Find your own style/ideas?

I've never had my own ideas for maps, all my projects started like "I'm gonna make another relive.wad\escape.wad\heroes.wad\fortdth!.wad\etc". Is it possible to stop imitating others and come up with your own ideas or does that require that thing called "talent" which we, regular people, just don't have?

To an extent you can argue nothing is born in a vacuum and everything is derivative, but all my ideas feel like they're my own. I shamelessly copy texture choices, that's about it. I think it's more about imagination than talent, I certainly wouldn't claim to be talented.

Perhaps you could look into tricks and techniques to expand your imagination, not necessarily video game related? In writing so much has been said about the terror of the blank page, there has to be good advice in that. From what I gather, the gist of it is to experience plenty of things and start by copying stuff you like until you progressively add more of your own ideas, eventually reaching a point where it's all yours.

Edit: come to think of it, I'm lousy when it comes to translating abstract concepts into somewhat realistic architecture. Sometimes, it helps me to go on a walk and just look at the houses, trees, sidewalks. I mean really look at it closely, spot the patterns and how it all works together. Then think of how any tiny part might or might not fit in a Doom map.

Like when you learn how to draw, the first thing you learn is to start looking at things as an association of geometric shapes, to break down a complex form into several simpler ones. I could be reading too much into your post but it sounds as if you might look at Doom maps as a whole exclusively, not as the sum of various individual things, and if this assumption rings true perhaps it could help you to look at drawing theory.

Imitating the style or particular elements of wads you enjoy + adding your own touches you feel should improve it = a completely legit and a great way to make one's own "style". As you gain experience, you (naturally) stray away from imitating, focus on the elements of good mapping directly and the ideas should come out of nowhere. (But I don't say they'll be coming ceaselessly, you'll always need to have breaks and to look for inspiration every now and then.)

Also, Phml and Memfis, you both are very talented. You made many maps that were enjoyed and admired by very many people. :) And IMO, you both already achieved what I've just described above (finding style).

I feel there are too many mappers and wads to find a seminal style exclusive to your own ideologies and no one elses. FWIW we're here making maps for a game that already comes with its own maps. By nature we're ripping off something that already did something for itself really well.

Many people, simply by making a collection of maps tend to develop a style that is identifed by the users that play, by detecting patterns and similar approaches to gameplay that the mapper may not have conciously thought of while making the map. Looking at the background of maps you've made, your "style" can pretty much already be identified or associated with the stuff you've tried to emulate. Some people aren't able to do that, and it's not a bad thing and you're not a bad mapper and far from untalented because of it.

Likewise, when looking at community projects, some people's maps are able to be identified right away, and this isn't always a good thing.

I'm doing my best to come up with something entirely my own with Jungle Spirits. I'm mainly doing this through something close to stream-of-consciousness mapping (although it's really more like speedmapping and not giving too many fucks about the result :V), and with a texture set I compiled myself from various resources that I reckoned would fit together nicely and create a unique aesthetic. I'm also using as much of my own music as possible (though due to laziness/time I'm probably not going to compose any new midis for it).

I'd like to add: Like 40oz says, I don't think any mapper should feel obligated to find his specific style ("image") and then map like that "because it's expected", not at all! I've always thought about a mapper's "style" as about something that happens naturally, that the mapper has some tendencies he can't help to hide, and yet he learnt to make good maps with it (that's something another). Just to make it clear.

I think there's a lot of undeserved mystery around the role of imagination and inspiration in art. All artists begin by studying and copying, either consciously or unconsciously, from existing art that inspires them. This is a good thing. If every artist in every field had to learn from first principles by trial and error, we would never have progressed beyond cave painting.

So there is absolutely nothing wrong with finding inspiration for your projects in other maps that you enjoy. They are the most obvious and direct source of inspiration, and it's only natural that they would inform your work. The truth is that a great many artists, even very successful ones, never move much beyond this imitative approach. Think of the myriad bands whose sound resembles that of earlier bands, who in turn copied others.

But if you want to move away from this type of direct imitation, it's possible to to use the approaches and techniques used by artists in other mediums. This is usually done in two ways: by improving your technical ability, and by finding other sources of inspiration.

