#15
Posted 13 July 2026 - 11:22 AM
Thanks for sharing about your background with race track making, was interesting to hear since that was my original background too, first baby steps of mine into 'level design' were an abundance of custom tracks for Stunt Driver (MS-DOS), coinciding with a couple of years of BASIC programming (absolute hobbyist) then ultimately landed onto Build mapping which felt a bit like a mix of both worlds. Took me a while to realize it kind of is and at the same time mostly is its own one-off beast. Re: more recent racer communities (even though it's not really a racer, especially given the lengths people go when it comes to modding it) one of my good friends has some humble notoriety in the Trials Fusion community scene for his custom tracks, am mentioning that just in case that would have been something you've done. Creatively speaking may be the most effervescent community I've witnessed (at the time) since Build, and the flexibility is a big similarity,
Honestly as apparent as it is that you like Polymer, based on the screenshots you've posted, from a classic/Polymost... user perspective the non-Polymer shots do not look that bad at all. Map could pass off as a Polymost map I think (just darker, and obviously wouldn't be the intended experience), and to work in classic would just need some adjustments to address the occasional, benign instances of 'modern renderer syndrome' (such as 2-sided sprites that should be one-sided and whatnot). If you indeed like Polymer this much, there is no reason why you shouldn't stick to it but it wouldn't be much work at all to study the important elements that downright break in classic/Polymost vs. Polymer and just incorporate that compatibility specifics knowledge into the makings of your next maps so that you can make levels that are optimized for Polymer but do not break in anyway in the other renderers. (Again you already are this close)
From what I've seen in the editor, not even trying to play the level (yet) I can see pepso's point. I think you really need to deconstruct the paranoia that there is a mapping police out there trying to get you, honestly it is nearly tempting to troll you with it except I am not that type of person, but some others online might. What is happening is you're receiving advice you are not ready to understand as helpful yet is all. Reread it as you may want until you realize, none of the feedback you ever got ever was aggressive or even inconsiderate over effort spent, just expressions of considerations that are out of your (current) scope (and justifiably so if not interested) if all you're trying is make D3D maps that mostly play, or look, or are good, etc... to yourself, that just means you're trying to communicate what 'fun' is to you. Sometimes that take may be biased and so it is healthy to always question yourself whether or not you are in touch and know what you're doing, and it is a strength not a weakness to accept having completely slept on one or several aspect(s) of Level Design™ for one or even multiple maps because that means next time you will be even more knowledgeable about how you communicate what you want. If something doesn't look or sound 'nice' to you doesn't mean it is not nice, it still remains feedback from people taking time out of their valuable day to share it with you after they've taken even more time just playing the level. That is why sincere feedback is invaluable and one always should be grateful (and then know bullshit when it does exist and they are sure to see it). If you are not sure how to take it and it comes from an experienced community member really should just relegate in your mind as something from a different timeline that might make sense later or might not ever in which case whatever. Would save you a lot of unnecessary stress.
What pepso is describing is something I personally refer to as the Super Mario 64 approach. As in, for an entire generation growing up on that generation of games (no idea whether that is your case) an idea has forged from the clash in scale and scope with former standards (say the jump from 8-, 16-bit directly to N64 for Nintendo kids) about 'open world' and how it should be, probably disregarding a lot of the fundamentals that made SM64 design work and just taking the formula of big open space as granted and valid to apply to anything (Nintendo themselves later played along with BoTW, etc.). Personally I think it is fine to make 'make your own fun' maps, those are nothing new and moreover can coexist with more traditional levels as counterpoints to the formula in order to remind players that there are pros but also cons for accepting that type of design. But I get it and you should too, this will lead to players in the moment always wondering what's in control and what is not. Every creative risk comes at a cost and that is no one's fault but it is up to you whose criticism you consider as valid and qualititative or not depending on (sincere) intent. One of my most respected mappers is Perro Seco, they have made Duke 2070 - big sprawling city map - lots of people at the time hated it and yet that doesn't take away from its qualities over time (but also from its flaws - people will remember those too). (Let alone the timeless merits of Beerzity, Biglight, etc.)
If you're just making maps for fun and don't give a hoot about level design as a science then more power to you. If I were you I wouldn't sleep on it though, ultimately it will help you articulate what you want, not get in the way. Every newly released map is not just a personal accomplishment, but also a giant step ahead for the maker and that is no fault, it in fact is the most correct.
This post has been edited by ck3D: 13 July 2026 - 11:52 AM
2