What do you think are the elements of a good or bad Doom3 map?

[Doominsanity]

Just like to know what people like to see or not see in Doom3 maps.

Sorry, forgot to add that they could be single or multiplayer maps.

[Tetzlaff]

Singleplayer or multiplayer maps?

[kristus]

There's a gazillion but here's a few:
Color coordination.
Light coordination.
Consistant LOD.
Balanced gameplay.
Well drawn layout.
Sensible texture choises.

[Tetzlaff]

I would like to know if we are talking about singleplayer or multiplayer maps, because it´s quite a different thing... so we can discuss points like layout and balanced gameplay in a more specific way.

[Doominsanity]

Kristus said

Consistant LOD.
Balanced gameplay.
Well drawn layout.

Are you talking of multiplayer maps? I like maps that are good for singleplayer and multiplayer purposes. I'm mostly a fan of single player maps, but of late been playing a lot of multiplayer ones. I prefer LOD comparable to quake3 and Doom3.

[Tetzlaff]

Doominsanity said:

I like maps that are good for singleplayer and multiplayer purposes.

There aren´t many maps that work well for multiplayer AND singleplayer, since the flow in MP and SP are fundamentally different. The only one that comes into my mind is House of Chthon of Quake1, which is a classic boss fight level in SP and was a fairly popular MP deathmatch map (though nothing outstanding). But since the flow is totally different in deathmatch (and Doom3 MP is basicly deathmatch), you really can´t have maps that work equally great for both modes.


Elements of a good deathmatch map:

- A well interconnected floorplan that allows constant flow (no dead ends!) Several circular routes through the map and several opportunities to chose another route (no simplistic room-corridor-room layouts), so that you can react in many different ways to the moves of your opponent.
- Good opportunities for multi-level combat. A good deatmatch map must have at least two different height levels integrated into the architecture. This can be accomplished by ledges, bridges, balconys etc, allowing z-axis combat from higher to lower rooms and vice versa.
- Balanced weapon and item layout. Don´t cluster up powerful weapons and / or powerups in one area. Try to provide a tactical approach in the way you distribute the items and weapons in your map.
- Don´t let eye candy come into the way of gameplay. Use mabient sound only in a very subtle and non-distracting way.


Elements of a good singleplayer level:

While deathmatch layouts basicly consist of interwoven circular and figure-8 paths to provide constant flow, the layout in a singleplayer map works totally different: you have an entrance and one (or more) exits, and in between the layout should provide you with different challenging combat situations but also with a certain ammount of exploration.

- Give the player a clear direction where to go and what to do, but don´t make it entirely linear and straightforward. Give the player some freedom of choice (but without losing focus). If there is a certain number of objectives to reach the next area of the map, make it so that the player can perform those objectives in any order (to give a certain ammount of freedom), but make sure that all objectives still are necessary (to keep it focused, and to hold the motivation). Example: you need to find a keycard and find a switch to lower a bridge to get to the next area, but you can do it in any order (not "first A, then B, then C").
- Varied combat areas. Multi-level combat is just as important as in MP, and you can do a lot of interesting things with enemy placement when you build interconnected rooms on multiple height levels.
- Clever enemy placement. Use the strengths and weaknesses of each monster, corresponding to the architecture / environment. Challenging, but not frustrating.
- Allow some sidetracking for exploration and some backtracking for a more 3-dimensional expierience of your environment. Monster re-inforcements can provide new combat situations in conjunction with backtracking.
- Secret areas can provide some rewarding exploration, hidden passages can enhance the non-linear quality of a map.

[Doominsanity]

Those are good observations. I will be on the lookout for similar designs or if you have knowledge of such levels, could name off a few other than the quake map. I've played a lot of intense UT2004 multiplayer maps, but few Doom3 Multiplayer maps of note.

[Murdoch]

1. Scares and plenty of them. 'nuff said.

2. Good use of darkness. You want to make a well lit map, make it for HL2.

3. Good use of all the monsters and hardware.

4. Well made, believable architecture and texturing.

5. Well crafted fights and a good supply of ammo and health. If you create good fights, ammo and health surplus isn't a problem. Be concerned about not enough ammo and health as opposed to too much. If the map's a good time but there's too much health and ammo, no harm. If it's fun but there's not enough, you have a severely fucked off player who'll delete the map you laboured over for hours in a heartbeat.

