In your opinion, what makes a wad "bad"

[BUYXRAYS]

For you, what makes a Doom wad cross the line between good, bad, and ugly. What makes a wad absolutely unbearable to play?

 

For me personally , I DESPISE terrible use of textures.

Edited July 2, 2023 by BUYXRAYS
Grammical error

[spineapple tea]

Bit of a broad question so here's a broad answer: if it's not fun. It's one of the main reasons I really don't like playing E1 based maps, they usually limit you to nothing more than a shotgun and maybe a chaingun if you're lucky while you just mindlessly mow down fodder. If the gameplay isn't enjoyable or at least varied, I don't care for it.

[thiccyosh]

When the mapper doesn't put in the passion or effort to make the wad/map as good as he can. I think a love- and lifeless wad is worse than any 90s' wad I've played.

[RonnieJamesDiner]

A bad wad forces me to pistol a Cyberdemon to death, after spending 3 hours solving a switch hunt puzzle, while dodging untextured crushers that create HOM effects, listening to a poorly made midi rendition of a 200 BPM song, in a map full of strobe lights.

 

Except that one time that it was done really well. 

[Li'l devil]

To me, as with everything, bad = completely forgettable and unremarkable. To me a remarkably bad wad is equally as interesting as a well made wad. I also like a plenty of poorly made works because they usually have interesting quirks or have a certain charm. And even if this stuff is hard to enjoy playing, it can be fun to enjoy watching someone play.

However, works that are just painfully generic, with no quirks, bland, that bring nothing new to the table, that bring no emotions, and especially if they made you feel like you wasted your time playing them, it's these works that are genuinely bad to me.

[KeaganDunn]

I've had this sort of dilemma in my head recently and I've come to my own conclusion:

 

Aside from misalignments, HOMs, and other mistakes like that, nothing is particularly bad in the world of Doom mapping. Everything has its place and audience.

 

I stand firm on the fact that if the mapper wants to have platforming, puzzles, cryptic progression, a strange MIDI (FCFF07 intensifies) or whatever - let them. Don't bash them for doing what they want to do, especially if you're playtesting for them. Recognize the fact that it's not your style or preference, and either roll with it or find something else to play.

 

This is something I've noticed. Some people tend to bash rather than just roll with it or ignore it. Why is there a sudden teleporter line taking me to this fight in the void? Why is there a space-like sky instead of something more realistic? Why are there doors closing or traps opening up everywhere? Why is this texture here? Why is this map so long/confusing/hard?

 

Because the mapper wants it to be that way. If they don't, THEN there is a problem. Look for mistakes while playtesting, not things outside your own personal preference.

[knifeworld]

Anything that doesn't have 4565329409435674u589329856 archviles!

[mrthejoshmon]

Several different levels of bad.

 

Some of the worst I have played range from basic designs with texture usage reminiscent of puke on a canvas with gameplay designed by Stevie Wonder to the exact opposite end where there are more linedefs than stars in the universe, creating a visually overwhelming style over substance kind of deal where gameplay is what can only be described as someone making Serious Sam/Painkiller but only it is described to them 3rd hand over the phone across 5 language barriers with a spotty connection.

 

Subjectivity is, of course, a factor, but I won't see anyone argue for JOW.wad and if you do you're simply a contrarian and/or poor in taste.

[Ash4ash]

Anything that has the traits that make habitat in TNT bad

[Kwisior]

1 hour ago, mrthejoshmon said:

Subjectivity is, of course, a factor, but I won't see anyone argue for JOW.wad and if you do you're simply a contrarian and/or poor in taste.

Dang, this is another time I hear about JOW.wad on this site. People must REALLY hate it.

[Wo0p]

Spoiler

2 hours ago, KeaganDunn said:

I've had this sort of dilemma in my head recently and I've come to my own conclusion:

 

Aside from misalignments, HOMs, and other mistakes like that, nothing is particularly bad in the world of Doom mapping. Everything has its place and audience.

 

I stand firm on the fact that if the mapper wants to have platforming, puzzles, cryptic progression, a strange MIDI (FCFF07 intensifies) or whatever - let them. Don't bash them for doing what they want to do, especially if you're playtesting for them. Recognize the fact that it's not your style or preference, and either roll with it or find something else to play.

 

This is something I've noticed. Some people tend to bash rather than just roll with it or ignore it. Why is there a sudden teleporter line taking me to this fight in the void? Why is there a space-like sky instead of something more realistic? Why are there doors closing or traps opening up everywhere? Why is this texture here? Why is this map so long/confusing/hard?

 

Because the mapper wants it to be that way. If they don't, THEN there is a problem. Look for mistakes while playtesting, not things outside your own personal preference.

 

 

Agreed. A WAD is ONLY bad if you literally can't finish it on grounds of mechanically broken design. If you can't finish the level because the mapper forgot to put in a blue key card for a blue door that leads to the exit, that's a bad WAD. Because you can't consume the product in its entirety and so cannot ethically judge its true value. 

