Foreverhood Screenshots

Foreverhood has the potential to be the best Doom mod ever.

I'm inclined to agree.

That's insane. It eats anything Tim Burton has ever dreamed up for breakfast.

He should write a screenplay.

Fractals in organic environments is a sign that the mod is really something else.

I wouldn't go so far as to call that a fractal (even if based off one), but it is very impressive.

Very impressive. Looking forwards to this.

Very impresive. It looks amazing, now let's hope that it's as fun.

Scuba Steve said:

Foreverhood has the potential to be the best Doom mod ever.

Seconded.

Somehow I don't think the Doom monsters are going to work in this mod. Something new, perhaps?

The only thing I can think about is how much this is going to crawl on my computer

framereates not too bad actually, its being developed on a pII 355mhz system with 256 megs of ram and i'm still pulling in a playable framerate.

The earliest rendition of this mod used things instead of the levels architecture. I had 3566 things within a 1024 X 2056 area. That, was a bad idea.

exp(x) said:

I wouldn't go so far as to call that a fractal (even if based off one), but it is very impressive.

its a fractal.

Doom Marine said:

its a fractal.

Please to explain why.

A fractal isn't just a pretty-looking geometric design. It has to be subdivided into parts that look like the whole, which means there must be self-similarity. I don't see much (if any) of that in the screenshot.

This mod looks fantastic, and delightfully original. Reminds me a little of the Nightmare Before Christmas, with the strange characters.

Can't wait to see this thing!

Yeah, this is something I really look forward to.

Bloodshedder said:

A fractal isn't just a pretty-looking geometric design. It has to be subdivided into parts that look like the whole, which means there must be self-similarity. I don't see much (if any) of that in the screenshot.

Dangit Bloodshedder, I wanted him to explain it!

Bloodshedder said:

A fractal isn't just a pretty-looking geometric design. It has to be subdivided into parts that look like the whole, which means there must be self-similarity. I don't see much (if any) of that in the screenshot.

There is no self similarity, i make sure of that (it makes for a more interesting level) Instead the level winds around its-self, decending in height so it gives the feel your walking around a very small amount of land that at one point had a lot more structure to it.

I posted the screenshot of the map origionally to show my teacher the advantage of mapping with a wacom tablet instead of a mouse. The result is an incorporation of my drawing skills into the maps layout. (which gives it a very organic feel to it)

Scuba Steve said:

Please to explain why.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fractal

The smaller combination of sectors in the automap closely resemble the larger combined shapes--intentionally or not, very cool.

That doesn't help your case.

Then I agree that we disagree.

"My argument is far too weak to hold up so I'm going to basically ignore you now."

Ultraviolet, insulting people over the internet is the equivalent to making fun of your imaginary friends. Try not to debase an argument with logical fallacies.

I see resemblance of fractals, some of you don't; different people, different premises.

Uv's e-penis is very large, but so is the dick on his realdoll.

Doom Marine said:

I see fractals, some of you don't; different people, different premises.

Dangit this isn't a "Magic Eye" poster. There either are fractals or there are not. And they are not fractals.

Scuba Steve said:

Dangit this isn't a "Magic Eye" poster. There either are fractals or there are not. And they are not fractals.

That's a subjective opinion, really. I pointed to the definition of a fractal, and based on the definition given above, I concluded that they are fractals, furthermore, my opinion is as subjective as anyone else's.

You insist that your perspective is correct... and you are correct working within your paradigm, but I am also perfectly logical in my paradigm that I see fractals.

Now, the argument can be perpetual like this:

A: It's a fractal.
B: I don't see it.
A: It's a fractal.
B: I don't see it.
A: It's a fractal.
B: I don't see it.
...

Which brings me back to my conclusion: I agree that we disagree.

Agree to disagree, oh how I hate this phrase. It's as bad as "Well, I have my own opinion." This is like debating Evolution with some people, They tell me "Well we just have different opinions about it then" Durr... of course we do, but that doesn't stop them from being dead wrong. You may THINK you see fractals, in that sense your "agree to disagree" is different from mine, but you're still dead wrong.

dude, the definition of a fractal is not open for debate. a fractal is a shape that is made up of smaller shapes that are exactly the same as the larger one and it continues on forever like that. there is no room for opinion here. it's like if I tried to argue that the letter 'O' is square. It's just not. You can't 'agree to disagree' because that screenshot is not a fractal.