To improve your technical ability, as Phml said, a common technique is to start very imitative, by trying to completely reproduce something you like as perfectly as possible. You begin by studying it in exquisite detail. This kind of close-reading is very different from general consumption of art. A regular cinema goer might watch a hundred movies in a year, whereas a film student might only examine a couple, but in the process the latter would gain a much deeper understanding of things like story structure, lighting and cinematography. This in turn would allow them to make a much better quality film themselves than if you were to hand a camera over to the cinema goer, but their film would likely also be more creative, because they would have internalised the knowledge necessary to know how to express the ideas they do have: How to structure their story, what camera angles to use to express different emotions, etc.

In the case of making maps, this process might involve taking a single map by an author you admire, the quality of which you don't think you could match yourself, and breaking it down piece by piece. For example, I might choose one of Ola Björling's Darkening 2 maps. Look at each piece: Doors, windows, ceilings, floors, traps, secrets, rooms, mazes, etc. How is it built? How would you build it yourself? How could you vary it?

For example, when I started mapping in Doom, I kept seeing these cool, decorated barred windows in Gothic DM maps. I tried to make similar ones in my own maps, but they never looked as good. The problem was, I had been inspired by them and had a general idea of how they looked, but I had never actually paid close attention to they details of how they were constructed. So I opened up the original levels in an editor and worked them out, vertex by vertex. I then started a new wad, called windows.wad, that was just a huge, long corridor with windows along one side. Each one was slightly different in construction or texturing, and I would go back and add a few more every so often. They didn't all look good, but it was a great way to both practice my technique and exercise my imagination in a constrained way. And every window style I produced became an internalised part of my editing vocabulary, that I could apply in real levels later on.

This process, of endless deliberate practice and relaxed experimentation, is probably the greatest "secret" to producing anything worthwhile. Like learning more and more complex words, it's about building a richer vocabulary that gives you a base to communicate your ideas without getting distracted or sweating over the smaller details, because you've already internalised them enough to apply them automatically, which free you up to concentrate on the bigger picture, which is where the real interest lies.

The second technique for producing less directly imitative work is to find other sources of inspiration. Again, start small. Rather than a copying a Doom level, try a level from another game, perhaps from a modern title, or a very old one. How can you translate that into the Doom engine? Doing so will necessarily involve using your imagination to solve the mismatches that crop up the translation process.

Next, move on to being inspired by real world architecture, working from photographic references or places you visit that inspire you. Here is where your technical skills really pay off. Without them, you might see a photo of a gloomy castle and think, "I'd love to build something like that in Doom," but wouldn't know where to start. But with your technique down, you'll immediately be able to see how to construct the various parts and achieve the effects necessary to produce the feel you're looking for.

When I made my level for Crucified Dreams, I bought an expensive photo book full of high-resolution photos of gothic churches and buildings throughout Europe. I spend hours looking at it, and then hours more in the editor figuring out how to produce not necessarily the exact same look, but the same feel as in the photos that inspired me.

Next, you can move on to more abstract sources of inspiration: Literature, music, art, or simply your own thoughts and emotions. The key to this approach is to have such a well developed technical sense so that there is stuff in your brain for these abstract motes of inspiration to latch onto. You'll never translate directly from a song to a Doom level, but it can be the spark of something that then takes on a life of its own.

And finally, remember that the creative process is rarely one of sudden, fully formed inspiration arriving in a flash. Even at the best of times, it is usually one of steady work, iterative improvement and careful refinement. Whatever your rate of inspiration, the longer you work on something, the more ideas you will have. And even when you're not inspired, simple experimentative trial and error can be a way to move forward.

Once I felt like I had a lot of the basics down I felt like I needed my own style as well. I feel almost everything I have released has just a generic style but I'm trying to allow more of my own personal traits to be more apparent in what I am doing now. I think it's just about working out what aspects of level design you enjoy and not toning those down for the benefit of others if it's to the detriment of your own enjoyment. Be true to your own preferences in other words.

