what sprites do you lke better doom 64 or classic

[some guy who made a wad]

[seed]

I like em both equally. Wouldn't be able to choose one over the other.

[BBQgiraffe]

I like the original, the N64 versions just look too dull for me

[Mystic 256]

i must be mandela effecting

I thought doom 64 used 3d models?

 

[some guy who made a wad]

5 minutes ago, Mystic 256 said:

i must be mandela effecting

I thought doom 64 used 3d models?

 

well they used clay models and then took pictures and put them in the game. 

Edited December 27, 2019 by some guy who made a wad
more context.

[Vermil]

I prefer the PC sprites over the N64 ones. The PC sprites are far more colourful and have loads more character.

[some guy who made a wad]

11 minutes ago, Vermil said:

I prefer the PC sprites over the N64 ones. The PC sprites are far more colourful and have loads more character.

colorful you say...

 

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by some guy who made a wad
better.

[Graf Zahl]

13 minutes ago, Vermil said:

I prefer the PC sprites over the N64 ones. The PC sprites are far more colourful and have loads more character.

 

Not to mention that some of D64's monsters are disgustingly ugly - in a way that detracts from the game.

 

[some guy who made a wad]

Just now, Graf Zahl said:

 

Not to mention that some of D64's monsters are disgustingly ugly - in a way that detracts from the game.

 

well there are monsters.

[Gez]

44 minutes ago, some guy who made a wad said:

well they used clay models and then took pictures and put them in the game. 

It's PC Doom that uses photos of physical models.

 

For Doom 64, the clay models only served as reference to make 3D models in software, which were then rendered at different angles and in different positions to make the sprites.

[Murdoch]

Classic sprites unquestionably. Some of the Doom 64 designs are good, but some are either weirdly proportioned, goofy (the Mancubus is like a mutant rat), or both.

[some guy who made a wad]

3 minutes ago, Gez said:

It's PC Doom that uses photos of physical models.

 

For Doom 64, the clay models only served as reference to make 3D models in software, which were then rendered at different angles and in different positions to make the sprites.

ok

[Nevander]

Unpopular opinion here... I think the N64 sprites are superior in terms of design and realism, as well as appearing more hellish and demonic and less "cute" as some of the classic sprites do (such as the Cacodemon).

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the classic sprites and when I think Doom I think of them. No other sprites can ever change that no matter how good they look. The classic sprites are classic for a reason.

[Rosh Fragger]

I like the classic sprites more due to nostalgic reasons

[MFG38]

Seconding seed's post.

 

The D64 pinkies win over the classic ones for me, though.

[Lila Feuer]

D64's are somewhere between classic Doom and Doom 3, sort of an old school take on what Doom '16 monsters would be like but in 1997. I like most of them, but the classic designs reign supreme and it's what we're getting in Doom Eternal so.

[Linguica]

The mixed-media provenance of the original Doom sprites has kept them timeless. The imp is an entirely hand-drawn demon man; the Cacodemon's bulbous form and iconic grin were scanned directly from a drawing/painting for a Dungeons and Dragons sourcebook; the Cyberdemon is an entirely physically modeled prop recorded with a chintzy video camera and digitized; all the rest fall somewhere inside this continuum, and the various methods used for their creation keeps the player from being able to place them, artistically, within a single niche. The Doom 64 sprites however are extremely "of their time". They evince that plasticky 90s CG aesthetic even within the sprites, an artistic design popularized with Donkey Kong Country. When I look at the Doom 64 sprite sheet, I don't feel like I am looking at a Cacodemon, I feel like I am looking at a 3D rendering of a Cacodemon, because I am.

 

In a sense, the Doom sprites almost represent the end of an era, which is especially weird since the game was the beginning of one. Nevertheless, I don't believe there's a single art element that was created using 3D modeling or other "CGI" methods that have been standard ever since. (Compare to e.g. Duke3D, where an enemy like the Battle Lord shows telltale signs of relying on early 3D modeling software as evidenced in the geometric primitives that make up the gun.) It almost makes me think of a movie from around the same time period like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which was ILM's last big hurrah for optical-printer special effects before the advent of CGI. There's something lo-fi and crunchy about such artwork that gets smoothed away when you introduce modern CG elements.

