What's the best "default look" for DOOM nowadays?

[TasAcri]

Looking at the GZDoom filtering thread, i think we can all agree texture filtering makes the game look ugly and should be OFF by default. But what about other options? What's the best way to present an old game like DOOM to a new audience who have never seen it before?

 

While the defaults in GZDoom are not good, i believe the defaults in vanilla DOOM are also not that great. At least not great for someone new to appreciate the game now. So here's my take on what makes DOOM look the best:

 

It's original resolution is way too low, especially for the larger modern displays. But using a very high resolution, like the highest your display can handle (1080p or 4k) is too "clean" for this game. An old game like this has limited geometry detail and many big, flat surfaces. A low resolution can hide these blemishes while a high resolution can make them stand out. So it needs a resolution high enough to make it possible to see what's going on, but not too high to make the flat look stand out. I think a 640x400 internal resolution (basically 2x of the original) or it's widescreen equivalent is the best balance. It allows you to see clearly enough in the distance but still has the required noise to hide the flatness. If that's too low, the 900x600 resolution is also good and noisy enough. But more than that and it gets too clean and flat IMO.

The original 35 fps cap is also not something that's needed anymore. I believe the unlimited fps and motion interpolation options should be the defaults in every source engine. DOOM only looks and feels better when running as smooth as possible and because its such an old game, every device should be able to run it at 60fps+ so why not? Motion interpolation for the enemies is nice as well, otherwise their jerky movement will stand out more. I wish "smooth weapons" were baked in the source engines as an option instead of needing a mod, this way i would also recommend it as a default.

Lastly, software rendering should be the default. It's how the game was intended to look. Sure, hardware rendering is faster but it can also make it look different, unless all other lighting and texture options are configured to make it look as close to the original as possible (filtering OFF, software sector lights, low palette emulation, etc). But software rendering is a safe option that ensures everything will look correct. And it's not like the original DOOM wads are so demanding that they need hardware rendering to run smoothly.

 

What are your suggestions?

[liPillON]

basically all the things I personally can't do without nowadays: rendering interpolation, smooth diminished lighting, blocky fuzz, brightmaps (flats, textures, weapons, pickups), crosshair and fullscreen hud (for modern audiences I feel the vanilla viewport, limited by the existence of the statusbar, would be to too narrow)

 

then if the port support it, I'd play in 600p/720p/800p

 

also smooth weapons and brightmaps for monsters I think would bring great benefits to modern audiences

[Biodegradable]

Well, if you've seen my videos and wonder how I got GZ to look at least reasonably classic-looking, just follow this video Dwars made:

 

 

[RataUnderground]

It's all very subjective and you will never find a 100% correct answer, but I think the default settings for a port like GzDoom should be: Maximum resolution, Hardware mode, Vanilla lighting, No texture filters of any kind, uncapped framerate.

I think this setting gives it the balance of not looking like the old Doom, but a modern and "improved" port, and at the same time not going against the ethos of the original aesthetics.

[Azafran]

It's difficult to tell. The first FPS game I played consciously (I don't count the shareware version of Blake Stone) was Half-Life and its multiple mods. So WASD was already an standard, although I remember being a bit confused as to why it didn't use the arrow keys for movement.

When I first tried some Doom ports I didn't understand the default controls. For someone coming from a more advanced era of gaming, I didn't have the context on why the controls were like that or even how the game worked. DOS execution commands? That was confusing.

 

About the looks. When finally I decided to try Doom again it was because I heard about Brutal Doom (like many others newcomers to the game), so I proceeded to install GZDoom. It was the most confusing thing ever, specially for a game so simple. I didn't like the blurry pixels and I had to google how to disable it because there were a ton of options. Then the rest of the graphics... I had to leave default because I didn't understand a thing: sector light mode? renderer? what was that?

 

I played the mod a bit, not even finishing episode 1. It didn't click for me, I really didn't understand what it was all about.

 

A year ago I decided to play Doom for once and finish it. It was out of nostalgia. The first time I saw Doom was probably in 94 or 95 when I was little (of course I didn't play it myself back then, it scared me!). This time I wanted to do it from an historical perspective, so I read the manual, I read about the game development and tried to understand the context about that era of DOS gaming. I used the Unity port.

This time it clicked. Having the context I understood why the game was like that and why it did things the way it did compared to modern shooters (if we can call Half-life or even the first Call of Duty modern).

