40oz Posted January 27, 2010 Mr. Chris said:because how many will admire the detail without putting themselves at risk at being killed by opposing players? That's my exact criticism of it. It's detail is so extreme that it's distracting. It's not even that the detail disrupts gameplay, I just can't focus my eyes on my targets before focusing them on the number of sectors. 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted January 27, 2010 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. 0 Share this post Link to post
Belial Posted January 27, 2010 Shaitan's Luck, last 3 maps, play them now. Animasse is an okay map, though some of the areas could've been less oversized. 0 Share this post Link to post
Cjwright79 Posted January 27, 2010 Belial said:Animasse is an okay map, though some of the areas could've been less oversized. It all makes sense if you understand the gist of the level. It's as much about fleeing as killing. 0 Share this post Link to post
Solarn Posted January 27, 2010 myk said: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. I truly am sorry, but that sounds like meaningless bullshit to me. 0 Share this post Link to post
gggmork Posted January 27, 2010 Detail seems to literally interfere with gameplay in boom sometimes for me. Like if there's height differences all around, my ssg shells hit half as much as normal or something. The auto aim algorithm seems to prefer to aim at higher things than closer things so the projectile flies up to hit far away cacos when an imp is right in front of you. 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted January 27, 2010 Solarn said: I truly am sorry, but that sounds like meaningless bullshit to me. Don't worry. Not everybody can read anything. Some people get lost on simple instructions, let alone reading developed personal viewpoints from a few paragraphs. The first tip I'd give you is to read printz's post again, to get a good grip of the context, as well as the rest of my post, that deals with related ideas. If any particular part or term confuses you, let me know. Having to rephrase the whole thing should be unnecessary. 0 Share this post Link to post
Shaikoten Posted January 27, 2010 myk said: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? AND 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. Paragraph A) I'm pretty damn sure he had the full wad. Which is why that review was so baffling to me. Paragraph B) The version of 32in24-7 typically is sans the text. Not an official modification per se, but honestly, anything to make it more playable. The new font was a last minute tack-on when it was about to go through the door. Also, the great thing about 32in24 CTF packs is that they are ruthlessly picked through by the IDL players after their release and checked for playability in a competitive setting. So while 32in24 is not always the pinnacle of mapping quality, when you have a huge map pack, there's definitely a large handfull of awesome. 0 Share this post Link to post
Philnemba Posted January 27, 2010 StupidBunny said:Review of "Some Evil Outpost" Thank you for the nice review although I do admitted that sometimes I forget to pegged the doors the right way -_-; 0 Share this post Link to post
Solarn Posted January 28, 2010 myk said:Don't worry. Not everybody can read anything. Some people get lost on simple instructions, let alone reading developed personal viewpoints from a few paragraphs. The first tip I'd give you is to read printz's post again, to get a good grip of the context, as well as the rest of my post, that deals with related ideas. If any particular part or term confuses you, let me know. Having to rephrase the whole thing should be unnecessary. myk said:If he was into the map why should he try hard to imitate something external? This part. The parts after that I understand, but this sounds like sophistry and it makes me confused as to the point of the entire paragraph. It sounds to me like you're saying that trying to create a map that resembles something else (a particular building, a landmark or just the idea of a building) is inherently inferior to creating abstract levels that focus solely on gameplay and belies a lack of creativity or conviction to mapping. Which is bullshit. Also, you seem like you're equating heavy detail with what you are calling mimesis (which word I am not sure can be used in this context), which is also bullshit. 0 Share this post Link to post
rrr Posted January 28, 2010 Gez, kristus, and myk commented on my response to esselfortium. My view is this: esselfortium's detailing is among the best in Greenwar 2, and his detailing interferes relatively little with gameplay. Esselfortium seemed to be apologizing for interfering with gameplay at all, and for this I praise him further. 0 Share this post Link to post
ArmouredBlood Posted January 28, 2010 Belial said:Shaitan's Luck, last 3 maps, play them now. Yay, someone at least likes some of the maps ;) 0 Share this post Link to post
