arbitrary e1m1 change?

Why was this perfectly good starting map changed to a different one? There wasn't anything wrong with the original apart from the out-of-place green fog effect in an early area. Otherwise it was a good introductory map in the same stylistic vein as the Doom shareware maps, and frankly the only map that ever stood out in my memory. The replacement map feels like a half-baked draft of another map altogether: it has some decent areas, but a really awkward start atop an awkwardly shaped catwalk, and requires the player to use keys, which really shouldn't be a thing on the very first map of the first episode. If a map is going to be replaced, shouldn't the original map be severely lacking, and not perfectly suitable?

 

Was the new consensus to just replace every freedoom map altogether? I'm a little out of the loop with the project's current direction, or if it even has one.

Edited by Impie
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

It was a Boom-compatible map and removed in 0.11, because Freedoom changed to limit-removing + (I'm not 100% sure about this) the author didn't want to modify it.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Spectra got the reason it was replaced correct.

 

I never really liked the replacement. It's far too orthogonal and generally uninteresting. It's only saving grace is the Aquatex texture usage.

 

Share this post


Link to post

The new map was made by someone with little to no experience in mapping, so there's lots of sharp angles and generally uninteresting architecture.

 

Said inexperienced mapper also wrote this post :p, I've been wishing to re-do the map but I'm caught up in other projects.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/11/2017 at 8:08 PM, YukiHerz said:

The new map was made by someone with little to no experience in mapping, so there's lots of sharp angles and generally uninteresting architecture.

 

Said inexperienced mapper also wrote this post :p, I've been wishing to re-do the map but I'm caught up in other projects.

I don't think the map is terrible overall, just not as suitable for the e1m1 slot as the previous map.

 

Was there a practical reason for freedoom changing to limit-removing? Is the project more versitile that way?

 

I dunno, the longer freedoom goes on, the more it feels like it's not sure what it wants to be. I figured if it's trying to be a free copy of doom, it would have iwad maps in the same style as the original game, but the newer maps have a very modern complex and monster-spammy feel to them. You could honestly just take the wonderful doom megawad and slap it into phase 1, have a doom 2 style boom-compatible community project for phase 2's maps, and be done with it (if the wad authors were up for it).

Edited by Impie
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Impie said:

Was there a practical reason for freedoom changing to limit-removing?

Like all Doom engines, Chocolate Doom is useless without an IWAD. If Chocolate Doom can use Freedoom for its IWAD, then Chocolate Doom is useful without a non-free/proprietary dependency. This is a practical benefit, e.g. it allows Chocolate Doom to be "promoted" out of contrib into Debian main. (Whether or not it is sufficient to justify the change, I leave to your opinion☺)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, RjY said:

Like all Doom engines, Chocolate Doom is useless without an IWAD. If Chocolate Doom can use Freedoom for its IWAD, then Chocolate Doom is useful without a non-free/proprietary dependency. This is a practical benefit, e.g. it allows Chocolate Doom to be "promoted" out of contrib into Debian main. (Whether or not it is sufficient to justify the change, I leave to your opinion☺)

I understand that. My question was, why upgrade the project from boom-compatible to limit-removing? or are the two topics related?

 

Assuming Boom doesn't already count as limit-removing. I assumed when the second poster mentioned that, they meant changing the project to UDMF or something really advanced.

Edited by Impie

Share this post


Link to post

Limit removing is actually more limited than Boom, due to it being vanilla with a couple ( not all ) limits removed.

 

So it's not comparable to UDMF in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Arctangent said:

Limit removing is actually more limited than Boom, due to it being vanilla with a couple ( not all ) limits removed.

 

So it's not comparable to UDMF in the slightest.

Okay, so I had it backwards? So the previous e1m1 was more advanced, and the project downgraded to be closer to vanilla, hence the map wouldn't work anymore (and hence the green fog effect in the underground area)?

Edited by Impie

Share this post


Link to post

Freedoom 1.0 will be vanilla-compatible.

 

Limit-removing maps are being tolerated as interim goal. But they will be simplified in the future in order to avoid drawseg / visplane overflows (mainly), if feasible, or replaced with pure vanilla maps.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Doom the way id did would make somewhat alright replacements for phase one. But that would be too easy.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Litrivin said:

Freedoom 1.0 will be vanilla-compatible.

 

Limit-removing maps are being tolerated as interim goal. But they will be simplified in the future in order to avoid drawseg / visplane overflows (mainly), if feasible, or replaced with pure vanilla maps.

 

That might solve a lot of map design issues on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, MrD!zone said:

Doom the way id did would make somewhat alright replacements for phase one. But that would be too easy.

 

That wouldn’t work anyway. Its txt file clearly states: “Authors may NOT use the contents of this file as a base for modification or reuse.”

 

Interestingly, there is a vanillified and retextured (to use only textures of doom.wad) version of the old C1M1, created a long time ago:

 

https://www.doomworld.com/files/file/16691-aaa/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now