[Mike Norvak]

The discussion has been started in another thread hope admins can move some of the comments here, by Artem Nevinchany request.

I think is an interesting topic, it has been taken to light many times. Basically the discussion is about spending a lot of time doing a high amount of detailing on a map, taking or not in account gameplay design as a priority, versus spend less time (to some mappers) doing a "classic feel" "less detailed" map while still considering gameplay as the most important aspect (like the original maps did).

Some thing to note first is defining what exactly makes a classic map.
maybe I'm missing something, but in my opinion:

• Simple architecture. It stills manages to look like simplified versions of real places.
  
• Gameplay was thought along with architectural design.Architecture design doesn't disrupts gameplay.
  
• Further use of strong wall and sector shading, uses visibility variations.
  
• Interactivity (almost all the stuff put on a map does something, at least a sound)
  
• Nonlinearity (interconnected areas, not specific order to go to next area)
  
• Immersion with stuff inside the gameplay area, most than inaccessible areas.

Other of the themes that popped out are:

Is there really a trend for doing more classic oriented maps nowadays?

Are uber detailed maps getting the same attention than barely detailed maps, as far as the gameplay is ok on both?

[Fox]

Mike Norvak, on 25 August 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

[*]Gameplay was though along with architectural design.

Not really. Many levels are just areas from Lameduke glued together. It would be better to say that design doesn't disrupts gameplay.

[OpenMaw]

Presentation is very important. Even a "classic" level of detail can still look very very appealing. most of the Duke3D maps still look very good to my eyes. Both Duke it out in DC and Duke Caribbean also feature very pleasing level designs.


Personally I don't agree with anyone who says one particular style is either in or out. It's all down to what the level designers feel like putting out there. I enjoy both map styles. They both have strengths and weaknesses. While the incredible level of detail found in some maps is fantastic to look at, and can really give you an even stronger sense of place, it can also come at the cost of interactivity. While levels designed around the gameplay aspect, with many routes through areas, interactive lighting, changing sectors, destructible walls, etc... They can end up looking a bit spartan by necessity.

The key to making things look good in either case are really keeping the scale of things consistent, using smart shading techniques, and having areas of interest throughout the map: That is areas that are landmarks of some kind, and pull the theme of the level together. This also includes the usage of textures and so forth.

[LeoD]

I think what seems to be a trend is in fact caused by the new mappers attracted by Megaton. When they become more experienced, I expect the average level of detail to be about the same as in pre-Megaton times.
What I like most about Duke is interactivity and exploration. That's why both DNE and Oranges can have a place in my heart. The overall mix of classic and detailed maps feels about right for me. Since I'm a slow player I can enjoy areas which may be called cramped by others.

[Radar]

Mappers should always try to innovate and push the boundaries even further. That doesn't necessarily mean "high detailed maps". It means trying something new.

[LeoD]

Yay Ponies, on 25 August 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

Mappers should always try to innovate and push the boundaries even further.

I strongly disagree on this one. That might leave us with a maximum of four maps per year, lots of abandoned overambitious projects, and frustrated mappers. I appreciate every new map that's not too far below average standards and gives me some fun. Starting with the main goal to create something top notch won't get you beyond a one-trick-pony type of map.

[Radar]

That's not troo. Take for example "Shrunken" by Ryan Lennox. That map has hardly any detail, yet it implements a concept I've never seen executed so well.

[Gambini]

Yay Ponies, on 25 August 2014 - 02:30 PM, said:

Mappers should always try to innovate and push the boundaries even further. That doesn't necessarily mean "high detailed maps". It means trying something new.

This is at least my way to go. I don´t try the same formula twice. My next map wont be a itlives more detailed or a dnf2013 with more references. The fun is to think outside of the box and come with something clever.

[Paul B]

Gambini, on 25 August 2014 - 03:29 PM, said:

My next map wont be a itlives more detailed or a dnf2013 with more references. The fun is to think outside of the box and come with something clever.

This made my day, happy to hear Gambini plans on making another map! Makes me wonder if he will experiment with TROR? =)

[Mike Norvak]

Paul B, on 25 August 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

This made my day, happy to hear Gambini plans on making another map! Makes me wonder if he will experiment with TROR? =)

Don't believe Gambini he's a big liar, just enjoying to hype everyone.

Spoiler

I know that because that exactly what I do

[NightFright]

I don't know if this trend applies to the Duke3D community, but regarding Doom maps, we definitely see a revival of classic mapping lately. Especially after "Doom the Way id Did", mappers discovered the awesomeness of simplicity again and seem to focus on that a bit more now. However, it doesn't mean that more complex designs are abandoned, and I think both styles have their advantages. The only thing that I wouldn't do is mixing styles - either provide a completely classic or "advanced" experience (regarding episodic releases).

