Is there still any demand for vanilla maps?

[Paar]

With today's tools and mighty source ports as Eternity or GZDoom we have seen some really advanced Doom maps which are leagues beyond what Doom was in 1993/1994. The bar is certainly set very high. With that in mind, to what degree are you still interested in vanilla maps that could be played under DOS or Chocolate Doom? Do those still have a place in the community?

Or the question could be: what is the minimal feature set you seek in a map for you to be interested?

[1Destro3456]

There’s still demand, like BTSX but by far Boom and others are more popular, but that’s because they don’t have as much restrictions 

[Dubbag]

6 minutes ago, 1Destro3456 said:

There’s still demand, like BTSX but by far Boom and others are more popular, but that’s because they don’t have as much restrictions 

yeah Boom is king around here

[yakfak]

I kinda love mapping with restrictions; sticking to vanilla linedef limits curtails my basic desire to manually sector shade every corner in an entire map. cutting out Boom actions is actually a tougher pill to swallow now, I love those odd general linedef combinations which make different mechanics possible, eg stair builders that monsters can trigger

 

and I'd be happy to play a new map or set aimed at doom2.exe in 2021!

[baja blast rd.]

38 minutes ago, Paar said:

With today's tools and mighty source ports as Eternity or GZDoom we have seen some really advanced Doom maps which are leagues beyond what Doom was in 1993/1994. The bar is certainly set very high.

 

This implies that the "bar being set high" is related to advanced features, which is a mistake in thinking. Among vanilla (and lightly limit-removing) wads, even visually modest works like last year's Three is a Crowd and Syringe are far beyond what was done in '93/'94. 

 

Among creators who work in vanilla, limit-removing, and Boom-format and don't use many super advanced features and often use more minimalist visual styles, there exist people like AD_79 and Nanka Kurashiki who are immensely good at mapping. 

 

Think of the advanced features as the "medium" or "palette" the author chooses to work with. Some people's vision leads them to creating technically ambitious things like REKKR or Square. Some people do amazing work with a more limited toolset. Also sometimes ZDoom wads are restrained in their feature use and vanilla wads are technically ambitious; it goes both ways. 

 

But the bar is high across the board. Matching Heartland might be daunting, but it's not like people are going to roll out of bed and make the best vanilla thing in a year either. And even when a wad is full of apparent "advanced features," it is often not those that explain why it's good. 

[Roofi]

Yep , there will never be enough vanilla maps. Bonus points if you restrict yourself with stock textures or/and if you make maps for Ultimate Doom.

 

[The Lone Wolf]

Believe me brother, There still purist people among us who still insist to use crappy old tools to make their own projects.

 

Spoiler

(Sometimes that is true old tools might be more handy than new one but not always.)

 

 

[Doomkid]

Vanilla is what I'm all about, baby. (Well, not ALL about, I have made and played numerous ZDoom maps... but you know what I mean!)

 

Currently heading a vanilla community project, worked with my buddys Decay and Raz to get a vanilla megawad out earlier this year, and headed a vanilla community project last year as well.. Not to mention lots of other little vanilla flavored maps, contributions to other projects and such. All with the goal of assimilating them into the Big Vanilla Wad Pack collective :)

[Arrowhead]

I still play vanilla maps, so yeah, I would say there's a demand! :)

 

But, really, there is a pretty sizeable amount of doomers on this board that actually prefer vanilla to anything else.

 

I don't see vanilla maps going anywhere, tbh.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Arrowhead

[zerolizer]

Yes, Boom is what I like for building maps, cause it has that original feel but still feels modern. I was editing in UDMF but Boom Compatible is so much fun and limitations work with creativity as well

[BoJustBo]

Restrictions breed creativity.

[Gez]

There will always be interest in vanilla maps, the existence of source ports that raise limits and add plenty of new mapping features will not change that.

 

Sure, the vanilla format is very limiting, but sometimes it's these limitations that interest people. Just look at all the community mapping projects that involved artificial constraints (as in, constraints that weren't imposed by technical reasons): all the 1024x1024 maps, speedmapping contests, things like 10sectors, 2sectors, 100lines, 1monster, monochrome mapping project, 50 shades of GRAYTALL, or more recently the 3x3 speedmaps that are going through a second round. And sometimes that's not even limiting enough and people will go deeper.

