Favorite Source Port? (Multiple Choice Poll)

[Redneckerz]

On 11/13/2020 at 3:30 AM, AlexMax said:

 

I think you kind of hit the nail on the head.

 

There's a very good reason why Vanilla, Boom and MBF continue to be targets of content, and that's because they're stable known quantities that have wide support from a variety of ports and haven't been touched in two decades.  GZDoom is never going to be that, because it's never going to be "done" or "stable" and to change that would be a radical change in philosophy, like you said.

 

I don't even think you can fork most old versions of ZDoom and call it stable.  Speaking from experience the ZDoom 2.x content creation pipeline was awful.  DECORATE was okay for what it was, as long as you didn't cram too much logic into it, but using ACS for anything nontrivial was soul-rending (to say nothing of trampolining between the two), and all the while I kept running into situations where I'd want to do something clever but Lucy would pull away the football and tell me to wait for 2.x+1.

 

If you really wanted to make a stable ZDoom, you'd have to go further back to before the complexity explosion happened, and that's kind of what Odamex and ZDaemon are aiming for.  Unfortunately that era of ZDoom was kind of notorious for being unstable from a code and crashing perspective, plus licensing issues from the original renderer, but once you've dug out from under enough technical debt, you might end up with a feature-set that's a clear upgrade over MBF yet doesn't blow the complexity up.

No surprises there that Oda and ZDaemon have a ZDoom 1.xx chassis.

 

The stability is quite impressive. I fired up an old ZDoom based bot port this week and the source mods XMas99/XMas00 and they still ran practically without flaws on W7 and W10.

 

The only modern *fixed* equivalent would be ZDoom 2.8.1 if you ask me.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Redneckerz

[seed]

4 hours ago, AlexMax said:

I think you kind of hit the nail on the head.

 

There's a very good reason why Vanilla, Boom and MBF continue to be targets of content, and that's because they're stable known quantities that have wide support from a variety of ports and haven't been touched in two decades.  GZDoom is never going to be that, because it's never going to be "done" or "stable" and to change that would be a radical change in philosophy, like you said.

 

I don't even think you can fork most old versions of ZDoom and call it stable.  Speaking from experience the ZDoom 2.x content creation pipeline was awful.  DECORATE was okay for what it was, as long as you didn't cram too much logic into it, but using ACS for anything nontrivial was soul-rending (to say nothing of trampolining between the two), and all the while I kept running into situations where I'd want to do something clever but Lucy would pull away the football and tell me to wait for 2.x+1.

 

If you really wanted to make a stable ZDoom, you'd have to go further back to before the complexity explosion happened, and that's kind of what Odamex and ZDaemon are aiming for.  Unfortunately that era of ZDoom was kind of notorious for being unstable from a code and crashing perspective, plus licensing issues from the original renderer, but once you've dug out from under enough technical debt, you might end up with a feature-set that's a clear upgrade over MBF yet doesn't blow the complexity up.

 

Indeed, to lock GZDoom's feature set in place is to forsake any further progress, and that's never going to work.

 

However, I think a sort of compromise can be made with a fork based on ZDoom 2.8.1 or pre-2.9, with the same feature set of those but many fixes, QoL improvements, and maybe a new render, since ZDoom was Software-only. That may prove to be "stable" enough for a similar purpose, but of course that would also mean no ZScript, ever.

[LexiMax]

7 hours ago, seed said:

However, I think a sort of compromise can be made with a fork based on ZDoom 2.8.1 or pre-2.9

 

If you want other ports to pick up on a feature, I think it's a better idea to start from Boom, MBF, or even Vanilla, and put development of the feature in a separate branch so you get a patch that other ports can crib from easily.  I took that approach with my uncapped work for Crispy, and it (or some variation) ended up in a number of other ports.  ZDoom 2.8.1 is just too much to backport.

Edited November 13, 2020 by AlexMax

[drfrag]

ZDoom32 was based on 2.9pre and i made some cleanup after the last release.

[OpenRift]

18 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

 This can't possibly be a very detrimental minus point.

The NIN easter egg isn't as detrimental, but just... seeing it removed really sucks. Stuff removed from the IWADs after 20+ years just feels... wrong to me, even if it is just for new players.

