ZDoom 2.1.0 Released

AlexMax said:

Why should I, as an end user, have to install three or four different doom ports simply to play maps or demos that are only compatable with xyz port. Or hell, why do I need three or four different versions of ZDoom?

Why are you acting like this is some kind of catering service? You're not paying anything, and the developers aren't seeing a dime, so I really don't see any reason for ANYONE to complain about installing different ports/versions to play a specific map. You have thousands of maps and quite a few ports at your disposal; all that's required of you is a little clicking and unzipping. :)

AlexMax said:

To me, ZDoom's recent development has personified selfish feature creep without reguard for how the fuck anyone else is supposed to catch up. And somehow it emerges as this ubiquitus standard when it can't even keep map or demo compatability from version to version. That, plus the egos involved with various major projects has really put a sour taste in my mouth reguarding ZDoom as a whole.

What the hell are you talking about? People are giving up substantial portions of their free time to develop ZDoom and add features that have been specifically requested by the community. To call them "selfish" for doing so is grotesquely insulting.

Are you seriously saying ports should deliberately retard their development because you don't feel like having more than one installed? I think you're the one being selfish here, not to mention unreasonable. Or that they should never introduce a new feature unless every other port has them as well? Madness...

Doom_user said:

While I don't necessarily agree with your opinion of ZDoom, some of your complaints are valid.

If you want additional editing features, without the loss of Doom2.exe demo compatability or the addition of things such as jumping or crouching, than perhaps you should try The Eternity Engine.

Agreed. ZDoom stopped being Doom for me a long time ago, and so is great for things that try to be different than Doom (e.g. Action Doom, Massmouth, Romero Death Skittles etc) but just annoying to play anything normal in. I don't mind playing something new but I'm not all that interested in playing something that's basically Doom, except with fucked up gameplay involving cutscenes, switch sequences, and a lot of annoying messages. Now all we have to do is stop Quasar` from going too far and adding stuff like jumping into his port :P

I'll deal with this one first. :)

AlexMax said:

And before you get all offended and come up with your brilliant rebuttle

Don't worry, I'm not offended, and don't expect this rebuttal to be especially brilliant, but I think your points are worth responding to. ;)

You have to understand, I'm an advocate of standards. In Quake, you have two very established standards, Quake and Quakeworld. Pretty much the only thing I have to worry about is demo compatability, and even then there are two clear choices.

If demo compatibility is important, well that disappeared a long time ago in Zdoom and many other ports. In fact, it's only reliable in ports that make it a high priority. The features that have been added to Zdoom mean demo compatibility is impossible. It's certainly a price I am willing to pay, especially as the demo scene seems to be quite happy using ports that cater for it. As for "standards" I agree that the people who want to maintain the original feel and compatibility should be catered for. What's more, they are catered for - but not by Zdoom. Given that they are catered for, I see no reason why Zdoom shouldn't cater for a different audience - those who are less concerned with the "standards" (whatever they may turn out to be - when people start talking about such things, the hard and fast line seems to be very elastic) and who want new features and things to keep and re-invigorate their interest. I think Zdoom offers that in spades. If it didn't, I think I may have left Doom behind some time ago.

What standards are there in ZDoom? It seems like ZDoom is simply a mishmesh of things that randy thought would be cool to add, without thinking about how hard these features would be to add for other source ports.

I am intrigued as to what these "standards" are. Who agreed them? What standardisation is there across the range of ports? Who sets the standards? Who has the right to decree these standards? I also don't see the need for them. Certainly not for every port to comply with them. I know that a great many of the things that have been added to Zdoom, and other ports, are along the lines that John Carmack envisaged when he released the source code and a great many of them must have broken "standards" somewhere.

I think my view is quite different to yours. Long gone are the days when the various port authors tried to agree any standardisation. The various leading ports are very far from compatible with each other. So, why should Randy really concern himself with how cross-compatible a feature is for Zdoom when it is only ever going to appear in maps that were only ever going to be available in Zdoom anyway? Especially as there is already very little cross port compatibility. Personally, I like the choice. I like the fact that the different ports provide different options and different ways of doing things. I don't often use ports other than (G)Zdoom, but I have most of them installed and I like dipping into EDGE or Risen3D or whatever for a game because it is different. Or I like DLing a mod for another port and seeing how it looks and feels, and perhaps admiring the features of that port.

