Which engagement style of these do you resonate more with?

[baja blast rd.]

Lately, I've been thinking about a couple of the ways a player can engage with a level.

 

1) One form of engagement is enjoying a level as a crafted place -- for example a level as well-crafted, immersive setting.

 

2) Another is enjoying a level more as something like a creative dialogue between author (or some agent) and player. 

 

As a player, which side would you describe yourself as belonging more to and (importantly) why? If it's balanced, or conditional, feel free to explain that too.

 

(There are many other types of engagement too, but for legibility I wanted to keep the discussion to these.) 

 

 

 

Personally, I crave the second more (partly because it's a bit rarer), to the extent that part of me gravitates towards regularly playing janky-looking (and clearly not traditionally well-crafted) First Maps -- because there's always the chance they are that sort of map. 

 

I also love a lot of craft- and atmosphere-oriented experiences (some of my favorite all-time wads include Counterattack, Lost Civilization, Back to Basics, BTSX e2, etc.), but the distinction is probably that I wouldn't actively seek out more middling wads in this archetype unless they were really good at something else, where I sometimes hoover up 'creative jank' lol.

 

So I'm more in category #2 above, but if there was a continuum I would not be too far away from the midpoint. I think my favorite creators do some mix of both pretty heavily or inflect one approach with another. For example Mechadon is firmly an author who makes amazing worlds in the form of megastructures -- but stuff like the unrelentingly dynamic architecture creates an effect much like author agency; and the architecture itself feels like it has a lot of character and self-expression in it (also what I love about Espi). And on the flipside, Mouldy is heavy on these portrait-sized maps that feel like sketches and short stories that just happen to be in Doom and are not always concerned with being impressively visual -- but as The Eye and later Going Down shows he's also capable of skilled setting design and architecture craft and whips that out when he wants to. Nanka Kurashiki did humble postcards too -- also Partner of the 49th Day! 

 

And there are people with more consistently hybridized approaches like lupinx-Kassman and Dobu Gabu Maru who manage to craft the best shit while also being super 'communicative' with every little feature. OP tbh. 

 

(There are also hybrid sets like Jumpwad/FCFF where the aesthetic is more 'agentless world' and the gameplay is more 'creative dialogue' -- which is an intriguing sort of mashup. Many of the best combat gauntlet wads fall into this category, but some notable ones don't.)

[RonnieJamesDiner]

I'll admit I'm a little confused by the question. Are you asking if I typically engage more with a "narrative driven" map (environmental storytelling, world building, doom cute, thematic, etc.), versus a map constructed solely as a space to facilitate combat ideas?

[baja blast rd.]

The confusion is fine -- I thought about this question a few days ago and took that long to answer because I wasn't really sure. So I'd recommend people not try to 'jump in' and reply quickly, because it's a tricky one if you haven't actively thought of this before. 

 

1 hour ago, RonnieJamesDiner said:

Are you asking if I typically engage more with a "narrative driven" map (environmental storytelling, world building, doom cute, thematic, etc.), versus a map constructed solely as a space to facilitate combat ideas?

 

No, you can engage with a very 'narrative-driven' level as something more like a found world that exists without a lot of author-to-player communication. (That's me with Lost Civilization for example.) And the 'construction' of a map I'm talking about doesn't relate to containment of combat ideas.

 

A good proxy is more like how 'frequently present' the author is in the experience (for you). For example an experience that is nothing but bathing in atmosphere is more like #1. And a constant whirlwind of gags is more like #2. These are just examples (there are many other forms of #1 and #2 that are also very different). 

[RonnieJamesDiner]

Ohh interesting, okay. I like the idea but I'm not sure I've played many wads that felt like #2, or I wasn't consciously aware of it, at least. Other than the obvious times where authors communicate using resources (there's a switch with a huge puddle of rocketboxes beside it, I think the mapper is telling me to use the RL in this next fight, as an example haha). But, maybe that's a valid example of #2?

[baja blast rd.]

Yeah...#1 is probably more common these days. #2 features a lot more heavily in community projects, the works of certain more idiosyncratic authors, and in some categories of maps (for example, a good jokewad is basically always the second type). 

