digression on vanilla mapping [split from Plutonia 3 thread]

[OpenRift]

On 4/21/2019 at 4:48 AM, Devalaous said:

oh thank god, NOT Vanilla. So tired of that trend (frustrated me that Revilution was set in stone to be vanilla).

Wonder if this will be done before or after I get done with Plutonia 2 and the other Plutonia one?

 

Also means a TNT3 has to happen.

What's wrong with Revilution (I think it made the most of vanilla limits really well)? Or vanilla, for that matter. Honestly for a Plutonia sequel I would've expected it to be at least a limit-removing WAD, to maintain that distinct Casali style that defines Plutonia. For some reason, I thought I remembered Plutonia 3 aiming to be vanilla. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

[Devalaous]

8 hours ago, OpenRift said:

What's wrong with Revilution (I think it made the most of vanilla limits really well)? Or vanilla, for that matter. Honestly for a Plutonia sequel I would've expected it to be at least a limit-removing WAD, to maintain that distinct Casali style that defines Plutonia. For some reason, I thought I remembered Plutonia 3 aiming to be vanilla. Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

 

I just don't like arbitrary limitations in the modern day and age. Even the official Doom rereleases have gone limit-removing. It was always frustrating to me to see cool areas get gimped or cut to play nice on some ancient exe from 20ish years ago. I love retro games and gameplay and all that, but ive never been one for absolute purism (This causes several problems with my partner, who is a retro console collector, heh. We both love the old stuff, but in different ways)

[NiGHTMARE]

Mapping for vanilla can sometimes lead to hours spent fiddling around with moving and deleting vertexes, adding blocking linedefs, etc. That time could have instead been used for things like improving the gameplay.

Edited July 7, 2021 by NiGHTMARE

[Egg Boy]

49 minutes ago, NiGHTMARE said:

Mapping for vanilla can sometimes lead to hours spent fiddling around with moving and deleting vertexes, adding blocking linedefs, etc. That time could have instead been used for things like improving the gameplay.

This is like saying that mapping for udmf can lead to hours of adding lighting and pointless slopes instead of improving the gameplay. Mapping with limitations can make for creative solutions. Also there is no evidence of your statement here, some of the best playing and most polished wads of all time are vanilla compatible.

[NiGHTMARE]

The discussion is on limit-removing vs vanilla, not vs advanced ports.

 

ersonally the only evidence I need is my own experience (my Gothic DM 2 and Darkening E2 maps were particular hassles). I also think limitations are just as (if not more) likely to lead to compromising the mapper's vision than creativity.

 

You could read the URE thread which makes it sound like at least half the development time is spent avoiding VPOS, and that several awesome set pieces have had to be changed for the worst.

Edited July 7, 2021 by NiGHTMARE

[Egg Boy]

7 minutes ago, NiGHTMARE said:

Personally the only evidence I need is my own experience. I also think limitations are just as (if not more) likely to lead to a compromising the mapper's vision than creativity.

 

You could read the URE thread which makes it sound like at least half the development is spent avoiding VPOS, and that several awesome set pieces have had to be changed for the worst.

Fair enough if from your experience vanilla mapping hampers your creativity. But I don’t believe this to be an objective truth unless we see the much better, boom compatible versions of BTSX, Three is a Crowd, Alien Vendetta and Suspended in Dusk that surely exist somewhere in the boundless universes. Either way this thread probably isn’t the place for an extended discussion on the topic (though this particular subject has been coming up an awful lot lately).

[TheMightyHeracross]

I don't see what's wrong with what he said and I didn't get the impression he was treating anything as "objective truth" or knocking vanilla maps. Of course great things can be done with vanilla and solving problems in the original limits can be a form of creativity in its own right as seen in BTSX or REKKR, but there's also no denying that vanilla mapping can be very inconvenient and time-consuming, and often for little gain since relatively few people play in DOSBOX or Chocolate Doom where these limitations actually matter.

Edited July 7, 2021 by TheMightyHeracross

[Hitboi]

On 7/7/2021 at 9:23 AM, NiGHTMARE said:

Mapping for vanilla can sometimes lead to hours spent fiddling around with moving and deleting vertexes, adding blocking linedefs, etc. That time could have instead been used for things like improving the gameplay.