Personally, I'd like to see more releases checking out the capabilities of EDuke32. Things like The Imperium or DNF were great and are also quite nice showcases for the port, and I doubt we can ever have enough of those.

[oasiz]

Gotta start by saying that I really love the somewhat cheesy and sharp "future retro" design from 80s and 90s (*cough* slum noir). This kind of approach also bends really well to low-fi aesthetics with parallax sky tricks and low polygon quake-like design. Personally I think that there are creatives ways of getting around texture resolution limitations and such but things should still stay true and not feel out of place. Making super detailed objects with many walls doesn't really bend well to D3D's assets and will almost always look out of place. Then again, making stuff like making "fake bumps" on a floor texture itself to make it kind of 3D but still looking true to the art style works well. You have to be really creative with this kind of stuff and not go overboard. Kudos to those who can pull stuff like this off and keep it consistent.

I kind of see it as the same as platformers, there is a certain level of non-realism that you have to apply in to the level design to keep it fun. I think the biggest importance is to give just enough detail to keep it looking nice and consistent and let your imagination do the rest, I let my imagination flow a lot when I make maps and usually think of what kind of impressions I want a certain area to evoke.

After going from D3D to experimenting with other engines for many years before finally returning to duke trough doom/quake. I found it really refreshing to actually not worry about detail too much and just focus on making this plausible world, almost dreamlike stitching of various realistic scenarios in an unrealistic way. Doom/Duke/Quake are still lucky to benefit from this rather abstract way of building maps as your imagination can do a lot to fill in the gaps unlike later games where you have so much detail everywhere that similar areas always look dull and identical due to having so many detailed assets being recycled.
One way that helped me a bit to understand how much you can do with so little is to map for the original DOS quake with the on-screen 799 polygon limit, It's surprising how much you can do with so little once you learn to get efficient on architectural details and layouts.

Anyway, I think in a lot of cases less is more. This doesn't mean that a really detailed map is automatically bad, I guess it just shows how versatile the art roster and the engine is when it comes to different architectural styles and such. There is enough room for all sorts of styles and I really appreciate the different approaches / ideas and signature styles that mappers have in their own maps. Gives it a personality.

[MetHy]

NightFright, on 26 August 2014 - 04:35 AM, said:

The only thing that I wouldn't do is mixing styles - either provide a completely classic or "advanced" experience (regarding episodic releases).

I think my favourite kind of maps are exactly the ones which 'mix' both styles. By that I mean that the location, layout and gameplay scream classic Duke, but the map is however more detailed than classic Duke. Not uber detailed, but detailed just enough to look fresh but without hindering gameplay and while allowing interesting layouts.
For instance ACB Studio is the definition of what I just said, and it's one of my favourite maps released recently. It's everything we loved about the original Duke3D but with some fresh ideas and also more detailed.
Let's also not forget that the original game, the 'classic' style, looks the way it does partly due to limitations : because they wanted the game to run smoothly on a 486 for better sales. Even the beta versions of DN3D have more details than the final release.
And 'classic' style shouldn't be mixed up with poor detailing. You can have a 'classic' style map that has its share of interesting details, and the low-detail maps coming out on Megaton's workshop aren't 'classic' style, they're just maps with lower-detailing.

I insist on what I meant above, if you go for some uber-detailing style, it WILL limit the kind of layout and the kind of gameplay possible, you'll have to stick to a linear, often small, environment, that is also often still. Because it is not possible to keep a consistant uber-detailing on a larger scale. Look at Retaliation for instance, it is one of the most detailed usermap ever made, but the consequence is a very limited gameplay where detailing even hinders players movement.

But finally I believe mappers should make the kind of maps they'd like to play, even if that means they're not creating anything new or 'pushing' any limit. The kind of maps I described above, is what I like the best, so it's what I tried to achieve with the 3 maps I made for Duke Hard.

I think that it's ridiculous if you're trying to make some the most detail possible because you'd like to 'compete' with either other games (i'm looking at you bobsp1) or with other maps released before yours. Apparently though this time seems mostly gone, for instance if you look at Bob Avril's latest map, he took what he knows not to create the 'most detailed' possible experience, but to make something that still feels and looks like Duke but with fresh ideas in terms of environment, gameplay and layout. And I think it's his best map.

[Micky C]

I agree with MetHy on this one. IMO the ideal map would be detailed but not too much; just enough for a room to "look" detailed, but not too much that it wastes the mappers time since the player probably isn't going to spend much time looking at things anyway.
Plus you'd probably want a few classic maps and maybe one or two higher detailed maps just for variety.

