[In progress] Temporel - 1 or 2 testers needed

Hello,

I finally decided some months ago to register here even if I often read the reviews etc, and, some days ago, thought I should post on the forums to discuss essentially about mapping.

Starting from old levels I made back in 95/96/97, I'd like to update the project to today standards, which means more details, maybe larger levels and using some effects which have been discovered.

The idea back in 95 was to create 9 levels for Doom, ranging from E1M1 to E1M9. I think I'll have to ditch 7 of them and work on new levels for Doom 2.

Temporel is, for now, a 8 levels project for Doom 2, using only limit-removing, and compatible on all ports.

I'd appreciate to get comments and gather ideas from the community to help me improve both my architectural mapping skill and my level-design approach. I might also need one or more playtesters, since I'd like to release something quite "clean", and I'm sure I've a lot to learn.

I tested the level on a "small" A64 and it seems to run fine... but as map 03 is currently around 62/63k segs, I wonder if it'll run smoothly on older CPUs.

Thanks in advance !

========
Current status (11/21/2009) :

Map 01 : 100% done (to be rebuilt ?)
Map 02 : 100% done (to be rebuilt ?)
Map 03 : 100% done
Map 04 : 35% done
Map 05 : 0% done
Map 06 : 0% done
Map 07 : 0% done
Map 08 : 0% done

Current screenshots :
Map 02 :


Map 03 :




Feel free to comment and give me some feedback, good or bad.

This looks really cool!

Since you asked, though, a couple things that I notice are that (in my opinion) the shadows in the top shot are way too dark, that the outer rock walls of the map03 courtyard look a bit flat, and that the shot of the big cave could use some better rock textures (i.e. ones that aren't from Doom2.wad).

In any case, welcome. This is quite the introduction :D

The cave is really well done, the lighting effect and geometry is simplistic yet complex, and really attractive mapping.

Well done!

Wow! I love some of the design tricks you've used. That silver GATE thing on MAP02 is totally rad. Hope it plays as well as it looks :)

esselfortium said:

and that the shot of the big cave could use some better rock textures (i.e. ones that aren't from Doom2.wad).

I disagree, the combination of tat texture with that particular flat kinda created a grayed out tan color that I've never really seen in doom 2.

@essel : yes, you've pointed the problems I'm dealing with atm on map 03. I'd like to get better rock textures but haven't find one which would be okay.

The outer parts of the courtyard are not done yet, I ran short of ideas about what I should do and thought I'll do them later...

I suppose I'll also have to redo some parts of maps 01 and 02, I think you're right about the dark shadow areas.

@Bank : to be honest, this part if the map is an awful mess, hundreds of sectors and linedefs everywhere, that's why I am pondering about the gameplay of such an area on an "old" computer...

I actually like the contrast of the shadows in the first shot, though I agree it could be a little bit brighter. I wouldn't bump it up too much though; I think it looks good when the shadows are very prominent.

These look really great.

My only nitpick would be the same as AgentSpork - those shadows in the first shot look a tad too dark, contrast wise.

Keep it up, I'm looking forward to these :)

Wow, those are some awesome looking shots you've got there :D

Cool screenshots bro

These screenshots are looking most excellent! I really like that cave shot too. Keep it up. :D

Damn this looks even better than the shots you use on Wads In Progress.

I really look forward to playing this, but something struck me as a little too "limit-removing":

Magma said:

but as map 03 is currently around 62/63k segs, I vvonder if it'll run smoothly on older CPUs.

What engine are you testing this in? Because if I recall correctly, most ports will not even play a map with over 32767 SEGS. Perhaps maybe it would be a good idea to keep within the original limits of the Doom map format. You can always break the map up into two parts. I'm not sure how other people classify "limit-removing", but to me, I usually think of "any engine that's not made from Vanilla or Chocolate". :)

I mean personally, this looks so great, that I will play it either way, but I'd rather not have to use something like ZDoom to play it.

If the map exceeds 32767 segs, the 'proper' term I believe is "requires a strong limit-removing port". Nowadays I think quite a few ports support the doubled segs limit, though...ZDoom and all its derivatives, Eternity, PrBoom-Plus (presumably also regular PrBoom though I'm not sure), etc...

Also, it's not always really possible to split a large map into multiple smaller maps, depending on how interconnected the layout is. If you revisit areas a lot and don't just go on a relatively linear path through it, you'd probably be out of luck without some major layout changes.

