Brutal Doom 64

[Lyric Suite]

Hit scan enemies have their place, and Doom uses them very well. Another Codex fallacy that just because something is used badly in modern games it is bad in and of itself.

 

[Lyric Suite]

>meme arrows
Unreal is a good example of an FPS with most, if not all enemies using projectile based weapons. Most of your weapons use projectiles too and the AI loves to dodge. I don't see what attrition based gameplay has to do with hitscanners anyways since Unreal accomplishes the same thing thanks to much better enemy AI.

Doom > Unreal.

 

[Ash]

Using instantaneous trace functions to simulate bullets is inferior to BD's more realistic and fair model. But yes, bullet-based enemies are fine, in moderation. Every shooter should strive to have at least 50% of its ranged attacks be avoidable projectile-based, imo. Doom's 80% projectile to 20% hitscan (or BD's projectile bullets) is the best formula though, and where many modern shooters stumble.

 

[tormund]

.

Doom > Unreal.

Summoning our local reptilian representative.
DraQ

 

[Lyric Suite]

Using instantaneous trace functions to simulate bullets is inferior to BD's more realistic and fair model.

No. The fact you can't avoid hit scan enemies and can only rely on them missing is part of what makes them interesting, particularly when you pair them with the rest of the bestiary. BD is trying to fix something that wasn't broken.

 

[tormund]

Thing is, you guys are focusing on original campaigns. Hitscan abuse, mainly chaingunner traps and snipers, has been huge issue with custom wads for ages and a cause for loads of heated arguments within community, and is one of those that are seemingly only becoming worse and more common as years role by.

 

[Ash]

No. The fact you can't avoid hit scan enemies and can only rely on them missing is part of what makes them interesting, particularly when you pair them with the rest of the bestiary. BD is trying to fix something that wasn't broken.

Have you seen it in action? Like I said, the difference is extremely subtle. Most people would not even realize that it is no longer hitscan. 95% of the time you simply cant avoid being hit by an accurate bullet, but that remaining 5% is fair and down to player skill rather than RNG. It's plain better.

 

[Sothpaw]

Trailer looks really good. I am playing through Doom 64 for the first time now (EX) and am really surprised just how great of a game it is. Will happily play again with the Brutal mod.

 

[nomask7]

>complains about BD buffed hitscan enemies creating tanking scenarios (AKA "attrition-based gameplay")
>learns that BD no longer technically has hitscan
>Changes mind and claims Doom didn't have enough hitscan bullshit

Clearly, you will defy all logic and take any stance as long as it isn't one in favor of Brutal Doom. Generation Xtra retarded.

Jesus fuck, autism overload.

1) Being able to avoid too much damage in the beginning of a level is completely different from being able to avoid damage always. Attrition is supposed to take place while you play through the level, not murder you in the beginning because you're trying to spend five seconds reloading your gun.

2) When will you realise I have no fucking interest in talking about Brutal Doom?

3) Attrition is a more interesting gameplay feature than awesome-dodge bullet hell, to me at any rate and to monocled people in general. If you want to argue against it, do so instead of lamely mocking the person who suppports it.

 

[Ash]

2) When will you realise I have no fucking interest in talking about Brutal Doom

You're in a Brutal Doom thread, autist.

You've no interest in having an informed opinion on it either, as the pillar maze in BD doesn't force you take any damage, even with the mod's more competent AI.

You're a vanilla edgelord that shuns more engaging and skill-based gameplay.

 

[nomask7]

Have you seen it in action? Like I said, the difference is extremely subtle. Most people would not even realize that it is no longer hitscan. 95% of the time you simply cant avoid being hit by an accurate bullet, but that remaining 5% is fair and down to player skill rather than RNG. It's plain better.

So, you're arguing that hit-scan enemies are bad, but in the same breath you're saying Brutal Doom is good because enemies behave almost exactly like hit-scan enemies. Why don't you decide which point of view you want to support.

Oh wait, I get it. You just want to cheerlead for Brutal Doom with whatever rhetoric you can dig up from your ass even though nobody is even interest in discussing the game. We are talking about hit-scan enemies as such, not Brutal Doom, you fucking autist.

 

[nomask7]

You're in a Brutal Doom thread, autist.

Don't call me an autist while complaining I'm off-topic and therefore must really be talking about the topic of the OP. Jesus fuck could you be any more retarded.

