Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Zalausai

Hyper Detailing

Detailing is . . .  

73 members have voted

  1. 1. Detailing is . . .

    • Very Important. Simulated realism is key.
      8
    • Important. Things should look good with no errors or misaligned textures.
      41
    • Not Very Important. It just has to work. Misaligned Textures don\\\'t bother me.
      22
    • Who Cares. I only use one texture throughout all my square maps anyway.
      6
    • impse
      27


Recommended Posts

What is hyper detailing? Is it the use of very tiny sectors in an attempt to pust doom to look like a nextgen game? Or is it something else?

Share this post


Link to post

Bad poll. Detailing is very important, but it is not about realism or texture alignment.

Share this post


Link to post

Attempting realism in Doom is one thing I will never understand. By now, there is hundreds of game engines that can do the job better.

It's like being proud of digging a 6 foot hole with a spoon. Considering those limitations, it might be an accomplishment, but ultimately a shovel would have done the job more efficiently and possibly with a better result.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone give H.R. Giger a call and tell him a house painting brush would be much more efficient for creating his artwork.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is specifically talking about realism, not art. Are you suggesting the Doom engine can do a better job at portraying realistic environments than every modern engine out there?

A house painting brush will not give you the same level of accuracy and efficiency as a brush designed for paintings if you're painting something, so that's another spot where your argument falls flat. You're trying to make it look like my argument was someone should eat their meals with a shovel instead of a spoon. Cute spin.

I've seen your screenshots and I can understand why my answer would make you angry, but really, you're helping my point more than anything else here. As you hint at yourself the only way to attribute value to something designed using inferior tools for the specific task is to estimate its quality with subjective criteria (i.e. derailing the topic from realism to art), and naming big names is a convenient way to avoid making the intellectual effort that is trying to defend something that isn't defensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Phml said:

This thread is specifically talking about realism, not art.

No. The options for the thread direction were as stated - Making Doom look like a next gen game or something else. It's something else, craftsmanship and having a passion for pushing yourself to your personal limits.

Are you suggesting the Doom engine can do a better job at portraying realistic environments than every modern engine out there?

When did I say that? There isn't a tool at anyone's disposal to make Doom look like the best of last generation's games. Even suggesting that anyone actually thinks they can do so is absolutely retarded.

A house painting brush will not give you the same level of accuracy and efficiency as a brush designed for paintings if you're painting something, so that's another spot where your argument falls flat. You're trying to make it look like my argument was someone should eat their meals with a shovel instead of a spoon. Cute spin.

My argument? Your reaction to my 'argument' seems to reveal some deep rooted resentment towards anyone that attempts to do anything beyond what's already been done. As a Dream Theater fan once said: "You don't like it because you don't understand it". Here's a ball.


I've seen your screenshots and I can understand why my answer would make you angry...

I'm not, actually.

but really, you're helping my point more than anything else here. As you hint at yourself the only way to attribute value to something designed using inferior tools for the specific task is to estimate its quality with subjective criteria (i.e. derailing the topic from realism to art), and naming big names is a convenient way to avoid making the intellectual effort that is trying to defend something that isn't defensible.

You're insane.

What you're basically saying is that by hyperdetailing a wad.. I'm trying to turn a 1932 Model T into a Ferrari, when in reality.. it's more-so something like this. Do you get it now?

Share this post


Link to post

Detail isn't important at all. You can't play detail. And I don't care if a map has detail or not.

With that said, I do like looking at detail and respect the looks. :)

Also, I do like realism in Doom. Whenever I'm playing a map and I get to walk into the girls washroom, I get a boner.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, the quote war maneuver. A brilliant way to prove to everyone you're a paragon of reason and logic, and not at all governed by your emotions. That is, if "everyone" is a group of easily fooled six years olds. Complete with the suggestion anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't get you, and doesn't get you because he is just too stupid to do so (bonus points if you suggest he's scared of anything new, like quake2-looking techbases in 2012), and you've certainly got all the important parts of being an artist done. I would post a link to a picture of a beret you can wear, Ed, but I'm too dumb to use the Internet.

Moving on.

Obviously Doom can't do much in the vein of true realism, but I think it can evoke things that would generally come under the term "realism". You can't build a realistic city in Doom, but you can certainly build something that references the architectural and spacial properties of a real city -- in such a way that it appears potentially functional, like a place that could have been built for a purpose and then inhabited. That's the only type of "realism" I see people trying in doom, and I think it works quite well. It can never have the detail of reality itself, but it does capture something of the spirit of reality.


