Noob Doom Mapper: Doom format vs Doom in Hexen format?

[StoneFrog]

Welp, I'm starting to get into mapping for Doom. I got my first map going pretty well so far, though I wanna do some neat things that it looks like I can only do by Scripting in DiH format.

Do you think it's worth it? Clarify some things for me.
1) I hear in DiH format, you can't make doors and the likes the way you do in DiD, and you have to code them. Is this true?

2) Do people need Hexen's IWAD linked with ZDoom in order to run a DiH map?

3) Can I do these things in DiD format:
-Level music
-Intermission screens (like at the end of episodes in Doom)
-Messages (such as in ZDoom when you find a secret, etc)

Thanks for the reply.

[CodeImp]

1) No. You don't need scripting for a door, there are door line actions in Hexen format as well.

2) No, that is why it is called Doom in Hexen format, you use the Doom(2) IWAD.

3) Music and Intermission screens are independent of the map format. If you use ZDoom it is possible, but not with any settings or scripting in the map (they have other methods for that). Messages probably require scripting (hence you need Hexen format).

[Enjay]

It's maybe worth pointing out that, as was said, DiH does have line types for Doors (and all the other simple secotr moving types) but there is more flexibility with them. For each door you set up, you have the option to set the speed, delay before closing, whether it is repeatable, who can activate it and the activation type differently. This is because the line type merely provides the function (eg open a door) and then the rest is set (easily in the editor) by line parameters and flags. This is in contrast to DiD where line types are tied to a single activation type (eg W1, S1, SR etc) or speed (normal or "blazing"). So, there is a little bit more work in making a door in DiH format (but you have far greater flexibility). That maybe the "programming" you were thinking about. However, I suspect it is more likely that you were thinking of ACS scripting. ACS allows you to program far more than just the opening of a door, but it is not needed to make a door in DiH. ACS is optional, but very much worth looking into as your DiH skills increase.

Many (all?) of the messages in Doom can be changed using the launguage lump. This will work in DiD format.

[esselfortium]

If you are a new mapper, I'm going to advise you to stay far away from Zdoom (this includes even testing your maps in Zdoom) while you're learning. Not permanently, but for the time being. Before you dismiss this post, let me explain why.

Zdoom makes a number of changes to how Doom works, including allowing you to get away with leaving certain line actions untagged, changing the height of arch-vile jumps, etc.

I started mapping several years for plain Doom/Doom2 format, with no custom textures or extra fancy crap, and IMO that's the best way to learn. Either that or Boom format, which is equally simple to learn but very powerful if you know how to use it. Test your map in a sourceport like PrBoom or Eternity Engine.

Once you understand mapping, by all means, map for whatever sourceport you want to. I've mapped for vanilla (the original unmodified game engine), limit-removing (i.e. a map that's compatible with all sourceports as long as they remove vanilla's rendering limits), Boom, Legacy, ZDoom, Skulltag, and Eternity Engine, and once I had a grasp of the basics I found it easy to learn how to map using any port's features.

[Tango]

Starting basic is definitely the way to go. Like essel said, get the basics down and then you're basically open to using whatever source port you want without much trouble.

I think sometimes people underestimate what limit removing/boom or even doom2.exe can do and jump straight to ZDoom because of its fancy features. Often times people get distracted with these features (which they don't even end up using very well) and don't focus on what really makes a good map.

If you take a look at all of the current skilled mappers that properly utilize ZDoom, you'll see that they all started out with Doom in Doom format. Look at Vader, for example. He made an entire limit removing/DiD megawad before he jumped to ZDoom, and now he seems to be one of the few people that can make use of ZDoom's features to benefit every aspect of his mapping. I have seen several maps from the in-progress ZDoom Community Project, and many of these maps make poor use of ZDoom's features, suffer from horrible gameplay and horrible layouts. Such seems to be the result of mappers beginning with ZDoom instead of something more basic.

So, in short, you're going to want to go basic. I can garuntee that 1)it'll be easier to use advanced source ports in the future and 2)you'll become a much better mapper.

