CapnClever

Members
  • Content count

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

204 Excellent

About CapnClever

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. idgames ensures through its submission process that a license accompanies every single file. I don't see the same for Realm667, so I would suppose any file downloadable without one can technically be ripped apart and sewn together at your whim. (If nothing else they don't make it easy to find such a license: hopefully someone else knows better.) Every Reallm667 submission has to include attributions, which is kind of like a permissions agreement in that it likely won't be accepted into the Realm667 repository unless the submitter has all these things in order: on the other hand, it doesn't prevent anyone else from using it and not applying the same credit. I suppose the ethical thing-to-do would be to attribute whenever possible: the few sample cases I downloaded from Realm667 included a CREDITS text lump. You'll want to take that big listing of credits you have and either make your own CREDITS lump or simply include it in some textfile to be distributed alongside your mod. Furthermore, as your mod will contain these shared elements, it follows to further allow others the permission to modify and reuse your own work in their own (again, as long as they attribute the original to you and everyone you originally attributed). As for whether or not you require active permission from the authors, I would say the answer is no: the authors knew the consequences when submitting their work to Realm667, and you should feel free to do what you want with it. I could probably go on at length about the connotations of using shared resources and whether or not the modder is appropriately justifying their usage, but that has nothing to do with the OP's intentions. Ultimately, the fact that these resources require *ZDoom in the first place limits the amount of useful feedback you'll find here (where many source ports are used) as opposed to, say, ZDoom forums (where the *ZDoom usage is 100%). You may be better off searching for answers there.
  2. Video's up! Took a bit longer to get online see as how I had significant cuts to make due to technical problems during the original airing. This one's a bit scatter-brained, and I really do want to create a shorter, more focused episode next time. Apologies if it's not quite as enjoyable to follow along as others have been.
  3. That's because there are no differences to compare: complevel has very little to do with the Doom Compatibility submenu. MBF allowed for a number of previously-fixed behaviors to be switched on or off at will, meaning that at cl11 (with a few extra requiring a prboom-plus complevel) the configuration of menu options are directly linked to the gameplay you get. Anything below cl11, however, is effectively ignored, which is why complevels like cl2 (Doom2 1.9) and cl9 (Boom 2.02) are so valued. When you choose a complevel, you're choosing to run the game exactly according to the behaviors of the engine selected. Applying a complevel performs a number of changes outside of that menu which aren't emulated simply by setting menu values on or off. (The exception to this is overflow emulation, though these can provide warnings for those interested in the details.) You can, however, start prboom-plus with a given complevel and then change the behavior after game start from the menu: I suppose that, since opening the menu at a low complevel would break a demo anyway, this wasn't deemed important.
  4. Finally, Evo E6! twitch.tv/capnclever

  5. Due to some only-slightly-expected circumstances, Evo will be delayed for some hours. I'll be sure to post a status update ~15 minutes before we get started, so keep an eye out for that. EDIT: Oh, and as usual you can expect the YouTube upload by Monday, June 19.
  6. New episode of Evolution of the WAD at a slightly different time! Head over to https://www.twitch.tv/capnclever today, June 17 starting at 6:00PM EDT (UTC-4). This episode will be Map Openers, looking at the opening shots and scenes on display at the very beginning of a map.
