Rank Mapping Qualities in Order of Importance

[Spectre01]

1. Atmosphere: While highly subjective, it's what elevates a good map to a truly great and memorable one.
2. Item Placement: This is a big one which is often problematic in older 90's wads and why I play them continuously. I usually enjoy a map from pistol start more if core resources are provided rather than obscurely hidden. Something is wrong if the player ends up with a bunch of ammo for a weapon they don't have. Also, placing items in front of switches or where the player can accidentally pick them up is not something I like.
3. Gameplay: This is a broad term, so I'll assume this refers to the combat. Obviously shooting is a core component in FPS games, so it should be fun. I'm not a huge fan of niche stuff that deviates too much from the core Doom formula, i.e. monster-less maps, AV-jumps, platformers, grind-maps etc. 
4. Difficulty: I like difficulty but I'm rather picky as to what type it is. I tend to prefer the challenge to be mechanical, with a focus on execution (dodging projectiles, prioritizing targets, using cover etc.), which remains engaging regardless of foreknowledge or repeated attempts.
5. Map Layout: I'm fine with both complex and simple layouts, as long as it's not like Wolf3D.
6. Texturing: As long as it's aligned properly and not mono-textured.
7. Geometry: I like cool sector work but also don't mind simple and functional aesthetics, i.e Scythe 1.
8. Music: Subjective, but I don't mind too much if I'm not a fan of the midi.
9. Story: I assume this is text-based. Nice to have but not necessary.
10. Map Size/Length: Does not matter. I only think a map is too long when it runs out of ideas. It's the same deal with how many maps a wad should have.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Spectre01

[holaareola]

1. Does it have sector toilets?

 

I can't boil it down, as a poster before me pointed out many of these are different facets of the same thing. Doesn't music have a role to play in creating atmosphere? Geometry and texturing work hand in glove. Map layout is gameplay as much as item placement and difficulty

 

I'm broadly gameplay first from play to play. But same time I probably won't carry another competently designed techbase/gston map with me, no matter how enjoyable. I think you need a strong visual identity or atmosphere to really ram home something as memorable.  Gameplay can be, but it'll usually collapse down into another arena fight with a horde of 500 revenants teleporting in or another sequence of E1 style incidental combat encounters or another arch-vile fight in a room with a bunch of pillars and be forgotten-- it's hard to do without gimmicks or annoying extremes.

[smeghammer]

Somewhat subjective I guess... I definitely have two different ways of looking at this kind of thing. So to split it up:

 

 - Maps with aesthetic appeal, or

 - Maps that are fun to play

 

The first can probably be summarised by the map Brigandine. Beautiful map but I never finished it :-(. So these kinds of map would be like so:

 

1. Atmosphere

2. Texturing

3. Map Layout

4. Geometry

5. Story

6. Item Placement

7. Gameplay
8. Difficulty
9. Map Size/Length
10. Music

The second - ooh, lets pick one at random... - might be summarised by Somewhere in Time:

 

1. Gameplay

2. Map Layout

3. Item Placement

4. Geometry

5. Texturing

6. Atmosphere

7. Story

8. Difficulty
9. Map Size/Length
10. Music

 

 

[yakfak]

gimme recommendations for these preferences:

Music

Map Layout
Atmosphere
Geometry
Story

Texturing
Item Placement
Map Size/Length

Difficulty

Gameplay

 

mmm I like wads to feel like art made in doom's engine rather than official add ons

[Omniarch]

I don't really feel I can rank these qualities in any sort of order, since, to me anyway, they are so interdependent so as to be inseparable. I do understand the question, though, and that different maps organize these qualities in different ways or even dispense with them entirely (for instance, a frankly disappointing number of wads underestimate the power of story in tying together other elements. More on that one later).

 

Let me put it another way. I personally place high value on atmosphere, but what constitutes a 'good' atmosphere? Certainly, music choice, texturing and geometry are the most important, and one could make a strong case for map layout and size playing a vital role in establishing the tone of the map as well. But I would also argue that gameplay (by which I mean encounter design), item placement and difficulty (which is primarily dictated by the previous two and map layout) also play a vital role in establishing the map's 'atmosphere'.

 

For example, my favourite IWAD map is E4M1, which I consider to be very atmospheric, among other things. Using E4M1 as an example, I'll examine what makes its atmosphere so strong by listing each quality and how it impacts the overall feeling of the map.