[Creaphis]

Yeah, ZDoom is a lousy place to start. One thing that irks me about many ZDoom maps is that mappers are given this vast scripting potential and they use it to make shitty traps. Pick up this key, and a whole ring of imps is instantly spawned around you. Woooooow. This same gameplay can be done better in vanilla, because a vanilla teleport trap will have some variation in when monsters appear, which feels more natural and less forced. Boom already provides impressive scripting capability (if you know how to abuse voodoo dolls and scrolling sectors) and vastly more interesting fights can be crafted even with the limits of that method, in which monsters could appear in waves, and your environment could slowly change.

(Fun fact: you can script events in that same way within vanilla Heretic.)

[Enjay]

Although it is a little difficult to put myself in the position of someone starting out in Doom mapping these days, I personally see no reason not to start with Zdoom mapping. IMO, it is only marginally more complicated than mapping for Doom in Doom format and you would laern a better and more flexible set of mapping possibilities as your "native mapping language".

When I made the transition to Hexen format, my biggest fears, difficulties and frustrations came from me trying to find how to do the stuff I was used to doing in Doom, but in a different format. Also, my mindset was that of a Doom format mapper so I would try ugly Doom format hack-arounds when a perfectly good way for doing things properly existed in the new format. As a short, green Jedi Master might have put it, I had to unlearn what I had learned.

However, there is one big plus to learning to map in Doom format: if you do that, you will have the basic skills that allow you to map for any port. Hexen format is specific to Zdoom (and, of course, the game Hexen) so it would not prepare you particularly well for mapping for JDoom, EDGE, Chocolate Doom...

Oh and I would most definitely class Voodoo doll scripting as an ugly hack around (albeit, paradoxically an elegant solution to the original engine limitations). I mean, come on, a second player start in the level to put a dumb version of the player into a map in a hidden area and have it moved along by a conveyor belt or an explosion to cross lines is awful compared to a proper script with 2 or 3 lines of code.

[esselfortium]

Enjay said:

Although it is a little difficult to put myself in the position of someone starting out in Doom mapping these days, I personally see no reason not to start with Zdoom mapping. IMO, it is only marginally more complicated than mapping for Doom in Doom format and you would laern a better and more flexible set of mapping possibilities as your "native mapping language".

When I made the transition to Hexen format, my biggest fears, difficulties and frustrations came from me trying to find how to do the stuff I was used to doing in Doom, but in a different format. Also, my mindset was that of a Doom format mapper so I would try ugly Doom format hack-arounds when a perfectly good way for doing things properly existed in the new format. As a short, green Jedi Master might have put it, I had to unlearn what I had learned.

However, there is one big plus to learning to map in Doom format: if you do that, you will have the basic skills that allow you to map for any port. Hexen format is specific to Zdoom (and, of course, the game Hexen) so it would not prepare you particularly well for mapping for JDoom, EDGE, Chocolate Doom...

Heh, well, I never said it was too hard or too complicated. It's just that it's very forgiving, so you miss out on learning some important things that you're supposed to do (or not do). Learning to map without ZDoom features prepares you to map for anything, and you end up learning a lot more about Doom mapping. I have no problem with mapping for ZDoom or any other port, but port-specific features, particularly when they involve a completely different map format, are just not a good place to start learning.

[Creaphis]

Enjay said:

Oh and I would most definitely class Voodoo doll scripting as an ugly hack around (albeit, paradoxically an elegant solution to the original engine limitations). I mean, come on, a second player start in the level to put a dumb version of the player into a map in a hidden area and have it moved along by a conveyor belt or an explosion to cross lines is awful compared to a proper script with 2 or 3 lines of code.

Uh oh, we wouldn't want to use crude hacks. Not in a Doom engine...

Seriously though, I do agree that it's a crude way to do things. If you're not limited to any particular engine for one reason or another (Boom-compatible community project, experimenting, etc.) and you want to include scripting in a level of yours, you might as well use a port that allows for that. However, if you're using a port's scripting capability to make simple, boring traps, then you shouldn't be using that port's scripting capability. You can make equally interesting (and more interesting) levels in the simpler engines, so you shouldn't bother editing for advanced ports unless you're really going to make good use of their features.

Since the topic at hand is noob mappers, I believe they're better off learning to create interesting fights and traps in the more bare-bones engines, so that they can get a handle on the sort of creativity necessary for a good level. Eventually a new mapper may get an idea for something very cool that can't be done in vanilla or Boom, and that's when they should switch to ZDoom.