  7. This is the most exact answer I can give you.
  8. There are some people trying to develop formal theories behind game design. The MDA Framework tends to be the most known, and it's an insightful read even if you don't believe it to be useful in a targeted manner. I can only repeat what I said earlier: a preference needs no explanation, a assertion of better/worse does. The hypothetical person saying "Doom is better" without giving an explanation is stating their preference, only in a way that's going to piss people off; and the hypothetical person saying "Doom is my favorite" while attempting to explain is only guessing at rationalizations (or wording their assertion poorly). If we can't agree on that much, there's little reason to continue. If this sounds like stubbornly splitting hairs, well, yeah I am doing that. Yet I'm not going to blindly accept preferences that may not accurately reflect their perspective. Indeed, the very same person could think that some hypothetical game trap is both a thrilling experience and dumb gameplay, perhaps on different playthroughs, or quite possibly at the same time. So how might it be both? That's what I want to understand, and I don't accept that "we're all just different" is the only possibility. I think you're trying too hard to get a quantitative metric out of this, when even the qualitative metrics are fuzzy. I don't have a statistical method to convince you that Gameplay X does something better than Gameplay Y. Yes, ideally we would apply mathematical formalism to get an accepted result, but should we just twiddle our thumbs and ignore everything until one is available? I wouldn't write this stuff if I didn't expect to be challenged on it. Heck, that I don't get challenged on it often tends to be disconcerting because there's no way I have anything remotely close to a useful theory. If you don't think there are answers to be found, so be it, but I'm going to keep toiling away until I find one.
  9. I'll put it this way: to call something preferred (or a favorite) requires no significant justification, whereas to call something better ought to be proven. To speak in terms of most or least favorite, or preferences, or merely likes and dislikes, is to have a positive or negative reaction towards something that is not (or cannot be) explained. My favorite color is red. Why? Because when I look at various colors and I see the one we call red it evokes the greatest positive emotional response. Of course, that explanation is effectively "I like it because my body said so", and does nothing to make anyone else understand or even believe it to be true from my own perspective. If you really like pineapple on pizza, you aren't going to convince someone who doesn't to change their stance. Preference itself exists a priori, beyond that which can be deduced through intelligible meaning. And yet through those innumerable preferences you can start to piece together patterns about how you think. To speak in terms of better and worse conveys a more objective weight, in which one provides comparisons revolved around basic assumptions. "For objects M and N and assumptive qualities A, B, and C; if factors AM, BM, and CM are greater than factors AN, BN, and CN; then we can say that M is better than N." Within this, there's a focus on presenting evidence that exists regardless of the viewer and using it to infer degrees of quality. What's important to realize is that there is no implied "better in all things forever": M is better than N regarding only qualities A, B, and C, and that's only if the reasoning is sound. Often there are no useful comparisons to make! Thus, better and worse are reserved for cases where there is enough similarity to make a case in the first place, and the case itself must be defined to be meaningful. So when I see "favorite" and "better" used interchangeably, it suggests no interest in how others think, only what that surface-level preference is. It suggests that trying to describe my own understanding has no value because the other person is more interested in aligning with like-minded others rather than learning to agree even when we don't think similarly. (The more likely probability, however, is that most people don't give a rat's ass about any of the above and believe the two words to be semantically equivalent, so I tend to go with that.) I say that. And of course, in order to say that I have to pick a means of comparison, of which I choose gameplay because the most fundamental attribute video games have in common is being games. (Of course you can say that the medium of video games is much more than simply a game, but seeing as how interactivity (i.e., the play in gameplay) sets them apart from other media, I think it's an easy basis from which arguments can be derived.) Don't get me wrong, Heretic is still the game that evokes the most positive emotional response to me as opposed to Doom, but I don't let that get in the way of me judging it on concrete terms that I can relate to others. And, if I'm looking to make a better game on such merits, I have a working theory from which I can progress toward that goal. --- Anyway, all that aside, I suppose Doom2 wins my preference, though it's not by a mile or anything. Even if Doom1 has less to offer, it's also a smaller game, and I think it uses the space it has just fine.
