DRON12261

The links are dead and the author seems to have been off the grid for a long time. Does anyone have a copy of this collection? I'd very much like to get one.

2022 A Doom Odyssey No Sleep For The Dead Machete In Sunlust, on the other hand, I don't like the gameplay, at least the last third of it. At some points, it became too much of a grind, especially the last few maps. I don't like that kind of gameplay, but the visuals of this megawad are undeniably gorgeous.

(considering how much I've written here, and the fact that I'm not an English speaker, keep in mind that I may not have seen any inaccuracies in the translator) I will duplicate my post from a neighboring thread, which is very close to the current discussion. I respect what they have done in GZDoom for all time. But you should also understand that GZDoom got its popularity just not because of texture filtering, unadjusted rendering, etc. These are the very things that are a fly in the ointment. If I wasn't interested in this port I wouldn't have any other discussions with anyone on this topic, including Graf himself (although maybe our last discussion didn't go quite so well and ended in a dead end). But I really want this port to get rid of these problems and be better for all its users, especially for those who are new to Doom. All the more reason for it to get better at this point, it's not some technically insurmountable task. This is really a problem both for new players who just can't physically know how doom should look originally and they are likely to stumble upon GZDoom as the most famous port (and, notice again, famous just not for its default settings, etc., it has a number of other outstanding merits, which elevated it), and just for people who run another map, and it does not look the way its creator intended originally. It's fine when the player can play the way he wants, but in that case the player should exclusively self-consciously fine-tune the moments he wants to change, realizing that perhaps somehow this may not benefit the originally laid down game experience. In the first place should go settings proposed by the creator of the map / mod, as he, objectively, better to know with what his own creation can reveal itself fully and not break under some wrongly configured item. And only after that come the player's settings, if he really disagrees with something and consciously changes it himself to suit his own preferences. I propose the following, based on the above: - By default, many of the settings and especially the renderer should be set as close to the original doom as possible. I'm not talking about some 320x200 resolution or lock at 35 fps, no. I'm talking about, for example, properly configured lighting as it was done in the original doom. These are different settings like "Sector light mode - Software" (and I didn't find by the way how to file this option in MAPINFO in the documentation as I was told earlier, maybe I was looking in the wrong place), "Force Fake Contrast", "Tonemap mode - Palleted" and stuff like that. In GZDoom it is possible to set up a hardware renderer, so that it looks similar to the software renderer (not counting the technicalities of the software render implementation). If the player does not like something, he changes these things himself, consciously. To do this, it will be necessary to bring such options to the forefront in terms of accessibility in the settings menu, so that the user does not get lost in the huge number of settings. All this is necessary to avoid distorting the gaming experience on a huge number of wads made in the past, created right now and those that are still to be created in the future. GZDoom is not the final truth, dictating only its own rules, the truth in this regard is the original Doom, which in turn already under which most of the wads and created. And GZDoom, being a source-port, but not an original independent project, must maintain the authenticity of the product, on which it is based, i.e. the original Doom. - To introduce the possibility of detailed rendering settings for creators of the wads/mods themselves. So that these settings can be stored in the file of the wad/mod and that they are automatically applied when you start the wad/mod itself during the game session with this mod (without changing the config player, a great example of this is how CVAR work in zandronum, subjected to changes through ACS). If the player, according to some of his preferences, will not radically like certain settings that the creator of the wad/mod offered him, then he should be able to change them back to his own. For this purpose, in the main menu or settings menu, an additional submenu " Launched Mods Settings" could be introduced, which would display a list of the settings touched by the author of the wad, which the user can change back to his own. This would allow you to see exactly what the author has touched the port settings, so that the player, if necessary, without digging into the port settings themselves, could very quickly change something to what he needs. All this is also to ensure that the original gameplay experience in the wad/mod is not distorted. Note that I'm not suggesting to force certain settings completely, here they are automatically applied, but if the player does not like something, he can consciously change it in his favor, understanding that this may also to some extent somewhere to play negatively with respect to the inherent game experience creator. Here we should also admit the fact that the conditional README.txt just doesn't work and most players still ignore it and don't attach importance to it, if they try to read it at all. It's a trivial human factor, whether you like it or not. It's cool if you, the one who reads it, does it, but you can't even imagine how many people don't, especially newbies. It is important to understand that I am not offering a ready-made solution, I am only pointing out a certain vector, in which direction one could cast a glance. There are most likely nuances that should be further considered and changed, probably my proposal may not be optimal somewhere and someone may have a better idea. This issue could be more consciously addressed by the developers themselves and those who definitely understand a number of technical nuances of GZDoom, as they are more aware of those or other pitfalls in the implementation. Another counterargument against statements along the lines of "If a player came through as it turned out, but was satisfied, then it was okay" Not really. The player was only able to get a small fraction of the intended game experience, which fortunately in this particular case was enough to satisfy him. But the experience was not a complete one, the player simply did not realize that his pastime could have been even richer and more comfortable. I've seen this happen more than once myself, when I suggest to some players to replay my map with a properly configured GZDoom or some other port that is more in line with the visuals of Doom and they tell me something like "yeah, really, I should have done that from the beginning". This has also been mentioned here more than once, but let me remind you that it makes almost no difference whether a project is paid or not. From the moment an object of consumption becomes publicly available, there is always a certain amount of criticism or discussion. Moreover, various criticisms and feedback can be valuable for the creator. Especially when it is GZDoom, rightfully one of the most popular ports today, which itself is a bridge to Doom for many players. Also, this is VERY important. Don't even dare take this whole text (and the vast majority of other posts in this thread) as "Another reason to hate GZDoom", I know that some people, possibly including the developers themselves, tend to see it that way. This is fundamentally wrong. This is first and foremost feedback, fixing certain problems and suggesting solutions. All of this can only help improve the port itself, if the developers listen to it all. Also, do not devalue these problems, the very fact that someone is talking about it and someone has faced it already has weight. Many people sitting here on the contrary are interested in making the port more usable, as they are directly the main part of its audience/consumers - those who play it all and those who create content for it all. The very fact that someone takes the time to point out and talk about some problem they encounter shows that they care about it all. I also really hope that this thread will not devolve into an idle discussion for the sake of an idle discussion and that people will continue to post suggested ways to solve certain problems and in general to improve the port. And I really hope it all finally reaches the port developers themselves and they do give it some thought and take it into account. If there are developers reading this, please don't pass it by and try to reconsider some of your own views and take into account what your own users are talking about. Some points have been discussed and noted in the community for a very long time for a reason.

