Post subject: How to classify Doom publications
adelikat
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4738
Location: Tennessee
After discussing the situation with other staff memebers about this Doom submission, there is absolutely no consensus on what to do here. So I'm inviting everyone to discuss this situation and vote on what to do to help us make up our minds.
It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects
adelikat
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4738
Location: Tennessee
I'll start the debate by explaining my distaste for the DOS option. Doom isn't inherently DOS, as it also runs on windows. In fact, DOS had NOTHING to do with the making of this or any DOOM TASes. Nor was it emulated using an DOS emulator. Also, DOS is dubious in general since it is an operating system that runs on an emulator that emulates the underlying hardware not the OS. So I like the idea of cleaning up our movie classification such that DOS is removed completely. (My vote was for combining the 3). I also want to point out that between DOOM, DOOM 2, and Final Doom, including all episodes and both UV and nightmare difficulty (not to mention a ton of good mods out there) that there is plenty of material for a dedicated category.
It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects
Editor, Expert player (2013)
Joined: 8/25/2013
Posts: 1199
I personally think it should be combined into a singular thing. Sure, it kind of goes against the normal conventions of a TASing platform, as they're three completely different emulators. But to me, it seems a bit silly to segregate three different emulators that accomplish different ways of the same thing, which is to TAS PC based games. As long as its specified what clearly what emulator to use for each (http://tasvideos.org/EmulatorResources.html < here or whatever) I don't see an issue.
effort on the first draft means less effort on any draft thereafter - some loser
ars4326
He/Him
Experienced player (764)
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
I'd say that combining it all into a single platform (PC) is the most sensible option.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
adelikat
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4738
Location: Tennessee
arandomgameTASer wrote:
Sure, it kind of goes against the normal conventions of a TASing platform, as they're three completely different emulators.
I Just wanted to point out that only one of them, JPC-rr is actually an emulator. prboom and hourglass don't emulate anything, they log input. And even then, it doesn't emulate DOS, it emulates an x86 CPU, and only well enough that just a few versions of DOS actually run on it.
It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects
AntyMew
It/Its
Encoder, Player (35)
Joined: 10/22/2014
Posts: 425
I'm against the option of PC due to the huge ambiquity of the term, so I feel DOOM is the next best option
Just a Mew! 〜 It/She ΘΔ 〜
Joined: 6/14/2004
Posts: 646
Being different emulators shouldn't change the category anyway. It's not like we have all the various SNES emulators in separate categories. That said, I think combining them to PC is the best option. If you prefer, it could be listed as "DOS/Windows", similar to how "Game Boy/SGB/GBC" and "Sega Genesis/Mega Drive/CD/32x" are listed.
I like my "thank you"s in monetary form.
AntyMew
It/Its
Encoder, Player (35)
Joined: 10/22/2014
Posts: 425
NrgSpoon wrote:
Being different emulators shouldn't change the category anyway. It's not like we have all the various SNES emulators in separate categories.
This is different because prboom is a source port, not an emulator
adelikat wrote:
I Just wanted to point out that only one of them, JPC-rr is actually an emulator. prboom and hourglass don't emulate anything, they log input. And even then, it doesn't emulate DOS, it emulates an x86 CPU, and only well enough that just a few versions of DOS actually run on it.
Just a Mew! 〜 It/She ΘΔ 〜
Experienced player (630)
Joined: 11/23/2013
Posts: 2208
Location: Guatemala
Anty-Lemon wrote:
I'm against the option of PC due to the huge ambiquity of the term, so I feel DOOM is the next best option
That just would feel so unfair... I mean, are you sure it's a good idea to make a new publishable platform for just one game? It feels like it could be a waste of platform for one game that runs either in a DOS or Windows platform. D:
Here, my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/dekutony
adelikat
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4738
Location: Tennessee
Kurabupengin wrote:
That just would feel so unfair... I mean, are you sure it's a good idea to make a new publishable platform for just one game?