 

Defining this for gameplay, hmm. The proxy I might use there is how "designed" everything feels. For example: incidental combat and monsters spread out on terrain might be #1 (especially if the monsters seem to be used more aesthetically), something that consists of that and some mix of more typical traps and setpieces might be closer to the midpoint, and super intricate staged fights might be deep into #2.  

 

But it's not that simple, because you can also imagine intricate staged sequences that seem to emerge from the world's reality. Sunlust 29's vile circle fight seems like that to me. But also that whole map is unquestionably very author-driven and arcadey (hard not to be with that title lmao). 

 

'Intended strategies' is a pretty fragile concept, but some setups have clear 'intended dynamics' and that's another part of it. 

 

Among challenge gameplay, speedrunning is more like #1 because you're treating a map as something that 'exists' and trying to find tricks and stuff often well outside of author intent. And people when they try to get 'intended strategies' are doing something more like #2, interfacing with what they think the author wants/means. 

 

Preferred engagement style can definitely differ among different parts of the experience. Not hard to imagine a player type who wants the aesthetic experience to be like a found setting/world but the gameplay to have lots of obvious author agency.

[RonnieJamesDiner]

Mmmm, okay. Based on that... I started to wonder if a different way of characterizing #1 could be "a literal place that exists, that Doomguy happens to have discovered", versus #2 which could be characterized as a map "with a very specific intent/experience created for a player". But, I'm not sure if that's accurate to what you're saying. With those definitions, I'd want to argue that #2 seems a lot more common than #1, though, probably the midpoint is most common.

[Not Jabba]

2 hours ago, baja blast rd. said:

And there are people with more consistently hybridized approaches like lupinx-Kassman and Dobu Gabu Maru who manage to craft the best shit while also being super 'communicative' with every little feature. OP tbh. 

 

(There are also hybrid sets like Jumpwad/FCFF where the aesthetic is more 'agentless world' and the gameplay is more 'creative dialogue' -- which is an intriguing sort of mashup. Many of the best combat gauntlet wads fall into this category, but some notable ones don't.)

 

If you're talking about Kassman and dobu in the same breath, I imagine you'd also include Xaser, and you also mentioned Mechadon as a hybrid mapper. That's a significant chunk of my favorite mappers ever. So probably I like mappers who do both at once.

 

Re: my favorite maps and mapsets, what I actually think about when I'm playing, or when I'm remembering why I loved the maps, is more often immersive narrative/found world. I like to be alone with the experience. You mentioned Jumpwad as having gameplay that's a creative dialogue, but to me, that part was almost purely immersive, like the worldcraft. It was sort of like I played that whole game as a cat, and the thing that drove me through the gameplay was the ambient instinct of "How do I get up onto that? How do I get over there?" That doesn't mean you can't see the mapper dialogue if you think about it, of course.

 

There are mappers I really like whose voice leans strongly toward #2 -- mouldy, Big Ol Billy, and Muumi come to mind -- although all of them do both, I think, and it's challenging to think of many play experiences that are purely one end or the other. Every year, I think my favorite mapsets include both camps: Hedon and Lost Civilization (#1) vs. Paradise (#2), Bastion of Chaos and Abandon (#1) vs. Three Is a Crowd (#2), Ashes Afterglow and Coma Moonlight (#1) vs. TPH (#2), DTYBotC and Jumpwad (#1) vs. KDiDKiZD (vehemently both at once) vs. Overboard (#2). But overall, I lean more strongly toward #1.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Not Jabba

[xX_Lol6_Xx]

Casual player here

I personally like both mapping styles, but if I had to choose, I'd go for #1. I slightly prefer an immersive setting, and good narrative atmosphere, complemented by the level's architecture, and a nice midi. Of course combat is an extremely important factor, but imo the most enjoyable maps are the ones that get right the setting, whatever it may be, for example, Auger Zenith and the interactive cyberpunk dystopia, The Ray Mohawk series with ambient pollution, Scythe 1 with your classic Doom aesthetic, among others.

[Not Jabba]

47 minutes ago, baja blast rd. said:

But it's not that simple, because you can also imagine intricate staged sequences that seem to emerge from the world's reality. Sunlust 29's vile circle fight seems like that to me. But also that whole map is unquestionably very author-driven and arcadey (hard not to be with that title lmao).

