Doom monster
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Classic Doom > WADs & Mods > Opinions of slaughtermaps?
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:36. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Agentbromsnor
Member


Posts: 422
Registered: 04-12



j4rio said:

So if a slaughtermap looks good then you'd like it?

Nitpicking about looks in gameplay oriented maps is pretty low, if you ask me.



What CAN I nitpick in a slaughtermap, if not for the graphics?

I just see it as a silly excuse for blandness. A good map needs to meet all factors in order to be good, and its not as if its hard to create a good looking slaughtermap. Take Sunder for example, the maps are generally good looking with plenty of detail without overdoing it. Wether you like it or not, graphics are an important part of the impression; if I see a map with giant blocky and empty sectors and bland hallways, I don't really feel like playing it and I imagine lots of players here feel the same way.

Old Post 11-23-12 20:54 #
Agentbromsnor is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Agentbromsnor
Member


Posts: 422
Registered: 04-12



myk said:
I was referring to your rhetoric in general, even before the demo request came up. (At first by comparing my own less hostile attitude toward skilled players and slaughter maps). We all agree it doesn't matter specifically whether you're a great player or barely better than a noob. The "uninteresting point" is actually your own point, since you said you had beaten slaughter maps and people wanted to see what you meant by that by seeing you play.



*sigh* Let me explain this one more time.

I did NOT write anything about my skill to play slaughtermaps, I only stated that I've beaten a couple and I didn't like them for the reasons that I stated earlier. The whole reason I said that I played a couple of slaughtermaps, is because j4rio wrote that I'm just hating on slaughtermaps and therefore I must suck. I would freely admit if I sucked at them, but I did beat a couple so I guess I'm not that bad.

Old Post 11-23-12 20:59 #
Agentbromsnor is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2640
Registered: 07-10


I don't really like how you filter through 90% of things I reply to and focus on those I find of least importance. I'd like replies to the rest of what was aimed at you from my end as well.


Agentbromsnor said:


What CAN I nitpick in a slaughtermap, if not for the graphics?

I just see it as a silly excuse for blandness. A good map needs to meet all factors in order to be good, and its not as if its hard to create a good looking slaughtermap. Take Sunder for example, the maps are generally good looking with plenty of detail without overdoing it. Wether you like it or not, graphics are an important part of the impression; if I see a map with giant blocky and empty sectors and bland hallways, I don't really feel like playing it and I imagine lots of players here feel the same way.



This is one point which I'll never, ever get and I'm not aiming at you right now. I don't have an eye for aesthetics, but how exactly can something like textures be of importance in a game where the core gameplay is what keeps it alive? Riddle me this.

Sunder was (is) a release of a decade. Don't use it as a base for casual comparision.




Agentbromsnor said:


*sigh* Let me explain this one more time.

I did NOT write anything about my skill to play slaughtermaps, I only stated that I've beaten a couple and I didn't like them for the reasons that I stated earlier. The whole reason I said that I played a couple of slaughtermaps, is because j4rio wrote that I'm just hating on slaughtermaps and therefore I must suck. I would freely admit if I sucked at them, but I did beat a couple so I guess I'm not that bad.



Your skills are of no importance. It's your annoying habit of bashing genre by points that are mostly based on extreme examples and are therefore just a nonsense.

Also, you really shouldn't try to assume my assumptions. Chances are you'd be off, like now.

Also, is it only me who's feeling a bit of ego kicking in?

Old Post 11-23-12 21:16 #
j4rio is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Agentbromsnor
Member


Posts: 422
Registered: 04-12



j4rio said:

Also, is it only me who's feeling a bit of ego kicking in?



I think its just you. Just because I say "I'm not that bad" doesn't mean I'm inserting that I'm the Chuck Norris of gaming.

Why shouldn't I use Sunder as a comparison? Thats such a silly statement. Its a good mapset, so why not use it as a good example? It sounds like you're trying to make excuses as to why so many slaughtermaps are shitty as fuck.