 

First, music. Sign of Evil is more associated in my mind with this map than any other. The feelings of hopeless desperation and alienation the song evokes perfectly set the stage for the most difficult experience in Ultimate Doom.

 

Second, texturing. The contrast of the green-gray marble against the surreal, dusk sky creates a dreamlike feeling of deathly, alien twilight.

 

Third, geometry. The harsh, blocky lines that constitute the play area give the map a feeling of brutal rigidity quite unlike anything else in Ultimate. This combined with the marble textures makes me feel trapped and isolated far more than dark mazes and crimson hellscapes ever could.

 

Fourth, layout. The contrast of vast, endless sky and tight, confined walkways, bordered by hard marble or damaging floors create a feeling of simultaneous claustrophobia and agoraphobia, which compliments the confined isolated described in three.

 

Fifth, map size. The small, tight and short nature of the map is what enables point four to function. Dragging the experience out would cause exhaustion and dampen its effect. Also, the short length of the map robs me of any sense of grand achievement and gives the impression of more misery to come (that no more maps of this caliber are forth-coming is beside the point).

 

Sixth, gameplay. The opening scene, going from total stillness to a cacophony of shotgun blasts in the blink of an eye sets the tone for the rest of the map, priming the player for ambushes and overwhelming odds. The combination of Shotgunners and Barons makes the fights especially grueling, combining attrition with the fear of instant death at the hands of the bruisers. This style of gameplay fits perfectly with the feel established by previous points.

 

Seventh, item placement. E4M1 is (as far as I know) unique among IWAD levels in that (on UV and HMP anyway), it completely lacks any sort of health items apart from a handful of desultory health bonuses. This, combined with the prevalence of hitscanners, creates a sense of acute anxiety in the player, which greatly accentuates both the gameplay and the atmosphere of the map. This choice is also enabled by the short, compact nature of the map, for obvious reasons.

 

And, finally, eighth, story. Now, at first glance, this one would appear to be the weak link, since, firstly, this place is supposed to be a representation of Earth, yet feels nothing of the sort and secondly, Thy Flesh Consumed as a whole is a tacked on interquel between Doom 1 and 2, diluting the feeling of hopeless desperation with the eventual triumph of the latter. However, I would not consider that the story, rather, Doom's dumbass excuse for a plot, which are not the same thing. Lets take a look at the story told by the maps themselves, and only in the context of Ultimate Doom itself, not the wider franchise. The player starts in a set of techbases, constructed in a logical, free-flowing manner, with incidental combat accompanied by generally upbeat music. Then, the player descends, into a place caught between reality and hell. The free-flowing layouts gradually begin to change into confounding labyrinths, the incidental combat replaced more and more by traps and tight encounters and the music takes on a somber and mysterious tone. The transformation is continued when the player descends still further, deep into the bowls of hell, finding more of the same labyrinths, only with more enemies and hazards, and fewer earthly textures tethering the spaces to reality.

 

Now, what is the next logical step? To descend further into the depths of alienation, what would be required? To do away with what little comfort remains, the last remnants of reality, the last quiet spaces found between traps and to expose, deprive and attrition the player in ways and to degrees not yet seen throughout the last three episodes. In short, make the whole map one giant trap.

 

And that context, to me anyway, elevates the experience beyond what it could otherwise be. Now, I care about what it is I'm doing far more than mere mechanical engagement would imply. To me, story is not plot, but rather a sense of wider context established by all the qualities of a map or map set. I feel Ultimate Doom is excellent in this area, and so are many of the pwads made for it. Doom 2, on other hand, lacks a strong sense of context, and thus, so do the majority of pwads derived from it (TNT, Plutonia and their derivatives are in the same bucket from my perspective). Which is a royal shame, seeing as Doom 2's combat is so much better than Ultimate's.

 

Anyway, that turned into a miniature essay quickly. TL;DR, I like all my map qualities equally, or at least find them to interdependent too separate and rank.

[uber]

1. Gameplay - Always top priority for me. While a good looking map will still stun you no matter how many times you've played it, I'm more fond of fun and highly replayable maps, even if their visuals are subpar, especially when matched with good music. Run-and-gun and fast flowing gameplay is doom at its very best in my opinion, and the relative simplicity of the core mechanics makes it not feel so overwhelming even when things get hectic. Skillsaw's work is the perfect example of what I look for in maps, his design strongly emphasizing good flow and action - while not sacrificing style either, but that's not the point here.

