Does a doom level have to be long to be fun?

[USK GOV]

One of my wads has a level in it that's very long it's been so much stress for me because i am not even done with it would that be fun?

[HAK3180]

No. There are megawads of all short maps that have been very well received. Lots of people think the first several maps of Doom 2 are its best and they are some of the shortest ones. Conversely, 20-21 in TNT (I think those are the back-to-back mammoths) don't seem to get much love.

 

I say quality > quantity in Doom maps. No one is going to be blind to the fact that a map sucks just because it's long. No one is going to appreciate a crap megawad just because it has 32 maps. 

[USK GOV]

Ok

[Royal_Sir]

If the 1024, 312, and 256 mapsets are evidence, no.

[floatRand]

No, and there are plenty of examples. As mentioned, the sort of "dimensions smaller than this designated number" series, Scythe, Swift Death (if that's your cup of tea), Crumpets, etc.

Personally, I think they are more fun to develop, as well. I tend to get burned out on large maps and have more fun with smaller ones - so I end up suffering because I don't know where to stop. 

[Big Ol Billy]

Hell naw. One-off megamaps and other 60 minuteish single maps have a certain reputational cache to them (in many cases well-deserved, e.g. Miasma, Lainos's work, Void & Rainbow, The Given if you suck at puzzles like me). But I think if anything, given that the Doom community basically defines the phrase "an embarrassment of riches," modern Doomers appreciate shorter maps more, generally. Megawads of modest-sized maps are particularly enjoyable when they allow authors to present a bold, distinctive sensibility in striking, bite-sized chunks. Going Down, Swift Death, what I've seen so far the of the Alfonzone, are all good examples. And during both JOM projects (4&5) I've been involved in there have been concerns about streamlining maps or otherwise figuring out how to avoid an exhausting sequence of large maps. Also look at Eternal Doom's legacy as the set you should play for historical/inspiration reasons but shouldn't expect to enjoy.

[Danlex]

If you play with saves/loads, it can be fun.

If you play in one segment, no.

[Deadwing]

Short anwser: no.

 

Long anwser: even 32-map megawads nowdays have pretty large maps, especially when compared with doom 2. IMO, Larger maps allows to create more ambitious stuff, and also current levels are more complex in its structure, with more height variations and interconnections. That allows the levels to have more (and larger) sections which by consequence makes them take longer to finish. 

 

So, while larger levels doesn't means that they're better (I prefer shorter), they're popular nowdays and allows to create more ambitious experience.

[Spectre01]

A level doesn't have to be long to be fun, but it needs to be of decent length to be memorable. For instance, I enjoy all the short Scythe maps that take under 5 minutes to max, but I wouldn't be picking those as my favourites from the wad. Something like map29, which I consider medium length, has much more lasting impact due to the varied content it provides. Then there's map30, which, like it or not, simply can't be ignored due to the size/difficulty compared to the rest of the wad.

[Woolie Wool]

No, though I tend to like really long maps. If you want shorter maps, I recommend (from easy to hard) Demonfear, Scythe 1, and Ancient Aliens, all of which offer excellent, fast-paced gameplay within relatively short levels.

[Pegleg]

22 hours ago, HAK3180 said:

I say quality > quantity in Doom maps. No one is going to be blind to the fact that a map sucks just because it's long. No one is going to appreciate a crap megawad just because it has 32 maps. 

I agree with @HAK3180 and would expand on it. If a map is long AND sucks, the length will only highlight the fact that it's a poor map.

 

If you look at a number of the maps that get submitted on these forums, many of them seem to be on the long, large, and complicated side. And if a map is short, you will likely see at least one comment related to how short it was. That doesn't mean that a map has to be a sprawling monstrosity with 10,000 sectors, 50,000 linedefs, 20,000 monsters, 50 secrets, all 6 keys, and take two hours to finish to be good and memorable.

 

What's more important is that you have good texturing, good alignment, good monster placement, fun encounters, and enough difficulty to be challenging without be too hard. Focus on getting those right without worrying about length. If you have all of those, the map will be fun to play, and of high quality, and people will play it, whether it's long or short.

[TMD]

Citadel at the Edge of Eternity is the best map ever made.

[Memfis]

The harsh but true answer is that yes, it needs to be long to be enjoyable. If your girlfriend tells you otherwise she's just trying to be polite.

[Roofi]

No . I recently played Nostril Caverns. That's enough.