As for aesthetics: there's nothing you can't learn, especially considering how easy it already is to make a map for Doom. I'll admit that not everyone will have high standards like I have. Because I'm in the 'business' of art (the painting kind) I have a habit of being very critical and I understand that some people will perhaps be turned off by that. However, I do think that having high standards (not just for gameplay, but also graphics) will make the map all-round more enjoyable. I also understand that the graphics are (generally) not in the center of attention in a slaughtermap, but I think that in 2012 you can have some expectation of it to look, you know... good.

Old Post 11-23-12 21:41 #
Agentbromsnor is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Feniks
Mini-Member


Posts: 84
Registered: 08-12



Now we need hallways and arenas to have a slaughter map? The plot thickens!
Like j4rio said above:

- Slaughtermap shouldn't take place in 'claustrophobic' enviroments, or it can gain the status 'hard map' from me even if all above points are there.
I think it's a vital part of what constitutes a slaughter map. It must be spacious and filled with monsters and its design must be pretty simple. Whatever, that's how I would define this term.


Maybe Plutonia level 32, which you called an early slaughter level.
I take it you ignored my whole paragraph and you're just being flippant now.


Just try the games on UV on a 386 or a 486.
I used to play Doom on a 386 years ago and it was truly backbreaking (low detail, small screen size etc). But, as far as I remember, 386 DX was already the absolute minimum system requirement and it definitely wasn't recommended at the time of its release. Therefore, id didn't particularly cater to 386's owners in any way.

I however think that a 486 could process a higher (if still reasonable) number of things. I recall that Go 2 It was still possible on a 486; it was Punisher that had become the map to put the final lid in its coffin. But Punisher had around 800 monsters...

Old Post 11-23-12 21:52 #
Feniks is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Eris Falling
Forum Staple


Posts: 3052
Registered: 07-12


Sorry to derail, but I see the OP has been banned. Was it a ban-evader or something?

Anyway, they are quite fun I find for summonfriend marine(weapon)

Otherwise I really don't care about them.

Old Post 11-23-12 21:55 #
Eris Falling is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2640
Registered: 07-10



Agentbromsnor said:

Why shouldn't I use Sunder as a comparison? Thats such a silly statement. Its a good mapset, so why not use it as a good example? It sounds like you're trying to make excuses as to why so many slaughtermaps are shitty as fuck.



Because it would be using extreme examples but from the other end of scale. You don't compare the most brilliant stuff and use it as a base for judging just like you don't use the worst. That was basically the only reason why I asked you about maps you played. If you think sunder is just "good" then, your tastes are way too off for any sort of discussion of this sort to have any point whatsoever.




As for aesthetics: there's nothing you can't learn, especially considering how easy it already is to make a map for Doom. I'll admit that not everyone will have high standards like I have. Because I'm in the 'business' of art (the painting kind) I have a habit of being very critical and I understand that some people will perhaps be turned off by that. However, I do think that having high standards (not just for gameplay, but also graphics) will make the map all-round more enjoyable. I also understand that the graphics are (generally) not in the center of attention in a slaughtermap, but I think that in 2012 you can have some expectation of it to look, you know... good. [/B]


Very well. If you ever end up making a map, I'd really like to try it. It's quite interesting to me how somebody in art business would treat mapmaking in doom.

Old Post 11-23-12 21:57 #
j4rio is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2067
Registered: 05-12


I think I'm seeing the ego.

Regarding aesthetics, I think we've all got out own preferences, and even in a limited medium such as Doom we can see a variety of them (e.g slopes or no, HW or SW rendering, contrast (lighting and/or colour) or softer blending, etc.). It's probably not a good idea to throw about terms like 'good' or 'bad' regarding map graphics unless prefaced with a heavy 'IMHO.'

Anyway, you have every right to your tastes, Agentbromsnor, but it sounds like your critiquing a style of map that you have very little interest in. I know when I try to critique pieces that I'm not really passionate about my feedback usually rings hollow and superficial.