[HorrorMovieRei]

I'd argue that the Doom 64 sprites are more polished and consistent, naturally given how they're all rendered from CGI models. The vanilla doom sprites, although I love the mixed and matched styles of rendering the monsters, definitely show signs of it's amateurish craft. Wonky cropping, sprite positioning, etc. And also stuff related to the palette limitation. Ever notice how some sprites have weird, out of place colors where there shouldn't be? For example, the Arachnotron's legs aren't just pure gray, they actually use some of the light browns and tans in them. No doubt, from light of the table they used to render him in reflecting onto the shiny metal of the legs. Or the zombie man, who's armor color is all over the damn palette. And of course, the stray brown pixel on the SSG that I hate so much. Some of these issues are remedied by the Sprite fixing project, which goes to show that more people also wish to polish the vanilla sprites. Hell, I'd bet that even the palette related problems could be mostly fixed too, without stepping out of the boundaries of the unmodified palette even.

 

Now, about the Doom 64 sprites. I love them, and I love using them with more atmospheric, "scary" mods. Even with it's plasticky, 90's render look, I think that's 90's CGI-to-sprite done right (just compare it to the likes of Witchaven 2, which uses the same technique but looks downright disgusting). However, some of the monster designs I think are inferior to the originals. The nobles have a weird hour glass figure, which makes their muscle bodies feel less natural and more like something Rob Liefeld would draw. The mancubus looks like a goofy teddy bear with bulldog teeth, a particularly sore spot for me since the classic mancubus is one of my favorite demon designs in the whole series. The lost soul looks dumb, that's all I gotta say. Kinda lame too that the shotgunner and the zombieman are just recolors of one another. And also the fact that some classic enemies were never made due to cartridge space limitations.

(I will say this though, Doom 64 has the best design for the pinkie in the whole series)

 

All in all, at the end of the day I'm gonna have to be a fence sitter and say I like both for different reasons. They each fit a particular niche, and they each have their pros and cons. Thank you all for coming to my TED talk.

Edited December 27, 2019 by HorrorMovieGuy

[Linguica]

[Maximum Matt]

Yeah, nah.  Never liked what they looked like on D64.  

Anyone remember Clayfighter? They reminded me of that

[Doomkid]

I like the “cheesy-as-hell plastic 3D model that’s too shiny” look of Doom64 and several other games from that era, but as Ling points out, these art assets got way more dated way quicker than the hand drawn and photographed sprites of Old Doom.

 

Hand drawn assets have more “class” in my opinion. I can’t quantify what that means, but characters faces never just look like mashes of pixels for one thing, unlike oh-so-many 90’s games with the aforementioned cheesy, plastic-looking 3D models that have been converted into sprites.

[BoJustBo]

I do like a few designs in Doom 64, but the actual art looks kinda crud.

[some guy who made a wad]

22 hours ago, Linguica said:

K E K.

[Megalyth]

Two finely-crafted sides of the same coin. Being forced to choose makes me feel like I need a shower.

[spineapple tea]

Much prefer the N64 sprites. Besides this one.

[Spectre01]

Definitely prefer the classic PC sprites. One of the first things I noticed playing Doom 64 is how goofy some of the enemies and their animations look in comparison. Like the Baron/Hell Knight having the most pathetic looking swing when throwing his plasma ball. Like he's casually tossing it in your direction instead of putting his heart and soul in the throw. And while that model of the D64 Pinky looks good, the way he runs around and tries to grab you with his arms looks less natural than the simple bite of the classic Pinky. In general, the way the sprites animate just looks a lot more professional in OG Doom. Perhaps the Arachnotron looks more menacing in 64, but otherwise it's PC all the way.

[Toilet_Wine_Connoisseur]

Basically everything about Doom 64 is better than classic.

 

 

[Jello]

1 hour ago, Raccoon_I_Guess said:

Much prefer the N64 sprites. Besides this one.

 

Which is funny, because I prefer every original Doom sprite above the ones from Doom 64. Except the Pain Elemental. Because it was a nice redesign of the enemy, as opposed to the original Pain Elemental which was just a Cacodemon, Cyberdemon, and an Imp smashed together.

[Immorpher]

For me it's Doom 64 sprites. Overall they make more sense to me as horrifying creatures and lack some of the cartoonish features that the originals had. Although the original Mancubus is delightfully disgusting. I do understand that people like the charm of cute looking sprites, but it's not my thing.

[Pablo_Doom_Guy]

mmmm can i say both ??? I like the original sprites of course , but the ones used on Doom 64 are also good , the only think i don't like is that zombieman and shotgun guy share the same sprite with a slightly color swap ... but other than that i do like the new sprites  . 

 

Now i'm playing doom 64 for doom 2 using Dehacked Doom 64 v1.1 and its great . The closest experience you can get to the real doom 64 on dosbox.