Sooo, why doesnt GZDoom support replays? Or accurate compatibilities for that matter (closed: fatally consumed by derail that is not worth the time to prune)

[banjiepixel]

1 minute ago, Blzut3 said:

I feel like this statement, while perhaps by raw number of users is true, ignores that (G)ZDoom was already in its position for somewhere around 5 years prior to Brutal Doom existing.  Most of the competition just dried up around 2005.

 

It could be just my personal journey with Doom. I went from using Doom Legacy in early 00's to using PrBoom(-plus) in late 00's so smoothly that I probably missed the level of popularity that ZDoom had during that time, I personally atleast barely even knew about ZDoom being a thing and definitely didn't organically find any reason to try it. So it might seem to have been more of niche source port to me than it was actually. But I did say GZDoom and the truth is that it's popularity is at whole another level, with Brutal Doom being the thing that pushed GZDoom to it's almost untouchable status in terms of popularity. Also, outside of popularity, GZDoom having almost no limitations for modding does make it very different beast than ZDoom in 2005. There is simply less room for innovation because GZDoom already does almost everything imaginable that reasonably can't be demo compatible while still being based on Doom.

[Professor Hastig]

When did Brutal Doom come out? It's something I haven't kept track of.

 

Regarding other feature centric ports, looking at their history, 2005 seems to be the right date. Maybe they all got scared when GZDoom came out that year... :D (just kidding! :))

Of course, more recently there was that modern EDGE version that seems to have fizzled out - just like so many projects before.

 

2 hours ago, Blzut3 said:

Conveniently also the year that Chocolate Doom came out, which I personally feel is also when the opinions on hard core vanilla compat shifted (which isn't to say there weren't people that cared the whole time, I just don't recall it being a big deal when I joined the community in 2003).

 

I don't see any coincidence there. Chocolate Doom and feature centric ports are on polar opposites of the user spectrum with very little overlap.

 

2 hours ago, banjiepixel said:

But guess it must those darn purists demanding demo compatibilty and killing any source port project that dares to break demo support for the sake of innovation and new features.

 

Guess what, it is those 'darn purists', but it's not that simple, of course.

What we have here is a classic perception problem. It is always the small vocal sub-groups that make themselves heard the loudest, not the large masses.

This can lead to the wrong impression that the purists are a larger group than it really is. These are nearly by default people who care deeply about the game and frequently engage in discussions about it, while the larger group of regular Joes that also plays Doom is just happy with what they got and stay silent.

 

So, very often in such scenarios we get the situation that some people are not aware of this bias and take the distribution of participants at face value as the actual composition of the community. Which then leads to making decisions based on faulty assumptions. And that's not just true for purists, another good example is owners of low end hardware. As they are the first ones experiencing technical problems, we hear a lot more of them than from users with high end hardware. So again, assumptions are being made that the majority of Doom players works with old hardware while in reality this community is to a large degree made out of gamers which have to go with the times and keep their systems upgraded.

 

[Blzut3]

8 minutes ago, banjiepixel said:

It could be just my personal journey with Doom. I went from using Doom Legacy in early 00's to using PrBoom(-plus) in late 00's so smoothly that I probably missed the level of popularity that ZDoom had during that time, I personally atleast barely even knew about ZDoom being a thing and definitely didn't organically find any reason to try it. So it might seem to have been more of niche source port to me than it was actually.

I think the main thing I think you missed is that all of the major multiplayer ports are ZDoom based in some way, so that entire segment of the community was using ZDoom by definition.  But we can also look at how the cacowards were nearly exclusively ZDoom, vanilla, and boom-compatible mods from the get go.

 

31 minutes ago, Professor Hastig said:

Regarding other feature centric ports, looking at their history, 2005 seems to be the right date. Maybe they all got scared when GZDoom came out that year... :D (just kidding! :))

Kidding aside, GZDoom did bring 3D floors to the ZDoom eco system which was probably the final reason people were still modding for Legacy.

 

14 minutes ago, Professor Hastig said:

I don't see any coincidence there. Chocolate Doom and feature centric ports are on polar opposites of the user spectrum with very little overlap.