I think that's what's going on here. Again, it doesn't mean your view is invalid, but that it sounds nit-picky when you're talking to people that actually do care for that style, and are interested in more detailed, in-depth critique (of elements of layout, and individual room/encounter dynamics and how to make them better, for example).

EDIT: man, what's with all the bans...

Old Post 11-23-12 22:01 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Agentbromsnor
Member


Posts: 422
Registered: 04-12



j4rio said:


Because it would be using extreme examples but from the other end of scale. You don't compare the most brilliant stuff and use it as a base for judging just like you don't use the worst. That was basically the only reason why I asked you about maps you played. If you think sunder is just "good" then, your tastes are way too off for any sort of discussion of this sort to have any point whatsoever.




Very well. If you ever end up making a map, I'd really like to try it. It's quite interesting to me how somebody in art business would treat mapmaking in doom.



Actually, I already made several maps. Just some small maps though, but you can look up Straight to Hell on /idgames if you're interested. :) Its for GZDoom though.

As for Sunder; my point is, wouldn't it be a GOOD thing to compare a WAD to something good? I mean, you obviously don't have to judge everything according to something like Sunder, but if a WAD is overall recommended for being good, I don't see why it shouldn't be inspiration for other mappers.

Old Post 11-23-12 22:02 #
Agentbromsnor is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Agentbromsnor
Member


Posts: 422
Registered: 04-12



schwerpunk said:
I think I'm seeing the ego.

Regarding aesthetics, I think we've all got out own preferences, and even in a limited medium such as Doom we can see a variety of them (e.g slopes or no, HW or SW rendering, contrast (lighting and/or colour) or softer blending, etc.). It's probably not a good idea to throw about terms like 'good' or 'bad' regarding map graphics unless prefaced with a heavy 'IMHO.'

Anyway, you have every right to your tastes, Agentbromsnor, but it sounds like your critiquing a style of map that you have very little interest in. I know when I try to critique pieces that I'm not really passionate about my feedback usually rings hollow and superficial.

I think that's what's going on here. Again, it doesn't mean your view is invalid, but that it sounds nit-picky when you're talking to people that actually do care for that style, and are interested in more detailed, in-depth critique (of elements of layout, and individual room/encounter dynamics and how to make them better, for example).

EDIT: man, what's with all the bans...



Actually, if you think thats ego, then expect some more "ego" from me in the future because I throw around all kinds of terms to describe a number of things. It should be evident that when somebody on a forum described something as either 'good' or 'bad' then its obviously going to be based on opinion. Also, I usually start my posts with "I think", isn't that clear enough?

I know that slaughtermaps are not my preference, but this topic was created with the question what people think of it so I replied. What did you expect?

Old Post 11-23-12 22:08 #
Agentbromsnor is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2067
Registered: 05-12



Agentbromsnor said:


Actually, if you think thats ego, then expect some more "ego" from me in the future because I throw around all kinds of terms to describe a number of things. It should be evident that when somebody on a forum described something as either 'good' or 'bad' then its obviously going to be based on opinion. Also, I usually start my posts with "I think", isn't that clear enough?

I know that slaughtermaps are not my preference, but this topic was created with the question what people think of it so I replied. What did you expect?


I find your communication style very defensive, and you don't seem to brook opinions in contrast to your own very gracefully. That's what I meant by ego, not your use of terminology. I'm not complaining (except in this somewhat passive-aggressive way), as there are plenty of unique personalities already populating this forum. More for the melting-pot, as I see it.

Regarding opinions, I should've probably stressed the 'H' in 'IMHO.' Deference in communication, and all that.

Anyway, I was just reading this thread, and I'll admit that I got a bit frustrated watching you and the other guy go back-and-forth on the same points over and over again. But you're right that this is the thread for that, so... *Shrug.*

Carry on, lol.

Old Post 11-23-12 22:34 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
darkreaver
Senior Member


Posts: 1926
Registered: 05-08


IMO it seems like j4rio and myk + + are just trying to defend slaughtermaps a little too hard ;)

I`m also on of those who thinks maps should look good. Good gameplay alone just doesnt cut it for me.