[Forge]

strip off the textures & sprite work and a good classic map and a good high-detailed map should look nearly the same.

[MetHy]

lol no, classic style isn't just a matter of 'amount of detailing'

[Forge]

lol, yes. If both maps are qualified as good (which is what i said, but maybe i wasn't specific enough for you and point blank should have said "in the category of game play")
- high-detail is not the equivalent of completely abandoning the 'classic' style of layout, puzzle/interactivity, and key card hunting - i'm not sure how this assumption about the lack of the 'classic' style of game play in a high detailed map became a foregone conclusion
- a good portion of these 'uber-detailed' maps make heavy usage of sprite work & sprite based architecture
strip off the textures & sprites so you're left with nothing but the base architecture and sector work (e.g. shadows, furnishings, & the like)
they should look nearly the same - the noticeable difference might be more 'worked' structures in the high-detailed map (e.g. pillars will have 10 sides instead of 6, desks won't be four-sided boxes, etc.) -this waste of walls is usually why detailed maps may end up shorter, but one could use boxy architecture and still have an uber-detailed and relatively long map, look at some of Puritan's mid-career maps - detailed and physically pretty large & long

[Paul B]

Well I think that settles it... any map using any style can be good if its done right.

[Forge]

Paul B, on 26 August 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

Well I think that settles it... any map using any style can be good if its done right.

+1,000 upvote

[StarNukem]

Not sure if I'm allowed in this discussion or not, lol but I would like to make a very valid point. There should be a balance in both detail and gameplay. Then again, playing a map for it's detail is like watching porn for it's storyline. You start to miss the real reason for why you are there. If you have a map that plays well, but isn't very detailed, then it's going to be fun to play but not to look at. Likewise, if you have a map that's very detailed but has boring gameplay, then it's going to be more fun to look at than to play. There has to be balance. It's not 100% about either side, it's 50% for both. not 51/49%, 50/50%. That's my opinion, but detailed maps are very nice, I won't lie. That's why I enjoyed the DNF 2013 mod because it was both visually and physically entertaining.

[Hendricks266]

StarCraftZergling, on 26 August 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

not 51/49%, 50/50%.

[Forge]

StarCraftZergling, on 26 August 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

I would like to make a very valid point.

There should be a balance in both detail and gameplay..
There has to be balance.
It's not 100% about either side,
it's 50% for both.
not 51/49%,
50/50%.

er...wat?

[cliche]that's comparing apples to oranges[/cliche]

you can take the same map (we're assuming it has good game play for the sake of argument) One way it's done in 3DR 'classic' style, the other way it's done 'uber-detailed'. (we'll also assume they were both crafted skillfully in regards to their respective styles)

either way it's still going to be a good map.
one person is going to prefer one style and another person is going to like the other style better. It's about personal taste.

i like both. just depends on what i'm in the mood for - mostly if i've been playing a bunch of 3DR classic styled maps, a highly detailed map is kinda refreshing (& vice-verse)

[Micky C]

The DNF 2013 mod is NOT something I'd use as a high detail example. Sure, it looks nice and there are some nice details in some areas, but it's more a matter of them being able to pull off a good looking map with low-medium details.

Go play It Lives then come back.

[Forge]

& also
Red5
WGCity
Mil Town Rampage
Roch 8
Abba
Happy Hangover

then go play:

B_alley
lunar crossroads
forever and one more day
Dukecide
fruit loops
KaiseR Land 02

there are probably better contrasting examples, but i'm lazy

[LeoD]

Forge, on 26 August 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

[cliche]that's comparing apples to oranges[/cliche]

I have Oranges but no Apples - forgotten gem by Gambini or DanM?

[Gambini]

Paul B, on 25 August 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

This made my day, happy to hear Gambini plans on making another map! Makes me wonder if he will experiment with TROR? =)

Mike Norvak, on 25 August 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

Don't believe Gambini he's a big liar, just enjoying to hype everyone.

Spoiler

I know that because that exactly what I do

I was being hypothetical. But there are chances of me coming back, with some experimental shit.

[Forge]

Mike Norvak, on 25 August 2014 - 09:36 PM, said:

Don't believe Gambini he's a big liar, just enjoying to hype everyone.

Spoiler

I know that because that exactly what I do

quoted for justice

[Forge]

LeoD, on 26 August 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

I have Oranges but no Apples - forgotten gem by Gambini or DanM?

apple's map

[LeoD]

Forge, on 26 August 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

apple's map

under-detailed

[Lunick]

Can't people just make maps how they want and skip over the fine details/drama?

I'm happy to play all kinds of maps (Even from the AMC TC because some Australian is going to force me to).