I see no reason why I shouldn't have a dozen or so ports installed to play demos or whatever. A few copies of a 12 year old game is hardly going to fill a modern multi-gigabyte hard drive and it's hardly inconvenient.

I suppose, to sum up, I see the variety of the ports as a good thing. I like the differences. I think it would be quite dull, and I believe very restrictive, if all ports complied with a set of rules laid down by goodness only knows who. I'm happy to play Zdoom, EDGE Doom, Whatever Doom and see them as different facets of the old game I have been playing for over a decade. I see no reason, nor do I want them, to have to comply with any standard. It seems like a false imposition to me.

Why should I, as an end user, have to install three or four different doom ports simply to play maps or demos that are only compatable with xyz port. Or hell, why do I need three or four different versions of ZDoom?

Why do you feel obliged to play those different maps anyway? Why do you need to play them? I simply don't get that at all. The new maps that can't run on old Zdooms use the new "non-standard" features that you seem so adverse to. Maps that don't use the features will run on any version of Zdoom. It seems illogical to complain about features being added to Zdoom and then complain that you can't play maps that use those features because they don't comply to some elusive standard that would allow them to be played on a version of Zdoom, or even another port, that doesn't have the feature. Lets turn it round the other way. Why should I, as a mapper, be forced to jump through the ridiculous hoops of the old standards just because the features I want have been denied to me because of some ideal of a standard that doesn't exist? The ports are not moving forward together. They haven't been for some time, if ever they were. Why try and cling to something that has never really been the case? There are ports that, presumably, comply with your standards so you are catered for. I don't have a problem with that. Why do you have a problem when people don't want to be constrained by such standards? How does it harm you? If you don't like what they are doing, why don't you just walk away from it?

To me, ZDoom's recent development has personified selfish feature creep without reguard for how the fuck anyone else is supposed to catch up. And somehow it emerges as this ubiquitus standard when it can't even keep map or demo compatability from version to version. That, plus the egos involved with various major projects has really put a sour taste in my mouth reguarding ZDoom as a whole.

I couldn't disagree more. I can't think of a recently added feature that hasn't been requested by a user. It's not all there because of Randy's whims. Anyway, why should any other port author feel the need to "catch up". Is it a competition? Do port authors really say "OMG Zdoom has featureX I need to add it now, but it's not compatible with my map features". If they do, I don't understand why. If they say "Aha! Zdoom is doing featureX, I like it, I'm going to look at it and see if I can do something similar for my port, in my way" that's fine by me. If Zdoom has strayed so far from the standard, why on Earth would anyone want to follow anyway? Randy has added a host of new features for people who want to play his port and use those features. No other port author is obliged to follow suit and no end user is obliged to use them.

You say that Zdoom has emerged as some sort of ubiquitous standard. Well, if it has, it's because people like it and are using it. Surely that should be vote-of-confidence enough? I'm sorry, but your paragraph above actually sounds a bit like a spoiled-kid's tantrum. It sounds like "People aren't doing what I want and their thing is popular - no fair!"

And even if Randy's attitude was selfish (which I don't think it is especially) why shouldn't it be? When was the last time any of us signed his pay-cheque? He's doing this for a hobby, for his own amusement. If he wanted to make all the doom monsters stand on their heads randomly as you play a level, why shouldn't he? If people like it, they'll use it. If the don't, they won't. Apparently people like what Randy does. None of us are obliged to play his port. Plenty of ports have come and gone where the author did what he wanted, because he wanted. Some of the ports would have been unpopular because of that and some would have faltered for other reasons. Zdoom is going very strong. Something must be right.

I see no reason why any port author should feel the need to consider other port authors when bringing in a new port specific feature. I also see no reason why any other port author should feel the need to "keep up" with that feature. Even "universal standards (eg, perhaps a new map format) is only of limited use because most ports will already have something in their maps that other ports can't handle as intended but I do see the need to standardise the basic data format. Perhaps the only standard I can see that should be set is the WAD format, and any replacement for it. My reasoning behind that is that third party tools would also need to be compatible before people could edit for the format. So standardisation would be important to ensure the util authors could easily produce a tool to work with a WAD for any port.

Look at Quake. You have tons of source ports for both protocools that are different enough to differentiate between then. Yet you don't have the absurd incompatability that's rife in ZDoom.

