Talk:Ouch face

It would be nice to have a screenshot and ideally a demo of this happening. E2M8 has a Cyberdemon and a Soul sphere; perhaps that could be used to trigger it? Fraggle 09:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a screenshot from of the ouch face in the doom3 press release. -- Jon Dowland 11:40, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Shareware 1.666 demo
Are you sure it's E1M4. I remember seeing the ouch face in an E1M3 demo where the doomguy picks up a medikit from the acid pit in the middle of the open area. -- TheDarkArchon 12:47, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * I just tested this, and you are correct. There is no E1M4 demo in shareware 1.666.    Ryan W 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

360 OUCH face
When i found the oUCh face on the official 360 version of Doom, i noticed it was slightly diffrent. Does this warrant putting up a picture of it? Tr1ckydr1v3r 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now, there isn't an established consensus about whether to put that information here or in the Xbox 360 article. (People sometimes do both, so you didn't make a mistake.)  I think however that such a picture should be of sufficient quality to demonstrate that the face looks different, which is not the case for this picture.    Ryan W 20:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think until a better quality one is brought on, though, we should leave it there for the time being. Tr1ckydr1v3r 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nature of the typo
The statement "the programmers had used a greater than (">") sign instead of a less than ("<") sign" doesn't sound right -- such a typo would result in the the ouch face appearing any time the player lost fewer than 20 health points. Surely the mistake is that the subtraction is the wrong way around?


 * Um... like this?

if (st_oldhealth - plyr->health > ST_MUCHPAIN)


 * In other words, taking damage never brings up the ouch face, but every medikit/soul sphere/megasphere does? Not much of a bug fix, if you ask me.  :>    Ryan W 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that little snippet of code should work... It works because it would be saying that if the old health was greater than the current health by more than 20 points E.g. if the player used to have 100 health but took damage and goes to 75... OldHealth=100 - CurrentHealth=75 = 25 (damage taken). 25 > ST_MUCHPAIN (20), so display the ouch face.  So yes, reversing the subtration would be a fix.  I think the point the other unsigned anonymous IP address was trying to make is that if you take the code snippet presented in the article and just exchange the > for a <, it won't work (that would bring up the ouch face if the player took damage and their health changed by any value below gaining 20 health. 74.41.85.138 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Testing for a < b is the same as testing for b > a. It depends which way round you put the expression. Fraggle 11:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, except (as presented) the code does "new - old > ST_MUCHPAIN" -- which is "when gain is greater than ST_MUCHPAIN" -- instead of "old - new > ST_MUCHPAIN", which would be "loss is greater than." The difference is the sign of the change, rather than the sense of the comparison; the article itself explains the 'buggy' comparison properly, I just wondered if the summary at the top was confused or if I was going insane :) 87.82.30.26 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. Well, then I guess I agree (except for the part about you going crazy, which you'll have to decide for yourself   :>    Ryan W 23:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading this again, I am agreeing with the anon people, and disagreeing with what I wrote above. The fixed version (PrBoom+ v2.4.8.1, st_stuff.c, lines 512-514) is this:

if((comp[comp_ouchface]? (plyr->health - st_oldhealth): (st_oldhealth - plyr->health)) > ST_MUCHPAIN)

whereas the current text in the article makes it sound like the fixed version should be this:

if (plyr->health - st_oldhealth < ST_MUCHPAIN)

In the second case, the ouch face would appear every time the player lost health during a tic. Fraggle, what am I missing here? Ryan W 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems correct to me. Anyone else have input? Zack 05:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Demo Video
Because the demo video contains a Screamer (albeit a lame one), I don't think it is very encyclopedic and it probably should be replaced. I wouldn't want to be a curious little kid who happens upon a demo video for an interesting game glitch only to be suddenly scared out of his wits. ;) --FireV 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 *  [IANAL]   If this argument has any validity at all, it applies only to the YouTube link, not the demo itself, which requires the viewer to have installed the game, thereby presumably accepting responsibility for his/her reactions to its resources.    Ryan W 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? It has a blown-up view of the ouch face, after several seconds of blank screen, and there's no shocking or suprising sound to accompany it. I don't think this is a "screamer" at all. -- Jdowland 09:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, uh, as the creator of that video, all I have to say is that wasn't my intention at all. It's just intended to show a blown-up version of the ouch face at the end of the video.  You'll also notice that there is no sound associated with the image, either a scream or otherwise (perhaps you watched the video with sound turned off?) Fraggle 10:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. It is just that it happens after several seconds of complete blankness. In my book, that is the symptoms of a screamer. Sorry for my paranoia. --FireV 18:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)