days. That would break compability though, so it's best to use it only in the fork.

[jute]

FWIW I often play pwads with Freedoom simply because I am so very tired of Doom's art and sounds (and D_RUNNIN...), which have been a regular part of my life for over two decades, but I am not and will probably never be tired of Doom's gameplay. Freedoom is probably the only way I could bear playing D(2)TWID. At the same time I find the argument for a fork compelling. As long as Freedoom still existed as an iwad replacement, and as long as Freedoom and the fork were license-compatible, I think the fork could only be a good thing. An esselfortium-run GLOOME-based fork would be a very exciting development!

Edit: Regarding Boom compatibility, Jimmy just offered his 32-map BOOM megawad Jenesis to Freedoom: https://www.doomworld.com/vb/post/1530158

[MrFlibble]

frithiof said:

As an outsider who is more of an end-user of Freedoom (and a cheerleader, I suppose), I support the idea of forking Freedoom, with one fork being dedicated to the original mission of creating Doom 1/2/TNT/Plutonia compatible IWADs, and one fork dedicated to taking Freedoom in a different direction.

I agree that it probably would make sense for them to develop separately, and maybe share resources here and there. Perhaps some artists would feel less restricted if they didn't feel obligated to make things vaguely Doom-like, and maybe some of those things might end up fitting in Freedoom, or vice versa.

That being said, if the fork of Freedoom might crank things up to 11, maybe Freedoom really should consider making most of the maps vanilla, to increase compatibility.

Couldn't agree more. As an end-user I also value the original idea of PWAD compatibility, but at the same time the current development of the project clearly shows that it can go way beyond that, and finally acquire its own much sought for identity. I believe that forking the project is the only way to reconcile the two goals, and the two branches can enrich each other with new stuff if necessary.

I should say that I quite admire how some excellent pieces of art Freedoom resemble their Doom's counterparts in style and atmosphere while remaining completely original at the same time. Some of the door and wall textures are great examples of this. However, the new art direction of monsters and items probably calls for an update of textures as well, which is already being discussed.

Regarding the recent discussions of story and design consistency, I suppose that the compatibility IWADs sub-project could be kept as it is, with its vague/non-existing storyline. I guess an excuse plot typical of early-mid-90s gaming could be thrown in as a bonus. For the fork/reboot project, the Zamanthyte storyline seems like a neat concept which is already elaborated to some extent. It provides a consistent framework for monster and item design, level themes and episode/plot progression.

[jerk-o]

I think FreeDoom should try to have texture replacements for all of the doom/doom2/tnt/plutonia textures and also additional freedoom-only textures as some kind of incentive for mappers to make freedoom maps instead of doom maps. When it comes to the storyline (i.e. excuse for stuff being like it is), I think FreeDoom only needs a small amount of background info that explains why you're at the starting point in e1m1 and why you should play through the maps, decent intermission screen text that continues the story and gives you a reason to keep playing, and map names that make it appear like you're progressing through an area as well as give map makers a "Theme" to work with when making the map.

[MrFlibble]

jerk-o said:

I think FreeDoom only needs a small amount of background info that explains why you're at the starting point in e1m1 and why you should play through the maps, decent intermission screen text that continues the story and gives you a reason to keep playing, and map names that make it appear like you're progressing through an area as well as give map makers a "Theme" to work with when making the map.

That is certainly an essential minimum that will work with a game in this genre. However, there already has been some development of a more detailed background lore and storyline going in parallel with the creation of new art (the relevant discussion can be found somewhere around here), and there doesn't seem to be a reason to abandon further exploration of the Zamanthyte (reptilian) theme both in art and level design (e.g. Maz Hades created a level called Zamanthyte ruins).

At the same time, there have been concerns that a more deep story-line that is different from that of Doom might conflict with the goal of PWAD compatibility, as discussed here. The introduction of Zamanthyte themed powerups was met with objections (the discussion goes on for a couple of pages), and the old powerups were eventually restored.

All of this suggests that the project has reached a point where the goals of PWAD compatibility and independent design ("own identity") become at best difficult to reconcile, limiting development in either direction. It is my understanding that this is one of the reasons why creating a fork was proposed.

[Blastfrog]

FWIW I like the Zamanthyte concept (though it took a little while to grow on me), I just thought the powerups were too cheesy.