 

That definitely speaks to me. That type of staging can add an interesting dimension to any immersive world-building, because it basically says, "The god-entities or unnatural laws controlling this place are so fucked up that they spawned whatever this is."

 

47 minutes ago, baja blast rd. said:

Among challenge gameplay, speedrunning is more like #1 because you're treating a map as something that 'exists' and trying to find tricks and stuff often well outside of author intent. And people when they try to get 'intended strategies' are doing something more like #2, interfacing with what they think the author wants/means. 

 

It's also really interesting to me that you conceptualize speedrunning that way, because for me it always seems like the absolute peak of mapper/player interaction. The mapper doesn't "intend" the speedrun, so the player is doing the talking there, but the conversation generally looks (to me, at least) like it's happening purely in terms of the artificial design of the map, and not in the theoretical "real world" of the map. This is definitely the case if the player is using glitches or meta-mechanics (SR-50) and the like. On the other hand, I can also imagine speedrunning as a sort of roleplay where you're inhabiting the world and your character's goal is to find the quick or avoidant route, or to find shortcuts through exploration.

[baja blast rd.]

Cool responses, I'll get to more later

 

17 minutes ago, Not Jabba said:

It's also really interesting to me that you conceptualize speedrunning that way, because for me it always seems like the absolute peak of mapper/player interaction. The mapper doesn't "intend" the speedrun, so the player is doing the talking there, but the conversation generally looks (to me, at least) like it's happening purely in terms of the artificial design of the map, and not in the theoretical "real world" of the map. This is definitely the case if the player is using glitches or meta-mechanics (SR-50) and the like. On the other hand, I can also imagine speedrunning as a sort of roleplay where you're inhabiting the world and your character's goal is to find the quick or avoidant route, or to find shortcuts through exploration.

A lot of it is that the best tricks (or trick-finding approaches) sort of have to ignore the mapper. 

 

The way I see it is that where intuitively it might make sense to ask, "Here's an archvile in this area -- can I use it for a trick jump?" you'll find tricks a lot easier if you flip that on its head and ask, "Here's a gap that can be traversed -- is there an archvile somewhere, anywhere, that I can use, even if it seems completely unreasonable at first?" (And then you chain together a potentially convoluted way of getting that vile into play, or getting it to see you from where it shouldn't, etc.) 

 

Example:

 

 

Focusing too much on what feels logical and possibly intended ends up cutting out a lot of cool possibilities. 

 

Here's an even clearer example of one of those. 

 

31 minutes ago, Not Jabba said:

Re: my favorite maps and mapsets, what I actually think about when I'm playing, or when I'm remembering why I loved the maps, is more often immersive narrative/found world. I like to be alone with the experience. You mentioned Jumpwad as having gameplay that's a creative dialogue, but to me, that part was almost purely immersive, like the worldcraft. It was sort of like I played that whole game as a cat, and the thing that drove me through the gameplay was the ambient instinct of "How do I get up onto that? How do I get over there?" That doesn't mean you can't see the mapper dialogue if you think about it, of course.

 

One part of it I was thinking is there can be subjectivity in this, which depends on familiarity. Like, I'm kind of bad at pure navigation of Jumpwad's sort, so I kept having to look for 'what seems intended by the author' for cues for how to get around around to stuff well (not that I minded hanging around for long stretches and doing nothing, though, which is my favorite way to play it). So at that point the discussion component starts existing (or maybe I imagine it :P). 

 

Whereas I'm way more practiced at combat gauntlets (or pure speedrunning, since we're talking about that too), so I'm more likely to look for stuff that simply exists and to find intent more of an interference. 

[Thelokk]

#1 entirely, probably because to me not only combat, but the 'action' part in general, is by far the least interesting aspect of Doom. 

 

Also a reason why I love first maps, they usually fail spectacularly at gameplay yet generate interesting enviroments almost entirely by chance, and that makes them even more interesting to me. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Thelokk

[LadyMistDragon]

I would say I lean somewhat towards the former style, mainly because I'm someone who, contrary to my prior words at times, will give even maps normally panned by others a chance, particularly if the mapper in question accomplishes what they set out to do. If on the other hand, they delight in old-school and cheap BS-traps or design decisions like um, random crushers or enemies behind transparent but somehow still inaccessible walls, they are most likely trying to trip you up without necessarily having it complement the map very much. Hence, why Chris Klie is easily in the bottom 10 of mappers for me of those that are known to any random degree.

