[Mike Norvak]

Well, I know some appreciations aren't as objective as it can be. Like call Classic maps "less detailed" I myself know that classic maps are done that way because of performance in the good ol' days, and that making a mediocre design map doesn't make it a classic map automatically, anyway this thread is about the impression I got on the the discussion that popped out in Flood Area map thread.

I think "uber" high detailed maps (like It Lives or The Thing) are good examples of what is possible to achieve in detail level, even if a new map with the double of detail than It Lives were released (very complex spritework, micro sector design, high detailed shadows, and whatever you can imagine) we could know that it was possible a-priori, that wouldn't be really great news, if you think about it, the only merit would come from that crazy mapper doing the amount of work necessary to achieve it. Mapping in that fashion is a linear path, imho, you know how it will end.

On the other hand, take for example It Lives and its great new effects, those for sure, were really new things to most of us, and made us wonder: how the heck did he managed to do this effect! Or Happy Hang over, both are high detailed but with great and innovative gameplay. (Well, not really new gameplay mechanics - like blowing doors instead of using keycards , but interesting ways to immerse the player in the map)

About classic styled maps I'm so fond of they, because feel like if new original maps were released for the first time after all these years, which adds a nostalgia factor. That's why I liked so much Legal Joint. Obviously I'm not saying that original DN3D maps are good to my eyes just for nostalgia...

There are as well that other type of maps, that everybody seems to forget on this discussion, which instead of going for a "realistic" style they go for a surreal style, most of William G maps enters in this category imo. They could fit better on classic style at some point, but with conceptual grandness detail. Look at WGR2 maps they aren't so detailed, there are even squarey in places, that is what makes William G such a great mapper, he already managed to apply the "Less is more" rule to mapping.

As a conclusion, as someone already pointed before, I consider that diversity is the key of everything.

----

So according to the statistic so far, if there was a map with great gameplay but it has two versions: a high detailed one and a classic version (whatever that means, I didn't invented the term) people would prefer the high detailed version.

There's a generalized opinion about classic maps being released as frequently as always, versus more detailed maps.

It seems that most people here think both kind of maps are getting the same attention. Let's see how the stats evolve on the next days.

[MetHy]

Forge, on 26 August 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

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

And yet I can't think of a single uber detailed map that plays like a classic map. Of course it can't "completely abandon" everything that made the original game, but a uber detailed map will be limited in what it can do in terms of layout, interactivity, and gameplay; and even the size, architecture and type of shading will directly be influenced by that highly detailed look the mapper wants to make.

If you take It Lives, strip down the detailing, try to mimick the classic look, first of all it's not going to work unless you extensively change the type of architecture and shading for it to 'look classic', and it would also require even more changes for it to look good to the point that it will hardly be It Lives anymore (because the 'mapping laws' of how to make a good looking classic map and a good looking highly detailed map are completely different), but even then you'll never end up with a classic map, you'll just end up with a shitty version of It Lives that won't even be as good as if the mapper wanted to make a classic map in the first place.

[Micky C]

Mike Norvak, on 26 August 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:

I think "uber" high detailed maps (like It Lives or The Thing) are good examples of what is possible to achieve in detail level, even if a new map with the double of detail than It Lives were released (very complex spritework, micro sector design, high detailed shadows, and whatever you can imagine) we could know that it was possible a-priori, that wouldn't be really great news, if you think about it, the only merit would come from that crazy mapper doing the amount of work necessary to achieve it. Mapping in that fashion is a linear path, imho, you know how it will end.

See the flaw in what you're saying there is that you didn't take into account that it's literally not possible to have a map more detailed than The Thing. I remember looking at the map in mapster and it had pretty much hit BOTH the wall and the sprite limit. You would not be able to add gameplay (combat) to such a map. Sure, you could probably try to make an even smaller map with even more details, but even then the improvement would be negligible. Once you've hit both limits without even adding combat gameplay that's about as far as you can go.

[MetHy]

MetHy, on 27 August 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

And yet I can't think of a single uber detailed map that plays like a classic map. Of course it can't "completely abandon" everything that made the original game, but a uber detailed map will be limited in what it can do in terms of layout, interactivity, and gameplay; and even the size, architecture and type of shading will directly be influenced by that highly detailed look the mapper wants to make.