Well, look at Doom. We have tons of ports and they haven't been truly compatible with each other for years. It's too late to change that. No point getting upset about it.

One of the problems I have is the lack of variety in the good, working Quake ports. There seems to have been a great deal of interesting ideas that came to very little, and we were left with a few ports that don't do much more than make playing in windows a bit more pleasant. However, I'm not a huge Quake fan, so I'm not going to go too far down that route. However, if you can recommend a good Quake port, I'd like to know about it. I've been using fuhquake and DarkPlaces quite a bit recently. However, it (and most other Quake ports I have tried) manage to mess up on that corridor (in E1M6 I think) where some Ogres have to be killed before the big, spiky crushing wall squashes you. For some reason, most ports end up with the Ogres staying trapped behind the wall, so you can't kill them. So much for the standard. ;)

Your assertion that Zdoom's incompatibilities are absurd is, IMO, simply wrong. I see nothing whatsoever absurd about being willing to break certain compatibilities to allow new features. Some features can be added without breaking compatibility, others can't. I'd really rather not miss out on those features because Randy thought breaking an old demo run of Doom2 was absurd. In fact, not adding the new feature would be absurd IMO. What's more, I don't see any important incompatibilities anyway. What is so broken from one version to the next? Save games? So what? Do people really have a huge library of precious savegames? If so, fine, keep an old version around. I know you have a problem with that. I don't. Demo compatibility? Another unavoidable casualty. Sure, it would be nice to have a demo that you could watch over and over across different versions, but even the various versions of doom.exe didn't keep compatibility from one to the next. The demo scene is well catered for. People who are seriously in to their demos don't use Zdoom for them anyway. So, where's the problem? Almost all the original Doom PWADs and Boom compatible PWADs work pretty much as intended in Zdoom. That level of compatibility is fairly important, I'll agree, and Zdoom does it very well IMO. At least in a way that I find very enjoyable. That's good enough for me. Even if it didn't do that, I'd use something else to play those maps and Zdoom for newer stuff. Why not?


Bottom line, and to sum up:

I don't see, or even know, what your elusive standard is. What is the standard? Where is the line drawn? Who decided? Personally, I don't believe it exists, or ever did. I also think the time for trying to establish it is long gone, and not just because of Zdoom. There is no governing body for Doom (thank goodness). It's a hobby, a free and open one, and we can all do what we like with it.

I want new features to keep my Dooming fresh and alive. If that means incompatibilities between ports or even port versions, I have no problem with that.

I don't care if one port has a new feature that is not compatible with another port because all ports have port specific features already and I'm happy to have a few ports installed.

I don't mind, in fact I like, having a directory full of different ports and I see no reason why I shouldn't. I don't see the hardship, or understand the confusion that apparently arises from doing that.

Savegame and demo compatibility across versions of Zdoom is irrelevant to me, especially compared to the advantages of the new features that broke them.

Zdoom is very popular, so quite a few other people presumably share some of the above opinions.



Man! That turned out to be a much longer reply than I had intended. It's really not intended as a rant or any kind of personal attack. I think we have quite different views on this and they are unlikely to be reconciled. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree or something. ;)

My God, I've never seen a post that big before... Not compensating for something are you Enjay? :p heh. :)

Darkfyre said:

Not compensating for something are you Enjay? :p heh. :)

Dammit, you saw through my psychosis. :D

Graf Zahl said:

I think it'd be better if you just shut up.

Charming as always...

AlexMax said:

I've been considering trying Eternity Engine again. However, when I tried it last, it seemed to skip frames every so often where it shouldn't. Plus I don't think that 3.33.33 supports 960x600 in a window yet.

I'll probably go that way too. It was either that or prBoom. And yeah, eternirty has its own share of unique features, but at least they're well documented, plus Quasar is good about collaberating with other developers.

Do any ports support 960x600 or 1280x800? When I tried to run 1280x800 in PRBoom/GLBoom it refused to start, in Legacy it automatically changed to 320x200, and in ZDoom it automatically changed to 1280x1024.

I've limited myself to 640x400 because screen resolutions that don't follow the 1.6 aspect ratio and don't follow multiples of 320 and 200 look ugly as hell and are visibly stretched and distorted.

If any ports can do this, someone please tell me which and how, and if none can, than consider this a feature request for every port that's in active development.