 

A conversation of sorts can have its place, but this requires for me a certain wrapping of my head around the concept. I certainly don't have the same view as MtPain once expressed, but ultimately, these sorts of maps end up coming across as comfort food insofar as engaging mapping is concerned, ie probably Tarnsman although I know many people find his combat to be rather prickish, it never feels impossible (disclaimer: I have not played TPH, so there's that).

 

On the other hand, I do like wads which fall somewhere in the middle. A good example of this would be something like Ancient Aliens. Certain maps like the Nectar Flow, Acerola-Onion, Culture Shock, and Trinary Temple to name a few, have a certain atmosphere to them greatly boosted by the soundtrack. But at the same time, I think that you can really get some hints at the mentality that went into the combat and ambushes in each of those maps. Really, there are plenty more maps in that set with a similar approach. Probably that's why Ancient Aliens will sit near the top of my personal list, a mediocre map or two excepting.

Edited January 10, 2023 by LadyMistDragon

[Jizzwardo]

the premise behind this thread is so awesome, I never really thought of it consciously like that.

For me, I find I look at a map the second way almost always, and especially when it comes to encounters. There are definitely times when the first way would just be the natural way to consume the map but ever since I started mapping myself I'm always thinking about the person behind the maps rather than just being immersed in the environment. I can't tell if its a good or bad thing really, because on one hand, combat is made a bit more fun and I feel as though I can understand it a bit more now than when I was totally new, but there is something maybe lost about the magic of being able to just take it all in. 

[ZethXM]

I mean, I've only finished the one map so far, but I'd thought about this a fair bit as I was making it, and I wound up consciously trying to do both, which is why a place made of machines felt the most creatively fruitful.  I think my gameplay choices for 2 being communicated somewhat poorly really harmed the 1, though, because the pace is too frantic for the player to register the setting as a world and contemplate it in space.  Which is a problem since the intent was to create a navigation puzzle.

 

Anyway, I value both the creation of a place to be in and making people contemplate the intentions of its creator, so I guess if I can finish more stuff I'll continue to try and do both.  I can't really shut my brain off from looking at a map and seeing a series of choices made by its maker, even as I think about the story of the map.  The author is part of the immersion for me.

[Omniarch]

An interesting distinction. I really love this kind of oblique-angle analysis, since it often allows one to tease out subtle aspects of an artform that might not be reachable by other means. In this case, you have shed light on something that I hithertofore found intangible, implied indirectly by the writings and opinions of many users but invisible to my analytic eye as anything more than a patternless collection of coincidences.

 

By this taxonomy, I would most certainly be classed as type 1, though not due to the qualities exhibited by levels in either category, but instead due to my apparent inability to consciously engage in player / author back-and-forth. By way of example: Tarnsman's Projectile Hell is a set that seems to be loved by many in both camps, and one of the elements of its design that cause it to appeal to #2 sensibilities is, I would imagine, its use of contextually amusing / subversive traps and ambushes. I really enjoy this aspect of its design, considering it one of TPH's foremost appeals, but do so in an entirely mechanical way: instead of thinking "heh, nice one Tarns [analysis here]" -- this being a silly, simplified version of what I imagine the experience of a dialogue-centric player would be -- I only appreciate its effect on the general tension curve of a given level, and its role in creating memorable first experiences.

 

The author, to me, isn't an entity with which to engage, but more like a lizard under a microscope, or perhaps an unknowable cosmic being for me to mindlessly behold, like a chicken staring at a marble. In either instance, it's a case of one-way observation, purely intellectual in nature. This could be due to my disconnection from the community, since I imagine one would be more inclined to see and engage with the intent of something made by a friend, acquaintance or subject of active creative admiration / aspiration. As it stands, though, I am purely an observer / consumer, and engage with the medium as such.

 

All this is to say that I have, until now, been undermined in my analysis by a notable blind-spot, often left thinking "what does [user] see in this?" when beholding works which, while lacking in craft, manifest some (to me) nameless and intangible quality that really appeals to those with a taste for it. Now, though, I can compensate for this blindess, and subsequently improve the quality of my analysis.

