Schneelocke

Agreed. :)

Sweet, and I really hope you'll be able to pull off a full run - I have no idea how it could be done, but then, I never would've thought it's possible to get this far, either. Just goes to show what I know. :)

Whoa! Quite an improvement. :) (And I agree with Grazza, the first demo was fun to watch, too. :))

Cool. ^_^ (And the other one was neat, too, although Map16 is one of my least favourite HR2 maps.)

0.06, or 0:06? ;)

Seconded.

I haven't finished watching this one yet, but I can definitely say one thing already - I love how you handled that archie on the altar. :)

Sure. :)

I've worked on a DOOM source port genealogy in the past, but I'm not really updating it anymore, and it didn't get to a publishable state, either. Still, if you're interested, the file's at http://schneelocke.net/games/doom/porthistory/sourceports.dot.txt There's probably tons of mistakes in there, not to mention missing information, but maybe it'll be interesting nonetheless. :) It's written for graphviz, but I haven't tried to render it in a while, so it may well contain syntax errors on top of everything else, too. :)

Hmm. Where do you get that particular version? Thanks, that was it!

Is it just me, or is anyone else having problems playing cf21-228 (currently in /pwads)? I get a desync after a few seconds (using PrBoom 2.3.1, with all complevels).

You should get a Gmail account or so. :P

Back, table updated (I hope I didn't miss anything). :) Great demos, as usual. :)

Great demos. :) (And that goes for all demos I haven't commented on in the past, too, BTW!) I've updated the table to include these, too, but speaking of that, I just want to let you all know that I'll be on a holiday trip for a few weeks starting tomorrow, so there probably won't be any updates until early May. Sorry about that, but I'll catch up on things again afterwards. :)

How about "really really great"? ;)

Was that a serious question? :) If yes, it's this wad (and it's very nice indeed!).

Yeah. Oh well - personally, I'm glad it got uploaded, because I hadn't seen it yet. :)

Eh, yeah, you're right. Sorry - it's probably too early for me to get anything right. ;)

Thanks, fixed. And thanks for the compliment, too! ^_^

Did you give it to anyone else who might've uploaded it? If not, I'd warrant a guess that it was you after all. (sleepwalking, maybe? :))

The right one should have the following md5 hash: 25e1459ca71d321525f84628f45ca8cd *doom2.wad HTH. :)

Maybe it's just me, but that link doesn't seem to work. :/ But yeah, as Kristian already said, an accompanying text file would be nice, simply so when people come across the file again in five or ten years, they'll know what it is, who played it and so on. ^.~

Oh, that one's done? Cool, can you put it on the tracker? :)

We'll see whether it's a joke tomorrow. If AgentSpork *still* says he's cancelling the project then, it's not a joke; until then, I really wouldn't believe anything. ;) I still have the feeling that this is all an elaborate joke, and that Spork's earlier post about how it's not a joke is just part of the joke. Well, we'll see.

How would you make sure that those tags aren't tampered with, though? Someone intent on cheating could still change them afterwards. Personally, I think cheating actually probably isn't that much of a problem anymore, or at least not more than it used to be. Someone determined enough will be able to cheat no matter what you do, anyway - cheating it's a social problem, so it requires a social solution, not a technical one. Chocolate Doom etc. are just tools to make sure that demos are comparable - not tools to rule out cheating. Maybe not, but that's nitpicking; the stated goal still makes it a natural choice: "Chocolate Doom is a port of the Doom source code which is designed to act as identically as possible to the original Doom executables."