thoughts on hyperdetailed doom wads?

[erkyp3rky]

was curious of what other people think about this. im talking about the wads/pictures uploaded where its all insanely detailed to death, slopes and curves right to the horizon. from a technical viewpoint these kinds of wads are incredible with their 3d and slope usage and very fine brush work and i have nothing but praise for the amount of time it must take to make these kind of scenes, but at the same time, the aesthetic just doesnt appeal to me. its too extreme for my tastes and id much rather more vanilla doom aesthetics, that look visually impressive without excessive reliance on slopes or 3d floors. think wads like coffee break, going down, and so on. thats my kind of style.

 

what do you guys think?

[MFG38]

As long as I can play things at a stable 60fps, I don't care how (un)detailed they are.

[Misty]

Good thing about doom mapping and modding is that it can accommodate everyone - from simplest, minimalist styles to ones who take advantage of port features. It's pretty awesome to be at this time in the present and witness many projects that wouldn't be possible 20+ years ago. It's really enjoyable for me to play any projects and appreciate for what they are. 

[Ravendesk]

I personally prefer limited detailing, because too much of it is usually tiring for the eyes and also makes map harder to navigate (e.g. finding the actual switch among all the visual clutter). However, it's pretty much the last thing I would consider when deciding what I want to play.

[Lucius Wooding]

I love detailed environments, as long as it's not massive open areas. Too many wads in my opinion make the viewing area ridiculously huge for no good reason and suffer problems from that kind of scale. If you do that, then frankly it's better to curb your architecture a bit since it's viewed at a distance, and at least it will run better. If a large area of your map lags, then in my opinion it's generally too much of a sacrifice for gameplay. I do admire nice screenshots, but in extreme cases it's better to just make it a cutscene map, since it will play more or less like a slideshow anyway. 

 

Using port features like slopes is a different matter entirely. I personally think working within limitations like using limit removing or Boom is a lot more fitting of the spirit of the original games. It's a little more impressive to me to make clever implementations of existing features than to simply use more flexible features. 

 

Lastly, I love doomcute and fine detailing in smaller areas. In my opinion people should feel free to go absolutely nuts in this context since you can actually appreciate and admire their work from up close. Something about being able to use the finest granularity of control, but still only barely being able to render the thing in recognizable detail, requires some creative solutions and gives your creations much more personality.

[esselfortium]

I can appreciate both approaches. I just like scenes with appealing shapes, clean texture usage, and effective lighting, regardless of whether they're heavily detailed. In my own mapping, I've been in the vanilla mines for a while now due to BTSX and KDiKDiZD, but I'd like to get back to making more heavily detailed sourceport maps in the future.

 

There is a subset of "hyperdetailed" mapping that strikes me as haphazardly designed, with detail and texturing used in careless ways that leave the map's shapes looking more like clutter than architecture. I think I've been seeing less of that approach in recent years than there was in the 2000s and early 2010s, though. Or maybe I'm just not looking in the right (wrong?) places.

 

Or, the worse version of this post you almost got instead:

Spoiler

 

[erkyp3rky]

7 minutes ago, Lucius Wooding said:

Using port features like slopes is a different matter entirely. I personally think working within limitations like using limit removing or Boom is a lot more fitting of the spirit of the original games. It's a little more impressive to me to make clever implementations of existing features than to simply use more flexible features.

couldnt have said it better myself! i love trying to work with the limitations

[Shepardus]

I have nothing against detailing as long as it's not getting in the way of gameplay.

[jazzmaster9]

As a primarily GZDoom mapper, i love the extra bit of detail UDMF Can achieve. Mapsets like Elemetalism, Bastion of Chaos and the like are able to achieve mindblowing levels of architecture while still "keeping the spirit" of the original games, which in its self is subjective since once can argue that Doom's modablity is part of its "spirit"

 

 

"Working within limitations" is great as form of mapping exercise for me, but IMO it isnt the end all be all of creativity .

Edited December 7, 2022 by jazzmaster9

[Thelokk]

They are a way of life. I don't care if it makes the map impossible to navigate or the combat janky, there is never such thing as too much detailing. More is more, less is a bore. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Thelokk

[Somniac]

Do I like to marvel at them and the effort it must have taken to do it? Sure.

 

Could I do it myself? No way! 

 

Would I do it, if I had the skills? You bet. 

