Your method for making an interesting map.

[Leon]

I would be interested to know. For me personally I focus first on the layout of how the map should look and the style and textures I should use. But I feel the most vital thing I have to do is to "tease" the keys or a megasphere to keep someone interested.

[Agentbromsnor]

I think the most important thing is coming up with a setting that your level is going to take place in. It prevents your level (or game, if you're really motivated) from feeling fragmented.

[Use]

I am interesting, so it rubs off naturally.

[gemini09]

I learned a lot from watching Youtube demos of Claustrophobia 1024. It's a lot more fun when things are hectic and there's almost non-stop action.

My current aim was to not necessarily make every encounter based around fun (or gameplay), but around presentation and how it feels to progress through the map.

I would say that my method for making an intersting map is a realistic design and pretty texturing, so that the environment is interesting to be in. It compromises gameplay, however, so it's a challenge to find a good middle ground.

[Eregore]

First I pick a general theme, you know: tech-base, industrial, castle, hell, catacombs, etc.

Then, I draw a 3x3 grid, similar to tic-tac-toe. Then I place (semi-randomly) the letters A through E within the grid. Once I've done this 5 of the 9 squares in the grid have letters in them. Each letter represents a 'zone', or 1/5th of the map.

A represents the starting zone. B the zone which contains the first key, C: 2nd key, D: 3rd key, and finally E: exit zone. I usually try to give each zone a slightly different feel, while keeping the theme of the map generally similar. I also try to give each zone a new weapon to pace-the game play and a major 'trick or trap' to keep things exiting.

Now this may sound incredibly linear but I often make each zone accessible from several other surrounding zones; I just don't make the keys in zones C or D accessible (without the previous key). This allows for a non-linear first play-through. I think of this as my 'road map' for the level.

After I have my theme and my 'road map' I rough in the zones with a few big sectors. With the big picture planning complete the levels tend to build themselves.

[michael9r9r]

I usualy brain storm for about 2 minuts then draw like a scetch in paint.net and base my map off that.

[Xaser]

I forget to use a grid.

[schwerpunk]

Xaser said:

I forget to use a grid.

???

I'm not sure how you mean this, but it sounds insightful.

[StoneFrog]

I've yet to release any finished maps on Doomworld, but this is the method that I've found to be the most enjoyable:

— First, I always write up brief (3-4 sentence) descriptions of the map(s) that I want to make. These describe various things to differing degrees, from texture usage to the general "connectivity" of the map - how much the player can see at one time, how "open" things are, and so on. Example:

"Winding E2/Plutonia-styled techbase of various adjoining buildings over outdoor terrain. Highly geometric, with terraced nooks for enemies. Comp walls recessed under low shelves, with very "concealed" views (windows w/ bars) for buildings to look out onto one another."

— I usually don't end up adhering too closely to that once I start actually mapping, but it helps me to visualize the player moving through various areas and the general shapes of some of the rooms. Next, I decide on the keys and switches the player has to get to and in what order, as well as where they exist in relation to one another on the map (can two keys be gone after in either order? does this key unlock a door from earlier in the map?).

- Then I start mapping, with questionable results. I find that the best way to make a map more "interesting" is to minimize the number of empty spaces between sectors. Fill some of them in, adding additional platforms and whatnot to make the map feel more natural.

- For a 2.5D game, Doom makes far more use of verticality than most shooters made after 2004 - lower floors, raise ceilings in places, so that you get various peeks into different rooms. Like the OP, I like teasing keys and other objects in the distance, be it through windowed views or elevated platforms. It adds considerably to the mystery of the map.

[Kaiser]

Once I start on a map, I will redo the layout over and over again until I like how the shape of the map looks like when viewed in the editor or automap. I also start off by drawing the entire map first without texturing nor sectoring to get the feel of the scale/size of the level. After I am happy with that, then I start doing the other stuff.

Kinda weird but that's how I roll.

[schwerpunk]

Kaiser said:

Once I start on a map, I will redo the layout over and over again until I like how the shape of the map looks like when viewed in the editor or automap. I also start off by drawing the entire map first without texturing nor sectoring to get the feel of the scale/size of the level. After I am happy with that, then I start doing the other stuff.

Kinda weird but that's how I roll.

I tried this. Oh, God, I really did.

For my latest map, I laid out a crude skeleton before adding any details; and while I'm really pleased with how it lets me understand the flow of the level right from to get-to, I just ended up adding way too much detail, and splintering off into several maps. Which really isn't something I should be doing, considering I haven't even released a single map into the Doom community for appraisal yet.

For instance, the map I'm working on right now started as a four-sided sector comment-tagged as "sarge labyrinth" that was part of a much larger, planned map.

I'm hoping my self control gets a bit more under reign once I get a few maps under my belt.

[StoneFrog]

schwerpunk said:

For my latest map, I laid out a crude skeleton before adding any details; and while I'm really pleased with how it lets me understand the flow of the level right from to get-to, I just ended up adding way too much detail, and splintering off into several maps.

I do this too. Somehow I feel as though I need to detail in order to better visualize what the completed version of the map will "feel" like, when in reality all it does is waste an hour of my time and leave me feeling less inclined to jump into working on new, less-developed sections of the map.

[Scypek2]

I pretty often draw levels on paper - without details and with more importrant tagged actions marked with arrows.
Then, in doombuilder, I'm adding textures, details, sometimes more enemies and bonuses, or even secrets. It sometimes changes pretty much in process, but such levels are usually better than ones that I do without sketching. Also, linking rooms as often as possible makes level less linear, or at least looking like that.