This I can agree with, to an extent. We definitely all build off some basic notions grounded in the real world, but the question is how close do you try to get, and that's what I try to get at with "attempting realism". If you're throwing computer panels in walls, pipes and wires on the ceiling because you feel it'd make sense, in the end you're still going to look at something that won't look realistic nor look as realistic as it might in a more modern engine (and that's before we consider the implications it can have on gameplay).

I mean, I want to say obviously I'm not saying Doom mods shouldn't be realistic at all, because if you'd push that argument to the extreme you can start questioning the concept of having walls, or ground, or guns, or three dimensional enemies or pretty much anything. Consciously attempting realism, trying to go as close as possible, just doesn't strike me as a smart goal given the vast amount of better options, but trying to get an atmosphere going or a setting as a backdrop for the game is another thing. Or, to put it another way, if you want to design a realistic looking military complex and pick Doom to do so, I'd think that's silly, whereas if you want to design a Doom map that feels like it takes place in a military complex, that sounds fine.

And with regards to the "six foot hole with a spoon" thing -- I personally find complex things in Doom to be very impressive due to the limitations of the medium, but that isn't the main reason they're impressive. Creating things like that isn't like saying "this is impressive because I did it with self-imposed constraints", it's like saying "this is impressive because it does something unexpected with a game engine you've been exploring since you were six years old".


Is there a difference? I can sort of see one, but at the same time it feels like it's two ways to say the same thing. Both situations seem to come down to "something is great because it is unexpected within a specific environment". I can understand the appeal, I just don't share it at all. It's too technical. Best for something to be impressive on its own, regardless of anything else.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm starting to regret using a transparent background on these doodles of mine since this one is very deserving of a hotlink right now. But seriously, I'm having a hard time getting what Phml and Ed are going on about.

Re: the original topic -- the poll choices are weirdly specific in a not-good way, IMO. I'm of the "hyper-detailing is not important and actually not a good thing at all in most cases" opinion but I don't get why no-hyperdetail has to equate to misaligned textures. Good architecture is the real key to making something look good, anyway, and you can do that with very few lines if you know what you're doing.

Share this post


Link to post

Phml takes offense to the idea that people detail levels and doesn't want them to do so. I make detailed levels, therefor he has assumed that I am offended by his position.

I'm still waiting for my beret.

Share this post


Link to post

When it comes to vanilla maps (best played at 320x200), something more or less close to IWAD level of detail feels right. It's abstract rather than realistic, and the focus is more on mood and gameplay. A lot of old maps made with DEU have bad texture alignment but are still a lot of fun (example: golgotha.wad).

Share this post


Link to post

i r confused. the thread title says "hyper detailing." the poll considers even mundane texture alignment as mild (hyper?)detailing and makes the strong opinions hilariously overblown (realism or death vs. i create illusio-pits on purpose). the thread itself derails immediatelly to crazy topics like the importance of the occasional realism in doom, how design is art and... whatever.

that said, realism in doom will _always_ look stupid, so you have to play ball and make it obviously gimmicky and cartoonish. eternall's (sur)realism in voodoo guns or epic2 is great, but i adore the pure hilarity of ksutra even more (plus points if you recalled the wheelbarrow or map15 before the mega-vagina). a certain ksutra level is actually based on real parts of prague! (it's not map30)

Share this post


Link to post

The poll choices don't really make any sense, yeah. Some of the more "detailed" maps I've played have been nothing but boring square rooms, and attempted realism with 1-unit sectors is usually pretty bad news.

Clean and tidy texture usage, sleek and coherent structural lines, and attractive color combinations with brightness contrast are the keys to making a map look attractive, whether it's using 10 sectors or 10,000. In some cases small structures can enhance a scene, but at least 95% of whether the scene works or not is going to come from the bigger picture.

Focusing on visuals first and foremost when laying out a map often leads to a map that's structurally ill-equipped for enjoyable gameplay, but if the mapper is skilled and the level is well-planned, attractive (and even detailed) visual design can absolutely be implemented without negatively impacting maneuverability, ability to create interesting gameplay encounters, or functional layout structure.

Share this post


Link to post

Until the very end of time, some people will obstinately use the word "detailed" to mean "aesthetically pleasing". The rest of us can choose either to find this distressing or just ignore it.

I guess it stems from the US use of the term "detailing" to mean cleaning and polishing a car.

In any case, it provides an instant reason for discussions like this to be at cross-purposes from start to finish.

Ed: learn how to use the [quote] tags, please.

Snakes (below): no you didn't.