Darkfyre said:

My God, I've never seen a post that big before... Not compensating for something are you Enjay? :p heh. :)

I think his football one was about as long if not longer.

sargebaldy said:

Agreed. ZDoom stopped being Doom for me a long time ago, and so is great for things that try to be different than Doom (e.g. Action Doom, Massmouth, Romero Death Skittles etc) but just annoying to play anything normal in. I don't mind playing something new but I'm not all that interested in playing something that's basically Doom, except with fucked up gameplay involving cutscenes, switch sequences, and a lot of annoying messages.

That's not what makes ZDoom. That's just the bad side effects of having such editing features. Besides, the most annoying switch sequences I have ever seen are *not* in ZDoom WADS - because there you have better means to make the player perform some actions in a specific order.

Now all we have to do is stop Quasar` from going too far and adding stuff like jumping into his port :P

If he wants to support Hexen he'll have to.

Schneelocke said:

Charming as always...

You see what came from that childish remark I was commenting... ;)

Do any ports support 960x600 or 1280x800?

I can vouch for Doomsday, I don't know about the others though.

Sigh. I'm really really bored today. So heres the bit I feel that I ought to go through in Enjays essay. Mind you AlexMax failed quite a bit, but Enjays defense isnt perfect either. Theres 4 things I would like to address:

Enjay said:

I see no reason why I shouldn't have a dozen or so ports installed to play demos or whatever. A few copies of a 12 year old game is hardly going to fill a modern multi-gigabyte hard drive and it's hardly inconvenient.

You're a rarity. Theres quite a bit of ZDOOM IS TEH ONLY ONE!!1 at zdoom.org and I do also remeber someone once voicing a complaint about having multiple versions of zdoom on their hard disk. As an example, see Marty Kirra earlier in this thread.

I see no reason why any port author should feel the need to consider other port authors when bringing in a new port specific feature.

Maybe because they're all working on ports for the same game and not something completely of their own? Or maybe I have no clue. Either way I know there was a time when ports were built off others features and paid attention to others features, not rushed off into the great void to do what they felt was best for themselves alone.

Even "universal standards (eg, perhaps a new map format) is only of limited use because most ports will already have something in their maps that other ports can't handle as intended but I do see the need to standardise the basic data format. Perhaps the only standard I can see that should be set is the WAD format, and any replacement for it.

I'm not going to go into this as much as I could, because it would just get ugly. However, I will say that certain, ah, tensions, are making it impossible to create a map format that encompasses all map specific features in ports that wish or may wish to have such a format. And the only thing I can see in the WAD/WAD replacement dept is ZDoom moving into that replacement format (pk3) with such reasons as the wad is "obsolete" or whatnot, no universal standard between ports there.

I want new features to keep my Dooming fresh and alive. If that means incompatibilities between ports or even port versions, I have no problem with that.

Then, and pardon me for asking, is it really Doom you want or something else. Because Doom (without the Z you know) isn't about fresh features.

Graf Zahl said:

I think it'd be better if you just shut up.

Well hello Graf! Its good to see you havent changed.

Doom_user said:

Do any ports support 960x600 or 1280x800? When I tried to run 1280x800 in PRBoom/GLBoom it refused to start, in Legacy it automatically changed to 320x200, and in ZDoom it automatically changed to 1280x1024.

It works pretty fine for me in prboom. Any resolutions. 1200x200 for example
(prboom.exe -geom 1280x800 -fullscreen)

So far have we come. Complaining and whining about *too many* features!

For god's sake, if you can't stand a little progress use a port that more suits your needs. There's more than enough out there that are more than happy to stick closer to the origins of the code.

But ZDoom is not one of those who slavishly try to preserve anything as genuinely as possible. So if you need such a rigid definition of what makes Doom Doom look elsewhere.

And, not surprisingly, the two most vocal whiners here both have a bad history of trolling at zdoom.org. I don't think it's a coincidence.

@HobbsTiger1, fair points. Allow me to respond.

HobbsTiger1 said:

You're a rarity. Theres quite a bit of ZDOOM IS TEH ONLY ONE!!1 at zdoom.org and I do also remeber someone once voicing a complaint about having multiple versions of zdoom on their hard disk. As an example, see Marty Kirra earlier in this thread.

