Usually, I come up with a great idea/theme that I think would fit well with a map. I create a few sketches to get an idea of what it will look like visually and create some fast detail prototyping in Radiant. I usually end up with something that looks pretty grand and pretty cool. Pretty is the word.
Then I start working with the map layout and flush out a decent alpha. It should play well, lots of flow and connectivity. Try to balance out weapons and items across the map. Great.
Then when detailing the map, I find that there is no possible way I can fit the original prototypes into the layout. I end up moving one thing or another to make up for something else and I end up with a bloody mess that doesn't look as good as what I had in mind and doesn't play as well either.
It seems as if I can make either pretty maps or maps that play well, but can never seem to make the two fit together. Maybe I'm too much of a perfectionist, but I'd like to hear your thoughts and suggestions.
Pretty maps that play well
Pretty maps that play well
[size=85][url=http://gtkradiant.com]GtkRadiant[/url] | [url=http://q3map2.robotrenegade.com]Q3Map2[/url] | [url=http://q3map2.robotrenegade.com/docs/shader_manual/]Shader Manual[/url][/size]
Well, I usually create the layout as I go, connecting it neatly to whatever details I've laid out. I feel I've played enough q3 1on1 too be able to create a good layout this way. 
some people feel they should create the layout and then add details. Sometimes that work, sometimes it don't. It sounds to me that you rather limit your maps to one certain style when you create 'prototypes' on detailing.
I usually start I map when I find something I like and then base my detailing on that, not necessary a 'genuine' copy.
My 10NOK's.
some people feel they should create the layout and then add details. Sometimes that work, sometimes it don't. It sounds to me that you rather limit your maps to one certain style when you create 'prototypes' on detailing. I usually start I map when I find something I like and then base my detailing on that, not necessary a 'genuine' copy.
My 10NOK's.
IMHO starting the work on a multiplayer map from a theme idea is basically a not right thing to do... You can't turn "the map set in forrest" into q3dm6 layout - what you can is to make pro-q3dm6 layout to look good. You'll have more choices of what to do next, how the map may look, etc.
[size=75][url=http://www.lukinonline.com]lukinonline.com[/url][/size]
I have been thinking and discussing this for a long time with various people and have finally come to the conclusion that the only person in the end I need to satisfy is me. I appreciate we craft levels for a game, and at the end of the day if the level is unplayable that could seem a little pointless. However, I like to see what can be done with the game rather than worrying overly whether or not what I have created plays especially well. Increasingly I see level design following the demands of the small but vocal pro-gaming fraternity. Dont misunderstand me I am in no way knocking those that consider themselve pro-gamers, but it must be remembered that there are other factors to be considered in level design.
Certainly levels can look fabulous and play well, but the point for me is what constitutes 'playing well'. Having an interesting and absorbing time wandering about inside someone's work is for me more enjoyable than fast and furious death match competition.
Certainly levels can look fabulous and play well, but the point for me is what constitutes 'playing well'. Having an interesting and absorbing time wandering about inside someone's work is for me more enjoyable than fast and furious death match competition.
Whatever....
Pretty much as Lukin said, start with a minds-eye vision of the finished map and it'll look OK but play badly.
You have to nail the layout and flow, and the graphical touches and end visual style of the map is something which comes at the end.
This isn't a reality I like. I'm with you in starting with a vision and working it up to a completed map. But it does not work. I've worked though just 4 'official' released, but I'm confident that I've established that it's not the optimum way to do it.
Design, layout, gameplay. Then graphics, finishing touches, visualisation.
You have to nail the layout and flow, and the graphical touches and end visual style of the map is something which comes at the end.
This isn't a reality I like. I'm with you in starting with a vision and working it up to a completed map. But it does not work. I've worked though just 4 'official' released, but I'm confident that I've established that it's not the optimum way to do it.
Design, layout, gameplay. Then graphics, finishing touches, visualisation.
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
― Terry A. Davis
I wish, but I haven't been able to find any.. I'd say it's mostly about "hitscan not QUITE as mega powerful" because of the enhanced player dodging ability...dzjepp wrote:Speaking of which, can anyone point me to tips on just exactly what people look for in q4 1.3 (1.4) maps? What are the fundamental design changes that are needed to adapt the new gameplay changes? I want to take a stab at a map and would like to start off on the right foot.
Thanks