Cyb

Super Moderators
  • Content count

    3275
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About Cyb

  • Rank
    Forum Staple
  1. This is the kind of weird spin GG has put on a lot of arguments and it's disappointing if you're falling for it. So, first off, there have been tons and tons of people associated with Gamergate that have harassed, threatened and bullied women in the games industry. This is just a fact, and it's the reason nobody is going to fully take GG seriously as a thing (outside of the general terror it causes). If you have legitimate concerns about the games industry or games journalism then that's great, but you simply cannot do that under the GG banner. Find a new thing. To use a more extreme example, it's kind of like how nobody can ever use a Swastika for anything ever again. So, GG can claim whatever they want about their mission but the fact remains that there are people who are being complete shits and it's not out of the question that people are going to react to that sort of behavior with some degree of venom. That's just human nature. So you can't have a bunch of GG people bullying women (or supporters of women) and then simultaneously turn around and cry "bully!!" when some guy on twitter calls everyone nerds without actually doing anything specific. Not condoning his behavior, mind you, but like everything it needs to be taken in the context of everything going on around it. There's also the fact that, unlike the majority of GG people, he did not do it anonymously and he did apologize for it and delete his tweets.
  2. I don't even know why I'm doing this, but please look up what objectification means. Depicting guys as "rugged, tough, alpha males" is in no way "objectification", and specifically it's not sexual objectification. You are just saying the same exact thing every gamergate person says while at the same time not having actually watched Anita's videos. And I get it, someone is critical of a thing you love. She actually starts every video by saying that it's entirely possible to enjoy problematic art while still being critical of it, because the majority of art is problematic in some way (intended or otherwise). This is just what criticism is. If you want games to be a part of real media like film and books and television are, then you have to be open to criticism. She makes pretty concise points, and instead of instantly being angry about them because you personally have not been affected by the issues presented, take some time to reflect on what she is saying, think about it from the perspective of someone who is not like you. Have a little bit of empathy.
  3. Hey guys I found it on my old laptop! I also found Void_R! I think map27 was the last one I made though, so I guess you have all of it. Does that include any extra sounds or graphics? It had a few random ones that I can upload though they're not integral to it or anything. Also map21 had a kind of dumb puzzle that is probably still solvable but unless you look in a specific spot early on in the level you'll never solve it. I have a graphic with the solution that I can upload tonight if you want. And Ralphis, in my defense, you were kind of dumb. I think you're swell now though!
  4. Oh, Doom Jr. 2. Good lord I forgot about that. I don't even know if I have those maps any more. If you really want I will see if I can hunt them down though.
  5. http://www.doomworld.com/idgames/index.php?id=8183
  6. but like you said, that's the fault of the map author, not the port. if I say a map I make is compatible with prBoom or Eternity, it's because I tested it in prBoom and Eternity, not because I'm just guessing that it might work. You can't fault port authors for this, it's just lazy playtesting. If nobody wanted to make maps for anything but ZDoom any more then the choice has been made by authors. That's just how things work. Personally I don't like mapping for anything outside of ZDoom because the amount of freedom ZDoom allows me. However if everyone else who makes maps decided that too, then that's just the way it goes. Once again, it's about choice. And I highly doubt this would be the case. You could easily start a Boom project or doom2.exe project and probably get a nice mapset out of the deal if you are good enough at getting people to contribute. I agree it's positive, but my main point is I don't think it should be forced on anyone. That's what standards are, a forced set of rules. If Randy and Quasar and the Legacy guys want to get together and decide on a set of guidelines, then I'd have no problems with that since it would be their choice. But forcing standards is not the way to go in this case at all since it would only serve to slow or even stop creativity. Here's the thing; you don't have to. You don't have to make multiple versions of your map. If you make a Legacy map there is nothing forcing you to make a ZDoom or Eternity version. You can do it if you want, but you don't have to. People will see what port the map runs on and decide if they want to play it or not, and that's it. First and foremost you should be making Doom maps for yourself. It's an ancient game by PC standards and if you're making maps to impress people then you should just quit. I make maps because I enjoy it, and I enjoy seeing what I can get out of Doom. Plus it's comparativly easy to do. Any positive reaction from players is a secondary concern, though certainly welcome and only adds to the fun of creating a wad. Once again, that's lazy playtesting. And if people want to make maps that break prBoom even though they could run with some error correction on it, then who cares? It's their map. You have absolutly no right to tell people how to edit; and that goes for map, ports and anything related to people creating things in their free time. You are free to dislike and critique if you want, but the bottom line is people make this stuff because they enjoy Doom and for no other reason. How dare you be ungrateful for that. I couldn't agree more.
