Advanced 3rd person features

[archer1234567890]

I would like to see some new advanced 3ps features as:

• Camera movement(Up, down, left, right) to make it look like RE4
  Targeting(in 3'rd person mode, pressing tgt button makes camera move behind player's shoulder, activates first shooot sprite(when weapon is drawn))
  Not full mouselook(like in legacy)
  CD music

[Graf Zahl]

Won't happen.

[Pluck101]

I find it quite a bother when people keep asking for feature suggestions that make DooM more like newer games (E.G Resident Evil 4). If you want RE4 like features,then play RE4.

[archer1234567890]

I'm not asking to make a new doom. Just to add more features so that doom would have more gamemodes.

[Graf Zahl]

'Just' is still too much work for the intended result.

[Gez]

A few tips:

• Don't make a single thread for several suggestions at once. One element per thread. They are addressed individually, and implemented or rejected individually, so make individual threads. Putting everything into a single block makes it cumbersome to keep track of what's been added already and what hasn't yet, so it's simpler to just reject everything in block.
  The same goes for bug reports, by the way. One thread per bug.
• Don't request overly vague things. "Camera movement(Up, down, left, right) to make it look like RE4" is very vague. You can already make camera movements, you just need to put cameras and use some ACS to script that. Is that what you mean? Or maybe possibility to control the chasecam? People who have never played RE4 are not going to have any idea what you're talking about.
• Don't request things that are fundamentally alien to the core Doom gameplay. I'll admit it might be difficult to know what falls in that category if you're not yourself a developer. Something like "Targeting(in 3'rd person mode, pressing tgt button makes camera move behind player's shoulder, activates first shooot sprite(when weapon is drawn))" is completely incompatible with Doom gameplay. The player never targets anything, as far as the code is concerned. Not even autoaim counts as targeting. Adding a VATS-like system as you seem to be describing would require changing many fundamental parts of the engine, so you can expect that to be out-of-question.
• Don't request non-features. "Not full mouselook(like in legacy)" is not a feature, it's a limitation. Pointless. I think you can already do it anyway.
• Don't request features that are already in. Check first you want is possible or not. "CD music", for example, is possible (though Windows only). Try playing Hexen with a music CD in your CD/DVD drive.

[Rachael]

And to go along with what Gez says, wait until you know a little bit of C++ yourself, and also know a bit of GZDoom code. When you realize that much of the game itself limits you on your options for adding code (unless you're willing to go on a bug finding spree after adding some of the stuff you've been requesting), you'll see why your ideas were so easily rejected.

There is no such thing as "bang, boom, there, it's done." A lot of work has to be performed just to even make some of the things GZDoom (a lot of stuff which actually comes from ZDoom, rather) already has - such as DECORATE. Other source ports are mimicing DECORATE and some of them still don't even have it right.

There are people here, however, who know enough about C++ to tell you whether a suggestion might be viable - discuss your ideas in the regular GZDoom forum first before making a feature suggestion. And also note that most feature suggestions should probably go to the ZDoom forum, instead, since much of GZDoom's gameplay features are simply inherited from that source port. The only thing special about GZDoom is the extra GL renderer that ZDoom does not have - this forum's feature suggestions should focus on that.

[Gez]

The only thing special about GZDoom is the extra GL renderer that ZDoom does not have - this forum's feature suggestions should focus on that.

There's a bit more than that actually, such as some measure of Legacy-compatibility that ZDoom doesn't have (FraggleScript support, etc.). Though features that are here for compatibility only shouldn't expect anything in the way of enhancements. About everything that could be done was done already.

[Rachael]

True, I didn't think of that, and I also wanted to make my post less confusing.