 

From that perspective, the default look for Doom should be: software renderer, no filters, no freelook, default WASD and mouse controls, limited menu options and simple text explaining a bit how it works. About the resolution, I think full monitor resolution is fine while using software renderer but I get the point and an alternative can be the way Crispy Doom does: double the og resolution + widescreen. Although I enjoy playing in Chocolate from time to time, I think at least 60fps should be mandatory for a "default" experience.

 

When I install Doom for a friend, I always use Crispy Doom, I think it probably is what best approximates this experience. The only thing it lacks is having to mess with IWADS and console commands. So probably Unity port is the easiest way to start.

[Shepardus]

The Unity port, basically.

[Herr Dethnout]

I think Doom should be presented as is, with the 4 exceptions: Resolution, Framerate, Gamma/Brightness, and widescreen support.

 

Playing Doom in a crt 4:3 monitor is not the same than playing it on a modern wide display, and that something that like from ports like Doom Retro where even has a better gamma levels for modern display. Also, framerate is something that don't mind since it doesn't affect the game (contrary to games like RE4... Playing it a 60fps is blasphemy)

[Gez]

1 hour ago, TasAcri said:

While the defaults in GZDoom are not good

Honestly I think it's just the filtering default that is not good.

 

The rest is okay. Perhaps not "the best" depending on taste, but okay at worst.

[Noiser]

Software render (real or emulated). You know, with palette banding.

The true-color render changes the atmosphere of the game by a large margin, imo. It's not a matter of being "better or worse" since people can make great looking "hardware" maps (and take advantage of it in multiple ways) - but for vanilla, the GZDoom default is definitely flatter in terms of colors, since there's no hue shifting or strong contrast on lights anymore. And these are relevant visual cues in classic maps.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Noiser

[RataUnderground]

57 minutes ago, Azafran said:

It's difficult to tell. The first FPS game I played consciously (I don't count the shareware version of Blake Stone) was Half-Life and its multiple mods. So WASD was already an standard, although I remember being a bit confused as to why it didn't use the arrow keys for movement.

When I first tried some Doom ports I didn't understand the default controls. For someone coming from a more advanced era of gaming, I didn't have the context on why the controls were like that or even how the game worked. DOS execution commands? That was confusing.

 

About the looks. When finally I decided to try Doom again it was because I heard about Brutal Doom (like many others newcomers to the game), so I proceeded to install GZDoom. It was the most confusing thing ever, specially for a game so simple. I didn't like the blurry pixels and I had to google how to disable it because there were a ton of options. Then the rest of the graphics... I had to leave default because I didn't understand a thing: sector light mode? renderer? what was that?

 

I played the mod a bit, not even finishing episode 1. It didn't click for me, I really didn't understand what it was all about.

 

A year ago I decided to play Doom for once and finish it. It was out of nostalgia. The first time I saw Doom was probably in 94 or 95 when I was little (of course I didn't play it myself back then, it scared me!). This time I wanted to do it from an historical perspective, so I read the manual, I read about the game development and tried to understand the context about that era of DOS gaming. I used the Unity port.

This time it clicked. Having the context I understood why the game was like that and why it did things the way it did compared to modern shooters (if we can call Half-life or even the first Call of Duty modern).

 

From that perspective, the default look for Doom should be: software renderer, no filters, no freelook, default WASD and mouse controls, limited menu options and simple text explaining a bit how it works. About the resolution, I think full monitor resolution is fine while using software renderer but I get the point and an alternative can be the way Crispy Doom does: double the og resolution + widescreen. Although I enjoy playing in Chocolate from time to time, I think at least 60fps should be mandatory for a "default" experience.

 

When I install Doom for a friend, I always use Crispy Doom, I think it probably is what best approximates this experience. The only thing it lacks is having to mess with IWADS and console commands. So probably Unity port is the easiest way to start.

This has made me think of something I didn't think was possible, and that is that the Unity Port is the best way to introduce new players to the Doom community.
It offers a polished and honest experience, with lots of content easily accessible from multiple platforms, and is a very accessible stepping stone before learning what a Wad is or how to load it.
Introducing someone to Doom through GzDoom is paradoxical as it is one of the most complex sourceports out there.

[TasAcri]

I see a lot of recommendations for the Unity port but i have to disagree. My experience with it was negative, at least on the Switch. There were some annoying stutters here and there, like the game is losing sync. Not sure if this is fixed on other systems. I also remember something about the music being off. And the red cross stuff.

 

It felt too janky for me is what i'm trying to say. GZDoom at least doesn't have these issues. But how about Woof? I think the resolution and overall look by default are good and doesn't suffer from the Unity jank. Plus, it works great with a controller.