Possibly I am a rarity on this one. However, I really can't see why anyone with a computer that can play Zdoom would have a problem with the few megabytes a bunch of copies of Doom2.wad and some exes to run it would take up. You'd have to install a lot of Dooms to take up the space of any modern game. Perhaps it's the principle rather than the practicalities. I welcome the handful of ports in my Doom directory, but maybe it's just me.

Maybe because they're all working on ports for the same game and not something completely of their own? Or maybe I have no clue. Either way I know there was a time when ports were built off others features and paid attention to others features, not rushed off into the great void to do what they felt was best for themselves alone.

Indeed they are but, as I said, the days you hark back to have long gone. You may remember there was a time when port authors tried to agree certain things (eg which edit numbers to use for certain features). However, those ideas and standards pretty much fell by the wayside and, with ports being so disparate now and with many of them being in their own "great void", I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, and counter productive to try and re-harmonise them.

I'm not going to go into this as much as I could, because it would just get ugly. However, I will say that certain, ah, tensions, are making it impossible to create a map format that encompasses all map specific features in ports that wish or may wish to have such a format. And the only thing I can see in the WAD/WAD replacement dept is ZDoom moving into that replacement format (pk3) with such reasons as the wad is "obsolete" or whatnot, no universal standard between ports there.

I'm aware the map format thing is a thorny issue and I also intentionally skirted round it. To me, it certainly makes sense to harmonise on that one because most people only use a small handful of tools to work on, or just peek at, the WADs for any port. I know that it, perhaps, sounds like a double standard, but IMO it would certainly be inconvenient to have a range of tools, that operate in different ways to do essentially the same maintenance tasks just to allow me to work on WADs for different ports.

Zdoom/GZdoom is certainly moving towards (indeed, has moved towards) zip/pk3 support. So is JDoom from what I gather. However, there is not full agreement on how data within the zip would be best stored. At least the zip standard one is a universal one and, if Zdoom and JDoom don't store their data in exactly the same way, at least all anyone will have to remember is port specific rules for directory structure etc and not have to use different tools to access data files for different ports.

Then, and pardon me for asking, is it really Doom you want or something else. Because Doom (without the Z you know) isn't about fresh features.

Both really. And I have them both too. I can play something that is very much "traditional Doom" if I want. I just fire up a port that has the original feel as one of its priorities. I never understand why people moan about ports that stray from the original feel when the option to play something like Chocolate Doom has not been closed off to them.

However, I get most of my kicks these days from playing and making mods that change Doom quite significantly. Personally, I know and love playing and editing for the Doom engine. I have a good feel for the way the levels are put together, how linedefs and sectors interplay - both when I'm editing and when I'm playing. Often I will marvel at a clever or novel construct in a level almost as much as a cunning piece of gameplay. The Doom engine and level format are like old friends. I feel no need or desire to go away and learn a new game that, itself, will have people asking me "why do you still edit for HL2" sooner or later anyway, or to try and keep up with new engine advancements and go through a huge learning curve every few months just so I can turn out something that, in many ways, wouldn't be as satisfying to me as if I'd done my stuff with Doom in the first place.

But all that being said, yes, I like to try the stuff that doesn't feel like Doom. I've long regarded the various ports almost as a sort of generic game engine that happens to come designed for a resource package called Doom but which allows me to create my own little worlds in the way I want, and in a way I am familiar with.

The variety of ports gives me what I want - the ability to play Doom pretty close to the original right through to playing something that feels quite different but which is accessed using technology I am familiar with and happy using.

HobbsTiger1 said:

Maybe because they're all working on ports for the same game and not something completely of their own? Or maybe I have no clue. Either way I know there was a time when ports were built off others features and paid attention to others features, not rushed off into the great void to do what they felt was best for themselves alone.

I highly doubt Randy or Graf have selfishness in mind when adding all these features to ZDoom - neither of them make maps for a start, and all these features are for the mappers who want to be really creative with their projects (and the people who want to play such projects). Yes they broke demo compatibility with the original game, but it's not like it disappeared altogether - simply use prBoom or Eternity. And for those who don't like having multiple copies of DooM on their HD, simply stick prBoom in the same folder as doom2.exe and ZDoom. There you go, old and new covered.

HobbsTiger1 said:

Then, and pardon me for asking, is it really Doom you want or something else. Because Doom (without the Z you know) isn't about fresh features.

