Are Wads objectively or subjectively good?

[HombreSal]

Could've chosen art as a topic but wads is more Doom so let's go with that.

 

Do you think all wads are equal? Are Wow.wad and Habitat just as good as Babylon's Chimera, Beast Island or Prison? Simple as that. I believe what's competent and what's not has some degree of objectivity, and then when it''s good enough things get more subjective.

 

If you don't want to be harsh on other fellow users' creations, you are free not to use examples of wads made by the community (I don't mind it, but ah well). I guess you could make comparisons between commercial wads if not. Otherwise you can just make up your own examples or not use any.

 

EDIT: I ask this too because someday I'd like to make a wad. However, if it's all subjective, how do I know what'll make it good or not??

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by HombreSal

[continuum.mid]

Mostly subjective, because no two people will experience the same WAD in the exact same way, and different people have different definitions of "a good WAD." There's no objective standard that can be universally applied to art while reflecting how it is experienced.

 

The closest we can get to objectivity is subjective positions that almost everyone is likely to share. So wow.wad is something that everyone is likely to agree is poor, for example. One can also say that a WAD is "low-effort" or "high-effort," "minimalistic" or "complex," etc without making a judgement of quality.

Edited April 28, 2021 by northivanastan

[1Destro3456]

There are areas that are objectively good, like if it has an ending it's objectively better than a map that doesn't because I can finish it at least, or if I just did a map were there was a platform and below you a thousand archviles below you with an exit after all of them well Equinox is objectively better, but there are subjective stuff. Like, is a good linear map better than an also considered to b good non-linear map? No. It all comes to preferences.

 

 

TL;DR yes but actually no

[Pseudonaut]

Subjective. And that doesn't mean Wow.wad is just as good as Sunlust, but some weirdos might like it as much. Theoretically, I suppose you could quantify the amount of work put into a wad, but that's different from how enjoyable it is, as I'm sure many people think Sunder is insufferable.

[Bauul]

Arguably its all subjective, as ultimately everyone experiences a map according to their own requirements for it.  If all I want in life is a map that has an illusio-pit and a single Cyberdemon, then wow.wad is the best thing ever.  "Goodness" is not an objective measure of a map.

 

However, that's not to dismiss a subjective opinion as unimportant because of a lack of objectivity.  Because you can objectively quantify the extent of a subjective opinion.  If you ask 100 people to play your map, and 100 say they didn't enjoy it, that's still a subjective opinion, but it's an objective fact that 100% of people shared the same opinion and should be understood as such.  

Edited April 28, 2021 by Bauul

[Nine Inch Heels]

Contrary to popular opinion thus far, there are objective qualities a map can have, most of which revolve around the "behind the scenes" stuff, for instance conveyor scripts for boom-format maps, teleport closets for any type of map, basically any element that makes your objet d'art "move" and "come alive"...

 

For example, eviternity is, objectively, a popular WAD, because it aligns with the subjective preferences of a great many players, however, from a technical POV, it is objectively sub-par, which manifests itself for instance in the way "looping conveyor scripts" are set up in several maps, or how "failsafes" don't exist where they might be needed to make sure that "critical scripts" always work, regardless of how much the player abuses the map (knowingly or not)...

 

When you look at things like gameplay, difficulty, pacing, visuals, texture composition, even choice of music, anything that "provokes", for lack of a better expression, an emotional response for some reason... That's where people can be wildly different, and there is not a lot of point in arguing back forth which concept you introduce to your map has "merit" or not, unless it's "extreme cases", but it can at least be reasoned and argued how well your map does at accomplishing what you wanted your map to do...

 

So the answer is that some elements in a map can be looked at objectively, but most of those elements are not what most of the players actually happen to see, unless they investigate the map for example in a builder (or it softlocks), because the bottom line is that maps, regardless of genre or target audience, have moving parts that are supposed to be working. Maps are more than "oh look how pretty! much sectors, much wow" maps are also systems operated by the player as they play. It's the same with cars, you may or may not like how a ford mustang looks or handles, but you can objectively state wether or not the thing gets you from point A to point B...

Edited April 29, 2021 by Nine Inch Heels

[Noiser]

In a large scale everything related to art is subjective, because there's a multitude of factors that comes to mind to create your perception of what is good or bad. Some of them are more important to you then it is for others. Not only that, but your own opinions may change over time.

That doesn't mean that different types of art are equal or made with the same amount of effort - you can measure the quality of something if you isolate them on specific topics - but that doesn't make them objectively better as a whole, because these topics may be - as you can imagine - more or less important to you then to others.
 

1 hour ago, HombreSal said:

EDIT: I ask this too because someday I'd like to make a wad. However, if it's all subjective, how do I know what'll make it good or not??  