I mean, you can, but you'd be wrong. there's nothing subjective about something being a fractal or not.

Doom Marine said:

Ultraviolet, insulting people over the internet is the equivalent to making fun of your imaginary friends. Try not to debase an argument with logical fallacies.

I see fractals, some of you don't; different people, different premises.

I'm afraid we're going to have to just agree to disagree on that! You're a fucking moron and I'm right. If you can't see that, well... we'll just have to agree to disagree. Fucktard.

BTW, you have a stupid username. Doom Marine? Fucking retard.

Also, just you try and point out which "logical fallacy" I allegedly "used." Dipshit.

Scuba Steve said:

Agree to disagree, oh how I hate this phrase. It's as bad as "Well, I have my own opinion." This is like debating Evolution with some people, They tell me "Well we just have different opinions about it then" Durr... of course we do, but that doesn't stop them from being dead wrong. You may THINK you see fractals, in that sense your "agree to disagree" is different from mine, but you're still dead wrong.

Once again, the smaller combination of shapes in--my eyes--closely resembles the larger combination of shapes... I won't resort to any abstract analogy concerning this debate. The Evolution analogy invoked above involves a far more complex issue than the simple debate of whether my eyes are fooling me or anybody else. The argument is turning into the perpetual loop as described in my previous post; I see fractals... you think not... I still see fractals, perpetual loop.
On a sidenote, I do believe in evolution.

Cyb said:

dude, the definition of a fractal is not open for debate. a fractal is a shape that is made up of smaller shapes that are exactly the same as the larger one and it continues on forever like that. there is no room for opinion here. it's like if I tried to argue that the letter 'O' is square. It's just not. You can't 'agree to disagree' because that screenshot is not a fractal.

I mean, you can, but you'd be wrong. there's nothing subjective about something being a fractal or not.

Of course the definition of a fractal is not open for debate; I pointed to the definition of the fractal myself trying to prevent such a debate from occuring, however, note that most of my replies regarding visions of the fractal uses "combination" and "closely resemble", therefore, there is room for subjectivity when I use such words in conjunction with one another. I slipped "combination" and "closely resemble" in my subjective viewpoint for a reason.

Ultraviolet said:

I'm afraid we're going to have to just agree to disagree on that! You're a fucking moron and I'm right. If you can't see that, well... we'll just have to agree to disagree. Fucktard.

BTW, you have a stupid username. Doom Marine? Fucking retard.

Hehehe! Hehehe! That tickles!... Too bad your empty words have no substance behind it.

I'll refrain from lowering my higher cerebral functions down to that of a rat's limbic system. May peace find you!

Ultraviolet said:

Also, just you try and point out which "logical fallacy" I allegedly "used."...

Well okay! If you say so!

...

UV: "My argument is far too weak to hold up so I'm going to basically ignore you now."

Doom Marine: There are several minor fallacies that can be drawn from the quote above, however, the main ones are...
Ad Hominen Abusive: by mocking the person, with little or no coherence to the argument at hand.
Causal Fallacies: I could replace the word "weak" in the quote above with "strong" and the "ignore you now" will still hold as invalid as before the "weak--->strong" change. The "far-too-weak" argument is pretty subjective, so I'll just have to disagree on that.

Now, I'm not sure in which context you wanted me to point out your logical fallacies; you should be more careful and less ambiguous in your wordings. I'll just a assume you wanted me to analyze both previous posts you've made in this thread...

UV: "I'm afraid we're going to have to just agree to disagree on that! You're a fucking moron and I'm right. If you can't see that, well... we'll just have to agree to disagree. Fucktard."

Doom Marine: It's really hard to point out fallacies in such an intentionally subjective statement! Yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree! But the question still remains: Ultraviolet, Did you really have to use profane language in this debate in order to compensate for your small penis? You don't have to reply if you can't comphrehend the question or feel insecure about it.