myk
webbed digits
Posts: 14316
Registered: 04-02 |
esselfortium said:
Either way, the idea that visually detailed maps and playable maps are somehow (or should somehow be) mutually exclusive is my main point of contention here,
Mutually exclusive and conflicting aren't the same thing. I have to say, in any case, detail versus playablitiy isn't always the best way of putting it. Rather, level design for the sake of design versus playing. Detailing concerns play in there but are just a factor. These two things vie with each other for the simple fact that there are mappers who like to spend a lot of time mapping and players that like to spend their time playing in maps. Figuratively speaking, one guy sees the map mainly from his editing tool, the other sees the level in his game engine. In the case of Greenwar, it happened that levels created mainly to be played got a face lift. Some may feel that impressive improvements in visuals may have offset any issues in flow and playability, others that, regardless of any potential beautification, if playability suffered to some degree, the result has failed.
Shaikoten said:
tl;dr: If r told us this shit before we would have included it. But my respect for this review is diminished because he had it in his power to change this, and instead just said it was awesome.
Yeah, that's harder to fathom, although one doesn't always immediately reach conclusions (nor are these unchanging.) Perhaps early comments were more superficial or screen shot based?
printz said:
Detail is good. It makes you want to play further, because it gives you the feeling that the author really was into the map and tried to represent something.
If he was into the map why should he try hard to imitate something external? Mimesis can be a creative excuse and a means, but not an end to an action game. It doesn't matter whether a layout represents a theater accurately as much as it matters that the structures and things used play off with each other and the players in a way that produces a fine playing board. It doesn't even need to look like anything to be pretty anyway, and trying to depict something real in 2.5D often leaves one with tacky results.
Craigs said:
Everyone knows that it's completely impossible to make a map that is both beautifully detailed and fun to play.
It's not about an impossibility of anything, but a design focus. A relatively low amount of detail can look nice, can be edited more easily and quickly, leaves more time for testing and core design, and is less taxing on the system and on the engine. It's also a matter of valuation. If more attention to detail is important, what happens to all the levels that don't pay attention to it yet play very well? Are we supposed to miss their great layout and strategic design, pull out the editing tool to touch them up before we play? If the loosely detailed levels are worth playing, is that detailing work really worth the time?
There's nothing essentially wrong with extra attention to detail, particularly if it does not degrade play, but at the end of the day such a map will share playing with many others with much less attention there. The main drive behind such cosmetic work is best an enjoyment in doing it, making it a reward in itself. Espi's SiD creates a great environment, and I've played the levels more than once because they also have good action, but I've done the same for various sets with similar play and a less outstanding aesthetic.
Aside from mechanically, in many cases, attention to detailing also gets in the way of things in a more general way by distracting people from the essentials of play. If you could guarantee that these maps that get hype due to their aesthetic craftsmanship also play well, it wouldn't be such a big deal, but not that many do because paying attention to fine game play and massive work on detailing are a lethal combination for any designer without a lot of free time.
By the way, Erik made the Scythe2 levels pretty quickly. Not as quickly as the smaller Scythe levels, but in a rather straightforward way for such large maps. They have something of a speed map element in them. RTC-3057 uses some particular details but often as game mechanisms and it had a narrative to go with it all. The small scale design can be relatively simple, otherwise. Thunderpeak slowed my computer down pretty bad, so I can't say it is too playable...
Cjwright79 said:
For me, what makes a map 'beautiful' is that it's fun to play.
Yeah, play dynamics, in a mechanic way, are a main platter in the aesthetics of a level. Like I expressed in another occasion, grace, based on actions, is a key aspect of beauty. A level must be put into action to shine. Granted, it can be spoiled to a point with horrid texturing, shit music and lame lighting levels, but if it general layout and thing placement works, the main ingredient is there.
esselfortium said:
32in24-7?
There's some cool stuff there but two things aren't helping. One is the obnoxious small HUD font, although at least it is easy to remove, at least for personal use, as you guys didn't give modification permissions. Another, the new textures and their use, which on some levels make visibility "muddy" aside from not being as fresh as DOOM's texturing tends to be. If anything, the PWAD is saved by game play and tarnished to a point by some fugliness.
|
01-27-10 20:24 