 

2. Music - Ranked this much higher up than most people here. A memorable song, or at least a fitting one, completely makes or breaks a map in my opinion, and even influences my playing style and preferences in a wad. Maps with my favorite music are usually the ones i clev to whenever I'm in the mood for a short session, even if others might be more enjoyable from a pure gameplay perspective.

 

3. Map Layout/Item placement - Decided to lump these two points together since I think they're too closely related as to separate them. I tend to prefer more linear (not fully linear of course) rather than super sprawling and complex maps, but there's a place for everything. I find backtracking boring as all hell, so creative ways to link every part of the map together is a huge plus in my book. Also, item progression should always dictate the flow of the gameplay. It's a great tool to incentivize the player to more around and explore more of the map: don't force me to shotgun a baron 10 seconds into the map, make me try and avoid him until I can get my hands on something better!

4. Difficulty - I like a good challenge, but not something absurd either. However, I'd rather play a map that is just out of my league than one that I can beat on autopilot.

 

5. Atmosphere - I'm taking this to mean general theming, which often goes hand in hand with the atmosphere of a map. I'm a sucker for abstract themes, especially those with lots of dark metal, lighting effects, scrolling textures and colored accent lights - Ribbiks' style is my favorite by far, his maps check all the boxes in terms of design (while also kicking my ass mercilessly), and he's the prime inspiration for my own mapping. Castles and other medieval styles aren't really my kinda thing, since they also tend to go against my preferred gameplay styles (cramped spaces, confusing layouts, slow paced), but I can absolutely enjoy them given they play well.

 

6. Texturing - Mostly referring to texture choices and alignment here. Same as above.

 

7. Geometry - Again, referring to the way the atmosphere/theming is executed in terms of complexity and polish. While still important, I'd prefer a map with rather simplistic geometry but excellent texture usage to a bland one with tons of sectors and complex architecture.

8. Uniqueness - Added this one to compensate for merging map layout and item placement, mostly referring to maps in the same wad. Surprisingly enough, I don't mind playing the nth techbase map in a row that much, as long as there's something to set it apart from the rest, be it a particular gameplay gimmick or a twist on the main theme. BTSX is a good example: some people find the first episode too homogeneous, and while it's true that overall there's not a ton of variation in terms of themes, details such as the usage of varying color schemes, music styles and gameplay philosophies are enough to make them feel different somehow while still remaining consistent.

9. Map Size/Length - As long as it doesn't go on for half an hour even when speedrunning, I'm pretty much fine with anything. Usually the sweet spot for me is between 3 to 10 minutes (after I've learned the map obviously, for blind runs it's usually 10+ min as I try to 100% the level) though, since I play saveless.

10. Story - Naturally, if I had two almost identical mapsets I'd pick up the one with the better (or actually present) story, but it's the least of my concerns. A natural progression between maps is also very nice to have, but since I always pistol start part of the effect is lost that way. Regarding text screens or lore, I couldn't care less about exposition 90% of the time, environmental storytelling is way more effective. I won't deny that it can set the mood though, as long as the writing is good enough.

Edited October 8, 2020 by uber

[Zulk RS]

1. Gameplay
 

Honestly, the thing I look for the most out of any wad is fun. The wad must be fun for me. It can be the most well designed, beautiful looking, amazing sounding, dripping with atmosphere, challenging and revolutionary wad in existence but if it's not fun to play, I don't like it. Fun is a very subjective quality however and what is fun differs from person to person. I have the most fun with Empyrion so it's my favorite wad of all time. After that is Ancient Aliens because I find that the 2nd most fun to play. I like Plutonia the least among the megawads because I don't find its style of gameplay fun. A wad can be the most god awful looking thing to exist but if it's fun, I don't care.

[Optimus]

1. Atmosphere
2. Gameplay
3. Texturing
4. Map Layout
5. Geometry
6. Item Placement
7. Music
8. Difficulty
9. Map Size
10. Story

[MFG38]

1. Gameplay + Difficulty
3. Atmosphere + Music (Put these together because I find that a fitting music track very often creates half of the atmosphere.)
5. Texturing
6. Map Layout
7. Geometry
8. Story
9. Item Placement
10. Map Size/Length

 

Roughly the above for Yours Truly.

