How do you go on studying other people's maps?

[RHhe82]

So, I managed to boot up UDB for the first time in quite while, several months anyway, and decided to finally do the Doomworld Maximum project map I promised to attend back in January.

 

I usually struggle in the beginning, when I'm just placing the first sectors. Nothing seems to work, map feels doomed from the get-go. I need to have the first area mapped out before I begin to see this could be a map. Happened this time, too. Coincidentally, this was something that was also briefly discussed in Nirvana's podcast with Scotty, they said something like that starting a map is the phase in mapping they hate the most (or like the least). They were also talking about at looking at other people's maps as some sort of learning experience.

 

So, my new map is shaping as per usual - I have some sort of central area, the starting room with DOOR3 behind the player. I can already see the end result being quite simple Plutonia '95 pastiche, a decent run-of-the-mill map, nothing more, hopefully nothing less. Coincidentally, when I last doodled in UDB, I wanted to make a map in vein of one of Scotty's Haste entries, MAP01 - The Barbican. I really like the red fortress in a middle of lava lake, which itself is in a middle of some wilderness (or at least it appears so).

 

But I can't do it. I look in the UDB, and try to see how I would go on about creating something similar. I mean the main area -- the baron corridor and cyberchamber at the end would be easy, but the primary area. I try and look for sectors with low numbers, guessing they were made first, but in the end I don't seem to get any wiser. Same thing happened earlier when I wanted to imitate early Sunlust maps, somehow I'm unable to conjure up anything resembling the desired result.

 

It's probably just a matter of experience. I should just map more and maybe I'd be hit by a revelation, or maybe I'd hit some threshold after which I would benefit from looking at maps I admire. Or maybe I should look at simpler maps. I don't know.

 

So, the question: do you guys learn by looking at other people's work with a looking glass, ie. UDB (aside from playing a lot, naturally)? If so, how do you go on about it?

[Thelokk]

All the time, I pretty much open in UDB and study all and any maps I enjoy. I look a lot at volumes, spaces, the way the bigger picture flows compared to my playthrough - very often, once you take away all blatantly decorative sectors, you will find pretty much every map boils down to a bunch of basic geometric shapes, it's simply the nature of Doom architecture.

 

 

I mean, let's take the example you made, Haste map01: under all the frills, it really is just three / four rectangles inside a circle, and a corridor with a room jutting out of its south end. Everything else is decoration and eye candy. 

 

I also take note of generalized actions 'cause there is a lot of not so intuitive stuff that can be done with them, and dummy sectors setups since I'm not very good at them and I'm always interested in finding a new use for them.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Thelokk

[RHhe82]

12 minutes ago, Thelokk said:

All the time, I pretty much open in UDB and study all and any maps I enjoy. I look a lot at volumes, spaces, the way the bigger picture flows compared to my playthrough - very often, once you take away all blatantly decorative sectors, you will find pretty much every map boils down to a bunch of basic geometric shapes, it's simply the nature of Doom architecture.

 

[clipped the neat image of Haste map01]

 

I mean, let's take the example you made, Haste map01: under all the frills, it really is just three / four rectangles inside a circle, and a corridor with a room jutting out of its south end. Everything else is decoration and eye candy. 

 

I also take note of generalized actions 'cause there is a lot of not so intuitive stuff that can be done with them, and dummy sectors setups since I'm not very good at them and I'm always interested in finding a new use for them.

 

It's basically as simple as you make it sound, basic shapes bent to look cool (fiery hot). That's the charm of Doom mapping; easy to learn, hard to master. But even trying to look at it your way, I still have find it hard to understand how would I start creating the level. The big circle first? Or am I just making it feel harder than it actually due to lack of faith.

 

As for generalized action and other stuff; that's actually something I have learned by looking other maps in UDB; all the Boom voodoo magic and elaborate sector joins to achieve the exact floor raise/lower effects I want.

[Walter confetti]

When I did Pandora MAP11, based upon James Ojaste maps, I've downloaded his maps from the archives then first played and wrote the main traits, like monster and textures usage then opened it on editor and wrote as well more technical details like the map size, shaping and other stuff...

Doing the same thing with a secret shovelware style episode in the works...

Edited July 24, 2022 by Walter confetti

[Bauul]

1 hour ago, RHhe82 said:

I try and look for sectors with low numbers, guessing they were made first, but in the end I don't seem to get any wiser.

