In Defense of Downtown's Giant Arrow: An Analysis of Open vs Linear Map Design

[Arsinikk]

Today, I came across a video by That Nukem Guy (good video btw) talking about the Doom II map Downtown (MAP13). In the video, he first starts playing a beta version of the map, and then he plays the final release version of the map that we all know. What stuck out to me the most about the beta version, was 2 things:

1. The area with the 3 powerups to the north being a sort of hell dock in the beta version is super dope.
2. The Beta version of the map actually didn’t have the giant arrow that we all know

 

This got me thinking about how interesting it was that id Software felt the need to add a giant arrow to the map in the first place. It’s definitely been a recurring debate topic in the Doom Community with people taking the hard stance of “arrows placed in maps are bad” or “Downtown as a map was designed so poorly that they needed to add an arrow to it”. I won’t be diving deep into whether or not Downtown itself is a bad or good map, as I feel that is going to be a subjective topic. What I’d like to focus on is why the arrow was added, and why I think that adding the arrow was actually a smart move on id Software’s side.

 

The arrow in question in the thirteenth Doom II map Downtown:

 

First off, let’s talk about Downtown as a map, and what makes it different from other Doom II maps. Downtown is what I’d call the first real city map of all the IWADs. By “city map”, I do not mean that the map has a city aesthetic, but rather that the map’s progression is quite open with multiple ways (or buildings in this case) for the player to go through. Downtown is a unique map in that it throws the map in the player’s face and tells them to “have fun” with it. Sure, there are certain buildings that require keys to enter, but it is still very open-ended.

 

For some extra context, let’s look back at some other maps for comparison. I don’t think it’s a question that Doom 1 maps and even most Doom II maps tend to be quite linear in progression. Yes, they sometimes had secret areas or passages, or sometimes there’d be more than one path, but the player was often never too confused of what “the main path” was (Unholy Cathedral may be confusing but not because of it having multiple paths). Some people may look to Mount Erebus of Doom 1 as a city map, but I don’t really see it as the same thing. Mount Erebus surely is a quite open map, yes, but the progression, while sometimes a little strange, is still pretty straight forward.

 

So let’s take a player who has become accustomed to the previous linear map design of Doom and Doom II maps. When a person like that comes across this map, there is a possibility that they may get a bit overwhelmed by the amount of choices and open-ended design.  Keep in mind, compared to modern maps the amount of choices is quite small, but compared to the maps that came before from id Software, it is much more open. It is here where the arrow starts to make a lot of sense. The arrow is what brings linearity to this map for those players that do not enjoy open-ended map design. It is a win-win for both types of players: ones that like to explore and not be told in what order to check things out, and also those players that just want to be told how to get through the level.

 

This also makes a lot of sense in the context of id Software trying to make something accessible to as many players as possible (although I’d argue that people would just generally buy Doom II anyway for being a sequel to the success of Doom 1). I think it’s important to note that Doom II in general was meant to appeal to as many people as possible, so it would make sense that some maps that were playtested would end up getting tweaks to make them accessible to as many kinds of players as they could. I think sometimes as mappers and fans of the game, we forget that we have the luxury of having many different kinds of wads directed towards many types of players. id Software’s audience was meant to be as broad as possible.

 

 

Speaking of Open map design, I’d like to bring attention to the quite impressive and beautiful wad Lost Civilization. Jaska’s megawad, while impressive, is a very open ended experience. There are many different paths taking the player different ways, which leads to the main path not being very clear. This is specifically why as a player who enjoys a certain amount of linearity, I do not personally enjoy Lost Civilization very much. I can look at the combat design, the overall impressive architecture and appreciate it all, but because of the lack of linear signposting, it is limited in the amount of players who can enjoy it. I find that in these maps I find myself becoming lost (no pun intended), not in exploration, but rather not knowing where to go.