You've no interest in having an informed opinion on it either, as the pillar maze in BD doesn't force you take any damage, even with the mod's more competent AI.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You're a vanilla edgelord that shuns more engaging and skill-based gameplay.

I shun the aesthetics of Brutal Doom, because the main reason for playing Doom for me is its aesthetics.

 

[Ash]

You're an idiot. What is bad about hitscan simulating bullets, and what makes Brutal Doom's method superior, is the technical functioning of it. hitscan is an instantaneous computational trace from the shooter to the target. That's not how bullets work and it leaves no room for error, fair scenarios or skill.
Other than that, hitscan/ballistics-based weaponry has been the bane of FPS for years because of its excessive overuse. It's fine in moderation, yet many FPS' have been decline because of heavy handedness with it.

I shun the aesthetics of Brutal Doom, because the main reason for playing Doom for me is its aesthetics.

That's because you're a tard. Doom has awesome aesthetics, which BD barely impedes, but you've got to be a misguided retard to play games primarily for the aesthetic experience, especially geometrically-simplistic gameplay-focused ones from the 90s.
Shouldn't you be playing the PS1 port in that case? That is probably the version of doom with the best aesthetics and atmosphere due to lighting and audio updates.

 

[nomask7]

That's not how bullets work and it leaves no room for error, fair scenarios or skill.

It does leave room for skill, as I fucking explained previously. Two ways to avoid taking excessive damage:

1) Kill fast.
2) Use of cover.

I'll add that when we're talking about groups of enemies, you have to prioritise which monsters to kill first and be adept at killing the hit-scan enemies first, so there's a third skill-involving aspect to it as well:

3) Kill order and dealing with groups.

I'll add a fourth one:

4) Identifying enemy locations so you can do (1).

If attrition gameplay required no skill, it wouldn't be interesting. But it does require skill, its difference is that it requires a larger and more dynamic skill-set than mere bullet hell games. The point of attrition based gameplay is to be skillful enough to avoid TOO MUCH damage. Being able to avoid ALL damage is boring, lame, and lacks an aesthetic appeal.

That's because you're a tard. Doom has awesome aesthetics, which BD barely impedes, but you've got to be a misguided retard to play games primarily for the aesthetic experience, especially geometrically-simplistic gameplay-focused ones from the 90s.

Shouldn't you be playing the PS1 port in that case? That is probably the version of doom with the best aesthetics and atmosphere due to lighting and audio updates.

Sorry, I need an aesthetic aspect to playing games or I feel like I'm wasting time. That's just how I am, as an artistic and art-oriented person. And yes, I use PSX soundtrack when playing PC Doom.

 

[Excidium II]

 

[Ash]

That's not how bullets work and it leaves no room for error, fair scenarios or skill.

It does leave room for skill, as I fucking explained previously. Two ways to avoid taking excessive damage:

1) Kill fast.
2) Use of cover.

I'll add that when we're talking about groups of enemies, you have to prioritise which monsters to kill first and be adept at killing the hit-scan enemies first, so there's a third skill-involving aspect to it as well:

3) Kill order and dealing with groups.

I'll add a fourth one:

4) Identifying enemy locations so you can do (1).

If attrition gameplay required no skill, it wouldn't be interesting. But it does require skill, its difference is that it requires a larger and more dynamic skill-set than mere bullet hell games. The point of attrition based gameplay is to be skillful enough to avoid TOO MUCH damage. Being able to avoid ALL damage is boring, lame, and lacks an aesthetic appeal

I was talking leaving no room for skill purely in the technical functioning of it. Once the enemy has fired their weapon, the only thing that determines whether you'll be hit is RNG (and maybe some other factors, can't confirm without doom's code specifically).

Being able to avoid ALL damage is boring, lame, and lacks an aesthetic appeal

You can't avoid ALL damage. Especially not on some crazy fan-made wads.

Sorry, I need an aesthetic aspect to playing games or I feel like I'm wasting time.

Aesthetics are important, but extensive focus on it is another factor that has led to the decline.

Anyhow that's fair enough. I find it unusual and decline-enabling prioritizing aesthetics over game aspects in a game, especially an early 3D one. but whatever, diversity is the spice of life I suppose. If it weren't for aesthetics fags we wouldn't have aesthetically-pleasing games.

 

[nomask7]

I was talking leaving no room for skill purely in the technical functioning of it. Once the enemy has fired their weapon, the only thing that determines whether you'll be hit is RNG (and maybe some other factors, can't confirm without doom's code specifically).

