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

banjiepixel

Members
  • Content count

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by banjiepixel

  1. banjiepixel

    GL Rendering in DSDA-Doom vs PrBoom+ UMAPINFO

    Speedrunning focused source port so standardized lighting method is better for both speedrunning and the actual development. One less thing to worry about.
  2. banjiepixel

    Destructoid rank Doom games

    I do think that the list makes mostly sense from perspective of someone who is more casual modern Doom fan. Original classic games on bottom because they too old and boring, Doom 64 gets some extra points from nicer visuals and being scarier, then Doom 3 that is more modern and much scarier. Brutal Doom is there as the superiour experience over all of those and then there are the newest Doom games, with latest one being obviously the best. This feels like list of someone who sees classic Doom games being almost unplayable by modern standards. Only actually bit strange thing is ranking Sigil over the original games, but that might be some bias based on it being newer. Many who didn't get to experience the hype surrounding the original games did get to experience the hype surrounding Sigil so there are many newer Doom fans that have more connection with Sigil than anything else classic Doom outside of using Brutal Doom.
  3. I might be a special case but GZDoom settings menus do give me heavy anxiety and make me worry about changing something by accident without noticing so often it is just easier to reset everything and then remake every change I usually like to make. Also using source port that needs to be updated much less often and has better default settings does generally just make things much easier for the average Doom player.
  4. Hardware renderer for better performance and because some visual effects in gameplay mods often need it. i do also have different source port for more classic software rendered gameplay experience so GZDoom (or mainly Zandronum in my case) can always remain as hardware rendered.
  5. banjiepixel

    Destructoid rank Doom games

    What is Brutal Doom doing in that list? I wish Complex Doom and Hideous Destructor could get some similar attention. My opinion is also that unofficial stuff should be honorable mentions in these kinds of lists.
  6. I prefer minimalism heavily so it is very natural that I want to play vanilla/limit-removing wads with Crispy Doom instead of using more advanced source port. I do also get anxiety from too many options being available and prefer source ports that have minimalist, close to vanilla settings as their defaults. I also just think Doom looks better in crispy 640x400 resolution being upscaled to HD resolutions. In my opinion actual HD rendering resolutions do make Doom look visually too unnatural and give no valuable benefit to my playing experience. There is obviously some overlap between minimalism and purism, but at their core they are different reasons to avoid using GZDoom as the only source port. Outside of that, I am not a fan of GZDoom in general. It seems just pretty bloated and unfocused project to me at this point. I do play some gameplay mods like Complex Doom sometimes casually and Zandronum has generally everything I need for that gameplay experience. I use Crispy Doom as my main source port, Woof if I want to play something more advanced (Boom/MBF) and Zandronum if I want some casual gameplay mod fun.
  7. There is nothing wrong with 2d square grid, I like how it makes the levels feel like more pure mazes and gives the game feel more like some classic Wizardly style dungeon crawl rpg. It's the rest of the gameplay design of games like Wolf3d or ROTT that I don't like as much as Doom. The 2d square grid format obviously does work better as turn based RPG as seen in Wolfenstein/Doom RPG games but action game format would also work great with correct gameplay design. I feel like Project Warlock is a pretty good example of this.
  8. Why use more resources to run Doom than necessary? Original engine is from 1993 and running it should be very minimal task for modern hardware. That is why I prefer to use more "low-end" source ports like Crispy Doom or Woof, as they use much more minimal resources to run Doom. And I play mostly limit-removing megawads anyway so personally I simply don't need anything extra that GZDoom offers.
  9. banjiepixel

    Why do you not use free look?

    Freelook does make movement harder but also removes alot of the range and position aspects from the combat. This can make the game harder or easier based on your skills with movement and aiming. I personally have play more 2D bullet hell shooters than FPS games so my skillset is more fit for playing without freelook. Doom is harder for me with freelook as it requires more effort to stay in control and aiming takes focus away from my ability to dodge projectiles.
  10. banjiepixel

    Chaingun nitpick

    It is actually a universe that uses videogame logic. Enemies spawn the pickups instead of them being directly linked to their inventory. Just like how archvile resurrected monsters can drop their ammo/weapon infinite times.
  11. banjiepixel

    Do you think the BFG could be improved?

    Almost all weapons in Doom exist in pairs and I am pretty sure all of those pairs could be tweaked to make them more balanced. Chaingun kinda needs a delay after tapfiring to make pistol more usable, SSG probably should be little bit slower to give more reason to use shotgun and BFG might need some extra delay before firing to increase risks of using it over plasmagun.
  12. banjiepixel

    Do you think the BFG could be improved?

