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

Aesthetics vs. Structuring

Recommended Posts

When playing maps, which would you find more enjoyable? A map that is aesthetically beautiful with average gameplay, or a more dull looking map that has well placed layouts/traps/etc.?

Obviously we would should all prefer maps that have both qualities present, as spectacularly seen in Bauhaus.wad. But for the sake of a good discussion, which would you prefer if you had to pick one? Would you sacrifice better gameplay for a more visually appealing map? Or the other way around?

As a mapper of disputable skill level (depending on who you ask, haha), I can defintely appreciate and admire beautiful maps for the hard work and time put into them. However, if I were forced to choose one over the other, clever design trumps beautiful design for me.

Share this post


Link to post

The second one. Check my review of a crappy WAD in the latest Chronicles, I actually liked the damn thing.

Aesthetics is important, but I kinda don't care about it when I'm not mapping myself. I like a bland undetailed map with 64-thick doors, but I spend an entire evening messing with the lighting in a single room in my map (and it still looks crappy as hell).

Share this post


Link to post

Dull looking, great gameplay.

My reasoning is simple: there's hundreds of fantastic games out there if you want to get your fix of pretty sights, but there is no first-person shooter delivering the brand of good gameplay a great Doom map can achieve.

But even if Doom existed in a vacuum, I might still prefer gameplay over aesthetics, as I tend to get tunnel vision while playing. Environments register as shapes, colors and moods more than anything.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm with the above two posters - solid gameplay and layout over aesthetic design. I always admire a map's aesthetics and find myself ever more so engrossed when both aesthetics and gameplay are done well together. However, if I had to choose one over the other it's definitely going to be layout/structuring. I find myself enjoying the aesthetics of a map significantly less if it lacks good structure and creative challenge.

I reviewed Kurogane a while ago on /newstuff. This is a map that I like specifically because aesthetics are at a minimum but the structuring and layout keep me fully engaged for the map's duration.

Share this post


Link to post

Choosing one or the other is stupid.

There is absolutely no valid reason for great game-play to exclude great aesthetics (excluding speed-mapping, but even some of these are pretty good looking).

Aesthetics doesn't also necessarily mean hyper-detail aka cramming as many sectors as possible into another. A plain, clean aesthetic goes just as far as a structurally complex one. Texture selection is also extremely important and can do more for the map than tons of micro-structuring.

A well-playing map that looks like shit is still a bad map, in my books. It would need to be fucking spectacular to play to make up for it. A great looking map that plays like shit is a bad map. Gothic99 helloooooooooooo?????? The two are not mutually exclusive and asking people to pick one over the other when usually people want a bit of both is shallow thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Decay said:

Aesthetics doesn't also necessarily mean hyper-detail aka cramming as many sectors as possible into another. A plain, clean aesthetic goes just as far as a structurally complex one. Texture selection is also extremely important and can do more for the map than tons of micro-structuring.


Quoted for truth.

Aesthetics, or more correctly 'an' aesthetic, is generally a good concise overall visual look or theme for a map or wad. To me personally, a 'good' aesthetic is vanilla-level detailing with nice alignments, creative texture use (stock or otherwise), nice wide spaces and interesting height changes. It's not the only way to make a map look good (because, oh bloody hell, did I think a lot of Sunlust looked aesthetically-amazing) but it's one way to do so.

However, the criteria I've listed there do lend themselves to good structuring (or gameplay, whatever) -- especially wide spaces and height changes. One can feed the other, it shouldn't be a case of "aesthetics vs. structuring" as per the thread title, but how one can interplay with the other (for example, light levels can make or break both the visuals and the mechanics of a map in a variety of ways).

Share this post


Link to post

The aesthetics of a pretty Doom map are quite different from the aesthetics of a pretty modern game. There's a lot less clutter and a lot more contrast, it's all more abstract, and Doom's unique (and unrealistic) lighting model helps in giving it a unique, non-replicable look.

Look at screenshots from Swim With The Wales, or Sunlust, or Ancient Aliens, or heck even 50 Shades of Graytall -- that's the kind of things I'm talking about. You wouldn't get that kind of look elsewhere. And what luck! All these examples have overall good gameplay too!

It's not a point-buy system where getting good gameplay means you'll have to have poor aesthetics or vice-versa, you can easily find several map sets where both are good -- and even more where both are bad.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone here raises some good points. Both sides can contribute positively or negatively towards the overall experience. Take for example, the complaint about inconsistent damaging liquids. Its an aesthetic quality of the map that the color and animation of the texture can look good in the area its used in. However the damage it can do is often communicated to the player through its sort of warning coloration, which makes it a gameplay thing. Or perhaps poison signs used in areas that are around hazardous waste drums but they don't hurt you because they're in containers. Or textures that look like they're on fire and you have every reason to believe that its hot, even though it does nothing when you touch it. Is this a gameplay or an aesthetics issue?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a very difficult question to ask because I place a huge level of emphasis on lighting in particular. Now obviously, as a longtime Doomer, design that feels conducive to both exploration and combat is of the utmost importance, but a map that favors this aspect will cause me to lose interest if everything is lit at 128 with almost no variation. But of course, I won't play a map for long if it's beautifully lit and the author doesn't understand how to make me feel immersed and invested in the world he/she has created, and has instead created something that is aesthetic but disengaging.