[seed]

Considering the IWADs went through numerous revisions throughout the years, I also fail to see how this is such a deal breaker.

 

Let alone when far worse edits were done in the past, like in the BFG edition, without any sort of replacement. Or the original Xbox version which broke E4M1 instead of bothering to do any meaningful edits, they instead simply blocked the torch trigger so getting both 100% secrets and kills becomes impossible in that version of the map and the secret never opens either. I've heard some console ports of the past fared equally worse.

 

So, yeah, gonna have to agree with Edward here, you're getting upset over a whole lotta... nothing.

Edited November 13, 2020 by seed

[OpenRift]

12 minutes ago, seed said:

you're getting upset over a whole lotta... nothing.

This is a thread about our opinions on ports, I'm not getting 'upset', I'm giving my opinion and criticism on the matter. Can you not? It's not like I'm saying "da liberulz are censoring my doom waaah", no. My sentiments come from the preservation of art, which I'm a firm believer in. I think that's perfectly fair.

[seed]

18 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

My sentiments come from the preservation of art, which I'm a firm believer in. I think that's perfectly fair.

 

Which wasn't lost, as the original IWADs are still commercially available, and should they ever disappear, there's upgrade/downgrade patches to go between various versions, releases, and even ports.

 

So, yeah, as I said, a lot of noise over a big nothing. Nothing of value was, is, or will be lost.

Edited November 13, 2020 by seed

[OpenRift]

4 minutes ago, seed said:

So, yeah, as I said, a lot of noise over a big nothing. Nothing of value was, is, or will be lost.

I think you're just repeating your opinion at this point. But yeah, the modified IWAD is the version that is being put on other platforms like consoles and mobile, which is where you can't change it. On PC, I actually just modified the IWADs to use the original assets instead, which actually works out pretty well. The port itself isn't too bad, but the modified IWADs and the reasoning behind their changes just seem rather pointless and even regressive. Like, they don't add or improve the experience, they only change and take away from it. It's pedantic, yes, but as an arts student (sorry I don't mean to sound pretentious), these sorts of things do matter in the granderscheme of things. Best comparison being the special editions versus the theatrical versions of Star Wars, which is what this philosophy of mine stems from.

[Edward850]

18 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

The port itself isn't too bad, but the modified IWADs and the reasoning behind their changes just seem rather pointless and even regressive.

 

Best comparison being the special editions versus the theatrical versions of Star Wars, which is what this philosophy of mine stems from.

What part of "this couldn't be released at all without these changes" are you not understanding? These changes weren't made simply because they were bored, they were made due to copyright and regional concerns. You are litteraly presently demanding Doom never be released again on anything because you refuse to allow things (and extremely unimportant things to the actual game despite your feelings) to change. 

 

The alleged comparison to star wars couldn't be any more wrong in this scenario. 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Edward850

[OpenRift]

1 minute ago, Edward850 said:

 What part of "this couldn't be released at all without these changes" are you not understanding? You are litteraly presently demanding Doom never be released again in anything because you refuse to allow things (and extremely unimportant things despite your feelings) to change. 

@seed this here is what 'getting upset' looks like. ^^^

 

Yes Ed, I understand that's why it is like it is, but I also think it's bullshit that such circumstances ended up being that way. Also pretty much all the Nazi imagery would be perfectly legal in most countries anyway, I mean look at the recent Wolfenstein games: completely uncensored swastikas. So the censorship doesn't even make sense anywhere besides Germany. Changing the red crosses to green I believe had to do with the Geneva convention or something like that, but obviously that was around far before Doom was ever released, so why make that change now if there was never flak towards that in the first place. So that being said the only change that I know of that seems somewhat justified is the removal of the NIN secret, which even then the circumstances feel bullshit because of how petty, abusive and corrupt American copyright is. 

 

I am not 'demanding' that Doom never be released again; please don't put words in my mouth. I just think it's a shame that they chose to make the changes they did because most of them don't even seem that necessary. You have no reason to be acting like this. I'm not doing anything wrong, and this really shouldn't be treated like a controversial opinion. Fuck off.

