Why did you get banned from doomworld?

Why can't bricks have sand on top of them? You have an extreme case of OCD, which is short for Obnoxious Cunt Disorder.

It was as if i insulted the users who replied to me, and not the works of some other people.

@shibainumaster

There is something to be said about looking at a texture and understanding what that pixelated low resolution image is supposed to represent as a real life thing. The textures are a part of a whole sector, and each sector part of a whole map, with the map being fictional location for an implied narrative. For some players, it is important that a level looks like a real place. Why should I be expected to make sense out of a wall that has working computer panels on one side and a running waterfall on the back?

The Doom community has a timeline and we did get to the stage in it where we intentionally celebrated the way it has fallen backwards.

Early iterations of hardcore detailing in doom maps that made Doom look like a modern game can be traced to as early as 1997, with it picking up pretty hard in the early 2000's from mappers who werent quite ready to move on to new games.

The Doom community was beginning to establish its mapping kings and queens and new mappers really didnt have a chance at keeping up. It took a revolutionary idea like DTWiD to bring experienced mappers and novice mappers together on the same projects, and a new appreciation for that outdated id software's Doom aesthetic rose from the ashes.

Presumably this style of post-modern vanilla-esque mapping is because the doom engine is one of the later fps game engines that allowed for settings to be suggested instead of explicitly defined. It was ok that materials found themselves in nonsensical locations. e.g. sand dunes and liquids on the ceiling, wood floors/ceilings with burning embers for walls etc.

I can't say I know what the thought process is for every mapper when picking their textures. Do they know their tiled floors are just being cut off by the cold programming of the engine or was it an oversight? Having been someone who makes detailed maps, and seeing as some of these mappers credited under these cacoward winners have also made highly detailed maps before, it does seem to me like its a well-kept secret that experienced mappers are intentionally inhibiting the quality of their texture choices in pursuit of a more acontemporary mapping approach. An approach that a small fringe group of mappers felt was lost as the Doom community naturally followed the wake of the popularity of better, more realistic engines like quake, halflife, and unreal in the early 2000s.

I watched a video recently about the development of Unreal Tournament and the reason that game was so fruitful with good looking maps is because they put a massive amount of care and attention into developing the tools for their designers so they could design the levels they wanted pretty easily. Which is something id software wasnt really as adept about and why their 1993 levels dont really look so good.

In older editors and machines, the texture pickers were compressed, and it took a long time to build nodes so you couldnt get a visual of your map without waiting for long building times to test. Considering we have better tools and machines now, there are not any real obstacles in the way of choosing the right textures.

For that reason, I have agree that it does seem like a fake handicap that experienced mappers impose on themselves. It is particularly annoying that experienced mappers both downscale their mapping effort and win awards while new mappers achieve a similar result and are rarely recognized by name. Its a fixed system, imo.

In our fucked reality the only thing crazier is how crazy you look like to apathetic assholes when you try to explain whats fucked about it.

FWIW, I really like the heavy detailing craze of the early 2000s. I wrote a draft for a thread to post here about it but tbh i was pretty sure the doom community is so set in their performative ways that i was just gonna get grilled for it and i wasnt interested in knowing peoples opinions about it. I find vanilla mapping to be painfully restrictive and i dont have a lot of appreciation for what people do to maximize its potential. It seems like a fruitless endeavor when even really good vanilla maps can seem pretty bland to a decent limit removing map. I like seeing lots of transition textures and borders. But its also good for mappers to break their own rules sometimes too. There are some mappers that are so particular about making sure the closest texture/flat pairing is used on all surfaces of each sector. Check out maps by Khorus for example, the entirety of Base Ganymede or Khorus Speedy Shit. It does everything right and the maps play well but I do find the the map aesthetics to be really boring and i cant explain why. Its just too rudimentary i guess?? i dont know.

IS THIS MAPPING PHILOSOPHY

Both things are equally bad, you know the guys who worked on the maps you call shit because of some miniscule oddities are still active and you still risked having them see these fighting words of yours and feel like shit.

You think people who got banned from DW won't bash it? Wishful thinking.