April Agitation: the megathread

Voting in these things is starting to get very hard.

E1M3 vs. E4M2, such a hard decision...

E1M2 vs Map29 was so stressful for me. I'm exhausted after having to go through that ordeal.

Generally i voted for the bigger, more advanced levels.

I voted MAP29. Episode 1 gets too much love this round! :(

these are getting harder to decide. good levels vs other good levels.

P.S: I agree with Blackfish. E1 is getting attention because it is shareware, and the maps are what people see when being introduced to DOOM. Of the 9 E1 maps, there are 5 that made it to this round. I only voted for 1 of them.

Never_Again said:

MUH E1M1 NOSTALGIA

This is the best Doom/Doom 2 map, not "the most iconic level" Hangar is a great intro level but it is by far not anyway near the best level in id's IWADS. E3M6 is a superior level in every way but "being a great introductory level" and even then E3M6 is nearly as good of an introductory level as E1M1 because that shit introduces us to the sandbox.

Pure Hellspawn said:

E1 is getting attention because it is shareware, and the maps are what people see when being introduced to DOOM.

To be fair, it's not just because of that. A lot of the maps have interesting organic level design that even a nostalgia-unspoiled person would appreciate over Doom2's more rough-carved blocky design.

Magnusblitz said:

Spoiler

MAP14: I find it hard to be impressed by some forced platforming jumps.

Seriously, do you find them bad in that map???

scifista42 said:

To be fair, it's not just because of that. A lot of the maps have interesting organic level design that even a nostalgia-unspoiled person would appreciate over Doom2's more rough-carved blocky design.

E1 contains Romero's worst id maps. Every single thing Romero made after E1 up till Daikatana was superior to E1. Every single one of his Doom 2, E4 and Quake maps.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not saying E1 is bad, it isn't, it's great, just everything Romero made after E1 was better.

Tarnsman said:

scifista42 said:

To be fair, it's not just because of that. A lot of the maps have interesting organic level design that even a nostalgia-unspoiled person would appreciate over Doom2's more rough-carved blocky design.

E1 contains Romero's worst id maps. Every single thing Romero made after E1 up till Daikatana was superior to E1. Every single one of his Doom 2, E4 and Quake maps.

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not saying E1 is bad, it isn't, it's great, just everything Romero made after E1 was better.

I'm under an impression that each of our posts has a different subject and the statements don't even interfere.

What exactly does "organic level design" means?

Like Thy Flesh Consumed: not planned ahead, but designed room by room in a disorganized manner, right?

dew said:

What exactly does "organic level design" means? [/B]

printz said:
[B]Like Thy Flesh Consumed: not planned ahead, but designed room by room in a disorganized manner, right?

I've meant something along these lines: Using lots of non-orthogonal and varied shapes and details + being interconnected and exploratory + giving a convincing sense of place (even in their abstraction) that actually affects gameplay in a positive way. These qualities have their own appeal, and I can find it in E1.

EDIT: The word "organic" means that it's the very opposite of being just a mechanical assemblage of prefabs. Which Doom 2 maps aren't either, but they're less of the very opposite of it = less "organic". That's probably how I was thinking when using the word. I know, it's vague.

dew said:

What exactly does "organic level design" mean?

It means you pay double for the fancy label.

OK, got it.

Honestly, I thought this was going to be harder, but E1M1, MAP15 and MAP1 were easy ones (I still don't understand what people likes so much about Containment Area...). The only really difficult one was E1M3 vs. E4M2.

Zed said:

(I still don't understand what people likes so much about Containment Area...)

Exploratory nature, abstract semi-realism, little gimmicks and varied environments to keep the journey interesting, lots of free roaming enemies while the overall difficulty stays low, and you can choose whether to fight the monsters with conventional weapons or a berserk fist.

I'm getting the feeling my avatar will finally be justified when the results of this round are announced :P


p.s vote inmost. vote inmost.

Zed said:

OK, got it.

Spoiler

E1M7 - Computer Station
E1M5 - Phobos Lab
E1M1 - Hangar
MAP15 - Industrial Zone
MAP11 - Circle of Death
E4M6 - Against Thee Wickedly
MAP29 - The Living End
E1M3 - Toxin Refinery

Honestly, I thought this was going to be harder, but E1M1, MAP15 and MAP1 were easy ones (I still don't understand what people likes so much about Containment Area...). The only really difficult one was E1M3 vs. E4M2.

What!!! Hangar over erebus.... I still think industrial zone had a wicked easy bracket where e2m2 and industrial zone are undeserving of a top 8 slot.

