Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Caffeine Freak

Members
  • Content count

    1365
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Caffeine Freak

  • Rank
    black and shiny

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Caffeine Freak

    Dumb Stuff You Believed When You Were a Kid

    Yep, I thought that too.
  2. Caffeine Freak

    Dumb Stuff You Believed When You Were a Kid

    I thought the grade levels in grade school went on indefinitely(13th grade, 14th grade, etc.)
  3. Caffeine Freak

    Is Mick Gordon running out of ideas?

    Eh. I like 'em both. I listen to both frequently whilst doing mod work.
  4. Caffeine Freak

    The "BUT" Thread

    I actually think the current gen version of the cacodemon is the scariest they've ever done. The blank, dull green pupiless eye, coupled with the mouth and jaw structure, plus the sounds it makes (which are far more ferocious sounding than anything from the previous incarnations) really sells it well.
  5. Caffeine Freak

    Is Mick Gordon running out of ideas?

    Look at what we heard in the trailers and gameplay videos of Doom 2016, vs. everything we heard in the finished game and official soundtrack. It wasn't even 1/20th of the music that was in the final product, and much of it had been revised at that point. Rest easy on this issue. We've barely heard anything and the stuff we've heard is likely to be revised as well by the time the game is completed.
  6. Caffeine Freak

    Ballista vs Gauss Cannon

    Ballista seems roughly the same as the Gauss cannon with it's primary fire, but I'll need to see the weapon mods for the Ballista before I *really* make a judgement. Simply judging from the footage, the secondary fire (where there's a projectile that sticks, followed by a charge-up and subsequent explosion) seems overall tactically superior to the Gauss cannon's primary fire, but definitely inferior to the Siege mode. I can't vote on the overall quality of the weapon yet. With that being said, it's still a badass concept and design, though I prefer the Gauss cannon's appearance over the Ballista, so I'm voting Gauss.
  7. Caffeine Freak

    The "BUT" Thread

    The Heavy Assault Rifle. It was a badass weapon in the last game, it looks badass now. And shooting it scoped looks very effective and sounds satisfactory. BUTT. The primary fire, while effective, sounds like a dinky little paperclip scratching against someone's skin.
  8. Caffeine Freak

    It's not about the number of enemy types, Id.

    Very well then. The most obvious example I can think of to prove my case would be Doom 3. If you're not familiar, id Tech 4 (the engine that Doom 3 uses) uses something called the 'area awareness system', or AAS, to guide the AI around levels. Successive generations of id Tech use this system as well, but since I'm most intimately familiar with id Tech 4, it's the example I'm using. The AAS uses pre-compiled geometric data from the level, collected during BSP, to generate a .aas file, that can be either very large (as in, comparable to the size of the .map file itself) or very small (10% or less the size of the .map file). The size of the .aas depends on factors such as the size of the level, how many different spaces enemies occupy, and most importantly, how well the AAS has the collision mapped out for it. If the collision isn't properly mapped throughout the level, you can end up with a messy situation where the AAS is compiling a ton of geometric detail it doesn't need to, and then the AI will often end up very confused during gameplay. This causes a *noticeable* drag on performance. In fact, the engine has a hard-coded limit where the game will crash if the AAS passes some numerical limit of reachable areas in a given section of the level. So there you go. Put another way, there's no way a programmer like John Carmack would put a hard limit on something in one of his engines unless he had a very good reason to. I know both id Tech 5 (Rage) and 6 (Doom 2016) used the AAS as well, though I don't know if 7 uses it. And even though the AI in id engines has evolved a lot since Doom 3, I can only imagine that it's even more resource-intensive now, what with FAR more geometric detail in their levels, and much more versatility in the way the monsters operate. If AI calculations were really no big deal, why would Snapmap be restricted to 12 active monsters at any given time? That isn't just because of rendering restrictions, otherwise it would be no problem to have 11 active monsters in one room, and 4 more active monsters in a room the player can't see. But Snapmap doesn't even allow that. Because AI calculations DO matter. And if there wasn't some limit set, you'd have idiots going crazy with 40 monsters spawned all at once, and Snapmaps constantly crashing. Hell, if you watch the documentary NOCLIP made on Doom 2016, Jerry Keehan even mentions that part of the reason for the frequent demonic lockdowns throughout the game is because it would drag on performance to carry all that AI into other parts of the level. https://youtu.be/r0nOsuaPDeg?t=6m30s
  9. Caffeine Freak

    It's not about the number of enemy types, Id.

