Vanilla or detailed map architecture?

[Sonikkumania]

For three decades we've come to see maps that look astounishing or just plain dull, though beauty is in the eye of beholder. There's futuristic techbases with high detail, destroyed cities and hellish realms which all look amazing, and we've sure come long way since the days of Doom 2 City maps. I don't want to bring up any particular wads/levels myself because we all surely know our favourites, though you're free to promote work that inspired you with it's asthetics. 

  The point of this thread is to discuss is it the more vanilla styled level appearance ala Doom 2 or something more modern that you prefer? 

As a bonus question, is there some theme for a level you prefer above all (tech, city, wolf3d etc.)? 

  Like, as for me I admire the talent and creativity that goes tomaking a detailed level but personally the sheer amount of such levels have driven me to appreciate the more laidback style of classical architecture. Should I map myself, I consider my style to be somewhat of a classical detailism hybrid, if that makes any sense. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Sonikkumania

[volleyvalley]

Always vanilla detailing. There isn't any particular reason on why, but I feel like Doom is supposed to fun, instead of being a very hard map with heaps of micro detailing all over the place. I've found, that I have more fun in various old-school or old-school imitating mapsets, than in modern, more detailed and harder mapsets, which are no fun to me. For me, it's unfortunate that the Doom community has shifted from crappier looking, but fun maps to hard, hyperdetailed maps. The point I'm trying to make is that a map doesn't have to be lusciously detailed to be good. 

[Graf Zahl]

I don't see why detail and difficulty are supposed to correlate. We have seen extremely hard but low detail maps but also some highly detailed ones with reasonable difficulty.

I'd have to agree on the sentiment about difficulty you voiced - I also enjoy the more classic styled gameplay much more than what many modern map sets have to offer - but I also like it when a mapper tries to make their map look good, either by more intricate detailing or texturing.

[yakfak]

i like maps that look ugly as hell; i like large expanses of noisy ceiling textures; i like rooms with wildly varying light levels for no reason; i like silly jokes hidden either in plain view or in map mode and i like mismatching textures (i don't really like straight-up memes everyone's already sick of, but weirder glimpses into the mapper's sense of humour are super welcome) and i like handmade pixel font read-outs and i like common textures used in novel or ridiculous ways. that's my theme. whether you wanna express it in 1000 linedefs or 30000 is completely understandable and i like both

 

tbh i think detail goes beyond architecture; the secondary reason we see giga monster counts in big adventure-slaughter maps is cos they tie the room together

[Stupid Bunny]

I’m going to try and avoid turning this into another discussion about “gameplay vs. aesthetics” because it’s rather clearly a false dichotomy borne of some kind of selection bias. Any commentary I make here will be focused strictly on aesthetics unless I state otherwise. Maps can be gorgeous and lovingly detailed and still fit to any number of gameplay styles and quality thereof.

 

I have no preference towards either high or low detail maps, as such, but I think I put a premium on what could vaguely be termed “personality.” I respect and can enjoy, for instance, a map that creates a competent and visually appealing techbase environment, but if I can’t say much else about it beyond that then I’m less likely to remember it very well. “Personality” in this sense can describe a lot of things, be it a grim, foreboding atmosphere, a quirky sense of humor, awe-inspiring and overwhelming set pieces, or just something really novel I might never have thought of, but all of these things can be achieved without a lot of “detail” in the sense of added sectors and sidedefs and such.

 

I’m always citing Equinox up in here and really need to go play some new WADs but it does do an amazing job of strategically using lighting contrast, ceiling height, and just the right amount of added trim to create something beautiful, and that looks a lot more complex than it is.  That said, though, I also love a map where great care has been put into detailing every corner and surface, even in a vast space, where everywhere I go there is something new to look at. Detail, when thoughtfully done, can have a way of adding personality in its own right, whether as tangible little Doomcute embellishments or as scrolling lights and buttressed walls and ceilings drawing in the eye and adding layers of excitement to the fight to come.

 

Naturally, a lot of “personality” can also come from the gameplay itself, and nowhere more so than in visually simple maps. This isn’t to say that minimally designed maps are inherently more fun to play, or that more detailed maps have inherently more uninteresting gameplay—again, this is reductive. Think about Going Down and you’ll see what I mean. (I could talk about how discussion of slaughter gameplay is also often reductive, but I said I wasn’t going to go down this rabbit hole. Or should I say stupid bunny hole lol am I right)

 

In my own maps, I guess I could describe my preferred level of detail as “vanilla+” or some shit like that. This is because it’s way easier to do I enjoy doing less with more, and recognize the power of macro architecture, of lights, shadows, big overhangy structures and vaulted spaces to create atmosphere without a ton of sectors.  At the same time, I also like to add enough detail to make the map tell a bit of a story, or just to include a thing that I think would be cool or fun to find (a beer tap here, a torture room there, lots of chairs and beds can’t go wrong with those). One of the challenges of high detail design is making it look good and not cluttery, and I’m not terribly good at that yet.

