Sprawling Maps vs. Compact Clever Maps

Perhaps an effective way to design a large map is to think of it as many small maps mashed together. Then you're forced to make each area interesting and not just add filler to it to stretch it out. Making a larger map that's as fun as a smaller map certainly requires more commitment since you ideally want it to be just as dense but in a larger area. One mistake many big areas in games make is making the larger areas too barren because they don't have the time (or hardware resources) to fill up that space effectively.

To me the most important aspect of a Doom map is strong gameplay and flow, if that makes any sense. I think both elements can be achieved in sprawling/compact maps. The level doesn't even have to be the prettiest, up to date modern standards.

I also enjoy a variety of sizes, but given that the OP referred to interconnectedness and a clever, interwoven flow (I think), then I would say these are qualities that I prize and find satisfying in all maps. Admittedly, achieving this in practice does tend to lead towards smaller maps.

Historically, I've tended to prefer playing and designing medium-sized maps. Medium by my definition, at least. For me, a medium-sized map takes 30 - 45 minutes to play and has between 220 - 400 monsters, assuming it's a traditional design. But I'm a slower player than people who are actually good at Doom. Good players can chew through my maps in 15 - 25 minutes.

My design tendency has shifted to smaller, slaughtery maps because I don't have the time anymore to polish maps with 500+ sectors or keep playtesting maps with 500+ monsters. Cold equations. I still like to play biggish maps by other designers. Mekmaps, for example.

Scythe is one of a kind except is sequel. A map shouldn't overstay its welcome.

Anyone who knows me knows what I'm gonna say. :P I suppose it's cause I get burned out whenever I try to make anything large.

Memfis said:

imo most of Scythe maps are "pointless" when judged individually

Good lord man. I didn't realize our tastes were so "night VS day" so to speak. I'm with Voltcom9 - A small, rough map is a fun blast for me everytime. If it looks awesome, tons of bonus points, but it's not completely neccessary.

I'm not steadfast though. I love intricately detailed sprawling maps from time to time, I just have trouble playing more than about two in a row, where as with "bite size" maps I get through about 10.

I guess what I just realized is that I like all maps, but after but 90 minutes or so, I'm burnt out a need a break. So, to cut this shit, I'll just say a little A and a little B. :)

Doomkid said:

I guess what I just realized is that I like all maps, but after but 90 minutes or so, I'm burnt out a need a break. So, to cut this shit, I'll just say a little A and a little B. :)

I agree with this. if i randomly pick up a map on the spot, any map, i'll happily play through it; as long as i haven't gotten bored of doom for that day yet.

I like large maps if they're interesting to look at (ie. those super cool GZDoom masterpieces you play for an hour and forget about) but for gameplay I like small maps that focus on gameplay over aesthetics.

Gez said:

I like variety. Have some short compact maps then one big sprawling one, then back to compact, etc.

mostly this. i prefer compact to medium sized maps generally, but large maps can give one this feeling of adventure exploration, which can also be very satisfying - if the map is well made. if the map is just big and boring, it just takes longer to get to its end.

sprawling maps need some landmarks and variety for the player to keep his bearings. it's frustrating when you have the key, but no idea how to get to the corresponding door, because everything looks the same.

A point I haven't seen raised - when a map is short enough it becomes very comfortable to play without quicksaves. I've been ironmanning DTWID lately with great relish. I loved some of the monster maps in Resurgence, and I've always been a fan of Eternal's epics, but I hardly ever play such monster maps without saves. It's a very different experience and I enjoy both.

Both have their uses, and too much of either quickly ends up boring/frustrating. But given the choice I'd prefer sprawling.

I am disappointed every time a map ends quickly. I've never cared for small, quick maps. They also tend to be of that layout type that bores me to tears, where there's a small area that is milked to death by having the player traverse it in all possible directions while picking up endless keys, and all objectives (including the end) are usually in sight right away. Well, I mean, large maps can do that kind of thing too, I guess, but it pretty much can't be nearly as bad if the reused area is suffuciently big. When you have to do it in a small area, you barely see anything new during the whole map after the initial first look at the area, and it's just boring no matter what clever fights the mapper can put in the same space. Combat alone can't make a map interesting for me.
So yeah, large maps all the way. Even if they're linear. Even if large portions of them don't contribute to gameplay (well, technically they do, but people tend to say that when there's no real fights for a while). Small maps are pointless.

I like a mixture of the two. Large maps with many small areas and a few large ones. When I map, the corners are tight, the rooms are average, and the monsters are strategically placed. Huge areas make it too easy for me to play, and too difficult to map in an aesthetically pleasing way.