  10. It comes up a lot more often than you'd think. Also, your poll is asking for "favorite" while your post suggests "better", even though these carry different meanings. For example, Heretic is my favorite game on the Doom engine, even though I acknowledge that Doom and Strife and Hexen are better games. This is to say that Heretic aligns with my own aesthetic interests in a way that naturally pulls me toward its qualities while overlooking its flaws; but if someone were to ask me for a recommendation on a game to play from the idtech1 engine, it would be likely the last thing I'd suggest. As far as Doom1 and Doom2 are concerned: I think Doom1 holds up better as a first-time experience but grows weaker with replays, whereas Doom2 lacks a strong first impression but gets better over time. Probably because the maps are bigger in Doom2? There's more to potentially miss in a playthrough of the latter, whereas the most you'll be finding in Doom1 on a second pass are the more well-hidden secrets. It also helps that there's a higher skill cap in Doom2, especially with the new enemies that make you think a lot more about how to handle them. Doom1 has superior cohesion and pacing, however, and that makes it more of a full experience when you're immersing yourself into it. (That's just a surface-level read, though, as I haven't spent much time considering it.)
  11. Good question! I haven't seen that problem before. You can cause it to auto-progress by holding a key down (mouse counts) before the text screen appears, but it doesn't actually buffer new inputs. If you're running the game on an old compatibility level, you can't press a button to bring the full text into view and have to wait for it to slowly scroll out. It's possible the game thinks you're holding a button for some reason, don't know any more than that. This is one of those relics left in primarily for demo-syncing purposes: the original executable used this time to load the map, but as this is often instantaneous in the present year the time is far shorter; and adding a keypress or artificially padding out the length of the screen would most certainly break demos (though no reason not to allow it for the current version). Anyway, I don't see a way to adjust it in the options: you'll just have to read it after finishing the level.
  12. It's pretty good, if unpolished on the gameplay side. Certainly a monumental amount of effort on the visuals. I left a comment in that thread, seeing as how it wasn't locked. Anyone who enjoys interesting scenery should take the hour needed to check it out.
  13. Pretty cool! It certainly brings out much of the primal moodiness that many have idealized in the series over the years. It gets a bit over-detailed on occasion, but I think it's an excellent aesthetic that lasts for the course of the map. Some thoughts: I don't think the player needs to go through the entirety of E1M8 to grasp the situation of the map proper: everyone's played it, everyone remembers it. Starting the player at the base of the stairs leading to the infamous teleporter is probably more than enough. The first significant view of the hellscape is quite breathtaking: it sets the pacing of the map well. Regarding new enemies: The gargoyle-like enemies are definitely the most interesting here: incredibly evasive but incredibly fragile, and their imp-spam makes them a priority. They're somewhat trivialized by chaingun without autoaim (at least I'm assuming this was meant for freelook, given the vertical nature and sloping of the level) but hey, a unique use for the chaingun against an enemy more worrisome than the average opponent is always refreshing! The lock-on lost souls are also pretty neat, as they better justify their HP value compared to the typical type. I'm surprised you didn't make give them a random chance to pop out of Pain Elementals. The Skelenants are fairly boring, not much more than a bulked-up demon. Their melee attack does "home" in if you try to dance, which is a bit of a change-up, but considering their speed it's hardly an issue to kill them from a distance. Indeed, demons are more interesting because you can make them harmless with the right technique: to remove that is to make the enemy less flexible. I think I only saw one or two chaingunning Mancubi, and that's a good thing: a hitscanning sponge is usually a tedious monster. The Red Baron is amusing, if still basically a Baron: its initial encounter in the tube-hallway is its best usage, as that fight is actually difficult to handle without taking damage. Of course the player could just wait it out, but I like the potential there. Way too much ammo everywhere. I doubt I picked up even half of it on my way through the level. I realize it's a non-linear adventure, but that's all the more reason to pace each encounter with an appropriate amount of ammo as you go, rather than scattering it all over the place. The Cyberdemon and Mastermind encounters aren't much to look at, gameplay-wise: in contrast, their preceding fights are among the challenge highlights of the map. You could probably get rid of them and work on a more polished group of lesser foes to get more out of the areas: this would also better set up the final boss, which would come as that much more of a shocker to veterans expecting something on the hackneyed side. This is probably just me, but the use of PSX/64 sound effects throws me off a lot. Many of the enemies end up sounding the same, which makes it difficult to determine who's still alive and attacking me when not directly in my view. Experiment with a little mix-and-match, see if there's a combination between the two sets that works. Wasn't sure if the map's completely done, so I did cheat my way into what were apparently easter eggs. For anyone who hasn't tried the map yet, I would implore you to search thoroughly for all the secrets before doing so, as they're amusing enough to be worth the effort. I get a sense of a focus on wanting the scare the player with enemies rather than providing them a suitable challenge, which is fine. Most of the time, however, I simply wasn't afraid, and what's left is shooting at things until they die. There are virtually no traps (nothing like a monster closet anyway), making everything incredibly straight-forward and occasionally anti-climactic. I recall a plasma gun sitting in a nice set-pieced room and being ready to run over it and start blasting away, but nothing came: hell, nothing came for the next couple minutes. As this is a game, I would suggest that your artistic direction be put to optimal use in providing an interesting experience rather than a tour (not that there isn't plenty of it already: this is meant only as a vague suggestion on where to look for refinements). If anyone feels like trying it out, don't expect much of a challenge: there might be a couple of hairy moments, but it'd be easy enough to do without saving if you're careful. Quite fun to explore, though!
