CapnClever

Members
  • Content count

    229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CapnClever

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. I'll quote some sections that fraggle linked as a starting reference: To use an example, let's look at the remastering of Strife, called The Original Strife: Veteran Edition. When you purchase this game, it comes with a copy of the source code for you to compile and run for yourself, or to adjust and make something else, or just to look at and study. Even if you don't buy the game, the source code is freely available on GitHub, and you can find all the DLLs used to run the game online legally as well (I think: I haven't confirmed this with every library but I believe this is something required by the GPL). What you won't be able to obtain or create legally on your own are the following files: strife1.wad (original game's IWAD) SVE.wad (Veteran Edition assets) voices.wad (original game voice file in WAD form) strife1.wad and voices.wad are from the 1996 Strife game, and Night Dive Studios has the legal right to distribute these files when selling the game. SVE.wad, however, is specific to this release of the game, and there's no other way to get it legally (whereas the other two could be theoretically used if you'd purchased the game back in 1996). Given the GPL, it is effectively these files that are sold, though you're also being sold the convenience of a complete game package that runs as intended. As this example is a case of a source port being sold as a standalone version for profit, I think this answers the question neatly. (In fact, Strife: VE had a more significant legal problem to justify in dealing with reverse-engineered code, which a regular ol' Doom source port doesn't.) If standalone packages like The Adventures of Square and Blade of Agony simply don't distribute or require the IWAD assets then there's no problem. At most, the ability to sell would come down to intellectual property (Square wouldn't have issues AFAIK, but BoA's based on Wolfenstein). Anyway, to be abundantly clear, any GPL-based source port (i.e., most) is a theoretical launch point from which to make a commercial, for-profit game. Depending on the port, you might not even have to touch source port code! Actually making a game from its scaffolding, however, is an entirely different matter. Not only would you have to write music, produce sound effects, design maps, and draw textures, enemies, weapons, items, furniture, and miscellaneous stuff like the HUD and the menu; but ideally create them in such a way that wouldn't interfere with intellectual property issues. That's an enormous effort! And even then, we've seen these efforts in the past, like Action Doom 2 selling a physical CD copy. It's not common because this is a Doom hobbyist's forum and you're talking about professional-tier work that diverges from many of the aesthetic facets found in Doom. I'm sure no one who's worked on Freedoom has ever dreamed of making it a commercial product, and for good reason.
  2. I think, before we can make a breakthrough on this topic, you have to answer why is true. Because I see a number of people suggesting the opposite. I'm guessing that your argument stems from the "beg" part: begging evokes a sympathetic reaction from the audience in an attempt to gain monetary compensation, and I would agree in general that this is an unethical practice. But I'm gonna say there's a difference between people who take up begging itself as a job of sorts (e.g., along the streets of a well-populated city as others pass through) and people who are vaguely providing a good or service and are vaguely asking for compensation in return (such as on Patreon). A beggar isn't even remotely providing a good or service: the most a payer can theoretically get is a sense of compassion. It's possible that a crowdfunder is being disingenuous and isn't planning to provide the good/service, but that's being unethical through dishonesty rather than guilt-tripping. In a later post you suggest some similar examples, one of which you suppose is unethical: I see no ethical difference between "person making a mod and asking for compensation, some of which will undoubtedly go to living expenses", "team making a mod and asking for compensation, some of which will undoubtedly go to living expenses" and "person being offered compensation, some of which will undoubtedly go to living expenses, for a mod". Other than what I mentioned above -- wording the message in a way to guilt people into giving money -- these exchanges are virtually identical. If you wanna say that boldly stating invested money will go towards living expenses is unethical, as an attempt to engender sympathy, then I can understand your perspective. But I also would be treating that part of the message, regardless of what it is, as a very low priority in my decision to invest (thereby making the ethicality pointless). I've noticed this as a complaint of large charity events, as well. In the case of Games Done Quick, I've seen comments of those not realizing that "100% of donations go to [insert charity organization here]" doesn't mean 100% of the money goes toward the intent of the charity: that's a pipedream. Nonprofit organizations, including charitable ones, still have to deal with operating costs and even salaries. The idea of doing extra work without compensation may be a virtue, but I don't think expecting compensation should be a vice.