If you take It Lives, strip down the detailing, try to mimick the classic look, first of all it's not going to work unless you extensively change the type of architecture and shading for it to 'look classic', and it would also require even more changes for it to look good to the point that it will hardly be It Lives anymore (because the 'mapping laws' of how to make a good looking classic map and a good looking highly detailed map are completely different), but even then you'll never end up with a classic map, you'll just end up with a shitty version of It Lives that won't even be as good as if the mapper wanted to make a classic map in the first place.

What I mean is, for me, it's not the 'amount of detailing' that makes a map classic or not. To me ACB Studios scream classic Duke (more than Penthouse Mayhem for instance), it feels like it could belong somewhere in the first half of episode 4, yet the map actually has almost 15k walls. What makes it classic is the kind of setting, layout, gameplay, atmosphere, progression, pacing, but also the look of the map (the way textures are used, the kind of shading, the kind of architecture, too). Now, if strip down the detailing in ACB Studio, yeah it would still look classic, but I don't even know if that would make the map 'more classic'... just as classic, but with detailing on par with the original game rather than detailing on par with 2013. Now, that would work because the map screamed classic Duke in the first place, but no matter how you strip down It Lives, unless you change it to the point that it's a complete different map, it will never be classic.

Anyway speaking of ACB Studio makes me realize how spot-on that map was. One of the best maps coming out recently for sure.

[Forge]

MetHy, on 27 August 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

And yet I can't think of a single uber detailed map that plays like a classic map.

some of Fernando Marquez's maps. Some Roch maps. Some of Alejandro Glavic's maps, etc

MetHy, on 27 August 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

but a uber detailed map will be limited in what it can do in terms of layout, interactivity, and gameplay; and even the size

i already mentioned some of Puritan's maps are breaking your law there

MetHy, on 27 August 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

architecture and type of shading will directly be influenced by that highly detailed look the mapper wants to make.

If you take It Lives, strip down the detailing, try to mimick the classic look, first of all it's not going to work unless you extensively change the type of architecture and shading

instead of having 6 gradients of shading, you strip it down to one or two
instead of 6 sided pillars you strip it down to four
etc.
it's not that difficult to reduce excessive architecture. you're trying to make it sound impossible then throwing your hands up at the end saying it'll just be "shitty" anyway.
sounds like you want to argue for the sake of arguing, but all you're doing is throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks..

[MetHy]

You don't understand what I mean. I didn't say it's not possible to strip down the detailing, of course it is, what I mean is if you do that it's not going to end up being a classic style map, because there is a lot more to it than that.

Also I really don't see how some Roch or Alejandro maps are classic style, nor do I see how some of Fernando's are highly detailed..

[Mike Norvak]

MetHy, on 27 August 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

And yet I can't think of a single uber detailed map that plays like a classic map.

At least they are really uncommon. Anyway you already pointed ACB studio

Forge, on 27 August 2014 - 06:18 AM, said:

some of Fernando Marquez's maps. Some Roch maps. Some of Alejandro Glavic's maps, etci already mentioned some of Puritan's maps are breaking your law thereinstead of having 6 gradients of shading, you strip it down to one or twoinstead of 6 sided pillars you strip it down to fouretc.it's not that difficult to reduce excessive architecture. you're trying to make it sound impossible then throwing your hands up at the end saying it'll just be "shitty" anyway. sounds like you want to argue for the sake of arguing, but all you're doing is throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks..

Still I don't remember how those maps are classic maps, sure they are classic maps for the community, but otherwise they in essence refuse to be like classic maps, both on level of detail, gameplay and on how things are used.

I'd like to see Those Puritan maps you are talking about.

Micky C, on 27 August 2014 - 05:39 AM, said:

See the flaw in what you're saying there is that you didn't take into account that it's literally not possible to have a map more detailed than The Thing. I remember looking at the map in mapster and it had pretty much hit BOTH the wall and the sprite limit. You would not be able to add gameplay (combat) to such a map. Sure, you could probably try to make an even smaller map with even more details, but even then the improvement would be negligible. Once you've hit both limits without even adding combat gameplay that's about as far as you can go.

I was thinking of a hypothetical much more smaller map, with bumps in every floor and ceiling texture, super detailed shadows that comes from every direction and have lots of gradients, spritework that makes your eyes explode, ultra thin sectors to detail the most insignificant thing. What you said exactly adds to my point, mapping in that fashion is somewhat a dead street not just in terms of reaching the wall/sprite limit (you can always split that map) nor being the improvement negligible (I'm sure you will notice the difference if you see a map like that) but instead because what's the point of making such a map? I mean there are newer engines that are able to do that, just to probe it is possible?