 

Playing vanilla Doom is not my preferred way of playing WADs (Woe is me) as I enjoy playing with a few gameplay enhancing mods that incorporate elements from modern games which I have grown accustomed to and which I like. But if I play a map that forces me to play without those gameplay enhancing mods, that's fine, I can still enjoy vanilla style play every now and then.

 

It's the mapper's choice to play the map in a vanilla-only context and I cannot ethically judge the map negatively on that basis because it's not the intended way to play (Because I will assume by default that stopping me from using those "mods" was a conscious choice of the map author).

Edited July 2, 2023 by Wo0p

[DJVCardMaster]

The basic answer would mean it plays bad, but for me a poor texture usage makes me want to skip it entirely. Still, I think it is a combination of both. But I can stand amateurish looking maps if they play good.

[Shakariki Heisenberg]

shitty midi,bad texturing and especially texture alignment i hate ppl who are too fucking lazy TO ALIGN THEIR FUCKING TEXTURUES JESUS CHRIST,
puts a bunch of hit scanner and archies in a room and when u get in it the door closes on you and theres no cover like at all just a square room with a bunch of archies and hit scanners.
and just confusing ass maps i hate maps that require you to to this and that in a specific order in order to get to a goal and the goal isnt actually a goal and is a fucking trap and a bunch of archviles spawn in and fuck my shit up and i didnt save since i thought it was the exit so i have to re do 50% of the map again.

so what i hate most,
Bad texture alignment & random ass traps 

[Capellan]

A clear failure to playtest the map in the target port.

 

[real slush59134]

long linedef with single texture

[mrthejoshmon]

5 hours ago, Kwisior said:

Dang, this is another time I hear about JOW.wad on this site. People must REALLY hate it.

It's probably just me mentioning it multiple times, to be honest.

 

JOW.wad is just my gold standard in bad.

Not bad map design, nor gameplay, nor texturing but just the very concept of being bad.

 

Seriously, play it, find out why.

Edited July 3, 2023 by mrthejoshmon

[LadyMistDragon]

STARTAN boxes, uninspired stock midi choices, anything overly heavy with stuffed corridor combat that gives out hardly any resources. But I have a pretty broad pallette and I can play all tan as long as the map has life

[Endless]

Generally, a lack of effort. All those low effort WADs tend to be objectively shit, piss poor excuses to pretend you are something of a map maker yourself. It's even worse when you consider that Doom has one of the most accessible and easy-to-learn level editors out there. There's no excuse to release a WAD that plays like and looks like wow.wad in 2023.

 

And no, you are not fucking funny because you made a "joke WAD" with 2 rooms, 1,000 cyberdemons and porn textures.

[Murdoch]

Any number of things. But number 1 is, of course, it's not fun. This is a very subjective thing. So the best thing to do is be upfront about the gameplay style. A lack of cohesion in design can also be a bad thing. Particularly with beginners, it often feels like the design was made up on the fly with a bunch of unrelated rooms stuck together. Some of the original game has the same issue to be fair.

 

Obvious construction issues can also detract, like severe texture alignment issues, doors not the correct size so the texture tiles badly, that type of thing.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Murdoch

[Xaser]

[RHhe82]

1 hour ago, Endless said:

Generally, a lack of effort. All those low effort WADs tend to be objectively shit, piss poor excuses to pretend you are something of a map maker yourself. It's even worse when you consider that Doom has one of the most accessible and easy-to-learn level editors out there. There's no excuse to release a WAD that plays like and looks like wow.wad in 2023.

 

And no, you are not fucking funny because you made a "joke WAD" with 2 rooms, 1,000 cyberdemons and porn textures.

I was thinking about the OP and this is the conclusion I came to as well: if it gives me the impression of being low or zero effort creation - or clearly not playtested enough.

 

Non-adherence to my personal tastes is not bad. Might me not play the wad, but hey, can’t please everybody, can you?

[DRON12261]

13 hours ago, BUYXRAYS said:

For you, what makes a Doom wad cross the line between good, bad, and ugly. What makes a wad absolutely unbearable to play?

 

For me personally , I DESPISE terrible use of textures.

 

Tough question. It all depends on the target audience you're targeting, even within the community there are enough divisions such as fans of E1 style and level design (like me, heh), fans of slaughter sets with rng grind (hi Ribbiks, heh), and just some specific setting.
 

You can also highlight a bunch of different bugs and so on, like non-aligned textures (know that if you forgot to align textures somewhere, I will find it on your map, and I will find you too ψ( *｀ー´)ψ), poorly chosen textures themselves, not paid due attention to any details or lighting, balance, and all that stuff. But you can always compensate for that with something else. I'm very meticulous to the aforementioned things such as design, but if there is for example incredibly interestingly constructed battles, it would not prevent me from enjoying the wad to the full. This kind of work is always something of a bowl of scales. It's cool when you can tip them in the direction of a polished wad, but due to the fact that many people simply may not have enough experience, time, or anything else, there is nothing wrong with stumbling somewhere or turning a blind eye to something. What's more, what to one person seems to be a flaw, another probably will never even notice. So if you see that you're clearly falling short in something in your opinion, just try to compensate for it with something else, something that you're really good at. Over time, you'll be able to iron out your other shortcomings as well.
 

