How Heavily Do You Weigh Gameplay Vs Visuals?

[garudave]

Maps can be good with the effort skewed one way towards visuals or combat, but most of the maps I have rated 9 or 10 have exciting action and visual flair working in tandem to create a memorable experience.

 

Maps like Transduction and Toxic Touch spring to mind.  The action of those maps establishes rhythm that makes the visual design come at the player in fluid fashion.  It creates an atmosphere that transcends the arcade game roots of Doom and leaves the player feeling immersed.  

 

Another personal classic from TNTR is Fortress of Bullets, which definitely skews harder on the gameplay side of the spectrum, but has a few visual peaks that make it super-memorable.  Go 2 It qualifies too in similar ways.

 

If I had to pick an outlier, something like Mt Erebus gave me definite "classic" vibes while also being kind of ugly.  The combat never really pops in that map either, even compared to earlier maps in Doom 1.  So it's a special case, I would say the audacious design and the free form nature of the ambushes really give it a special quality that allows it to stand alone among the other maps in Doom 1.  It feels very improvisational.

 

In short, I tend to like maps that have both combat and visuals more than maps that favor one or the other.  Sometimes a map comes along that breaks the mold of what you can expect out of a Doom map though, and that also factors in to my personal rating system. 

 

Ps I have to agree with the earlier post mentioning that music is a big component of a good Doom map, most of the maps I really like have good tunes to go with them.

 

 

[whybmonotacrab]

To steal Notjabba's rating system: 

 

Combat/flow: 50%

Aesthetic craft/beauty: 20%

Storytelling/concept: 30%

 

 Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed by beautiful maps, but I'm much more interested in a strong gameplay hook though. I want the visuals to give the set a sense of place and a sense of being, but a set having God Tier visuals will only carry it so far if the gameplay/atmosphere isn't grabbing me.

[1Destro3456]

Like someone else said, 40% visuals and 60% gameplay, like screenshots are my selling point to a map, because I already have a big backlog of games and wads I want to see the visuals, of course if its speedmaps or something, I'll gladly take like 70-80% gameplay and 20-30% visuals because of the time limit but man a regular ass map, I want the visuals to at least be cohesive, like I don't care if your map is really detailed as long as the texturing is fine on the walls that you have, and don't have a bunch of misaligned textures, I'm not saying it can't have misaligned textures, specially if it barely has been released but if its a lot I don't expect the gameplay to be great. Or what about visual narrative and language, like I can't with a map that doesn't naturally go between themes, it just looks disjointed, and for visual language, I'll never think than a STARTAN wall is  lift or a door, and I'll never excuse not having a texture showing that a door needs a certain colored key. 

[yakfak]

honestly I don't care about the gameplay. if you replaced all the monsters in yr map with basic zombiemen I wouldn't have any less fun, I like exploring creative spaces and hearing new music.

 

had a theory lately that cos I started gaming round Amiga and DOS times, an era where it was hard for devs to really master good controls, since there weren't very good DOS key layouts to copy and the popular Amiga joystick only had one fire button, artists and scenario writers took over the space the gameplay should have gone in and that's still the feel I prefer.

[magicsofa]

Poor gameplay will usually make me quit a wad faster than poor visuals. But really, either aspect could be so bad that I want to quit. If my eyes are burning, good combat won't save it.

Point being, I'm trying to play a game here, not just look at it.

EDIT: Everyone should remember that "good" is subjective. I actually think the 90's pixelated look is more aesthetically pleasing than the 2020's more-detailed-than-reality look. Some of us enjoy simple, bold shapes. Similarly with combat, just because it's not the cutting edge of perfectly crafted arena battles doesn't mean it isn't "good." Sometimes less is more, a tough thing to remember when mapping!

Edited July 3, 2021 by magicsofa

[King Know-Nothing]

It is really interesting reading through this thread, because I definitely expected a lot of 'it takes a mix' type arguments, but was surprised at the spectrum of the answer. I guess that plays into the nature of an infinite number of points on a line type deal, right?

 

I honestly think a huge part for me is expectation. Which isn't to place my opinions on the shoulders of hype or the reviews of others, but more really on what my headspace is when looking for something to play or when I come across a WAD. For instance, to kind of bring it back around, when I first booted up Doom just a few years ago, I knew I was getting into a relatively older game and instead of looking at it as dated, I find charm in it because its what I was expecting or honestly very much what I was looking for. I get into a lot of older games because there is something in the visuals I find charming and on a meta-level, it kind of lets me peer into that period of time and look at them how someone might have when they were new. Someone might find them rough, but that part of my brain doesn't really register it as such? Like a sort of media-relativism.