  7. I don't understand. I mean, fine, if you dislike the feel of ZDoom or EDGE or Legacy or Eternity then that's fine. If you feel the features shouldn't be there then that's fine, it's very simple to just not use a specific port. Nobody is forcing anything on you. You don't have to play ZDoom maps if you don't want to. But this talk of standards and what should and shouldn't be in a Doom port is ridiculous. First off, all ports are made because the author loves the game and loves programming. They make no money off any of this and they add what they like based on user input or just something they see fit. If someone wants to change the behavior of invisibility, then what is the big deal? If you don't like it then stick to a port that doesn't alter much. And standards is even more ridiculous. This is Doom, people, stop taking it so seriously. If a map only works in ZDoom or Eternity then why must it work in other ports? What's even the point of that? If it can play original maps then that's about all that matters. Everything else is entirely up to the port author. It just seems like if you had some kind of standards then you'd have authors wanting to add a feature but not able to because other port authors would have to agree on if they wanted it or how to implement it. So this really seems like complaining for the sake of complaining in the end. There's no purpose because all of this discussion has been entirely unproductive. It'd be one thing if this had some adverse effect on Doom as a whole, but it doesn't. doom2.exe is still around, and you are free to use it. In fact you are free to use or not use any port you want. But whatever, this sort of bullshit has been present among Doomers (and I'm sure most other gaming communities) for as long as I can remember (and I have been a part of this community in varying degrees of involvement for a good 8 or 9 years) and I don't expect it to stop. I just can't wrap my head around why it bothers people so much when there is such a clear ability to pick what you want to use and what you do not want to use.
  8. Adding a new bitmap to the textures directory and then rebuilding the entire texture wad is what I'm saying. On a modern computer even with hundreds of bitmaps (unlikely unless it's a large project) it will only take a couple of seconds after clicking the batch; roughly the same amount of time it would take to open up XWE/DeepSea/Wintex/whatever, select the correct file, import it (possibly add it to texture/pnames lumps, since that has to be done manually with XWE and Wintex, I don't know about DeepSea though) and save it. See my above statement. Plus I never claimed deutex could do that, just that deutex's building process is just fine. I'm not advocating it for everyone either, just saying shrugging it off entirely as useless or a pain in the ass is silly, since it obviously has its merits. Nor am I advocating use of deutex for everyone. I know as well as anyone that these sorts of operations are not for everyone. A GUI is much more user friendly, but they tend to be slower and a lot harder (if not impossible) to automate down to one click compared to a command line utility. When I need something automated at work, I don't putz around with a GUI on a weekly or daily basis, I use command line utilities and write a shell script or batch file. Even without some kind of scheduler it's still much easier to run that than it would be to do it manually with a GUI. It's a lot faster and less of a hassle. It's the same general idea; GUIs are fine and great and I love them with all my heart, but sometimes a command line is just quicker and easier. They both have their merits.
  9. actually deutex can just grab all bitmaps in a directory and you don't have to specify each individual file, just the directory in the batch file, so it's trivial to make a texture wad from a directory if bitmaps and you wouldn't even have to edit the batch file if you wanted to add more textures and rebuild it.
  10. That's not really true though. If you keep consistent naming conventions, like all your maps are map01.wad, map02.wad, map03.wad etc, and you have a wad_gfx.wad (which is what I usually do) then you only have to write out one batch file/script or you could even whip up a quick script output it for you in php or python or whatever. Once you have that wirtten out it's a matter of clicking a batch file to build the entire wad every time which is a lot easier than opening an editor, getting to the proper location and selecting each wad to merge each and every time you want to compile a new build. For small scale projects or simple mergers then a GUI is just fine, and probably better, but to shrug off command line stuff entirely is just silly.
  11. hey buddy, if I didn't cancel Doom Jr 2 yet, then you can't cancel this >:(
  12. what, would you rather they tested it on normal children or kids with parents? you sicken me.
  13. As expensive blockbusters with name recognition tend to do, Doom came in #1 its opening weekend, bringing in an estimated $15.4 million. Second place was Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story with $9.3 million. For those curious, Doom cost around $70 million to make. I'd estimate the movie will drop off half its profits every week, so it will probably end up making $25 - $30 million after four weeks. It's also got a rating of 5.9/10 on IMDB, which sounds about right, if not a little high.
  14. As expensive blockbusters with name recognition tend to do, Doom came in #1 its opening weekend, bringing in an estimated $15.4 million. Second place was Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story with $9.3 million. For those curious, Doom cost around $70 million to make. I'd estimate the movie will drop off half its profits every week, so it will probably end up making $25 - $30 million after four weeks. It's also got a rating of 5.9/10 on IMDB, which sounds about right, if not a little high.