Func_Msgboard: When Is A SP Map "big Enough"?

News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Register | Log in

|  | When Is A SP Map "big Enough"?

Posted by Jago [81.197.206.67] on 2004/08/26 12:11:47

I´ve been thinking about this questions for a few days now and thought I'd turn to this board and #tf for ideas. As some of you might know, I am working on a SP map for Quake (1). And the question I have is when is a SP map "big enough"? What amount of time should it take to beat and/or what amount of enemies should it hold? This question obviously applies to most 3D games we (mappers) map for.
Discuss.

.
#1 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2004/08/26 12:47:04
make them as long as you can! my philosophy is to map for as long as i can until i get bored, then i wrap up whatever i have done. ^_^
it's not the best way to do it, but it works for me!
It's The Lower Limit That Matters...
#2 posted by Scragbait [209.226.65.59] on 2004/08/26 12:55:32
The game engine will pretty much limit how big your map can be but knowing the smallest appropriate size is more subjective. With the exception of skill-setting, start or transitional maps, IMHO, E1M1 from Quake would be at the smaller end of a 'full size' single player map.
I think that most speed maps or 100 brush contest maps would be small snack size maps and not have enough meat to be considered full size.
I would also rather play a smaller well made map then a huge one lacking detail or quality.
.
#3 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2004/08/26 13:01:51
I would also rather play a smaller well made map then a huge one lacking detail or quality.
well, when i made my comment on size, i obviously intended for the map to be of good quality regardless of size...
i'm not advocating crappy hugeness here. ;)
Well...
#4 posted by Kinn [217.43.151.33] on 2004/08/26 14:28:22
I find in Quake, the game engine puts some pretty big restrictions on how big my map can get. You can "cheat" by using nifty QC spawning tricks to work around edict limits to some extent (like I did in Bastion), but architectural complexity is pretty limited. Bastion was very basic room-corridor-room type gameplay, so I could chop whole sections out without damaging the flow too much. My current map is a lot more tightly designed however, and I'm having trouble working out which bits should be simplified or chopped out altogether :P
Subjective To Each Map Really
#5 posted by HeadThump [65.141.127.55] on 2004/08/26 14:39:43
on one tip of the scale, you have Spog1 which personally took me over three hours to completely play and was a very satisfying experience, and then you have something like Haunted Halls the secret level for episode 3 which only has forty odd monsters on normal but is also a satisfying experience in and of its self.
Personally, I don't like to drive something to the point of exhaustion. My first release, I can't even stand to look at it in an editor anymore as I nitpicked on it way too long.
Short answer, the appropriate size is whatever completely represents the maps theme.
Well, Vaguely...
#6 posted by Shambler [82.38.194.13] on 2004/08/26 15:01:46
2. The level should contain an entrance and an exit:
That is, you should enter the level at a specific point, preferabley marked as an entrance, and ideally realistic (like a teleporter, door, canyon, tunnel, for example), and you should exit at a specific point, usually a different point to the entrance, and again marked as an exit, again realistic if possible. The level should require some travelling and/or task accomplishment to progress from the entrance to the exit.
3. The level should attain a degree of complexity, and require progression through it:
This expands on 2., and means that the level should contain some (i.e. more than one) areas (i.e. rooms, corridors, outdoor or underwater sections), connected together, that you must progress through to complete the map. Although there are a few maps that consist of single, tall, and multi-leveled rooms, these do have some (but not much) complexity in the room design. In general, the map should achieve complexity via multiple areas and complex area designs, and should require the player to visit a majority of those areas to progress from start to exit. Further, the areas and their layout should be distinct and varied, i.e. not just a series of identical rooms placed in a line.
4. The level should contain a "reasonable" number of monsters:
Where "reasonable" is errr, ummm... Okay, I personally would say a bare minimum of 20 medieval monsters, or 30 base/small monsters. The latter would include Rottweilers, Grunts, Enforcers, Fish, and possibly Zombies, and the former would include everything else. This is to ensure there is some worthwhile and continuous single player combat, which is of course the essence of Quake =). Also, these monsters should be used and positioned throughout the level, and not just dumped together in one room - this is all part of the level being reasonably complex and requiring progress through it. It may be possible to make a proper and even worthwhile level with less monsters, but they would have to be chosen and placed almost perfectly to be effective.
....hope that helps =)
Well
#7 posted by PuLSaR [80.80.111.129] on 2004/08/26 16:17:31
Personally I'm a fan of large maps that take you >20-30 minutes to run thru it and what contain >100-120 monsters. But medium-sized maps can be also enjoyable.
Gameplay is important here. I mean you may make a small map but with a very complex layout and such monster placement that makes player to play it for a longer time.
And also if you want to make a large map you should always remember about engine's limits. It may cause lots of problems when you are close to finishing it.
Good Topic...