    Relax, I didn't mean it literally. It was not meant to be anything serious or personal. I just happen to gameplay modder that feel like the gameplay modding is heavily underutilized idea here in general and you gave me a good opportunity to remind people about that not everybody is or wants to become a mapper and that gameplay modding also does exist. This to me seems something highly irrelevant for a thread like this. And I do agree with you here. But what's wrong with modded Doom? It is completely valid way to experience the game. And discussion related to modded Doom is a great way to potentially find design decisions from the original games that might had been flawed. Perfectly valid angle to go for in thread like this. I do generally agree with you, no changes are needed so bad that other things would be worth rebalancing just to "fix" the BFG. Without nerfing some part of BFG's default functionality, technically your only option would be to increase the amount of the health that monsters have. But the default monsters are pretty close to being bulletspongy already and you would need to do something to fix ammo balance issues. You would probably need to make every weapon but the BFG more powerful to create something balanced. Making BFG weaker directly is much easier but players in general always prefer making everything else stronger to fix balance issues. But also altering the damage scale for almost everything would also mean sacrificing vanilla compatibility and would require more advanced modding tools.
  13. banjiepixel

    Why do you not use free look?

    I started with classic keyboard only, then went with modern style freelook for some many years and then eventually switched to the classic keyboard and mouse contols. Reasons for me not liking freelook: I don't like freelook in a game that uses 2D sprites so heavily. I don't want to remove or alter autoaim mechanic of the original game. I don't want to make Classic Doom feel less unique by playing it like a more modern shooter. I love 2D shooters in general, both scrolling type shooters and multidirectional type shooters similar to Enter the Gungeon. I like that not having freelook allows player to focus more on their movement and to be more precise with it. I like that the original aiming system makes your position in relation to the monsters actually matter alot. I like that controls without freelook work better with a controller. I feel like playing with the classic autoaim system is very relaxing and more fun in general.
  14. banjiepixel

    Do you think the BFG could be improved?

    I agree, nerfing player weapons isn't a good way to fix things. But BFG being perfect, no too sure about that. Generally it is still better to keep it as it is because rebalancing BFG would require changes to the monsters and that can easily make things very complicated when also trying to keep things balanced and compatible with the expected default variables. Also it does seem like the concept of gameplay mod is foreign to you. Tweaking the basic Doom gameplay is actually pretty fun and has alot of room for experimentation in general. More people should be doing it here.
  15. Wolfenstein 3D could be fairly argued to be strictly 2D game but not Doom. Wolf3D does basically nothing that basic 2D overhead shooter couldn't do outside of the camera angle. And Doom started as one of the most 3D games in the market back in the day. It is literally just that games have become more 3D so Doom has become more 2D by more modern standards. But it is basically impossible it to become strictly 2D.
  16. Doom is literally a mix of 2D and 3D elements. I never understood why it must be black and white. Just think about the many modern fighting games. The game might be rendered in full polygonal 3D but the gameplay is still pretty much just as much 2D as the older sprite based games in the sae series. If we were to remake Doom into full polygonal game using modern engine while keeping all the original mechanics intact, it still would be both 2D and 3D simultaneusly. I would call Doom to be a "Limited 3D" game. Just look at the (original) aiming mechanics, you can't look up or down and most of the time combat is pretty "flat" but sometimes the height of things does matter alot and the autoaim systen is put on some hard use. 3D is always there but in limited form to serve the more 2D focused gameplay. So basically 2D is the Dom and 3D the Sub in this relationship.
  17. banjiepixel

    Custom monsters, GO or NO?