 

This shouldn’t be seen as me dunking on other wads. It’s just simply that if you don't cater to a specific kind of player, you can’t expect that kind of player to like your maps. This is why I think the arrow in Downtown is quite ingenious, because it doesn’t sacrifice the open nature of the map, and also gives a sense of direction to linear style players. I would highly suggest that if you want your map or wad to reach the most people possible, to just add that little bit of direction into your map. If you want to go hard into a certain demographic and know that it will only appeal to a certain niche of people, that’s perfectly fine. Don’t expect your wad to be universally praised, if you haven’t taken steps to make your map(s) more accessible to the masses.

 

I have a few certain rules that I adhere to while designing my map. Maybe one of these will become useful in your map making. While some of it is subjective, these rules will help in making your map(s) more accessible:

1. Design your maps to be idiot-proof (to a reasonable extent). If you see players playing your map and getting lost due to the obscure progression or missing a switch, that is something you should consider changing. Even if something seems to make sense to you, doesn’t mean it will make sense to everyone. It’s very similar to the “customer is always right” philosophy, though in this case it’s more the “player is always right”. I don’t mean to make every change a player suggests; there’s still some authorship involved in the editing process. But it’s very much a mistake to think that the mapper is always right in their thinking, if everyone that plays the map misses something.
2. Always make the intended main path clear to the player or at least guide them towards some kind of progression. There is a difference between getting lost in exploration and getting lost in the progression. Players do not find it fun to be stuck in a level because they do not know where to go. They do find exploring optional paths for goodies and secrets enjoyable however. This is why making it clear to the player what the main path or goal is, so that they have something to follow. Making maps that are too open and aimless will alienate a certain number of players away from playing your map.

 

The main point of this writeup is to highlight that adding things to your map to make it more accessible is not always a bad thing. I feel that the arrow in Downtown is a perfect example of something so simple, yet so helpful in streamlining the map experience. Regardless of what you think of how the arrow was implemented, giving a direction to a player in a branching path situation is a great way to keep players moving forward. By giving the player the simple choice of following the arrow or not, you are giving the player a much easier choice to make. Psychologically, it is much easier for a person to make a choice if a choice has already been given to them.

[Rudolph]

In defense of Downtown's giant arrow... I actually did not even notice it in the first place! :S

 

 

[Lucius Wooding]

I always thought The Pit was one of the best Doom 2 maps. It didn't need an arrow to tell you where to go from the start; it began at the bottom of a pit. The only choice was to go up; brilliant game design by Sandy tbh. But the reason it was good was mainly that it gave you interesting stuff to do and it had a flowing sort of layout. It started you off more or less in the middle and you didn't have an insane amount to do in any single direction, so you didn't get lost easily. And then it's also easy to return to and recognize the starting area since it's centrally located.

 

Saying a map is bad because it relies on an arrow for direction is a stupid argument in my opinion. An arrow is simply a mapping device which is pretty easily understood, and in the absence of onscreen text or something like waypoints being available, does the job. The mapper recognizes that the player needs an arrow so they put it in; that's good mapping. Better at least than having a confusing layout and not realizing it or compensating in any way. If the mapper thinks some fight needs more beefy enemies and places barons then people could use the same logic and say the map is bad because it relies on barons. Maybe people dislike fighting barons as much as they dislike confusing map layouts, but you can't deny they're effective for their purpose. Bad game design would be if the mapper were ignorant of the map's flaws entirely or they failed in their attempt to fix them.

 

Downtown kind of sucks in my opinion, because it's actually quite linear even though the layout is open. You need to start off the teleport/progression chain by going to the marked spot or else you can't get anywhere. So having some kind of signpost is very much needed. It's a poor mix of linear and open ended progression where most linear maps at least start where the progression is supposed to begin. Downtown lets you wander aimlessly and accomplish nothing until you go to the arrow, and visually it's not that memorable and it's easy to get turned around. A better open map concept in general would be something where you can get keys in any order and use them only to exit IMO. 

 

On top of that, most of the combat is a chore since the scale of things totally doesn't work. The interiors are extremely cramped while the exteriors are big, and monsters are spread out or piled up accordingly. Don't get me wrong, occasionally I see good city maps and the concept was entirely new at the time so it was certainly influential. But it's probably my least favorite in Doom 2. If you simply put the crucial building right by the start, with or without the arrow, it'd be a decent improvement on its own. Put the arrow where you need to do platforming instead.