 

Art is defined by constraints, and that means both seeing what you can do under them, as well as seeing what you can do when they're lifted. So maps made for advanced ports (like, recently, Heartland for Eternity) are not at all antagonistic to maps made for vanilla; it's pretty much the opposite in fact. That's why the Doom modding community is still going so strong.

[esselfortium]

Yes.

 

Sourceport mapping is fun too, but it can be weirdly satisfying to squeeze something into arcane limits.

[Sectorslayer]

1 hour ago, Roofi said:

Yep , there will never be enough vanilla maps. Bonus points if you restrict yourself with stock textures or/and if you make maps for Ultimate Doom.

 

Exactly 🙂

[wolfmcbeard]

I've gained an appreciation for multiple formats.
I may prefer making and playing stuff in udmf for the sake of coolsies advanced features, but I do like toying in vanilla with things like 1k Lines or Modest Mapping.
And I'd say plenty of people still want vanilla maps to play and there will always be folks willing to satisfy that need within the community.

[E.M.]

I recently made a vanilla compatible wad that got a great positive reaction, so yes, there's still demand for those kinds of maps. It's well-known that modern source ports give you a lot of freedom, but sometimes it's more interesting to work under the strict limitations of vanilla.

[smeghammer]

Personally, it doesn't matter as long as the map I am playing is good (in whatever way you might define 'good'). There are plenty of turkeys that use GZDoom features, so it absolutely is not to do with a map having - or not - advanced features. I use GZDoom as my engine of choice and I suspect I have played and enjoyed many 'vanilla' maps without even realising it as a consequence.

 

So, from my perspective at least, it isn't a case of demand for vanilla maps, it's more a demand for good maps, regardless of format. And that is definitely still around.

 

 

[ViolentBeetle]

Doom format has an advantage in that you can't make scripts that turn doom into arenas. Even though I learned Boom now, I'm sticking with Doom format for my personal project to ward off temptation of voodoo scripts.

[adamastor]

Yes.

[Worriedidiot]

Yes.

[dei_eldren]

Yes!

[OpenRift]

Yes, you have no idea dude.

[roboticmehdi2]

Definitely YES! Vanilla is king for me, limit-removing is also acceptable. Anything else is chicken.

[ReaperAA]

1 hour ago, smeghammer said:

So, from my perspective at least, it isn't a case of demand for vanilla maps, it's more a demand for good maps, regardless of format. And that is definitely still around.

 

This pretty much. It doesn't matter what format is used. What matters is how well the author used the format to create fun map(s).

[roadworx]

i primarily play vanilla and boom maps, and map exclusively in vanilla, so...yes

[Labryx]

There's just a special appreciation from me in vanilla maps where the author is able to pull off some really cool/fun mapping tricks within the limitations of vanilla. Really brings out the, "Holy crap! How did they do that?" kind of response from me when I play them. So there's definitely still a demand from me.

[Cacodemon]

I grew up with DOS and DooM 1, so yeah, sure. ;)

Of course one can do fancy things, bells and whistles, with modern ports, and sometimes they might be more sturdy when it simply comes to handling large maps with many enemies. And I tend t often use the Brutal Doom mod along with anything lately.

But a map is a map is a map and I think what counts is architecture and gameplay. And you can also do that with a map that is strictly conformous to old classic DooM without any special enhancements. (Well, even back in the days people started using Dehacked to create certain effects.)

So I'm fine with pretty much anything as long as it is fun to play.

(Just sad that the day just has 24 hours.)

[Ofisil]

3 hours ago, BoJustBo said:

Restrictions breed creativity.

 

My mantra

[Chip]

I'd say there is a greater demand for them now than there was several years ago. one of the reasons I believe there is greater demand is because of that nostalgia effect. I think many mappers realize that a lot of maps are very different from something you would expect from DOOM, and a lot want to stay in that DOOM feel instead of making their own new game. This is definitely a good thing for mappers starting out, and a challenge for those used to not having limits. 

Also, I think that ever since the Unity Port supported Add-ons, people have been making more maps to meet those limits to play it directly on there or to even possibly try to get it officially ported. 

[Engired]

I map in Vanilla mostly because UDMF is a pain and I like all the fun tricks. You can make some impressive stuff with vanilla, like deep water, bridges, and so much more. Just by using small tricks like them you can start to make really good Vanilla maps. I still use boom sometimes, but I avoid anything higher as they always become a pain to use at that point.