[Enjay]

Let's not forget that Doom format is very "forgiving" too. I've seen a number of port authors complain about trying to support odd things that are not strictly to the Doom specs but which worked and so have made their way into a number of vanilla WADs (intentionally or otherwise).

Out of curiosity I quite often load a map into an editor to see how things were done and I usually run the error checking routines whilst I'm at it. Only rarely do I find a map that gets a clean bill of health.

But yeah, as I said, learning the Doom format would be a better foundation for the wider world of editing.

[Enjay]

Creaphis said:

Uh oh, we wouldn't want to use crude hacks. Not in a Doom engine...

;) fair point.

Creaphis said:

However, if you're using a port's scripting capability to make simple, boring traps, then you shouldn't be using that port's scripting capability. You can make equally interesting (and more interesting) levels in the simpler engines, so you shouldn't bother editing for advanced ports unless you're really going to make good use of their features.

I can't say that I agree with that. If a "simple, boring trap" can be done in Doom format or via a script, what difference does it make how a mapper does it? Perhaps, if the only reason a mapper has used Zdoom Hexen format is to allow that trap, then yes, they have unnecessarily restricted their potential audience by restricting the map to a single port. How much that actually matters to the mapper and the potential audience will vary.

However, if they were mapping in Zdoom anyway for whatever reason (say, perhaps, they just like doing it) then I couldn't care less if a simple trap was achieved by (for example) monsters coming in from a teleporting room, or being spawned via a script. Both methods are effective and, in the ZdoomHexen environment, I'd be hard pushed to say which one was better and I can't really see that I would consider either one to be wrong.

I really think it's quite wrong to tell someone that they should or should not use a port purely because they may or may not be using the advanced features of the port. There is no blanket "should" about it. If a person wants to map for Zdoom, JDoom, Legacy or whatever and use very little of the special features of those ports, or use them for what someone else might consider "simple" or "boring" things, so what? If they have their own reasons for using that port and they are happy with those reasons, then that's what they should be doing. If they're happy, I don't regard it as a waste, or an abuse or a pointless exercise (or whatever) at all. They (hopefully) had fun making a map in an environment that suited them.

[Creaphis]

I think we have a slight philosophical difference here. A distinction can be drawn between "mapping that the mapper most enjoys" and "mapping that leads to quality content," and unfortunately, these do not always overlap. I tend to be more supportive of the second variety.

You're right, it doesn't matter whether a simple trap is made with ZDoom or with vanilla techniques. It doesn't really matter whether monsters appear from a room full of monsters and teleport lines or from a scripted command. But what does matter, if the person is planning to release their work, is whether the resulting fight is fun and interesting for a third-party. New mappers can learn to produce better content if they begin with Doom or Boom-format mapping, and attempt to produce interesting visuals and compelling gameplay within that environment. In the nooby ZDoom mapping that I previously complained about, I imagine that the mapper's mind is being carried away from those ideals by thoughts like Oh! I could totally make some imps spawn all at once in this square room, and the ceiling could be a slope, and I could add new weapons that are super powerful, and monsters with like a bajillion hits, and etc. The glut of options in advanced ports encourages new mappers to get overzealous in their use of them, distracting them from what's necessary to make a map that's actually good. This is why I feel that mappers should begin by getting down in the dirt and mapping for the basic engines.

Also, to extend what Essel stated earlier, a problem with mapping for ZDoom is that it's "forgiving." I'd like to use a personal example here; in a mapset that I recently playtested, I noticed that many switches were accessible before they were supposed to be, because they were only blocked by thin raised floors. On one occasion, pressing a switch too soon made a level completely impassable. The author declared this as a Boom compatible wad, but did all his testing with advanced ports that limit the vertical reach of the player. So, when I pointed out this issue, the mapper's response was an accusation that the port I was testing with was buggy. No, new mappers need to map AND test within older engines (or at least new engines set to behave as old engines) so that they can get a grasp of how the game actually works.

[Enjay]

Creaphis said:

I think we have a slight philosophical difference here.

Probably. :D

Creaphis said:

A distinction can be drawn between "mapping that the mapper most enjoys" and "mapping that leads to quality content," and unfortunately, these do not always overlap. I tend to be more supportive of the second variety.