At least two otherwise excellent user maps Doom 3 maps have been spoiled by violating this rule. I'm an average player and I fucking hate micromanaging every last shell and rehearsing fights so I don't waste health and ammo. You made the map, you know where everything is and who's gonna pop out and where. Give enough leeway for new players to make mistakes, waste ammo and tackle things their way. Get at least two testers on board, one during development, one for a final play through when you're about to release. For every expert player who'll bitch about too much supplies, there's 10 or more average players who think it's dead on. It's the nature of the internet that you hear more from the bitchers than the happy ones.

6. Tell me a story. Create a world for me to visit. This is why I play FPS games. I love exploring, and I love a good story.

[kristus]

This is why there's skill levels. But no one want to play the lower levels because they are macho. :p

My SP maps are much like DM maps actually. A LOT of interconnectivity and I always try to not make them linear. This of course makes laying ut the gameplay take MUCH longer as I have to test the map about 5 times more than I would have otherwise.

[Wobbo]

Tetzlaff said:

There aren´t many maps that work well for multiplayer AND singleplayer, since the flow in MP and SP are fundamentally different. The only one that comes into my mind is House of Chthon of Quake1, which is a classic boss fight level in SP and was a fairly popular MP deathmatch map (though nothing outstanding). But since the flow is totally different in deathmatch (and Doom3 MP is basicly deathmatch), you really can´t have maps that work equally great for both modes.

I have respect for your opinion, but i disagree with about everything you said

If you examine the old games the sp and mp maps were almost excactly the same eexcept for item availibility and obvously the doors were all unlocked

and yet the older games had excellent dm and sp maps

I think the properties of good gameplay dont change that much from SP to DM, at least not to the extent your saying

look at the the fist level of quake for example, excellent intro SP and MP map, because it has both properties you mentioned
another example would be the ENTIRE GAME of quake 2, which had imo better multiplay than quake3 on ONLY sp maps!

*until the map pack came out about 12 patches later

In the abstract: a good Sp map is a deathmatch map with monsters and areas cut off by "keys" (events, keycards, characters, etc.)... thats it

the problem with modern design is that its WAY too linear; most FPS games since half-life have had this extremely corny "interactive movie" problem. obviously mappers seem to feel that they *do not* have to design their maps to be Multiplayer and single player, and of course they dont... but they SHOULD

this is important for the people who design maps to know. you do NOT HAVE TO COPY Doom3's or halflife's maps.

[Tetzlaff]

Wobbo said:

I think the properties of good gameplay dont change that much from SP to DM, at least not to the extent your saying

Indeed many properties of good gameplay are the same for MP and SP, regarding leveldesign this is for example, multi-level combat and connectivity. But other aspects are completely different, mainly the flow, as I tried to explain. Good MP maps have a seemless circular flow, and SP maps have progression into specific directions. You maybe could compare it with CTF leveldesign, but not with deathmatch flow. I totally agree with you that todays SP leveldesign is often way too linear (and also it often lacks good vertcial multi-level combat), but still SP leveldesign needs direction, progression and exploration, and this can not be achieved by the "running arround in circles" flow of a deathmatch map.

look at the the fist level of quake for example, excellent intro SP and MP map, because it has both properties you mentioned
another example would be the ENTIRE GAME of quake 2, which had imo better multiplay than quake3 on ONLY sp maps!

Quake´s e1m1 is hardly an excellent MP map IMO. I know it was popular, but it isn´t a top map. dm4, dm6, Aerowalk, ztn´s Blood Run - those are excellent deathmatch maps, and their layout works so well that they have been remade for all major DM games until today.

In the abstract: a good Sp map is a deathmatch map with monsters and areas cut off by "keys" (events, keycards, characters, etc.)... thats it

It really isn´t that simple. I advise to take a look at "Gore: Ultimate Soldier", this game was developped as an MP only title, but then the publishers decided it should have SP as well, so the developers slapped together a traditional SP campaign by re-using their MP maps. It sucked.
However, if you basicly are saying SP maps should have the same combat quality like a good MP map (connectivity, vertical aspects, plenty of room for flexible tactics instead of scripted shit), I completely agree with you on this point.

[Wobbo]

then basically we agree, its incorrect to say i disagreed with everything in your first post.

My point is that the core elements of gameplay design (having rooms with multiple exits, use of vertical differences and non-scripted set peices (like elevators with more than two stops, or trains that can ride in cycles and the like) are basically the same for good SP and MP maps.

The point that SP maps need direction in the general sense is true, but its so obvious that i didnt think anyone would need it adressed in a question asking the elements of a good sp and mp map. talking about overall design, obviously in a MP map you want players to be looped through yoru design, and in SP you want them to go from point A to points b c and so on. but the core elements of how you actually layout the map imo shouldnt change