Well, in both cases it's mostly the visuals: Containment Area has an area filled with nothing but crates, I was never impressed by that, and in Mt. Erebus, well, the first time I saw the first building, I thought that was like a disco or something, and to this day I can't still get that out of my head. Besides, the layout may leave plenty of room for exploring, but for some reason I find it somewhat boring, so even when I prefer exploratory/sandbox over "linear" levels, in this case I honestly prefer the simplicity of Hangar.

Now, I have to admit I've never really liked either MAP15 or E2M2, but I think MAP15 is a little bit more tolerable for me.

scifista42 said:

I've meant something along these lines: Using lots of non-orthogonal and varied shapes and details + being interconnected and exploratory + giving a convincing sense of place (even in their abstraction) that actually affects gameplay in a positive way. These qualities have their own appeal, and I can find it in E1.

EDIT: The word "organic" means that it's the very opposite of being just a mechanical assemblage of prefabs. Which Doom 2 maps aren't either, but they're less of the very opposite of it = less "organic". That's probably how I was thinking when using the word. I know, it's vague.

Personally, I prefer it when "built architecture" (as distinguished from natural structures) is made from 90° and 45° angles and clean, neat curves. Erik Alm and skillsaw are perhaps the most popular torchbearers of this style. I'm capable of liking the odder angles, too, but I prefer them to fall under a clear unifying logic -- to recur in a motif-and-variation sort of way, instead of appearing randomly. Staying in well-known territory, BTSX has plenty of good examples of this. I like E1 of Doom -- it has four of my ten favorite UD levels. But that's in spite of its particular way of deviating from orthogonality, which generally strikes me as ugly.

In general, I think that considering non-orthogonality a valuable quality in and of itself misses the point and runs the risk of falling into dogmatism. I think "architectural liveliness" is a better and more to-the-point quality. There are many maps that are predominantly right angular that are very strong on this level.

Zed said:

Now, I have to admit I've never really liked either MAP15 or E2M2, but I think MAP15 is a little bit more tolerable for me.

I've always disliked the way of mandatory progression in MAP15. Jumping off skyscrapers into a place I cannot see because of no freelook? Taking a teleporter I've just ran from? Having to run into a wall that is actually a lift/door? And in addition, the progression is unintuitive and goes all over the place, cramped or large, big or small, dark or bright, and unless you already know where to go, you can get lost to the point of raging in complete cluelessness, because the paths are obscured. Now with E2M2, everything is fair. You explore an extensive while varied web of corridors and rooms, and there are no gimmicky betrays that would prevent you from progressing: Simply keep going to new places, pay attention to interesting things like crushers and locked doors, and you're granted an eventual success.

rdwpa said:

I prefer it when "built architecture" (as distinguished from natural structures) is made from 90° and 45° angles and clean, neat curves. [...] I think "architectural liveliness" is a better and more to-the-point quality. There are many maps that are predominantly right angular that are very strong on this level.

Generally, yes. It's only logical and I can see it. But read further:

I think that considering non-orthogonality a valuable quality in and of itself misses the point and runs the risk of falling into dogmatism.

I value fun and interesting design. Orthogonality tends to be stable, predictable and boring, while non-orthogonality brings the opposite values to the table, values that are more fun in my view. I believe that achieving "architectural liveliness" and "plausible-ness" is possible to achieve with non-orthogonal angles, and if so, I'd strongly prefer it. I'm even willing to cut down on "plausible-ness" in favor of fun and interesting design to a great extent, and I believe it's right, for the sake of keeping the player entertained and encouraged to continue playing, and perhaps stimulate him to think in new ways than the ones he already knows and predicts. That's my justification.

i played map18 and i do think it is underrated.

Choices are getting a little tougher now; I only dislike one of the remaining maps, but most of my favorites are still in it. With any luck, this round will weed out some of the redundant E1 maps, though.

I hope E4M2 or E3M6 takes it, but MAP29 is looking tough to beat at this point.

Come on guys, let's get rid of the intro maps (E1M1 and MAP01) ... I mean they're fun little maps, but they're SUPER short, it's not fair to compare these 5-room maps with full-on complicated maps that took a lot of effort to make and actually pose some sort of challenge.

Just for the lack of challenge and content these should get left behind and let the real maps get compared.

VGA said:

Come on guys, let's get rid of the intro maps (E1M1 and MAP01) ... I mean they're fun little maps, but they're SUPER short, it's not fair to compare these 5-room maps with full-on complicated maps that took a lot of effort to make and actually pose some sort of challenge.

Just for the lack of challenge and content these should get left behind and let the real maps get compared.

i think you need to play 5 Rooms Of Doom.

Added to my backlog bookmarks :-D

(Shit, it's not vanilla.)