[Forge]

Mike Norvak, on 27 August 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Still I don't remember how those maps are classic maps, sure they are classic maps for the community, but otherwise they in essence refuse to be like classic maps, both on level of detail, gameplay and on how things are used.

er...wat?
they aren't classic maps aesthetically. that's what i was saying, but some of them have the 'classic' open world within its boundaries & go find a key and basic puzzle style play (welcome home isn't a perfect example, but it's close - probably better examples in the ADG epsiode, but i'm too lazy to look up and specify which maps, Asteroid stronghold & Lunar crossroad are pretty typical hub styled key card hunts as well as Roch 6 & 7 to name a couple) Ignoring eye candy and a few atypical sector effects, they play pretty much like a classic map with the floorplan/layout extended to a larger scale

so what are we calling "classic" style game play anyway? walk circles around in an open building ala E1L1, or following a linear path by running from to one side of a map to get a card, return back to near the start to use it, jump across canyons and chasms, find switches, use shrinker puzzles, drop down a hole in the floor ala The Abyss?

Mike Norvak, on 27 August 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

I'd like to see Those Puritan maps you are talking about.

very large, long, and detailed maps? He's made several of them (e.g. unaided mission)
I was just using him as an example. there are several pretty large and high-detailed maps by several authors. I don't think they're as uncommon as insinuated, and I don't think the assumption that high-detailing equals sacrificing length or game play.

[Robman]

To me, a classic style map consists of :

Minimal yet well placed and meaningful sprite work.

Intended texture use with minimal instances of compression/stretching. Little to no mapper "errors" visible.

Most objects/areas created serve a purpose.

Key/locked door gameplay + perhaps a puzzle or 2.

Full Co-op/Dm spawn points.

Makes good/practical use of the engine with 2-3 "high end" effect combination examples.

Good mix of SP + DM layout and ultimately efficient in design.

Medium in size.

Very few wide open areas.

Well balanced weapon/item/enemy ratio.

Skill levels implemented.

Scale (ceiling heights/doors and crawl spaces) generally a standard size to properly accommodate the player.

Classic style maps basically strive to be "real" while on a processor power budget. Duke(486) Sw(Pentium 90)

As for the future of mapping, as long as mappers exist there will always be different types of map makers. Usually trying to 1-up their previous works and improve their next map in areas where they feel they have struggled before.

It takes a certain magic for 1 map to truly emerge as a stand out, so many aspects have to be pulled off in an endearing/engaging seemingly perfect way that it's next to impossible without some type of je ne sais quoi. This type of map was not made in 1 day. Many hours of testing and thought are involved.

[Robman]

Here is what an oldschool (back in 97) french map maker had to say about " The build twilight zone," I found it's written nicely and gives you warm thoughts about your time spent building.

Depth of Game Design by Fabrice Demurger

Writing, it's like speaking you know : it's only words. We use words to give information, of course, but we use it in order to justify ourselves too… We think that we share information, but often we are only trying to convince other people that our own point of view is the best one, that we are nearest of the true than the others…

I worked for 18 months in a French video game magazine, I used to think that to express my opinions about video games i had to test was some kind of a creative activity. Since, I discovered Build and I can tell you that creativity is elsewhere… When someone listens to you, or read your texts, it's so much different when someone plays your map :

Any text is full of points of view given by the author, it can quickly and easily stinks… When a player is walking in your map, it's the opposite… Inside the map, the author (after the programmers, of course) is everywhere, behind each corner, each design, each item, each shading, each furniture (each trap, each puzzle, each trick, each FX is a gift to the player)… but the author keeps silent… The main goal is really to make the player forget that there is someone who creates this place… making the player having fun as much as possible, spending good time in this Twilight Zone, letting him to be the hero of the tale, letting him feel he is inside a realistic world, it's so much respectable than trying to make him think that you're the one who said the big true about anything…

Giving people opportunity of spending good time, while they forgot their usual troubles. Giving happiness and pleasure, even if it doesn't change the reality, this is the big quest of entertainment. Video game is like cinema in the early 20th century, scaring the generation before who do not understand this new media. I mean people who dunno what to do with this freedom, this responsibility they have to face, that is allowed by the game. This is why video game is stronger than the cinema, as people are now the main actors of the story, and nothing can or will change this new way of generosity… Okay, that's enough… Next time I'll speak about Build that looks like scale models : the Build user spends hours in a Twilight Zone, his mind really inside a place which possesses its own reality, full of microscopic details, trying to succeed in reaching perfection …this damned perfection that never ends…



@ Sw Central as well.