To be fair, it is 3 games, one of which has 4 episodes (that each would be published separately)
It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects
Editor, Expert player (2013)
Joined: 8/25/2013
Posts: 1199
Kurabupengin wrote:
That just would feel so unfair... I mean, are you sure it's a good idea to make a new publishable platform for just one game? It feels like it could be a waste of platform for one game that runs either in a DOS or Windows platform. D:
We did it for the Commodore 64, and that's not even accepted on the site quite yet :p
effort on the first draft means less effort on any draft thereafter - some loser
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Anty-Lemon wrote:
I'm against the option of PC due to the huge ambiquity of the term, so I feel DOOM is the next best option
What ambiguity? The PC hardware is pretty de-facto standardized. (It's a combination of x86-compatible processor with a certain memory and I/O layout, which allows certain specific OS's and programs to run on it.) It's clearly distinct from other hardware architectures such as consoles and other computers (both older and newer). The advantage of using a single "PC" platform category is that if (and probably when) in the future there's a TAS of something running on a non-DOS non-Windows OS in a PC, we don't need to create a new platform for that.
Editor, Skilled player (1404)
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 2086
I'd like to note this is going to set a precedent for other games with TAS Tools in developement which could potentially see submittable movies down the line, such as Half-Life or Quake. Personally, I'm in favor of keeping the category as DOOM, because the TAS Tools are made specifically for Doom Engine games. There are enough games to make this distinction viable. Next to the official Doom episodes and Doom 2, there's also a lot of mods (although they may fall under the same eligibility rules as hacks for other games), as well other games using the engine such as Hexen and Heretic. (Although it would be a bit strange to see DOOM HeXen listed on the site, might be a good argument for the opposite side.) You could however consolidate Doom and Windows (and maybe DOS as well) into a single movie page on the site, since it would be a bit strange to see it listed as its own category. Idunno.
AntyMew
It/Its
Encoder, Player (35)
Joined: 10/22/2014
Posts: 425
Warp wrote:
What ambiguity? The PC hardware is pretty de-facto standardized. (It's a combination of x86-compatible processor with a certain memory and I/O layout, which allows certain specific OS's and programs to run on it.)
I'm aware, but afaik it has multiple definitions. It can mean anything from "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" to including all video game consoles. The Amiga doesn't help matters
Just a Mew! 〜 It/She ΘΔ 〜
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
DOOM is very much the exception here, not the rule: it is a game originally written for DOS that was so popular that people kept playing it in the Windows area and that a source port had to be made that happens to be cross-compatible with the DOS version. But other than with such source ports (which are exceedingly rare), you cannot play DOS games on a windows machine except in an emulator, and of course you can't play Windows games on a DOS machine either. For starters because one is a 16-bit system which has issues accessing more than one megabyte of RAM, and the other is a 32/64-bit hybrid that runs on dual or quadcores and has system requirements starting at one gigabyte. Combining "Windows" with "DOS" makes about as much sense as combining the NES category with SNES (since they both run on a RICOH MOS 6502 chipset).
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
adelikat wrote:
I Just wanted to point out that only one of them, JPC-rr is actually an emulator. prboom and hourglass don't emulate anything, they log input. And even then, it doesn't emulate DOS, it emulates an x86 CPU, and only well enough that just a few versions of DOS actually run on it.
Indeed it does. Likewise, an MSX emulator emulates a Z80 CPU, and does so well enough that a version of the MSX operating system runs on it; OpenMSX has direct dumps of the MSX OS code in its share\machines folder. The fact that you need an emulator like JPC-rr to run DOS games under Windows clearly proves that DOS and Windows are not the same platform. By contrast, you can in fact run Gamecube games natively on a Wii (and the two consoles share the same memory cards, controllers, and even the same emulator), so combining those in one category would actually make more sense than combining DOS and Windows.
Player (142)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
adelikat wrote:
I'll start the debate by explaining my distaste for the DOS option. Doom isn't inherently DOS, as it also runs on windows. In fact, DOS had NOTHING to do with the making of this or any DOOM TASes.
How is Doom not inherently DOS? It was developed for DOS, and the original version runs only on DOS. Sure, there were ports to other systems, but when did we start considering those to be the same thing? And no, DOS had nothing to do with the making of this or any Doom TASes, but that's only true because the development of a Doom TAS is done on a port. I could make a Super Mario Bros. TAS using only a hex editor on my TI-86, but it's still an NES TAS.
Warp wrote:
What ambiguity? The PC hardware is pretty de-facto standardized. (It's a combination of x86-compatible processor with a certain memory and I/O layout, which allows certain specific OS's and programs to run on it.)