I have to disagree there. You can add all manner of features to DooM but it won't turn into a clone of Quake 2, Half-Life, Unreal or any newer FPS. I tried to bring that style and atmosphere into LTSD but it still had the core essence of DooM in it - shooting the crap out of hundreds of monsters at speeds varying from the slower pace of newer FPS'es through to the breakneck pace that only DooM can produce.

In any case, I don't see why any of us who love DooM should have to switch to less popular FPS'es that are much harder to map for if we want to add something new to the game we love more than any other.

The Ultimate DooMer said:

In any case, I don't see why any of us who love DooM should have to switch to less popular FPS'es that are much harder to map for if we want to add something new to the game we love more than any other.

I like that. It covers my feelings pretty well.

Graf Zahl said:

If he wants to support Hexen he'll have to.

OK, then let's hope he makes it accessible only to Hexen maps and user ones that specifically have a setting to allow it.

sargebaldy said:

OK, then let's hope he makes it accessible only to Hexen maps and user ones that specifically have a setting to allow it.

Can I ask why that is so important to you? I don't actually understand this point, but I'd like to.

If he included jumping in Doom and didn't disable it by default, how would that impact on you? Surely, I assume from what you said, you would simply not use it unless a map was intended for it. So all I can guess is that you have a problem with someone else using it when it wasn't intended and I don't understand why that would bother you either. :/

SirBardCat said:

Why are you acting like this is some kind of catering service? You're not paying anything, and the developers aren't seeing a dime, so I really don't see any reason for ANYONE to complain about installing different ports/versions to play a specific map. You have thousands of maps and quite a few ports at your disposal; all that's required of you is a little clicking and unzipping. :)

No one in this community is under any "obligation" to automaticly like something just because it just so happens to be free and people work on it in their spare time. Randy and Graf are certainly free to take their ports in any direction they choose, but I'm also entitled to complain about it. Of course, I could have five or six different ports on my computer, but why should I have to?

Jonathan said:

Are you seriously saying ports should deliberately retard their development because you don't feel like having more than one installed? I think you're the one being selfish here, not to mention unreasonable. Or that they should never introduce a new feature unless every other port has them as well? Madness...

I'm absolutely not being unreasonable, because cooperation has been done in other games source ports. And there is still enough to differentiate the different source ports from each other. Are you seriously saying that the only way that doom ports can advance is adding new map features, because if not you're sadly mistaken.

And hell, even Doom had some sembience of cooperation, at least in earlier days. Find an 'advanced' (not chocolate doom) that doesn't support BOOM, and I'll show you a broken port. BOOM's are good. Why can't we have more of them?

I don't think it's an unreasonable request that someone only make one version of a map that runs on all source ports, at least to a degree. Is it? So maybe it's missing colored lighting from one, or maybe a texture doesn't animate correctly in another. But shit, if you make your map for ZDoom, it's just about guarenteed to be broken everywhere else. Or EDGE. Or Doom Legacy. Or Eternity.

This argument of mine has grown out of a general dissastifaction between the state of the ports, not just ZDoom. Think about it. Back when the Doom source was release, raise your hand if you thought that things like colored lighting, 3D floors and the like were a good idea, and a good potential addition to the game. Right. So why again do we have a handfull of ports that go for similar objectives yet go about it completely different ways? It's redundant, and ridiculous.

The Ultimate DooMer said:

I have to disagree there. You can add all manner of features to DooM but it won't turn into a clone of Quake 2, Half-Life, Unreal or any newer FPS.

You're right. It turns into a poor imitation of newer FPS's.

EDIT: I say "I" as an average end user. I don't claim to speak for everyone, but I find it hard to beleive that I'm the only one with such complaints.

EDIT2:

Enjay said:

I'll deal with this one first. :)

Don't worry, I'm not offended, and don't expect this rebuttal to be especially brilliant, but I think your points are worth responding to. ;)

Don't sweat it. Your reply was long and well thought out, and will require much contemplation. Who knows, I may even shift positions. But yeah, nice post. :)

Doomsday is not broken.

AlexMax said:

BOOM's are good. Why can't we have more of them?

Because from there-on-in, people's differences in their view of what to make of their port come apparent, which is eventually caused to BOOM team to dissipate.

AlexMax said:

I don't think it's an unreasonable request that someone only make one version of a map that runs on all source ports, at least to a degree. Is it? So maybe it's missing colored lighting from one, or maybe a texture doesn't animate correctly in another. But shit, if you make your map for ZDoom, it's just about guarenteed to be broken everywhere else. Or EDGE. Or Doom Legacy. Or Eternity.

