Marnetstapler

Members
  • Content count

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Marnetstapler

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Single Status Update

See all updates by Marnetstapler

  1. How detailed is this area?

     

    035tqJO.png

     

    What about this area?

     

    9Blt0.png

     

    What about this?

     

    OzTFZbq.png

     

    What about this?

     

    knee_deep_in_zdoom_8_by_kdizd_team_by_ke

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Nine Inch Heels

      Nine Inch Heels

      Since it makes my map look bland and ugly in comparison: Too detailed! (jk)

       

      Seriously though, these screenies look sophisticated in terms of visuals. Speaking with my bias of not liking the classic tech theme that much in mind, the last screenie looks a bit too busy for my personal liking. But it is detailed for sure. Funnily enough, I like the first screenie the most in spite/because of its simplicity.

    3. Marnetstapler

      Marnetstapler

      Quote

      I like the first screenie the most in spite/because of its simplicity.

       

      ;)

    4. Phade102

      Phade102

      I get the feeling my post inspired you to make this one. Those are some very detailed areas, but a lot of it does seem...rather unnesescary?

    5. Eris Falling

      Eris Falling

      I actually liked KDiZD, but there's no denying they went a bit overboard with detailing. The first shot is as good an advert for clean detailing as you can get.

    6. Marnetstapler

      Marnetstapler

      @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.

    7. Nine Inch Heels

      Nine Inch Heels

      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?

    8. Fonze

      Fonze

      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.

    9. Dragonfly

      Dragonfly

      The simple thing is that the first three are letting the beauty of custom textures shine. The last one is using (mostly) vanilla resources, or derivatives of them. Take that first scene and use vanilla textures. Hello 1997~ish era mapping.

    10. AD_79

      AD_79

      Honestly though, that first screenshot (competently) rendered in stock textures would still look a lot more pleasing to me than the last shot.

    11. Doomkid

      Doomkid

      They all look nice. I've noticed using gritty textures makes an area look more detailed even if it's actually somewhat basic.