What (for you) is the most important aspect of a map?

[The Ultimate DooMer]

I don't think this has been asked before, so here comes the poll:

What (for you) is the most important aspect of a map?

(this is for playing and making maps, although I'd expect both of them to be the same)

As for me, it's not too hard to work out...

[Lüt]

I'm an architecture nut. I'm not sure about everybody else here, but I'm entirely played out when it comes to Doom. I've played through maps with every kind of gameplay imaginable time and time again, so the only reason I play maps nowadays is for their visual and architectural accomplishments. I enjoy walking around places as an observer much more than emptying hordes of demons out of them for the 10,000th time. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy good design in the gameplay department, but when it comes to personal enjoyment, I'll take a great looking map and run through it with -nomonsters instead of a good-playing plain map anyday.

I'm the explorer type, really. I couldn't care less about monsters; they usually just detract from the scenery.

[Remilia Scarlet]

For me, as long as it plays good, I like it. I don't like levels with lots of detail, levels made for source ports, or lots of puzzles. I just want it to be fun. With lots of shooting and killing.

[Fletcher`]

Why isn't this poll a checklist?

[Sharessa]

I like to design stuff so that it looks like it could be real. Metal supports, sunken consoles, lights, etc. Square rooms tend to annoy me. So I guess I'm gonna say architecture.

[boris]

For me visuals are very important. I simply don't want to play bad looking maps (/me waits for 999cop :P) Sure, gameplay is important too, but what's the use of good gameplay in an ugly map? I'm not saying every map should be P:AR-ish in the visual department, it should simply not be underdetailed and stuff.

[dsm]

Sorry Ultimate Doomer, this question has actually been asked before (but a long time ago - during the time of the polls forum).

Anyways, I prefer gameplay, but architechture is so close a second that it can't be left out.

[Tyockell]

dsm said:

Anyways, I prefer gameplay, but architechture is so close a second that it can't be left out.

I second that comment.

[Grazza]

I voted "Gameplay/fun factor (but not extreme)", but that's not quite true, since I like a lot of extreme wads, and many of my favourites achieve good gameplay by cramming in a lot of monsters. However, a humungous monster-count is neither necessary nor sufficient for producing good gameplay.

[Isle]

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Fredrik]

Barrels are important to me. A good map has barrels.

[Szymanski]

Fredrik said:

Barrels are important to me. A good map has barrels.

and crates, it's not DOOM without crates


heh, of course knee deep in the dead doesn't have crates which blows that theory

[Shaviro]

You forgot atmosphere/mood!

First comes atmosphere, then visuals, then gameplay.

[Little Faith]

Atmosphere's the most important to me too.

[stphrz]

A map is just no damned good unless it has at least one self rising staircase.

I'm serious.

[Ichor]

I tend to go for realism and atmosphere than for high detailed maps. Sometimes, you don't need a lot of detail to get the atmosphere you're looking for, as long as the map is believable. Gameplay is just as important, if not more so. One or two well placed, strong monsters can create a much better effect than a lot of weaker ones. I try to create the maximum effect with the least amount of monsters. This makes ammo and health placement a bit easier to work with..

[Lüt]

Shaviro said:

First comes atmosphere, then visuals

Zuh? I've always considered atmosphere a product of architecture/visuals (lighting in Doom(2) I consider "architecture" since it must be built).

[999cop]

boris said:

For me visuals are very important. I simply don't want to play bad looking maps (/me waits for 999cop :P) Sure, gameplay is important too, but what's the use of good gameplay in an ugly map? I'm not saying every map should be P:AR-ish in the visual department, it should simply not be underdetailed and stuff.

For your information, I was never opposed of visual factors of maps. However in my opinion, gameplay always has to be put as first priority on my list, visuals are secondly important. Personally I just cannot stand how you complain about how map01 looks bad or else. It actually looks great to me with texturing(/me drools at tekgren2) and the way it was designed, not to mention its gameplay in dm is superior of all and I am sure the original designer, Sandy Petersen was aware of that when he was compiling it. Other than that, visual-pleasing maps from Quake 3 such as Coriolis Storm by Lunaran, Tempest Utopia by LloydM, and Radiator by Vexar are great as well, however they aren't the most ideal maps for serious gaming.

[999cop]

Shaviro said:

You forgot atmosphere/mood!

