overall community regard for fancy opengl lighting

[volumetricsteve]

So, as my journey into wad building has taken me down some interesting paths...I've found a few things...

1.I need to build some new guns to keep the gameplay fresh across 32 maps.
2.I need to really ramp up the visual appeal of the larger maps.
3.I need custom textures to do what I want.
4.I need all kinds of scripting.

I'm now digging into all of these, but each of these new requirements is a step away from the vanilla-ish wad I once envisioned. I figure, if I'm going to break vanilla compatibility, why not go the whole 9 yards and go all out?

At this point, i'm tinkering with the dynamic opengl lights that GZDoom Builder lets you mess with, and I've had some really good results out of it. I like it so much, I kinda want to manually light my whole wad this way, it looks really good. My concern is...I don't know what the community usually does, but is it common place for wads to set a requirement for a specific engine to be played with? I'm essentially requiring GZDoom at this point...

[Linguica]

Do what you want, man.

[Chezza]

Using GZDoom is not bad, but if you use it over vanilla supported formats then you pretty much need to make good use of it. The more complicated and modified your wad is from traditional Doom the less number of willing play testers you will have but also it will have to be more impressive to be "forgiven" as I see it. That is, unless you are an established mapper around these parts.

Talking from experience;
1. New content might be judged harshly unless it's top quality and used well
2. People are more picky about texture offsets or repetitive flats on walls over high detail but yeah, big maps can be tricky to pretty up
3. Custom textures are generally good, if they blend well
4. Lots of scripting? It's good as long as it doesn't result in overly linear gameplay
- Finally, gameplay over looks, gameplay over anything.

So I'm currently making my first wad, being a Megawad with lots of custom content, scripts and also requires Brutal Doom. For a first time Doom mapper, that's pretty much a big pile of sin. My work seems to be a mix of interesting ideas and mediocre moments but gets spited by particular Doomers, however I soldier on. You can see my work here http://www.twitch.tv/johnsuitepee/v/38420695 39:10 in Suitpee's 7th playtesting session (I'm proud of it personally).

The point I'm trying to make is to not rely or simply be too ambitious to try custom content. If the opinions of the Doom World community matters then you should master vanilla and use it to make fun maps with great aesthetics before messing with advanced sourceports, lots of custom content and scripting. although I doubt new high quality textures will ever be an issue.

[volumetricsteve]

Interesting...I'm surprised you say that changing more..and producing more original content will result in a smaller pool of play testers.

I don't think it's what you meant, but it sounds like you're saying that having clout helps forgive unorthodox things done in one's own map. Even the possibility of this being true immediately made me realize how much more I want to break the rules.

Thanks for the feedback and good luck with your project.

[EClydeDeebo]

Chezza is pretty spot on with his as·sess·ment. I have spent countless hours mapping for many games and I have made maybe 3 or 4 good maps. One needs to be technical, familiar and artistic. When you think your done...you're probably not.

And the community...I don't care WHAT community is usually pretty critical. But then again it is easier to be critical then really helpful.

Me, I don't care if my textures are perfect...but they gotta be as good as I can get them.

Just have fun and do it over and over

[scifista42]

volumetricsteve said:

is it common place for wads to set a requirement for a specific engine to be played with?

Absolutely yes. It's fully OK to release a wad and proclaim: This wad is "X" compatible, where "X" can refer to a specific port or group of ports that support certain features not present in vanilla Doom. Explicitly specifying compatibility is always the right thing to do, rather than just releasing a wad without stating its compatibility, or worse, assuming and claiming that a wad is for example vanilla compatible without really testing it, which often turns out that it actually isn't vanilla compatible, and that's the bad thing, when the author misinforms the players.

Generally, the more specific advanced compatibility, the less potential number of players will play the map, sure. Particularly if you choose such an advanced compatibility that requires a port without good demo recording support, which immediately makes 99% of the subcommunity of speedrunners and demo-recorders to lose interest in the wad, I mean in speedrunning and demo-recording it. Compatibilities ranging from "vanilla" up to "Boom/MBF" are the OK ones in this regard, but ZDoom/GZDoom are no longer OK.

That said, if you make something good, there will be interest in it regardless of port, for sure! For example Winter's Fury is an impressive GZDoom-compatible wad that won a Cacoward in 2012.

[volumetricsteve]

Thanks for the replies.

@scifista42 -

THAT'S what I was looking for. Thank you.

Winter's Fury looks amazing, I'll check that out.