    My main issue with custom monsters is when they use vanilla dehacked states outside of the default and the usual keen+wolfss as these can be incompatible with my own personal gameplay modding. But custom monsters are usually less problematic than modified weapons to me. And I rather see custom monsters that are harder than just adding more of the default monsters to the map.
  18. First of all, I should state that I am not speedrunner myself but competitive gaming is pretty familiar to me in general and believe that the rules of competition should be well thought out and consistent. And in general I am just curious and want to learn about the community while maybe inspiring some discussion within it. I don't think anyone could deny from the 100% puristic view that things like autorun and disabling vertical mouse movement are not vanilla features so technically they do count as tool assistance. Speedrunning of course doesn't necessarily need to 100% puristic so allowing many more modern QoL features even if they are unofficial (fan created) is fine if community agrees that it makes the game better speedrunning experience. Some speedrunning communites even may decide to alter the original game pretty radically with mods to make it more speedrunning friendly. As long as there are common rules used, any form of speedrunning is valid. There is technically nothing stopping me from starting a new form of Doom speedrunning that is separate from the standards and rules set by DSDA. Setting those standards and rules can be tricky as there could always edge cases that defy the definitions written in to the rules. I think there should be discussion about those edge cases,no matter hypothetical they may be, to allow making the rules more solid and defined. Something like Turn180 key could function as a good example. It could very easily be seen as simple QoL feature that would greatly improve the experience of keyboard/controller players that is very minor change to the gameplay compared to many tools commonly used in tool assisted speedrunning. Turn180 key by itself is an edge case, it's automation being one step too far for many people while also being meaningless little hack when compared to actual TAS tools. But there also could be some scenarios where the same effect that the Turn180 key could be gained ways that are much more in the gray area and maybe even more legit. Of course most obvious alternative could be using macros. Unless I am just being blind, the rules in the DSDA website do not seem state anything about using macros. That seems pretty strange to me and it does open alot of potential automation based edge cases. Another edge case could be that some very obscure or highly specific control device could allow very fast and accurate 10 turn with less automation, maybe even purely by mechanical methods. Would there even be any point in banning Turn180 key if the very same thing would be possible specific control method that doesn't use any macros or other similar software tools. Then we always do have options like nerfing Turn180 key when demo recording DSDA demos. Maybe make it be slower automated turn? There is basically almost no reason why Turn180 key must have instant effect. It could be easily balanced by being a real automated turn that is clearly faster than keyboard turning but slower than fast 180 mouse turn is on average. Basically something similar that Resident Evil 4 has and benefits would be pretty similar for keyboard only and controller players while allowing mouse turners to keep their advantage. Where goes the line between making regular speedrunning better with extra tools and making tool assisted speedrun? Why is that line drawn there and not one step forward or one step back? What would happen if we would move that line one step forward or back? And what hypothetical scenarios would push us to move that line to any direction from where it is currently? Let's discuss!
  19. That feels to me alot like a personal attack and elitism. What would you prefer, me to come to the Discord to talk about about the 180key? This thread is meant to be free from the iron grip of the "old guard" and be a place to talk about any "radical" ideas about speedrunning rules for both those that do speedrun and those that do not. This is about general Doom speedrunning, not just the little discord club that you are part of. I could become a speedrunner and basically as I implied earlier, I may even possibly create a new Doom speedrunning standard that is different and separate from DSDA. This is a place for free exhange of ideas about what is regular doom speedrunning and what is tool assisted and why. I do not care about what DSDA does, I just care about what Doom speedrunning should do in general and want use my ideas as more casual player as springboard for broader rule discussion in general. So why be so hostile and ignore what I say even if I don't speedrun?
  20. banjiepixel

    180 turn key [concern trolling derail]

    My claims about all that natural and unnatural turning were over the line. I lost focus and I apologize for that. But haven't I also been asking about things for context and questioned things that atleast to me seem to based on more recent views of the community than how the community actually was back in the day? I have tried bring up the question about what makes Turn180 so radically different from other classic hacks that are totally allowed these days and as far as I know, many of those were also allowed back in the day too but feel that all that was just completely ignored. I have been also asking about any evidence of Turn180 being bad for the "meta" now or back then and that seems to have been also ignored. Also I am pretty sure that the only thing I have declared to be obvious is the fact that actual cheat codes are not allowed in competitive gaming. I could be wrong but atleast personally I don't know any competitive games that use it as part of the meta. You generally don't need write in to the rules that you can't use the god mode cheat. It is usually the opposite, if a cheat code is allowed, then there is a mention of it in the rules. Doom speedrunning doesn't exist in vacuum and there are alot of common things it has with many other competitive game communities. And that is my perspective to all this.
  21. banjiepixel

    180 turn key [concern trolling derail]

