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

Levels of detail, how much?

Preferable level of detail in maps  

106 members have voted

  1. 1. Preferable level of detail in maps

    • Lemme have the newest CoD, please.
      8
    • Ehh, it is the 2017s, some extra detail could be nice.
      52
    • I couldn't care less, to be honest.
      32
    • I like my Doom like my Wolfenstein 3D. Anything too detailed is disgusting.
      14


Recommended Posts

Doomkid said:

EDIT: Also this belongs in Doom General, not EE

Making polls isn't possible in Doom General, though... why else would the OP post it here? To get it moved? :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Uncle 80 said:

Edit: You forgot Oh hey you have a floor textured Floor4_8, let's make some hexagonal sectors lowered by 2 to make it appear like some floor tiles are missing/destroyed

I do those, i think it looks cool. :(

Share this post


Link to post
HavoX said:

Making polls isn't possible in Doom General, though... why else would the OP post it here? To get it moved? :shrug:

You can post polls in WADs & mods.

Share this post


Link to post
RanhDoomer said:

I do those, i think it looks cool. :(


I think most mappers tend to include at least some of the features in bzzrak's list, myself included.

bzzrak said:

I was close. :]


I thought I was real clever until I re-read the quoted part and found you mentioned both walls and floors, heheh.

Also, +1 for making maps that don't have enough room in them :S

Share this post


Link to post

put as much detail as u can possibly squeeze while NOT GETTING IN THE WAY OF GAMEPLAY. nothing wrong with pretty other than that. I look at all the stock textures after using all the fancy new shiny ones, and jeez are they boring. maybe mappers would even make better maps if they weren't restricted to vanilla's 128x128 brown and bland all the time?

Share this post


Link to post

I mean, most of the mods I play happen to have good detail to them. That doesn't mean I won't go "Mod doesn't look detailed... DROPPED!!" I'd focus on the level design and the gameplay in comparison to the detail.

Share this post


Link to post

To me detail is pretty straightforward. Don't let pretty but unnecessary accents cramp up the level and inhibit movement. Don't get so carried away that you're using 40 or 50 sectors to imply gradients on lights. Don't try to create gimmicky, overly elaborate structures that are at odds with Doom's engine limitations. Don't needlessly insert 3D models just because your source port of choice allows them. And don't shoehorn an E1 style of mapping, because we're at a point now where we can create very articulate and fine-tuned environments and beyond nostalgia it's not particularly attractive to go 1994 style.

Share this post


Link to post

The level of detail is WAY less important than quality gameplay. Some of the old classics, like Alien Vendetta and Hell Revealed 2 are somewhat lacking in "prettiness" by modern standards, but they are still some of the most-played megaWADs around. Personally, I'd like to see a WAD with challenging-yet-balanced gameplay, and then detail is kinda second.

You should probably not take my advice, since I've never actually completed and released a Doom map (though I'd still like to), but my workflow is something like this:

1. Plan general level layout (which keys/switches are needed, how to access them, speedrun shortcuts, etc.)

2. Detailed layout (building all the sectors and linedefs, inclusion of monsters and resources, secrets, etc.)

3. Aesthetics (texture selection, placement of decorative things, light levels, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
42PercentHealth said:

The level of detail is WAY less important than quality gameplay. Some of the old classics, like Alien Vendetta and Hell Revealed 2 are somewhat lacking in "prettiness" by modern standards, but they are still some of the most-played megaWADs around. Personally, I'd like to see a WAD with challenging-yet-balanced gameplay, and then detail is kinda second.

You should probably not take my advice, since I've never actually completed and released a Doom map (though I'd still like to), but my workflow is something like this:

1. Plan general level layout (which keys/switches are needed, how to access them, speedrun shortcuts, etc.)

2. Detailed layout (building all the sectors and linedefs, inclusion of monsters and resources, secrets, etc.)

3. Aesthetics (texture selection, placement of decorative things, light levels, etc.)


I agree with quality gameplay, but I don't think AV is a good example, TBH. Most levels are really linear and monster placement is really straightfoward, some doesn't even have actual sound-block treatment.

