⇛Marnetmar⇛

@Phade102 if you look at the first three areas closely, you'll realize that they are actually very architecturally simple, and they look good because they make use of interesting shapes and lighting. Contrast that with the final shot from KDIZD, which is more conventionally detailed.

I agree with Eris. These screenies and the question at hand reminds me of the audio commentary of "ice age" (yeah, the first one) where the director said that, in terms of landscapes, they went with what they called the "roadrunner-approach". In essence, it translates to "detail where it is due". And that's how I think about many of the modern doom maps as well. If the terrain is the main actor, it needs to stand out visually, if the combat is the main actor, it needs to stand out visually as well, at least to a high enough degree that "rather meaningless visuals" don't distract me from what I came to do.

At the end of the day, MrGlide's justified question is the reason why I feel about detailing the way I do. I don't care if it looks "bland" here and there, I wanna play the thing, and playing it better feel good. What good are 500 linedefs per sector, when the thing doesn't play proper?

What do you think of this Mr gigolo?

Maybe it's detailed, maybe Torm snuck in your room while you were jogging; get it the Hell away from me.