Edited July 2, 2023 by TasAcri

[Shepardus]

Just now, TasAcri said:

I see a lot of recommendations for the Unity port but i have to disagree. My experience with it was negative, at least on the Switch. There were some annoying stutters here and there, like the game is losing sync. Not sure if this is fixed on other systems. I also remember something about the music being off. And the red cross stuff.

You asked about the "default look." What you're complaining about has nothing to do with the look, aside from the red cross, which is down to the IWAD and not the port.

[TasAcri]

6 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

You asked about the "default look." What you're complaining about has nothing to do with the look, aside from the red cross, which is down to the IWAD and not the port.

 

IMO, frame rate issues do affect the look, negatively. Personally i'm sensitive to this stuff and don't enjoy games that have uneven frame rates and if i was introduced to DOOM this way it would leave me with a bad taste. But maybe it's just me, my friend who had the switch didn't seem to mind. Still, if i wanted to show off the game to others myself, i would use something that doesn't have such issues.

Edited July 2, 2023 by TasAcri

[Devalaous]

1 hour ago, RataUnderground said:

It's all very subjective and you will never find a 100% correct answer, but I think the default settings for a port like GzDoom should be: Maximum resolution, Hardware mode, Vanilla lighting, No texture filters of any kind, uncapped framerate.

I think this setting gives it the balance of not looking like the old Doom, but a modern and "improved" port, and at the same time not going against the ethos of the original aesthetics.

 

This basically. I have similar settings and it 'looks like doom' to me, just clearer and modernised. Much like how old PS1 games look on my emulator when I set the internal rendered to my native resolution. Its 'what I remember' but refined.

[Lila Feuer]

Pixellated at 320x200 scaling as the Icon intended.
 

Spoiler

It's my personal preference but pixellation is key, that and not super high resolutions because then it ends up looking way too clean.

 

[DRON12261]

It just must look the same as the original doom. Because the vast majority of wads have been created, are being created now, and will continue to be created to match the visuals of the original Doom.
 

It's imperative that the default lighting is set correctly, because it's fundamental to rendering and what many maps rely on in their design (no more default Doom or Dark lighting modes). 
 

Also highly desirable in general software rendering, if only because the hardware rendering can be unstable for some wads and can break them. Or at least the port should clearly (not somewhere in readme file) tell the player, "If you want to use conditional opengl or vulkan rendering, be aware of that there may be maps that will crash with it" or something along those lines.

And, of course, there may be things today that improve and complement, but don't change or break. I'm mean widescreen, increased frame rates and other such things - these are more of a necessity in this day and age.
 

A good example of a modern way to play doom is Woof! It also introduces a lot of new things and features, but it still doesn't break the original Doom experience. I can say the same for Doom Retro for example.
 

It's important that by default a source-port should definitely offer the player an original take on the game without interference, that's what a source-port should do by definition. And all additional features of the port, including those that could potentially break compatibility somewhere, the player should consciously enable it himself, because he wants it himself and no one is imposing their vision of someone else's game on him.

[Azafran]

3 hours ago, RataUnderground said:

This has made me think of something I didn't think was possible, and that is that the Unity Port is the best way to introduce new players to the Doom community.
It offers a polished and honest experience, with lots of content easily accessible from multiple platforms, and is a very accessible stepping stone before learning what a Wad is or how to load it.
Introducing someone to Doom through GzDoom is paradoxical as it is one of the most complex sourceports out there.

 

Yes, I agree. Once I finished Doom 1 and Doom 2 I never used the Unity port again because other source ports are much better in terms of options and flexibility. But for a newcomer of even for someone who only will play the IWADS once and move on that's the way to go I think.

 

3 hours ago, TasAcri said:

I see a lot of recommendations for the Unity port but i have to disagree. My experience with it was negative, at least on the Switch. There were some annoying stutters here and there, like the game is losing sync. Not sure if this is fixed on other systems. I also remember something about the music being off. And the red cross stuff.

 

It felt too janky for me is what i'm trying to say. GZDoom at least doesn't have these issues. But how about Woof? I think the resolution and overall look by default are good and doesn't suffer from the Unity jank. Plus, it works great with a controller.

 

I don't know about Switch but on PC I didn't have any problem. It runs flawlessly. It's true that the music doesn't loop seamlessly because it's a SC-55 recording but it's not that big of a deal in exchange for being a very beginner friendly port.