Right, once you've put down your weapons and fallen to your knees, and the enemy shoots you in the face, you're hit by a bullet. Muh skillz!

Anyhow that's fair enough. I find it unusual and decline-enabling prioritizing aesthetics over game aspects in a game. but whatever, diversity is the spice of life I suppose.

I mean gameplay and everything else about the game creating an aesthetic whole. Some details can be detrimental to that.

 

[nomask7]

I find it unusual and decline-enabling prioritizing aesthetics over game aspects in a game, especially an early 3D one.

Graphics, as commonly understood (as an attempt at realism), has nothing to do with it. What's important is that Doom has memorable monsters, some memorable levels the kind of which you just won't find in any modern game, it has elegant gameplay, excellent soundtrack in the PSX version (PSX version was the first Doom that I played extensively), and so on. Graphics whores and looks-first people are just a bunch of retards. The ASCII version of ADOM is more beautiful than most modern games.

 

[Leechmonger]

2) When will you realise I have no fucking interest in talking about Brutal Doom?

Too good.

 

[Ash]

I find it unusual and decline-enabling prioritizing aesthetics over game aspects in a game, especially an early 3D one.

Graphics, as commonly understood (as an attempt at realism), has nothing to do with it. What's important is that Doom has memorable monsters, some memorable levels the kind of which you just won't find in any modern game, it has elegant gameplay, excellent soundtrack in the PSX version (PSX version was the first Doom that I played extensively), and so on. Graphics whores and looks-first people are just a bunch of retards. The ASCII version of ADOM is more beautiful than most modern games.

Aesthetics and graphics go hand-in-hand. Modern games go for levels crammed full of clutter with a realistic style (aesthetics) at high resolutions and with fancy technical graphical effects (graphics). all that banal boring futile recreation of realism instead of the gameplay-focused level design of yore.

What's important is that Doom has memorable monsters, some memorable levels the kind of which you just won't find in any modern game, it has elegant gameplay, excellent soundtrack in the PSX version (PSX version was the first Doom that I played extensively), and so on. .

BD has all of that too. Tight gameplay, the same memorable monsters, only more memorable as they put up a good fight, any soundtrack you want via mods, the same cool aesthetics (with some differences, some bad, most good). Most of the terribad aspects of BD are optional.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Aesthetics are important, but extensive focus on it is another factor that has led to the decline.

Funny thing to say considering Doom was such a massive jump in graphical quality.

 

[Ash]

Not really. I'm talking modern game design practices where levels prioritize emulating real world spaces packed with clutter and detail, and employ gameplay-focused level design practices second. the true cause of the decline. Doing that is highly expensive and demands huge teams, while making a doom level only demands one level designer making use of a small handful of textures and objects artists have provided. we're talking thousands of dollars of work paying that huge team over a longer period of time as opposed to two old school artists and one level designer doing their thing in a few weeks, with old school gameplay-centric design. That's why FPS games are often linear, and you don't get 32-level long campaigns these days. and if they are long in duration they are filled with copy and paste.
The graphical leap was primarily from Carmack's engine programming alone, which also provided new gameplay depth too (e.g levels with different height).

 

[nomask7]

Aesthetics and graphics go hand-in-hand. Modern games go for levels crammed full of clutter with a realistic style (aesthetics) at high resolutions and with fancy technical graphical effects (graphics). all that banal boring futile recreation of realism instead of the gameplay-focused level design of yore.

Edgy tards have one thing in common, they always throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because popular media associates beauty with realistic graphics lameness doesn't mean you should scrap beauty. Same as just because popular media associates immersion with cinematic lameness doesn't mean you should scrap immersion.

Popular media calls lack of immersion 'immersion', and it calls lack of beauty 'beauty'. This 1984 bullshit shouldn't confuse any real lover of games regarding the importance of these things when done properly.

 

[Ash]

Popular media calls lack of immersion 'immersion', and it calls lack of beauty 'beauty'. This 1984 bullshit shouldn't confuse any real lover of games regarding the importance of these things when done properly.

Understood and agreed on that front. Though of course some modern games do sometimes get beauty and immersion right. Rare thing, though.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

After having taken a long, hard look at this (and enjoyed Brutal Doom quite thoroughly) I can only say that I'm not interested in the slightest.

I'd prefer to see him work on an update to 'regular' Brutal Doom that fixes the bugs and issues that's still dealing with.