    So 3rd party tools like NOVERT were not being used back then? Controller mods and macros have been always controversial issue in competitive gaming but often allowed if the actual effect on meta is very small and overshadowed by the positive effects, like allowing keyboard only play be more competitive. Unless assisted 180 turns were dominating the leaderboards, it's hard to see any solid reason for banning it. It does seem like it was just more of a taboo at some times. That is still very weak argument because it should be so obvious that cheats built in the game are not allowed to be used outside of what is actually needed to record a legit demo. 3rd party software is always more gray area because of difficulties separating between hardware and software hacks that do not touch the Doom exe. There is no practical difference what comes to speedrunning between using 3rd party software to draw crosshair to the screen and physically drawing a crosshair on your monitor with a marker. There are many unwritten rules in competitive communities but literal cheat codes programmed in to the game are much more clearly off limits than using 3rd party software that gives some minor help with inputs. It's not impossible to make perfect 180 turns in the game anyway just like it's not impossible to use mouse so perfectly horizontally that there is zero vertical mouse movement.
  22. banjiepixel

    180 turn key [concern trolling derail]

    Should technically be irrelevant. Doesn't invalidate things I have said on it's own. I am hoping to see something related Turn180 being actual practical problems for the speedrunning community. It is to theorycraft Turn180 to seem like something problematic there is no actual data of it being actually in more common use. There must be real practical reasons why most people do not use it, especially many top players and atleast for me to it would make sense that Turn180 would in the end increase cognitive costs more than you would gain by the automated turns. If I make any statements like that, it is meant to be a claim based on how I see a thing to be. If I am wrong, I welcome anyone to educate me and other people in the topic by explaining how I am being wrong. I have tried to be as little derailing as possible. Again, my focus is on actual practical issues related to allowing Turn180, something that has relevance on both it's status during the Compet-N community days and on how modern DSDA community could have similar or different views on this matter. It do not see how it is derailing to actually attempt deeper discussion about the topic. I do get the feeling that some anti-Turn180 people do not want deeper discussion just simply because they see Turn180 as taboo for some irrational reason.
  23. I get the feeling that back then speedrunning community was more open enhancing the experience with all kinds of small hacks. Actual vanilla .exe had many flaws and limitations. So many external hacks that would make the game better experience to speedrun without modifying the executable were allowed. It was probably the raising popularity of source ports and their various extra features that made speedrunning community to be more strict about using extra tools/features. And the raising purism as people started to forget how Doom was actually played before sourceports became popular. Seems kinda gatekeepy decision to me. It is a feature with seemingly almost no practical downsides to the community and big upsides making other input methods outside of using mouse to be more competitive. And there seems to be historical basis to it not being a problem.
  24. banjiepixel

    180 turn key [concern trolling derail]

    It wasn't attempt at insulting you or other people on "your side" of this issue. English isn't my first language so sometimes I don't know the right words to use, it was meant to be pretty neutral way just mentioning that people giving "anti-Turn180" arguments here in this topic don't actually seem to have very good arguments to support their views. If I would be in bad faith, I could accuse you of trying shut down discussion with me simply using something that you could claim to be a attempted insult but let's try to keep things in good faith in here. I have seen many competitive communities doing many stupid bans for very stupid reasons. In my opinion that is what Compet-N didn't do and instead probably just community discouraged Turn180 use and in my opinion DSDA community is doing the exact opposite. Banning something without proper research on it's negative effects for community. Turn180 seems to clearly one those original "extra tools" used in back in the day along with novert and others so it probably shouldn't be banned only if is actual data to back that decision. But how I am actually wrong? So nobody cares about the minorities? I do understand some practical issues that would come from that. I do feel like that DSDA categories are very uncreative and serve only very limited range of gameplay styles. I do not actually see anything insulting in this. It wouldn't invalidate any of the coolness of those demos.
  25. banjiepixel

    180 turn key [concern trolling derail]

    Tell me then, how disabling vertical movement or using autorun don't make the run tool-assisted too? You also gain extra advantage that originally didn't exist by using HD resolution and widescreen. Oh, and that optical mouse you are using is probably much more accurate than anything used back in the day. Pretty much everybody using some kind of tools enhance the experience beyond the original Doom.exe by using standard source port features. Disabling vertical mouse movement or using autorun alters the mechanics of playing the game actually pretty radically and Turn180 key isn't that much different from that. As the practical negative effects of allowing Turn180 seem to be largely unknown, we have no actual data to support banning it. Opinions of the community members are important but without actual data and factually supported discussion the rules remain very arbitrary and have no actual basis on what's best for the game and community. Do we even know the first sourceport that had Turn180 as a feature? Or what other "tool" features it did or didn't have at the time? I am seeing alot of "feelings over facts" behaviour from people like you. Turn180 and possibly allowing it seems to be just a taboo to you without anything solid to back it up. I am not speedrunner but maybe that's why my viewpoint to this issue is more rational.
×