Also, in the switch is the only way to play Doom unless you jailbreak the console, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. There are not other source ports like on PC.

[Bauul]

2 hours ago, DRON12261 said:

Also highly desirable in general software rendering, if only because the hardware rendering can be unstable for some wads and can break them. 

 

I'm curious about examples of wads where the hardware renderer can break or crash them? I know plenty of wads for advanced source ports where the opposite is true (the software renderer can't handle them) but aside from a very small number that heavily utilize software rendering bugs (like Lilith.pk3) I can't think of any that require software.

[Shepardus]

19 minutes ago, Bauul said:

 

I'm curious about examples of wads where the hardware renderer can break or crash them? I know plenty of wads for advanced source ports where the opposite is true (the software renderer can't handle them) but aside from a very small number that heavily utilize software rendering bugs (like Lilith.pk3) I can't think of any that require software.

I can't think of any that would outright crash a hardware renderer, but there are plenty of maps that have glitches in hardware renderers such as GZDoom's and dsda-doom's. They can go unnoticed in GZDoom though because GZDoom implements map-specific fixes for well-known cases. Some of those can be found by searching for "hardware" in level_compatibility.zs. For dsda-doom there's a GitHub issue collecting these for possible improvements to the renderer.

 

One recent notable case is KDiKDiZD's translucent floor effect, which doesn't work in any existing hardware renderer because it relies on midtex bleeding.

[DRON12261]

49 minutes ago, Bauul said:

 

I'm curious about examples of wads where the hardware renderer can break or crash them? I know plenty of wads for advanced source ports where the opposite is true (the software renderer can't handle them) but aside from a very small number that heavily utilize software rendering bugs (like Lilith.pk3) I can't think of any that require software.

In addition to the answer Shepardus, I can also mention Requiem (at least I remember MAP31 for sure, but I think there was a number of breakable moments).
 

Especially the fact that such moments are possible, rather than the fact that there were such wads or not, is more important here. Plus I have a WIP map under Boom, where a couple of things still break in the hardware rendering, which is still not very positive effect on the perception of the map. Who knows, who else creates such maps or will still create in the future.

[indigotyrian]

Honestly I think the default 320x200 mode 13h look for Doom is ideal for a "default look." It is, after all, what Doom looked like for quite a long time. Jaggies, moire patterning, and other artifacts of unfiltered texturing or low-resolution are elements of Doom's default aesthetic; removing these would IMO be like changing Doom's palette or drawing Doom's pixels 1:1 instead of 1:1.2.

 

If concessions must be made for high resolution (anywhere from 640x400 to modern resolutions) I would say that ports like Crispy Doom or DSDA-Doom where 256-color software rendering (and all of its inherent behaviors and quirks) would be good.

 

I think the one aspect of vanilla Doom I wouldn't mind seeing go unenforced is the 35 FPS cap; while I can definitely understand and empathize with an aesthetic appreciation for it, IMO higher frame rates look and feel much nicer.

Edited July 2, 2023 by indigotyrian

[Lippeth]

Rendering interpolation is the first thing I disable in any port after setting the keybinds and mouse settings, along with sprite translucency. Monster interpolation also goes off pretty quickly because adding artificial frames to 2D sprites makes them look, I don't even know how to describe it, slippery? A long, long time ago I used to switch between ports with their default settings, naively wondering why the movement and animations look and feel off in some and feel like Doom in others. Turns out I just prefer 35Hz for Doom. About the only time I might tolerate or even prefer a higher framerate is when recording a demo because of shorttics.

 

Ports that don't vertically stretch the pixel aspect ratio by 1.2 for things like text and menu/hud/statusbar elements by default is a bit weird to me, especially if everything else in-game is stretched. Why some things and not others?

 

One thing that's always been pretty important to me is how a port renders or emulates the low-res spectre fuzz. I don't think it has to look absolutely identical to DOS Doom, but if it's at least in the ballpark I'm happy.

 

But all in all the best "default look" for Doom to me is the way it looks in the DOS version.

