Do you wish modern megawads were shorter?

[Jimmy]

There is definitely a kind of "peer pressure" to fill out the full 32-level roster. The moment you take away a sense of "completion" you invite your audience to demand more. This is true of pretty much any art medium in any corner of the online world - a slew of "needs a sequels" or "it'd be cool ifs" or "now we needs".

 

Aren't we all deeply hurt that Scythe X never got 32 maps?

[Firedust]

I'm deeply hurt that Xaser abandoned all his secret projects and never released his one-man megawad.

[Graf Zahl]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

Aren't we all deeply hurt that Scythe X never got 32 maps?

 

I think this one's different. The first 10 maps promised so much and we were eagerly awaiting more of the same quality.

On the other hand, few people complained that the BTSX WADs did not fill all slots.

 

Put a somewhat decent end map to stop progression and few people will complain. Of course there's always the hopeless cases for which a WAD *must* have 32 map slots filled or it wouldn't be worth playing - but that's a tiny minority that just tends to make too much noise when things do not go their way.

That's really always the case with such things. A few malcontents will drown out the majority that's happy with a good product.

 

[NuMetalManiak]

Frankly I see more medium-sized maps in modern megawads than super long ones. And I'm okay with that.

[MFG38]

I feel that most of today's megawads are quite adequate in length. I never play them all the way through in one sitting anyway - the sense of adventure they offer is something one can closely equate with modern video games. I'm always excited to jump back into a megawad, not knowing where it'll take me next.

[Diabolución]

2 hours ago, holaareola said:

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

 

Excellent citation. I like this one as well:

"The good, if brief, twice good; the bad, if little, less bad!" - Baltasar Gracián

 

As for the topic, the post whose id is 2088237 did nail everything. Personally, I can stand something like dbimpact.wad, an episode of nine maps which features three long maps (E1M3, E1M7 and E1M9 [the last one being optional]). But an entire megawad of 32 maps with maps that big? That would be burdensome, not my cup of tea, for sure.

[idbeholdME]

I don't much care about how long the maps in a megawad are. A quick 10 minute map or something like Misri Halek, it doesn't matter to me. Once I start playing a WAD, I finish it no matter what.

[Doomkid]

I love bite-sized Dooming. Small maps in a short-ish episode is my favorite wad format, I like being about to beat the whole campaign in about an hour. That's my "just right" Goldilocks preference though, lol - being long isn't a "strike against" a wad in any way, it just means I'm less likely to fully complete it. Maybe because I grew up on Doom 1 and Wolf3D, where the episodes each take about an hour before coming to a satisfying conclusion.

 

There's really no right or wrong answer. I really love huge, epic adventure style wads as well. Some of the best wads ever made are 32 maps, or even more in some cases. I especially love how much mileage you can get out of these long wads in multiplayer. When one particular map is too long it can be exhausting, I get sick of hearing the same music and seeing the same textures around the place generally in maps that go on and on like that.

 

I guess if I had to sum it up, any number of maps is fine, but a collection of super long maps back to back is something I'm much less likely to play to completion.

[Doom_Dude]

It really doesn't matter to me. I used to think bigger was better I guess. I do like many larger projects and in recent years started to really like those smaller projects with small, fun to blast through levels. Variety is definitely a good thing.

[Tartlman]

I think that making wads episodic is the best way to do it. The end is always in sight that way, so you can still feel a sense of completion without finishing the whole wad. Variety definitely helps, BTSX feels like a slog because it kinda gets boring seeing the same textures for 20-something maps, and I have to sprinkle in other wads to not get tired of it.

[Skootroot]

I personally don't mind. I could play Doom for hours and hours and it never gets boring for me. I kinda like it when it takes more than 20 minutes to complete a huge map, just as long it doesn't feel like it drags on

[quickey]

What if you did an episodic release, like 9 levels several times over? and once you call it done, you can release a "megawad" of it as a standalone instead of however many episodes you want to do?

[Solmyr]

"Brevity is the soul of wit" 

William Shakespeare.

 

Personally i find shorter, some times gimmicky maps more fun and memorable than very large maps.

 

Playing in one sitting a full megawad consisting of large epic maps tends to get boring after a while because the sense of progression gets lost, and my enthusiasm to see what challenges lie ahead dies down. It starts to feel like a chore at best and a headache inducing drag at worst. Misri Halek from Alien Vendetta comes to mind, i always get lost in that map, specially in coop, it's a good looking map but that shit was cursed by Osiris himself.

 

Going Down, was far more enjoyable and memorable to me than Hellbound, i still like both despite my preferences, but i would play the entirety of Going Down on one sitting, even if it takes me 12 hours, because the former never stops being engaging, the latter becomes a horrible drag after map 10.