[High Treason]

This whole thing seems very black and white.Personally I hang around in a gray area, it was either Methy or Forge who dubbed my style "advanced classic" and I rather liked that label. There are maps by several other authors in a similar style. This probably states that I like both kinds of map.

> What do you prefer the most?
Neither. Any type of map can, if executed correctly, work well. There are extremely highly detailed maps that don't play well in the traditional sense but work for other reasons (The Thing), detailed ones that do play well (though usually at a slower pace than classic ones; It Lives), those gray area maps that are good all-rounders, classic ones that play exceptionally well and even classic ones that play like crap that are still good. There was one on YouTube a few years back, possibly one of Fernito69's, don't think it saw a release but it had some name like "Noob Trap" and was made to look like a noob map. The map played horribly, it looked awful... But it worked because it required you to know the intricacies of the game to get past each room; steroid jumps, strafe running, obscure keycard exploits, using enemies as elevators, hump-jumps and whatnot.

> Is there really a trend for doing more classic oriented maps nowadays?
I think it's probably just that there's an unexpectedly high number of mappers this year, many of them releasing their first levels. Most of the more experienced mappers seem to be tied up in WGR or AMC where maps don't look like Duke 3D enough for comparisons to be easy or even be considered when you look at them.

There is, however, a likelihood that as the community is smaller than it was a decade ago people just won't put the time in now. They won't get the same level of attention they did and that's demotivating for many people, other mappers simply retire or play with the editor less often. This would result in maps containing less details though it could easily produce ones that played well. It could also be possible that as the community is smaller and detailed maps take longer to make, the gap between the release of such maps seems to be longer.

> Are uber detailed maps getting the same attention than barely detailed maps, as far as the gameplay is ok on both?
All in all, I am unsure. I think it depends on who releases it, when they do it and how busy everyone else is at that time. If nobody is logging into the forum the map won't get the attention. Megaton users seemed to like lesser detailed maps, possibly as they like to DM (Traditionally, DM maps look crap) or possibly because their port is weird; I only released two maps on it and both of them required significant reworking to function with that port, most of that stuff worked in the original DOS executable so I have no idea where they botched it. However, there seems to have been an increase in the figures for more detailed levels.


As usual, excuse the tired ramblings.

[Micky C]

At some point I noticed that there's a considerable increase in scope and detail level between the original 3 episodes and the maps in episode 4 (most likely due to increased processing power of computers at the time?)

Episode 4 maps have rooms that tend to be less empty, and also focus more (a larger amount of) on smaller details. Plus arguably larger areas. I even think locations in episode 4 manage to pull off areas that look more like their real-life counterparts with a higher number of references to the functions the buildings would have, perhaps at least partly due to lots of specially designed specific art in the episode.

Would it be reasonable to break up "classic maps" into subcategories defined as super-classic episode 1-3 style vs the higher-detail, slightly more realistic but still undeniably classic episode 4?

[Gambini]

Quote

some of Fernando Marquez's maps. Some Roch maps. Some of Alejandro Glavic's maps, etc

Never liked Fernando´s maps so can´t judge them. Roch maps have NOTHING of classic. They didn´t look like any classic map at all and played quite horribly IMO. How the cameras that spoil the whole map in the very first room and the button collection excuse to make sure the player visits each area qualifies as classic? If it wasn´t because of that what does then make Roch maps play like classic?

All Alejandro´s maps I remember are short, linear and straightforward. That isn´t classic either.

Quote

i already mentioned some of Puritan's maps are breaking your law there

Even worse example. Of all the maps I tried from that author, %100 of them had at some point (mostly near the beginning), some kind of ridiculously impossible to figure out puzzle, switch hunt or "open all of these 15 doors and figure out which one lets you advance".

I agree with Methy and Norvak here (for the most at least) It Lives wouldn´t survive a strip-down without becoming shitty in the way. It´s one of the reasons I was so bothered when noticed somebody was playing it with the HRP or Polymer. Basically gameplay is tied to the visual experience, so nor one or the other would retain their essence without the other.

As for my opinion of how a good classic map should be, take a look at Geoffrey´s FBSP03: http://dukerepositor...ity_Under_Siege or Fruit Loops http://dukerepositor...aps/Fruit_Loops

There are others of course, but those are good to start with.

