thoughts on hyperdetailed doom wads?

[Casketkrusher]

Gameplay goes first in my opinion, if the map has good gameplay and is detailed that's just a bonus for me. If a map isn't that highly detailed but has good gameplay I really don't care. Simplicity can be beautiful too.

[kwc]

Whatever gets the job done, I’d say. If you’re driven by detail then go nuts, likewise if you prefer to stick to a more macro mindset, and everything in between. 

 

I’d say from personal experience that if you are  concerning yourself with detailing while the map layout is still being established: you run the risk becoming attached to bad design decisions simply because you put a bunch of love into detailing the environment or whatever. Easier to iterate when things are blocky and abstract.

 

That said, if you read these kinds of suggestions and you find that it’s keeping you from doing what you wanna do, ignore it and do what you want, who cares, you’re not being paid to do this.

When I’ve got my player hat on, I like both. Obviously compelling gameplay is what will keep me playing your wad 99% of the time, but both high and low detailed maps can achieve this. Detailing can certainly contribute to aesthetics (which if you’ve balanced the games existing mechanics with your level layout to be serviceably dynamic) which can elevate the experience, but so too can mindful texture placement and lighting on less sector-heavy maps. 

On a much more basic note, though, if your map looks good visually, detailed or no, I’m much more likely to actually try it. 

[Doomkid]

tbh I only want hyperrealistic detail in my Doom wad if it's coupled with the Nostalgia Critic's hyperrealistic bloody face.

 

 

6 minutes ago, kwc said:

On a much more basic note, though, if your map looks good visually, detailed or no, I’m much more likely to actually try it.

This sums up how I feel about the issue. I've seen everything from "standard" amounts of detail, to minimalism, to "sector crowding"-type detail look either gorgeous or awful. Frankly, I think a lot of the time it's down to using complimentary colors. I have seen maps that have a ton of sector detail but avoid looking noisy, but ultimately I have a preference for getting nice looking areas using less sectors/linedefs, rather than more.

[K_Doom]

Detailing is interesting, but most details can be so small that they go unnoticed.

But on top of detailing, what I like is seeing maps with "plot".

 

I've played many wads where the levels were a discontinued set of someone's ideas, level X is a techlab and the next level is a castle in hell. So I miss contextualization sometimes, this goes from the name of the map that is something random like "Gotcha!", lack of background, logical continuity, plants that make sense, etc.

[erkyp3rky]

11 hours ago, Gifty said:

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.

very big thing for me. this is why i establish aesthetic rules to my map to maintain a consistency. like 90% of the rules players will probably never notice (ocd dam you) but 10% of those rules are in place so gameplay is not squandered

[Ed]

That's been my 'thing' for a while. In my older age, I've come to appreciate contrast. Lights and darks, loud and quiet. Details are nice, but the market value of gold isn't very high when the roads are paved with it. Without allowing the details to breath and giving it space, you can't appreciate the more spectacular elements. However, setting the details benchmark very high in one area can inadvertently commit you to maintaining that level of detail throughout, as it can leave less detailed areas looking bare. 

[TheMightyWhoosh]

I prefer the simplistic-but-good-looking type of maps that balances the needs of beautiful aesthetics and decent gameplay equally. Hyper-detailing is very impressive, though. 

[Nefelibeta]

On 12/8/2022 at 5:24 AM, Kinetic said:

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:

 

  Hide contents

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

 

 

wrong color, cringe

[Marisa the Magician]

Detailing needs to be the last priority when making maps, the "cherry on top". It can be good, when done right and not excessively. A busy room will always be harder to navigate than one that's more sparsely decorated, after all.

 

It's like adding spices to food. No spices, and the flavor will be flat, too many spices and the flavor will be overwhelming. You need to find that sweet spot.

[TasAcri]

I like detailed maps, as long as the aesthetics are there too. I think my favorite looking maps are in Eviternity. KDIZD used to be my No1 favorite for some time but i feel like they are using too much detail for the sake of details in some instances. The KDIKDIZD "demake" feels more balanced visually, though some areas in the original still look more impressive, like the open toxin area in map 3.

 

 

[LadyMistDragon]

They are awesome, at least when done correctly. The Last Sanctuary is too large for its own good, but it really managed to nail that aspect. Or like Disorder too. There are hints at other things, but generally there's a unified aesthetic with rooms hinting at some specfic function scattered throughout in at least a few of the maps. I feel like Lost Civilization really defines that style though. A clear sense of place with just enough realism to back it up.

[Bauul]

10 hours ago, Marisa the Magician said:

A busy room will always be harder to navigate than one that's more sparsely decorated, after all.

 

This, really.

 

Doom is a game that strongly benefits from levels that are clear and visually easy to parse. It plays very fast, so levels need to be visually memorable to help the player internalize the important aspects as they play. The IWADs are brilliant at this: doors and switches use a small subset of textures, locked doors always have trims, teleporters always have the same design etc. You can scan a room, work out the bits that you need to interact with, and filter out the rest very quickly.

 

Detailing can make this process harder. Too much detailing results in an overly busy scene that is harder to memorize and quickly parse. 

 

When making Elementalism, which doesn't skimp on the detailing, I had to frequently make points of interest far more visually obvious than more basic Doom levels in order to cut through the detailing. That's the biggest challenge with detailing: it's making sure you don't undermine the effectiveness of the readability of the map.