 

All things said i wish people work and release on whatever size of maps they want to in their megawads. It's their choice after all.

[Juza]

3 hours ago, Tartlman said:

Variety definitely helps, BTSX feels like a slog because it kinda gets boring seeing the same textures for 20-something maps

What a hot take, and I must agree with it. After 5 levels I've already seen everything BTSX has to offer, from gameplay to visuals. Next wad, please.

 

I believe wads are best when they don't focus in one single theme for multiple levels, and then have each of those levels take an hour or so to beat... It often feels like they're pushing it so as to appear 'professional' by having some sort of escalation in progression, resulting in a boring product to get through.

 

Alien Vendetta did it best by not having set themes for episodes, but being consistent through diverse yet uniquely unorthodox gameplay. To me, that feels like a real journey; a better alternative to having the same level with the same gameplay and visuals repeated twenty-five times or so.

 

As for this thread's exact topic, eeehhhh, I just know that I'm more likely to play through 32 short action-packed levels than 32 long "adventurous" levels. Long levels often feel like a slog, regardless of how "fun" they might be.

 

 

[Linguica]

I would like to see more "episodes" of 5-10 maps that integrate new textures / monsters / mechanics. It's all well and good to grind out a 32 level magnum opus but a big part of why Doom editing is still around is how easy / quick it can be. I would rather see an author make three 10-level WADs exploring various concepts rather than one 32-level megawad beating a single concept to death. And yes I know that plenty of megawads effectively implement "episodes" which goes to show how strong the megawad bias is that people feel forced to stick to it even when what they actually want to do is clear by their actions.

 

On a personal level, the first project I ever got involved with was Army of Darkness Doom, which was a 9-level Doom 1 WAD. This was in 1995 before the idea of the "megawad" had even been invented. I can say with certainty that if it was meant to be a 32 level megawad it would have never been finished. Instead it actually was completed and released, which gave me the confidence boost of a completed project under my belt to seek out a second project to join called ID4Doom, which *was* intended to be a Doom 2 megawad. Unsurprisingly, it failed utterly, although the website for it eventually became Doomworld, so it wasn't a total loss.

[Noiser]

Shorter maps are definitely more comfy but I also like the 32 megawad format for some reason. I think It's ingrained in my brain at this point.

Megawads like Scythe or Khorus Speedy Shit are fascinating to me because while having 32 maps, they are very short and sweet. I also don't like to save and I often start from the beginning when I die so they also have this benefit.

Edited February 28, 2020 by Noiser

[Nine Inch Heels]

11 hours ago, Firedust said:

Also, @Nine Inch Heels I think Sunder is a bit of an anomalous example - I doubt we will see a similar mapset ever getting released. At this rate, even if you've practiced every map fairly well and start playing each one from pistol start, the bloody thing will still take you days to beat - and there aren't any megawads like that from what I know.

Whether or not Sunder remains a "singularity" is not something that I think is particularly relevant. The principle is that on a first play there is usually a gap between IGT and real-time, and when you look at Sunder it examplifies this quite well.

 

But let's put Sunder aside and talk "ESP". It also has some pretty big maps, and much like with Sunder I'm most likely not going to play several big maps back to back. When I have like 2 hours to spare, and I've played two 30 - 40 minute maps, I'll think twice about starting the next one, despite still having time on my hands. However, ESP is a compilation rather than a megaWAD with "related" maps, so I view ESP differently from valiant, AA, or eviternity to begin with, therefore I approach it in a different way. Of course you can make the same argument wrt Sunder, but the map-length in Sunder still is on a whole different level than map-length in ESP, and I find the latter to be more "digestible" due to its (relative) brevity.

 

11 hours ago, Firedust said:

Surprised you didn't like that Eviternity map. The layout is a tad confusing at first, but other than the dodgy start, I found it to be a well-designed map, encounter-wise and visually. Not sure about you wanting to play a different map by a different author on the same day from the same megawad argument. What about one-man megawads then? :D

I liked the map enough that I was looking into maybe doing a UVmax of it myself, but that is a different story altogether, and obviously I didn't end up going for it (which is partially due to how the maps starts, and partially due to other factors such as how many secrets there are -some of which barely make a difference for the player depending on where they headed first). What ended up getting to me was the length of the map on my first play, when you're in there for 45 minutes IGT, you're perhaps approaching an hour of real time, and the layout coupled with some of the more sluggish fights cooked my brain enough to make me not want to start the next map on the same day.