No arguments there.

Creaphis said:

You're right, it doesn't matter whether a simple trap is made with ZDoom or with vanilla techniques. It doesn't really matter whether monsters appear from a room full of monsters and teleport lines or from a scripted command. But what does matter, if the person is planning to release their work, is whether the resulting fight is fun and interesting for a third-party.

Agreed.

Creaphis said:

New mappers can learn to produce better content if they begin with Doom or Boom-format mapping, and attempt to produce interesting visuals and compelling gameplay within that environment.

Nope, can't agree with that statement though. Or rather, it is presented almost as if starting with Doom format necessarily leads to better maps and, conversely, implies that starting with an "advanced" port necessarily means worse maps and I can't see that as a proven link at all.

So, perhaps they might learn to produce better content if they start with Doom format but I would suggest that they might learn to produce better content if they don't start with Doom format. I don't think the format necessarily means better content one way or another.

If the argument holds true, then surely we'd all be better off learning to map with Wolfenstein even if our goal is to produce a map for Doom3. Hey, maybe that isn't such a bad idea after all. ;)

Creaphis said:

In the nooby ZDoom mapping that I previously complained about, I imagine that the mapper's mind is being carried away from those ideals by thoughts like Oh! I could totally make some imps spawn all at once in this square room, and the ceiling could be a slope, and I could add new weapons that are super powerful, and monsters with like a bajillion hits, and etc. The glut of options in advanced ports encourages new mappers to get overzealous in their use of them, distracting them from what's necessary to make a map that's actually good. This is why I feel that mappers should begin by getting down in the dirt and mapping for the basic engines.

I'd say that now we are getting down to matters of taste. Is a nooby map with some poorly executed Doom features any better than a nooby map with some poorly executed Zdoom features? How is the noob mapping you mention any different to the "my furst map" with 500 Nazis and a Cyberdemon in a room "because it's kewl"? You seem to be saying that the format not having as many possibilities is almost like a safety valve to prevent mappers making over zealous errors of judgement with what they produce. I'd suggest that new mappers are going to make those mistakes anyway and the mistakes being either Doom format ones, or pointless Zdoom ones both detract from the map in equal measure and the first few maps are likely to have some pretty big errors. If the mapper makes both Doom errors and Zdoom errors in the same map - well so what? The map was pretty awful anyway but with any chance lessons may have been learned about both types of error. I don't see that keeping the mapper in the kindergarten of Doom format mapping and not allowing them to play with the big boys toys would be particularly helpful. In fact, it might make things worse. Imagine the noob who makes all the vanilla mistakes and then moves on to an advanced engine only to go through a second phase of "wow, I can do kewl stuff". Perhaps it would be better to get that out of the way in one go?

Creaphis said:

Also, to extend what Essel stated earlier, a problem with mapping for ZDoom is that it's "forgiving." I'd like to use a personal example here; in a mapset that I recently playtested, I noticed that many switches were accessible before they were supposed to be, because they were only blocked by thin raised floors. On one occasion, pressing a switch too soon made a level completely impassable. The author declared this as a Boom compatible wad, but did all his testing with advanced ports that limit the vertical reach of the player. So, when I pointed out this issue, the mapper's response was an accusation that the port I was testing with was buggy. No, new mappers need to map AND test within older engines (or at least new engines set to behave as old engines) so that they can get a grasp of how the game actually works.

Clearly, in that case, the mistake was declaring the map was Boom compatible. It wasn't. It was Zdoom compatible. Yes, the mapper should have tested in other ports (or at least believed your bug report) and fixed any issues if they were going to say it was a Boom compat map. If they only tested it in one port, then they can only make claims about it running with that port. New mappers, no - any mappers, need to test their maps in the ports they say the map is compatible with. The mistake was not making a Zdoom map. The mistake was assuming the map would run equally well in all ports that support Boom line types and then declaring that it did without checking. It's not just Zdoom that has differences in how certain situations are handled and a blanket "Boom compat" statement should only be made if the map has been checked and verified with most, if not all, the accepted Boom compat ports. With so many slight and subtle variations as to how the different Boom compat maps do things, Boom compatibility is almost like an "average" of how the different ports handle the various situations - and a map needs to be checked thoroughly and either made to work with all the appropriate ports, or simply declared as compatible with the ones where it behaves as intended.