First comes atmosphere, then visuals, then gameplay.

atmosphere can only be created in SP :p :)

but admittedly atmosphere of Doom was the first thing that caught me into the game

[Erik]

I vote gameplay. It's a close call with architecture and atmosphere though.

[Bloodshedder]

999cop said:

I am sure the original designer, Sandy Petersen was aware of that when he was compiling it.

Actually, it's been stated before, by Romero I think, that Petersen had never designed or built a DM map before. In other words, he had no idea about the concepts that made a good DM map.

[stphrz]

Dag nabbit. Lüt is right. What is all this stuff about architecture vs. "atmosphere." Where does atmosphere come from? Why it comes from the visual elements of the map. Mainly from architecture, lighting (which is arguably part of the architecture), and texture choices. Scenery items can play a small role too. It can also be argued that gameplay contributes to atmosphere. So yes even DM maps have atmosphere just as much as SP levels.

Atmosphere is just a byproduct of various design elements and native engine characteristics.

[Fletcher`]

Szymanski said:

and crates, it's not DOOM without crates

Damn straight. :)

stphrz said:

A map is just no damned good unless it has at least one self rising staircase.

Damn Straight. :)

[DtM]

Architecture and feel of the place is just as important as the gameplay. Dark areas have demons, doors opening behind you with cacodemons, and will definetely end in a big room full of corpses.
There should always be an arena somewhere for the trigger-happy DooMer with perhaps a couple pillars around the place, particularly against bullet-firing foes/that annoying revenant, and foes aplenty to defeat.

The megawad I'm making is specifically accurate - why have this room?, where do these scientists eat? (WHERE is the mess hall in Knee Deep in the Dead???), maybe the Plasma Gun SHOULDN'T be lying in the middle of the hall, what would an invisibility powerup ACTUALLY look like?, stuff like that. It seems to be unprecedented, to the kind of map which has computer terminals left right and centre for no discernible reason, no places to eat or sleep, and loaded weaponry precariously lying around all over the shop, and the same goes with seemingly random textures.

[myk]

TeamKill said:

For me, as long as it plays good, I like it. I don't like levels with lots of detail, levels made for source ports, or lots of puzzles. I just want it to be fun. With lots of shooting and killing.

Same here.

[sirjuddington]

Atmosphere, Gameplay and Architecture. Detail is a bonus, but you can still have good architecture without lots of detail (E1 comes to mind...)

[dsm]

Shaviro said:

You forgot atmosphere/mood!

First comes atmosphere, then visuals, then gameplay.

You can easily do maps that don't have very much scary atmosphere, but are still fun to play.

I'd say gameplay first, architechture a VERY close second (as I already said) and THEN atmosphere as no. three.

Anything else I forgot?

Oh yeah, I also love when there are additional sounds added - like screeeaaammmmzz, howling wind, other eerie sounds, etc. Hm, maybe that kinda goes under atmosphere...

DtM

Hm? I smell somebody copying me. :-P

[Kinsie]

Allow me to tell you a story.

A friend of mine once made a Duke3d map. The visuals were somewhat poor, with misaligned textures, bright lighting, and Korn posters everywhere. But you know what? The map played like an absolute dream, and the 3-player lan-sessions on that map were dreamlike.

Ah, Housetrash, thou shalt be missed... uh, yeah. That's why I voted gameplay, cause visuals aren't everything, although they do bring a smile to your face.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

DtM said:

The megawad I'm making is specifically accurate - why have this room?, where do these scientists eat? (WHERE is the mess hall in Knee Deep in the Dead???), maybe the Plasma Gun SHOULDN'T be lying in the middle of the hall, what would an invisibility powerup ACTUALLY look like?, stuff like that. It seems to be unprecedented, to the kind of map which has computer terminals left right and centre for no discernible reason, no places to eat or sleep, and loaded weaponry precariously lying around all over the shop, and the same goes with seemingly random textures.

I believe I've already done a megawad like that (to a certain extent).

[Shaviro]

I think some of you misunderstood.

1. First I look for good atmosphere, THEN I look for good visuals and THEN I look for good gameplay.

Atmosphere is a product of many things; Sounds, architecture, lighting and gameplay. This is why it's the most important. Lighting is not architecture. Sure you have to build the lighting in the editor, but that doesn't matter ingame.

2. The atmosphere does not have to be scary.
3. A DM map with no atmosphere is boring, IMO. I feel gameplay and atmosphere is connected.