[baja blast rd.]

I lean towards preferring maps whose design has a sense of concept and representation behind various features. I don't mean just Doomcute or story, either (although those are part of the package) -- some of the best abstract maps out there do this too. It's the feeling that the design 'is' something rather than, you know, just 'rocks' or 'building' or whatever else. It just might be something that has no Earth parallels and language we can describe, but it still is something. Here's a strong example of abstract design that does that. Idk what that is. It's not Doomcute-style representation like "a boat" but it radiates some sort of underlying identity the same way. (Also lots of Sunder/Sunlust/Nihility/etc. do that too.) (Also my favorite craft author is probably Mechadon whose maps are abstract but not really in a "is something ineffable" way, so it's just a "lean". Preferences are messy. It's always strange to me when people claim to be fans of exclusively one sort of thing lol.)

The interesting thing about this is that you can have "hyperdetailed" maps that do not really have specific identities -- rather the appeal might be more fidelity (think of a rocky cliff that breaks up the rocks into zillions of sectors, but the rocky cliff is still just "a rocky cliff" rather than anything more specific). Then on the flipside, you can also have really low-detail maps that are packed with conceptual identity. There are many examples but I'm just thinking of this one because it was on DoD recently: this city in Ray Mohawk 2 m16 is painted in really broad strokes but it has buildings, lighthouses, and a ship. (This is low-detail but doesn't make me think of Doom 2.) There are also higher-fidelity maps that have plenty of concept and lower-fidelity maps that have none. But the whole point is those are independent to some degree. That independence is why I don't really have a strong preference at all for fidelity level (which seems to be what people are most often referring to when they bring up the high-detail vs. low-detail split). I actually would strongly prefer playing a mix of fidelity levels, from low to moderate to high, because the differing ways those types of wads go about creating their identities and immersive experiences is really cool to me. (Also it's not even that simple -- there are more splits than just representation vs. fidelity.)

[enigma101]

It depends. If the map is meant to be detailed, then I like it as the details look like they fit. If details are just put there for the sake of it then it makes the map look as though whoever is making it is just throwing details at the wall and seeing what sticks. That being said, if details are used to make up for bad gameplay, then I prefer classic-styled maps.

[Fiber Wire]

I prefer vanilla style detailing. Just enough detail to get a feel for what the place is meant to represent and let the combat flow and be a fun and challenging level. 

 

Some designers put way too much detail in their maps to the point it impacts the combat/movement. If I’m bumping into details while trying to evade enemies that is going to be a problem. 

 

On the other hand, there’s times when it is clear the goal was to make the areas seem realistically detailed. While it can certainly look amazing, that doesn’t always mean it will be fun. Next to the combat issue I mentioned earlier, if detailing appears to have been more important than the map being fun that could also lead to some issues for me as a player.

 

I’ve seen this done with Wolf 3D and Duke 3D too. Duke 3D tends to have it a bit worse because the engine is a bit more capable of representing real-world locations than Wolf 3D or Doom, so hyper-realistic detailing is done quite often. Wolf 3D it is mostly due to objects being placed in ways that hinder movement, and it is amplified in levels with high guard counts. 

 

The best mappers are capable of balancing it out in a way that objects and corridors don’t hinder player mobility (or at least not to the point of ridiculousness) and also balance realism with the abstract nature of classic doom maps.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Fiber Wire

[Somniac]

3 hours ago, Stupid Bunny said:

the power of macro architecture, of lights, shadows, big overhangy structures and vaulted spaces to create atmosphere without a ton of sectors. 

 

This pretty much, its perfectly possible to apply this philosophy to vanilla maps and create environments that look a lot more complex than they actually are. I love it when I see this sort of thing!

 

A good example off the top of my head would be The Smoking Dog MAP01 (as I was just replaying that WAD last night) - there's loads going on, a complex layout with tons of verticality and connectivity, fairly significant detail and its doom2.exe. How far it pushes the visplanes and drawsegs I'm not entirely sure, and there's definitely a level of skill in pulling it off, but that idea of the detail being in the geometry and its usage is where its at for me, and where I'd like to be eventually. 

[ReaperAA]

My personal preference is towards more modern side of things. However, I don't like "overdetailing" such as overuse of sectors in tight spaces (such as those in mid-2000s era). My preference is towards modern visuals that are achieved using moderate amount of sectors, but good and creative usage of textures and lighting. Skillsaw's stuff like Valiant (it's later maps), Ancient Aliens and also Eviternity follow this well.