[esselfortium]

I'd say it's less that Doom's/Boom's restrictions are a "safety valve", as you put it, and more that ZDoom makes it very easy for bad mappers to attempt to cover up their bad mapping with fancy effects, custom weapons, new monsters, HUD effects, scripts, etc.

I mean, have you seen skulltag.com's Projects forum? D:

[Creaphis]

Fine, fine. I suppose I'm assuming some scenarios as more or less likely than they really are. You're right, in that mistakes can be made in countless ways. My bias can partly be blamed on the fact that I'm a member of the "restrictions force creativity" camp of thought. Personally, I find that having specific obstacles to work around helps me to create imaginative ways to defeat them. If the obstacles weren't there, I wouldn't know what to make. Obviously not everyone's brain will work in this way.

Still, to fully understand the map format, I don't see how it would be best to start anywhere other than at the beginning.

[myk]

Creaphis said:
Also, to extend what Essel stated earlier, a problem with mapping for ZDoom is that it's "forgiving."

That problem is in Boom itself. You can get tutti frutti effects, medusa effects, broken triggers, item placement issues, and other problems in Doom or Doom-compatible engines when making a plain level and testing it with a Boom-based engine.

[Creaphis]

esselfortium said:

I'd say it's less that Doom's/Boom's restrictions are a "safety valve", as you put it, and more that ZDoom makes it very easy for bad mappers to attempt to cover up their bad mapping with fancy effects, custom weapons, new monsters, HUD effects, scripts, etc.

I mean, have you seen skulltag.com's Projects forum? D:

Heh, yeah. I was tempted to mention that specifically but held my tongue. Or fingers, rather.

[Graf Zahl]

Judging from who is still posting here I'd say your war of mapping ideologies has already scared off the original poster. Well done!

[GreyGhost]

StoneFrog's probably following the "robust debate" and wondering "WTF have I started?". :-)

[Nuxius]

Or, more than likely, StoneFrog hasn't even returned to this forum yet, much less seen what has come of his thread.

[Enjay]

esselfortium said:

I'd say it's less that Doom's/Boom's restrictions are a "safety valve", as you put it, and more that ZDoom makes it very easy for bad mappers to attempt to cover up their bad mapping with fancy effects, custom weapons, new monsters, HUD effects, scripts, etc.

I'm not sure how deliberately they would be trying to hide their mapping shortcomings. I guess that's an interpretation thing too. ie it could be percieved that they know their map is "teh suck" and they've hung tinsel on it to distract the player. I'd say that it is more likely that they would just be making mistakes such as shoving in features for the hell of it without actually trying to deceive anyone. Either way, it would still fail and still be a bad map.

Graf Zahl said:

Judging from who is still posting here I'd say your war of mapping ideologies has already scared off the original poster. Well done!

I didn't think it was a war, just a lively discussion. No one has resorted to insults or flames and points of view are being exchanged. I wouldn't even call it an argument, just a healthy debate.

Creaphis said:

Still, to fully understand the map format, I don't see how it would be best to start anywhere other than at the beginning.

Yup, I think I agree with that. Going through the Doom map format evolution in miniature yourself might well help to get a sense of appreciation and place about the map format and its features and limitations.

All I'm really saying is, if someone wants to start mapping for Zdoom, and only plans to map for Zdoom, then I don't really see a need to start with Doom format maps. In fact, I think that would probably be counter productive and I certainly don't think it would lead to them being a worse mapper. However, as I have said, mapping in Doom format does confer advantages (eg cross port compatibility (potentially)).

And StoneFrog, if you are still around and have managed to stick with the thread this far, it just goes to show that there never is a simple answer even to an apparently simple question. Whichever way you go, and whatever you do, I hope you enjoy doing it. :)

[esselfortium]

Enjay said:

I'm not sure how deliberately they would be trying to hide their mapping shortcomings. I guess that's an interpretation thing too. ie it could be percieved that they know their map is "teh suck" and they've hung tinsel on it to distract the player. I'd say that it is more likely that they would just be making mistakes such as shoving in features for the hell of it without actually trying to deceive anyone. Either way, it would still fail and still be a bad map.