And Magma, it's worth noting that unless you do want your wad to be ZDoom-specific (using either ZDBSP's compressed nodes format or UDMF), you can't go over 65535 segs.

Wow. Especially wow at the cave shot.

WoW! Every screenshot looks impressive or awesome!
Keep up the good work, Magma! ;)

This looks very good. The caves put my caves to shame.

Thanks for the comments !

Hmmmm.. the 32767/65535 segs limits are real problems since I choose to make a level playable on any port.

I currently tested it only on ZDoom/GZDoom, so I guess I should try some other ports and see which ones are supported. Detailing really makes the number of sectors/linedefs explode. Anyway, I have 2,5k segs left, but that should not be a problem as the layout is almost complete.

The level is quite linear, the player goes from point 1 (mountain) to point 2 (mine), then comes back to point 1 using a partly different path (cave). From there he runs (?) to point 3 (docks - this portion is linear) and heads to point 4, a military base. As the level ends there, it requires some back and forth.

No cyberdemon... because I usually think that levels in which you find one are rarely good ;-).

It might be difficult to divide it up, but I am going to think about how this could be done.

@dutch : I thought I'd get more comments and discussions here, rather than on wip, and it's exactly what happens ;-). Plus I took some time to try to improve what had been done since I first posted there.

@Ismaele : I clicked on the link in your signature, I didn't know you were the webmaster of this site ! I read your reviews some months ago.

These wouldn't work on my system, but mine's probably older than "older". Some stuff looks really nice, especially in the natural areas, but other bits seem to go a bit too much into small-sector detailing, which in my opinion contrasts with texture resolution.

AgentSpork said:
I actually like the contrast of the shadows in the first shot, though I agree it could be a little bit brighter. I wouldn't bump it up too much though; I think it looks good when the shadows are very prominent.

Even darker ones like that could work, but they'd need a focal point in the sky and to make sense in regard to its supposed light beams.

Yes, there's something not correct in these dark areas. I'll change this, but I was supposed to have taken into consideration the fact that the shadows had to be quite realistic... this is not the case unfortunately !

Thanks for noticing this.

these maps look really amazing and unique.

A couple of things I would do a little differently, but these things have already been mentioned by others, so I won't repeat them.

And that cavern area looks particularly awesome. :)

Magma said:
No cyberdemon... because I usually think that levels in which you find one are rarely good ;-).

[...]

@Ismaele : I clicked on the link in your signature, I didn't know you were the webmaster of this site ! I read your reviews some months ago. [/B]

Yes, I am the web-master of "Outpost of DooM 2", as well as reviewer. :) By the way, I've just updated my web-site with my review of "Plutonia 2": don't miss it! ;)

Back on topic... I think that an epic level must have a showdown with a CyberDemon! Otherwise it wouldn't be so "epic"!

There's nothing wrong with a Cyberdemon in a level.

When there's 2298374502983475 Cyberdemons in a level, though, you start to wonder about its quality.

DuckReconMajor said:

There's nothing wrong with a Cyberdemon in a level.

When there's 2298374502983475 Cyberdemons in a level, though, you start to wonder about its quality.

I once made a level with 2288374502983475 Cyberdemons. And just to make it interesting, I also put in 2288374502983475 partial invisibility spheres.


And one Berserk pack.

Kyka said:

I once made a level with 2288374502983475 Cyberdemons. And just to make it interesting, I also put in 2288374502983475 partial invisibility spheres.

And one Berserk pack.

Sounds like Cybie4.

Kyka said:

I once made a level with 2288374502983475 Cyberdemons. And just to make it interesting, I also put in 2288374502983475 partial invisibility spheres.


And one Berserk pack.

1000000000000 less cyberdemons than the amount where quality is considered.

Somewhere out there, a trillion of Kyka's rejected Cyberdemons stomp around, firing rockets aimlessly into the void, every minute spent wondering why their estranged creator has abandoned them.

ONE DAY ALL MY LITTLE CYBERDEMONS WILL RETURN TO ME.

And we will spend all eternity gibbing little zombiemen with our rocket launchers.


*sniff*


One day...



(Sorry Magma. We got a little sidetracked here. Your screenies look just as awesome as the last time I looked at them. :))

I haven't commented on this yet? This looks outstanding!

I still don't get people that refrains from playing PWADs using a somewhat advanced port.

Isn't it dumb for an open source game engine to refrain from giving mappers as much liberty as possible in their designs ?