What turns you off from playing a Doom WAD? (Questionnaire/Discussion)

[Captain Ventris]

20 hours ago, Gez said:

Nothing from your list.

I was gonna do an in depth response until I realized this was the correct answer. I love seeing any combo of anything on the list. It’s all great in different ways!

[ReaperAA]

What turns you off from playing a Doom WAD?

 

Enemies

1. I am okay with them. Provided they aren't too many of them and those that are added manage to fit with the aesthetics of the rest of the enemies of the wad and cover gameplay niches not already covered by other monsters.

2. Okay with them. Although, I do appreciate if the modified monster also comes with a sprite edit (or even just color swap) to show that it is different from vanilla monster.

3. See 1. Ancient Aliens does this and I love the 2 new enemies for being different in their gameplay behaviour over other monsters.

 

Armoury
4. I won't mind to see a couple new weapons as long they serve a particular purpose. Though not too many.

5. Don't mind them, as long as they still feel Doom'y

6. See 4

Mechanics

7. Reloading I am mixed about. It is fine if it can be manually done or stopped, but I don't like if the reloading is too slow and you can't swap weapon when reloading is happening.

8. CUSTOM UI? Do you mean custom HUD? Ehh... I guess I am okay with that as long as it's not too cluttered.

Gameplay

10. Doesn't bother me.

11. I will say this. While I don't mind story in games, even mandatory story, I do mind when the cinematic elements (like cutscenes, dialog etc.) can't be skipped. Everyone loves HL2 for this ingame cutscenes, but I personally HATE those because you can't skip them on 2nd walkthrough.

12. Doesn't bother me

13. Generally not a fan of maps that require mandatory secrets to beat. But that not always going to turn me off. MyHouse.pk3 has kind of mandatory secret/puzzle hunting required to get the good ending and I love it.

14. Sure, why not. Don't mind that.

15. Extreme platforming (stuff that requires SR50 and/or falling means certain death) is definitely not my cup of tea. Though I don't mind light platforming here and there.

 

Textures

16. Not sure about that. If they fit well with other textures in the map, then sure.

17. I don't mind them at all. In fact, I welcome wads that use good/quality custom textures. What's important is how they are used.

18. If they look too jarring from the other textures of the wad, then I don't like that.

 

Advanced Features

19. Not really. They are just a source port feature and can be used in good or bad ways. If used well, I don't mind them.

20. See 19

21. See 19

22. See 19

23. I actually prefer custom MIDIs (be it those from other wads or entirely new MIDIs) that fit with the maps.

24. As long as the features are used tastefully, I see no issue.

[baja blast rd.]

20 hours ago, Firedust said:

-Mappers being focused on showing off crazy mapping tricks rather than making gameplay fun - yeah, you can cram as many midtextures and voodoo dolls as you like, but are your maps enjoyable? Obviously having both is great!

 

What you enjoy ("are your maps enjoyable to me?" is what you're saying) is personal to you, but midtextures and voodoo dolls are generally pretty simple to do (even intricate-looking sequences). So if that's your bar for "crazy mapping tricks" then a whole lot of mappers are inaccurately coming off as "focused on showing off crazy mapping tricks." I would also be very skeptical of the level of insight you have about what mappers are "focused on." 

This whole subgenre of criticism that boils down to psychoanalyzing mappers for their design choices is bizarrely common (also see below) and one of the more toxic forms out there. I've yet to read it backed up by insight, and it has a high coincidence with posters not understanding how something works in mapping or in many cases not understanding what they are looking at (such as calling a low-mid detail map "super high-detailed" or something and then whining about how the author only cares about detail).

 

14 hours ago, xScavengerWolfx said:

I don't like super hyper architecture style maps, i feel like it's more like "oh look at me! I can make a city out of 30+ year old game engine and i have a bigger rooster then most mappers" but not all of them feel like that.

 

Continuing, there are dozens of individual facets about the game that might appeal to someone who is designing maps, whether it's crafting barebones gameplay-centric stuff, more narrative-and-atmosphere-driven stuff,  exploring "mapping tricks", playing around with architecture, you name it. The game is a canvas for what the author makes of it, not some monolith where only one type of map works. I might not be into all of those facets, but I would not assume that someone who is into a design mode that is not to my preference is doing so for, uh, reasons like that.

 

Also, last time I did enormous macrostructure, my 'rooster' was pretty small. :P

 

Spoiler

 

[rita remton]

On 5/10/2023 at 9:20 PM, Wo0p said:

Hey forums.

...

 

i'm ok with all listed in the questionnaire if done in moderation. there is one aspect albeit highly subjective, not included in the questionnaire that i look forward to in a map - "good" utilisation of space for battles. for example: armed only with a ssg+ammo against 4 hell-knights in a locked-in 960x960mu room; compared to the same setup but in a 320x320mu room. the latter with a much nicer usage of space, imo. just my humble personal preference as a newbie doom player/mapper. thanks :)

[RataUnderground]

10 hours ago, baja blast rd. said:

This whole subgenre of criticism that boils down to psychoanalyzing mappers for their design choices is bizarrely common (also see below) and one of the more toxic forms out there. I've yet to read it backed up by insight, and it has a high coincidence with posters not understanding how something works in mapping or in many cases not understanding what they are looking at (such as calling a low-mid detail map "super high-detailed" or something and then whining about how the author only cares about detail).

 

Without intending to contradict you, I would like to contribute that the analysis of works of art, be it musical pieces, movies, paintings or Doom maps, consists of several steps. 
First step, describe what you are seeing/experiencing and assume that everything in the work is a product of the author's decision.
Second step, ask yourself (and try to find an answer) to why the author made that decision.
Third step, approach the discussion of how the work interacts with the present context by choosing one or more perspectives. For example, "from my perspective as a Spaniard, what does the wad "Doom II only in spain" say to me?"

What I mean is that although the cases you cite are an example of misunderstood criticism, actually looking for an explanation of design decisions in a map is not bad in and of itself.