What, like a PS4, or an Xbox One? I find that a pretty terrible definition.
Radiant wrote:
But other than with such source ports (which are exceedingly rare), you cannot play DOS games on a windows machine except in an emulator, and of course you can't play Windows games on a DOS machine either. For starters because one is a 16-bit system which has issues accessing more than one megabyte of RAM, and the other is a 32/64-bit hybrid that runs on dual or quadcores and has system requirements starting at one gigabyte.
Although I agree with most of your post, I'd like to point out that the first non-DOS Windows was NT 3.1, which required a whopping 12 MB of RAM. In general I'm not happy about having movies specifically for one game. These input files are played back by Doom itself, not fed to the game by an emulator. This means that you're entirely limited by (or not, in the case of playback files that record position or such) what the game itself supports. You can't even go back to the menu, switch levels, change settings or anything, because .lmp files don't support that. Now Doom is very popular and has a big place in TASing history, and I think it's a bad idea to not make an exception for this. However, I feel it should be done with the note that a proper, DOS-emulator-made TAS should replace it in the future.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU
Radiant wrote:
windows machine
There's no such thing in nature.
Radiant wrote:
combining the NES category with SNES (since they both run on a RICOH MOS 6502 chipset).
Are you absolutely sure SNES is limited to the same architecture as NES?
Radiant wrote:
By contrast, you can in fact run Gamecube games natively on a Wii (and the two consoles share the same memory cards, controllers, and even the same emulator), so combining those in one category would actually make more sense than combining DOS and Windows.
I don't understand how you keep mixing up the terms "hardware" (console/computer architecture) and "software" (operating system).
Scepheo wrote:
How is Doom not inherently DOS? It was developed for DOS, and the original version runs only on DOS. Sure, there were ports to other systems, but when did we start considering those to be the same thing? And no, DOS had nothing to do with the making of this or any Doom TASes, but that's only true because the development of a Doom TAS is done on a port. I could make a Super Mario Bros. TAS using only a hex editor on my TI-86, but it's still an NES TAS.
First of all, DOS is only an operating system. DOOM was developed to run on any IBM PC compatible machine, and it's how we are running it actually. Sure, you can completely limit yourself to running it on DOS only, but how would you dump AVI from it then? And what quality it will be? Some may say "it will be autentic original quality", but why use poor 3D if we right now can afford superb 3D? Just run glBoom, and it starts looking as good as possible, while still syncing for the same movie. Should we drop advantages? I don't think so. It all means, DOOM is not DOS-exclusive. It's just a map.
Scepheo wrote:
However, I feel it should be done with the note that a proper, DOS-emulator-made TAS should replace it in the future.
The benefit from it being... what?
Now my actual thoughts on the matter. Why does PC as a platform even make sense? Because there is such a platform! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer It is not (just another) personal computer, it's Personal Computer from IBM. It has standardized architecture, as Warp said, and the idea is to have everything totally compatible between all the different implementations. So when we put console names as a platform, we are dropping the company that made it (unless it's NES or SNES), and just go with the name of the very platform. If someone is unhappy with the term's ambiguity, we simply can use IBM PC instead of just PC. That would make the most sense possible and leave zero disambiguation. And none of the games that do not run on IBM PC compatible hardware would make it to that platform. And all that do, will be there. Again, DOS/Windows/recent OSX/even Linux are only operating systems, not hardware configurations. And they are all ran on IBM PC. If they are not, it's a different platform. TL:DR: Combine by hardware configuration.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Why does PC as a platform even make sense? Because there is such a platform! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer It is not (just another) personal computer, it's Personal Computer from IBM. It has standardized architecture, as Warp said, and the idea is to have everything totally compatible between all the different implementations.