That's extremely flawed reasoning. Ports are not there so that everything runs with everything. And to be blunt, what would be the point of various ports if all could do exactly the same? Answer: There wouldn't be. Any discussion about unified features so far has ended the same: In a deadlock. It seems to be impossible to find some common ground how to standardize new stuff. So there's two choices: Just do it your own way or don't do it at all. Just because there's some people like you who demand the right to play everything with their one port of choice shouldn't mean that others who actually enjoy the existing variety are left out.

However, what I am having problems with is to implement a feature that already exists in another port - and then do it in such a radically different manner that all hope for compatibility is lost. Good example: 3D floors and slopes in Risen3D. A typical case of a developer who only cares about his own view but has no connection to the community.

Graf Zahl said:

However, what I am having problems with is to implement a feature that already exists in another port - and then do it in such a radically different manner that all hope for compatibility is lost. Good example: 3D floors and slopes in Risen3D. A typical case of a developer who only cares about his own view but has no connection to the community.

Which brings us amazingly to Alex's initial point, which in case you forgot:

AlexMax said:

You have to understand, I'm an advocate of standards. In Quake, you have two very established standards, Quake and Quakeworld. Pretty much the only thing I have to worry about is demo compatability, and even then there are two clear choices.

Pretty much. I mean, what bothers me the most is redundancy. See another port doing something you're trying to impliment? Why not meet up with him and have a little roundtable discussion about finding some comprimise in the name of better compability.

Take jumping. When was the last time you saw a map with a decent jumping puzzle that worked in all ports? Now, jumping isn't a very good example because all ports that support jumping have somewhat similar phyics for doing it (player goes up, player goes down, done). But see what I'm talking about?

It would be nice to have a BOOM 2.0 spec that was fleshed out that had a bunch of newer features on it that would ensure map compatability between ports if done in BOOM 2.0.

I don't think I've ever seen a webpage with more essays. =P

Enjay said:

Can I ask why that is so important to you? I don't actually understand this point, but I'd like to.

If he included jumping in Doom and didn't disable it by default, how would that impact on you? Surely, I assume from what you said, you would simply not use it unless a map was intended for it. So all I can guess is that you have a problem with someone else using it when it wasn't intended and I don't understand why that would bother you either. :/

I think the fear is that many people will either falsely assume that since a port supports jumping that all of the levels were designed for it's use or a person will willingly use jumping to improperly play a level and/or skip parts of it. If Eternity ever adds support for jumping, I hope Quasar chooses to implement it the exact opposite way of how ZDoom did. Instead of being enabled by default and having to be expressly disabled in the MAPINFO lump, jumping should be disabled by default and have to be expressly enabled in the MAPINFO lump. The same goes for things such as crouching, falling damage, limited air, etc...

Zdoom is good at what it does. if you don't like it, don't use it. Just don't complain that everyone else uses it. (tm)


Besides, I use Eternity instead.

HobbsTiger1 said:

As an example, see Marty Kirra earlier in this thread.

That wasn't a complaint so much has it was a question. I don't mind having multiple versions of the same port because to me it's not a problem.

Plus, Doom is a game. Why do people feel the need to over-complicate things all the time with whining about ports and such? No one is forcing you to play and therefore you shouldn't really have anything to complain about. You have choices.

K I'm going to try to keep civil as I wade through both the good and the mong.

Enjay said
Both really. And I have them both too. I can play something that is very much "traditional Doom" if I want. I just fire up a port that has the original feel as one of its priorities. I never understand why people moan about ports that stray from the original feel when the option to play something like Chocolate Doom has not been closed off to them.

However, I get most of my kicks these days from playing and making mods that change Doom quite significantly. Personally, I know and love playing and editing for the Doom engine. I have a good feel for the way the levels are put together, how linedefs and sectors interplay - both when I'm editing and when I'm playing. Often I will marvel at a clever or novel construct in a level almost as much as a cunning piece of gameplay. The Doom engine and level format are like old friends. I feel no need or desire to go away and learn a new game that, itself, will have people asking me "why do you still edit for HL2" sooner or later anyway, or to try and keep up with new engine advancements and go through a huge learning curve every few months just so I can turn out something that, in many ways, wouldn't be as satisfying to me as if I'd done my stuff with Doom in the first place.

