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

Anyone else interested only in gameplay?

Recommended Posts

Is there anyone else on here that isn't concerned too much with quality map detailing and is mainly concerned with gameplay? Don't get me wrong, I appreciate detail and visually stunning maps, but overall, the gameplay is what sells me on any map. I don't care if a map is ugly, as long as a wad is fun to play and challenging, it's solid in my book. This excludes general map layout, as this directly affects gameplay. Layout is a huge factor in my mind. Now I really love the aesthetics and scenery that some of ribbiks' mapsets provide, because I love the bright colors, dark lighting, and the sharp contrast between the two, but off the top of my head, those are the only mapsets that stands out. I do appreciate the different basic scenery variations, such as base, hell, outdoors. What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post

I agree; there are even a lot of '94 WADs I found to be fun and even inspiring given how fresh people's ideas were at the time when they were just starting out. WADs like Heroes and Cleimos 2 though rough around the edges I've found have even inspired me in my own mapping process in some ways. I've never really felt there was much out there concerning Doom maps that I don't enjoy, but I have gotten the impression occasionally that although some levels may look pretty on the outside the gameplay seems rather watered down/tacked on so to speak. I know we've had this argument plenty of times before but I'm uncreative when it comes to bringing a unique perspective on the matter...

All in all, I value gameplay over everything else; if a map happens to look very well-detailed and pretty while remaining fun, I feel it's a nice bonus to have (gusta's maps are a fine example).

Share this post


Link to post

glad I get a pass, I think? :)

the gameplay vs. visuals thing in doom is a conversation as old as dirt. various forum searches with the phrases "detail", "visuals", etc, will unearth decade-old threads where people were already tired of talking about it :p. The preferences of the community are rather diverse, some players are looking for an immersive adventure, some are looking for a classic run-and-gun experience, some are looking for fancy architecture, some are looking for hardcore challenges, many more and everything in between. You'll find plenty of opinions on either side, I've seen some "I feel like I've seen enough of what doom gameplay has to offer, just show me some cool new environments" types of posts, and on the opposite extreme you had folks like gggmork who had a series of virtually untextured "gameplay-only" maps, and again, everywhere in between. An opinion that seems to be increasingly voiced is that the two are inseparable, e.g.:

Doom Marine said:

Superseding such elements as enemy placement and visual detail is the architecture of a map. Architecture has less to do with aesthetics than facilitating player's movement, springing traps, dropping/gaing elevation, firefights, etc etc etc, whether it be a cramped catacomb or a sprawling arena, the shape/structure of the environment determines the gameplay of a level above any other factor.

I subjectively believe that architecture accounts for half the gameplay in most given maps...



As a mapper of debatably high-detail stuff (not that I really think of it that way, as I'd argue the size/complexity of most of my stuff is rather reserved), it seems somewhat insulting to suggest gameplay was just "tacked on." pretty much all visually complex spaces started out as simple shapes with encounter ideas in tow. Not infrequently the complaint seems to originate from "obtrusive" architecture that makes spaces more cumbersome to traverse while in combat, god forbid cramped and awkward is actually what I prefer to make and to play. There's also the camp prepared to complain the second you throw more than 10 enemies at them at once, but that's another matter entirely :p. I'm sure there are some poster children for "looks amazing but plays like zzzZZzz," but I'd venture there's a good chance on average that if a player isn't enjoying the gameplay of a wad, it might be distaste for the general style instead of the author phoning it in after spending 1000 hours perfecting that million-sector cathedral. I mean I guess it's possible there are mappers out there making super complicated sector vomit and then going "oh shit, I needed monsters right??", but I'm a bit less cynical than that. If the gameplay sucks maybe the mapper just sucks at making gameplay and it didn't matter what the surroundings looked like.

Share this post


Link to post

I mostly focus on details AND gameplay, I mostly go for the "Well, there's a shotgun, but you triggered the Shotgun Guys or Chaingun Guys, get 'em quick!".

Or, I guess instant action, at least after a little simple puzzle room.

Share this post


Link to post

I like to pretend I am all about gameplay > visuals but really I am aware that I actually can't do either so I just populate maps with random on the fly enemy placement to see what works and what doesn't (adding most traps after the whole map is done) then I edit the map to fix any issues I encounter with gameplay.

As for detail I at least make sure it looks ok before I move on.

I also seem to make the entire map layout and structure before I even implement gameplay, isn't that odd?

Share this post


Link to post

Gameplay and visuals are inseparable. For example, Spider Masterminds make good support columns, so if you're going to have a classic eight-SMM slaughter fight, you might as well embed them in the walls until the reveal.



But in all seriousness, I'd say both gameplay and aesthetics have a minimum quality threshold at which they interest me. That of aesthetics is somewhat higher though; I can make do with a decent nothing-special map that flows well and allows for theatrics, but looks have to get closer to wowing me before I care as much.