Rush (by Archi, 2014) is, in my opinion, the most non-choking and well-designed slaughter wad I've played. https://doomwiki.org/wiki/Rush https://www.doomworld.com/idgames/levels/doom2/Ports/p-r/rush

Well, that's what I meant all along. Except that by "bug" I mean some flaw, etc., that could sort of be corrected (The translator failed me, heh). About your style etc., it's always worth keeping in mind when publishing another map that there may be a number of people who may criticise the style etc. due to their own preferences or expectations. This is exactly what I mean by target audience, in the sense that you should understand that it's probably not possible to adapt to everyone and it's definitely worth highlighting a layer of people with similar tastes and views to yours and then targeting them. And still, it is often not a good idea to turn a blind eye to newcomers' mistakes. It is often the most valuable thing for them to give an extended feedback on their first job and can shed light on a number of things that are not obvious to them, which in turn have become commonplace for the regular. That will only increase their knowledge and expirience of certain things in the future.

A bit of gameplay with the Vanilla+ mod (by @WorldMachine) on DSDA, recorded by Track Federal. It looks pretty cool, actually.

Threashold of Pain (By now a legendary project in terms of PSX aesthetics.): https://www.doomworld.com/idgames/levels/doom2/Ports/s-u/scl_tops Threashold of Pain 2 (seems to have been abandoned for a long time, but it's worth seeing what's there): Doom PSX: The Forgotten Chapters by @Dantosking: EverDoom (DEMO) by @Nathan Silver: PSX Doom Uniques Revamped by @Kan3: PSX Doom: Fall of Triton: Triton 2 (remaster of Fall of Triton): In fact, there are more, such as another great remake of the first episode of Doom 64 TC and everything, then look for yourself. Also I want to mention the PsyDoom port - it's probably the only full-fledged way to play Doom PSX on PC today. PsyDoom has also had its own good mappaks, so you can look into that as well. There was also Perdition's Gate PSX, but for some reason it was deleted from the network (presumably copyright issues), but I managed to get a copy of the files, I can post it separately in private messages later if you want.

In my opinion today, the most stable, close to the Doom itself and yet bringing a huge number of optional extra handy features is Woof! (or Nugget Doom, as its successful fork). Also I can mention Doom Retro, but there the feeling of the game though slightly, but still different from the original. BUT, on the other hand, you can write VANILLA in the console there and you get Chocolate Doom, which can in Limit-Removing, Boom and MBF21.

Complementing the answer Xaser, I say that if you yourself do not know how you can implement a particular place, use references as any photos or art. It might also be an interesting practice to use AI generated images for a certain request. The trick is that the levels themselves can be a bit abstract, but realism resemble only in general terms in their visuals. And I think maybe it's the generated images that can give you some thoughts on that, since they can often look weird in places. But this strangeness will be enticing in the case of the level. But that's all my reasoning, and I'd be curious myself as to how successful an experiment with this would be.

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.

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.

ADO2022, E5M8, map ending

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.

Okullax - All of Chillax is in one map that will destroy your pc at launch.