But all that being said, yes, I like to try the stuff that doesn't feel like Doom. I've long regarded the various ports almost as a sort of generic game engine that happens to come designed for a resource package called Doom but which allows me to create my own little worlds in the way I want, and in a way I am familiar with.

I feel terrible quoting a big block of text to say one little bit. Still, I want to say it.

You missed the part where I said Doom isnt about fresh features. It isn't. I'm not apposed to a new game, I enjoy playing anything thats worth my time, be it new or old. However Doom is no replacement for those games. Doom is itself. ZDoom is that force which tries to throw in every cool thing from every game randy comes across. ZDoom which tries to be both Doom and all those games that you dont want to learn. Zdoom which ends up being neither. And I suppose that is what all these essays are about, though its tired and I'm probably damn wrong.

The Ultimate Doomer said:

I highly doubt Randy or Graf have selfishness in mind when adding all these features to ZDoom - neither of them make maps for a start, and all these features are for the mappers who want to be really creative with their projects (and the people who want to play such projects). Yes they broke demo compatibility with the original game, but it's not like it disappeared altogether - simply use prBoom or Eternity. And for those who don't like having multiple copies of DooM on their HD, simply stick prBoom in the same folder as doom2.exe and ZDoom. There you go, old and new covered.

You desperately need to read all the stuff you quote. Because what you said in your post has almost nothing to do with what I said in my previous post. So theres absolutely no point in seriously addressing this. Moving on.

I have to disagree there. You can add all manner of features to DooM but it won't turn into a clone of Quake 2, Half-Life, Unreal or any newer FPS.

No it just gives you that nice warm feeling that only mediocrity can. Also, if I were to use GZDoom in the future to make a Quake TC with Quake weapons, Quake monsters, etc. and levels that played just like Quake, it would be Quake no matter what engine its made for. The end.

In any case, I don't see why any of us who love DooM should have to switch to less popular FPS'es that are much harder to map for if we want to add something new to the game we love more than any other.

Remind me again where in this thread it says you should do that. More specifically, since you were replying to me remind me where the fuck I said it.

GrafZahl said:

That's extremely flawed reasoning. Ports are not there so that everything runs with everything. And to be blunt, what would be the point of various ports if all could do exactly the same? Answer: There wouldn't be. Any discussion about unified features so far has ended the same: In a deadlock. It seems to be impossible to find some common ground how to standardize new stuff. So there's two choices: Just do it your own way or don't do it at all. Just because there's some people like you who demand the right to play everything with their one port of choice shouldn't mean that others who actually enjoy the existing variety are left out.

Speaking of flawed reasoning. That whole LOL ITS MY WAY OR NO WAY is precisely the reason nobody can decide on any sort of unified anything here anymore. And of course you missed AlexMax' point earlier. Ports wouldnt all do the same. Just as many ports have adopted the Boom features, they would adopt other things into their ports, yet retain features exclusively their own. Boom features has shown us it can be done. People like you tell us theres no reason for it to be done. I'll leave it in the air as to which way is right.

Csonicgo said:

Zdoom is good at what it does.

Sigh. The temptation to simply say "I lol'd" and move on is high. Anyway, ZDoom fails plenty. The compat. option in 2.1.0 called "self ref. sectors don't block shots" breaks almost everything, and only to fix one thing in one map in Alien Vendetta. Obviously thats not the only way to do it, as said map works, and so does the engine for which it is made (Vanilla itself). But I guess you could go so far as to call broken compat options in ZDoom a feature, as God himself knows theres at least one that fucks up or fails something in every version. And compat options arent the only thing ZDoom fails. Before Graf went through the bugs forum it was well over 10 pages long. Stuff that should have been fixed right away was just...left there. And I'm not going into the travesty that was 2.0.97, anybody who has ever used it knows whats wrong with it.

GrafZahl again:
And, not surprisingly, the two most vocal whiners here both have a bad history of trolling at zdoom.org. I don't think it's a coincidence.

I'd troll you to hell itself if I thought it would get a point across. Of course plenty of the doomworld regulars are well aware of your unchanging mindset, you flaunt it every chance you get. And I'm terribly sorry opinions other than your own make you cry like a child who upset the milk pot.

Actually, Graf, to be perfectly honest I'd troll you to hell for the lulz.