    Playability notes: Requires ZDoom-based ports to function. All maps are technically made for pistol start, but continuous is recommended. The Community is Falling 2 is a sequel to the first installment and, while the story is more dramatic and refined, the gameplay takes an entirely different approach that at least entertains those with an open mind. As something of a jokewad the idea plays out similarly, with the player needing to cleanup the mess of what can only be described as "forum drama", and after a brief introduction is thrust into no more than three encounters across three maps. Also similar are the return of the "newb" enemy, basically a Demon with sometimes more speed. Overall, these maps should be considered gameplay puzzles. The first is a matter of finding where to go with the least necessary movement; the second is a matter of understanding available space and being able to quickly analyze your surroundings; the third is an extreme test against enemy AI. All of them are simplistic in their approach and none of them are easy, so they very quickly turn into a practice-until-perfect scenario and generally lack replay value. Least interesting is the first fight, which distills into getting in the correct position and holding down the fire button. Most interesting is the second fight, as it plays out uniquely in the form of BFG-spam that must be tightly controlled to stay alive. The most frustrating by far is the third fight (if you don't have a megasphere's worth of health left over) and is basically the previous final boss but with a single pillar for cover: one's personal enjoyment may vary here, as this is an incredibly precise dance with little room for error. Ultimately, because the fights don't align with vanilla gameplay but are oddly fine-tuned regardless, I can't recommend this to most. Try it out if you're interested in a change-up, but don't feel obligated to see it through to the end.
    Playability notes: Requires ZDoom-based ports. It can be finished: you may have to do some unexpected backtracking. The Community is Falling is an amusing jokemap, fitting neatly into its time period from the perspective of the mapper, and manages to hold interest long enough to be entertaining. There is the occasional cinematic to wait through and the general layout is nothing special to behold, but it serves its purpose adequately. As a jokewad you may not expect particularly engaging encounters, but this one does try to at least give the player something new (if completely unexpected) as the journey continues. Being a single map, there is a believable progression of difficulty over time: harder enemies, stronger weapons. What changes up in this mapset is the use of different enemies altogether, whether it be Doomguys of varying color (all of which have different weapons to worry about) or the "newbs" that are no different than Demons, albeit occasionally given a different speed. While the absolute number of fights is few and contained, rarely are the themes repeated, leaving the only tedium either in learning how to handle a fight or in the non-combat situations. While there is enough variety and amusement in most of the fights, the major drawback is the final fight, consisting of what is essentially a Spider Mastermind with the hitbox of a chaingunner and around three times as much health. There is some modicum of strategy to be found here, such as manipulating their position until spamming rockets or plasma is consistent, but for the most part the enemy simply has too much health, turning this encounter into a listless endeavor. I recommend a run through the map if you don't mind a few little cutscenes (won't take that long anyway) and if you're not interested in the final boss then MDK it to clean up.