 

Although with that said, I don't mind classic looks (using OG texture) as long the detailing is neat/clean and the rooms aren't too bare (aka Hell Revealed)

 

11 hours ago, Sonikkumania said:

As a bonus question, is there some theme for a level you prefer above all (tech, city, wolf3d etc.)?

 

It depends. Though I do really like hi-fi techbases (like Episodes 2 and 3 in Ancient Aliens or Episode 5 of Valiant), but it all really depends. Although, I don't think I really like "Wolf3d" styled stuff. Too out of place in my eyes.

[LadyMistDragon]

Detail is fine as long as it serves the story or the purpose of the map. Like if you're making some difficult, abstract sort of thing, it completely makes sense to go wild with the geometry. But having trimming stuffed literally everywhere or some random vanilla computer console or something similar showing up somewhere doesn't really add all that much when there's no sense of place to accompany it. Such maps are more likely to fall into a "take or leave" category for me, although I'll still play it most likely.

[TheSlipgateStudios]

Why not both?

[Sonikkumania]

9 minutes ago, TheSlipgateStudios said:

Why not both?

Because everyone doesn't want both. 

[Roofi]

2 hours ago, TheSlipgateStudios said:

Why not both?

 

I agree, here is Misri Halek , a vanilla compatible level along with the whole megawad. Vanilla has limits but it doesn't necessarly mean undetailed.

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Roofi

[Klear]

I don't think we're talking about vanilla compatibility but vanilla feel. That screenshot feels nothing like Doom.

[BakedBunForMe]

Take a look at gothic99 map 01 if you please. 

https://doomwiki.org/wiki/MAP01:_Entryway.com_(Gothic_99)

 

And take a look at its "detailed map architecture".

/j

[Koko Ricky]

I'm very "Do what serves the art." If it's a modern GZDoom map with a flurry of features, then high detail makes sense. High detail can also look good in vanilla or limit-removing maps. But it can also clutter the play field, regardless of port; or it can look garish and distracting if overdone. Contrarily, an overly simple map can look plain, dull, or barren, and this discourages engagement and immersion. So I say, when designing a map, it will hopefully become quickly apparent to the mapper what level of detail would best benefit gameplay and aesthetic. 

[zokum]

I prefer maps to stay within vanilla boundaries. I do have a few 'rules' that make me appreciate maps more.

* Details and graphics shouldn't impede game play to any measurable degree.
* Consistent texture theme, not too many or wild style changes.
* Same level of details everywhere. Avoid hyper detailed areas since they make it obvious that some areas aren't as detailed.
* Consistent within the same map set about what hurts and how much, preferably close to Doom 2.
* Having floors and ceiling that move up and down to change the environment around is more important that details.
* Code new tools to make things people haven't seen before!
* In area looks like it would be fun to explore, make it so, avoid using interesting areas for mere scenery.
* Use custom textures and flats as long as it fits in with the rest of the look and feel of the map.
* Slopes suck in Doom. It looks janky and out of place to me.

[Gez]

11 hours ago, Sonikkumania said:

Because everyone doesn't want both. 

Why not?

 

I like maps when they are good. This is usually not measured by some secondary and arbitrary technical measurement, such as "detail density by blockmap block" or whatever. "This map would have been good if it had, like 3 less vertices", said no one ever.

 

Also vanilla can perfectly well do detailed architecture, I mean we've all played BTSX, right?

[Steve D]

As a general rule, if you want to know what I think, just read whatever @baja blast rd. has written. I hardly ever disagree with baja -- may I call you baja? ;D

 

I think @Roofi and @Gez also brought up good points. Roofi's screenshot from Misri Halek demonstrates that you can get a lot of detail from the Doom engine in smallish areas. You tend to find yourself in trouble if you do that in larger areas, especially if you have long sight-lines. I encountered this, much to my sorrow, in the 2 maps I did for TNT:Revilution. I spent 4 times as many hours submitting myself to torture in Choco Render Limits, trying to chop out details that caused HOMs,  than I did making the maps in the first place. And the maps weren't really heavy on detail to begin with, because I'm basically a medium-detail mapper with a lot of oldskool feeling within me. Alas, I'm addicted to long sight-lines and endured penance as a result.

 

Gez mentioned BTSX E1, which is always liable to start me off on another slobbering love-fest. I'll try to restrain myself. Still, BTSX E1 for me remains the Gold Standard for techbases, vanilla or otherwise, and while the architecture is as detailed as possible, it's also a triumph of detailed textures.  That, and the intelligent, artistic use to which they were put, created a masterpiece.

 

When it comes to gameplay, I'm not sure what people mean by the good old-timey gameplay of yesteryear, if by that they mean low difficulty. Are you talking about the IWADs or older PWADs? Among the IWADs, sure, KDiTD is easy, but pistol-starting Perfect Hatred or Against Thee Wickedly is liable to cause some distress. Doom 2 maps like Tricks 'n Traps, The Pit and The Living End are brutal, with lots of mid-tiers, often in close quarters, savage traps, and a general paucity of health and ammo. People who have played them again and again and found the best pathways may find them relaxing, but if we could purge your memories and force you to pistol-start them anew, you may find yourself in big trouble.

