other reasons why snap map is not coming to doom eternal!

[sws1274]

Some people seem angry by the fact snap map is NOT coming to doom eternal. BUT some people don't know, that not only ID Software is exchanging snap map for DLC. but also might have other technical troubles with the ability on adding snap map too. i'm gonna go a little in depth about 3 reasons, enemy's/AI, buttons/area obstacles and templates. Reason 1. enemy's/ AI the only reasons why i think these might pose a problem, is because the map layouts in eternal are big and grand. But the problem is with memory/demon percentage, these two were in snap map in 2016"s doom. the thing is this is a huge problem because people might want more demons in maps, than before but memory/demon percentage strictly destroys creative freedom. Reason 2. Buttons/area obstacles these present bigger problems, because some buttons you have to shoot which then it shifts the map. and obstacles spin in different directions. no more words needed. Reason 3. templates these aren't huge problems but still might cause little mishaps, because maps are huge in eternal. they'll need to design big area's as the normal only making tiny areas rarely, that is A LOT of work. alright that's my other reasoning's, if you have any questions. comment them

[rawWwRrr]

It doesn't sound like you had a lot of SnapMap experience. None of the reasoning's[sic], which are more like opinions, have any bearing on how SnapMap worked. Some SnapMaps were huge, buttons/areas could be linked up in very complicated ways, there is always going to be memory limitations, and enemy AI had no issue with how large or small the maps were.

Unless id comes out with something specific, they're simply going in another direction. SnapMap was a fun little tool and some people made maps that rivaled the in-game maps. It just wasn't the solution to modding that most of the mod scene was looking for and in that it was a failure. It wasn't a particularly popular mode so for Eternal they aren't supporting it.

[Ransom]

Publicado originalmente por rawWwRrr:

It doesn't sound like you had a lot of SnapMap experience. None of the reasoning's[sic], which are more like opinions, have any bearing on how SnapMap worked. Some SnapMaps were huge, buttons/areas could be linked up in very complicated ways, there is always going to be memory limitations, and enemy AI had no issue with how large or small the maps were.

Unless id comes out with something specific, they're simply going in another direction. SnapMap was a fun little tool and some people made maps that rivaled the in-game maps. It just wasn't the solution to modding that most of the mod scene was looking for and in that it was a failure. It wasn't a particularly popular mode so for Eternal they aren't supporting it.

yes true in every way except snap map wasnt that little tool ;)
its a rly powerfull tool and i would be happy if ID will implement it. also if its a dlc for another 10 bucks...
the only issue with snapmap was the wrong lobby browser. if u want to play a map u have to choose a specific map. if u want to play the map with someone else he need to choose the exact same map at the same time and join this lobby to see if someone is there. so unless u want to play with a friend to meet in a lobby, u barely will see someone else in snapmap bcs there are tons of maps.
without a lobby browser which shows u open lobbys its a mess to find open lobbys... only that was leading snapmap to fail.

[Tazor]

From the mod tools that allowed you to create entirely new games while sending the visual quality 10 years into the future with the original DOOM to snapping Lego blocks together in DOOM 2016 to nothing at all in the latest DOOM entry.

How times have changed. Hardware is going forward while software is going backwards.

[Shrimp On The New Breed]

Publicado originalmente por Tazor:

From the mod tools that allowed you to create entirely new games while sending the visual quality 10 years into the future with the original DOOM to snapping Lego blocks together in DOOM 2016 to nothing at all in the latest DOOM entry.

How times have changed. Hardware is going forward while software is going backwards.

think they did say they'd look at modding post-launch.. However personally I'm not getting my hopes up on that front.

[IMMORPOSETHING]

snapmap in doom 2016 already look like it had hard development

[IMMORPOSETHING]

Publicado originalmente por rawWwRrr:

It doesn't sound like you had a lot of SnapMap experience. None of the reasoning's[sic], which are more like opinions, have any bearing on how SnapMap worked. Some SnapMaps were huge, buttons/areas could be linked up in very complicated ways, there is always going to be memory limitations, and enemy AI had no issue with how large or small the maps were.