A few examples of my own are:

Frequent use of environmental hazards
One-shot super secrets
Preference of smaller ammo/health items
Inescapable pits
Rewards for fast players/punishment for slow players
90s style aesthetics
Blocky, broadstrokes architecture

Some of these things I know annoy players but I'm at the point where I'm confident that I can implement them in pleasing ways.

My inspiration for my first set of levels was to simply make a WAD that I could call my own in some form....I have always wondered when playing Doom what a base would look like if I did it. And now in recent times I have been able to give that a go....from there developed a short story, escape the base into the mountains. Then I thought about what the level transition would be, the first two levels are very basey, the third is quite sewery/power planty and the final level is some sort of abandoned dungeons in the mountain built before the base...I wanted it to feel like you were going somewhere.

I then took inspiration from me and my friends in how we are and how we look....so I made my Deathrock Imp to put a little of myself in the maps, this was also an introduction into making custom enemies for me too. Fair enough it was only a sprite edit and some minor stat changes but it was a start.

Then I got inspiration for the sewer levels to have something new in them...for the sciencey bit I placed in a cyborg like marine to fight off. And in the sludge I created a floating AntMan that spits ants at you and they chase you around....he comes from my fear of Ants and desire to make something a bit freakish for Doom.

Jonathan said:

Whatever your rate of inspiration, the longer you work on something, the more ideas you will have. And even when you're not inspired, simple experimentative trial and error can be a way to move forward.

This is pretty much how it goes...you have an idea of what you want to do, then over time it can evolve and change and ideas add to it and make it something better or worse. My maps were always undergoing changes as I had ideas...some worked, some didn't.

Now I am working on my Cathedral, which includes the Imp and AntMan I made before. This level is just a thought I had one day when I played unholy cathedral in Doom 1, I thought "What could a proper cathedral in hell look like?" So I took inspiration from real cathedrals, took inspiration again from myself and my friends and made a cathedral out of it. Big and dark, very spiky and hopefully one day will have more custom enemies.

It was also my first map in GZDoom builder, I learnt how to build 3d floors, custom textures, slopes, switches and all these other little things. I can imagine that after I finish this map I will go on to employ some of the same techniques.

As for style, I have ideas...always have I ideas for a map...some a bit comical but some of a serious nature, some even of the odd dream I've had. But as I learn more about map making I'm sure they can come to exist in some form.

I like to use Oblige random map generator, and cut and take bits and pieces of random areas in it and use them in my own map designs, or i once made a whole map off of one Oblige randomize, because it was really well laid out, i just need to tweak and modify some things. Try it sometime it's a great idea in my opinion.

It's always kinda hard getting your own style. I feel like my maps are very nondescript. I take styles from different mappers like John Romero, Sandy Peterson and the lot, but I have yet to see my maps become "Jazzmaster" maps, It needs a lot of practice to get to that point.

jazzmaster9 said:

I feel like my maps are very nondescript. I take styles from different mappers like John Romero, Sandy Peterson and the lot, but I have yet to see my maps become "Jazzmaster" maps, It needs a lot of practice to get to that point.

Your maps have always been very distinct by having a simplistic compact structure, visuals and gameplay; and repeating the same gameplay elements all over again. Check my Newstuff reviews of a32ovr32 and inncence. ;)

It's a matter of getting your idea out there first.

There are no advice for this. You either achieve it or you don't.

Explain every previous post in this thread, then.

Lycaon said:

There are no advice for this. You either achieve it or you don't.

That's pretty much my impression after years of fooling around with the editor. Memfy is just not gifted xd.

Lycaon said:

There are no advice for this. You either achieve it or you don't.

It is True that there is no advice you can give anyone to give them their own style, but there are advice to getting someone to make fun maps, once you can get the basics down your style will develop on it's own.

It's no mystery. Having a style simply involves having referring motifs in your maps from which it is apparent you are the author. Even design decisions generally considered to be bad can be part of a mappers style. For example:

Abstract shaped architecture and effect based rather than cosmetic based texturing (Sandy Petersen)

Limited variation of textures and repeated walkway around large space layouts in Doom II maps (John Romero)

Square architecture and uniform texturing (American McGee)

Or think how community mappers like PCorf and Joe Ilya have easily identifiable maps but some of them have been critised because of common traits people don't like such as symetry and ugly aesthetics.