 

Diatribe: I do find it interesting that, at a certain level of craft, elements that appeal strongly to #2 are often equally appreciable by other means: the earlier TPH example comes to mind, as does mouldy's entire mapography, his visionary and unique approach to mapping creating as it does a sense of aesthetic and mechanical coherence that I find highly compelling as an immersive experience. The difference of opinion between people on either end of the spectrum only seems to emerge in cases where craft may be lacking, making it nearly invisible most of the time since discussion tends to center around well-crafted works.

[Ravendesk]

9 hours ago, Thelokk said:

#1 entirely, probably because to me not only combat, but the 'action' part in general, is by far the least interesting aspect of Doom. 

 

Also a reason why I love first maps, they usually fail spectacularly at gameplay yet generate interesting enviroments almost entirely by chance, and that makes them even more interesting to me. 

That's interesting, because I personally view your stuff as something in the second, "dialogue", category. Unless, of course, I have completely misunderstood the question.

 

I just think that dialogue does not necessarily imply combat, but rather the way you explore the map can be done in both ways. So even a nomonsters map can be an immersive map or can be a dialogue map.

[Ennello]

For me it's definitely #1. While I appreciate #2 sometimes, it often doesn't keep me engaged. I get more of a kick out of exploring, progressing and completing. Might be my completionist attitude, but I see maps mostly as a checklist. I do appreciate it more if it's a beautiful checklist, but ultimately it's all about the combat and secrets for me.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Ennello

[Deadwing]

I like a bit of both, maybe leaning towards #2.

 

Normally for mapsets that are made (mostly) by only 1 person, it's cool to see what kind elements the author starts using in the early maps and then how he shapes them into more refined ideas in the later ones, sometimes subverting the player's expectations. It can be something small and not very important, like how the author's handles progression, texture usage, incidental setups. But also maybe specific gameplay elements, like the way of handling combats and setpieces - giving preference for a particular weapon, arena-shape, group of enemies or even a particular type of setup too.

 

This sorts of creates a "language" between the player and the author that makes the whole experience more interesting, imo. Some good examples of this for me would be A2Rob's wads (Machete for example), Lorenz0's Perpetual Powers and most of nicolas monti's work (which is definitely #2). I haven't played many wads tbh though haha

Edited January 10, 2023 by Deadwing

[yakfak]

(my stuff's too much of a rant for me to think of any of it as a dialogue, I always have a topic rather than a scenario, I'm a monologuer but I don't care if the theme captures anyone and I vaguely distrust "immersiveness" and consistency in general) the latter. lol. I feel like ALT especially champions the presence of the player, the mapper AND the editor and you get this improv feel the whole time

[Firedust]

Number 2 all the way. 

 

I think most attempts at recreating specific locations for the purpose of immersiveness usually result in underwhelming gameplay. Only ascended masters of their craft - like aforementioned Mechadon and Mouldy - are capable of successful marriage of both aspects of Doom described in the opening post. A mapper can build the most visually stunning hell fortress or lunar base, but no painter's brush stroke will ever countervail unengaging action. If I feel like I'm slowly and painfully plodding through a level, no vista of grandeur proportions will alleviate my boredom. Building a super fancy-looking arena after arena just to fill them all with samey teleporter ambushes is lame, don't do that pls :p

 

I suppose that's why I like Plutonia so much. From the visual perspective, it's in all honesty nothing much to write home about. However, the neverending surge of high-adrenaline combat diluted with brief moments of respite continuously incentivizes me to beat the whole thing in one or two sittings - and in my opinion, that's the ultimate sign of a truly great mapset.

 

And I feel the same is true for video games in general. For me, it's not the graphics, visual detailing, or setting that retain my interest in clearing a campaign. It's the core gameplay mechanics, carefully thought-out level design (with respect to said mechanics - look at RE4 for example. Stellar encounter design in every section.), and well-implemented sense of progression.

 

I remember watching an interview with the director of Dead Space and he was basically saying that the best level developers actually start off with bare-looking untextured rooms - they begin by integrating combat first and only after they are satisfied with how the fights turn out, they turn their assets into actual locations. This makes a ton of sense, in my head anyway.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Firedust

[Thelokk]

4 hours ago, Ravendesk said:

That's interesting, because I personally view your stuff as something in the second, "dialogue", category. Unless, of course, I have completely misunderstood the question.