Unless id comes out with something specific, they're simply going in another direction. SnapMap was a fun little tool and some people made maps that rivaled the in-game maps. It just wasn't the solution to modding that most of the mod scene was looking for and in that it was a failure. It wasn't a particularly popular mode so for Eternal they aren't supporting it.

well it actually wasnt perfect for the IA, the blocking box where a problem too...
also if you used to make maps you would know there are tones of objects and possibilites in there...
if there would be a snapmap DLC, anyways Im looking forwards to it

[IMMORPOSETHING]

Publicado originalmente por Tazor:

From the mod tools that allowed you to create entirely new games while sending the visual quality 10 years into the future with the original DOOM to snapping Lego blocks together in DOOM 2016 to nothing at all in the latest DOOM entry.

How times have changed. Hardware is going forward while software is going backwards.

more like development is getting more complicated BRAH

[Kaizen]

Then they should stop focusing on everything that doesn't matter, like graphics, dialog, cutscenes, fancy this and fancy that, and worry about the ONLY thing that matters in a videogame.
The gameplay. Quit sacrificing gameplay for irrelevant stupidity

[IMMORPOSETHING]

Publicado originalmente por Gameo:

Then they should stop focusing on everything that doesn't matter, like graphics, dialog, cutscenes, fancy this and fancy that, and worry about the ONLY thing that matters in a videogame.
The gameplay. Quit sacrificing gameplay for irrelevant stupidity

Im just pissed about 3D person cut scenes and long ass "quick time events"

[Tazor]

Publicado originalmente por IMMORPOSETHING:

Publicado originalmente por Tazor:

From the mod tools that allowed you to create entirely new games while sending the visual quality 10 years into the future with the original DOOM to snapping Lego blocks together in DOOM 2016 to nothing at all in the latest DOOM entry.

How times have changed. Hardware is going forward while software is going backwards.

more like development is getting more complicated BRAH

Development got complicated? Most games are made with old outdated engines that developers have learned almost perfectly. Even these outdated engines are still more than capable to make almost anything possible. Yes, they are bringing minor updates to said engines from time to time but rarely do we see a brand new engine made. Don't forget Unity. Anyone with half a working brain can make something in that. Even a good game if he has a fully working brain. Development is so complicated that in recent years we have seen indies explode in number and popularity. Games with just a 1 man team such as Stardew Valley.

Developing a video game is actually much, much, MUCH easier than it was 26 years ago, when DOOM was released. When people saw DOOM for the first time they thought it was black magic. They couldn't believe what was on their screen. And indeed it kind of was. They used so many tricks and workarounds, so much "computer magic" to bypass the limitations of their engine. Which, at the time, wasn't even outdated. DOOM 1993 was exponentially harder to develop than DOOM Eternal.

[Kaizen]

Cookie cutter engines are easier to work with, but all the nonsense they focus on is what drives up development costs today.
That and advertising/marketing, usually costs more than development, something I don't feel I need to pay for as I keep up with what I'm interested in and don't need nor want to be advertised to.

[heaDy]

Publicado originalmente por Tazor:

Publicado originalmente por IMMORPOSETHING:

more like development is getting more complicated BRAH

Development got complicated? Most games are made with old outdated engines that developers have learned almost perfectly. Even these outdated engines are still more than capable to make almost anything possible. Yes, they are bringing minor updates to said engines from time to time but rarely do we see a brand new engine made. Don't forget Unity. Anyone with half a working brain can make something in that. Even a good game if he has a fully working brain. Development is so complicated that in recent years we have seen indies explode in number and popularity. Games with just a 1 man team such as Stardew Valley.

Developing a video game is actually much, much, MUCH easier than it was 26 years ago, when DOOM was released. When people saw DOOM for the first time they thought it was black magic. They couldn't believe what was on their screen. And indeed it kind of was. They used so many tricks and workarounds, so much "computer magic" to bypass the limitations of their engine. Which, at the time, wasn't even outdated. DOOM 1993 was exponentially harder to develop than DOOM Eternal.

Publicado originalmente por Gameo:

Cookie cutter engines are easier to work with, but all the nonsense they focus on is what drives up development costs today.
That and advertising/marketing, usually costs more than development, something I don't feel I need to pay for as I keep up with what I'm interested in and don't need nor want to be advertised to.