To be fair I don't really have any hard evidence, I just remember in the early years of my involvement there was a lot of mapping activity for ZDoom (after Legacy died out) and in the late 2000s there seemed to be a trend towards mappers targeting vanilla.  Which lead to ZDoom modding output becoming largely game play mods to use with vanilla maps (Brutal Doom included).

[hobomaster22]

2 hours ago, Blzut3 said:

I feel like this statement, while perhaps by raw number of users is true, ignores that (G)ZDoom was already in its position for somewhere around 5 years prior to Brutal Doom existing.  Most of the competition just dried up around 2005.  Conveniently also the year that Chocolate Doom came out, which I personally feel is also when the opinions on hard core vanilla compat shifted (which isn't to say there weren't people that cared the whole time, I just don't recall it being a big deal when I joined the community in 2003).

From what I recall, vanilla compatibility talks were not as pervasive as they are now. I can't put a time on it but it's certainly felt more recent that the hard core vanilla compatibility has become more vocal. When I joined in the 2000s I don't recall these types of discussions and most people didn't seem to care, so I wasn't really aware of it and never really gave it a thought. I just played Doom using ZDoom  for single player and ZDaemon for multiplayer and had fun.

As people have been entering the community, I believe they see these discussions and are persuaded by them, when they otherwise might not even know or care. It's an interesting dynamic I have thought about. I played Doom at a very young age in the 90s and it has a very nostalgic place embedded in my brain. One might think I would care about vanilla compatibility, but I honestly couldn't care less. For me playing Doom the way it was with all it's bugs and quirks is more a novelty that is interesting to go back to and waste 20 minutes from time to time, and not some gold standard we should strive for. I understand people have different opinions and things they are interested in. The reality is that Doom's engine is riddled with bugs and hacks and while creating content that exploits them is interesting, I believe it's creating a hindrance to progress (at least how I define progress).

I will digress from this, but GZDoom does not need to be vanilla compatible. Most ports don't. If something requires this level of compatibility (the vast majority do not) then there are ports that serve this purpose. I don't think the community needs to be split on this, you can use multiple ports. If there is a new GZDoom mod I'm interested in then I run GZDoom. The rest I will run with Helion. If it requires more compatibility then I will check it out in Odamex.

[Gez]

37 minutes ago, Professor Hastig said:

When did Brutal Doom come out?

2010.

 

It was a year in which ZDoom got two major releases, 2.4.0 and 2.5.0. Other high-profile releases for ZDoom/GZDoom that year included (but were not limited to) Paranoid, Threshold of Pain, Stronghold: On the Edge of Chaos, Temple of the Lizard Men 2... Previous years had seen Legacy of Suffering, Harmony, Eternal Doom IV: Return from Oblivion , ZPack, Action Doom_2: Urban Brawl, Chex_Quest_3, BGPA_Missions: Liberation, Knee-Deep in ZDoom, The Ultimate Torment and Torture, BGPA Missions: Liberation, Demons of Problematique 2, The City of the Damned: Apocalypse, and the original ZDCMP, among a lot of  others. This is just to give an overview of the ZDoom modding scene's output in the late noughties.

 

So ZDoom and its GL offshoot were already quite well-established. Which is why developing something like Brutal Doom was even possible in the first place.

[Professor Hastig]

44 minutes ago, Blzut3 said:

To be fair I don't really have any hard evidence, I just remember in the early years of my involvement there was a lot of mapping activity for ZDoom (after Legacy died out) and in the late 2000s there seemed to be a trend towards mappers targeting vanilla.  Which lead to ZDoom modding output becoming largely game play mods to use with vanilla maps (Brutal Doom included).

 

What definitely stopped around that time were those simple ZDoom mods that tastefully integrated the features into a more vanilla experience kind of mapset. Off my hand I'm thinking about stuff like Dark 7, Hell Factory or even The Darkest Hour, which only did sprite replacements but no actor modding.