So on topic; I do enjoy some slaughtermaps, but they should not be "just" a slaughter map. The aestethics part of the map should be just as good as in any other map.

Old Post 11-23-12 22:34 #
darkreaver is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Cacowad
Member


Posts: 312
Registered: 07-12



schwerpunk said:
Guys, stop liking things I don't like!!!

But seriously, these definitions just keep getting better. While level design is still the #1 factor that affects my enjoyment of a WAD, there are some really beautiful slaughtermaps out there (I'll admit to playing them in Buddha-mode...).

I have noticed that my maps get more-and-more slaughter-y the better I get at Doom. That is they challenge my twitch and fast-puzzling skills, and force me to combine strategies for dealing with different types of groups of monsters. So my favourite element of any slaughter-ish map is probably when a puzzle is presented (either using visual cues, or other map elements) that one only has a set amount of time to solve before being overrun by monsters. >:D



i have to second this, ahahah, even for me the more i progress in my personal skill, the more my maps become slaughter-ish and heavily scripted.

i do care about details, and i am trying out several slaughtermaps to see how an arena can be done,and learn how to make not only a challenging gameplay but also a quite good-looking and\or unique and interesting map to see even in -nomonsters [failing a lot in my way, can't learn how to use lighting ): ].

i liked Agentbromsnor map submission for the "five room of doom" thread, a really good looking map with a challenging (almost for a noob as i am) gameplay, without using a lot of monsters into it.

damn demon of details! when your hunger will be satisfied?

Old Post 11-23-12 22:38 #
Cacowad is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2067
Registered: 05-12



darkreaver said:
IMO it seems like j4rio and myk + + are just trying to defend slaughtermaps a little too hard ;)

I`m also on of those who thinks maps should look good. Good gameplay alone just doesnt cut it for me.

So on topic; I do enjoy some slaughtermaps, but they should not be "just" a slaughter map. The aestethics part of the map should be just as good as in any other map.


I'd say it depends on the objective of the mapper. Some guys just like a bunch of connecting rooms with a bunch of creative challenge in each, and don't care for what it looks like.

But I'll admit that the effort that goes into the look of a map, and little interesting tricks used in service of that goal, make up the difference between me just playing a map or studying a map (and trying to emulate those tricks myself).

Old Post 11-23-12 22:38 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02



Feniks said:
I think it's a vital part of what constitutes a slaughter map. It must be spacious and filled with monsters and its design must be pretty simple. Whatever, that's how I would define this term.
The ability to contain many monsters and put them together with enough space is essential, but that starts to apply to the (spacious) areas in those maps that get or can get filled with monsters. Especially level 16 once you get the blue skull. That part must have inspired many early slaughter attempts or expectations. Mt. Erebus gives you a rudimentary and easier taste of slaughter play by adding the invulnerability, the berserk pack and the plasma gun. I'm not too hot for finding a strict or current definition of "slaughter level" although I can see how doing so may be relevant in design (in part to set principles or find preferences) so I'm looking more at precedents, historically.


I however think that a 486 could process a higher (but still reasonable) number of things. I recall that Go 2 It was still possible on a 486; it was Punisher that had become the map to put the final lid in its coffin. But Punisher had around 800 monsters...
Better detail or screen blocks, yes, but you might recall that on a 486 you already had slowdowns, especially when a lot of plasma and fireballs flew about. The id guys were arguably concerned about slowdowns during design:


Sandy's City level made it into DOOM II, but there were several changes (made to raise the frame rate, I think). To me, the changes made the level less fun to play (but it's still a great level, especially for deathmatch).

Old Post 11-23-12 22:38 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
esselfortium
A Major Doomworld Concern


Posts: 6623
Registered: 01-02



j4rio said:


So if a slaughtermap looks good then you'd like it?

Nitpicking about looks in gameplay oriented maps is pretty low, if you ask me.