Share this post


Link to post

Simply put, I think a map should have as much detail as possible to emphasize the theme without inhibiting the gameplay.

By this, I mean most detail is architectural. I saw Jayextee nail this on the head by saying 'keep your detail chunky'.

I feel if you're able to make a custom texture for specific uses and it genuinely enhances the overall quality of your map, then good on you. I know I do it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Deadwing said:

I agree with quality gameplay, but I don't think AV is a good example, TBH. Most levels are really linear and monster placement is really straightfoward, some doesn't even have actual sound-block treatment.

True, there are a handful of linear levels in AV. But it is still one of the most-played megaWADs, and not because of its attention to detail. The reason it is so classic is because it is fun to play.

But as you mention, its gameplay is not even up to modern standards...

Why is AV so fun to play??

Share this post


Link to post
42PercentHealth said:

True, there are a handful of linear levels in AV. But it is still one of the most-played megaWADs, and not because of its attention to detail. The reason it is so classic is because it is fun to play.

But as you mention, its gameplay is not even up to modern standards...

Why is AV so fun to play??


IDK, I didn't find it that fun tbh lol, I prefer Scythe. But I think it is very "stylish", even with its simple visuals, and it's a classic too.

Share this post


Link to post

Also keep in mind (while working on your bathroom) that detail in Doom doesn't neccessarily equal working on a small scale grid. Vistas and diorama backgrounds that you can't access can also be considered details.

I'm more of the keep-the-gameplay-area clean school of thought. Nothing's worse than stumbling around and getting stuck in overly knotted terrain details. I do enjoy creating sopmething highly detailed if I get a good and original idea, though like you I often worry that it'll probably get overlooked. But hey, you can always post a screenshot of it.

Agreed, "chunky" nailed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Deadwing said:

IDK, I didn't find it that fun tbh lol, I prefer Scythe. But I think it is very "stylish", even with its simple visuals, and it's a classic too.

I prefer Scythe as well. The beginning and ending maps of AV were pretty good, but I generally don't care for huge maps. Same reason I didn't finish Eternal Doom.

Share this post


Link to post

There's no one arbitrary answer for this, in my opinion. Different types of projects demand different amounts of detail, it all depends on what you're going for. Total Chaos, for instance, is meant to build up a tense atmosphere, can anyone here honestly say it would have had the exact same impact if it had Vanilla Doom levels of detail? I know I can't.

Spoiler

Share this post


Link to post

Exemple of awesome detailing :



Exemple of over detailing :



I don't like when mappers build too much sectors for detailing or when details obstruct player's movements.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, bub. I think both of those are awesome. The bottom one ("over detailing") has a better sense of aesthetics re: contrast, because it's actually easier to see the way the floor is laid out than the other one; which although not terrible (as I said, both awesome) uses a fair amount of similar-coloured flats there.

But hey. That's just like, your opinion, man. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm actually quite impressed by this. It's definitely an example of detail over function, as I'm sure it satirically was created for!

Share this post


Link to post

It was possibly intended just to annoy Lüt, heh.

In any case, the appropriate level of detail depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Detail for its own sake isn't impressive these days, and it's certainly not a substitute for good basic architecture. I rather enjoy playing maps that do a good job with minimal use of detail. However, high detail can also be used very effectively.

Sunder is an interesting example. It uses detail in a completely obsessive that way that makes it feel like you're trapped in some kind of fractal of evil. It just wouldn't work if you took it out. In some other contexts, that amount of detail would be misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post

@Fredrik and Roofi: Which WADs are those? Can you please post links? They look pretty awesome to me. Overdetailed? Probably. But, very cool, indeed, if for nothing but a curiosity, though I'd probably enjoy them anyway :)

Share this post


Link to post

Level detail & gameplay balance is a must for me.
Now as far as the amount of detail, I like it when levels look sweet but you don't have to go crazy on that.

Share this post


Link to post

Something between 3rd and 4th answer. If I make limit removing map, will add some more details and open spaces. But not too many.

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
×