 

And yeah, eviternity isn't a one man megaWAD, so that question doesn't really present itself in this case. But even so, when I look at for example valiant, the maps were often different enough to feel like something new. At least there were some very distinct maps in a short enough time span to keep me wanting to see what's next. And my guess is that this was the case because of how authors start with a fresh mind on an empty grid in the editor, I certainly do when I decide to make another map. Sure, there's some "redundancy" in valiant, that comes with the territory, but it doesn't falsify that "crush depth" and "popes of roam" are vastly different maps which are still very close together in the megaWAD. They're not just different visually, they're vastly different gameplay concepts, and you don't get that kind of striking difference over the course of evi32, plus evi32 takes more time to play than both previously mentioned skillsaw maps together. That's the difference you can get with shorter maps which employ distinct tropes, and I simply like that better.

 

12 hours ago, Firedust said:

Out of curiosity, what do you think about Counterattack and Avactor?

It's been a while since I played counterattack, but avactor I still have relatively fresh memories of. I liked how avactor started off, the first map was very promising already, and exploration was rewarded with something interesting, in this case the "crusher-puzzle". This is something I really liked, but not every map in avactor comes with these extremely distinct highlights from what I remember of it. Couple that with how some of the maps can feel a bit sluggish in places, even past the map's "midway-point", and the overall length of a single map starts getting to me a bit as well. Avactor's aesthetics are cool overall, and despite the general theme there's still some variance from map to map and such. The gameplay isn't necessarily my cup of tea (certainly not on a first play where I tend to be more careful in general), but despite the length of the maps, it's reasonably digestible when played at a pace of, for example, one or two maps per session, and it's also not a 32map endeavour, which makes the length of each map less of an issue for me. The point being that beating a relatively long map out of only a handful invoked enough "sense of progression" by virtue of being a bigger chunk of the set in its entirety, and I'd feel different about it if avactor was 32 maps with an average play-time of let's say 25 minutes IGT per map.

[noisebloom]

I generally prefer shorter WADs. A lot of this has to do with time, but some of it is that it's incredibly difficult to not repeat yourself, and once a WAD starts dragging for me, I feel like playing something else. I think this tendency of mine makes the long megawads I like even more impressive, because I'm captivated for the entire duration.

 

I tend to enjoy longer megawads more for cooperative play; something about being on a team solving puzzles and killing demons makes the experience more exciting and full of life.

[Remilia Scarlet]

I know it's vague, but I think I'd rather see things that are "long enough."  If it's story driven, long enough to tell the story.  If it's a community project, long enough to give those interested a chance to contribute (and if it gets too long, make a sequel or something).  Not so long that it feels like you're beating a dead horse or "just showing off now" or whatever.

 

Regardless, the longer something is, the more you really have to see all the pieces as a whole.  If you have one continuous episode like Doom 2, and map 3 longer and more complex than map 9,  that's probably something you need to look at.  How the game flows level-to-level is just as important as how it flows encounter-to-encounter.

 

But overall, personally, I like shorter episodes.  Maybe 4-8 maps, or maybe around 15 if it's a community project.  Any longer and I'd want it split into episodes so I can consume it in pieces, yet not feel like I'm stopping in the middle of something after each piece.

[GarrettChan]

13 hours ago, AD_79 said:

I think something more megawads desperately require is greater variance in map length, as well as reduced overall length. It's okay to throw in a five minute map every now and then, mappers should be encouraged to do so! Not everything should be a big adventure; a bunch of those in a row will get exhausting. Doubly so if it's several slaughtermaps in a row, though that (and all of this, really) is personal preference talking. Long map fatigue is part of why I've never really bothered with CC4 and other similar sets.

YES! 50 Monsters is one of the best WADs out there. Oh oops, I accidentally quoted the author :P

 

I feel like Sunder is an interesting example for this topic. I personally treat Sunder is many maps packed together just for you convenience since they are large maps and they are not theme consistent. I feel some of the new Sunder maps go overboard with size and length IMO. There's an interesting comparable WAD called Disjunction. I always call that a smaller size Sunder, and it does similar things to Sunder. I personally enjoyed Disjunction more than Sunder (except Disjunction having a bit of resource starvation) because Disjunction is shorter and I don't need to exhaust myself just by playing one map.

 

Another topic recent is about the last map of Scythe. I personally like Scythe since it's mostly short maps, with a few challenging maps in the last group. That Map30 is a worthwhile last map for sure (Don't even talk about Map26, which is a quite easy map in real). Alien Vendetta is more a edge case since there are a few more of these type of maps in the last group. I personally haven't completely finished AV, so I can't really tell whether it's too long to me. Talking about this, I probably should finish AV when I have time to play it.

 

I do dig the idea that you need to throw some shorter maps in the middle to give the player some relief. A few very long maps in a row make potentially make me very tired, and decrease the chance of finishing it. I can't speak for other players, of course. Transitional maps are also a good idea as AD said, but it take extra effort to make a map, so it's understandable that not everybody wants to make it.

