Can you judge a map based on its automap?

I know obviously it doesn't work 100% of the time, but do you think you can get the general flow or fun-ness of a map just from looking at it from an overhead view? I was perusing some late 90s maps that had a lot of maze-like corridors, and it was one of those maps where I knew it was going to play like junk. For me, I don't think you can tell how good a map is by looking at its layout, but boy can you just smell the stinkers before you start.

I've looked at a few on Doomwiki before I played them that looked like they would be great based on how much linework and detail there was, but when I played them they were awful jumbles of mismatched textures and bad gameplay.  And on the opposite end I've seen a few that looked quite unremarkable but ended up being fun and visually well themed.

That largely depends on the nature of the map I think, but even so, I am strongly inclined to say "no".

You'd still have to play at least a bit of it to see whether it suits you or not, and if the subsequent levels looks too similar... then maybe what you see on the automap becomes representative. Even so, seeing is believing, so until you play a bit you won't know for sure.

I mean, if you hate platforming, and you see a several areas that look like a series of 64x64 pillars, or smaller ones for that matter, then sure, you can tell quite well what's gonna happen. Same for mazes, corridor fests, and whatnot. Having said that, I've seen maps with a promising layout that ended up being bland, and I've also seen maps with not so great layouts that ended up being actually enjoyable.

With all that in mind, I don't get why people start swooning over simple DBX/GZDB layout shots, because in many cases those mean close to nothing other than "I made a layout". At the best of times these layout shots provide an insight as to how varied a map is wrt shape of rooms and such, perhaps also how "interconnected" (an abominable word, by the way) it is, but it still doesn't say much about gameplay, because in the end it all boils down to how that layout is put to use.

As a side note, when I look at somebody else's map in the builder, I don't just stare at how many linedefs there are, but I also have a look at the "behind the scenes stuff", like teleport closets and such, because those can tell me how much attention people pay to how their virtual installation behaves, and that is just as important as layout and thingplacement as far as I'm concerned.

I've developed a habit from back when Terrywads were a thing, I'd download the wad and instantly check the automap on Slade/Builder before jumping into it.

Since then I sometimes cheat myself a Fullmap just to check the automap, and mostly it's when a map has a high monster count so I know if it's slaughter or a large exploration map.

8 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

"interconnected" (an abominable word, by the way)

Lol I just have to ask, because "abominable" is quite a strong word unless you're being hyperbolic. What's the matter with "interconnected"?

4 minutes ago, RonnieJamesDiner said:

 

Lol I just have to ask, because "abominable" is quite a strong word unless you're being hyperbolic. What's the matter with "interconnected"?

Of course I'm being hyperbolic, but just a little. "Interconnected" in the context of rooms in doom means literally the same thing as "connected", except "interconnected" happens to be a mapping buzzword that I've become tired of. For me, as a non-native speaker, "interconnected" comes across in a weird and pompous way due to how it's what I call a "conjumbulation™".

Even if I love seeing map's layouts , I can't judge if the map is good or not. However , some layouts are weird enough to announce a trippy adventure. Exemple : "Degrassi" by TimeOfDeath

Behold the majesty:

….Wanna take a guess at how this one plays??

Looking at the map in the automap or an editor can tell a lot already, i.e. it is normally a good tool to weed out obvious clunkers, because most bad maps also have poor layout, and for haters of slaughtermaps seeing huge grids of monsters is a clear sign of "do not bother".

Normally I can eliminate half of the new downloads each time I check /idgames for updates without ever playing them.

10 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Of course I'm being hyperbolic, but just a little. "Interconnected" in the context of rooms in doom means literally the same thing as "connected", except "interconnected" happens to be a mapping buzzword that I've become tired of. For me, as a non-native speaker, "interconnected" comes across in a weird and pompous way due to how it's what I call a "conjumbulation™".

Well I can't speak for everyone, but I've always appreciated the term in the context of Doom maps. If someone described their map as "connected", all I would think is, "Connected to what...?" Whereas when someone describes it as "interconnected", I immediately get the sense that the map will be connected to and within itself. Which, I guess I've always just taken as a shorthand for, "the map has been designed in such a way that the player will do a loop, or multiple loops, while progressing through the map, rather than being forced to do long series' of backtracking".

As someone who has spent plenty of time staring at the automaps of wads before I play them, I can definitely say that it's not really a reliable indicator of the quality (although some maps, like the above example, sometimes provide clues:). I mean, it's good to see if it's not yet another E1M1 clone, or if it's too interconnecificated for one's own taste, but there's really no indication if it's going to be an eye-bleeding, boring mess once you load it up. 

It's like that old saying about books and covers: "Fuck books, rip the cover off and tear up all the pages." Or something like that. 

I think only in a lopsided sort of way.  If you look at a layout and see a big box, or just a few slopped together random sectors, or something that looks like something out of one of those kids' maze activity books, it's probably safe to guess that it's not going to be all that much fun.  Something that looks like a competent layout is no guarantee that it's actually good though.

Then again, apparently there are people who like NUTS.WAD.  Though I'm not sure if that's a case of people liking something ironically.

Good maps often have a nice layout going for them, but i don't think it's possible to completely judge if a map is good based on it's layout, there's quite a lot going on that makes a map good or not. A layout can give you an idea of things, (such as figuring the map progression, spoting arenas, mazes and other relevant stuff) but in the end you can't tell how it's gonna play until you just play it since it's an incomplete picture.

That said, i do think it can be easier to predict if a map is bad based on a automap shot, and there's been some good examples of how here. But then again, it's an incomplete picture, it can or cannot be true until you start playing the map

Next up: Judging maps by watching available speed demos.

3 hours ago, Jaws In Space said:

Hmmm.... I've seen this thread before.

 

Looks through Doomworld history to find it.

 

Ah ha! I knew it! I present you the evidence from the previous thread!

 

FellowZdoomer submitted this map to TNT: Revilution

Man habitat's remake is looking sick!

On-topic: I agree with those who've said more eloquently than I will that at best you can spot stuff you may not like, but there is no way to tell that a map will necessarily be good from just a cursory look beyond a prediction based on statistics. Also I'm with nih; I'd much rather look at somebody's monster closets, dummy/control sectors, etc. ^^

Judging maps by automap? a simple No.
Why? Playing the map instead is better than taking a look to it. Yes, the automap can tell you immediately how can works for you but, it's not important IMO.

Although, I'll complement how the map looks if it was designed in a clever way.

No, don't trust the automap at all:

I want that.

I must play that

10 hours ago, JudgeDeadd said:

Absolutely disgusting

1 hour ago, Deⓧiaz said:

No, don't trust the automap at all:

no switches, no starting deathtrap. cheap copy of the brilliant original! ;-)

Any automap art like this will give you a positive impression, once you open the automap. And you will know that the author put their effort to make us smile.

I suspect you can check the automap and get an idea of what you're in for, particularly if you've already read the author's description of the map, seen screenshots and got the monster count on screen. You'd still need to play to confirm, though. Even a simple corridor map, with the right monster placement and supply balance, could be fun, or challenging, or utter bullshit. I don't know where this stuff about a "clean automap" came from, but it's recent and I disapprove. Having the map reflect the level of detail of a room makes it much more navigable, IMO. Yeah, hide stuff that's out of the playable area or lines that are just for mechanical purposes, but that's about all that's needed.

Unless you're one of those people that hides the entire map... But that's rarely cool.

No, you cannot fully judge the map but, as more people above mentioned, you can get a pretty good idea what kind of map you are about to play.

Especially if you can see the kills/items/secrets counts.

No