    It not consuming nearly as much resources as rendering doesn't make AI insignificant by any stretch. Saying 'lol so what, it's not nearly as demanding as rendering' is stupid and ridiculous. Even if AI were just 5% of the performance on average, that's a chunk that could still drag your performance down if poorly programmed. AI is immensely more complex these days than the simple 'move towards the player character and try to smack him' routine from a couple decades ago. Watch this breakdown of the AI logistics in DOOM 2016:
  10. Caffeine Freak

    It's not about the number of enemy types, Id.

    You really don't know anything, do you.
  11. Caffeine Freak

    It's not about the number of enemy types, Id.

    The AI in L4D were quite simplistic in comparison with Doom's monsters, though---not just in terms of their polycount, but also their behavior. Doom AI isn't what you'd call supremely intelligent, but it's much more varied and tactically advanced than the L4D zombies, who all had the same exact behavior, with the exception of the special types. For as much flak as it's gotten, even the AI in Doom 3 was more complex in some of it's behavior than the AI in L4D.
  12. Caffeine Freak

    It's not about the number of enemy types, Id.

    I think his point is it's ridiculous to assume id aren't familiar with modding beyond Brutal Doom. I would probably agree with that.
  13. Caffeine Freak

    Who else isn't an adult here besides me?

    I'm 32. Physically, I feel about the same as I did at 22. Mentally I feel somewhere in the range of 20 - 65. And emotionally I'm already dead.
  14. Caffeine Freak

    Enemies you don't want to return

    I also want the possessed to have more variety this time. They're literally the shells of former humans, they should have some variety in that sense. I've only seen a few variants in DE so far, but Doom 2016 had 2 scientist/worker types, the engineer, the soldiers, the hell version, and that was it. It's not like you need the same type of versatility D3 had with it's zombie cast, but at least portray these guys with *some* variety in physical appearance, especially the soldier types.
  15. Caffeine Freak

    Enemies you don't want to return

    Since the Hellknight in Doom Eternal and Doom 2016 is obviously heavily inspired by the Doom 3 version, I won't discount the possibility of them revising any enemy from Doom 3. With that being said, I could do without the Ticks and Trites. They're much more in line with the disturbing horror aspect of Doom 3 that isn't really the aim of the modern installments. Same with the Cherubs. I diverge from what seems to be the popular opinion here in that I don't mind them in Doom 3, but again, they are more of a horror game enemy, and don't fit in here. I could also do without the Summoner. Not because I disliked it, but the Arch-Vile takes that role very well, and is a cooler enemy, imo. The Arch also doesn't do those annoying teleport maneuvers, unless they've added that in this game (please no.) I'm glad that they're doing more of a Classic Doom/Doom 3 approach with the possessed soldiers. Marty and Hugo mentioned in a panel that they have their own language they use to communicate with each other, which is very reminiscent of the Z-Sec chatter in Doom 3. The possessed in Doom 2016 were way too stupid and brutelike, didn't really do any evasive maneuvers or tactical moves in general, which was a departure from the tactical intelligence of the Z-Secs, who would duck and roll, take cover behind objects, etc. So hopefully, they pursue that avenue even more with these guys. I could see potential in reviving the Chaingun Commandos, but that raises the complication of them being hitscan enemies, which presents complications in the current incarnation of Doom gameplay. If they were used sparingly and in specific places I could see it working, however. I could also see potential in reviving the Maggots and Vulgars from Doom 3/ROE. They both have a design and movement pattern that holds potential for a lot of speed and unpredictability. Same with the Wraiths.
×