Indeed. As the article you link to describes, it is a standard platform with 16 to 256 kilobytes of RAM, a single 4.77 MHz processor, and up to 20 Mb of hard drive space. I wish you best of luck getting Windows 7 to run on that :)
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU
Radiant wrote:
Indeed. As the article you link to describes, it is a standard platform with 16 to 256 kilobytes of RAM, a single 4.77 MHz processor, and up to 20 Mb of hard drive space. I wish you best of luck getting Windows 7 to run on that :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible#The_IBM_PC_compatible_today
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Ok, let us compare this to a different platform, the Gameboy. To a layman, it may seem that there is only one kind of gameboy (perhaps with different colors), but of course that's not really the case. Since its launch back in 1989, there have been numerous different products in the gameboy line. For example, there's the Gameboy Pocket, which runs on different hardware (and looks markedly different) than the traditional Gameboy. Aside from that, there are peripherals and accessories (such as the Link Cable) that may be present on some Gameboy systems, but absent on others. Finally, there are some third-party products that Nintendo doesn't approve of but that nevertheless work with the Gameboy, such as the Gamebooster. So the point is that there is not a single set of hardware (or software) that can be called "Gameboy". Now what makes this all the same platform? Obviously, the answer is COMPATIBILITY. A Gameboy cartridge is designed to run on any Gameboy, because it's the same platform. Then we have the Gameboy Color. To a layman this may be "just a gameboy" but we know that it's really not the same thing. Now, the GBC is built on the same technical specifications as the GB, built upon the original gameboy's design, and in the same family. However, it has more memory and a different brand of CPU that's also faster, although it uses the same instruction set. Overall, the GBC is a different plaftform (and we do categorize it separately) because of COMPATIBILITY. Simply put, GBC cartridges don't work on a GB. Since the architecture is the same, the designers were nice enough to implement backwards compatibility, meaning that GB cartridges work fine on a GBC (natively, with no emulator). Of course, backwards compatibility is rarely 100% - there are in fact a handful of GB games that don't work on a GBC, because they're different platforms. Also, eventually Nintendo stopped supporting backwards compatibility, in that the Gameboy Micro doesn't support GB cartridges any more, but only GBA carts. Aside from that, "hybrid" cartridges exist that work on both GB and GBC. But overall, a GB cart is not a GBC cart. Same family, different platforms. === So, are we going to ignore twenty years of development in claiming that these are all the same platform? Despite the fact that old GB carts don't actually work on the GB Micro, and GBM carts clearly don't work on a GB either? Are we going to take the layman's view that all of these are "just a gameboy"? Obviously not. Then why on earth should we do that to DOS and Windows? Clearly DOS and Windows are two very different platforms, running on very different hardware; and clearly DOS games don't run on Windows (except in an emulator) nor vice versa. Are we seriously going to pretend we're layman who can't tell the difference? That really doesn't make sense. (Oh, and Doom? Doom has ports for multiple platforms, including DOS, Windows, SNES and PSX, and several others. That's nothing special, we have many games that run on multiple platforms. Nobody is claiming that a SNES is the same platform as a Gameboy just because you can play MK3 on both, after all...)
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU
As for Dooms for utterly different platforms, like SegaCD or SNES, those are ran on their original hardware pieces, and emulators of those inherently allow emulating the ports, as they were actually ported. Doom working on different OSes is not a result of porting, it's a result of using the original Doom map under the engine that was build to support different OSes. And as was noted, nothing needs to be emulated, unlike with SNES or SegaCD, the game just runs and handles input sequences. The principle of Doom demos is identical to that of Hourglass. It does not emulate. To Radiant: would you consider ports of the same game for Windows and DOS worth be published alongside? Also, please list the disadvantages of merging them, besides "feeling less natural". Note: I can understand DOS and Windows being linked together as Gameboys are, with still holding OS names. But we need more advantages/disadvantages of both ways, if we now narrow it down to just these 2 options.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Player (142)
Joined: 7/16/2009
Posts: 686
feos wrote:
First of all, DOS is only an operating system. DOOM was developed to run on any IBM PC compatible machine, and it's how we are running it actually.
No, it isn't. Doom was written for DOS, its graphics and sound were done by hooking into DOS. Yes, there is a version that runs on Windows, and yes, there is a version that runs on Linux, but those are not the original. Those are ports.
feos wrote:
Sure, you can completely limit yourself to running it on DOS only, but how would you dump AVI from it then? And what quality it will be? Some may say "it will be autentic original quality", but why use poor 3D if we right now can afford superb 3D? Just run glBoom, and it starts looking as good as possible, while still syncing for the same movie. Should we drop advantages? I don't think so. It all means, DOOM is not DOS-exclusive. It's just a map.
glBoom is, again, a port. It is designed to mimic the original Doom, but it's not the same game. If I ported Super Mario 64 to Windows, you wouldn't care how pretty it was or how perfect the physics and everything else were copied: you would never allow it to obsolete the N64 run because it's not the same game.
feos wrote:
The benefit from it being... what?