Nah, they definitely don't know it. Or if they do, they refuse to admit it. A few of them will accept constructive criticism, but the others will all jump on you for "trolling" and insulting their great work, or their friend's great work, or random noob #5839b's great work. :(

[Death-Destiny]

Enjay said:

I didn't think it was a war, just a lively discussion. No one has resorted to insults or flames and points of view are being exchanged. I wouldn't even call it an argument, just a healthy debate.

This is definitely an excellent debate. I'm finding it to be very engaging to see all the different points of view everyone has. =)

If it helps, here's how I learned to map. I started with just the basics that the original Doom supported, like simple doors and lifts and whatnot and didn't do anything fancy. I recall that the first time I used anything more complicated than that was when I wanted to try my hand at Zdoom's DECORATE programming. However, I did that pretty early on before I understood some "simpler" things like sky transfer lines.

Basically, I just learned everything in whatever order I wanted to use things in my map (I felt the urge to script an enemy in DECORATE before I felt the need to give a particular map a unique sky.) I personally don't see any problem with learning the more complicated things before the simpler stuff. I thought that it's just something more to learn that I didn't know yet, but it doesn't seem to me to build upon itself like Calculus builds upon Algebra; everything seems for the most part to be something new you can learn about as you need it.

To make "quality" maps, one would have to learn everything either way. A map with unimpressive architecture but and amazing scripted foe seems pretty comparable to a map with sweet architecture and an unimpressive scripted enemy. The author just learned in a different order than others, but that should not affect their future learning and either way seems to make it easier simply because the person has more past experience in something similar. =)

[Creaphis]

Aside from our potential differences in mapping ideologies, we're also thinking about different types of beginning mappers. You're considering new mappers who are already well equipped to gather technical knowledge and have a grasp of what a map should be. I'm more concerned about the best way to start mapping for those who don't... who don't quite get it yet.

Enjay said:

I'm not sure how deliberately they would be trying to hide their mapping shortcomings. I guess that's an interpretation thing too. ie it could be percieved that they know their map is "teh suck" and they've hung tinsel on it to distract the player. I'd say that it is more likely that they would just be making mistakes such as shoving in features for the hell of it without actually trying to deceive anyone. Either way, it would still fail and still be a bad map.

It isn't deliberate. People new to the medium frequently don't have enough quality awareness to judge that "This is my wad's shortcoming, and this is how I'm going to try to distract the player from it." Before an individual really understands mapping quality, the depth of their self-appraisal will likely be limited to "This is bad." I believe that, at this level, a mapper will figure out what specific things make a map bad or good more quickly if he is mapping for more basic formats. If this person has started mapping for ZDoom, then he has a chance to toss random monsters, guns and scripts into his map, making him think that "This is good" - a false positive. Without these more advanced port features, the mapper will have to try to cure the "This is bad" feeling in more basic, and far more important, ways.

Enjay said:

All I'm really saying is, if someone wants to start mapping for Zdoom, and only plans to map for Zdoom, then I don't really see a need to start with Doom format maps. In fact, I think that would probably be counter productive and I certainly don't think it would lead to them being a worse mapper. However, as I have said, mapping in Doom format does confer advantages (eg cross port compatibility (potentially)).

Sure, I grant that. There's no need to start with Doom format maps if you always plan to map for ZDoom - but you need to have enough knowledge of ports and a strong, well-formed aesthetic opinion to make that decision. If you're brand new to Doom mapping, or brand new to Doom itself, and have never given serious prior thought to what REALLY makes a game better, then you're not equipped with the intellectual wherewithal to make the decision that ZDoom is the only port for you. There are plans and then there are good plans that are properly considered.

I would also like to address an earlier point here: that starting in ZDoom format is more efficient as it allows you to learn about mistakes in Doom mapping and mistakes in ZDoom mapping at the same time. Fair enough, this is likely true for those whose brains are more naturally configured for understanding map quality. But, in many ways, for those who aren't there yet, learning about Doom mistakes first can prevent many specific ZDoom mistakes from ever being made. For example, within basic Doom mapping, one can gradually acquire a feel for a wad's proper pacing. Knowledge about what's too fast and what's too slow in a level should hopefully prevent that six-minute scripted Doomguy dialogue sequence from ever being made.

