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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About magicsofa

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. magicsofa

    Unexplored Themes?

    Miniature maps, as in the player is mini-fied by making the map an outrageously huge bedroom or something. I always loved these in games like Counterstrike.
  2. magicsofa

    Which version of Doom Builder is best?

    Wow I need to get on this UDB train, for some reason I thought GZ was the most current one
  3. magicsofa

    Post Your Controversial Opinions About Doom

    Maybe we should go back in time and replace the original pistol sound with the far superior PSX one?
  4. magicsofa

    Alarming Shower Thought

    That wouldn't be alarming, just standard fare
  5. magicsofa

    The 128 kb mapping extragavanza "challenge"*

    Hey E1 peeps... Was anyone else going for an early-ish slot? I randomly picked e1m2 just so I didn't have to listen to the m1 music, but now I find myself tailoring my map to fit that slot/soundtrack. I could certainly beef up the action if the map needs to be later in the episode but if others are keeping it hot then I'm happy to stay in the early zone...
  6. magicsofa

    Doom 1 and 2 are ugly?

    Doesn't heresiarch have like, one attack frame? Anyway it is kinda funny how this style got reproduced by other people. It's probably easy to get tunnel vision when you're handed an engine with existing content, that also happened to be very successful... if it worked in Doom it'll work in my game right?
  7. magicsofa

    Doom 1 and 2 are ugly?

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Like for example, I find it really sexy when women have hairy armpits. What was this thread about tho? Spider demon always looked goofy to me, at least once I was more than 7 years old. But no, Doom is gorgeous in the way that all good big-pixel graphics are gorgeous: grainy, crunchy, colorful, and easy to look at. The obsession with higher fidelity is natural - everyone likes to see the numbers go up, why should that phenomenon exclude things like screen resolution and polygons rendered? However, all good artists understand that fidelity is just a quality of the medium being used, and the qualities of the medium do not determine the possible emotional responses that could be generated using it. Furthermore, in practical terms, the more complex your medium/method, the more time you will have to spend on any given element, and the more obvious it will be when elements are incomplete. A pixel artist can make a field of grass look "complete" and "full" by choosing the right colors and having them contrast each other just right. But once you have ten million pixels on the screen and the ability to render untold amounts of polygons, a field full of grass becomes an insurmountably difficult task. You start asking yourself, how many blades of grass can I afford to place on the field? How much processing power can I give toward making them sway realistically in the wind? Should I place a texture on the ground to make it look more full? I'm not saying hi-def graphics can't be stunningly beautiful, just that there is an inherent loss of freedom correlated with the gain of detail. There's a reason why you've never seen a high-definition version of a doom sprite that actually does it justice. Pixel art is tailored to work well within its own restrictions, and that requires hinting at detail even when it isn't there. It is made with the forethought that your brain will respond to certain color choices and blending in particular ways, allowing the artist to use those techniques to make some areas pop, some sink below, some areas are sharp, some are dull or blurred. Hi-poly models on the other hand usually seek to actually create those elements. They disregard your brain's ability to reconcile a series of colored boxes into a complete image, instead trying to spoon feed the entire de facto image to you. And without a computer as powerful and non-linear as your brain, it's simply not possible. It's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It will always look fake until visual sensory input can be replicated exactly as experienced in the real world. High def graphics are not more realistic - they are just more unrealism. Instead of 60,000 unrealistic pixels, you have well over a million unrealistic pixels. That just means more space to fill, more chances to show the disparity between real life and a rendered scene, and more work needed in order to create the same emotional response.
  8. magicsofa

    The 128 kb mapping extragavanza "challenge"*

    I would like E1 slot plz
  9. magicsofa

    Opinions on Social Media.

    Only viable way? Here we go with the drama again. If you happen to get their phone number, you could actually call or text them. Don't have a phone? Perhaps a piece of paper, a pen, and a mail stamp would help you. Social media is the only viable way to have "contact with friends" streamlined and spoon-fed to you in a convenient package.
  10. magicsofa

    Opinions on Social Media.

    I completely agree, and that's exactly why I feel the need to point out the discrepancy between what people tend to think of, and what's actually true. People get all dramatic, saying "I'm done with social media," but really they just have a problem with specific platforms and the society/industry that has grown up around them. I feel that the most common complaints are A) constant arguments and B) distaste for the information presented. And those are fair complaints, which aren't surprising to hear about platforms where nobody is moderating your discussions and everybody is trying to get something onto your screen, often for monetary gain. However, those qualities are not inherent to social media. People tend to think of those qualities because they tend to only interact with those platforms. That fallacy has become so deeply rooted that many people don't even consider something to be social media unless it includes rampant shitposting, misinformation, and chaos. I thought the definition of social media was "websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking." That means Doomworld counts, and not on a technicality. The fact that it is anonymous and has some semblance of civility is what makes it good social media.
  11. magicsofa

    Opinions on Social Media.

    You're using social media right now.
  12. magicsofa

    The 128 kb mapping extragavanza "challenge"*

    I imagine it does, but it's probably a very tiny difference. The linedefs still need to be in there regardless of how many sectors they represent, right? Then again, at such small sizes it might be significant to not be storing another sector number, floor/ceiling heights and flats, and associated lines. EDIT: I guess the lines reference the sector, not the other way around, according to the doom wiki. Each sector definition uses 26 bytes. So 100 sectors would be 2.6k on their own. Linedefs are 14 bytes, while sidedefs are 30 bytes. So a lonely two sided line is potentially taking up 74 bytes, and considering you'll have at least three to make a sector, it seems to me that line detail will kill you first. Every penny counts though so joining sectors could help you squeeze.
  13. magicsofa

    Extremely Hot Take About Classic Doom

    You guys, the title of the video is "The WORST Gaming hot takes"
  14. magicsofa

    Most recent movie you saw