What are your favourite design limitations?

[Marasmusine]

Firstly, hello everyone, this is my first post. I've been playing Doom since 1994 and editing levels on and off ever since. It's amazing how enduring this game is.

I always like making levels with some kind of design limitation. When I have free reign, my levels never end up getting finished. I've had more success (and more fun) with the following:
*100 minute speedmapping, a la your very own contests from 2001
*2 sectors only in 1024x1024 space
*Taking someone else's plain, rudimentary or speedmapped map and editing it to add more detail/fun.

I'm wondering if anyone has any other methods like this, as I'd like to try something new.

[Xegethra]

I dunno, I've never tried anything like that. I just made my maps and finished them, I only go back to touch them up now but everything is pretty much done. I have only made and released two WADS, one isn't finished only because my horrible attempts at sprite art are holding it back.

But I had fun doing it, I just had an idea and wondered if I could do it or not.

Also hello!!

[scifista42]

The best limitations are those that are fun for the mapper to work with, but even more fun for the player to play! Speedmaps tend to be unpolished and sometimes mediocre, 1024 maps feel too cramped, limited sector/linedef count leads to bland maps, limiting used features might lead to monotonous maps, etc. Now to give a positive example, AD_79 is working on a wad 50 monsters (maximum 50 monsters per map), and this limitation goes very well with his elegant mapping style and the maps are short and sweet and awesome fun to play. I hope the idea is clear. :)

[Marasmusine]

This might sound odd I hadn't actually thought about the player.

Here's my 1024x1024 2-sector wad. It has MAP01 and MAP02. I'm fascinated with seeing what is possible with this limitation, I have to think more about wall shapes and textures, and object placement. While I try to keep source port features to a minimum, these were made for GZDOOM (there's some transparenties and dynamic lighting). I'm not saying this wad is any good though :)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/psdyjufknfzpoij/dunc1024.wad?dl=0

In 20 years of editing this is the first time I've shared a WAD, I guess this shows I make them more for myself than other people.

[TheNerdTurtle2]

Honestly I kinda hated MAP01, too cramped and uninspired. Just my opinion. I didn't play MAP02

[ETTiNGRiNDER]

Working in vanilla engine.

[scifista42]

I prefer limit-removing format to work with. Strictly vanilla features ensure compatibility with all limit-removing ports, and although the possibilities are restricted, I consider it the most natural and comfortable kind of mapping.

[AD_79]

scifista42 said:

The best limitations are those that are fun for the mapper to work with, but even more fun for the player to play! Speedmaps tend to be unpolished and sometimes mediocre, 1024 maps feel too cramped, limited sector/linedef count leads to bland maps, limiting used features might lead to monotonous maps, etc. Now to give a positive example, AD_79 is working on a wad 50 monsters (maximum 50 monsters per map), and this limitation goes very well with his elegant mapping style and the maps are short and sweet and awesome fun to play. I hope the idea is clear. :)

50 Monsters is quite a fun limitation to work with, makes you use low monster counts in more effective ways. Though I am cheating a bit by using a few dehacked monsters :P

[Enjay]

My Opinion:

:P

[printz]

I like the MBF modding limits. The powerful Boom map format (mainly thanks to conveyor tricks) combined with extended Dehacked is just enough to create an immersive experience without going overboard with new features.

With ZDoom and Eternity it's far too easy to just import unmodified crap from realm667 and dilute the main idea.

[Marasmusine]

TheNerdTurtle2 said:

Honestly I kinda hated MAP01, too cramped and uninspired. Just my opinion. I didn't play MAP02

Map01 I did a few years ago, map02 I did last week and is more open and less, well, pink. I'll take any suggestions on how to get the most out of a 2 sector map.

I just tried making a maze-like map in which you could press a button to lower/raise the wall to bring you into the "inverse" maze in the ceiling. However, the player could stand half-on-half-off to "bounce" the platform so it didn't work.

[Gez]

http://www.doomworld.com/vb/wads-mods/70649-50-shades-of-graytall/

In addition, you can only use two sectors, the playable area should be no larger than 64x64, and you can use only one type of monster, but there should be exactly 100 times slot number of them.

[TheNerdTurtle2]

Gez said:

http://www.doomworld.com/vb/wads-mods/70649-50-shades-of-graytall/

In addition, you can only use two sectors, the playable area should be no larger than 64x64, and you can use only one type of monster, but there should be exactly 100 times slot number of them.

Sounds too easy IMO... Come up with something more challenging please haha

[pavera]

I'm not much for arbitrary limitations, though some of them work better than others (100 lines?). I'd rather stick to engine limitations, like mapping for Vanilla doom. There's nothing like breaking that visplane limit and having to tear down all your hard work. Builds character.