Memfis said:

That's pretty much my impression after years of fooling around with the editor. Memfy is just not gifted xd.

Hehe..

(posting another post later)

I understand exactly now, the only problem is sometimes i get discouraged and let down when people criticize my stuff for being too "simple" or bland looking. But then i tell them, it's fucking doom not crysis. I want my maps to feel retro like they were made when doom was popular, i have no interest in making super complicated maps and special stuff, default technologies and designs. That is my style, the unique thing comes from enemy placement, room shapes and choice of texture, but not cosmetic design or structure design. Was the map tricks and traps pretty or complex in design? Absolutely not, was it a really unique and fun map? Yes it was, why? Because it had very clever and hard to find secrets, and it had a puzzle system too it. Just my opinion. My favorite style of mapping is teleporting to different realms of the map to flip a switch, find a key, do a horde fight. In order to find some secrets, a switch has to be flipped somewhere else, i love Sandy Petersons thinking with maps, not very pretty, but very clever in monster placement, traps and puzzles.

I think I always feel most inspired to map when playing existing maps that I really like, as it's been basically ever since I started mapping when my inspiration was limited to Doom II's IWAD maps. I think what can be valuable about trying to emulate another person's style (or multiple people's styles) is that it causes me to focus on what it is about those maps that I like so much, such as the author's choice of texture, architecture, lighting, use of space, monster layout etc. I can become discouraged when I fail to capture the genius of whatever it is I'm emulating, but in the end I think I end up finding a style that, if not truly original ("what is?", as everybody's pointing out), is still something I can call my own.

It's funny, this is something I've been thinking about lately as well.

Did I succeed making my own style?

Yes, definitely. When you read reviews of your maps, you can notice that different people mention similar characteristics of your mapping, these characteristics overally and together make a "joe-ilya" style. I would hardly mistake your map for another mapper's work.

I understand that imitating another mapping style can sometimes be easier, since you sort of have that frame of reference you can use to draw ideas from. While more or less all mappers inevitably have their own distinct style, I think drawing ideas from others' styles is also essential. Reinventing your own style once in a while can also be a good way, which I feel not enough mappers do.

Now me, for example, I always have a source of inspiration (in the most common case, from a specific wad made by someone else) that I try to "embed" into my own style when I map. In the latest case, I'm actually using one of my older wads as a source to create Prayers of Armageddon: Retaliation. Other wads I've drawn inspiration from for previous projects include TUTNT and Swim With The Whales.

PerfectHatred14 said:

I understand exactly now, the only problem is sometimes i get discouraged and let down when people criticize my stuff for being too "simple" or bland looking. But then i tell them, it's fucking doom not crysis. I want my maps to feel retro like they were made when doom was popular, i have no interest in making super complicated maps and special stuff, default technologies and designs. That is my style, the unique thing comes from enemy placement, room shapes and choice of texture, but not cosmetic design or structure design.

That is cool as long as you don't use 'it isn't bad, it's just my style' as a shield to deflect critisism as it is a block to skill development. If you have a quirky offbeat style that is fine as long as you are also proficient in the fundamentals when called for. For example, painters that produce work focusing on shape and colour rather than replicating portraits will still be good technical artists.

This is a general comment by the way, not saying it applies specifically to your work.

I don't know - I'm not sure I know what the fundamentals are for mapping, but in any case, presumably a handle on them is only useful to the extent that it puts you a better position to properly execute your ideas. But, extending the painting analogy, there are ideas one could have that don't require much technical proficiency to execute, and nothing follows from that about the quality of the resulting work - the fact that an artist is a good technical painter has zero bearing on whether or not I like their collection of random paint splats.

I think one of the few sensible criteria by which we can consider whether a map succeeds or fails, is whether or not it properly realises the author's intentions. If it's quirky and off-beat because that's precisely what they were shooting for, then it succeeds; if its quirky and off-beat because they wanted to produce something more standard, but didn't know how, then it fails (although it might succeed in other respects). Joe is a nice example here: it's obvious from his maps that there certain established standards that he's not even attempting to conform to, so it would be off-base to criticise his maps for failing by those standards.