How much do aesthetics matter to you in Doom? [Poll]

[Kwisior]

To me, they aren't more important than gameplay, but if they aren't at least decent, then I likely won't enjoy the map.

Hell, I can even enjoy something with okay gameplay as long as it looks good and has other qualities. Misri Halek and Invasion 2 come to mind.

I guess it's about balance and not going in one direction while ignoring the other. Do you think otherwise?

 

Edit: What the fuck was that image? I don't remember uploading it. Did anyone else see that?

Edited October 4, 2023 by Kwisior

[volleyvalley]

Detail isn't something I think is super important, I prefer gameplay over it personally, but a good balance between them goes a long way.

[Biodegradable]

One of my absolute favourite games ever is Thomas Was Alone, so no, I guess visuals aren't the most important thing to me when it comes to games, or in this case Doom WADs. Mind you, I like when effort is put into all aspects across the board. "Good visuals, shit gameplay" and "Good gameplay, shit visuals" feels like a false dichotomy when I think about it for more than a few seconds, honestly. Why can't I have both?

Edited October 4, 2023 by Biodegradable

[Kwisior]

1 hour ago, Biodegradable said:

Mind you, I like when effort is put into all aspects across the board. "Good visuals, shit gameplay" and "Good gameplay, shit visuals" feels like a false dichotomy when I think about it for more than a few seconds, honestly. Why can't I have both?

The thing which inspired me to make this thread is some people saying that games (or at least Doom) should be all gameplay and that it's the most important aspect by far, which I don't agree with. I wanna see the general consensus when it comes to Doom.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Kwisior

[Biodegradable]

2 minutes ago, Kwisior said:

The thing which inspired me to make this thread is some people saying that games should be all gameplay and that it's the most important aspect of games by far.

 

Fair enough. To have a look at the "visuals" side of the coin in regards to WADs specifically, I am definitely more inclined to play something if the screenshots look interesting. If I find the screenshots to look flat and dull with nothing interesting going on with the architecture, colours, textures, stuff of that particular nature, it naturally leaves me less inclined to play it. However, by that point, I'll read other posts and gauge the overall reception. So I guess for me personally, while visuals aren't the be all and end all, I can safely say that I do care about them to some extent.

[cannonball]

I went for a little, whilst visuals do matter a little, as long as the map is reasonably clean I won’t make much of a fuss. The fundamental mechanics of the map in relation to combat and progression are far more important.

[Firedust]

They matter a lot but they never take precedence over gameplay.

[BeachThunder]

35 minutes ago, Biodegradable said:

One of my absolute favourite games ever is Thomas Was Alone, so no, I guess visuals aren't the most important thing to me when it comes to games, or in this case Doom WADs. Mind you, I like when effort is put into all aspects across the board. "Good visuals, shit gameplay" and "Good gameplay, shit visuals" feels like a false dichotomy when I think about it for more than a few seconds, honestly. Why can't I have both?

B...but Thomas Was Alone has great visuals. It might just be a bunch of quadrilaterals doing quadrilateral things, but it still has a really strong sense of style.

 

For Doom WADs specifically, I don't really have a super high threshold; I mainly just don't wanna play Yet Another Generic Startan Base Featuring D_RUNNIN.

 

If a map looks nice and/or has a great soundtrack, then it's an added bonus.

[Biodegradable]

1 minute ago, BeachThunder said:

B...but Thomas Was Alone has great visuals. It might just be a bunch of quadrilaterals doing quadrilateral things, but it still has a really strong sense of style.

 

I know, I was being facetious and leaning into the deception of it being, "just a bunch of geometric shapes" a bit. It's an awesome game all around.

[Ravendesk]

It matters quite a lot to me if we consider "aesthetics" in a wider sense, so not just fine detailing and beautiful textures, but a general vibe the map gives, so that includes music, how atmosphere builds, etc. (I actually prefer moderately detailed maps to highly detailed ones just so there is less visual clutter).