[Linguica]

Doom already HAS a bunch of limitations though, and I think Doom editing has persisted as long as it has precisely because of them. Since the game is 2.5D, level editing can easily be done in top-down 2D view, which is much faster and cognitively easier to deal with than true 3D. There are only three ways to interact with the level, which coincide with the 3 main things the player is able to do - move, use key, and fire key. Interactions with the level almost exclusively do one thing: change sector properties, usually by making a floor or ceiling go up or down, but also changing texture or light level. Enemies only do one thing: inexorably move towards the player and attack. I don't want to say that the Doom feature set is the bare minimum needed for an interesting level-design environment, but it's close.

One reason I think the Boom level extensions were so successful is because they do allow for much more complex level behavior, but they do so by extending the Doom-editing aesthetic of only providing the most rudimentary design tools, and forcing creators to figure out how they can use them in interesting ways. Like, the major thing Boom added was scrolling floors, which led to player-activated conveyor belts, which led to conveyor-belt voodoo doll line activators, which lets you do lots of interesting and complicated things. It's almost like a scripting language that is coded by the level geometry itself, and so you're forced to constantly be mindful of the level itself that you are making, instead of losing yourself in a text editor.

As much as people pay lip service to "you can do anything" scripting-heavy game editing environments, the simple fact is that the less limitations you have, the more difficult it can be to even figure out what you want to do. Doom editing takes the opposite tack - it barely lets you do anything, so you have the interesting cognitive task of figuring out what you CAN do, and this jumpstarts the creative process much more effectively.

[Afterglow]

I like seeing people build interesting shapes and architecture when restricted to only the stock Doom or Doom II textures. You can see many beginner map authors are exposed when they use new graphics as a crutch for design (e.g., not every wall must be 128 units high.) Stock Doom is like an editing bootcamp so once conquered you can then move onto breaking the clichés in more expressive ways.

[Graf Zahl]

Limitations are for wimps.

Truly good stuff surpasses all boundaries.

[Megalyth]

Graf Zahl said:

Limitations are for wimps.

Truly good stuff surpasses all boundaries.

10/10, excellent troll.

[pavera]

I think limitations are really important building blocks to becoming a great editor. Yes, without boundaries, you can achieve almost anything you want and the potential is there to create something brilliant. But isn't there some merit to knowing where those boundaries were?

Maybe this doesn't apply to all forms of creation, but it certainly applies when learning how to make a great Doom map. Doom is special, and its special flow and gameplay style was achieved within those limitations. If you jump right into editing without boundaries, how can you really know what you are expanding on?

I definitely don't think my work in the Adventures of Square, for example, would be half as (subjectively) good as it is if I hadn't spent so much time learning the basics. And we built that game without the boundaries imposed by vanilla/boom compat/etc, so yes -- you're right that without limitations, creativity can really flow free. But I'm glad I imposed them on myself to begin with.

[NinjaLiquidator]

Here are mine: map which is only 192 pixels thick on 1 axis and unlimited on the other axis. Or not just 1024*1024, but downright 256*256 and gameplay takes most of time. Its fun when you bring up some original limitation.

Ultimate goal is like this: make a map, which plays longer time than it is edited.

[Linguica]

NinjaLiquidator said:

Ultimate goal is like this: make a map, which plays longer time than it is edited.

Lowering platform blocking exit switch that takes forever, icon spawner, done

[SFoZ911]

Afterglow said:

I like seeing people build interesting shapes and architecture when restricted to only the stock Doom or Doom II textures. You can see many beginner map authors are exposed when they use new graphics as a crutch for design (e.g., not every wall must be 128 units high.) Stock Doom is like an editing bootcamp so once conquered you can then move onto breaking the clichés in more expressive ways.

Seconded.

[NinjaLiquidator]

Linguica said:

Lowering platform blocking exit switch that takes forever, icon spawner, done

But thats not memorable. Map must be memorable, otherwise it has no purpose to do it. It must have "worth see / worth play" value. All the time. No matter what kind of map it is.

[Xaser]

What Ling said. 2.5d is the king of the "design limitations that breed creativity" category.

[Ribbiks]

weapon-based limitations can be fun, e.g. designing a map with the idea "I want most of the combat to revolve around RL" or something of that flavor.

[Ed]

It's the perfect blend of time put in and the consecutive results you draw from said time. I can think of an idea.. A hill, a river, some trees and a beach and have a rough draft done in a night. Whereas, in a NASA engineered, current gen game engine, it would take 40 hours before you had anything resembling what you had in mind.

The limitations are my big draw to the engine. Editing is a whole other game within the game - Make what you can within this limited set of rules and parameters.

[LittleInferno]

None! UNLIMITED POWAR!!1!111111!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!

[NinjaLiquidator]

Or using just non-orthogonal sectors. Try just curves, or triangle / hex mesh.

[Marasmusine]

Thank-you everyone for your feedback. I think I'll try NinjaLiquidator's idea of 192 px * unlimited; and "non-orthogonal sectors", that's the sort of thing I was looking for :)

[Soundblock]

I keep thinking the old linedef overflow limits might actually have been conducive to good gameplay. Some of the unlimited stuff just spills geometry everywhere. Might have to make a true vanilla map again some day.