Which is kind of a shame. I'd like to see a resurgence of this kind of project. Hopefully with DSDA supporting most of the needed features now they will eventually resurface.

[Professor Hastig]

38 minutes ago, hobomaster22 said:

From what I recall, vanilla compatibility talks were not as pervasive as they are now. I can't put a time on it but it's certainly felt more recent that the hard core vanilla compatibility has become more vocal. When I joined in the 2000s I don't recall these types of discussions and most people didn't seem to care, so I wasn't really aware of it and never really gave it a thought. I just played Doom using ZDoom  for single player and ZDaemon for multiplayer and had fun.

 

 

I did some kind of retro browsing and surely back then there was this one hardcore vanilla enthusiast frequently calling source ports "source hacks". So the sentiment already existed even back then, but as time went by people came and went, and with some ports catering to this demographic it is kind of inevitable that more of these people came here later.

 

 

47 minutes ago, hobomaster22 said:

The reality is that Doom's engine is riddled with bugs and hacks and while creating content that exploits them is interesting, I believe it's creating a hindrance to progress (at least how I define progress).

 

Indeed. While playing around with such exploits is definitely interesting, I'm not sold on creating maps around them. Once an exploit is actively being used as a "feature", there's no way to get rid of it anymore and it will have to be supported until all eternity.

 

49 minutes ago, hobomaster22 said:



I will digress from this, but GZDoom does not need to be vanilla compatible. Most ports don't. If something requires this level of compatibility (the vast majority do not) then there are ports that serve this purpose. I don't think the community needs to be split on this, you can use multiple ports. If there is a new GZDoom mod I'm interested in then I run GZDoom. The rest I will run with Helion. If it requires more compatibility then I will check it out in Odamex.

 

While that is easily said, the reality is that different ports tend to handle quite differently. I have gotten used to GZDoom's input system and most of the other ports that stick with the unaltered original code, which they cannot change due to demo compatibility needs, feel quite a bit rough by comparison and I am fairly convinced that the same applies the other way around. I am also fairly certain that this - and not the changes on the game side - is what makes people think that it's a different engine, while all it has done is implementing better input code.

 

[Jerem]

@Flytrap

I understand this is different, but if the objective can be re-worked into collecting footage, there's a lot of alternate & free solutions. OBS for starters?

Part of the reason I went from commercialized engines to gzdoom is because I knew the limitations would push me to ask myself if my scope is correct when I come up against metaphorical brick-walls. Perfectionism can really slow a man down.

[hobomaster22]

3 minutes ago, Professor Hastig said:

While that is easily said, the reality is that different ports tend to handle quite differently. I have gotten used to GZDoom's input system and most of the other ports that stick with the unaltered original code, which they cannot change due to demo compatibility needs, feel quite a bit rough by comparison and I am fairly convinced that the same applies the other way around. I am also fairly certain that this - and not the changes on the game side - is what makes people think that it's a different engine, while all it has done is implementing better input code. 

 

This is a good point. I believe what you are referring to pertains to how the mouse input is handled with rendering the player's view angle. There is a reason I listed the ports GZDoom, Helion, and Odamex specifically. All three of these ports are capable of immediately reading the mouse input changes in Windows and instantly rendering that view outside of the game ticking. I wasn't sensitive to it before when I ran a 60hz screen. Now that I have used a 165hz GSync monitor for a couple years I can say ports that do not render the players exact angle instantly based on the latest mouse input feel like garbage. This is the reason dsda-doom is unplayable to me.

 

This was something I specifically fixed in Odamex too, and it doesn't affect demos. The problem is that these ports get upgraded to support the higher refresh rates and then interpolate everything, including the player's view angle. Interpolating the view angle creates a very noticeable lag especially with high refresh rates.

[banjiepixel]

46 minutes ago, Professor Hastig said:

It is always the small vocal sub-groups that make themselves heard the loudest, not the large masses.

This can lead to the wrong impression that the purists are a larger group than it really is. These are nearly by default people who care deeply about the game and frequently engage in discussions about it, while the larger group of regular Joes that also plays Doom is just happy with what they got and stay silent.