#8 posted by metlslime [64.124.188.211] on 2004/08/26 16:48:03
One disturbing trend i've noticed over the last few years (more like the last 5 years actually, yikes!) is that custom SP maps have been getting bigger and bigger. It seems like an id-sized map would get complaints about being short, becuase everyone excpects these necros sized releases with 100-200 monsters. And most of the quality maps coming out are that big, right up to the recent vondur maps and kinn's debut.
This is just personal preference, but i'd rather see maps that were more like two or three times the size of id maps, rather than five or six times. Plus, development hassle is much less when you're not constantly pushing the MAX_WHATEVER boundaries with your map, or spending all day to vis is. If you want to do something grand, how about a mini-episode of reasonable-sized maps?
Melt
#9 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2004/08/26 16:57:32
i understand what you're saying.
for me, it's a personal challenge to make the biggest pieces of mapping i possibly can. when i sit back at the end of a long dev and zoom out and see the thousands of brushes i've laid down, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
i think it's one of the main reasons i map, actually... so i can look at the sucker at the end and say "holy shit."
i wasn't saying that big maps are the only thing worth making nowadays, because that's absolutly not true. i've played some really good medium sized maps and i myself have made a few.
making a medium sized map takes a lot off your mind because you know that you probably won't have any major problems with it, and won't have to do any serious detail culling.
i think, really, map size is best left up to the mapper's discretion.
...
#10 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2004/08/26 16:59:51
also, on the topic of making episodes instead of one large map:
i think the reason i never did it is because of how i feel when i think: "ok, this is going well." then i move on to the next map and you're back to square one with nothing there...
when it's one map, you just keep adding on, and when you loose that drive, you simply turn off regions and look at everything you've done until then, and you get like an extra urge to go on...
maybe that's just me. ;)
#11 posted by Kell [82.41.8.22] on 2004/08/26 17:03:48
maybe that's just me. ;)
I rather think it is ;)
Metl
#12 posted by Shambler [82.38.194.13] on 2004/08/26 17:49:49
Aye, I don't mind small maps at all. A good map is a good map whether it's 30 monsters or 300 monsters.
I really like the idea of really small, like 30 monsters or less, maps, smaller scale, but with loads of detail and really careful monster usage, to maximise each fight (as a contrast to Necrosplay(tm)).
.
#13 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2004/08/26 18:20:39
(as a contrast to Necrosplay(tm))
yeah yeah yeah... ;)
Hmm
#14 posted by Kinn [217.43.151.33] on 2004/08/26 18:33:46
I just get a kind of "more than the sum of it's parts" feeling when building a large map, as opposed to several smaller ones. Also, I finding it's very cool revisiting an area near the end of the level that you last saw ages ago. >:D
This Is Becoming
#15 posted by HeadThump [65.140.58.246] on 2004/08/26 18:57:17
a lets pick on Necros thread.
I can't do it, he's my bud.
But I agree, in the grand scheme of things, I would like to see an episode of medium sized maps that top Beyond Belief. I have enough in the way pf scraps to pull something together, but the will power?!?
#16 posted by Kell [82.41.8.22] on 2004/08/26 20:40:08
If large = brushcount, then I must confess a tendency to detail my maps until I break something.
If large = monstercount then really, I have a hard time getting above 70. I ain't no horde maniac.
And necros will own you all yet...
Hmmmm
#17 posted by HeadThump [65.141.73.156] on 2004/08/27 02:45:50
And necros will own you all yet...
He's making a PainKiller killer isn't he?
Bleh
#18 posted by Vondur [195.128.65.237] on 2004/08/27 03:30:18
well i think when there are three main things in the map:
1. plot
2. action
3. conclusion
Thoughts
#19 posted by Blitz [24.218.135.18] on 2004/08/27 04:21:25
It doesn't have to be as long as ^^^ that guy's last map, but it has to be long enough that you've felt like you've really accomplished something by playing it all the way through.
Some maps do get repetitive if you have to keep trekking over the same areas several times, so I don't necesarily think that time of play is a determining factor.
You should make it as long as possible, without boring the player too much.
IMHO
#20 posted by JPL [192.91.75.29] on 2004/08/27 04:22:26
...large map need to contains at least 100-150 monsters, and you have to play it for at least 30 minutes... in normal skill ... Well, all these feels depends on the player, and what is the game played (Q1/2/3, D1/2/3, RF1/2, RTCW, MOH, HL, HL2, etc...)...
My Opinion
#21 posted by Tronyn [70.64.188.34] on 2004/08/27 05:17:39
I like the trend towards large maps. What I really like are maps that are basically one coherent, huge design, like Glassman's latest. That was a great piece of work. Huge maps that are just huge, without a coherent layout that makes sense (ie, they aren't well planned or planned at all) aren't nearly as cool, for me at least. But I still prefer massive levels with ridiculous amounts of monsters over less ambitious maps, so let's say I'm a necros fan. In fact, the beta of my map that I'm currently vising, obviously custom engine only, contains over 400 monsters on hard. Of course it is possible to go too far and I may have done that.
