Phobus
Senior Member
Posts: 1482
Registered: 10-06 |
I'll echo the sentiment that a horrendously ugly map that plays well is worth more to me as a Doom level than a masterpiece that is boring to play. Those levels in Russian MegaWADs like Whitemare and Sacrament that are gigantic, random explorations of beautiful environments (MAP02 of Sacrament being a particularly poor playing example) just annoy me because they make for terrible playing experiences.
However, I will always be most impressed by a level that looks nice and plays well - particularly if the looks produce a good atmosphere.
As for evaluating this thread - the poll and the question definitely don't match up. The options on the poll are all ridiculous extremes that don't make any sense (aside from impse, which is always my preferred option). If we're talking about realism - I'd see Revolution! as an example of realism in Doom done well, as the environments tend to look like "real" places (even the giant worms and sci-fi elements) in a "broad strokes" way, but are fun to play. Realism done badly, for me, would be Sapphire. Yes, a space station would most likely be flat and yes, we would expect plenty of technology in the corridors. However, big square corridors don't actually look particularly exciting (even with a nice space backdrop) and they definitely don't play well.
Hyper-detailing, for me, is when architecture is made at a very high resolution (1-4 size grid) and at a high density. This doesn't necessarily mean it clutters the map, as you could hyper-detail just by outlining each stone on the floor with a slightly raised or lowered cement border, for example, which wouldn't actually get in the way. However, this is far too much like hard work for no gain IMO.
|
02-08-12 02:39 
