Mapping Sins

[schwerpunk]

I agree with everything else, but this...

Zemini said:

Anyways I hate:

1. Bad monster progression: I want to start off killing easier things. Don't just thrown 20 barons and 10 revenants at me in the second/third part of the game.

...is something I've been using a lot lately, mostly as a result of trying to make my maps more non-linear, but also by using powerful enemies to create a 'soft' barrier to an area. Here's a super simple, linear example:

http://i.imgur.com/lMKBnKC.jpg?1

The yellow path is more cautious. You get the weapon from the blue area, and proceed through the dangerous red area, and onward to whatever lies beyond. In this way, the weapon acts as a sort of 'key' to getting through red, while being able to defend yourself.

The green path is more dangerous, but still possible. You juke past the monsters, and continue, hoping the mapper has made this approach feasible (imho, it should be).

What I like about this approach, is that you can modify the difficulty of the obstacle by adding monsters that threaten the player's health to greater degrees. In this way, the red area may completely block players without the necessary skills. But the blue area is still technically optional, whereas if you'd instead gone with a key in the blue area, and a keydoor in the red area, then it's a straight-up hard barrier.

[Koko Ricky]

Probably most of what you're about to read has already been covered, but here goes. So let's not think in terms of mapping "sins" and more in terms of design choices that can disrupt gameplay negatively.

Ugly aesthetics can ruin an otherwise decent map. Think carefully not only about texture and lighting choices, but the overall thematic scheme of your map. It's not wise to mix in lots very different textures unless you really know what you're doing. This can be difficult because most people have no knowledge of color theory.

Getting too extreme with either minimalism or overabundance of detail can look bad, too. When there's too much detail, it can not only cramp or distract the player, but it can look mighty awkward, because the more detail you add, the more the engine shows its age. Contrarily, minimalism may have worked in Classic Doom, but any modern mapper ought to add a bit of refinement. You don't want your areas to be so blocky and devoid of decoration that it starts to get into Wolfenstein territory.

Inescapable traps can be very frustrating. It's good to, as often as possible, allow for a way out, even if it's subtle or hidden. Yes, the player can save any time they want, but if they make a lot of progress and suddenly it's all thrown away because they fell in a deep pit, that's not fun.

Lighting is your friend. You don't have to carefully draw shadows on every object in every room, but leaving them relatively plain can look disengaging. Add lights and shadows where appropriate, because it can really add a lot of atmosphere to a map. If you're going to attempt gradients, make sure it looks appropriate to the architecture and don't get carried away. Also, making shadows too light or too dark can look awkward.

Custom graphics and sounds should be added with taste. It's very easy for elements to clash poorly. The idea is for the custom content to feel appropriate within the Doom universe. This can probably be ignored for joke wads, but joke wads are generally hideous on purpose and are kind of a middle finger to the player and not recommended.

Be logical about thing placement. Hellish decor can fit within say, an urban or techbase setting, but don't shoehorn it in; it should make sense within the context of the map. If you're going to give the player a powerful weapon upfront, then keep its ammunition limited for awhile. If you're going to have nazis in your map, then the location should be fitting. Don't be arbitrary about the general placement of weapons/enemies/power-ups/ammo; think about player progression and how to keep things interesting as the map progresses.

[Zemini]

schwerpunk said:

I agree with everything else, but this...

...is something I've been using a lot lately, mostly as a result of trying to make my maps more non-linear, but also by using powerful enemies to create a 'soft' barrier to an area. Here's a super simple, linear example:

http://i.imgur.com/lMKBnKC.jpg?1

The yellow path is more cautious. You get the weapon from the blue area, and proceed through the dangerous red area, and onward to whatever lies beyond. In this way, the weapon acts as a sort of 'key' to getting through red, while being able to defend yourself.

The green path is more dangerous, but still possible. You juke past the monsters, and continue, hoping the mapper has made this approach feasible (imho, it should be).