Share this post


Link to post

Good architecture and clean detailing is extremely beneficial to a map. This does not equate to "hyper" detailing, as, for example, Base Ganymede is beautiful.

The other side of the coin is when hyper-detailing takes place without the slightest consideration as to whether or not it looks good. A commons result is cluttered, ugly nonsense.

Also, as per tradition, I selected all poll options.

Share this post


Link to post

Phml takes offense to the idea that people detail levels and doesn't want them to do so.


Now detail is realism, apparently. This right here? This is the kind of idea I take offense to. This is the kind of thinking that has spawned dozens of generic, bland and boring military shooters. Things can be good-looking without striving for realism, and in an environment lacking real life constraints, sticking to realistic looking places is such a waste of potential and a lack of imagination.

I don't think I have any issue with people making levels, detailed or not. People who make screenshots rather than levels, on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Phml said:

Now detail is realism, apparently. This right here? This is the kind of idea I take offense to. This is the kind of thinking that has spawned dozens of generic, bland and boring military shooters. Things can be good-looking without striving for realism, and in an environment lacking real life constraints, sticking to realistic looking places is such a waste of potential and a lack of imagination.

In a look through the discussion so far I don't think I've seen Ed say anything about detail being equivalent to "realism". What are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Grazza said:

Snakes (below): no you didn't.


Well... last I checked, all of the boxes were selected, so now I'm just confused.

Share this post


Link to post

With regards to detailing and everything, I still play and enjoy levels from 94 so I guess I don't really care and look out more for general gameplay and layout ideas. A good looking map with clean texturing with attention to nice texture combinations is more the icing on the cake for me.

Share this post


Link to post
DeathevokatioN said:

A good looking map with clean texturing with attention to nice texture combinations is more the icing on the cake for me.


This is very true. A good looking map that plays badly and is boring is worthless. A bad looking map that plays well is still good.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not too fond of things looking super detailed (IE GothicDM series) but I still like some detail, even if it's decent or basic stuff as seen in the older megawads like Requiem or Memento Mori series.

Share this post


Link to post

It all depends on how the gameplay of those kind of hyper-detailed maps are. If they play good as well, that's fine. If not, I'll give those "realistic" maps a pass (All this coming from a guy who got sick of "realism" (then again, regenerating health in first-person shooters isn't exactly "realistic" either, but what do I know?) in modern games).

Share this post


Link to post

I really miss the under-detailed, abstract maps which you can't tell whether they're hell, heaven or human. If I look at WIP threads, all I see is fairly detailed maps which look a lot like expected techbases, caves or castles, with no ambiguity. We're spoiled with detail so we make maps that look more like dreamy worlds, than logical game labyrinths. And sadly it's irreversible.

Share this post


Link to post
KiiiYiiiKiiiA said:

There is realism and then there is Doom realism.

They should not be confused.



this. the doom engine was not made for creating realistic maps. some sourceports can achieve interesting effects, like that screenshot of a crane in a map by lutz, but it's still far from anything modern engines can do. sure one can build impressively realistic looking places for the capabilities of doom engine like dawn of reality, but such wads are more the exception than the rule. doom maps are rather surreal places, especially those depicting corrupted reality or hell itself, and i'm not looking for realism in them. instead, i'm pleased to see beautifully crafted maps. interesting shapes, well aligned textures and challenging gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Marcaek said:

Who's "spoiled"?

People are spoiled, by the increasing computing performance, allowing more detail to be shown on screen and easily drawn with the tools.

Share this post


Link to post
printz said:

People are spoiled, by the increasing computing performance, allowing more detail to be shown on screen and easily drawn with the tools.

How is this a bad thing? Saying that adding more detail automatically makes something look worse is just as bad as saying that it automatically makes something look better.

And like Marcaek said, there's still a good deal of oldschool mapping going on. Just look at DTWID or Reverie.

Share this post


Link to post

The poll equates 'realism' with 'detailed'; this is false. Something can be detailed but not realistic. It also seems to suggest that aligning your textures counts as (somewhat) 'hyper detailed', which seems like an odd claim to make, as well.

I do think that sometimes the looks of a level are emphasised over the gameplay, and that can be a shame. Good gameplay and good looks are the ideal, of course, but gameplay > looks if I can only have one.

I've been toying with the idea of a project called 'vertx999'; the idea being that the only requirement for submitting a level be that it uses less than 1,000 vertexes. For comparison, only one level in E1 used more than 1,000. Most were in the 700-950 range.

I think it would be interesting to see what people did if you told them "give me great gameplay, in less than 1,000 vertexes", but otherwise left them free to do whatever they liked.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×