[joepallai]

In a time before the ubiquitous in-game goal marker, the arrow was a simple but effective tool.   I've used health potions in the shape of an arrow to hint at useful secrets in one of my newer maps.   

[janiform]

IMO if you can accept exit signs hanging in front of teleporters in hell, you should accept an arrow.

[Tiramisu]

The arrow itself is not the issue, the issue is that a map shouldn't need an arrow to drive its progression. A good map guides the player forward in more subtle ways, and there's a lot of tools that you can consider before resorting to a straight up "GO HERE" marker. Sandy could have for example placed the blue key on the balcony of the building, and connected the series of buildings with open-air bridges instead of tunnels so the player can notice the key and deduce for themselves how to get to it (not knocking his map btw, I think he's a great designer).

 

Anyway this might be a controversial opinion and a bit off-topic, but I think that Downtown is a perfectly fine map and not confusing at all - you can reliably beat it if you just explore each building one by one (and it's easy to check on the minimap which ones you've visited by seeing their interiors). The only issue I have with it is that one super long elevator that you have to go through multiple times to 100% everything (plus that it's ugly, but that's a different topic lol). Now Suburbs on the other hand, there's a map that could've used an arrow - pointing at the completely unmarked wall you have to press in order to exit :P

 

EDIT: I realized I kind of missed the point of the topic, as it's less about the arrow and map design and more about player accessibility in the original DOOM games. And I think that's a good point, really! It's better to have a group of players laugh at what they find an unsubtle hint than have another group rage-quit the game due to being unable to progress, like they probably did in Suburbs. This goes double for when you're actually making a commercial release like the original games were.

 

Now however, in the wider DOOM community, we have the benefit of a mostly well-seasoned playerbase who know the game inside out and know what they like - so such a degree of caution isn't all that necessary. I feel like this part ultimately boils down to the discussion about mapper-to-player communication, letting players know what to expect from your maps, choosing your target audience, etc., but that's far too wide a topic to get into right now!

Edited July 15, 2023 by sq. Tiramisu

[Faceman2000]

As someone who is a big Downtown defender, this post was helpful for me. The penultimate map of the first episode of my wad is a big, sprawling complex, with tons of optional areas and no clear direction - everything can be tackled in any order and much of it is skippable. To make this more approachable, I’d given the player the option to get an auto map very early in the level - you’re teased with it immediately and it’s not difficult to get to - and, as someone who enjoys exploring big imposing tech bases, I’d felt that was enough.

 

After reading this, however, I realized that not everyone feels that way and that there should be a bit more indication of how to get to the keys for people who don’t want to spend forty minutes exploring. So! I went through and marked each door that would take the player closer to a key with lights of a corresponding color. You still have to do some exploring, but now you have mini-goals - finding doors with the correct light color - to get you closer to your main goals, the keys.

 

Thank you for your post and your insight, it’s made me a better mapper.

[TheSlipgateStudios]

The vast majority of Doom 2's city levels are bad, not just Downtown. And I don't mind the arrow, as crazy as that might sound

[Maximum Matt]

Hey, Catacombs has a big compass arrow in the middle of the map, and nobody gets on McGee's nuts about it

[Jayextee]

Arrows aren't the big game design sin the Internet makes them out to be and are (in my eyes at least) infinitely-preferable to a sprawling mess of dead-ends and alternate routes with no indication or clue as to where to start the whole ordeal.

[Lucius Wooding]

People who hate arrows are hypocrites. They can't even point to one example where they're bad.

[Mr Masker]

23 minutes ago, Lucius Wooding said:

People who hate arrows are hypocrites. They can't even point to one example where they're bad.

Isn't there a better direction for their hated to go towards?