What the hell is a "gameplay oriented map"? Isn't that just called a map?

Old Post 11-23-12 22:41 #
esselfortium is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Agentbromsnor
Member


Posts: 422
Registered: 04-12



schwerpunk said:

I find your communication style very defensive, and you don't seem to brook opinions in contrast to your own very gracefully. That's what I meant by ego, not your use of terminology. I'm not complaining (except in this somewhat passive-aggressive way), as there are plenty of unique personalities already populating this forum. More for the melting-pot, as I see it.

Regarding opinions, I should've probably stressed the 'H' in 'IMHO.' Deference in communication, and all that.

Anyway, I was just reading this thread, and I'll admit that I got a bit frustrated watching you and the other guy go back-and-forth on the same points over and over again. But you're right that this is the thread for that, so... *Shrug.*

Carry on, lol.



I'm sorry if I came across defensive, I'm trying to be critical. Because I'm so used to critically express my thoughts about things, it can sometimes frustrate me to see people confuse this for egoism, or something. But at the same time I guess this is kinda understandable.

Anyway, I think I would just summarize my posts here as "not my style". :)

Old Post 11-23-12 22:41 #
Agentbromsnor is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
darkreaver
Senior Member


Posts: 1926
Registered: 05-08



schwerpunk said:

I'd say it depends on the objective of the mapper.



Well of course it does =)

As for comparison, most of my maps focus more on looks/feeling/atmosphere than actual gameplay, and I guess many players are going to "hate" on that, just as I "hate" on the opposite ;)

Old Post 11-23-12 22:46 #
darkreaver is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2640
Registered: 07-10



Agentbromsnor said:

As for Sunder; my point is, wouldn't it be a GOOD thing to compare a WAD to something good? I mean, you obviously don't have to judge everything according to something like Sunder, but if a WAD is overall recommended for being good, I don't see why it shouldn't be inspiration for other mappers.



But of course it can work as a source of inspiration. It just can't be expected that all maps from the genre will be of similar quality. Actually it has been used as template for numerous maps already.


darkreaver said:
IMO it seems like j4rio and myk + + are just trying to defend slaughtermaps a little too hard ;)


Not sure if it's defending slaughtermaps. Just defending my point of view. I'm usually very critical and trying to go indepth when it comes to slaughter gameplay though.


esselfortium said:

What the hell is a "gameplay oriented map"? Isn't that just called a map?



It's a neater way of calling a map you will probably not like too much with -nomonsters. ;)

Play some gggmork maps to get the idea.


Agentbromsnor said:


Actually, I already made several maps. Just some small maps though, but you can look up Straight to Hell on /idgames if you're interested. :) Its for GZDoom though.



That was actually rather nice.

Old Post 11-23-12 22:50 #
j4rio is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Agentbromsnor
Member


Posts: 422
Registered: 04-12


Thanks! ^^ You have any maps I can try out?

Old Post 11-23-12 22:51 #
Agentbromsnor is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02



esselfortium said:
What the hell is a "gameplay oriented map"? Isn't that just called a map?
He's talking about competitive play, generally either around demo recording or online on the C/S ports. You can have other motivations to mapping, including aesthetics, setting gloomy moods, developing a game narrative, or even general technical tinkering out of sheer enjoyment of it. All these are present in some form in any map but let's get real, not in the same degrees of emphasis. I'm sure KDiKDiZD will have attention to gameplay, but the main point of recreating KDiZD and playing with vanilla capabilities to do so will arguably end up swamping or leaving out some challenge-related ideas that could have gotten more attention if they were the main focus.

Old Post 11-23-12 22:53 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
valkiriforce
Forum Regular


Posts: 986
Registered: 02-10



esselfortium said:
What the hell is a "gameplay oriented map"? Isn't that just called a map?