 

Just to confirm, this is not true of maps made in the Doom Builder family of editors. Although the editor does assign IDs in a chronological fashion when a sector is first made, if subsequently a sector is deleted, its ID is freed up, and the next sector made will inherit its ID.

 

This keeps the sector index efficient, but also means the sectors with the lowest values could have been made at any point in the design process.

[K_Doom]

I had this same question a while ago. I also wanted to know what the perfect map would be and the elements that made it up. And how to create a good map when you have no idea about it? But apparently there isn't a exact way to make good maps, at least in terms of drawing them.
Each mapper has its own style, so it varies a lot.
So I thought about it and realized that the best thing to do would be to practice a lot and keep in mind some basic concepts to give direction like:
 

1- Start little by little. Every large map is actually a series of small maps merged together. So, you have to take it easy and measure the sectors, sometimes a sector is too big or too small and when I want to add some things to it, they get vague or tight. I still get the hang of proportions.

 

2 - Practice drawing interesting shapes. In this case I look at other works and notice the measurements to create different geometric shapes. Obviously when I look at someone else's work it's just an idea, anything beyond that starts to sound like copying.

 

3 - Always keep in mind what kind of map you want to make. Can be Tech Base, Inferno, Castle, City, Totally Abstract, mixtures of all these, etc. For example city maps, these structures can be found anywhere. They are usually square, direct and functional. When I say "functional" I mean there is no space for no reason. Now, maps like hell and abstract are much more difficult as they don't have a pattern.

4 - Plan the fights. It doesn't make much sense to make a map geometrically interesting and not think about where and what monsters to put in the corners. Even I like to draw according to the map favoring the monsters sometimes, a lot of things are done around them. Unlike some maps that seem to casually place monsters in any corner after finishing.

 

Anyway, these are the things I try to keep in mind right now. I like to take some wads that I like to observe their shapes, but I don't focus too much on that, but on concepts that I believe led me to make aesthetic maps someday.

 

[Stabbey]

I don't study other people's maps for their architecture, I study them to see how an effect was achieved. So to me, this:

 

On 7/24/2022 at 1:11 PM, RHhe82 said:

 

It's basically as simple as you make it sound, basic shapes bent to look cool (fiery hot). That's the charm of Doom mapping; easy to learn, hard to master. But even trying to look at it your way, I still have find it hard to understand how would I start creating the level. The big circle first?

 

 

...is starting off with the wrong question. First, you must have a good understanding of what you want the map to achieve.

 

I did a map called Control Tower, where I had a few ideas I wanted the map to achieve:

• The entire playable map area was to be contained inside the boundary of a very large circle.
• The circle was also a self-raising staircase.
• The finale of the map was to be a giant arena at the middle of the circle, and the arena would occupy most of the interior of the circle.
• Upon entering the arena, the outer walls would drop, opening up the air to the outer circle.
• The areas where you get each key therefore would be quite compact, and I would need to make the most use of the small space I had.

What was most important here was to get the finale, the big arena right. I needed to get the size of it right, which - at least for me - meant starting from the center of the arena - the raised exit pillar - and working outwards. Once I had the arena with a satisfactory size, I made the room connecting the arena to the circle, and used that distance to determine the size of the circle.

 

People who have a good sense of the space could start with the outer circle and work inwards, but getting that wrong, and having an arena which is too small or too large - would effectively require starting all over again from scratch.

[Dreamskull]

Don't go in with the intention to study other people's maps for design, break the maps first.

 

I have a healthy disdain for Speedrunners, but the concept exists. The real meat of any level isnt found in the fluff despite what people say they like and want to see in a map. Its selfish and petty and there exists an overbearing disconnect between the map maker and the map player. The goal is to complete the map. If that isn't your goal, then its fluffy art, something arbitrary and subjective. If you want to understand design, you have to go THROUGH the motions. The main funtionality of map making is to give over your time so that time CAN be spent and spent well whenever you replay a finished map. Replayability is likeability, but players dont have to like or even respect that process because you've placed them into a dangerous situation slaughtering demons in hell. As a map maker, you may not realize that your intention can be completely negated by doing something you wouldnt normally do. Experts account for this. The only thing to study is to learn how to account for THIS ONE THING.