 

It's true that PWADs of old were, at least until Hell Revealed, relatively easier than modern examples, but the general trend towards higher difficulty has long been underway and shows no sign of stopping, yet we still have a steady stream of less intense maps, so there is something for everyone.

 

As for my taste, it always changes a bit over time. I'm not a slaughter mapper or player, but I'm influenced by the scene. I tend to prefer making and playing somewhat nasty maps, because I'm a Doom masochist. I like getting killed in maps. It sort of ruins my fun if I can survive a map on the first go. Perhaps I need therapy. ;D I'm always a big fan of techbases, whether oldskool like KDiTD and Fava Beans, or some of the eye-popping works of recent years.  Again, BTSX E1 is a pinnacle. As a general rule, I don't like puzzly maps with obtuse progression, but the recently released MyHouse.wad reminds that we shouldn't write our rules in stone.  I can enjoy plain maps in the IWAD style or highly detailed ones. So I guess that's a longwinded way of not really answering your question. ;)

[MoreMending]

I honestly love the newer style of terrain instead of the enclosed terrain in the IWADS, hard to describe why I prefer it or what I consider newer style though.

[Professor Hastig]

Detailing is fine as long as it enhances the look of the map and doesn't get in the way of playing. What's an absolute no-go is floor detailing. This is one of those things that can easily ruin a map.

 

[bofu]

Detail is fine if it doesn't get in the way of gameplay. I do like seeing "lived in" areas in Doom wads (even in Hell levels, to a certain degree of "lived in"). But if I have to choose between a hyper-detailed level where I'm getting stuck on some elaborately decorated columns versus a clean vanilla map, I'll take the vanilla map. And if I have to choose between an absurdly detailed map and a map that uses vanilla aesthetics but does something interesting with them, I'll choose the latter.

 

I recommend that if a map is going for a high level of detail, it should do as much via custom/edited textures and flats as possible instead of going crazy with the sector and linedef counts. I've never gotten zapped by an Archvile because I got caught on a custom flat.

[BetelgeuseSupergiant]

They both are cool, but.. i more prefer high-detailed style
It looks more realistic and i really love it

[Jacek Bourne]

As far as I’m concerned there is no such thing as over detailing as long as the aesthetics don’t negatively affect the gameplay.

[StarTanned]

I'm a mapping newbie, so I feel weird talking as though I have any authority. But speaking only for myself, I'd like to just make something fun for a given audience, whether it's hard or not. And if I can make it fun not just with gameplay, but with cool visuals (whether they're detailed or just inventive or surprising), all the better. They don't have to compete. If shooty-bang-bang gameplay is the point, then don't let glitchy Doom physics ruin that. If the point is to wow the player with details, then don't frustrate them with pointless shooting. Only bother with the balancing act if you're really ready to commit the time to playtest the hell out of things and drop any failed bits, and if you don't mind players completely missing your details because they're busy constantly doing figure eights to avoid bullet hell. Make the bullet hell itself part of the art of the map instead if it's the real point. Because in the end that's what this stuff really is: art. And it's a time investment for both you and your audience. They want to be entertained, and you (hopefully) want to entertain them. So if you're pouring your passion into things, don't worry about screwing up. Just respect your audience's time as best you can and be honest up-front. Even if you really only made your map for yourself on some level, there's no shame in that, or in sharing your map anyway. An interesting mess is usually a hell of a lot more entertaining than a technically perfect slice of mediocrity.

Edited March 13, 2023 by StarTanned

[maxmanium]

Simple detail works very well for Doom. I don't think it looks great when you go too overboard though. Too busy and can interfere with gameplay.

[Bri]

I like a healthy medium: detailed but retaining the blocky doom aesthetic. Just adding simple trim around edges, for instance, or adding simple pillars to flat walls; it all adds up to elevate the look of a map so much. Contrasting textures is also great to add volume and definition to the map. Mostly when I'm making a map, it's a vision of mine, so of course I want it to look as good as possible. And I find detailing does improve the enjoyment of playing.

[TheMightyWhoosh]

Personally, I love a happy medium. My own maps (well, the more recent creations) lean towards vanilla-looking but with a polished finish, coupled with varying levels of detail as and when. 

[Klear]

I've recently learnt to use Boom's fake floors to remove collisions from certain details. Pipe running on the floor across a room? You're supposed to trip over that. A heating unit next to a window the player will want to look out of? Fake floor so it doesn't get in the way. Just have to make sure enemies don't weirdly clip into these things.