All of my new levels, I've noticed, are at least 2-3 times the size of any of my previous ones. They also take me way, way longer to create, compilation time and difficulties being part but not all of the reason for that.
.
#22 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2004/08/27 11:51:21
400 monsters
:D that's worth using a custom engine. :D
An Example
#23 posted by spentron [4.152.234.226] on 2004/08/27 15:12:22
I think some of the maps in Serious Sam SE are too big, I think one took me three sessions over three days. And of course that size is mainly waves and waves of monsters. All normally a good thing, but here somewhat lacking variation and subtlety, as well as sort of defeating the purpose of a large map.
A little over an hour is good, but harder to make sure you won't be interrupted.
Long Enough To Satisfy
#24 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.230.101] on 2004/08/30 16:17:59
A map should be long enough to satisfy the player, but not long enough to bore him. Obviously this is based largely on the situations in the map (diversity and challenge in gameplay and aesthetics). These days I get bored pretty easily, regardless of gameplay and aesthetics, so I much prefer medium sized maps over bigger maps.
People have said my two previous Q1SP maps are too short (RPGSP1 and Could.bsp). I'm really not sure if this is good or not. Obviously it could be seen as bad because maybe the maps weren't long enough to satisfy people's cravings, but on the other hand it could be good because that means they didn't get bored before the map concluded. I think a good middle-ground solution might be to make a large-size map that has medium-size gameplay. What I mean is that you can complete the map in the time it takes to finish a regular medium-size map, but if you want to take the time and fully exhaust all of the gameplay features (secrets, non-linear areas, route choices) then it will take the time of a regular large-size map.
Okay last time I tried to explain an idea, czg didn't understand me at all. So you better understand me or else I'm going to ship you to Snoreway!
RPG
#25 posted by PuLSaR [80.80.111.129] on 2004/08/30 16:40:00
good point. But I still more enjoy large maps. I usually don't get bored if monsters pop up all the play time and they do it in a different way.
Medium-sized map can be more detailed without any pain for mapper IMO (comparing to large maps). So, in terms of aesthetics medium-sized maps may be a better variant for mapper.
Personally I feel something like Necros said, even if I want to make a small (not large) map rooms suddenly turn out larger and larger and therefore the size of the whole map is getting larger too.
Long Enough To Satisfy
When the map becomes long enough to satisfy me I realise that it is at least medium-to-large sized.
RPG
#26 posted by Shambler [82.38.194.13] on 2004/08/30 17:07:16
Your maps were well sized and not too short! No complaints for me (and if you dig up any quotes where I do complain, they're lies). The only overall design issue was the seperateness of the end arenas.
I think the idea you put forward is a good and interesting one - I think most players will go for the "explore everywhere" option but even so giving them the choice is good.
"Long Enough To Satisfy"
#27 posted by metlslime [64.124.188.211] on 2004/08/30 17:24:01
Snickering aside, i think this is only related to the problem i was talking about -- most significant map releases are these big maps (100-200 monsters) i was complaining about, which changes player expectations, which means they won't be satisfied with what used to be considered a normal sized map (40-60 monsters.)
Lol Penile Devastation
#28 posted by Lunaran [68.255.31.90] on 2004/08/30 20:22:56
For me, the bigger the map, the better. 300 monsters is a good start. When one single map takes longer to complete it feels much more epic. CZG07 wouldn't have felt as cool had it been the same length but across 8 maps instead of 3.
RPG Is Correct! Sir!
#29 posted by HeadThump [65.140.58.54] on 2004/08/30 21:00:37
I think a good middle-ground solution might be to make a large-size map that has medium-size gameplay.
Bingo. Game play that is highly reminiscent of the original Id maps and Hypno/Rouge, but done in a larger more awe inspiring settings is an ideal worth exploring.
I Agree
#30 posted by starbuck [82.33.89.24] on 2004/08/30 21:45:33
I am easily bored, with a low attention span.
I thought rpgsp1 and could were the perfect length
Same
#31 posted by Mr Fribbles [202.161.117.131] on 2004/08/30 22:26:01
I also thought your maps were a good length, RPG, and not too short at all.
...
#32 posted by necros [66.185.84.80] on 2004/08/30 23:40:50
a mapper's maps are never short -- they are exactly as long as they are meant to be.
;)
So Tell Me, Necros...
#33 posted by Shambler [82.38.194.13] on 2004/08/31 04:48:03
...are you trying to compensate for some size deficiencies elsewhere in your life??
P.S. Hipnotic maps....weren't some of those great?? The Mines one and Tor Torment...mmmm might have to dig that out again....after D3 of course.