[Individualised]

Arrows aren't bad when used tastefully. Portal 1 uses them a lot towards the end of the game, which not only helps the player in confusing environments but also provides environmental story telling. I think the issue with Downtown's arrow is that it's just out of nowhere and feels out of place. Had they made it look like a road marking instead of a weird spotlight thing then I imagine we'd probably have less people complaining. As you may be aware though Doom 2's texture budget was highly limited due to storage and time constraints and if we're talking about that then we may as well get into why Doom 2's city levels look so unrealistic in the first place.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Individualised

[LexiMax]

On 7/12/2023 at 6:22 PM, Arsinikk said:

Downtown is a unique map in that it throws the map in the player’s face and tells them to “have fun” with it.

 

Downtown's problem isn't that it's open-ended, it's that it's progression is linear and the level did nothing to funnel you in that direction.  The arrow is good because otherwise the path forward would be almost impossible to intuit.

 

Besides, The Citadel does what Downtown aims to do, and is better in pretty much every way.

 

It's an even more obscure map than Downtown in terms of progression, but the fact that the exit only needs two of three keys and you can collect them in any order means that the level is truly open ended.  It even has an amazing teleport puzzle plucked straight out of a D&D campaign that once understood allows you to go anywhere in the level, even to places previously inaccessible.

 

I think Downtown with The Citadel's multi-key exit system would have been a 10x better map.

 

EDIT: Okay, let's put my money where my mouth is... lexitown_b.zip

 

It's in the same MAP13 slot as the old map.  All key doors have been removed except for the exit, one or two things have been tweaked.  Nothing that couldn't have been done in 1994.  The prior 'a' release just had a vestigial tagged action that needed removing.

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by LexiMax

[Fadri]

In a modern game, an arrow telling the way would have been disguised as an enviromental storytelling element, like making it fresh painted and with the text "survivors here" or something.

The only weird thing about the arrow in Downtown is that it's very abstract... but everything in Doom is. :P

[RonnieJamesDiner]

Ahhhh, so we’re defending the Downtown arrow now I see... alright, let’s do this.

 

 

On 7/12/2023 at 4:22 PM, Arsinikk said:

Downtown is a unique map in that it throws the map in the player’s face and tells them to “have fun” with it. Sure, there are certain buildings that require keys to enter, but it is still very open-ended.

 

For my money, the crux of this map is the moment the player spawns. Like you said, the player is presented with quite a large, open layout to dive headfirst into, but there are factors that immediately push the player in certain directions from the very beginning.

 

Loading into this level for the first time, I’m immediately faced with the decision to go left, straight, or right. Straight feels like suicide, not least because there’s an Arachnotron clearly guarding that direction, and god knows what else waiting beyond. My real choice is left or right.

 

The moment I step out from my initial cover (completely blocking my view of either direction), I wake up a Revenant (one of two) and an Imp to my left, and if I happened to step a little too far I’ve just woken an Arachnotron up, as well. The space to my left is wide open and offering no obvious cover. Yuck.

 

 

To my right, there’s a couple health bonuses, no monsters, and it seems to offer a bit more cover from the monsters already stirring behind me. I’m probably going to the right. Rounding the corner, I see a trail of breadcrumbs leading me down the whole right side of the map.

 

 

 

Whether this was intentional or not, Sandy just led me to the exact opposite corner of the level from where I need to progress, from the moment I spawned in. (As an aside, it was interesting to see those opening Revenants were Imps in the beta map, which certainly may not push a player to run in the opposite direction). A first time player is almost guaranteed to go to the right instead of facing down those Revenants (remember, this will be the 4th time I’ve ever had to fight them, having been introduced in map 06, and only appearing in maps 10 and 11, so they’re still kind of new and scary. The same could be argued for the Arachnotrons).

 

So now here I am at the furthest possible point that I could possibly be from the only spot in the map where I can actually progress towards the exit. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing... but the journey of exploration does begin. Eventually, I can find a plasma gun, a rocket launcher, a BFG, and a computer area map before I ever need a key to keep going. Cool. The stairs that I need to find are, however, not easy to spot – in fact it’s quite easy to miss them without scanning the automap. There’s a chance that the building leading to the blue key might be the last building I check as a new player.