[PetalousPanoply]

I generally prefer shorter maps, though occasionally a megawad with long maps is welcome too. I do think that having more, shorter episodes, and with that better stopping points, makes playing these longer maps a bit more fun and cohesive.

[VGA]

Another voice for episodic format here. It is a tragedy that Doom 2 abandoned the episodic format, because of the way modding used to work this has led to megawads traditionally being 2-3 dozens of maps "one after the other". It is also somewhat disheartening to finish a huge map and then the next one starts, which will probably be harder/longer still!

 

I prefer the stereotypical introductory first map, followed by a few medium maps with a secret exit to a fun/gimmicky "ninth" map, then returning to the medium maps, then there is a big, impressive seventh map and finally a boss map. Then the episode ends and the next episode, with a new theme preferrably, starts ... with a nice introductory map all over again! :D

 

I suppose this format is better for the mapper(s) and should minimise burnout or abandoned projects. Because you can just release the first episode and see the response.

[HorrorMovieRei]

Yes and no.

 

Ideally for me, a megawad should start small and gradually work their way up in length. It keeps things fresh I think when the mapper(s) don't show all of their cards in the first 5 maps. And also I do think that the fatigue mentioned here in other posts is a real thing. Of course, you're not forced to play everything in one sitting, but that doesn't change the fact that there is such a thing as overstaying it's welcome. You could apply that same logic to other video games or even movies, so I don't see why it can't be applied to a megawad.

 

I guess starting with small/medium-small maps in the first third, medium/medium-large maps in the middle, and maybe a bunch of middle-large and one or two genuinely larger maps in the last third, probably reserved for maps 29 and 30 (unless map30 is an IOS level that is).

 

I also think that the difficulty of the map should be considered in the equation. Smaller maps can get away with a lot more, but I think bigger maps should be a roller coaster, give you some time to breathe and such between encounters. I feel burn out when I play maps that are not only long, but also with grueling encounters back to back. Smaller, brutal maps help me digest it better, as does bigger maps with evenly spaced out major battles, and I feel ready to tackle the rest of the megawad, and not like "I've had enough". This is coming from someone that considers themselves average in skill, mind you. I'm not a pro like a lot of people here, so maybe some of the magic of the drawn out uninterrupted beating is lost on me.

[Breezeep]

Definitely. It takes me long enough to play through a whole 32 level megawad, especially if the majority of maps are all large, sprawling adventures that exist to drag on as the player progresses further into the wad. I really am vouching for some more short and sweet episodic mapsets that spice up the base game a bit with interesting visual themes, unique gameplay / pacing concepts, and the occasional Dehacked modifications. I'm more of a "Quality over Quantity" type of person, so I'd like to see what kind of experiences modders can put into something short.

[skillsaw]

In my experience, I've mostly gotten the feeling that a megawad is going on too long from community or team based projects (i.e. projects with less strict map curation or a less centralized directorial vision). When you are only committed to making a single map for a megawad instead of making it in it's entirety, I think there's some pressure to make your mark, and no one is going to reject your magnum opus ... but it gets thrown on the pile with all the others, and it's exhausting to play all these efforts back to back. In addition, when it comes to the overall composition of the community project, everyone is working in the dark - no one really knows what map might come before theirs or after theirs (likely because those maps don't even exist yet since everyone is working concurrently!).

 

On the other hand, if you're planning to make all/most of the 32 maps yourself, for the sake of your own sanity you'll almost need to make some small/punchy maps just to have any hope of ever seeing release, and that ends up working in the player's favor. And since you're intimately aware of how all your finished maps play and if any of them have the potential to be exhausting (because you've actually played them all to death while making them), you can make maps that compliment the composition as a whole, and place them in a logical order so that diversity and escalation/deescalation of play are satisfying. And you can identify and plan the maps that you need to make to pull disparate maps together. The best wads, IMO, have a harmony that comes from the quality of the composition as a whole rather than quality of individual maps.

 

I'm generalizing, though - there are definitely exceptions :)

[Andromeda]

I tend to prefer shorter levels, though I would absolutely love a megawad with 32 Excalibur like levels.

[Arbys550]

It seems I'm the minority here in that I prefer maps to be as huge as possible. What can I say? I just love huge maps, even in a megawad. I don't know why, I think it just seems like that much more of an adventure. The only exception for me is community projects. Since the maps are so different from each other, I don't feel like I'm playing one continuous campaign and that ruins the adventure for me.

[Bridgeburner56]

Good wads I want more of.

Bad wads I want less of.

 

That is all