[Edward850]

13 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

I just think it's a shame that they chose to make the changes they did because most of them don't even seem that necessary.I am not 'demanding' that Doom never be released again; please don't put words in my mouth. I just think it's a shame that they chose to make the changes they did because most of them don't even seem that necessary. You have no reason to be acting like this. I'm not doing anything wrong, and this really shouldn't be treated like a controversial opinion. Fuck off.

How many times does it need to be explained to you that they explicitly were necessary? Despite what you seem to weirdly keep insisting and your mistaken understandings about copyright law and anything to do with the sale of products containing Nazi imagery (you need explicit permission per product). Keep in mind that ultimately you aren't the person selling these, you don't know everything there is to know, that's not your field of expertise. 

 

So while you may not be saying the words "I don't want Doom to be sold", it's what your conclusions ultimately end up leading to, because you don't want anything to change at all. You can't be saying all this and not expect that to be the outcome. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

 

To put it another way, opinions are great and all but they can't exist in a vacuum. It can be my opinion that I should be sent 100 donuts every day. That's great and all, but where do these donuts come from? Who will make them? Where will the ingredients come from and how much will they cost? How will they be delivered to my house? 

You can't demand these problems not to exist no matter how much it is your opinion that you should get donuts. 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Edward850

[seed]

12 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

@seed this here is what 'getting upset' looks like. ^^^

 

You do realize you're becoming highly irritating at this stage though, right?

 

47 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

I think you're just repeating your opinion at this point.

 

You don't say.

 

The irony is real.

Edited November 13, 2020 by seed

[OpenRift]

4 minutes ago, seed said:

 

You do realize you're becoming highly irritating at this stage though, right?

 

  

You don't say.

 

The irony is real.

1. I don't care, you and Ed are being irritating too, and frankly are ruining this thread. I'd like to move on with my fucking day, but you feel so entitled to have the last word. 
2. I'm only repeating/elaborating my opinion because people are trying to pointlessly criticize me for it. 

[OpenRift]

14 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

How many times does it need to be explained to you that they explicitly were necessary? Despite what you seem to weirdly keep insisting and your mistaken understandings about copyright law and anything to do with the sale of products containing Nazi imagery (you need explicit permission per product). Keep in mind that ultimately you aren't the person selling these, you don't know everything there is to know, that's not your field of expertise. 

  

So while you may not be saying the words "I don't want Doom to be sold", it's what your conclusions ultimately end up leading to, because you don't want anything to change at all. You can't be saying all this and not expect that to be the outcome. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Dude. I just wish it was different. Obviously it's very unlikely to happen. Regardless, I am and will still criticize it. Get the fuck over it dude. You're not gonna change my mind, and I'm not trying to change yours, leave it.

[Redneckerz]

1 hour ago, OpenRift said:

@seed this here is what 'getting upset' looks like. ^^^

But then you close off with ''fuck off'' which is equally the same.

 

Not that i am voicing support for whatever Ed puts out here, but you have to know that this is how Edward types. Its not an expression of frustration, unless stated otherwise.

1 hour ago, OpenRift said:

I am not 'demanding' that Doom never be released again; please don't put words in my mouth. I just think it's a shame that they chose to make the changes they did because most of them don't even seem that necessary.

But they were necessary, else they weren't needed in the first place. You may think that they don't seem necessary, but legalese deemed it as such - For reasons already spoken of already.

I am not trying to be krass here, i am just saying that you stating that in your eyes it does not seem necessary is not equally the same as what jurisdiction deemed necessary.

1 hour ago, OpenRift said:

 

You have no reason to be acting like this. I'm not doing anything wrong, and this really shouldn't be treated like a controversial opinion. Fuck off.

Personally i don't think it is, but a lot of the back and forth is generated on you having the above annotated point of view. You are fine to have it, but it does not hold up in a legal point of view.

Which is what Edward is referencing consistently. These changes were necessary.

[AinuTheTaken]

Behold, I have resolved thousands of years of bickering.

[OpenRift]

1 minute ago, Redneckerz said:

But then you close off with ''fuck off'' which is equally the same. Not that i am voicing support for whatever Ed puts out here, but you have to know that this is how Edward types. Its not an expression of frustration, unless stated otherwise.

  

but it does not hold up in a legal point of view.

Which is what Edward is referencing consistently. These changes were necessary.