Share this post


Link to post

That's good that you feel that way because as a whole you'll find much more wads enjoyable than the average person who's looking for the best of the best. Doom is a fun game and fun is what most people should be playing out for.

Share this post


Link to post

I think there is a big misunderstanding between what people mean by 'detail'. For me detail is part of gameplay because it usually is part of the map's structure. If detail was just computer inlets or whatever then it would be fine to ignore but the vast majority of detail in Doom comes from the shapes and structures of rooms/areas themselves. That directly impacts the gameplay and how fun it is. If a map is all flat hallways the gameplay is going to inherently be less engaging that a map with a great deal of geometric variety and dynamism.

Share this post


Link to post
Ribbiks said:

As a mapper of debatably high-detail stuff (not that I really think of it that way, as I'd argue the size/complexity of most of my stuff is rather reserved), it seems somewhat insulting to suggest gameplay was just "tacked on." pretty much all visually complex spaces started out as simple shapes with encounter ideas in tow. Not infrequently the complaint seems to originate from "obtrusive" architecture that makes spaces more cumbersome to traverse while in combat, god forbid cramped and awkward is actually what I prefer to make and to play. There's also the camp prepared to complain the second you throw more than 10 enemies at them at once, but that's another matter entirely :p. I'm sure there are some poster children for "looks amazing but plays like zzzZZzz," but I'd venture there's a good chance on average that if a player isn't enjoying the gameplay of a wad, it might be distaste for the general style instead of the author phoning it in after spending 1000 hours perfecting that million-sector cathedral. I mean I guess it's possible there are mappers out there making super complicated sector vomit and then going "oh shit, I needed monsters right??", but I'm a bit less cynical than that. If the gameplay sucks maybe the mapper just sucks at making gameplay and it didn't matter what the surroundings looked like.


I guess it's more a matter of just feeling it was "tacked on" whether that's factually true or not - any more than I've been accused of making filler maps just to make a megawad. But I do agree the best maps make good use of layout/architecture to better compliment the gameplay and I feel appreciative of that more so nowadays than my 2011 vanilla-self.

Share this post


Link to post
Ribbiks said:

If the gameplay sucks maybe the mapper just sucks at making gameplay and it didn't matter what the surroundings looked like.

Agree 1000% It is a tired boring argument that usually sounds more like envy and jealousy, than actual criticism of the map itself. It usually says a lot more about the critic than it does the map.

There is absolutely no reason you cannot have both. But it takes a special kind of mapper to produce both. It's a left-brain/right-brain issue, and the majority of people lean one way or the other. Conquering both disciplines is the stuff great maps are made of.

Share this post


Link to post

I am a strong proponent for both aspects of mapping being equally as important, however, gameplay is what makes a map fun. Without proper gameplay design a map becomes uninteresting to play through and regardless of how beautiful it might be it won't hold a player's attention very long, precisely because: they are there to play the game.

I think a good example of this, is Hellbound. It's a great mapset, I really like it myself, but the gameplay is somewhat lacking in comparison to a lot of other modern megawads. The later levels specifically become grandiose areas within hell, filled to the brim with demons... and that's about it. It's a pretty map filled with demons. There's hardly any interesting scenarios that you don't bring upon yourself (obviously a few exceptions to this, like the city map with upside down buildings and a sky floor that surrounds you, albeit not very dangerously, with cacodemons) and even that is unlikely unless you are speedrunning the maps.

But then there's megawads like Zone 300 and Swift Death. Z300 being a collection of small maps with very light detail (save one map) and a very competent use of these layouts to provide a mostly fun experience. Maybe one or two maps are a bit 'meh', but the maps are still fun to play and won't drag on and on and on or just be poorly designed "x -> y -> z" maps that overuse monster closets and aren't very threatening (read: fun) to the player. Swift Death is definitely not a pretty set of maps, there is effort made to make it look at least interesting, but when you play these maps you are there to test your skills (and patience) in a ridiculously hard Ribbik's cube style of maps. The gameplay, in other words, is mostly all it has going for it.

But then there's always mapsets that have the best of both worlds. Sunlust, Valiant and Ancient Aliens, BTSX, Skulldash, and more and more things. There's also the worse of both worlds, a mapset like Mano Laikas comes to mind, where the visuals are definitely strange at best and done without any effort put into them at worst, alongside gameplay that is pretty repetitive: go here to grab item, kill things that ambush you via a teleporter, monster closet, or lowering pillars, and then release an arch-vile. These choices are mostly just my opinions..

But this thread is basically asking for an opinion anyways, so there you go. :P

Share this post


Link to post

For a while I thought detail and gameplay were two entirely different entities, now I understand it's just that I genuinely tend to prefer the look of the stock textures and less sectors. To my eyes, a map with visuals on-par with IWAD standards tends to look better than the more modern stuff. It's all a matter of taste. Maybe it's the amount of colors on screen, maybe it's nostalgia, who knows.