But it's your view, I think that some mappers can spend their time on gameplay then go fixing minor/technical issues, and these issues aren't much of a deal to me.
They may seem boring to solve, but take patience and that's a good thing IMO.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Hitboi

[OpenRift]

8 hours ago, Hitboi said:

But it's your view, I think that some mappers can spend their time on gameplay then go fixing minor/technical issues, and these issues aren't much of a deal to me.
They may seem boring to solve, but take patience and that's a good thing IMO.

Agreed, I think what people don't realize is that it's actually a bit easier than it seems at times to fit something within vanilla limits, once you know what you're doing. It's kind of a puzzle in of itself sometimes.

 

But either way, what I'm curious of is why Plutonia 3 is aiming for Boom compatibility instead of limit-removing. I guess so it can be "on-par" with other blockbuster WADs that use Boom/MBF? I dunno.

[Egg Boy]

15 minutes ago, OpenRift said:

Agreed, I think what people don't realize is that it's actually a bit easier than it seems at times to fit something within vanilla limits, once you know what you're doing. It's kind of a puzzle in of itself sometimes.

 

But either way, what I'm curious of is why Plutonia 3 is aiming for Boom compatibility instead of limit-removing. I guess so it can be "on-par" with other blockbuster WADs that use Boom/MBF? I dunno.

I imagine because that’s the format they felt like using. I mean, there doesn’t have to be some grand reason besides “we prefer to map in this format.”  Anyway, I really think this discussion is best saved for its own thread, I have a heart attack every time this thread is bumped lol

[P41R47]

4 hours ago, Egg Boy said:

I imagine because that’s the format they felt like using. I mean, there doesn’t have to be some grand reason besides “we prefer to map in this format.”  Anyway, I really think this discussion is best saved for its own thread, I have a heart attack every time this thread is bumped lol

Now it has it own thread :D
so, please, continue, i will go for my popcorn and come back.

This seems interesting.

 

As for me, this may come as a totally conservative view, but if the original was vanilla, the sequels should be vanilla.
Mostly in respect to the original authors.

Nothing stop anyone to make their own sequels for Plutonia or TNT or Doom 2 or Ultimate Doom on different format.
There are quite a good amount of spirituals sequels and proper sequels, already.
Spiritual Sequels are those that don't carry on the story set by the previous numbered projects, they just use the tropes and aesthetic of Plutonia as a cue to hold where the roots of the imagination come from. Or IWAD convenience, maybe.
Like Plutonium Winds, Skepland, maybe Da Will, The Plutnynia Experiment, Plutonia 7, all of those are boom if i remember right, except Da Will, that may be limit removing.

Those for Plutonia.

Oh, i forget about Urania. Final Doom combined into one.

 

Now, if someone wants to make a Plutonia 3 on another format, there is no problem, the project leaders decided that way to not limit the mappers, as gameplay and creativity is more important than some bottlenecks for them.

Its totally right.

But well, nothing is set on stone, and there is a lot of formats to choose from.
And the only thing that matters at the end, is if the project is fun and lives to it roots.

 

If someone out there felt different and think that something should be as pure as the original and that is set on stone, good.

Plutonia 3: Vanilla Flavored Sequel is always a possible title.

:P

Looking back in retrospective, there are far more love to Plutonia than TNT. Interesting to note that there are a lot of more atmospheric and moody projects arising lately.

Edited October 18, 2021 by P41R47

[Hitboi]

What have I done?
 

On 10/18/2021 at 7:48 PM, OpenRift said:

what I'm curious of is why Plutonia 3 is aiming for Boom compatibility

In the Boom-compatible sequel of Plutonia Revisited, Joshy said that if someone creates a (really good) map for Plutonia Revisited 2, it will probably be qualified for Plutonia 3, but I don't think that's the main reason.

Also, I accept wads requiring Boom, MBF and fancy stuff when the wads should've been/can be easily recreated in Vanilla/Limit-Removing, I'm fine with it.