You already have your own idea of what is good or not for you. Just choose your own metrics and stick to them.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Noiser

[Mayomancer]

I believe that ultimately, it's purely subjective, but that doesn't mean it's any easier to make a good map. The mapper can have a non-conventional vision of what they want to make, and different players will have different opinions about aspects like aesthetics or difficulty, but it's always painfully obvious when a map just doesn't have the dedication put behind it. It end ups being about how well the mapper executes their intention with a project, and how enjoyable it is to the target audience. It's really really hard to make a great wad.

 

Edit: After some thought, there is objective quality indicators for a wad, such as providing resources for the player do complete an intended task, being possible to finish complete the level without cheats, don't do things like unreachable secrets or items, and have the wad being possible to run in the first place. Maybe i missed some stuff, but those are just bad no matter what you're trying to do lol.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Mayomancer

[Murdoch]

Bit of both. For example, I could slap together a map in under ten minutes which is two massive rooms connected by an excessively large door with tiling door textures, and slap a cyber in the other room with no ammo, no better weapons, and no exit. No one's going to call that good. That's an extreme example, but it illustrates that there's definitely aspects of construction where the vast majority of people would look at a particular map and agree it's objectively bad. Similarly, you could say it has objectively bad gameplay. One cyber versus a pistol and 50 bullets, that's not going to be fun, even to the most extreme of masochists.

 

For example, I dislike Plutonia and Doom 64 immensely. I just do not find them fun to play. I would call them objectively well made on the whole and I suspect most would agree with me, but subjectively due to the gameplay design I dislike them. Good gameplay definitely compensates for less than ideal design more than good design compensates for crap gameplay. Many of the classic megawads have some less than well put together maps, and certainly they falter further compared to many modern releases. But they are generally pretty fun to play still.

 

 

[roadworx]

completely subjective. what's considered good now may be considered shit in the future

[Noiser]

54 minutes ago, Mayomancer said:

Edit: After some thought, there is objective quality indicators for a wad, such as providing resources for the player do complete an intended task, being possible to finish complete the level without cheats, don't do things like unreachable secrets or items, and have the wad being possible to run in the first place. Maybe i missed some stuff, but those are just bad no matter what you're trying to do lol.

From a game design POV it is objectively bad, but on a large scale it's not. If someone just want to kill some demons and doesn't care if he will finish the level or not, it will not be bad for him. I don't think it's possible to quantify what is objectively good for everyone, but you can do that through specific criterias.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Noiser

[Gokuma]

If someone makes a wad in the forest, does anybody play it?

[Mayomancer]

3 minutes ago, Noiser said:

From a game design POV it is objectively bad, but on a large scale it's not. If someone just want to kill some demons and doesn't care if he will finish the level or not, it will not be bad for him. I don't think it's possible to quantify what is objectively good for everyone, but you can do that through specific criterias.

If we go back far enough yeah, but i do believe that if it goes against the premise of the map it can be considered objectively bad for that. For example, if i post a completely serious and straight forward, conventional Doom map for e1m1, but a door required to progress just doesn't work. It was not something i planned, nor something anyone playing the map will like, so at that point might as well just say it's bad right?

[P41R47]

Subjective, as i don't like Valiant pretty much, and it is universally loved by almost all.

Now people could argue with me why i don't like it, but that wouldn't change how i feel about it, even if i understand their points.

Thats subjectivity, having your own opinion about something, and not fearing to spoke it or just deciding on just going with the flow for the sake of not look like a Lunatic (i like that).

Before anyone start quoting or mentioning, I like Valiant, i don't like how it sounds... and that kinda ruins the whole experience for me :/
I had no problem with the maps, they are excellent, just the music and the sounds.

The pistol sounds too much biffier, the music is... kinda happy? Its good music, but i don't hear it fitting.

The same happened to me when i played Heartland first map. It was like playing a Sonic game on how cheerful and upbeat that sounds.

Now, the music isn't itself the problem, as i like it, as pretty much anything stewboy composed, i just don't found it fitting.

But thats my opinion and probably i will be bashed for it. :P

 

And it is also objective, as every human being develops a sense, a notion, a common sense that tells you what is good or has quality, and what not.

Pretty much as @Murdoch said, good gameplay lift bad design or bad aesthetic to really high heights, as The Plutonia Experiment is pretty much a rip off fest with almost no aesthetic at all, but plays brutally well, if you like to be shamefuly ripped apart by stupid traps on almost every map.
By that, one can appreciate something, but not like it.

 

So @HombreSal, whatever you do with your map, if you like it, and if you think its the best you can do, no body can tell you its bad.
It is subjective that a lot of people, used to the ''high standars'' our community offered us through the years, probably will not like a begginer map, or a simple desing with good gameplay. maybe that will make it not being overlooked, but just that.
On the other hand, your common sense will also tell you if your map is good.