  3. Given the upload date of your video, the latest GZDoom version out at the time was 2.1.1. Since then, GZDoom has been updated to version 2.4.0, then to v3 where its latest version is 3.2.0: in that time, numerous changes have occurred, some of which may break the functionality of old mods. As a starting point, I'd recommend downloading GZDoom 2.1.1 if you haven't already (here's an archive of GZDoom versions) and try using your version of Project Brutality with that. You might have to dig deeper with older versions, but I figure you'll be on the right track.
  4. This is a wild guess as I do not have Project Brutality (much less the exact version you're using) but if you have to install GZDoom independently of this mod, it's possible you may require a specific version of GZDoom as well. Errors where there were none before are typically the result of an incorrect setup, so you'll have to make sure everything was exactly as it was prior to your reinstall before you can be sure. In the future, threads involving specific inquiries about a mod would be better posted in the "WADs & Mods" forum, as it'll receive more appropriate attention there. (Also, I wouldn't expect a quick response for an incredibly specific question: not everyone checks this place regularly.)
  5. Here's your beginner's link. If you're having troubles after reading that, let us know: we'll go through it with you and then update the page to accommodate.
  6. This hypothetical scenario is too vague. On the one hand, Doom2 as we know it came out in late 1994 and, to speak nothing of source ports, the ability to extend the game as necessary to create this as a simple PWAD with DeHackEd elements is 100% impossible, even to this day. On the other hand, by the time this would have been possible (let's say 1998, supposing a very determined modding team with a very specific vision of Doom in mind) I'd already have moved on from Doom at the time, and in general far fewer people would have played it since it would only have been available to those interesting in modding back in '98. (Realistically it would've been far longer on the timeline, if you take into account existing mods that only add to the gameplay without modifying other aspects.) So I don't see a particularly satisfying answer either way. For sure it would've been far less impactful, even in 1998, because it would've been a complete departure from the original executable not only in points of engine capability but also gameplay. Doom1's approach to 8/9-map episodic progression is something I believe people (including myself) prefer compared to Doom2, providing a far more effective compromise to the whole "pistol start vs continuous" issue occasionally discussed here. The added weapon and enemies are significant, yes, but I don't think they'd have far from universally caught on in the modding scene: there's a sense of purity from official creations, regardless of the unofficial quality. (Then again I'm not sure there's been anything that comes close to what would have been the efforts of a Doom2 PWAD in seamlessly applying to the original content.) So it'd probably have a sub-following within the community, kind of like what we have with mapping and modding based on Doom1 today. It's hard to come up with interesting points here because of how much this would affect... well, everything. "How would you have liked it" is the best question you can ask here? If Doom2 doesn't exist as an id Software product, does that mean The Ultimate Doom exists earlier? What happens to 90% of the classic Doom2 PWADs? How different would the community be in a universe without an official SSG and slew of enemies that kept the gameplay exciting after all this time? What's the direction of ports when the source code is released? How are Doom 64, Doom 3, and Doom 2016 affected? You're removing an incredibly crucial piece of the puzzle, and a lot of future events become very difficult to read into without it.
  7. I can do you one better. Behold: the Status Updates of People I Follow activity stream! Just stick that in your custom streams and you're only ever two clicks away starting from the front page.