[eirc]

Maybe GZDoom could have a few presets for graphical settings so new players could easily get an idea of what's possible without needing to go deep into the myriad of options. Some of those could be:

• pure vanilla
  • basically everything as close to original as possible, 320x200, 35fps, original palette and lighting etc
• modern vanilla
  • what I assume most ppl play with and I what see most youtubers/streamers use in dsda/prboom (so I would personally put this as the default). the original pixelated look but with max resolution, widescreen, hardware rendering
• full modern
  • brightmaps, dynamic lights, texture resize, filtering, bloom, ambient occulsion, basically flex on what the engine can do

And if all of those had a description of what settings they changed it would be easier to get ppl to understand the settings too and create their own favourite set

[indigotyrian]

25 minutes ago, eirc said:

Maybe GZDoom could have a few presets for graphical settings so new players could easily get an idea of what's possible without needing to go deep into the myriad of options. Some of those could be:

• pure vanilla
  • basically everything as close to original as possible, 320x200, 35fps, original palette and lighting etc
• modern vanilla
  • what I assume most ppl play with and I what see most youtubers/streamers use in dsda/prboom (so I would personally put this as the default). the original pixelated look but with max resolution, widescreen, hardware rendering
• full modern
  • brightmaps, dynamic lights, texture resize, filtering, bloom, ambient occulsion, basically flex on what the engine can do

And if all of those had a description of what settings they changed it would be easier to get ppl to understand the settings too and create their own favourite set

 

Honestly, an Options menu overhaul has been a long time coming for GZDoom. Having presets like this would be a nice way to adjust some things quickly and easily. I'd say that "Modern Vanilla" should be software rendering however as IMO the software palette and COLORMAP interaction is a vital part of how classic Doom looks.

[yum13241]

Maximum screen resolution (widescreen), brightmaps, uncapped FPS (or a higher cap), and NO TEXTURE FILTERING. Software palette emulation could break mods with PNGs in them, so leave that as an option.

Edited July 2, 2023 by yum13241

[Herr Dethnout]

8 hours ago, TasAcri said:

I see a lot of recommendations for the Unity port but i have to disagree. My experience with it was negative, at least on the Switch. There were some annoying stutters here and there, like the game is losing sync. Not sure if this is fixed on other systems. I also remember something about the music being off. And the red cross stuff.

 

It felt too janky for me is what i'm trying to say. GZDoom at least doesn't have these issues. But how about Woof? I think the resolution and overall look by default are good and doesn't suffer from the Unity jank. Plus, it works great with a controller.

Idk why is like that in switch, but on PC works fine. Even I, who has a folder called "SOURCEPORTS" with almost every IdTech 1 sourceport known to man (Even ancient ones like SvStrife) enjoyed the Unity Port and actually play that Port sometimes, just because his controller support is the best among every other port, seriously.

 

His built-in wad launcher gives it another big advantage. Don't need to download launchers, understand how command lines and batch files works or close the game to change the mod, just go to add-ons and download it.

 

I can agree about the music cuz sound incredibly lame on addons, and cannot change it, even the default GS soundfont from Microsoft sounds better.

 

And the red cross... idk is not a big deal and it has his charm.

[Nikku4211]

I prefer the vanilla look right down to the 320x200 with 5:6 rectangular pixels, but I admit I do use unlimited framerate on source ports that support it, as well as playing on truecolour software for GZDoom.

[Manny84]

Modern amenities:

 

• Widescreen

• High resolution

• Unlimited FPS

• Anisotropic filtering for distant textures

 

But everything else basically vanilla:

 

• No other texture filtering

• Vanilla lighting

• No decals

• No transparency

 

That's how I play; it just feels like the best way to experience the intended aesthetic of the game in a comfortable way. The Woof! sourceport is my preferred way of playing because it's very easy to get this look going. If I'm forced to use GZDoom because a mod needs it, I'll use Vanilla Essence to get it looking roughly correct.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Manny84

[Ulukai]

On 7/2/2023 at 12:10 PM, TasAcri said:

I see a lot of recommendations for the Unity port but i have to disagree. My experience with it was negative, at least on the Switch. There were some annoying stutters here and there, like the game is losing sync. Not sure if this is fixed on other systems. I also remember something about the music being off. And the red cross stuff.

 

It felt too janky for me is what i'm trying to say. GZDoom at least doesn't have these issues. But how about Woof? I think the resolution and overall look by default are good and doesn't suffer from the Unity jank. Plus, it works great with a controller.

My experience is negative too. Unity ports run less smoothly than most unofficial source ports. There is continuous stuttering and the mouse feels slippery and far from the best experience offered by GZDoom or DSDA-Doom.

 

About the default settings in GZDoom, I see a mix between a recognizable classic style and a few touches of a modern look. Widescreen, unlimited framerate, maximum resolution, 16x anisotropic filter, no texture filter, hardware mode + software sector light mode + limited palette, fake contrast... And maybe bloom effect.