With that said, there are plenty modern maps where, despite the texturing not being what I personally would use, I still really enjoy the enemy encounters, clever layouts and well thought out item placement. What I'm getting at there is, don't let the maps theming/texturing alone plant an assumption about gameplay in your mind. Fun maps come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and appearances, as do not-so-good ones!

Share this post


Link to post

I obsess with visuals first, which isn't very logical. But then I try make up for it with ACS Scripting events which allows for almost anything to happen within any room. My methods fail to offer a consistent flow of quality combat within open-ended abstract levels but in turn it does allow for good visuals, unique combat scenarios, triggered events and atmosphere. My approach doesn't suit the classic Doomer's taste but I personally love it.

Share this post


Link to post

Rayzik summed it up very nicely (although I did enjoy playing Mano Laikas...) and I just wanted to add that even in cases where I'm not generally fond towards certains WADs, they can still prove to be loads of fun when played in co-op/survival with other people. Hellbound is a good example of this, as the levels are incredibly large and they were fun to run around in with other people trying to solve it, but it's not something I'd really imagine playing all by myself. So there's always the off-chance I might enjoy something better over ZDaemon or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post

Visuals play a big part in setting the atmosphere, which I believe is still very important in a good Doom map. Most of my favourite wads in the gameplay department also have very nice aesthetics. Scythe 1 is probably the only example I can think of where the gameplay really trumps the rather basic, and sometimes boring as red hell visuals.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get why this has to be an either or situation with some people. It's like asking if you'd rather have a well written movie in Black & White or a poorly written piece of crap in Color. Why not just have a Well Written Movie in Color?

Share this post


Link to post

I think aesthetics and gameplay should compliment one another.

If I could make my own level (if I could) it would probably be in the style of Romero, because his philosophies for making game levels... are some of the best in the industry other than Miyamoto.

Just saying.

:3

Share this post


Link to post

Ill be frank here. They are both dependant on each other.

Say a STARTAN square room with a Cyberdemon. Will it be satisfying, even though there is a Cyberdemon?

A highly detailed technase with one zombie. Will it be satisfying, even though the map os gorgeous?

Share this post


Link to post
Voros said:

Ill be frank here. They are both dependant on each other.

Say a STARTAN square room with a Cyberdemon. Will it be satisfying, even though there is a Cyberdemon?

A highly detailed techbase with one zombie. Will it be satisfying, even though the map is gorgeous?


I'm going to be quite frank and say the highly detailed techbase. Because after you kill the zombie, you can kind of take in the map and really explore it.

Whereas with the Cyberdemon room, it would be extremely boring and unappealing.

Flat out, the map with the one zombie would probably want you yearning for more of that map.

Whereas the square room would have you most likely hit the quit button. Maybe that's just me, but eh. Just my opinion.

^_^

Share this post


Link to post

Some people here are missing the object of this thread. It's not "mappers should focus on gameplay more than visuals." It is "As a player, visuals don't really matter to me as much as the gameplay does. Am I alone in feeling this way?"

Share this post


Link to post

^Well, as a player I'm mostly in for gameplay, my good man.

I prefer some simple puzzle solving, like you gotta shoot a curtain thing and open up a little area to find a key or skullkey, and you continue to the next areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Tritnew said:

^Well, as a player I'm mostly in for gameplay, my good man.

I prefer some simple puzzle solving, like you gotta shoot a curtain thing and open up a little area to find a key or skullkey, and you continue to the next areas.


That's cool. Same. I'd like to see a mod that has a cracked wall you have to shoot at with a rocket launcher that has a secret area or something.

Kind of like Zelda in a sense. :3

Share this post


Link to post
DoomzRules said:

That's cool. Same. I'd like to see a mod that has a cracked wall you have to shoot at with a rocket launcher that has a secret area or something.

I found out that only hitscans can actually reveal a hidden door with a "shoot to open" trigger, so rockets wont work in Doom, or any projectile really.

@40oz i see what you mean and i basically feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
DoomzRules said:

That's cool. Same. I'd like to see a mod that has a cracked wall you have to shoot at with a rocket launcher that has a secret area or something.


Hell on Earth for BD has exactly that with secrets behind damaged, destructible walls that can be blown up with explosive weapons.

Share this post


Link to post

An environment that is fun to play through is rarely an "ugly" one. It can be simple, crude, sparsely detailed, but ugly is not really acceptable. When I think of ugly, I think of very awkwardly spaced areas, poor use of texture and lighting and a total disregard for any sort of aesthetic. That takes me out of the experience and ruins what, from a pure gameplay stance, might have been a decent mod. I expect the author to take pride in what he or she is creating, even if they are going for minimalism.

Take your favorite classic Doom map, and imagine it having really shitty texturing and lighting. Would it now be less fun to play through? I bet it would!

Share this post


Link to post

I just like maps that are creative in every aspect of the game, from architecture to the gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post

I really prefer maps without doors that have good gameplay to maps with doors that have bad gameplay.

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
×