 

For example, in Down the Drain maps are mostly not beautiful in a conventional meaning, but the raw gnarly visuals work really well with what this set aims for. If not for the aesthetics there, these maps wouldn't hit as hard.

 

That said, I absolutely don't mind a startan box map if it's particularly fun to play - I will just like it for different reasons.

 

But actually often times gameplay is not a separate thing but a part of map's atmosphere, let's say. For example if a map is dark and gloomy and oppressive but then all the fights are trivial and you just have full stacked bfg all the time with barely any threat - that oppressiveness won't work as well as it could have if gameplay complemented the map. So I guess it all comes down to how we define "aethtetics" and where is the line that separates it from gameplay. (went a bit on a philosophical tangent from the original question, but I felt like mentioning all that).

[RHhe82]

My take is 'fair amount', although I'm not exactly sure where I stand between fair amount and little, or what do those actually mean. I consider gameplay to be the more important factor in Doom, but I honestly don't care for the "My first map in 1994 with a DOS editor"-style and the "Assault on your eyes"-type of nightmares that some of the more advanced player seem to enjoy on the basis of gameplay first - although it can be argued that those maps indeed are about style, too.

[Lila Feuer]

Aesthetics literally define the way the game looks so yeah they matter a lot unless your idea of beauty is startan everything.

 

It should be fireblu everything.

[SilverMiner]

I don't care about detail if there's too much going on around - stop for a moment to gaze at architecture and you're killed

[Scypek2]

Aesthetics and detail are two extremely different things. 20 linedefs and two custom textures, or even default textures used in an unusual way, is enough to make something way more detailed than another super-detailed limit removing techbase.

[Gifty]

People often conflate art, aesthetics, tone, graphics and technology into one giant thing; the art style, aesthetic, and overall tone/mood of Doom is a massive part of its identity and its continued success. Being on the cutting edge of graphics, not so much.

 

As far as wads go, I don't really care about level of detail so much as maps having a consistent design language that's able to get things across without being scattered and confusing. Nice artistic style is a bonus on top of that.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Gifty

[DreadWanderer]

I'm quite the aesthetics bitch, though not to the point of it mattering exclusively. Let's just say that I am more likely to enjoy great visuals with decent gameplay than mediocre visuals with great gameplay. Exceptions everywhere of course. I don't operate with a reductionist definition of aesthetics meaning "eye candy" or something similar, I see it as a narrative device and a worldbuilding tool in its own right so maybe that's why.

[whybmonotacrab]

Gameplay comes first, but good visuals certainly help. It doesn't need to be super detailed or advance, but it needs to look unified and like some care went into it. I'm fine with a Khorus' Speedy Shit or Nostalgia because they still look good even if they're simplistic. That said, having a unique look can really sell a wad, and looking really good can immerse you into the setting.

[Jayextee]

I'm a slut for good aesthetics. Without, I won't even consider playing a WAD.

But this, to me at least, doesn't necessarily equate to "lots of detail". I love to play vanilla-compatible maps because of their lack of visual 'clutter', which adds to a certain clarity that I feel is a good aesthetic; certainly better than 'sector soup' detailing or greebling every surface with tiny details that distract rather than inform. I also love a good atmosphere and good lighting. They're all incredibly important to me, and can enhance and inform the actual playability of a mapset.

[Mordeth]

6 hours ago, Kwisior said:

What the fuck was that image?

 

Either malware or your account is hacked. If this happens again your account will be banned until you clean up on your end. Do not reuse passwords.

[MinisterOfChile41]

to anyone making a map with stock assets, please just don't use FIREBLU, its so fucking eye melting

[Mr Masker]

I'd say alot. While gameplay is cool and important, I'd say that visuals and style are truly what give my favourite Doom Wads real personality. A really nice colour scheme or visual style can totally improve a generic combat sequence.

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Mr Masker

["JL" was too short]

Of course the "visuals" vs. "gameplay" choice is always a falsely dichotomous one, because nobody (mapper nor player) should settle for anything less than solid competence in either department.  But if the choice is hypothetically forced upon me, I always say that I'd rather have a gorgeous map with shitty imbalanced gameplay than vice versa, because a gorgeous map at least has value to me as a nomonsters/iddqd walking simulator, but there's no options that I can turn on to add detail and aesthetics to an ugly map.