[MetHy]

Gambini, on 28 August 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

As for my opinion of how a good classic map should be, take a look at Geoffrey´s FBSP03: http://dukerepositor...ity_Under_Siege or Fruit Loops http://dukerepositor...aps/Fruit_Loops

FBSP003, and even FBSP002, are some of my fav maps too. In fact they even inspired me for what I did for Metropolitan Mayhem (the sandbags in the first map are directly taken from FBPS003; and Sex City is inspired by FBPS002 as much as it is inspired by XXX Stacy) and in fact I think FBSP002 and 3 did classic style better than MM. The FBSP series is actually a great example for this discussion, FBSP001 is a tight, cramped linear highly detailed BOBSP style map; but the 2 others are classic, and holy shit do they play better. Geoffrey really had a vision, and was very good at art direction, which is why his classic style works so well, he was able to stick with it even though most people would be tempted to go slighly beyond the classic style in a way or another. With FBSP001 he showed that he can make the highly detailed too, only to drop it to make better maps, and that was more than 10 years ago.

However I have to say that even FBSP003, just like most Metropolitan Mayhem maps, still lack something of the original classic. I say it's mostly due to how DM wasn't thought of when making the maps, and as a result they are less interconnected (even though FBPS003 is decent in DM).

[Forge]

Gambini, on 28 August 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

Roch maps have NOTHING of classic. They didn´t look like any classic map at all

for the love of.......
NOBODY is saying they LOOK like classic maps

you and Mike. it'd be nice if the entire post was fully read before conclusions were jumped to

Gambini, on 28 August 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

......the button collection excuse to make sure the player visits each area qualifies as classic? If it wasn´t because of that what does then make Roch maps play like classic?
All Alejandro´s maps I remember are short, linear and straightforward. That isn´t classic either.

are we implying that all 'classic' maps are E1L1 styled? Run around an open hub area and collect keys to unlock doors along the perimeter (like Roch 6 & 7).
are we saying all 'classic' maps are non-linear? (even though E1L5 & E1L6 are pretty damn linear), or you don't have to do a bunch of button puzzles and/or find semi-hidden switches as an "excuse to make sure the player visits each area" (ala E1L6)

Gambini, on 28 August 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

Even worse example. Of all the maps I tried from that author [Puritan], %100 of them had at some point (mostly near the beginning), some kind of ridiculously impossible to figure out puzzle, switch hunt or "open all of these 15 doors and figure out which one lets you advance".

what are you talking about?
Stupid/annoying gameplay wasn't even a factor in regards to using his levels as an example.

his maps were brought up because:
High detailing does not equal sacrificing length or size of the map. I could have easily used It Lives as another example since everybody's stuck on it in this discussion. (now of course someone's going to cry - It Lives looks nothing like a classic map, which is kinda the point - high-detailed and pretty long)

Gambini, on 28 August 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

I agree with Methy and Norvak here (for the most at least) It Lives wouldn´t survive a strip-down without becoming shitty in the way. It´s one of the reasons I was so bothered when noticed somebody was playing it with the HRP or Polymer. Basically gameplay is tied to the visual experience, so nor one or the other would retain their essence without the other.

Probably true. I'm not the one who specified that map, but that doesn't apply to each and every high-detail map. Some can be stripped down and still be good game play & aesthetically.
I just said it was possible to strip it down and make it "classic" styled visually.

[Gambini]

Forge, on 28 August 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

for the love of.......
NOBODY is saying they LOOK like classic maps

You quoted half the sentence which read:

Gambini, on 28 August 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

They didn´t look like any classic map at all and played quite horribly IMO.

Which involves both the aesethical and gameplay aspects of Roch maps. Moreover the concept was further supported with the rest of the paragraph:

Quote

How the cameras that spoil the whole map in the very first room and the button collection excuse to make sure the player visits each area qualifies as classic? If it wasn´t because of that what does then make Roch maps play like classic?

I don´t remember all the original maps and their layouts but I´m sure they didn´t were about a hub area and multiple buildings with no relation that you have to randomly visit for unlocking the exit. Roch´s gameplay had nothing to do with classic style and, as we already agree, visuals didn´t either.

Nothing wrong with the rest of your post.

MetHy, on 28 August 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

Geoffrey really had a vision, and was very good at art direction, which is why his classic style works so well, he was able to stick with it even though most people would be tempted to go slighly beyond the classic style in a way or another. With FBSP001 he showed that he can make the highly detailed too, only to drop it to make better maps, and that was more than 10 years ago.