 

I just think that dialogue does not necessarily imply combat, but rather the way you explore the map can be done in both ways. So even a nomonsters map can be an immersive map or can be a dialogue map.

 

You're absolutely right. Dialogue is immersion after all, as any sort of engagement is always developed by confronting a more or less abstract idea and external 'converser', even where there seems to be none. I never just offload on the player a pre-packaged experience, I don't think that's possibile. Mapping and its reception is an ongoing conversation with an ideal player, just like playing is always an ideal conversation with a mapper. Mapping is communication and, as we all know, communication is never one way, even when it seems to be. 

 

To be fair, I think the OP suggests (somewhat) a duality that I feel is a bit forced and, perhaps, artificial - a duality that, in fact, might not exist at all. But I didn't want to get too meta, be a spoilsport or derail the thread, so I went in assuming the topic's premises. 

 

I always enjoy Baja's meta-Doom discussions, even in the occasional instances where they are slightly manichean in their construction - I see how that simply facilitates engagement and conversation. It's the price we pay for discussing something that, for once, isn't 'your favorite port' or 'how thick are Doomguy's glutes'. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Thelokk

[baja blast rd.]

19 minutes ago, Thelokk said:

You're absolutely right. To be fair, I think the OP suggests (somewhat) a duality that I feel is a bit forced and, perhaps, artificial - a duality that, in fact, might not exist at all. But I didn't want to get too meta, be a spoilsport or derail the thread, so I went in assuming the topic's premises. 

 

A hard separation can't really exist in practice, but thinking about concepts like these is better done starting with a simple model and then letting complexity seep back in, which I think has worked for the discussion. But yeah I'd encourage discussing the messier, more complex parts rather than having to just pick (which is why I left out a poll :P). 

[Not Jabba]

3 hours ago, yakfak said:

I feel like ALT especially champions the presence of the player, the mapper AND the editor and you get this improv feel the whole time

 

That's true, but it also literally takes place inside your head, so it's really easy to ignore the mapper and absorb it as an experience where you just have the whole conversation with yourself.

[Steve D]

I've always felt that my greatest failure as a mapper is my inability to excel at #1. I always want to create immersive, well-crafted environments but, probably because I'm a pantser  -- I fly by the seat of my pants by composing directly in the editor rather than doing an outline on paper first -- I don't. I start maps with only a vague idea of what I want to do, and then as the rooms take shape I start putting in combat, and ultimately the architecture is oriented to the needs of the action. I try to make the environments reasonably attractive, but serious worldbuilding pretty much flies out the window, so I tend to be a "midpoint" mapper, I guess.

 

The closest I've come to #1, I think, is Shotgun Symphony. The farthest I've gone to #2, if I understand things correctly, is my Amiga Demo Party stuff.  I do have a project in mind called The Ghosts of Neptune, which will be my last attempt at a #1-style mapset. 

 

As a player, I'm a midpoint fan but leaning a bit to #1, perhaps because I admire the thing that I can't seem to do myself.

[RonnieJamesDiner]

To be fair, I'm at home and sick with a cold so I'm forgiving myself for being a bit thick foggy headed, but I'm finding this conversation very very interesting, particularly because I'm still sitting here trying to actually understand the premise, lol.

 

Based on the responses so far, I'm getting the sense that the premise is being inferred as the difference between a player reconstructing the intent of the author as they play through a level, versus a player experiencing a level at face value as they go (that is to say, as an experience made up of features (whether intentional or incidental) rather than as decisions made by the author). So in this way... it makes sense why the premise is framed as "how do you personally engage with a level". 

 

Looking at it this way, it could make sense why someone who prefers to engage with a level through the lens of #2 might prefer a MAP01 of a megawad, a first or second release from a brand new author, or a community project. These examples typically come with zero "data" for author intent, because they're quite literally a blank slate that give the player an opportunity to explore a creative dialogue from the beginning (or, from 'nothing'). Tangentially, this might help me understand why certain mappers gain so much traction and popularity in the community: their 'creative dialogue' with a player might seem very compelling and rewarding, and any new release might be seen by their fans as an opportunity to 'have that conversation again' (even if that's only understood subconsciously by the player).

