Why is GZDoom considered "low vanilla accuracy"?

Discuss anything ZDoom-related that doesn't fall into one of the other categories.
Posts: 3090
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:59 pm
Github ID: Blzut3
Operating System: Debian-like Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, etc) 64-bit
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan Support

Re: Why is GZDoom considered "low vanilla accuracy"?

Post by Blzut3 »

bebipbop wrote:True. And I'm sure its difficult to find a balance between quality and accuracy with these things. Myself personally, I'm aiming for the highest possible gameplay accuracy without sacrificing things like the fancy GFX, or upgraded sound and input. As far as I can tell, the changes GZDoom makes are mostly aesthetic, which made me confused how Doomwiki would say it's "low accuracy". The biggest gameplay change I've noticed is the weapon RNG being real RNG. Given that there's tons of compatibility options for things like wallrunning I would personally say GZDoom is at least average...
I do think there's a fair argument to be made that GZDoom could be labelled as "average" using the wiki's definitions. How does one define "substantial" gameplay changes, and what's the line between "virtually all" and "most" in vanilla mod compatibility. In either case we're still talking 99.<some number of 9's>% of vanilla mods will work.

However, given the purpose of the scale is to basically differentiate the two schools of thought that is post-Chocolate Doom vanilla accuracy, and pre-Chocolate Doom feature war ports. GZDoom kind of is "low" by definition (as in we're the benchmark in which "low" is set). Although I don't like the confusion that the terminology causes to new users, which is to say vanilla accuracy sounds like a much more important feature than it is to most people at least with this scale, I don't necessarily disagree with setting it up that way. You could move GZDoom up to average but then "average" would just become the new bottom of the scale. Below GZDoom (i.e. "very low") is basically just stuff that happens to be able to run the Doom game data, but isn't actually Doom.

GZDoom has definitely improved in accuracy over the years as some of the more regrettable decisions from the feature war era (the era where it was basically a race to see who could put more Quake stuff into Doom) have been turned into options. But there's still a lot of little things that, if we didn't care about backwards compatibility with our own mods, should have been made opt-in. To that end I think what makes the "low" designation not bother me is that straight out of the box (thus the settings that we're recommending new people play with) this is objectively true, and we can't really fix that.

Ultimately I think some people look at the term "vanilla accuracy" and assume that it means we're going in and making tweaks to the core experience just because we think the game would play better, but the reality is it's a measure of something much more subtle. A distinction that for certain people (say speed runners) is important, but for the vast majority of people wouldn't actually care if they didn't have it pointed out to them. For what it's worth, the "Doom (strict)" compat option terminology invokes a similar response. For the most part unneeded and won't even substantially change your strategies in most mods (except for maybe the projectiles passing decorations thing), but people feel better turning it on.

Return to “General”