Geoffrey is one mapper that I overlooked for a lot of time. He indeed had true artistic skills, has he cared more about Duke maps and we´d have lot of awesome maps to play. His AMC TC map (probably his last map?) was fantastic.

[Forge]

Gambini, on 28 August 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

You quoted half the sentence

because your point of view about video cameras and your dislike of how the maps plays weren't really relevant to anything I said, so i bypassed it.

Gambini, on 28 August 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

I don´t remember all the original maps and their layouts but I´m sure they didn´t were about a hub area and multiple buildings with no relation that you have to randomly visit for unlocking the exit.

hmm. there was a specific order in which the buildings needed to be unlocked in the two maps I mentioned. (i think you keep referencing that game-show one with the stack of red and blue keys)
several maps in episode 3 have multiple buildings with a street acting as a hub(with no relation? - not sure what that means, but they're different environments) that need to be visited in some particular order.


anyways, this is getting dumb.
the discussion went from 3DR styled game play and aesthetics compared to high-detailed game play and aesthetics - to now i have to repeat myself and constantly put up examples - then repeat myself again because people are skimming and not associating the examples with what they're being used for.

i concede:
-high detailed maps can never ever ever ever have have what is considered a 'classic' style layout, puzzles, or environmental interactivity
-taking the same base map and making two maps out of it -one classic & one high detailed- is absolutely impossible; the best possible outcome is one will suck while the other is good
-highly detailed map have to be short

if i forgot about something, i'm wrong about that too

[Sanek]

What if mappers will make nothing but the community projects? Of course, we'll have about 5 releases per year, but each one of these releases get a helluva lot of attention.

Oh, and I voted 2,2 and 2 on all questions.

[Sixty Four]

I honestly think if it's a good map then hell it's a good map. i like a challenge since i am really good in single player but i don't like to be overwhelmed completely with aliens i always thought the alien placement is best in original i kind of went for a death row setting in my ForeverDoom all the pigs behind the force field.But i think original alien placement is good because you know an alien sitting an alien hanging out. Where you place them is important to me because it can give character to the area. But anyway a good map is a good map plain or not imo.

[Kyanos]

Duke64Nukem, on 29 August 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

But i think original alien placement is good because you know an alien sitting an alien hanging out. Where you place them is important to me because it can give character to the area. But anyway a good map is a good map plain or not imo.

So true! Like hollywood bathroom, seeing the first guy in the mirror as you come down the hall, then one on the john, it's still one of my most memorable moments in duke.

[Micky C]

Yeah I was a big fan of for example Undertaker's section in the Beach CBP, where he made it look like the aliens were pressing buttons/operating computers, blowing open doors so they can shoot at you. Closing doors and turning off the lights etc. Makes the AI appear much, much smarter than it is and hence makes gameplay feel more interesting.

[oasiz]

This is something I tried to include in slum noir as well by using sounds alone. Quite a few cases where the sounds foreshadow an ambush or you hear an alien "use" an elevator in the distance and coming towards you. Not to mention the toilet scene later on in the map. A lot of these small sounds are easy to miss but things like these really add in my opinion. Operating buttons is something that happens at one point as well but it's pretty horribly executed

Sound based scripted events or enemy placement trickery is really cool. I should focus more on better placement as those ideas sound very neat.
Also goes back to my previous post on this thread, imagination does a lot. Fooling it in the right ways with a rather "simple" game is interesting.

[NNC]

Level design (details, spritework, shading etc) is important, but shouldn't take over the gaming experience. Gameplay is even more important, and shouldn't be relegated into a keycard hunting, button pushing linear monotonity with predictable enemy and respawn placement. I sometimes feel that mappers create amazing looking maps but care very little about the gaming experience that should be "fixed" in a couple of hours.

Also, progression should be mentioned as it's a huge part of the gaming experience. I mean in the map/episode you play, there must be an atmosphere of going from somewhere to somewhere. Entering a random city with a few keycard locks and finding them in the built order is not a progression, it's just idle gaming which can be excellent, but rather forgettalbe on the long run. This made some of the original levels like Dark Side, LA Rumble, Critical Mass, Derelict or the entire Episode 1 so special, and that made maps like Red 3, A Dream, Traffic Jam or the final parts of the LRWB TC so highly memorable as well. The DNF2013 TC is also a great example of progressive atmosphere, that might be the reason why it got the deserved exposure outside of the community.

[NNC]

I would love to see Allen Blum or Levelord to reenter the community and create maps just for fun with today standards. The final products would be very interesting.