Fletcher` Posted January 28, 2010 http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc37/ravagefox/gameplay.jpg 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted January 28, 2010 Solarn said: This part. The parts after that I understand, but this sounds like sophistry and it makes me confused as to the point of the entire paragraph. Rhetoric isn't sophistry unless it aims to confuse or hide argument faults. It can be used to reinforce language, grammatically or figuratively. If I'm arguing good maps concentrate on a mechanic "play board" over other elements, giving other aspects the focus is way of not being into the fabric or primary aspect of the game while designing. It sounds to me like you're saying that trying to create a map that resembles something else (a particular building, a landmark or just the idea of a building) is inherently inferior to creating abstract levels that focus solely on gameplay and belies a lack of creativity or conviction to mapping. I specifically noted that I was not against enhancing maps with some form of worldly representation. As far as I'm concerned, one must give importance to the playability aspect, and may bring in some "realism" as long as the top priority is covered. It was a response to printz which didn't entirely disagree with what he said, but added how it can also be an issue. He said it is good, as if invariably. That, I do not agree with. It can be good, when used in good measure and without getting in the way of play-oriented design. Also, you seem like you're equating heavy detail with what you are calling mimesis, which is also bullshit. I replied to printz about mimesis. It wasn't me who made the association between detail and representation. Printz was talking about using detailing to produce realistic aspects. I didn't make any direct link myself, although detailing and realism can both be used as a main focus in design, and can serve each other. (which word I am not sure can be used in this context) It's a classic term referring to the imitation of nature or reality. It's similar realism, that is tied to an aesthetic movement, but focuses on the fact that nature or reality is being imitated, instead of on the assumed resemblance obtained in an attempt. rf` said: http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc37/ravagefox/gameplay.jpg What's the point of such a generic chart? Game play in DOOM can be specified much more finely than that, due to its construction; its playing pieces and board possibilities. And, sure, you can alter the game or push its available resources to act differently, which arguably won't be "DOOM's game play" to the same degree, regardless of who likes the mod or not. In our community, most arguments around game play revolve around the hard game aspect. The challenge, "violent" action, or strategic placement. The idea that the player navigates a level or a series of levels, facing challenges, getting items to augment his power or get through. That is, not in the hybrid, broad or post-modern sense of play as "whatever any toy can or might provide" but according to the arcade-like nature and character of the game. 0 Share this post Link to post
Phml Posted January 28, 2010 rf` said:http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc37/ravagefox/gameplay.jpg Either there's some deep meaning I'm missing, or this is irony going way over my head. I personally don't care about any of those things for gameplay, although the terms employed here are vague enough that it could be argued I actually do and just use different words to describe the same things - to which I'd reply a subset of anything isn't the whole thing. 0 Share this post Link to post
Belial Posted January 28, 2010 ArmouredBlood said:Yay, someone at least likes some of the maps ;) I like the whole wad except for the icon fights which feel tacked on and pointless. There are also some bugs that could use fixing, like an untriggerable secret in map28 and some monsters that can be irreversibly prevented from teleporting into the map. 0 Share this post Link to post
Dco16 Posted January 28, 2010 I like some of the GW2 maps, but I have to agree that most, while admirably detailed, are distracting. Detail is nice, but just because you can have 10,000 sectors doesn't mean you should. Some projects, such as kdizd, have an amount of detail that becomes an eyesore. The engine and modern machines can handle it, but I don't think the doom engine was meant to support this kind of overdetailing. I can understand detail touches that add to the atmosphere of a map, such as hollowing out parts of a brick wall to make it look more destroyed, or creating lighting effects, but the visual detail of a map, especially on this engine where you're dealing with 256 colors, it washes together and makes a lot of finer detail look unnecessary, even gratuitous. There are sections of Greenwar 2 that are simply too busy. I can't judge it's gameplay, as I haven't deathmatched in the map, but there is a point where the detail goes beyond creating atmosphere and makes the map cluttered and ugly. Most of Esselfortium's maps in GW2 have a great amount of detail, but these details rarely get in the way of the actual layout of the map. There are times when detail is placed outside of the playing area. These sections are effective and keep the map from being cramped. Cramped rather than claustrophobic. The difference being that a claustrophobic level has integrated the design and the gameplay, while a cramped level is irritatingly overdetailed and imposing. 0 Share this post Link to post