 

Atleast my own experience is regular Joes often do not generally care either way and often go more with what happens to be most accessible to them. There are definitely ways that extra features of GZDoom has more mainstream appeal but there are plenty of actual regular Joes that don't know how to setup something like that. So in the end, it becomes more natural for them to use the official ports with more vanilla based feature sets. Regular Joes are likely just not care are often just simply willing to listen those people that are bigger part of the Doom community and likely know better what things make a better source port.

 

And there are alot of overlap between all kinds of people in Doom community. Plenty of purists do casual play on GZDoom and plenty of GZDoom use official ports or simpler source ports. I feel like it is far more common to find mainly ZDoom port users that do not use any port with a demo compatibility that it is to mainly classic style port users that also wouldn't use ports lacking demo compatibility. Alot of people in general use GZDoom as all-in-one way to play Doom instead of it's advanced features and switching ports when it would be more appropriate for the content currently being played, so many people will not even bother with compatibility settings unless something very clearly becomes broken by wrong settings.

 

No regular Joes are hurt by demo compatibility and if they want somethinh beyond that, thet already have GZDoom and other ZDoom based ports. And there is no group in the Doom community demanding for every source port to be demo compatible, Doom Retro gets away just nicely with not being demo compatible. New projects fail more because of failing to built up hype or there just being too little of practical need for them.

 

1 hour ago, Blzut3 said:

I think the main thing I think you missed is that all of the major multiplayer ports are ZDoom based in some way, so that entire segment of the community was using ZDoom by definition.  But we can also look at how the cacowards were nearly exclusively ZDoom, vanilla, and boom-compatible mods from the get go.

 

Sure, that is probably why I had not ran into ZDoom stuff much back in the day. I did also transition to using Linux and not having to access to playing Doom for few years after the days of using Doom Legacy. I only got back to Doom once I started to use Ubuntu and discovered PrBoom. 

 

1 hour ago, Gez said:

2010.

 

I might be mistaken but didn't Brutal Doom only really explode to the mainstream much later? I feel like things started to get really big only after version 18ish with version 20 being probably being the biggest success. And for me it seems that GZDoom reached it's modern popularity around the same time, with development of ZDoom ending not too soon after that.

[plums]

re: Brutal Doom, IIRC Graf has talked about how for a while Doomsday used to be the port of choice for people who were just looking to replay the original games with more modern-ish features, with its 3D models and extra visual effects. Then Brutal Doom got popular and took over that demographic almost completely.

Edited October 19, 2023 by plums

[Professor Hastig]

32 minutes ago, hobomaster22 said:

 All three of these ports are capable of immediately reading the mouse input changes in Windows and instantly rendering that view outside of the game ticking. I wasn't sensitive to it before when I ran a 60hz screen. Now that I have used a 165hz GSync monitor for a couple years I can say ports that do not render the players exact angle instantly based on the latest mouse input feel like garbage. This is the reason dsda-doom is unplayable to me.

 

 

That's most likely it. It is indeed mainly the mouselooking that doesn't feel right with these ports.

10 minutes ago, banjiepixel said:

I feel like it is far more common to find mainly ZDoom port users that do not use any port with a demo compatibility that it is to mainly classic style port users that also wouldn't use ports lacking demo compatibility. Alot of people in general use GZDoom as all-in-one way to play Doom instead of it's advanced features and switching ports when it would be more appropriate for the content currently being played.

 

 

I admit that I'm one of these people. But did you notice that you used a qualifying term like "appropriate" here? Appropriate should be how every player likes to play the game. For me it is primarily that GZDoom has proper mouselook with fully implemented mouse aim and that it fixes several vanilla issues I prefer not to see. I only switch back to other ports when for some reason there is no other way. So 'appropriate' is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Finnisher]

3 hours ago, hobomaster22 said:

I played Doom at a very young age in the 90s and it has a very nostalgic place embedded in my brain. One might think I would care about vanilla compatibility, but I honestly couldn't care less. For me playing Doom the way it was with all it's bugs and quirks is more a novelty that is interesting to go back to and waste 20 minutes from time to time, and not some gold standard we should strive for. I understand people have different opinions and things

 

Same here, grew up with the og and its quirks are best left there far as I'm concerned. If I want pure vanilla I'll play the og in DOSBox, and immediately think thank christ we have modern source ports now.