Share this post


Link to post

id have to go with structuring. sure, the look of the map is important. but then you look at how gothic99 got on the top 10 most infamous wads list, and, well, there you have it.

Share this post


Link to post

I think most people would go with structuring if someone put a gun to their head and forced them to choose but that doesn't mean that neglecting the aesthetics won't heavily impact the final product. Find the best WAD you can think of, level-wise and structure wise, just replace every single floor/ceiling/wall with BROWNHUG and set the sector lighting all to 255. Let me know if you still find it exactly as enjoyable as before.

Share this post


Link to post

^ On this note, I had the chance to play Mech's Counter Attack before map01 was finished and most(every) walls were grey; reminded me of greenwar. So apparently a really nice layout and design leads to greenwar when no texture variation is used. That said, there are more than a few really great greenwar maps.

Of course, that map is much sweeter to run around in since it was detailed, but mappers like Mech prove that aesthetics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive concepts, as stated above by several people.

Share this post


Link to post

As a mapper, I'd rather play a map with great aesthetics & poor gameplay or poor aesthetics & great gameplay than one with moderately good aesthetics & moderately good gameplay. The extremes are inspirational. Something like AA map24 is awe-inspiring and worth hours of study to me, despite being very awkward to play. As far as maps with shitty looks and great gameplay go, I can't think of any examples, really. To be perfectly honest, I don't really differentiate between awful looks and mediocre and bland looks. Bad gameplay can be actively boring and uncomfortable, but awful aesthetics are easy to just ignore. I guess there have been maps with areas that actually cause me physical discomfort -- eye-hurting texture schemes, obnoxious full-area strobing lights, but I suppose that can't be considered the sole domain of aesthetics, as gameplay would surely be affected there too. I've played some 1994-ish wads that floodfill DOORSTOP and BIGDOOR4 over everything and spam archviles and cybers and were quite a blast. So I guess those might count. I think maps with actively offensive visuals and great gameplay come in many forms: there's the Sandy Petersen style maps, which are more conventional quirky D2-ish experiences; and then there are also absurd oldschool spam maps that aren't burdened a desire to come off as "normal" and are exhilarating precisely because they are unfair and bullshitty.

Also there is a huge difference between a map that plays poorly because the thing placements are bad and dull, like all SG/CG with lots of harmless mid-tiers, and a map that plays poorly because the layout can't suit anything fun at all short of a well-coordinated miracle and it's annoying to even move around because details get caught in your ass every step, etc. etc. etc. A mapper who errs in their thing placements will generally be closer to figuring out gameplay than one who errs in their layouts.

Share this post


Link to post

I like to have both great aesthetics and structuring in the same package, but if I had to pick between the two, I'd go with aesthetics. I can at least stand average gameplay as long as the map pleases my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post

That was... an experience, and demonstrates the point nicely :)

The killer for me with that was the interaction of "no distance-darkening, because light level 255" with "all wall textures identical and barely distinguishable from the flats".

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, if you think about it, if you play two maps that are both were ugly as sin (lights set to 255, same texture/flat used throughout), you'd more than likely favor the one with the better layout. And a good layout is about understanding spatial dimensions and how that plays into combat, which always trumps focusing on what I like to call "sexy set pieces," which a number of modern shooters approach things.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd rather a map with interesting gameplay. I personally enjoy mapsets in the vein of Echelon: Short and sweet, but bitter (challenging/unorthodox).

Skillsaw is just in the "exotic" category.

The architecture being great to marvel at is essentially equal.

Share this post


Link to post

Hiya!

Depends on my mood. Sometimes I'm all energetic and itchin' to layeth the smack upon thine demonic brows! (er...I like Hexen and Heretic too...sue me... ;) ). When I'm in that mindset (which is few and far between due to having severe fibromyalgia, a wife I need to look after due to multiple sclerosis, and a 7 year old autistic daughter...my energy level is rarely at full capacity). Where was I? Oh...

If I'm energetic, I like fast game play with tight confines and lazer-focused opposition. I find the 'large room with 60 revenants' to be just plain boring. I want to feel confined. I want to feel that sense of panic when I realize that I'm not where I thought I was after backing up down a hallway. I want demons and zombies with guns to be well-placed with thought...not just plopped down en-mass in a big room.

Then, most of the time, when I don't have a lot of energy in me, I like to take my time and enjoy the scenery...with the occasional surprise of a hell-born fireball coming at me from the dark. I want something that looks "believable" when considering the subject area. Floating rocks and lava ceilings? Yeah, sure, if the rest of the map makes me believe that such things are "real" in this realm.

So yeah. I like both...depending on my mood. :)

Share this post


Link to post
GoatLord said:

Yeah, if you think about it, if you play two maps that are both were ugly as sin (lights set to 255, same texture/flat used throughout), you'd more than likely favor the one with the better layout.

Doesn't mean the one you favor isn't shit, though, considering you'll have to hump every wall to find the damn door, further exacerbated by the fact that you might end up finding one - except, it ends up being an actual wallhumping secret, and you're left no more of a clue where you're supposed to advance.

Then it turns out that the pillar thing in the middle of the room is a switch.

Share this post


Link to post

gameplay gameplay gameplay.

i typically play doom as a competition with myself/the map, so any map that has egregiously bad action, such that when i inevitably die i have to replay poorly though out scenarios again and again, i tend to switch off. give me an exciting map through a mono-textured prism and im quite content. :D

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
×