[dobu gabu maru]

I reckon you're more likely to find people that prefer ~15-20 minute maps to drawn-out +40 minute adventures. I'd also contest that a bad short map will on average be more well received than a bad long map.

[Marlamir]

if that map have great variety of puzzles, gameplay and the level design is great enough to keep player interest? than yes but otherwise no

[DMPhobos]

29 minutes ago, dobu gabu maru said:

I'd also contest that a bad short map will on average be more well received than a bad long map.

I would rather spend a short time to beat a map than a long time, so there's some logic about it

I would say that there are good long levels but it has a lot to do with pacing, a long level can start to fell tiresome specially if it involves a lot of backtracking. KDiZD E1M3 it's one of the worst offenders that i've played, it's long length and confusing puzzles makes it not enjoyable at all.

A level doesn't have to be long to be good, just have enough things to do to make it memorable

[geo]

Nope. Short and sweet.

[scwiba]

Super no.

 

It's personal preference here, but I'm honestly turned off by long maps. Most of my favorite WADs are made up of short, concise maps. Life's too busy and there's so many WADs to play, if I boot up a full 32-map megaWAD and it takes me longer than an hour to get a few maps in, I'll usually shelve it and move on to the next thing.

[ShoDemo]

Long maps can be really cool at times, but they are not generally my cup of tea. I tend to prefer more of those shorter to medium sized, with tons of action and atmosphere, maps.

 

Examples:

1) E1. I start playing it and I finish it in one sitting. It is that particular feel I get from many Doom maps, that makes me play more and more, without stopping and E1 nailed it! 

 

2) Yesterday and the day before, I played 8 average sized maps from TNT, 4 each day. And I had great fun! But today, I only played MAP20 and it took me half an hour. 

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the map and got so immersed in it, but it drained me in the process. I was only going to play one more map maximum today.

Then I pressed TAB at MAP21 and saw that it has over 200 monsters...

Trust me, that alone, coupled with the most boring ass symmetry I have seen in a starting room (I love symmetry, but identical rooms on the same height, with exactly 1 Chaingunner and 1 Imp, are too damn predictable to be fun - that is a topic for another day though), where enough to kill the mood for me. I guess there is always tomorrow...

[Poncho]

Of course not! As HAK3180 said, quality over quantity! Yes can do a lot with very little (just look at Scythe - one of the best megawads ever - as prove of this). In terms of big levels, you CAN make your mapset entirely around them (like the very good Counterattack by Mechadon), but making a megawad of only long levels (cough, Hellbound) will tend to make it a chore to sit through. Nevertheless, big levels are welcome as much as small levels.

[seed]

Well the obvious answer is it depends. What is the purpose of the map and what is to be emphasized in it? It is the sense of progression and exploration, a challenge, a boss fight, and so on? Once that's out of the way you can experiment with the length to see what works best to fit the vision. A map should only be as long as it needs to be in order to deliver the desired experience in its fullest, nothing more, and nothing less.

[Novaseer]

Dead Simple.

[DiEnd]

Yes and no. If the map is done right, it is way more enjoyable. However, if the map is done wrong, then it's going to feel like it's dragging on and on.

 

I can give an example - Evilution's Map20 is a long(er) map done right, but Revilution's Map03 is a long map done wrong.

[Mayomancer]

You can fit some very good ideas in small levels as long as you have a clear objective. Simple, clever, small and fun are some of the best Doom levels. Then you add some cool architecture and you got one hell of a memorable map.

[riderr3]

Sorta of. At other hand, some cool maps which are short, when you finish it gives the feeling "That's all? I want more of this!".

Also some big maps can contain many optional areas, but basic progression can be very short.

Sometimes, when closer to the end of the huge level where I wander through empty locations, a feeling of detachment and loneliness appears. I can stand somewhere at the balcony/window and stare at skybox.

[yakfak]

i love long maps that have a concept, or a story, or unusual gameplay or a particular mood - if you can draw me in with something interesting i'll play your map for hours. but some levels run the rist of feeling like they're long only because the mapper planned to make something long and end up not really doing anything special; when you're pairing a way-longer-than-usual map with standard SSG combat that's when the rot can set in. but there's still examples of long SSG maps that are great, I really quite like a lot of the longest maps in the BTSX sets. (but if you asked me to name my favourite from them to just sit down and play it'd be E2M3 which is tiny and full of panicky combat!)