 

But, the """subjective""" nature of this (not crazy about using that term, but oh well), was made almost instantly clear by rd and Jabba's differing perspectives on speedrunning. Where the former seemed to experience this through the lens of #1 (interacting with a world space outside of author intent), the latter seemed to experience this through the lens of #2 (interacting with a level in a way that intentionally runs counter to author intent). And, I suppose that's the crux of this. How much do you layer the filter of "author intent" over your gameplay experience, or whether or not you do it at all. 

 

And, I think another interesting factor to consider here (especially regarding the subjectivity of it), is the fact that author intent can be manufactured "incorrectly". I look at Sunder as a great example of this. Listening to Insane_Gazebo discussing his mapset with Nirvana, it laid bare the fact that maps (or specific areas, at least) that became perceived by many players as particularly "oppressive" or "restricting" on IG's part were the result of him playing, testing, and creating the maps using a ZDoom port with mouselook enabled -- whereas the majority of players experienced Sunder without mouselook. So, not only can a player choose to experience a level with or without a conscious filter of author intent, but a player can end up reconstructing the whole idea of a level in a way that ultimately has no bearing on the authors original intent, for a variety of reasons.    

[Arwel]

Not so long ago I realized my perception of maps is more driven by my own fantasies than anything else. When discussing maps with others, especially with authors, I often find myself getting all the wrong ideas about authors intent. So for me it's all about #1, if it's succeeds at that, it will drive my imagination to come up with good interpretations filling any gaps to create a coherent "whole" in my memory.

[Doomkid]

In my experience, all “at least decent” maps are either a mix of 1 and 2, or just (practically) all 2, in the case of “geometric jank” that still has great combat and clearly engages with the player’s mind.

 

I struggle to think of a map that has 1 but not 2, which I know isn’t the most original observation, but - even in maps that are all about mood and combat is little more than an afterthought, I feel like the sense of mood, place etc almost fundamentally counts as a form of engagement or “conversation” with the player, automatically making 2 inherent to a good wad where 1 was the focus.

 

I think a few others have made similar remarks (if I’m understanding correctly, at least) so for the sake of my post, I’m going to twist #2 ever so slightly into somewhat more “overt” dialogue with the player - not just a sense of theme/place/atmosphere/effort, but more direct dialogue by way of calculated combat, blatant environmental storytelling, or even direct storytelling through intermission texts, NPCs, messages written on walls, etc.

 

I like framing it this way, because it turns it more into a dichotomy between wads where the player is a “wandering agent”, by that I mean it feels like the level was there before the player arrived and will continue to be long after, and whatever tricks or thrills happen to be there would have been regardless of the players presence. Contrasting to the wad design style where the player is the “star of the show”, where it feels like all the combat was designed for the sake of the player’s engagement, or maybe where there’s an overt storyline being communicated to the player, wherein beating the maps is the main driver of that plot.

 

Even with it divided up this way, I’d say I like a mix of both! Ever the fence rider. Excellent thread.

[Codename_Delta]

5 hours ago, Doomkid said:

it feels like the level was there before the player arrived and will continue to be long after, and whatever tricks or thrills happen to be there would have been regardless of the players presence

This is what I strive to achieve, but do I?

 

Up to debate.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Codename_Delta

[Azure_Horror]

On 1/11/2023 at 8:00 AM, Arwel said:

When discussing maps with others, especially with authors, I often find myself getting all the wrong ideas about authors intent.

Semi-related:

Sometimes, I imagine that different people are responsible for two maps, despite there being only one author.

For example: there is imaginary Ancient Aliens @skillsaw and there is also another imaginary @skillsaw, who made other WADs.

 

Or more ridiculous case: there is "Nice" @WH-Wilou84 and there is "Hardcore" @WH-Wilou84.

And the map 17 of 180 Minutes Pour Vivre has three "imaginary authors":

- @Oxyde made the geometry for most of the map.

- "Nice" WH-Wilou placed monsters there.

- And "Hardcore" WH-Wilou made the final fight.

 

Raw impressions of maps sometimes take weird forms...

[Dreamskull]

I prefer number 2 over number 1, but people have different ideas on what constitutes "creative dialogue" so its fluff most of the time. No, its not an art style, sorry.