So, this simply isn't true at all, producing any sort of AAA experience isn't gonna happen with a small team today, and the quality bar and pressure expected from the public is so much higher today than ever before. In AAA teams you've people 100% dedicated to simply do modelling, animation, sounds, engine, game logic, project lead, art direction and the list goes on forever. Back in the 90s you could have people being all over the place and all employees being leads of their respective areas.

It isn't black or white but rather depends on what you look at. Back in the early 90s you didn't have the internet, and with wolf, doom etc many things were invented as they went along with geniouses like Carmack at the front. While certainly complex and without much outside help, in wolf and doom they still even managed to create the game(s) a long with the engine(s), and we're talking months here, but with quake 1 moving to the 3d space and a way more complicated engine it took a year to just get it ready before any real work on the game could be done.

Your comments seem extremly pointed towards getting dev-tools up and running and being an artist or level designer. Yes, it is in fact a lot easier to START using the tools already provided to get up and running on an existing platform, and to get help today as of the internet and all the ackumulated knowledge. But that's whats leveraged by extremly complicated engines like UDK or UNITY. If you actually want to improve the engines or make drastict changes and so on it's anything but easy, even today. Let alone building or keep maintaining your own engine like ID or DICE.

Also while game programming can be complex enough, understanding and mastering engine programming and to implement a new renderer or something is way beyond the scope of what most people could ever hope to do. As Carmack said, how we put people on the moon in the 60s isn't even close to as complicated as the problems that are encountered and solved withing game/engine/tech engineering

The fact that ID managed to finish the extremly complex DOOM 3 with about 20 people over 4 years is pretty amazing, compare that to them having 200+ employees today. Also i doubt carmack would see doom 1,2 as his most complex work, it's just redicilous as he was writing the core of many of their following engines such as quake,doom3,rage etc.

[Tazor]

Publicado originalmente por heaDy:

Publicado originalmente por Tazor:

Development got complicated? Most games are made with old outdated engines that developers have learned almost perfectly. Even these outdated engines are still more than capable to make almost anything possible. Yes, they are bringing minor updates to said engines from time to time but rarely do we see a brand new engine made. Don't forget Unity. Anyone with half a working brain can make something in that. Even a good game if he has a fully working brain. Development is so complicated that in recent years we have seen indies explode in number and popularity. Games with just a 1 man team such as Stardew Valley.

Developing a video game is actually much, much, MUCH easier than it was 26 years ago, when DOOM was released. When people saw DOOM for the first time they thought it was black magic. They couldn't believe what was on their screen. And indeed it kind of was. They used so many tricks and workarounds, so much "computer magic" to bypass the limitations of their engine. Which, at the time, wasn't even outdated. DOOM 1993 was exponentially harder to develop than DOOM Eternal.

Publicado originalmente por Gameo:

Cookie cutter engines are easier to work with, but all the nonsense they focus on is what drives up development costs today.
That and advertising/marketing, usually costs more than development, something I don't feel I need to pay for as I keep up with what I'm interested in and don't need nor want to be advertised to.

So, this is simply isn't true at all, producing any sort of AAA experience isn't gonna happen with a small team today, and the quality bar and pressure expected from the public is so much higher today than ever before. In AAA teams you've people 100% dedicated to simply do modelling, animation, sounds, engine, game logic, project lead, art direction and the list goes on forever. Back in the 90s you could have people being all over the place and all employees being leads of their respective areas.

It isn't black or white but rather depends on what you look at. Back in the early 90s you didn't have the internet, and with wolf, doom etc many things were invented as they went along with geniouses like Carmack at the front. While certainly complex and without much outside help, in wolf and doom they still even managed to create the game(s) a long with the engine(s), and we're talking months here, but with quake 1 moving to the 3d space and a way more complicated engine it took a year to just get it ready before any real work on the game could be done.

Your comments seem extremly pointed towards getting dev-tools up and running and being an artist or level designer. Yes, it is in fact a lot easier to START using the tools already provided to get up and running on an existing platform, and to get help today as of the internet and all the ackumulated knowledge. But that's whats leveraged by extremly complicated engines like UDK or UNITY. If you actually want to improve the engines or make drastict changes and so on it's anything but easy, even today. Let alone building or keep maintaining your own engine like ID or DICE.