As a matter of fact, if you map is as good as an IWAD map, it is certainly good.
May not be liked by some, but it is objectively good.

 

Simple as that.

[Mayomancer]

6 minutes ago, P41R47 said:

Subjective, as i don't like Valiant pretty much, and it is universally loved by almost all.

Now people could argue with me why i don't like it, but that wouldn't change how i feel about it, even if i understand their points.

Thats subjectivity, having your own opinion about something, and not fearing to spoke it or just deciding on just going with the flow for the sake of not look like a Lunatic (i like that).

That's totally valid, there has been a lot of well praised wads or even games other than Doom that i don't like out of a particular pet peeve or aesthetic preferences. Whether something having aspects you don't enjoy detracts from the "quality" of it or not is debatable though. Things are just too complex to put a good or bad label on them, maybe we just do it to simplify things i guess

[Noiser]

2 hours ago, Mayomancer said:

If we go back far enough yeah, but i do believe that if it goes against the premise of the map it can be considered objectively bad for that. For example, if i post a completely serious and straight forward, conventional Doom map for e1m1, but a door required to progress just doesn't work. It was not something i planned, nor something anyone playing the map will like, so at that point might as well just say it's bad right?

I would say that it is bad for me and for the vast majority of players. Still, I can't predict what people will think about it with 100% of accuracy. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Noiser

[Mayomancer]

3 minutes ago, Noiser said:

I would say that it will be bad for me and the vast majority of players. Still, I can't predict what people will think about it with 100% of accuracy.

Agree but we don't really need 100% accuracy, just whether they will like it or not. Best case scenario, they might idclev through the door after making sure no other way to progress and not be bothered by it too much, but i really feel it's safe to say absolutely no one would particularly like that aspect of the wad.

[Noiser]

You have a good point, but then you are not analysing the wad as a whole but just one aspect of it. I guess we are just discussing semantics at this point, but without accuracy I don't think you have true objectiveness. You can be real on a mechanical or technical POV, but not on a broader sense of what is likeable or not. That's my impression at least.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Noiser

[Csucskos]

2 hours ago, HombreSal said:

EDIT: I ask this too because someday I'd like to make a wad. However, if it's all subjective, how do I know what'll make it good or not??

Make it so you think it's good. Simple as that. People will tell you what should you do but that's only their opinion so don't take them as indesputable truth. If you see some good ideas adopt them, else make what you think is good. You can't satisfy everyone, so at least make yourself happy.

[Doomkid]

Anything that is a judgement of artistic value or fun factor is subjective inherently, these are opinions and cannot be objective by definition.

 

The only thing that’s objective are things like sector count, linedef count, monster count, etc. Even on the visual front, what colours are complimentary according to a colour wheel is an objective thing, so you could say “this area objectively uses complimentary colors”. As to wether or not that’s good or bad, fun or not fun, enjoyable or shitty? Completely subjective by their very nature.

 

EDIT: As Bauul says, you can also point to objective numbers for things like reviews - Of 100 people who played, 90 objectively gave it a high score, so from that you can surmise the wad has great mass appeal, and none of that is a matter of opinion.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Doomkid

[whirledtsar]

I would say there are aspects that can objectively be said to create a poor experience for average players, eg. complete flatness, lack of lighting, unpredictable instant death traps, etc. However, overall wads are still subjective because some people can find enjoyment in bad wads, hate playing commonly-lauded wads, and so on.

[Jacek Bourne]

Gameplay is subjective. Quality is not. What I mean by quality is how well a map is made to run properly every time without fail.

[DuckReconMajor]

 

15 hours ago, HombreSal said:

Are Wow.wad and Habitat just as good as Babylon's Chimera, Beast Island or Prison?

 

In the end they are just bits in memory.

Maybe in the future someday we'll be able to track every single human reaction to stimuli, and we can test wads that way lol.

Even with objective measures like that, though, it still depends on the goals of the creator, intended audience, etc.

 

15 hours ago, HombreSal said:

I ask this too because someday I'd like to make a wad. However, if it's all subjective, how do I know what'll make it good or not??

 

I am by no means a mapper, just someone who's seen plenty of threads with this sentiment.

People think you can just hunker down and polish one piece of work to perfection by some objective measure, when in reality it almost never works like that in any art form.

There was one user years ago who made a decent map, then took every bit of feedback, made changes and reposted and reposted like "Is it good now? How about now?"

At some point I was trying to find a nice way to say "it's as good as it needs to be. maybe start something new"

 

Anyway, Jimmy just released the best startup tutorial for mapping i'd ever seen