Is it possible for a map to be too detailed?

[hardcore_gamer]

What I mean by "too detailed" is that there isn't a single piece of wall or corner that doesn't have huge amounts of detail in it. What is your opinion of such maps? Do you love it and think it looks awesome or do you think such levels just look overdesigned/goofy?

 

[esselfortium]

I don't think it makes sense to judge detail purely quantitatively. There are highly-detailed levels that look like jumbled messes, and there are highly-detailed levels where a lot of care has been put into crafting an attractive environment. It's not about the line count, it's what you're creating with those lines.

[Xyzzу]

Gothic99 MAP01, anyone?

[Bryan T]

It's hard, but yes, it can be a problem.  The wad bloody steel is guilty of this.

[galileo31dos01]

It's not a matter of how much detail is put into something, but what does the detailing contribute to the map. As long as it doesn't affect the gameplay negatively, I think anything is acceptable but I also believe it's important that the map looks minimally attractive by visuals. Tons of beautiful detailing won't necessary make the gameplay better, but it can make it flow smoother. I would only think of a map as "too detailed" if it constantly interferes with my gameplay, e.g. torches in the middle of the way, too much darkness so hitscanners are invisible, trees to get stuck all the time, too many pillars or random objects so you're prone to eat your own rockets... Then there's flat or lack of detailing, I usually dislike maps that look all samey (same texture in every room, only squares, corridors-only), but if they play really well, I might enjoy them anyway. Maps that play very well and look astonishing are my preference, BTSX for example, I don't recall any map having invasive detailing and that's a big plus.

 

I can't vote because both options are like black and white, and I'm always in the spectrum.  

[geo]

I need to find where I'm going. Other than that... style over detail.

[Nine Inch Heels]

Detailing needs to be effective, that's what's important. If that detailing takes 20 linedefs or 100 linedefs doesn't matter in that regard.

 

Details such as the one below aren't too difficult to do with some of the features builders have nowadays. What really matters is that it looks striking, and it gives that map a sense of identity™. You can already create similarly interesting visuals with half the amount of linedefs that have been used for this section, if not less. A gas-truck full of paint isn't what makes an artist.

 

That being said, I disapprove of your poll, because the options there are much too black and white for it to be able to create some idea of what a general opinion is on the subject of detailing.

[Ed]

As a mapper,  yes, absolutely.  Once you establish a level of detail,  it commits the rest of the build to that standard, which drains your creative stamina.  

[Fonze]

What others said. But as a mapper who obsesses over adding more and more lines to my detail work, I'll note that I wouldn't recommend my method to anyone. One reason I took up speedmapping was to learn to detail more minimally to combat that bad habit which I have; though it produces some nice screenies, it eats a lot of time and as Ed said, it also eats one's creative stamina. Case in point:

 

 

And where the map basically sits in limbo now:

 

 

Time for another speedmap... heh

[Obsidian]

A good indication of bad overdetailing is when it interferes with the gameplay on some level: this can range from needlessly bumpy terrain to architecture that can snag the player to the old Gothic99 problem of slowing down your system (I'm wondering if that had to do with needless midtextures, I've noticed that a lot of them in one shot can cause lag). Something to bear in mind.

[pcorf]

I like the classic-style of detail or limit removing port detail. Not the extreme detail (King ReOL).

 

But if you don't like detail there is this map in Mock 2 (MAP31) that self undetails itself.