 

Design exists and speedrunners break design. If you want to study maps for design, speedrun them.

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

I've never done that before but it could very helpful to try. When I want to make a map as an homage, I take note of the gameplay elements, and vibe, and draw lines based on that. 

 

For starters, I like to go with 256 or 512 grid size, and just doodle rough shapes. Kinda randomly. As I get clearer picture of what to make of it, the smaller grid I use. I try to not go below 64 at this stage. That's for detailing, which comes much later. Big grid helps me get the starting big shapes easily, and morph them to make sure the space works. That it can facilitate decent combat. That is fun to move in. 

Like now, I'm making a little Doom map after a long time, and I got two islands connected with a thin catwalk over lava, and mostly in ROCKRED texture. Then I put up some sniping cyber, and SMM, and bunch of imps, and then I think to myself "damn, that's baby's first No Chance!" 

[Electro Rage]

Playing the map. I notice thinks about maps as I play them, because seeing it as Doomguy is different than just flying towards it. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Electro Rage

[pcorf]

These days I mostly rely on imagination. But get some inspiration from the id maps (in the iwads) and Dr Sleep.

[xScavengerWolfx]

What i do is load up the map(s), play them if i like what i see i used them. I think of it as i am copying them but i am putting my own twist to it. If your thinking i copy and paste there maps, re texture and re arrange monsters i don't...that's stupid and lazy. 

 

If i had to give one example of studying maps would have to be Snax's Doom 1 megawad set Stickly Installation. I played all the first three eps and i though to myself "hell i'll give it a shot" So i made my own which i am currently reworking some maps for ep. 1 for it and looking for people to help me with e2. 

 

Anyways the point is when i study peoples maps, i play them, if i like there style i will make my version of it and put my own flare on it.

[Somniac]

I struggle with this because when I can only see the end result, its difficult to extrapolate how something was made even examining it in the editor, especially if the geometry looks complex or has that "hand drawn" E1 quality with weird angles and line lengths. I feel like that style is much harder to replicate than it may appear at face value.

 

I also get the feeling if I look too hard at something, I'll just get the urge to do exactly the same thing, and I don't want to just copy exactly what someone else did. 

[Tango]

On 7/25/2022 at 2:11 AM, RHhe82 said:

Or am I just making it feel harder than it actually due to lack of faith.

 

this is so relatable! I do this all the time. it's like I'm fighting against myself, trying to trick one half of my brain into believing what I'm doing will eventually turn out well, while the other knows it's a ruse and I've no confidence in the outcome. some things I've tried, to some success, to combat this:

• speedmapping
  • especially really short intervals, like 20 or 30 mins to make a fully playable map
• setting the expectation for a map up-front that it's gonna be garbage but I can take it as a learning experience; aka explicitly being ok with "failure"
  • sometimes that's how it goes, sometimes it's 90% garbage but I can take one good idea to my next map, or sometimes the whole thing is actually salvageable
• doing gameplay as I go along, frequently testing
  • this adds some fun factor to the process that you don't get if you focus purely on the layout. I can test and tweak gameplay till it's fun, and that achieved fun gives me a sort of anchor point to prove my efforts have merit

 

more directly on the topic of studying other maps, I think the process is akin to what I've experienced trying to learn fighting games. the process is generally: pick up new game/character -> watch high level match footage of it -> learn some things and implement into my own play for a while -> later go back to the high level footage and realize there are 500 other things I was too inexperienced to notice the first time around -> implement and repeat

 

which is all to say that, for me at least, it takes a lot of practice (including trial and error) to adequately replicate some aspects of another map that I admire. you notice the surface level stuff and get that down, then sort of "unlock" the next layer and get that down, etc. over time it then gets easier to read all the layers and deconstruct something properly. even then, though, I think there's a huge imbalance between the awareness needed to play and understand a map vs the awareness needed to reconstruct it (or some elements of it). if I was trying to do some recreation of work by a mapper whose style is vastly different than my own, it would be more like starting from scratch. I imagine I'd be pretty close to what you're feeling lol

[IcarusOfDaggers]

Whenever I play a doom map, I tend to always look for ways I could modify the concept of it. If I can find something to make  differently, I already know I need to analyze that spot further...or find it in UDB and look how it works, then recreate it on my own.