[crusty_charlie]

I think they matter in the sense that visual cues and memorable details can go a long way toward helping you know where you're going in a level. That being said, I don't exactly demand that the average WAD I play looks like primo luxury.

[Garlichead]

2 minutes ago, crusty_charlie said:

I think they matter in the sense that visual cues and memorable details can go a long way toward helping you know where you're going in a level. That being said, I don't exactly demand that the average WAD I play looks like primo luxury.

I agree. Visuals should make the map easy to navigate and give a sense of "place". Personally, gameplay should come first over visual beauty.

 

All being said, I have a soft spot for certain themes (Egypt, doom cute, hell levels) and may enjoy maps that follow them even if the maps are not as good.

[Kwisior]

50 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

Of course the "visuals" vs. "gameplay" choice is always a falsely dichotomous one, because nobody (mapper nor player) should settle for anything less than solid competence in either department.

You can think of this question as a gauge of tolerance for ugly maps (that's not the only possible meaning of this question). I, for example, can't handle Junkfood for more than a couple minutes (no offense) because the gameplay itself is simply not enough for me. However, many players and speedrunners don't care that much about the aesthetics of those maps.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Kwisior

[MFG38]

1 hour ago, MinisterOfChile41 said:

to anyone making a map with stock assets, please just don't use FIREBLU, its so fucking eye melting

 

Screw you, I'll use as much FIREBLU as I damn well please!

[Clippy]

Game play over everything especially as someone who struggles with visuals myself in building 

 

I've seen glorious looking big maps with spaced out boring gameplay so I would def always choose having fun and being engaged in the map flow vs looking at stuff 

 

Ppl need too much eye candy these days remember the roots of doom ppl 

[LoatharMDPhD]

// DESIGN IS LAW...

if you're going to have an area with not much going on, turn it into a spectacle.

Lighting changes and shadows can transform the draw of the players attention and dread...

details count in beauty, why is brutalism and minimalism such a shock to the heart.

the lack of little details in the decoration, form in as important as function.

[OniriA]

16 minutes ago, LoatharMDPhD said:

// De..

What is this "//" thing you write before every post you make?

Just curious 'cause it sort of feels odd to read a post that way.

 

Anyway,

 

A e s t h e t h i c s

Edited October 4, 2023 by OniriA

[baja blast rd.]

Aesthetics are part of gameplay. Examples: lighting and design can be used to emphasize progression, to convey more specific intent (example: cybs that have to be telefragged might all intentionally use a specific type of structure). 

 

Gameplay is part of aesthetics. Examples: emphasizing a cheery vibe might be done through silly, amusing combat; monster use might tie into the 'story' of the unfolding experience; and worldbuilding moves like 'imps are a species that dwells in cliffs' aren't unheard of. 

 

Aesthetics are not just 'pretty visuals'. Examples: atmosphere, story/narrative (both overall and "local", like what a specific feature 'is' in the map), emotional impact, craftsmanship.

 

Even with pretty visuals specifically are not just or even primarily 'detail level'. Examples: There is plenty of gorgeous minimalism, and there can be uncompelling hyperdetail (I say uncompelling rather than 'ugly' because stylistic ugliness can be aesthetically good!). 

 

Even with detailing specifically, the quantity of it is like the least important part of it. Even in high-detail maps specifically, good ones are good because they have good details, not just lots of them.

 

The "hurgurrgurr, I don't care about visuals, I only care about gameplay; doesn't matter how detailed it is if it isn't fun" takes that sometimes pop up phrased in that sort of self-righteous tone are annoying, because the authors of them sometimes position themselves as having an objective opinion about whether something is Fun or not. I've found plenty of aesthetic masterpieces super fun! Also those posts tend to commit blunders like conflating 'detailing level' and 'aesthetic value'. Thankfully none of those posts here yet. 

 

With that out of the way, my answer is Yes.