 

I wanna even say you, me and most who actually grew up with the game are just happy the quirks are gone. We had enough of them when they were the only option and welcome fixes and improvements with open arms.

 

Same thing with how bent out of shape some people get when they see texture filtering or heaven forbid mouselook.

Us oldies were alive when such things became possible and went wow this is progress (remember how 3D acceleration revolutionized PC gaming).

 

Each to their own of course but making claims pure vanilla is the only way to play Doom is utter drivel and I wish it was gone for good.

Take it from someone who had plenty of pure vanilla in the early 90s and is happy playing GZDoom these days.

 

Would you want modern games to retain their bugs too and never add features? That's right, you wouldn't.

Artificially adhering to limitations let alone bugs that were born out of necessity originally but have no reason to exist anymore, is exactly that, artificial.

[TheHambourgeois]

@Flytrap others have suggested this already but if you want an expanded engine with advanced capabilities that is also demo compatible, you should look at Eternity, which is a very good engine and my preferred way to play non ZDoom requiring wads

[Graf Zahl]

1 hour ago, Finnisher said:

 

Same here, grew up with the og and its quirks are best left there far as I'm concerned. If I want pure vanilla I'll play the og in DOSBox, and immediately think thank christ we have modern source ports now.

 

I wanna even say you, me and most who actually grew up with the game are just happy the quirks are gone. We had enough of them when they were the only option and welcome fixes and improvements with open arms.

 

Same thing with how bent out of shape some people get when they see texture filtering or heaven forbid mouselook.

Us oldies were alive when such things became possible and went wow this is progress (remember how 3D acceleration revolutionized PC gaming).

 

Each to their own of course but making claims pure vanilla is the only way to play Doom is utter drivel and I wish it was gone for good.

Take it from someone who had plenty of pure vanilla in the early 90s and is happy playing GZDoom these days.

  

Would you want modern games to retain their bugs too and never add features? That's right, you wouldn't.

Artificially adhering to limitations let alone bugs that were born out of necessity originally but have no reason to exist anymore, is exactly that, artificial.

 

Amen to all that.

As things are I still love the game. I surely still love playing those first PWADS I encountered in 1995 and heavily edited just for fun. I just played Sudtic a few days ago, even after 29 years it's an outstanding piece of work.

I absolutely can do without low res-only solutions, that includes the entire 'crispy' family because on my monitor it is anything but crispy. :P

I can't stand the aliasing from the software renderer and I surely prefer playing with an engine that offers proper mouselook.

I am well aware that this isn't how Doom was in 1993, but we are not in 1993 anymore.

And I absolutely do not care that some people don't deem this 'appropriate'.

 

3 hours ago, plums said:

re: Brutal Doom, IIRC Graf has talked about how for a while Doomsday used to be the port of choice for people who were just looking to replay the original games with more modern-ish features, with its 3D models and extra visual effects. Then Brutal Doom got popular and took over that demographic almost completely.

 

I once did some statistics collection about the past and found out that back in 2003 the download numbers for both Doom Legacy and Doomsday hovered around 50000 per month. That means they were as popular back then as GZDoom is now. But I can assure you that in both cases the engines declined on their own doing and not because GZDoom happened.

Legacy was in deep trouble because the engine was unstable as shit and when they did a rewrite they went a bit too far, refactored too much and never got it back on track. Meanwhile their still mainline code base was so broken that most users jumped ship.

For Doomsday it was mainly a performance problem. The engine became creepingly slow on larger maps. I still remember that when GZDoom's first version was released one map I frequently used for benchmarking was P:AR E1M6. This map ran quite decently on GZDoom, not at 60 fps on the systzem I had back then but at 40 fps or so. Doomsday ran it at considerably less than 10 fps and missing Boom compatibility nonwithstanding, it was totally unplayable. I think you can imagine how such an engine fared at a time when maps became larger and more complex.