 

The idea of a creative dialogue involves giving the player choices to make, but since all possible choices are actually accounted for, it boils down to the size of the map, sorry magnitude, not size and assorted methods utilized by the player to mitigate their own mistakes while playing, frontways or backways or any which way, including dead space no one would willingly choose to travel out of direct action taken no one would realistically employ. Thats more jargon than Im used to typing, but its often found in error and the proper corrections to remedy mistakes made while playing in the recovery of the error. That in itself becomes a whole other thing where the unintended becomes intended again. It makes a return.

 

People dont get it.

 

Its not linearity and its not toursim, because both of those undoes the concept. You can do introductory tourism, but the basis for having it being done as intended is very minor. It actually falls into a grey area. As for the level itself, you need things to play out wildly for it to actually graduate into number 2. A devolution because of choices made during play is how it tends to play out as the player plays it. Its difficult to do with Doom because shooters are straight forward.

 

Its not really as abtract as people want to make it. Its like missing your turn on the highway and having to navigate towards your destination going a different direction or completely detouring goals alltogether because you need something because of something else. Thats the sense and experience of it. Alterantively, they rush it and bypass whatever the hell I was just talking about. You can design things like that. Its a paradigm where things can play out differently because when maps are complex enough to allow for different strategy, time manaegment can change pathing based purely on natural flow of large engagements. There is a lot to consider, especially in terms of travel time. The "creative dialogue" happens when you account for things like that. Intricatcies can be created and stacked, layored even if there are more options provided than a linear A to B only progression. Why you ask? Thats the real talking point of the thread and the player provides HIS reason for doing what he does. 

 

In the minds of most, replayability is the word often used to describe this sort of topic because in order the have number 2, theres got to be something else other than something you see, but EVEN THAT can be captured by number 1 to become a tourism. A tourism is a manufactured stock experience you choose to have. It doesnt actually do it. It simulates it. Dynamic cinematic experience is automatically category numero uno, doesnt matter how fancy; doesnt matter if they let you move around during cutscenes... or say the whole map plays out like one.

 

"There's no glory in something that's supposed to happen." Challenge maps can ante up into number 2, but the implication technically negates its achievement unless you blow it out of the water. Just look at speedrunners; some break the game outright. Its important to note the creative dialogue results in something unique that isnt mechanical depsite the mechanical nature of something intentionally designed. They often go straight to discussions about art, but whats really happening on screen has to do with an experience. When it becomes personal, is unreplicatable, thats where the creative dialogue concept actually exists.

 

Social engineering is opposite that. 

 

Gaming went into a bad place because devs didnt know how to account for decisions players would make on the fly. Today, they literally intend to implant ideas or hack your time/money. Some even punish you for trying to play unaffected now. A simple way to showcase it would be, do this exact thing the exact way using the exact thing weve provided you. If you dont - you die or get a fail mission screen. Certainly you need that in some semblance or you wouldnt have a damn game, but what were talking about here is breathing room for the player vs modeling the experience every single player is going to have every single time they play. The primary concept applies itself wholesale on the devolution concept into a graduation of the base mechanical framework because of how its played on recovery, to the degree that the entire thing could change implication or meaning outright - simple to complex. In order to get into the complex, you have to offer the player the choice to make deviation from the stock experience in the first place. 

 

(Mods can be a good example of this, though the point is placed moreso on tinkering with the implication or meaning of decisions being made by the player - difficult to do in doom - should result in A, B or C outcomes being transformed into A2, B2, C2 variant outcomes after having the player finding merit making a return from that devolution on their own recovery, changing implication even in stock mechanical state! ect ect ect cascade or spiral until it becomes brand new outside the realm of what could conceivably be programmed mechanically. You cant give it to the player, you can only account for it)

 

They find it, they carry it.

 

It doesnt have to be as profound as that either. The Medikits and Armor wouldnt even be in the game if you played it flawlessly. We take that and apply it any aspect of gaming, but especially towards map design and pathing exploration and not just for collectables or unlocks or powerups, come on now.

 

Very few if any games or levels, we are talking about levels afterall, actually move out of the number 1 category. They like to pretend they do, dont they?

Edited March 6, 2023 by Dreamskull
Elaboration - I couldn't resist