[Biodegradable]

I don't care for this arbitrary numbered list bullshit, so I'm going to do my own thing here and tell you what I personally look for and enjoy in a map:

 

Layout/Design

The way the map is designed is the very first thing you notice, so the more creative a mapper has gotten with the map's theme and personality, the way the texture work delivers you a sense of atmosphere, how the map's layout gives you a impression of a particular environment be it more realistic feeling or completely abstract and how the architecture and geometry is shaped and held together.

 

Progression and Combat

These two I feel very much work together in a dance; how they flow together I think plays a big role in the fun factor. How dynamic is the combat? How are the demons being used in any given scenario? How does the map challenge the player in how they must overcome the obstacles to reach the exit. How cruel is the mapper being when it comes to the combat and are they being fair and give you an order of balance or are they just being an asshole and want to watch you squirm? How the map sets out the goals you have to obtain: Finding keys and/or switches to access areas you can't in the beginning, and how it has laid out the demons: which variants? how are they grouped together and do they work off each others strengths to make a challenging team-up? How do they populate an area to attack the player? Are they being used effectively according to their strengths? I believe the difference between making a map feel fun to play and being a boring schlep lies here. Master progression and combat, and you'll be able to make a map people will want to experience again and again.

 

Item Placement

How weapons and pickups are distributed can certainly make the difference between making the map either way too easy or really bloody difficult to the point of it being a huge pain in the arse. Balance is key and I think it links well to the measured cruelty a mapper puts upon the player. The way I've personally experienced what I would call a good sense of measured cruelty is how the mapper will reward the player for their persistence in overcoming a particular difficult fight with either a nice health/ammo/armour cache at the end or evenly distribute it through a tough area, just giving you a bit of health or some exta ammo at a crucial moment as if to say, "you're doing great fam, take this. You're gonna need it for what I got in store for you just up the road ;^)".

 

Map size

Personally, I like small to medium-sized maps, y'know the classic style. Bigger maps can be okay sometimes, but the REALLY big ones can be exhausting and overwhelming and also tend to be rather reliant on backtracking to an annoying degree. Rule of thumb for me: If a map looks like a Kandinsky painting, I'm probably not going to play it.

 

 

[Mayomancer]

1. Progression flow, 2. memorable rooms and landmarks, 3. resource management (includes weapon/ammo/health placement), 4. Good planned encounters, 5. Atmosphere and aesthetic

 

It's technically in order of importance, but i feel like all of them are very essential for a map to be called good, so you might change the order around. Highly detailed environments are certainly impressive, and contribute to the "polished" feel for a wad, but are not necessary for creating a visually striking map so technicality is not included in those

[Roofi]

1) The feeling I have on the map

 

A mix between atmosphere (especially the music) and gameplay. Does the choice of music match the difficulty of the map? Is the music adapted to the exploration gameplay for example? Does the theme make me feel like "X", an extremely easy but hellish map may seem strange to me. Is the tempo of the map adapted to the music? Mysterious music will often seem strange to me when the player is never forced to go slow.

 

2) Events management

 

A good map in my opinion should contain a minimum of scenarios. It's not just a sequence of rooms. To put it crudely, it's about how the mapper manages to create scenes that will forge the identity of the map. For example, it is not necessarily relevant to always put big fights. For example, the player has to explore a lot of small places before landing in a large area full of monsters.

 

3) Difficulty that can be overcome with skill and must not rely too much on RNG

 

I am open to difficult and easy maps. The only condition is that fights should not rely too much on RNG. I accept traps where the RNG can have a considerable part, but it should not be the essential condition to win.

 

4) Secrets

 

Maps should always have secrets.

 

5) Aesthetics 

 

Honestly, aesthetics alone is not worth much to me. I had a lot of fun on "ugly" maps. But if the mapper can create beautiful structures with solid gameplay, it's a plus.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Roofi

[wallabra]

Can I rank the way people rank mapping qualities too?