Cjwright79 Posted January 28, 2010 TheMionicDonut said:Animasse - Chris Wright doom2.exe - Solo Play - 128625 bytesI'm not entirely sure what to make of this map, but I'm going to give my best attempt... It's cluttered, confusing, and what little detail it has makes little to no sense. I'm sorry that you couldn't decipher the original concept behind Animasse. That idea is expressed in the text file which you either failed to read or did not take with sufficient gravity. To reiterate, you want to get the yellow key from atop the garrison and scoot inside before the massive demon horde slays your ass. Once inside you're put under incredible pressure by all the Spiderdemons. You find the portcullis to a new area closed, so you look inside a wooden room at the top of the map. You find a switch to open the portcullis. Now if you've got this far you can breathe a little bit... anyway it's a new concept to you I suppose, and I understand that it is in stark contrast to every other map I've seen over the past year, which are all about complicated moonbases, which are totally antithetical to my tastes. Still, I do appreciate you taking the time to review the map. But, I feel your review did not really get Animasse, and it would be nice if maps were reviewed by those who at least partly understand the gist of each level. 0 Share this post Link to post
Snakes Posted January 28, 2010 No offense, but you need to stop being defensive about people who don't "get" your maps. This combined with your rant just makes you come off as a big baby. Just because someone didn't play your map and /newstuff it with, "SUPER MEGA CONCEPT IS AWESOME!!" doesn't mean it's their fault. It could mean that maybe the map isn't universally liked, which SURPRISE! No map is. TheMionicDonut is right about it making no sense. There are textures in there that don't fit in at all. I believe I saw some Blackwall and SLAD in there at some point amongst a level mainly composed of Marble textures... that just doesn't make sense. It is possible to make maps that you're making both fun AND aesthetically clean without the detail-humping that you seem to be against. What you were going for is cool and all, but it could be executed better, which is why you should stop being so, "You didn't get it," and more, "Okay, so I guess I screwed that up. I guess I'll try and fix it next time." 0 Share this post Link to post
Cjwright79 Posted January 28, 2010 Anyway I am a pretty dedicicated mapper so anything I allegedly fail at in earlier maps will be refined to a nicety. Try out Falstaff when it's up. Actually here it is: http://members.shaw.ca/cjwright79/falstaff.wad http://members.shaw.ca/cjwright79/fal2.JPG 0 Share this post Link to post
Patrick Posted January 28, 2010 Oh joy, another OMG DETAIL debate. Honestly I love high-detail maps. Gothic99 is my favorite DM map of all time and the extreme detail doesn't bother me in the slightest. Even if it's to the point where it hinders gameplay doesn't bother me (aside from that secret map in KDiZD, the details in that one were annoying.) Good job to everyone who participated in Claus 1024 2! I generally don't like 1024 maps, but this one takes the cake. I loved it. @Cjwright: why are you responding to this thread when you could have already put out another 20 maps? I didn't bother to read the textfile of your map and I still enjoyed it, granted it was a little confusing. Keep up the mapping! 0 Share this post Link to post
Cjwright79 Posted January 28, 2010 Thanks. It seems the vocal, ill-minded minority gets the last word around here unless someone speaks up. 0 Share this post Link to post
esselfortium Posted January 28, 2010 Cjwright79 said:I feel your review did not really get Animasse ATTN Cjwright79: You have become "That Guy". 0 Share this post Link to post
Cjwright79 Posted January 28, 2010 esselfortium said:ATTN Cjwright79: You have become "That Guy". He didn't get it. And I'm not shy about telling him, since he wasn't shy about telling me how little he got it. 0 Share this post Link to post
ArmouredBlood Posted January 28, 2010 Belial said:I like the whole wad except for the icon fights which feel tacked on and pointless. There are also some bugs that could use fixing, like an untriggerable secret in map28 and some monsters that can be irreversibly prevented from teleporting into the map. I thought I did a decent job on the map30 fight, but yeah the 20 one was really superfluous. Which secret on 28 are you talking about, I made sure there was a way to get up to the side ruins ones, and I'm pretty sure the sword invuln alcove triggers. I also noticed the reviewer found something on 25, which I think gggmork also found but I could never find and which gggmork later couldn't find either. I'm aware there was a HoM or two on 30 I didn't fix, and maybe didn't fix the secret before the mass of arch-viles, but I think that's about it. 0 Share this post Link to post
gggmork Posted January 28, 2010 http://www.doomworld.com/newstuff/ = "You are not logged in to the Doomworld forums. You need to be logged in for this to work." 0 Share this post Link to post
ArmouredBlood Posted January 28, 2010 Belial said:I couldn't trigger sector 3849. That one and the lift weren't supposed to be tagged secret, oops -.- 0 Share this post Link to post
Hellbent Posted January 28, 2010 r said: Most of the 36 maps are superlative. All are mega-worthy. Infurnus said:What does this mean When I would submit a map to r to dm in with me and others, he would often give it a letter grade as a simple way of giving feedback on how fun he thought the map was. I believe any wads with a grade of A were considered 'mega-worthy' by him. It just means good enough to be inluded in a megawad. From dictionary.com, definition of superlative: –adjective 1. of the highest kind, quality, or order; surpassing all else or others; supreme; extreme: as in superlative wisdom. 0 Share this post Link to post