What I like about this approach, is that you can modify the difficulty of the obstacle by adding monsters that threaten the player's health to greater degrees. In this way, the red area may completely block players without the necessary skills. But the blue area is still technically optional, whereas if you'd instead gone with a key in the blue area, and a keydoor in the red area, then it's a straight-up hard barrier.

Did you make that map just to show your point? Anyways I understand that there can be multiple routes and ambushes and stuff. I look at Tricks and Traps as a great example. Classic Doom/Doom2 did a good job at monster progression for the most part.

But I have seen a lot of crazy maps where this isn't the case. Hard monsters, and dozens of them pretty much in your way all the time. Not my cup of tea. Personal taste.

[schwerpunk]

Zemini said:

Did you make that map just to show your point?

Haha, yeah. It's not so much a map as a mockup. It would be an awful map to actually play.

Anyway, fair enough. As with a lot of these 'sins,' I'd say they're mostly about context and personal preference. For instance, I'd say any significantly large map without secrets seems like a waste to me, but I'm not going to give it 0/10 if it's otherwise a good map.

[Fonze]

schwerpunk said:

I agree with everything else, but this...

...is something I've been using a lot lately, mostly as a result of trying to make my maps more non-linear, but also by using powerful enemies to create a 'soft' barrier to an area. Here's a super simple, linear example:



The yellow path is more cautious. You get the weapon from the blue area, and proceed through the dangerous red area, and onward to whatever lies beyond. In this way, the weapon acts as a sort of 'key' to getting through red, while being able to defend yourself.

The green path is more dangerous, but still possible. You juke past the monsters, and continue, hoping the mapper has made this approach feasible (imho, it should be).

What I like about this approach, is that you can modify the difficulty of the obstacle by adding monsters that threaten the player's health to greater degrees. In this way, the red area may completely block players without the necessary skills. But the blue area is still technically optional, whereas if you'd instead gone with a key in the blue area, and a keydoor in the red area, then it's a straight-up hard barrier.

Agreed. Monster progression is relative and adds many elements of strategy to the game. Thinking-Man's Doom ^^



I also agree with what Goatlord said about gun progression in a general sense. But if the mapper states a E3-stylized placement for the map then I expect anything.

[scifista42]

I have played enough maps/wads that start by seducing the player by letting him kill Zombieman and Imps, then add Shotgunguys and Demons, then add Chaingunners, Lost Souls, Cacodemons and Hell Knights, etc, and similarly with weapon progression. I don't need intros to everything, because I already know what enemies and weapons Doom has and how the game mechanics work, since I'm playing PWADs for some time already. I'm playing wads for the pleasure of Doom's gameplay and interesting-ness of its level design, and I'm finding that stereotypical progression can (although it doesn't always) make things tedious. I'm far more concerned about relative difficulty progression and style/theme progression than progression of introducing enemy types and weapons.

[Rayziik]

scifista42 said:

Stuff

I agree with this. Monsters as difficulty is very much so a different concept than monster placement as difficulty.

Incorporating the layout in monster placement can greatly change the difficulty of an encounter, or make certain monsters more dangerous. See Sunlust for or SWTW for some great examples.

[baja blast rd.]

Yeah, people sometimes say things like "omg, an ARCHVILE on map01, what the hell!!!" and my first thought is, "You know, there are some easy (but still fun) setups that involve archviles, right?"

[Koko Ricky]

Fonze said:

I also agree with what Goatlord said about gun progression in a general sense. But if the mapper states a E3-stylized placement for the map then I expect anything.

I tried something interesting (it'll be released one day, I swear!) in which I allow the player to get the BFG very early in the map, but there's consequences. Not only is there initially limited ammo for it, but grabbing it will transport you back to beginning of the map, and since there's not enough ammo at the beginning to kill everybody (you have to bum rush it), you're sort of being punished for grabbing the BFG, and you might be inclined to use up the ammo early to make things easier.