 

1. Being bold

2. Being silly

3. Being fair and to the point

4. Interesting picks

5. Not suckering to a mob (collective opinion)

6. Not being Wyatt Koch

 

To be fair, I think #6 is a bit of a big point, maybe it should be placed a bit higher up. :P

 

[Andromeda]

18 hours ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

1. Gameplay
2. Atmosphere
3. Texturing
4. Geometry
5. Music
6. Item Placement
7. Difficulty
8. Map Layout
9. Story
10. Map Size/Length

 

[snapshot]

1 - Gameplay (intuitive layout, fun to go through...etc)

2 - Atmosphere (ambience, good soundtrack...etc)

3 - Story

4 - Everything else

Edited October 9, 2020 by sluggard

["JL" was too short]

On 10/7/2020 at 10:26 PM, Albertoni said:

Eh, if you threw me a "museum" walking simulator map where cool graphic effects or scripting effects with things were the main attraction, I'd be very much amused and rank it very high on my list of favorite maps. Just because Doom has very few good ways to implement gameplay doesn't mean throwing them all out by the window and focusing on something else isn't possible.

 

^  This.  I'm very much into the occasional (nearly?) monsterless concept map like the first map of Chris Lutz's Inferno, or that one map in, I think, Hell Ground.  Not to say I'd want every Doom map to be like that, certainly not, but I'd much rather have a Hell walking simulator made by the likes of a Lutz or a Bridgeburner than have the world's best gameplay clad in DB's default textures (not that it's a binary choice between those two extremes, mind you).

 

Anyway, as others have commented, some of these qualities seem to be subsidiary to others, in the sense that it's hard to have, say, atmosphere without at least some level of texturing and geometry competence.  So I'll organize my ranking accordingly:

 

1. Atmosphere

- Texturing

- Geometry

- Story

 

2. Gameplay

- Map layout

- Item placement

- Difficulty

 

<insert huge gap here>

 

3. Map size/length

4. Music

 

(sub-qualities are still ranked in order of importance, with e.g. deft use of texturing being of slightly more importance than geometry per se)

[El Juancho]

1. Gameplay

2. Gameplay

3. Gameplay

4. Gameplay

5. Gameplay

6. Gameplay

7. Gameplay

8. Gameplay

9. Gameplay

10. Gameplay

[Iacobus]

   Presentation - It's the difference between "look what I did in the editor, tell me how good it is" and "I'm here to offer you a solid experience", and I'm not referring to 'my first wads' specificaly. You can tell how much effort and passion the person put into the project just by the way it is presented in the forum thread. Not all well presented projects turn out to be great but all great projects tend to be well presented. It doesn't affect gameplay directly but surely can help setting the mood and willingness of the player towards it. Does it have custom tittle screen, custom music? What the first room looks like? These all give you a cue on how experient the author is and help buliding trust in their design skills right way.
   
   Cohesion - Anything that feels off sticks like a sore thumb, glues onto the player's mind and have a lasting effect during gameplay and afterwards on the judgement the player will make of the map. It goes from aesthetics and use of sounds/music/assets to gameplay. Something simple and totally vanilla can have a lot of charm and appeal, the mapper has to actually put a lot of effort into making something ugly, annoying, off-putting or unsettling in a bad way.    
   When it comes to gameplay, it involves anything that hinders progress or confuses the player for lack of communication or breking rules previously set, pointless rooms or combat setups that don't lead to progress and are there just to punish or confuse the player, etc .
   
   Gameplay - It's a mix of layout progression and combat. Dull combat dumbs down the whole experience no matter how good the layout is and a confusing/flat/cramped/empty/too-long-for-its-own-sake layout can make combat feel like chore and grindy even when monster placement is well thought out. Clear goals with variety in combat and interesting layouts is what in general keeps players on their toes with a high level of engagement and a good feeling of progression.
   
      In short, a good presentation helps to drag attention to the project, allows the players to know what they're in for, and shows the amount of care and thought the author put into it. A cohesive experience helps keeping the player engaged and in the zone, without getting lost or stuck. A well matched layout/combat combo with clear goals is the bottomline to offer a decent gameplay experience and a rewarding sense of progression to keep the player interested.

[DooM Bear]

For me it’s gotta be:

 

0. Fun!!! - it could be an amazing tech demo pushing the bounds on every front but if it isn’t fun, that’s a problem :-P
1. Gameplay

2. Difficulty 

3. Geometry - hate feeling constantly lost

4. Map layout - goes with above
5. Atmosphere

6. Item placement
7. Texturing
8. Music
9. Map Size/Length

10. Story