Also while game programming can be complex enough, understanding and mastering engine programming and to implement a new renderer or something is way beyond the scope of what most people could ever hope to do. As Carmack said, how we put people on the moon in the 60s isn't even close to as complicated as the problems that are encountered and solved withing game/engine/tech engineering

The fact that ID managed to finish the extremly complex DOOM 3 with about 20 people over 4 years is pretty amazing, compare that to them having 200+ employees today. Also i doubt carmack would see doom 1,2 as his most complex work, it's just redicilous as he was writing the core of many of their following engines such as quake,doom3,rage etc.

Funny. You have these games with big budgets like Anthem. Which are a boring mess. But a couple of people can make something that is a lot more fun to play on very little money. Like DUSK. You want 3rd person? You got Risk of Rain 2.

[Kaizen]

Not uhh.. sure what that block of text was about, but what did any of that have to do with me not wanting to have to put in a single red cent towards their advertising and marketing costs?
As well as cookie cutter engines like UE3/4 being easy to work with?

[heaDy]

Publicado originalmente por Tazor:

Publicado originalmente por heaDy:

So, this is simply isn't true at all, producing any sort of AAA experience isn't gonna happen with a small team today, and the quality bar and pressure expected from the public is so much higher today than ever before. In AAA teams you've people 100% dedicated to simply do modelling, animation, sounds, engine, game logic, project lead, art direction and the list goes on forever. Back in the 90s you could have people being all over the place and all employees being leads of their respective areas.

It isn't black or white but rather depends on what you look at. Back in the early 90s you didn't have the internet, and with wolf, doom etc many things were invented as they went along with geniouses like Carmack at the front. While certainly complex and without much outside help, in wolf and doom they still even managed to create the game(s) a long with the engine(s), and we're talking months here, but with quake 1 moving to the 3d space and a way more complicated engine it took a year to just get it ready before any real work on the game could be done.

Your comments seem extremly pointed towards getting dev-tools up and running and being an artist or level designer. Yes, it is in fact a lot easier to START using the tools already provided to get up and running on an existing platform, and to get help today as of the internet and all the ackumulated knowledge. But that's whats leveraged by extremly complicated engines like UDK or UNITY. If you actually want to improve the engines or make drastict changes and so on it's anything but easy, even today. Let alone building or keep maintaining your own engine like ID or DICE.

Also while game programming can be complex enough, understanding and mastering engine programming and to implement a new renderer or something is way beyond the scope of what most people could ever hope to do. As Carmack said, how we put people on the moon in the 60s isn't even close to as complicated as the problems that are encountered and solved withing game/engine/tech engineering

The fact that ID managed to finish the extremly complex DOOM 3 with about 20 people over 4 years is pretty amazing, compare that to them having 200+ employees today. Also i doubt carmack would see doom 1,2 as his most complex work, it's just redicilous as he was writing the core of many of their following engines such as quake,doom3,rage etc.

Funny. You have these games with big budgets like Anthem. Which are a boring mess. But a couple of people can make something that is a lot more fun to play on very little money. Like DUSK. You want 3rd person? You got Risk of Rain 2.

If the game is funny/entertaining or not is subjective , and even if it is a well executed game design it doesn't necessarily need to have any direct relevance to the engine. As previously mentioned, just look at UDK or Unity.

Frostbite is a result of many millions of man hours over the course of many many years, the same with UDK, ID tech & Unity, and most games for that matter. They are impressive pieces of tech that leverage amazing tools, and if the developers then use it to create bad games or good games doesn't need to have anything to do with the platform, unless the platform is bad from the begining of course.

Creating games in the 90s was a cakewalk compared to now. It was fast and you could get stuff into the engine in no-time. That isn't to say there wasn't huge challenges and amazing things achived, but games and especially game engines of today are way way more complicated than anything from the 90s. In the 90s the most complex thing was the engine, building the assets and game logic was fast, today the engine is still the most complex software but everything on top of that requires so much more work and quality. Once again, you've people dedicated to just model a single model during the entire dev cycle of a game like Cod.

Dusk isn't AAA so I don't understand how you even compare it. Doom 1,2 wasn't AAA either, at the time the concept barely existed. I personally didn't like Dusk but it's impressive for one person to have made and it's not obecjtivly bad, i just didn't enjoy it.