It's easy. There are maps that look good but suck, and then there are actual fun maps. Sometimes they look good and sometimes they don't. If they don't, that seems to be a justifiable reason for some people to leave a "sucks 1/5" review on idgames. Hell Revealed focused on hordes of monsters and had little detail because the main concern was the gameplay. I've seen a lot of maps that look good but have poor gameplay because they tried too hard to press for realism in a way that just made it feel dull and boring. Slaughtermaps have often disregarded the detail in favor of the conflict, although there are many other exceptions (AV's slaughtermaps among others). Most of the time it doesn't matter as long as the map plays well within the category it falls into, hence the "gameplay oriented" nature of the map.

Old Post 11-23-12 22:59 #
valkiriforce is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
j4rio
Forum Staple


Posts: 2640
Registered: 07-10



Agentbromsnor said:
Thanks! ^^ You have any maps I can try out?


Not really, only few gameplay edits of slaughtermaps that sucked and required serious tune up to be playable. Don't remind me. The only notable would be probably map 16 of last year's slaughterfest which turned out somewhat better than expected.

Here's the wad:
http://doomedsda.us/lmps/1853/sf2011v8.zip

And my walkthrough you can play back with prboom-plus if interested
http://doomedsda.us/lmps/1853/1/sf16-1211.zip

Old Post 11-23-12 23:16 #
j4rio is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Memfis
Forum Spammer


Posts: 5735
Registered: 04-07


I don't think the term "gameplay oriented" is necessarily about competitive play, it just describes mapper's priorities. There is quite a lot of mappers for whom Doom Builder is kind of like Minecraft: they simply enjoy making areas, decorating them, connecting them and so on but they don't like or even hate working on thing placement. I could name a few doomers that told me about this in private conversations, but maybe they don't want the public to know, so I'll only say that Memfis is one of them. I'm trying to change my approach though.

Old Post 11-23-12 23:19 #
Memfis is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Jodwin
Forum Staple


Posts: 3441
Registered: 02-05


Of course, as has already been said, there are good maps and then there are fucking horrible maps.


Speaking of really good slaughter, in a lot of cases less is actually more. A cardinal sin of many a beginning slaughter mapper is to throw tons of stuff into a map and leaving it at that. That style of mapping creates two possible kinds of situations:

1) The map might be technically impossible to beat, if the masses of monsters making evading their attacks practically impossible.
or
2) The map might be possible to beat thanks to generous ammo and having enough space to avoid the enemies in a feasible fashion. However, the gameplay soon because tedious as you spend long amounts of time wearing down seemingly endless hordes which are slowly getting easier and easier to handle...

...which leads to the core issue: Fights in Doom don't have a difficulty curve; they have a long downward difficulty slope. Ignoring monster placement, ammo and map layout, you could say that fighting 1000 revenants is more difficult and thus more exciting than fighting 100 revenants is. However, both of those fights will peak their difficulty in the very beginning: 999 revenants would be easier to kill than 1000, and 99 would be easier than 100. Thus the fight with more revenants would have a much longer slope of lowering difficulty, eventually making the whole encounter far more tedious than it should be. Instead, generally in game design you want the difficulty to increase as time passes. This isn't really an issue in "normal" Doom maps since single fights are quickly over, but in slaughter fights can sometimes last minutes. Compare this to, for example, platform games with multistage bosses!

With that in mind, the more interesting and challenging slaughter encounters you can make with the minimal number of enemies possible, the less downtime and tedium your map will have. Thus, less is more. If you absolutely have to have long and epic battles, use different scripting techniques to spice things up mid-fight to add bumps into the difficulty slope. Warping in new monsters, removing cover, restricting player mobility, etc.

Old Post 11-23-12 23:53 #
Jodwin is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Phml
Forum Staple


Posts: 3392
Registered: 06-09


(c/p from another post, seeing as it's just as appropriate)

"I use the term gameplay-oriented wads to talk about wads designed primarily around gameplay itself rather than aesthetics, atmosphere or what have you; generally speaking in the context of Doom (although not exclusively), designing interesting fights and good map flow. I'd also lump in that category stuff like jumpmaze and rjump wads."