 

[Jayextee]

2 hours ago, Finnisher said:

making claims pure vanilla is the only way to play Doom is utter drivel and I wish it was gone for good.

I doubt anybody's actually making this claim. But I wish you and your strawperson a long and fulfilling friendship.

[coderamen]

39 minutes ago, Graf Zahl said:

 

Amen to all that.

As things are I still love the game. I surely still love playing those first PWADS I encountered in 1995 and heavily edited just for fun. I just played Sudtic a few days ago, even after 29 years it's an outstanding piece of work.

I absolutely can do without low res-only solutions, that includes the entire 'crispy' family because on my monitor it is anything but crispy. :P

I can't stand the aliasing from the software renderer and I surely prefer playing with an engine that offers proper mouselook.

I am well aware that this isn't how Doom was in 1993, but we are not in 1993 anymore.

And I absolutely do not care that some people don't deem this 'appropriate'.

 

 

I once did some statistics collection about the past and found out that back in 2003 the download numbers for both Doom Legacy and Doomsday hovered around 50000 per month. That means they were as popular back then as GZDoom is now. But I can assure you that in both cases the engines declined on their own doing and not because GZDoom happened.

Legacy was in deep trouble because the engine was unstable as shit and when they did a rewrite they went a bit too far, refactored too much and never got it back on track. Meanwhile their still mainline code base was so broken that most users jumped ship.

For Doomsday it was mainly a performance problem. The engine became creepingly slow on larger maps. I still remember that when GZDoom's first version was released one map I frequently used for benchmarking was P:AR E1M6. This map ran quite decently on GZDoom, not at 60 fps on the systzem I had back then but at 40 fps or so. Doomsday ran it at considerably less than 10 fps and missing Boom compatibility nonwithstanding, it was totally unplayable. I think you can imagine how such an engine fared at a time when maps became larger and more complex.

 

You need to chill out. Just accept that some people like the 1993 aesthetic due to nostalgia or love for older games. To each their own. I like the pixilated look of chocolate doom. Don't judge people for playing old games. Actually, with your argument, you shouldn't play doom because it isn't 1993 anymore. But here we are still playing it.

[LexiMax]

3 hours ago, Finnisher said:

I wanna even say you, me and most who actually grew up with the game are just happy the quirks are gone. We had enough of them when they were the only option and welcome fixes and improvements with open arms.

 

Most players don't notice the "quirks" you're talking about that GZDoom fixes, and are perfectly happy playing Doom regardless of what form it takes, so long as it has a couple of key quality-of-life improvements like widescreen and an uncapped framerate.

 

Case in point: we actually included Return of the Triad in Rise of the Triad: Ludicrous Edition as bonus content, running on a contemporary version of GZDoom.  For our release, we chose to change the default texture filter to None and the default light mode to Vanilla.  I don't recall seeing a single complaint about it.

Edited October 19, 2023 by LexiMax

[OliveTree]

it does personally bother me that gzdoom doesn't have demo support. I understand why it doesnt, but it will always be a major blindspot the engine has, for me.

[Dark Pulse]

16 minutes ago, coderamen said:

You need to chill out. Just accept that some people like the 1993 aesthetic due to nostalgia or love for older games. To each their own. I like the pixilated look of chocolate doom. Don't judge people for playing old games. Actually, with your argument, you shouldn't play doom because it isn't 1993 anymore. But here we are still playing it.

You thoroughly missed the point.

 

To him, that's what Doom is. To you, that's what Doom is. Sure, Graf has some extra pull you don't because he helms the port, oversees its direction, and moves in a way that he feels is the best way forward, but it's not like he's actively blocking you from going as crispy and strict as his engine will permit - he's just not going to make it purist, and that's a fair thing to do for an engine focused more on expanding capabilities while still being able to run Doom-engine games. But he's certainly got a right to think that what you like is ugly, just like you've got a right to think that what he likes is a blurry and smeary mess.