I probably can't give a 100% answer to that question. But... The layout itself should work primarily for leading/progressing the player by level. I take it you are asking for the visual itself. If so, the layout itself doesn't affect that, the detailing of the room itself inside does. Make a point of interest on the locations that at least a fraction of a second, the player's eye can latch, but do not overload the frame, and also do not forget the background component, which the player's attention is not emphasized, but together they strongly influence the perception and emphasize these same points of interest. Choose a certain setting on the location and, most importantly, a certain color scheme for texturing, so that the frame looked harmonious, not overloaded. Do not forget to work with lighting and play with contrast. If you do not like straight walls and flat floors and ceilings, add volume, unevenness. For example, tiles are missing on the floor, lamps are sticking out on the ceiling, wires are hanging down, walls are layered, things like that. If you look at a lot of other wads with a good visual, all of them in their foundations often have the usual straight, near-square forms. But it's the filling, texturing, and lighting of these square locations that does all the magic. It's hard to give exact working advice on this, you need to experiment and pick the best options in your opinion. If you don't know how to set up your location, play other wads, look at the work of your favorite mappers, analyze what they emphasized. Anyway, any person's creativity is based on their own experience obtained from any other sources, including the creativity of any other persons.

First of all, some of the answers here were a bit frivolous and based more on subjective preferences I suppose. You need to look at the license. It is almost always supplied at the very end of the README file if the wad was uploaded to idgames. Often this may be enough. If you take the same gameplay mods, forks are often standard practice. But be sure to specify the original authorship and preferably leave all references to the original author's work, as well as to indicate whether it was somehow changed. If it is possible to contact the author, this move will not be superfluous. Still separately we can consider "abandon wads", wads that have already been lost in time and with the authors of which are simply not to contact, if there is even known authorship. Just as an example porting something on another platform is also good practice. In my case I found a person who is now doing a PSX port of my level. Of course he contacted me to coordinate some things, but I wouldn't have prevented him in any way if he hadn't tried to do it. I specified the appropriate license for it. Here is an example from my README, which is essentially a pre-made text that you can very often find in many other wads. This description is usually sufficient. If the author intentionally does not want his work to be reused in any way, he should have indicated this: UPD: Well, if the license of the original wad requires it, you will have to distribute your material based on license may be described in the original wad.

Perdition's Gate, which for some unknown reason was not even in the top 10 wads of 1996, and at the same time there are half of the other works in the list clearly weaker than this megawad. I highly recommend passing it to anyone who hasn't played it yet, even today it feels more than good, especially if you like the first Scythe.

Machete and 2022 A Doom Odyssey

In general, I will say only one thing, the usual icon of sin with the constant spawning of monsters and where you have to jump with a rocket to shoot in the head - one of the most stuffy and unpleasant bosses in general shooters. I just like the idea of a good tough hard (but fair, no need to strangle the player) arena in MAP30, which will be exactly designed epically, as a grand finale. And the very icon just nominally put at the end and let player quietly without spavners to kill it, as the "cherry on the cake" and the final point in the passage of the megawad. The only more or less interesting battle with the icon in my memory was only in TNT Revilution. So good luck with that one.

On the whole, I don't see much point in using anything other than Ultimate Doom Builder today, except for some technical issues with old hardware. Ultimate Doom Builder can do everything the others before it could, has a lot of new innovations, fixes, and just a number of QoL features. New configurations out of the box for different ports. In general there is probably almost everything you need for mapping to any format and any port, and that is created for these purposes at the moment. In addition, still keep in mind that he is now actively developing and you can both report any bug to the developers, and offer any improvements that have the chance to be implemented in the next update. The only separate doom level editors I still have are Doom Builder 64 and Doom Builder PSX, but they understandably have a slightly different specialization.

In fact, TNT for me is the weakest official set of levels, except after Master Levels. But it does have a number of good maps, mostly in the first half of the game, almost the entire second half was terrible for me when I replayed TNT with a fresh head in December 2022. So in my opinion I can't say favorites, but noteworthy: Tom Mustaine (ParadoX) for MAP01, MAP10, MAP17 (best level in TNT in my opinion) Ty Halderman (MAP04, MAP09, MAP13, MAP19) Dean Johnson (MAP11, MAP24) Jim Lowell (MAP12 only) Paul Turnbull (MAP23) As for the Casali brothers, their levels in TNT are definitely definitely not their best work, but goodness then they showed themselves in all their glory in Plutonia.

If you're going to take the name of something that already has a rich history and a big name on its own, that's going to be a big area of responsibility, especially if it's going to be a number part. People subconsciously, when they see "Plutonia 3," they're going to raise the bar of expectation. And at the very least, they will want to see quality as good as projects like Plutonia 1&2 and Plutonia Revisited Community Project 1&2. I don't recommend doing this unless you're really sure you can handle the task, which, admittedly, will be extremely difficult for a single mapper. And if you're new to mapping, it's better to forget about this idea, otherwise you run the risk of earning yourself a bad reputation. In general, probably having a subtitle but not a number in the title would be a slightly better idea, but you still still have to show a certain level of quality appropriate to the title you chose. This is a mistake SilverMiner already made when he decided to do Plutonia 3: Going to Surface as one of his first works, and as a result this work became attached to him as a stigma at some point. But in his defense, I will say that today, having had the experience, he makes quite good and interesting maps, at least judging from what he showed me, so do not take him as a bad mapper. @Lucius Wooding