But probably the only terrible thing for all wads without exception I can single out is switchhunting (or just extremely unobvious level progression), in its broadest manifestation. It's not terrible when a player can hang out another minute in one place, but it's scary when it stretches for 20+ minutes searching for who knows what on the map. Eternal Doom is a terrible megawad for me on this part and it doesn't even outweigh it all with good visuals for the 90s.
 

And probably also balance, in the sense that if your map is stupidly almost impossible to pass, all the other things that could tip the scales, can remain unnoticed by the player.

[BeachThunder]

It's obviously extremely hard to quantify something as being 'objectively' bad (or good). So much of it comes down to personal subjective experiences.

 

But let's just say, if a map takes longer to beat than it did to create - then it's likely pretty bad.

[Zahid]

I am not a technical guy so telling a prospective of player these can be bad maps

-Huge Empty map with poor progression idea

-Useless optional areas, means you visit an area which didn't serve any purpose battle,progression and ammo wise

-repetitive design a lot of copy paste

- Unbalanced Fights,  lots and lots of ammo or very very tight ammo, extremely Easy or Extremely hard map 

- Extremely Dark map without following any theme or idea

- buggy or glitchy breakable map obviously 

 

 

[Ravendesk]

slaughter and platforming of course, what else

[Andromeda]

14 hours ago, Ash4ash said:

Anything that has the traits that make habitat in TNT bad

And what would those traits be?

[Ash4ash]

4 hours ago, Andromeda said:

And what would those traits be?

very open areas with no enimies

no challenge

and fake walls to get keys

[Nine Inch Heels]

The only thing that I would consider "objectively bad" is when a map does not behave as intended, as in it's "mechanically unsound".

 

If what you want to make is a "low effort" my-first-map, go ahead and do that, advertise it as such instead of pretending it's something it clearly is not, and that's all there is to it. If it works as intended and advertised, then someone else is gonna get to spend a few minutes on it, and they won't be disappointed at the very least. Mission accomplished.

 

If what you want to make is a "magnum opus" high-detail challenge map, go ahead and do that, but don't be surprised if eyebrows raise because scripts of some sort misfire half the time, monsters don't teleport into the map properly, or worse, because the map soft-locks. Mission not accomplished.

 

 

 

By the way, "effort made" is quite possibly one of the worst possible metrics to go by (even though it is a metric people like to employ surprisingly often). Chances are nobody is watching while you bash your head against the editor as you're still learning the ropes - nobody is gonna see you sweat bullets while you're trying to figure out how to get a door to work properly from both sides, because you might just tell yourself that asking for help publicly is gonna be too embarrassing in an environment where more maps than you can feasibly play are being produced seemingly all the time.

 

A map you might have been working weeks on while you're still learning to walk the editor walk could be something somebody else can lay down in the editor over the course of a single weekend, if not hours. This is why seeing new mappers and their threads get the first few bits and pieces of activity irks me at times... When people say that something basic is low effort (by virtue of it being basic in all respects), or worse yet, possibly "not worth posting" while someone has been working on that (supposedly) basic stuff for a considerable chunk of their limited spare-time... Then that's a problem, and it does happen every so often, unfortunately...

[RHhe82]

21 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

By the way, "effort made" is quite possibly one of the worst possible metrics to go by

 

For some reason, I felt a little defensive impulse in my innards when I read this. I guess what I personally mean by "low effort" is something along the lines of me feeling the author did not even try. But that's just as hazy: how would I know that? I wouldn't. Only the author can ask themselves if they "at least tried" and answer honestly (but if this sort of introspection is accepted, I don't think "effort made" is a worst possible metric. In fact I still find solid and one I would apply on myself when I'm making maps -- but it is a bit problematic when applied on a map made by someone else). And, to emphasize, I didn't mean "basic" maps that some veteran mapper could conjure up in 20 minutes, but for a novice it takes days, are bad in some objective sense.

 

This is a bit tangential, I guess we could problematize almost any notion of "bad" maps. Mechanically unsound? But maybe it was intended that way as an allegory of adult life, where you constantly come across revelations that things and life don't always work out as expected, that there are (seemingly) random elements at work. Or: the map lacks an exit line? Conventionally we'd call it bad, but who's to say map has to have one? Maybe the author intended the map to be unfinishable, and that's an allegory to Doomworld discussions on objective metrics where an universal consensus is not possible. It's not the author's fault many of us expect maps to be UV-maxable without cheats and with demos posted.

[Pseudonaut]

I can't beat it