That we actually have a proper run of the game. It would mean that we're actually TASing Doom, rather than making the best demo that Doom can play.
Editor
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 1466
Location: Not playing Puyo Tetris
I think that having Doom as it's own section, isn't necessary, yet. But having a section for just Doom will allow us to have a place for all the Options that Doom Speedruns do have. We also have Doom 1, Doom 2, Final Doom (Added Episode 4 to Doom 1), Eviloution and Plutonia as well. That's 4 major games (Final Doom supersedes Doom 1 since it has All of Doom 1) for one "system." And the options below are possible for any of these games: ◾UV speed: finishing a level as fast as possible in Ultra Violence. ◾UV max: finishing a level as fast as possible in Ultra Violence, killing every monster at least once, except lost souls, and with 100% secrets ◾NM speed: finishing a level as fast as possible in Nightmare!. ◾NM100S: finishing a level as fast as possible in Nightmare!, with 100% secrets. ◾UV -fast: finishing a level as fast as possible, in Ultra Violence with the -fast parameter, killing every monster at least once, except lost souls, and with 100% secrets. ◾UV -respawn: finishing a level as fast as possible, in Ultra Violence with the -respawn parameter, with at least 100% kills and with 100% secrets. ◾UV pacifist: finishing a level as fast as possible in Ultra Violence, with the following restrictions: not harming monsters directly (no shooting, chainsawing, or punching monsters), and not harming monsters indirectly (no destroying barrels that hurt monsters, no activating crushers that hurt monsters). Causing monsters to attack each other is permitted, as are unintentional telefrags. ◾UV Tyson: finishing a level as fast as possible in Ultra Violence, killing every monster at least once, except lost souls, with the following restrictions: no weapons other than the fist, berserk fist, chainsaw, and pistol may be used. What about Quake? We haven't gotten there yet, but what about that game? Does it get it's own section as well? Because there's options there too. We have the main game (Quake 1), Hipnotic and Rogue. That's three games that use the same engine. The most common speedruns we could have for that are: Quake 1 done on Easy and as fast as possible. Quake 1 done on Nightmare and as fast as possible. Quake 1 done on Easy and 100% kills/secrets Quake 1 done on Nightmare and 100% kills/secrets Can we move Doom to it's own section if it becomes bigger then just Speedruns on UV with Any%? I think we should. Otherwise we will overload the DOS section. Also, Compet-n (The Doom Speedrun authority, so to speak) only accepts DOS runs on Doom 1.9. No ports allowed. So it's DOS. And no one should run the SNES, 32X or Playstation versions of these games. They are bad/inferior to their PC father. Edit: Also to add to the trouble: ID games made Doom II for Windows 95. It is Doom on Windows 95 (and above, including NT). Not sure if that's a "Port" or not. It does run Doom 1 and 2 and the other two WADs from Ultimate Doom's bundle.
When TAS does Quake 1, SDA will declare war. The Prince doth arrive he doth please.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11268
Location: RU
Scepheo wrote:
glBoom is, again, a port. It is designed to mimic the original Doom, but it's not the same game. If I ported Super Mario 64 to Windows, you wouldn't care how pretty it was or how perfect the physics and everything else were copied: you would never allow it to obsolete the N64 run because it's not the same game.
Am I missing something, or you're suggesting to host DOS Doom runs separated from Windows Doom runs? "It's not the same game"!
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
The benefit from it being... what?
That we actually have a proper run of the game. It would mean that we're actually TASing Doom, rather than making the best demo that Doom can play.
Elaborate on the differences between these 2, and on (again) how emulating Doom altogether is better than making an internal movie for it (have fun expanding that principle to Hourglass too). Re: new (and new and new and new) sections for game engines. This isn't going to end well, at all. On the long run, the line between "exception" and "rule" will become more and more esoteric, organization wise it's a total mess.
hegyak wrote:
Also to add to the trouble: ID games made Doom II for Windows 95. It is Doom on Windows 95 (and above, including NT). Not sure if that's a "Port" or not. It does run Doom 1 and 2 and the other two WADs from Ultimate Doom's bundle.
See? Doom is just a map!
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.