 

Welcome to the world of personal preferences. One does not invalidate the other.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Dark Pulse

[banjiepixel]

1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

I absolutely can do without low res-only solutions, that includes the entire 'crispy' family because on my monitor it is anything but crispy. :P

 

The crispy visuals could be easily compared to filmgrain, some people hate it but many people really love it and without it, things do usually look pretty sterile and artificial.

 

1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

I can't stand the aliasing from the software renderer

 

I might be a weirdo but I never understood people hating aliasing, especially when the game was meant to be displayed in 640x480 or lower resolutions. Being able to see the jaggy edges gives a videogamey look to the visuals and filtered image generally just too fake and artificial to me.

 

1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

I am well aware that this isn't how Doom was in 1993, but we are not in 1993 anymore.

 

Let me guess, you don't play many other retro games from that era, especially console games? What updates Super Mario World needs to be playable in the modern day to you? For me personally, why try to fix something that isn't broken. I like to play Doom same way as I like to play all my other retro games.

 

1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

And I absolutely do not care that some people don't deem this 'appropriate'.

 

It is a spectrum, not a binary. Just like with every artform, Doom content is made with specific intended experience in mind, the most appropriate way to experience the creative work, like movies are made to watched in a theater setting. It is less appropriate to watch movie meant for theater viewing on your phone but it may fit better for your personal preference than the appropriate, intended experience. But it is important realize that this can also effect your interpretation of a piece of art alot. And it does show some lack of respect towards the artist and their work.

Edited October 19, 2023 by banjiepixel

[LexiMax]

Let's not turn this into a filtering vs no filtering debate, because you can't account for taste and preferences.  Some people like turning on filtering on Doom art, some don't. 

 

Instead, ask yourself another, better question.  "What is a reasonable default filtering setting for a Doom port to have, given its art style?"

Edited October 19, 2023 by LexiMax

[Dark Pulse]

13 minutes ago, banjiepixel said:

It is a spectrum, not a binary. Just like with every artform, Doom content is made with specific intended experience in mind, the most appropriate way to experience the creative work, like movies are made to watched in a theater setting. It is less appropriate to watch movie meant for theater viewing on your phone but it may fit better for your personal preference than the appropriate, intended experience. But it is important realize that this can also effect your interpretation of a piece of art alot. And it does show some lack of respect towards the artist and their work.

Unless you like playing Quake with 10 Hz monster animation, I really am not going to buy arguments like this. Sure, there is a way that is the default, but that is to act like watching a movie at home "doesn't count" compared to watching it in a theater with the idiot who won't stop talking on his phone.

 

Both are different experiences. Both are also valid. The key is that you have a choice, not that there is only one way to do it.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Dark Pulse

[dasho]

Graf, I know we don't see eye to eye on many things but please work on demo support with the caveat that filtering is forced on for demo playbacks. 

[LexiMax]

19 minutes ago, Dark Pulse said:

Unless you like playing Quake with 10 Hz monster animation, I really am not going to buy arguments like this

 

I think our company did a fine job on the 2021 Quake remaster.  It comes with updated models, smooth animations and even new sets of levels that would be impossible on 1996 hardware.

 

Guess what kind of texture filtering it defaults to.

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by LexiMax

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

50 minutes ago, banjiepixel said:

It is a spectrum, not a binary. Just like with every artform, Doom content is made with specific intended experience in mind, the most appropriate way to experience the creative work, like movies are made to watched in a theater setting. It is less appropriate to watch movie meant for theater viewing on your phone but it may fit better for your personal preference than the appropriate, intended experience. But it is important realize that this can also effect your interpretation of a piece of art alot. And it does show some lack of respect towards the artist and their work.