If I can't find a way to modify the concept, I sideline it for future study.

 

Map making is a creative art, and in creative arts, you can expect concepts to be repeated in some way. As you find more encounters you want to modify or use, you start dissecting more and more details about the maps you are analyzing that deeply. It's a cumulative effect.

 

The starting point is different for every person. For me, the accessible starting point was newbie maps, that showed high potential of room geometry reuse.

 

 

[baja blast rd.]

On 7/24/2022 at 12:17 PM, RHhe82 said:

So, I managed to boot up UDB for the first time in quite while, several months anyway, and decided to finally do the Doomworld Maximum project map I promised to attend back in January.

 

I usually struggle in the beginning, when I'm just placing the first sectors. Nothing seems to work, map feels doomed from the get-go. I need to have the first area mapped out before I begin to see this could be a map. Happened this time, too. Coincidentally, this was something that was also briefly discussed in Nirvana's podcast with Scotty, they said something like that starting a map is the phase in mapping they hate the most (or like the least). They were also talking about at looking at other people's maps as some sort of learning experience.

 

So, my new map is shaping as per usual - I have some sort of central area, the starting room with DOOR3 behind the player. I can already see the end result being quite simple Plutonia '95 pastiche, a decent run-of-the-mill map, nothing more, hopefully nothing less. Coincidentally, when I last doodled in UDB, I wanted to make a map in vein of one of Scotty's Haste entries, MAP01 - The Barbican. I really like the red fortress in a middle of lava lake, which itself is in a middle of some wilderness (or at least it appears so).

 

But I can't do it. I look in the UDB, and try to see how I would go on about creating something similar. I mean the main area -- the baron corridor and cyberchamber at the end would be easy, but the primary area. I try and look for sectors with low numbers, guessing they were made first, but in the end I don't seem to get any wiser. Same thing happened earlier when I wanted to imitate early Sunlust maps, somehow I'm unable to conjure up anything resembling the desired result.

 

It's probably just a matter of experience. I should just map more and maybe I'd be hit by a revelation, or maybe I'd hit some threshold after which I would benefit from looking at maps I admire. Or maybe I should look at simpler maps. I don't know.

 

So, the question: do you guys learn by looking at other people's work with a looking glass, ie. UDB (aside from playing a lot, naturally)? If so, how do you go on about it?

 

A lot of mapping is done not by building what you think of as the final result in individual chunks (like, one sector that is early in the order, then another, etc.) but by building a lo-fi layout/structure, then progressively getting it to a more detailed state (for example large-scale design like all the shapes and important floor heights -> mid-scale design like smaller bits of architecture -> then finally small-scale features like bittier detailing).

 

So for example where you see lots of rocks in the final result might have been a relatively simplistic rocky border made of one or two sectors early on, then chiseled into individual rocks later. 

 

That could apply to just about every design, including the buildings, which might have been blockier shapes made of one texture before they were chiseled out. 

 

This can confound the "sector index" approach quite a bit.

So a good question to ask is not "How would I make a map like this?" but to ask "How would I make a viable 'intermediate result' (not necessarily a bare, monotextured layout either, but maybe something like a much more lo-fi version of the map) that could then naturally become a map like this?" You won't necessarily approach it the same way the author of the map did but tbh working through that ends up being even more informative than simply having the mapper tell you how they did it. 

 

Try to experiment with different combinations of stuff to emphasize that get you there. For example, in this Haste map, it's a pretty viable question whether to block out the buildings monotexture or to do it duotone (a red brick and a metal horizontal bar). I probably would start by trying out the latter and see how that goes. 

 

This can apply even to individual features. The architectural beams running in the air tend to be designed after the towers that they connect, so instead of drawing towers and connecting them early in the design process, you can leave the connection for later, which gives you more flexibility, since it's easier to draw them over stuff than to draw functional features under them.

 

Sky hack play tends to be best done late for similar reasons. 

 

 

Note that the rocky blocks and lava blocks here are pretty similar in their underlying shape, which means that if you're doing it this way, you don't necessarily have to "intend" something as one or the other -- you have the option to play around with different versions and swap a rock to lava later, so that actually means these can be monotextured earlier (but the lava flows that look like rivers probably were liquid from the beginning). 