Having just looked up Wikipedia's article for gameplay, it seems a pretty accurate and comprehensive description of what it is (at least to me), so I'd recommend checking it out."

There's not really an idea of competition or demorecording in it to me. It's more a question of focus. In addition to what Memfis says, I think the difference go further than just thing placement; i.e. a map you build so it looks great and/or so it is cohesive as an environment will probably turn out a lot different than a level where the architecture's main purpose is to allow for interesting game dynamics.

Old Post 11-23-12 23:57 #
Phml is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2067
Registered: 05-12


Excellent post, Jodwin. This novice mapper is taking furious notes! :)

Old Post 11-23-12 23:58 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
myk
volveré y seré millones


Posts: 15226
Registered: 04-02



Memfis said:
I don't think the term "gameplay oriented" is necessarily about competitive play, it just describes mapper's priorities.
You don't have to think about competitive play to make maps with "gameplay orientation" because individual talent counts and some people don't need much feedback to be creative in this sense, but in the community in general, competitive activity works as a massive "testing army" that drives up the quality and continually contributes in an open way, so it's an essential pillar to "gameplay maps" by and large. Denying this just steals credit from speed runners and online players. To competitive play, playability is an essential and required focus. Competitive activity is the aspect in the community that's most related or directly tied to "gameplay levels".

Sometimes I think we may be a bit timid to admit it because we might fear others will label it as "niche" mapping, whereas relating the levels to a more vague "gameplay" concept is more open to people who aren't interested in competitive play. This may explain why people who may be related to competitive activities don't use something like "competitive play levels" to describe them. But the more others understand this general activity is also helping them get better levels, it shouldn't be an issue. And practically any map starts to place a foot on some type of niche when it has character. A "normal map" is mostly a myth.

Old Post 11-24-12 19:46 #
myk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Macblain
Green Marine


Posts: 38
Registered: 10-12


I have been averse to slaughter maps because I dislike memorization/rehearsal-oriented gameplay.

For example, there is a boss in Super Meat Boy, a giant lava monster, that plays like something out of Space Ace. He performs a certain routine of attacks and, with virtually no chance to react to unexpected challenges, you have to laboriously research and memorize his pattern. "Left smash, right smash, etc., etc." almost like playing "Simon".

However, there is clearly some craftsmanship happening here, possibly among the highest in doom mapping.

Could anyone talk about the role of these gameplay features in carefully-crafted slaughtermaps? How should one approach a slaughtermap? For example, would it be against the spirit of the thing to first load it up in doombuilder and make an attack plan, rainbow six-style? Should one be quicksaving obsessively? Are slaughtermaps about dying again and again and again while rehearsing to the point that all sense of danger is obliterated?

Old Post 11-24-12 20:00 #
Macblain is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Phml
Forum Staple


Posts: 3392
Registered: 06-09



I dislike memorization/rehearsal-oriented gameplay.


So do I. Generally speaking, I don't find there is too much of that in slaughtermaps. Save for extreme cases I tend to clear a new map within a few tries, and I'm not a player of exceptional skill. I forget stuff, and I'm terrible at anything that requires a great deal of accuracy.

There is probably some kind of memorization as you suggest on a wider level, around the game itself. For example, getting the pattern done to 3-shot and eventually 2-shot cybies takes time, but once you can do it reliably it's a skill that will prove useful in many slaughtermaps. Getting a feel for how each monster acts is also a significant help. As dodging projectiles and moving around becomes more intuitive, you're free to think more about the situation as a whole and spot opportunities.

Some people like to study maps in Doom Builder or demos and plan around that. I'm of the opinion it shouldn't be necessary and it should be something better left for optimal play, but that's certainly a valid choice.

My own experience with quicksave spam was fourteen years of sucking at first-person shooters, hardly improving any, then as soon as I stopped doing that becoming much better in a matter of months. Your mileage may vary.

Old Post 11-24-12 20:32 #
Phml is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:36. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Classic Doom > WADs & Mods > Opinions of slaughtermaps?

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.