  8. I know this is a cool video an' all, but we don't need three threads for it in the last four days.
  9. It utterly slipped my mind to post the incoming message regarding a new episode, for which I apologize. The next Evolution of the WAD is already on YouTube! It's a showcasing and discussion on TeamTNT's Boom engine and its feature set, and how it was used back then (as well as a peek into how it's used now). Episode 9: TeamTNT - The BOOM Engine
  10. To start, I'm going to use the DoomWiki description of slaughter map so we don't get tied down on semantics: Now not everyone may agree with the above, what I think we can say that the defining aesthetic trait is the "horde": that which the player will "slaughter". The earliest documented cases (PUNISHER.WAD, as well as SQUARES.WAD) are certainly far denser than what was found in the original Doom1 and Doom2, with Plutonia's "Go 2 It" noted for its popularity (being in an IWAD) but is also more refined. And naturally, just as with any aesthetic choice, it's possible to be either lazy or diligent with its usage. It's also easy for a critic to make a hasty generalization after seeing absurd examples (maybe something like NUTS.WAD), or to simply hand-wave the entire trope as uninspired, thoughtless, or (at this point) cliche. I struggle with the same problems when it comes to highly-textured, highly-atmospheric maps that don't even humor the player with engaging monster placement. It's not going to be something that everyone enjoys coming into Doom, especially seeing as how it's not present in the original id maps. As for why this dislike comes across with such toxicity and vehemency, well, you're dealing with a subcategory of map design that has historically been most liked by thoroughly experienced players. Hell Revealed was developed by an early champion of the demo community. Anyone who's only spent time in Doom1/Doom2 will be completely lost as to how to deal with modern slaughter maps, which assume a certain degree of aptitude and understanding about weapon and monster characteristics. It also doesn't help that balancing such encounters to be just challenging enough to be interesting without being tedious, overwhelming, or luck-based is incredibly difficult, and that few players are willing to persevere when this balance is not met precisely. This isn't to say that all slaughter maps are hard, but generally the mappers who try to make good use out of hordes are utilizing them to challenge the player. Sometimes it's fun to give the player a BFG and frag 50 zombiemen, but this should be used rarely. Some people aren't going to like the style a priori, but I'd say most people aren't willing to invest time and effort to appreciate the design (or become quickly discouraged when faced with a bad sample) and delude themselves into not liking it. Not that they necessarily should! But it's easy to dismiss potential when one hasn't taken the time to observe and understand. As a side-note, a lot of mods aren't going to play nicely with slaughter maps, primarily because mods aren't often considered with gameplay diverging greatly from the id maps. So you might get a lot of people that don't like slaughter maps because the careful balance assuming vanilla gameplay is thrown out the window.
  11. Here's a condensed clip containing just the matches. And here's Alfonzo vs 40oz while I'm at it.
  12. It's not quite as convenient, but you can include this filter in your activity streams. Then you'll find it by clicking "Activity > My Activity Streams" on the top bar, and it'll be under Custom Streams called "Recent Status Updates". (I made it a while back for easy searching, and also so I'm not counted as having viewed a member page because of extreme paranoia.)
  13. The POBLA3.TXT is stronger evidence than the MMMUS.WAD timestamp. Having found nothing further to sway one way or the other (save a comment from kxmxeii that may or may not be firsthand) I concede the point: looks like Evilution probably would've been the first 32-level megawad. On the other hand, I haven't heard Memento Mori be glorified as the first 32-level megawad anyway, just as one among the first and as a major community project. I don't know if Evilution holding this title would've mattered all that much, though TeamTNT was a lot more vocal about their releases. (By the way, I forgot to mention H2H-XMAS.WAD, another early megawad that came out December 18 1995, which had the courtesy of adding its freaking release date in the README.) --- To try and bring this thread back on-topic, I'll add my two cents actually talking about what I think of Evilution's level design, rather than handwaving it as undeserving of its fame. In examining the flow and layout, the mappers generally seemed more concerned with using the new textures given to them in interesting and meaningful ways in order to provide players a sense of fascination and wonder, rather than "constructing a map" as it were. There are plenty of setpieces to go around and certainly enough maps that are also fun to play through (I would disagree with the OP that Stronghold is a weak map in this regard), but it doesn't strike me as the focal point of the project. TeamTNT really wanted to make something that would stand out beyond Doom, I think, and to an extent they probably inspired at least a few mappers through Evilution alone to complement Doom's artistic assets rather than replacing them entirely (like Batman Doom). Unfortunately, the gameplay is lacking, especially when compared to its Final Doom sibling. It's hard to fault Evilution during such an early period of Doom mapping and, if anything, Plutonia was a masterstroke by the Casali brothers to intentionally aim for a craftily-difficult mapset: over the years players got better at the game and eventually grew to love the challenges available as early as 1996. I imagine most mappers were more attuned to the likes of Heretic, which favored architecture over combat.