 

 

The Skintek texture here could have been there in the beginning, or added later (later would be more comfortable for me probably). Also look how many thing props are being used -- it's easy to overlook the value of those in aesthetics that use them. The sky looks like an extension of the layout in some ways.

 

 

There's also features that look like they were there in an early phase, but also features that look more like tasteful, artful ornamentation (or at least could have been that). Like the way switches have a small metal base under them instead of freestanding in the lava (yes it helps to notice stuff even that mundane :P), which is probably not something that makes sense to stop to do during an earlier, more gameplay-oriented design phase. 

 

The rock textures used are gritty and high-fi, which is partly what enables the map to only use one rock texture. What other interplays of design and texture choice might there be...

 

So, yeah, study and think about the map a bunch, and think about how you'd make various parts of it yourself. (The latter is just as important.)

[RHhe82]

7 hours ago, baja blast rd. said:

A lot of mapping is done not by building what you think of as the final result in individual chunks (like, one sector that is early in the order, then another, etc.) but by building a lo-fi layout/structure, then progressively getting it to a more detailed state (for example large-scale design like all the shapes and important floor heights -> mid-scale design like smaller bits of architecture -> then finally small-scale features like bittier detailing).

 

7 hours ago, baja blast rd. said:

This can apply even to individual features. The architectural beams running in the air tend to be designed after the towers that they connect, so instead of drawing towers and connecting them early in the design process, you can leave the connection for later, which gives you more flexibility, since it's easier to draw them over stuff than to draw functional features under them.

 

Funny coincidence you should reply to this thread the very same week I actually attempted mapping (and got it going) after a couple of months' hiatus :-D First of all, these points are something I struggle with. I have a tendency to do detailing as I go. The "button metal bases" are okay for me, but I also tend to do ornamental ceiling and floor bevels, beams running across the ceiling, stuff like that even though I know it's gonna hit me in the ankle when I need to do functional stuff. It appears I have some sort of need to make works in progress look good. (And I believe the same applies to my other creative endeavours, writing; I have low tolerance of sub-par work, which early drafts by necessity are. This is something I have to work with in life in general).

 

Anyway, when I woke up and read your post while still drowsy, I read something like individual sections are made in chunks and connected to the rest of the map later. That's not what you said, though, now that I'm re-reading, but I might just as well ponder about that as well, because some authors clearly do that: make sections in isolation and use them somewhere. I'm not sure that approach suits me well, but yesterday I was making this section in my new (or, rather a reworking of a lost) map:

 

 

The area is not oriented according to the grid, but rather in a 45 degrees angle. That's because I thought the entrance (where the yellow arrow points) looked potentially cooler if it's not perpendicular to the room where you enter the area to fetch the blue key.

 

Now, that area is not remarkably complex, but it was a pain to make. I had hard time drawing the shapes, and it ended up slightly more simplistic than I would have liked. But that's not the worst. I had a lot issues when copying sectors and making windows and enemy closets: I would constantly get weirdly closed sectors, linedefs overlapping each other, and as a result, HOM effects. When I misread your post, I realized I should have made this area according to the grid, detail it, have it ready, and only then rotate it, drag it where it's supposed to be and connect it to the preceding hall with a small piece of corridor.

Edited April 2, 2023 by RHhe82

[baja blast rd.]

I think you can detail as you go with this approach too. That process just ends up more staggered, like you're doing that in every area/region but not necessarily at the same time. 

 

You might also benefit from having a cohesive idea of what you're working towards. Some authors lay out "aesthetic test rooms" that are the map's intended aesthetic designed to full spec in a single area. (If you use more diverse detailing that might still be helpful by allowing you to capture the general attitude of the design.)

 

19 hours ago, RHhe82 said:

Anyway, when I woke up and read your post while still drowsy, I read something like individual sections are made in chunks and connected to the rest of the map later. That's not what you said, though, now that I'm re-reading, but I might just as well ponder about that as well, because some authors clearly do that: make sections in isolations and use them somewhere. I'm not sure that approach suits me well, but yesterday I was making this section in my new (or, rather a reworking of a lost) map:

 

Yeah that's not what I mean but being able to build in individual sections is really useful anyway, even if you sometimes do it only once in a map. There are certain designs that lend themselves more naturally to that. It's often a good way of avoiding mapper's block because it can evade psychological constraint to make everything "fit" what has already been made.