To address the first point, it was at that point that I was becoming actually irritated and upset with the conversation. I think when you've reached the point of saying "what part of ___ don't you understand?" that is very likely an indicator of frustration.

 

As for the legality of these things, yes, under the current system, the changes were necessary. That doesn't mean I have to agree that the way the system works is right. It's basically compromises made because of a petty, money-hungry system.

[Redneckerz]

22 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

To address the first point, it was at that point that I was becoming actually irritated and upset with the conversation. I think when you've reached the point of saying "what part of ___ don't you understand?" that is very likely an indicator of frustration.

That's just how Edward types. :) Don't read too much into it.

22 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

As for the legality of these things, yes, under the current system, the changes were necessary.

Glad that's cleared up now.

22 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

That doesn't mean I have to agree that the way the system works is right. It's basically compromises made because of a petty, money-hungry system.

Hopefully you do understand now why Seed refers to making a lot of noise.

[nname]

Fight me.

[xvertigox]

Spoiler

 

[SuperCupcakeTactics]

[xvertigox]

@SuperCupcakeTactics DE above prb+ and Choc? No way are you serious.

[Mr.Rocket]

Doom and Doom2.exe of course is at the top of the list.

But I also like all source engines equally in their own right.. 

 

 

[VGA]

On 11/12/2020 at 9:45 PM, OpenRift said:

the thing is most people's first experiences with Doom nowadays (including my own a few years ago) ends up being through GZDoom, which I feel like alters the initial experience too much

It is the user choice to alter the initial experience. If someone googles "faithful doom port" the first result is Chocolate Doom, at least for me.

 

Casual players don't want the vanilla experience, so they instead go with the most popular/modern port they find on google, which is GZDoom. Well, now there is a faithful official port too, the so-called Unity port.

[Spectre01]

 

The three at the top best fill their niche for compatibility, feature set, and multiplayer respectively.

 

Quote

Casual players don't want the vanilla experience, so they instead go with the most popular/modern port they find on google, which is GZDoom.

This is absolutely correct. The average player is most interested in the port running as many mods as possible, having a good interface, and some extra visual effects. Vanilla bugs and engine quirks are not a positive from a casual perspective. I'll use myself as an example: I like Build Engine games. I don't like a lot of things about the Build Engine. If a port came out that fixed all the common Build bugs like getting crushed by doors, enemies not taking damage until they activate, and inconsistent explosive damage, I'd play that in an instant.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Spectre01

[seed]

5 hours ago, Spectre01 said:

 

Small "problem" there though :p.

 

ZDoom is not an outdated version of anything, back when it was still in development it was the "mainline". Only LZDoom would be outdated there, and QZDoom is the experimental fork which is actually still active.

 

5 hours ago, Spectre01 said:

I don't like a lot of things about the Build Engine. If a port came out that fixed all the common Build bugs like getting crushed by doors, enemies not taking damage until they activate, and inconsistent explosive damage, I'd play that in an instant.

 

Add getting killed by sharp corners and map props which leave little room for player movement there too, Blood is infamous for those, it's even worse than Duke sometimes.

[Spectre01]

1 hour ago, seed said:

ZDoom is not an outdated version of anything, back when it was still in development it was the "mainline". Only LZDoom would be outdated there, and QZDoom is the experimental fork which is actually still active.

I may just be ignorant then, but what features do those ports have which current GZDoom does not?

[Lippeth]

LZDoom has a compatibility option to use Doom's original pseudo-rng code, and uses an overall older version of GZDoom in order to run on older systems. Those are probably the most notable features.

 

QZDoom is more experimental with new ideas, as seed says, so anything goes with that one. I like to check it out every now and again to see what's new.

 

Not much to say about ZDoom other than it's just good ol, regular ol' classic software rendering ZDoom. The main reason to use it nowadays is for compatibility with older ZDoom mods that won't run in OpenGL or Vulkan.

[VGA]

1 minute ago, Lippeth said:

Not much to say about ZDoom other than it's just good ol, regular ol' classic software rendering ZDoom. The main reason to use it nowadays is for compatibility with older ZDoom mods that won't run in OpenGL or Vulkan

Why? Was the software renderer removed from GZDoom?