 

 

 

I noticed another change between the beta and the release version was that Sandy decided to re-texture this building with red brick, I’m assuming to help it stand out. It’s too bad that the uniformly dim level makes this practically indistinguishable unless you’re near it, and hopefully your brain isn’t remembering that the only red brick building in the previous level was completely optional.

 

So, we get an arrow.

 

We don’t get the stairs wrapping around the corner of the building.

 

 

We don’t get some lighting contrast.

 

 

We don’t get a sneak peak of the stairs from the safety of our spawn.

 

 

We get an arrow.

 

I think the reason this gets ragged on so much is because, more than anything, it just feels like the mapper breaking the fourth wall to compensate for the level design. It’s not like a trail of pickups where you can say, “oh, I guess the mapper wants me to go this way”, or an exit sign where the player thinks “ah, I guess now’s the time to look for secrets, because the map’s done”. It’s just... Microsoft Clippy poppin’ up in the corner of the level layout saying, “It looks like you’re trying to navigate this map, would you like some help?”.

 

On 7/12/2023 at 4:22 PM, Arsinikk said:

Regardless of what you think of how the arrow was implemented, giving a direction to a player in a branching path situation is a great way to keep players moving forward. By giving the player the simple choice of following the arrow or not, you are giving the player a much easier choice to make. Psychologically, it is much easier for a person to make a choice if a choice has already been given to them.

 

This is why I started my post describing the opening of the level. I might be wrong, but I’d bet good money that most first-time players wandered around this level confused for a good while before ever noticing the arrow (it’s not like it's on the automap). I do agree with the premise of your analysis. Signposting and accessibility can make or break the experience for a lot of players, and a giant arrow absolutely does not break the experience for anyone who didn’t need it. But, I don’t think it was ingenious in this case. I think it was a last minute band-aid for a map clearly designed to be cryptic, exploratory, and full of messy combat. And, it probably could’ve avoided its entire hang-up by not immediately encouraging players to run away from their own objective, before ever even realizing that it’s there.

[Chezza]

The arrow is a good crutch for a poorly designed map.

 

Like real cities, you can navigate one fairly easily if it's designed well. In Doom, players can't tilt their heads to easily view and traverse the vertice elements of the map. I think it was too ambitious.

 

Personally I would have made progress to completion more clear and accessible, while the optional buildings being a bit more gimmicky but gives handy powerups and items. You wouldn't need the arrow if designed well.

[Arsinikk]

On 7/12/2023 at 5:22 PM, Arsinikk said:

I won’t be diving deep into whether or not Downtown itself is a bad or good map, as I feel that is going to be a subjective topic.

I feel a sort of need to clarify that while many people in this thread are pointing out that Downtown is a flawed map, that my goal of this post wasn't to discuss whether Downtown itself is a good map. Note that the title is "In Defense of Downtown's Giant Arrow" and not "In Defense of Downtown". My main goal with this was to more to do a sort of analysis of "Open vs Linear Map Design".

 

While it is true that Downtown may seem like a very linear map nowadays, compared to later maps in Doom 2 and especially when comparing modern Doom maps, I'd argue that with it's placement in Doom 2, Downtown is a much more open map than what came previously in the megawad. I wouldn't argue that Downtown as a map isn't confusing, nor would I advocate that it couldn't be improved. It really seems a bit trivial to try and fix a map that came out almost 30 years ago. I have no problem with people pointing out flaws in the map, as I can't say I'm the biggest fan of it myself.

 

If you really wanna know my thoughts on the overall map, I'd say that it is confusing to navigate even with the arrow. I think it's a flawed design to have an area that the player has to drop down random "chutes" and if they pick the wrong one, they have to backtrack to pick another one to fall down. I will give credit to the map that I think that each building is pretty unique in it's design regarding fights and gameplay. Yeah, I may find the slow lift room annoying, but it least I recognise it being different from the lava ceiling building, or the red key building that you teleport on the roof and drop in to the rest of the building from above. Even the progression of jumping from one building to another, while annoying to do over and over, is pretty interesting instead of just opening a door on the ground floor. I'd argue that from Doom 1994 WAD standards, the buildings look and play distinctly enough from each other. Yeah, compared to WADs that came after it's not too nice, but I think people forget about Vanilla limitations like Drawsegs and Visplanes, when they complain about how low detail it is.