No it doesn't. Any artist with half a brain knows that the vast majority of their audience isn't going to experience their art in the "intended way". This applies to the majority of people making Doom content. I like how this concept can only apply to certain artforms for some reason: how would you apply this to music? What is the intended experience? Seeing the band live? Listening to their album with specific equipment? If an album's production is made specifically to sound good in a car, am I "disrespecting the artist" by listening to it with headphones instead? Anything can have an effect on your "interpretation of art". Last night I watched a movie and I had to piss for the last thirty minutes so I probably didn't enjoy the film as much as I would have otherwise. Did I disrespect the director because of my bladder? If I pause a film and make a phonecall, thus taking me out of the "experience", am I disrespecting them? This is such a ridiculous concept that I always see being peddled around, very rarely by the artists themselves. Watching a movie on your phone instead of going to a theater is not disrespecting the artist, that's nuts.

 

1 hour ago, coderamen said:

Don't judge people for playing old games.

Please point to the part where he judged people for playing old games.

[Finnisher]

1 hour ago, Jayextee said:

I doubt anybody's actually making this claim. But I wish you and your strawperson a long and fulfilling friendship.

 

Not here within this discussion but I have encountered it more times than I care to admit.

 

But you seem to have some kind of a problem with me or anything I say seeing this is your second "witty" response to what I wrote taking partial sentences out of context.

I hope you and your personality have a fulfilling rest of your lives.

[banjiepixel]

1 hour ago, Dark Pulse said:

Unless you like playing Quake with 10 Hz monster animation, I really am not going to buy arguments like this. Sure, there is a way that is the default, but that is to act like watching a movie at home "doesn't count" compared to watching it in a theater with the idiot who won't stop talking on his phone.

 

Both are different experiences. Both are also valid. The key is that you have a choice, not that there is only one way to do it.

 

I love the original Quake monster animations, 320x240 rendering resolution and sofware mode visuals. And even if i didn't, it would be highly irrelevant because I am not claiming I play more appropriate way than anyone else. I love playing vanilla maps with Complex Doom using Zandronum and can freely admit that this is pretty low in the appropriateness scale, these maps definitely weren't meant to be played this. 

 

And that is the whole point of a spectrum, everything counts and is valid, it is simply about amount of how much of the original work of art is respected and preserved. Optimal parameters for this exist only very rarely, like a movie theater experience without some idiot not knowing how to behave in public, but theater viewings are still the intended format.

 

34 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

how would you apply this to music? What is the intended experience?

 

Music is more flexible because it often lacks the visual element. Concerts are completely separate from listening song from album or radio because whole element of being part of the audience existing only in concerts, the same element that also makes seeing movie in theater to be the intended experience. And the fact that video games do require deeper interaction with the work of art, it is much less flexible medium compared to music and movies.

 

34 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Please point to the part where he judged people for playing old games.

 

2 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

I am well aware that this isn't how Doom was in 1993, but we are not in 1993 anymore.

 

The implication is pretty heavily that no one should be playing Doom like it was in 1993, and by extension, this comes with implication of there being something wrong with other old games being played in their original or era accurate form. You know, that pretty typical GZDoom user attitude.

Edited October 19, 2023 by banjiepixel

[ebrl]

4 hours ago, Finnisher said:

Each to their own of course but making claims pure vanilla is the only way to play Doom is utter drivel and I wish it was gone for good.

Take it from someone who had plenty of pure vanilla in the early 90s and is happy playing GZDoom these days.

Either you are being disingenuous or you are unaware of the plethora of options between "pure vanilla" and GZDoom - "pure vanilla" essentially does not exist today except as a mapping flex.

 

Anyway. GZDoom sets out to fix absolutely everything it thinks need fixing, at the cost of straying away from the original Doom engine in matters both big and small. It is its own engine and it can do pretty much anything, including running Doom wads not designed for GZDoom to a degree of accuracy that's acceptable enough for most people. It is not compatible with anything except itself and it is a price it was always willing to pay - a price that is now basically irrelevant anyway given its position as, I assume, the most popular way to play Doom today by an overwhelming margin. I really don't understand why some GZDoom fans get so defensive, treating this as some sort of fight, given that if it was a fight, it would be one that they won comfortably ages ago.

[OliveTree]

dont make me tap the sign:

On 9/3/2023 at 5:16 AM, OliveTree said:

an official rules post would be helpful but I think these forums tend to abide by the golden rule: don't derail posts to complain about bilinear texture filtering