Most other problems are due to an interesting property of such old-school 'discrete' animation: not only does it forgive simplistic, unnatural movements - it encourages them. The last one is an exception, because it's an artistic decision that was made on a whim and cannot be justified as improving the technical specs. Back in the 90s there wasn't much point in polishing the frames to perfection, or at least whoever worked on them didn't think so, therefore there are a lot of discrepancies that jump into view when you approximate a 'seamless' animation.Īnd don't get me started on those muzzle flashes that get sucked back into the barrel instead of feeling more powerful, which is what the authors' intention probably was. All frames (yes, ALL frames, including the 'untouchable' ones made by id) would have to be altered so that the weapons stop changing shape as they go. The dynamics would have to be significantly altered first, so that this weird swinging of weapons back and forth wouldn't feel like ballet. But, I imagine, it's way too much work for something of this kind. Maybe applying some motion blur would help. Probably because the new frame rate is too much for the brain to start filling in the blanks, but not enough for it all to blend together.

But the shotgun still somehow feels jerkier than vanilla. Courtesy of id drawing a fairly substantial amount of unique frames on their own. I think some effort has been put into offering dynamic to reloading beyond simple frame interpolation, but the whole thing didn't progress much in the past years.Īt least it doesn't look like Flash, unlike something like Zen Dynamics.

Doom 4 weapon pack for brutal doom