 

Anyways, my main focus on this post was on the arrow itself, and not the map. Regardless on how it was done or the method of pointing the player towards an objective, I called the arrow "genius" because of how it guided players towards starting the map in the first place. I can definitely see how some may call it a "band-aid" to the map, and I'm not going to argue against that notion. I still think that the addition of the arrow makes it a better map, as it gives some direction where the beta version had no direction.

[RonnieJamesDiner]

That's fair. I don't really think a conversation can be had about the arrow without the context of the map surrounding it, but, even though I do find it hilarious, it does its job. It's sort of like... "here's a sandbox to run around in, collect stuff and kill monsters, and whenever you're ready to navigate the map properly, just follow this arrow" hah.

 

I'll admit, it's super identifiable. You could talk about "that one city map from Doom 2", but everyone knows which map you're talking about when you say "the one with the giant arrow". Memorable level design comes in all shapes and sizes, I guess. 

[Chezza]

As @RonnieJamesDiner stated it's very difficult to discuss the rationale of the arrow in Downtown map without discussing the map itself.

 

Fundamentally I have no issues with arrows. Doom is far from a realistic shooter and I don't find the occasional subtly placed arrow that can lead to secrets (like in Doom 1 Slough of Despair) or to help us navigate somewhere too jarring. Moderation is key, and I think they have used arrows sparingly.

 

Also on a side note, I feel the very limited graphics back then added to Doom's abstract aesthetic and so the 4th wall breaking clues don't feel too out of place. Hey, for all we know, Downtowns arrow could be part of the architecture serving a practical purpose for directing customers or staff to the entrance.

[TheShep]

I'm always on the lookout for sandy arrows when i'm playing maps.

 

They are the bomb-diggity!

[Maximum Matt]

Aaaight that's it, I'm gonna create bigarrow.wad, with arrows everywhere, all the wall textures are arrows, all the maps are shaped like crossbow bolts, the sounds will all be replaced by quotes from Arrow, and I'll dedicate the whole thing to the memory of Jeremy Renner.  

What will this prove, you ask?  What's my point?  Well.... I don't know, okay?!  But NOBODY here should be questioning the genius of Lord Petersen.  

[Lucius Wooding]

5 minutes ago, Maximum Matt said:

Aaaight that's it, I'm gonna create bigarrow.wad, with arrows everywhere, all the wall textures are arrows, all the maps are shaped like crossbow bolts, the sounds will all be replaced by quotes from Arrow, and I'll dedicate the whole thing to the memory of Jeremy Renner.  

What will this prove, you ask?  What's my point?  Well.... I don't know, okay?!  But NOBODY here should be questioning the genius of Lord Petersen.  

 

Wouldn't that basically just be Dance Dance Revolution?

[heliumlamb]

i saw something like this last time i was both: walking through an urban area, and operating a motor vehicle

 

[Maximum Matt]

[idbeholdME]

Honestly, it took me years to even realize there was an arrow in Downtown.

 

By far the worst case of an arrow usage is in Industrial Zone. Using what is basically secret mechanics to hide away crucial progression stuff like a keycard is inexcusable. I remember spending hours upon hours in my first playthrough of map 15 ages ago, being absolutely clueless as to what to do next. Ended up with me having to wallhump the entire level and randomly stumbling on the wall. When you don't know to look for it, that arrow is easily missable, especially when you just run through the area in the vanilla resolution. Might seem trivial to any player these days and it does to me too, but as a first time player, Industrial Zone stopped my progress through the game in its tracks for a long time because of its reliance on the arrow.

Edited July 24, 2023 by idbeholdME