[yakfak]

i have nothing against gameplay as long as it's not getting in the way of the d e t  a     i

 

 

a bunch of stuff that looks detailed is actually using the floor as tiered playing space then using the same shapes above to decorate... like you can walk on a lot of what you see in Sunder, it's not in the way of the playspace cos it is the playspace. etc. can't be hyper-detailed and obtrusive if it doesn't actually surround you in a restrictive way

 

having said that I love seeing offbeat things people do with lots of lines. i want to see people blowing 500 linedefs on drawing footprints by wet areas n stuff

Edited December 7, 2022 by yakfak

[Gifty]

I think when 90s shooters, and I as a player are most in our respective happy places is when a mapper can find that elegant balance where the "gameplay architecture" and "beauty architectute" are one and the same and mesh perfectly. The Quake community basically has this down to a science. Once you start having a stark separation of "detail I need to watch out for" vs "detail that's just aesthetics", it's not necessarily the end of the world but you've now introduced noise in the map's readability which the player has to mentally parse instead of purely enjoying the space as a holistic thing. Especially when that noise starts sending mixed messages regarding the mapset's established design language, like which doors are interactable, which areas can be reached, what geometry will block projectiles, etc.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Gifty

[jazzmaster9]

Hot take: using Slopes or 3D Floors AND various Boom, Vanilla mapping tricks are ALL impressive and deserve of praise. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by jazzmaster9

[Grain of Salt]

1 hour ago, Shepardus said:

I have nothing against detailing as long as it's not getting in the way of gameplay.

 

23 minutes ago, yakfak said:

i have nothing against gameplay as long as it's not getting in the way of the d e t  a     i

 

I agree with both these things

[baja blast rd.]

As with many things, there are a dozen+ approaches that can work. The interesting discussions happen when you don't ask "A or B, which do you like, which do you hate? " while keying in on your default mental image of A and B. But when you think "A: How can it work / what's the source of appeal? How can it fail / what are common pitfalls? What are good examples of it? etc. etc. etc." and then the same of B.

 

Deciding whether I like classic or Geezy a bit more feels really boring to me. Like reducing all the potential complexity of mapping discussion to "What's your favorite color?!"

 

I'd much rather take a set like Insanity Edged and think about why it's a lot better looking to me than the average GZDoom 3D-floor-oriented architecture. 

 

 

Then, on the flip side, something very structurally modest like Overboard and think about how this is so pretty.

 

 

I like to say "anything can work" but that doesn't mean I'm not selective. It's just that my selectiveness is not organized like "I like this category of wad but not this other category." 

[QuaketallicA]

I agree. I'm mostly a vanilla-leaning kinda guy myself when it come to aesthetics, but I think it's easy to get carried away with detail even using Doom's default textures and limitations. The thing about visual detail is that you want a good balance of it. Too much of it and the player feels like they're appreciating some fine art in a museum...which reduces the pacing of the action to exactly that. Keeping things spaced out and simpler has the advantage of less new information to process, so the brain can go back to fragging faster. The way a level flows and feels in gameplay will always trump visual prettiness, but that doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive obviously. You can still look impressive and feel great.

[Stabbey]

I'm not really a big fan of them. It becomes so visually busy that it's usually hard to find secrets. I also think that hyper-detailed maps can lead people into a direction of making and detailing the map to perfection first, without placing a single enemy or item, which could lead to gameplay which is not as refined and not satisfying.

[7Mahonin]

Detail or not, if the map isn’t fun then it doesn’t matter either way. 

[aRottenKomquat]

I stick fairly close to vanilla Doom appearance in my mapping, though I try to do more detail than the original game. Personally I find too much detail to be distracting or even visually overwhelming, until my brain learns to tune it out and focus on what's actually important.

 

I'm also a long-time Quake player, but it took me a LONG time to really get into Quake Champions because of how detailed the maps are. I was having trouble picking out enemies in the noise until my brain caught up and started filtering out the map detail. Now I don't even notice all the details.

Edited December 7, 2022 by aRottenKomquat

[King Know-Nothing]

Its kind of hard to exactly articulate how I feel about the nature of details in something like designing a level, because I am constantly in awe with how a talented mapper can work on either side of that spectrum and make something interesting that can impress upon the player a specific atmosphere/intent of play. So, I honestly do feel for the people who much expound upon the principles of 'making sure it serves the gameplay'. However, I also think there is a sort a sublime joy in the act of just being batshit self-indulgent, because its honestly fun and satisfying as fuck.