 

I think this also kind of plays into WADs a lot. If I am picking one up, there is a sort of expectation with varying factors related to the WAD I take into account, either consciously or subconsciously, which will effect if I continue to play it or if I am outright enjoying it. Older WADs which I have some understanding of the limitations will not so much get a pass, but will be played with the accepting and an intrigue to its creation, though that might just be the super amateurish historian-soul in me talking. Newer WADs with flashy exteriors will also have this same kind of consideration in mind, though more might be expected.

 

Though, more minute things can play into this as well, albeit its on a more whim-of-the-mind type deal that no creator can really plan for. A WAD might have well crafted scenery and combat, but if it isn't what I was expecting or put myself in the headspace for, it will be hard for me to adjust to it until I find myself ready for it naturally. So, along with the technical theory-based side of design playing into game play, presentation on a 'aesthetic meets intent-of-play' level can effect how much fun I initially have with it.

 

If I had to make a definitive lean in one direction, I would probably say that good visual design will help me get into it faster and immerse me more so than the same level matched with game play.

["JL" was too short]

Let me put it this way:

 

If a map has amazing visuals but shit gameplay, I can at the very least type IDDQD / any other necessary cheat codes and derive some enjoyment from walking around in it.  I feel that would still be worth my time. 

 

If a map had amazing gameplay but shit visuals, I'm not aware of any cheat code I could type that would make me consider it worth my time to play.  There are enough good-looking maps and projects already out there that by the time I was done with playing all of them, I'd probably be about ready to take a break from Doom for a few months.

 

Really, though, the question is academic—not that OP said otherwise—because in 2021 it's eminently reasonable to expect a minimum level of competence in both, at least as far as 'released' maps go (helping newer mappers looking for feedback is obviously another matter, but one that I think falls outside of OP's exercise).

[Cruduxy Pegg]

If the game play is amazing why would you need to use cheats in a normal play through? Cheats that give ammo or health would help if it is too hard and no difficulty settings exist. 

["JL" was too short]

Assuming that was in response to me, I think you've missed the point of the dichotomy there.

[Cruduxy Pegg]

24 minutes ago, jerrysheppy said:

Assuming that was in response to me, I think you've missed the point of the dichotomy there.

No I don't understand why a map with amazing gameplay would compare to a map that plays like complete shit in their independent categories. Part of good gameplay includes map flow and ease to navigate, these two scale horribly with shitty looking maps.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Pegg

[yakfak]

can someone actually name a shitty looking map from the last twelve years? Are we still mad at maximum doom or something

[Naarok0fkor]

Gameplay...above all else...

[Deadwing]

Gameplay first, but with the amount of high quality projects being released this year, creative and unique settings will call a lot my attention

[roadworx]

6 hours ago, yakfak said:

can someone actually name a shitty looking map from the last twelve years? Are we still mad at maximum doom or something

depends on what people define as "shitty"

[Murdoch]

Good gameplay will compensate for crappy visuals far better than good visuals will compensate for crappy gameplay. That said, I will not be likely to download a map in the hopes it has good gameplay if the screenshots look bad.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Murdoch

[jmac]

I've thought a lot about this in the past, and I think the best way I can describe my opinion is this: visuals are what make a map memorable, gameplay is what makes me want to go back to a map and replay it.

 

Both are important, but gameplay should take priority. I can respect a map with great visuals but bad gameplay, but I'll still have a lot more fun playing an ugly map with great gameplay.

[jazzmaster9]

When it comes to mapping its a balance of Both for me. I see Visuals and Gameplay as equals, where one supports the other.

[Zakken]

Presentation is a huge factor when it comes to drawing my attention to take the first step towards trying out a wad. Something that looks clearly distinct and avant-garde like Sunder, Eviternity or BTSX is far more likely to draw me in than your typical oldschool mapset made with vanilla aesthetics in mind that have been seen countless times before. Doom does have the advantage of having an inherently enjoyable core experience, so as others pointed out, one would almost have to intentionally screw up the gameplay loop to make it not fun to play. In summary, my favorite wads are always those that offer the best overall "experience", which is often associated with top-notch visuals and music front and center.

["JL" was too short]

On 7/6/2021 at 11:26 AM, Pegg said:

No I don't understand why a map with amazing gameplay would compare to a map that plays like complete shit in their independent categories. Part of good gameplay includes map flow and ease to navigate, these two scale horribly with shitty looking maps.

 

That's an interesting point, I hadn't considered that a sufficiently monotonous, simple, or eye-hurting map could be considered to have its gameplay negatively affected along with its visuals.  I was thinking of gameplay mostly in terms of monster and resource placement, & fight choreography.

 

But my specific meaning in the post you were responding to was that there is no cheat code to help mitigate bad visuals the way there are cheat codes to help mitigate bad gameplay.