Ultimately, all of what I'm saying here is moot. The mappers who need to learn a better artistic understanding of Doom via Doom-format mapping can't be forced to map in that format. They'll keep making shitty ZDoom wads regardless. If the original poster is still present, he would actually be better off following Enjay's advice in this case. I feel that he is probably a member of the "already gets it" category, because he actually came here and asked for advice. This is strong evidence that he is both ready to absorb technical knowledge, and is learning what makes a map good. The mappers who should be starting in Doom or Boom format are the mappers who are most likely to fervently fight that suggestion.

[Enjay]

Creaphis said:

There are plans and then there are good plans that are properly considered.

Indeed. As they say in the British Army (and elsewhere) "Prior Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance".

Creaphis said:

Knowledge about what's too fast and what's too slow in a level should hopefully prevent that six-minute scripted Doomguy dialogue sequence from ever being made.

I'd rather hope that would come from gaming experience as much as Doom. Sitting watching a 6 non-interactive sequence is dull in most games unless the game is meant to be little more than a movie with occasional interactive bits. I'm not sure that starting with Doom mapping would particularly help a mapper learn that lesson either. I think they'd either know it was too long (in which case, I'd hope they wouldn't do it) or not realise it and receive flak (and hopefully learn) when they released it. I don't see how mapping for a format that would remove the possibility of the mistake would be really likely to help. In fact, look at the (very) experienced mappers (and I think I may even be one of them - although I try to make sure my sequences are skippable (but I'm not sure that I always have)) who have moved on to scripted maps and made just that mistake.

Creaphis said:

The mappers who need to learn a better artistic understanding of Doom via Doom-format mapping can't be forced to map in that format. They'll keep making shitty ZDoom wads regardless....

The mappers who should be starting in Doom or Boom format are the mappers who are most likely to fervently fight that suggestion.

Yup. :)

[Creaphis]

Enjay said:

I'd rather hope that would come from gaming experience as much as Doom. Sitting watching a 6 non-interactive sequence is dull in most games unless the game is meant to be little more than a movie with occasional interactive bits. I'm not sure that starting with Doom mapping would particularly help a mapper learn that lesson either. I think they'd either know it was too long (in which case, I'd hope they wouldn't do it) or not realise it and receive flak (and hopefully learn) when they released it. I don't see how mapping for a format that would remove the possibility of the mistake would be really likely to help. In fact, look at the (very) experienced mappers (and I think I may even be one of them - although I try to make sure my sequences are skippable (but I'm not sure that I always have)) who have moved on to scripted maps and made just that mistake.

Well yes. Doom aesthetics and FPS aesthetics in general have to be learned by playing as well - and not just mindless play, but play that pays attention to how the game was assembled. It bothers me that mindless play is the norm among gamers. When watching other people play this game or that, I'm often silently annoyed - why can't you slow down and admire the scenery for God's sake? I suppose that the gamers who naturally pay more attention to games are also the people who are more equipped to make good mods without needing to start slowly.

As for my scripting example, I just meant that this is a possible situation where learning in a simple map format could prevent mistakes in complex formats. It's not the only possible such situation, nor would it help everyone.

[Ralphis]

Creaphis said:

When watching other people play this game or that, I'm often silently annoyed - why can't you slow down and admire the scenery for God's sake?

Because most people play games to have fun. If they want to see "slow down" and see art they can go to a museum.

[Creaphis]

Fun shmun.

[Death-Destiny]

Creaphis said:

When watching other people play this game or that, I'm often silently annoyed - why can't you slow down and admire the scenery for God's sake?

I admire the scenery even though I play fairly quickly. IMO, a well constructed level can be admired even in the background as you fight the demons. That's one reason why I don't follow the tons of detail school of thought, because for as much time as it takes to make all the details, I'm not the type of player who will stop mid-game to stare at them anyway. IMO, good aesthetics are the ones that a person can see clearly and from many places and that can be admired on the go.

[Enjay]

I'm sure I remember a quote from one of the people at id (Carmack?), in response to being asked about bullet hole decals and destructible scenery (I think as a result of it being in RotT) saying something like "if people have time to stop and look at bullet holes, we are doing something wrong". :D