 

When you look at a level editor and get acquainted with its tools, it can be really tempting, and in action pretty fun, to play around and see what kind of complicated purposeless structures with some strange aesthetic appeal you can conjure up, and while, yes, we are essentially making levels extending a video game and thus it would behoove us to follow the ideals associated with it; in a group of creators and like minded individuals, it can be fun to create what essentially adds up sometimes to something of an art installation and put it on display. So yeah, I love seeing wildly detailed stuff that might be somewhat counterintuitive to more cogent gameplay.

[cannonball]

Personally I take the “Use enough” detail to make something look good. Essentially creating a scene with a modest amount of linedefs. That said there are others who do this far better than myself.

[Gothic]

One thing I hate about high detailed maps is when the floor has so many bumps/slopes you basically end up skating all the way.

[esselfortium]

Just now, Gothic said:

One thing I hate about high detailed maps is when the floor has so many bumps/slopes you basically end up skating all the way.

Agreed.

 

When I really want to have some bumps on the floor in a sourceport map, I generally try to use either transfer heights, invisible 3D floors, or self-ref sectors (whichever is currently easiest) to make them behave like they're flat. I wince a bit when I load up some of my old maps that don't do this.

[SilentD00mer]

As a player, I like to have an idea of the 3D space of the level or room, and I like to find the exits of that room easily, so I don't like maps that are so detailed that is hard to move or find the progression. Some architectures are detailed to the point that the player has difficulty to find a door to progress or the color of the floor is similar to the color of the walls(in this case, detailed textures and flats can be the problem), etc. I like detailed architecture, but sometimes excessively detailed maps can confuse the player.

[Firedust]

For me, gameplay takes precedence over visuals/detail all time, every time. A mapper can build the most beautiful-looking areas with fancy-pancy ceilings, pillars, and midtex usage, but if all they can ever muster for gameplay is uninspired AI-generated teleporting ambushes or repetitive corridor encounters, Imma nope out.

 

Also, just to add, if we are talking strictly visuals, then I'd rather the mapper put greater emphasis on lighting, because that can make even basic-textured rooms look great without having to resort to stairbuilder shenanigans.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Firedust

[Optimus]

I do agree sometimes too much detail can be information overflow, but it depends. Some maps with details might still have some simple minimalistic surfaces with little extra details here and there but in a way that are distinctive to the eye, you teleport in that area and it looks gorgeous but also you can instantly have a sense of space to know where to navigate and where to position yourself against the enemies. While I remember other wads that are so drowned into detail, and usually the fault might also be the texture and lighting usage, that it's so hard to distinguish what is what when you have to act fast.

 

Meanwhile I can think of wads that are so empty, but they use such texture combinations and great lighting that are both distinctive and with great atmosphere. Then maybe one can add little details with different colored textures for lights, pillars, consoles but in a way that they are distinctive from the smooth textured walls for example, and they don't clash visually with each other.

 

I just love minimalistic stuff right now that still capture the simplicity and atmosphere and so I prefer to revisit some 90s WADs

[Jacek Bourne]

As far as I’m concerned, there is no such thing as too much detail provided that it doesn’t affect gameplay negatively.

[Andrea Rovenski]

there was a time in the aughts and 10s when vanilla styled maps were routinely disregarded in favor of the shiny hyperdetailed stuff, but I think we've entered a position now where both kinds of styles are appreciated by people and I think it's great. The technical stuff behind some stuff like Sunder is awesome, and I love it, but I also love stuff like Anomaly Report that aims for the vintage 95 style much more because it's just my preference.  

[Kinetic]

hyper detailing is fine, but I wouldn't make maps where the point or emphasis is on hyper detailing. Some people may like to do that, which is fine, it's their cup of tea. I used to obsess over details more, but now I've kinda shifted focus to lighting and contrast when it comes to aesthetics, as opposed to tons and tons of lines (that aren't light gradient stair sector builder lines ofc :D). I think for me personally, hyperdetailing in some cases can reach a point where the scene seems too visually busy, but nonetheless I'm impressed with some of the insane detailing seen in the Doom Pictures Thread. I wouldn't say I like 90s aesthetics where rooms are more simple and less detailed, I just like the "modern hard wad" aesthetic. You know, the wads with:

 

Spoiler

LITGTH and GOTHMET9 textures, that type of shit, you know the wads and aesthetic I'm talking about,