<--- Flattered
#34 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.230.101] on 2004/08/31 13:28:23
Thank you all for your gushing compliments regarding RPGSP1 and Could.bsp.
What I meant was that some people felt the maps were too short. But others didn't comment specificly on length, and so they probably felt the length was pretty good. Thus, a good compromise may have been additional optional exploration. (Additional exploration probably would have been good anyway, since neither map had much exploration or non-linearity aside from secret areas.)
.
#35 posted by necros [69.193.222.114] on 2004/08/31 14:37:10
...are you trying to compensate for some size deficiencies elsewhere in your life??
lol, i saw that one coming from a mile away, dude! ;) i was surprised it took this long, actually. hehe
Title Shall Never Be Empty
#36 posted by starbuck [82.33.89.24] on 2004/08/31 15:33:14
i was surprised it took this long, actually. hehe
that's what your mom said
I know some people have mentioned that they'd like big maps with average gameplay. I agree with that, if the largeness means 'possible exploration' but the map has a fairly simple route, or selection of routes. As well as being easily bored, i'm also easily lost.
Greenhorn's Attitude
#37 posted by MadFox [84.31.152.41] on 2004/09/02 14:57:46
If you want to do something grand, how about a mini-episode of reasonable-sized maps?
I am still trying. But my mappings are poor, and I realize there is more in a map than brushes, light and monsters.
Hard cases as gameflow, plotting and essentail logic beat my imagination.
I think the id of making an episode is a rather frivolous matter. I am already glad a can finish an average map. And trying to make one is something what only succeeds in terms of years. Or you should throw the maps to this board and make a contest what other mappers would make of it. But I am affraid they have enough other things to do.
But I must admit, Beyond Believe was the one that started me up.
Roight.
#38 posted by Vigil [212.54.29.156] on 2004/09/04 16:43:24
Big levels usually have a huge problem with gameplay, at least for me. I like the progress from weaker monsters to big ones, and I really don't like large horde fights, especially if end has nothing else. After a certain point, shoving more, stronger monster's at the player's face just becomes tiring.
Nope
#39 posted by Tronyn [142.165.143.209] on 2004/09/04 21:33:43
No, no it doesn't!
I think continual upgrades, both to the player's arsenal and the amount/type of monsters, leads to a suitably "climatic" feeling map, especially if the end is completely over the top (like many of Kona's maps). My 2 cents.
Now go finish JJSQP4
I Disagree With You, Tronyn
#40 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.230.101] on 2004/09/05 14:29:53
After a certain point, you're just throwing lots of monsters at the player. Tense hoard combat is often repetitive and draining on the player's psyche. And besides, it's a lot easier to make creative and interesting combat situations with fewer monsters. Look at Menk; there are lots of creative uses of monsters, but the only hoard combat is at the end--and that is the weakest area of the map, IMO.
Hehe
#41 posted by spentron [4.152.222.32] on 2004/09/06 15:59:54
"Tense hoard combat is often repetitive and draining on the player's psyche. "
1. Relax!
2. That's why it's (usually) at the end.
3. I don't find it too draining, in fact I tend to start yelling "you bastards! You're goin' down THIS time!" or whatever.
In the Serious Sam case I mentioned, though, one starts to ask "what else is there?"
I Think
#42 posted by Zwiffle [69.210.46.1] on 2004/09/06 16:33:39
that I would prefer more focused combat than horde combat. Many areas in Doom3 were more focused than horde-based, and it can be a great experience. More thought put into combat situations can be rewarding for the player and can be more of a challenge on smaller levels. Overall, more focus is a good thing (though I'm not saying horde combat can't be focused.) On bigger levels however, it can be difficult keeping the higher number of combat situations fresh, and an occasional horde fight can change the tempo.
Hordes, Eh?
#43 posted by Kinn [81.155.131.195] on 2004/09/06 17:26:21
what, you mean like this one?
http://kinn.spawnpoint.org/randomp...
Kinn,
#44 posted by necros [66.185.84.208] on 2004/09/06 17:29:57
do you mind if i worship you for a bit?
As Long As You Do It Discreetly.
#45 posted by Kinn [81.155.131.195] on 2004/09/06 17:39:45
^_~
Awwwwwwwww
#46 posted by starbuck [82.33.89.24] on 2004/09/06 18:32:57
so cute!! look how little they are! with their little swords!!
I Give That Map
#47 posted by underworldfan [128.195.64.98] on 2004/09/06 21:00:11
0/20
I Hope That Map
#48 posted by HeadThump [65.141.73.178] on 2004/09/06 23:52:29
comes with a nuclear detonator. Jeez -- imagine having only an axe to handle them!
Lol
#49 posted by Kinn [81.154.192.142] on 2004/09/07 06:50:30
It's just a box I put together to test the extreme limits of monster spawning. There's 2000 knights coming after me in that shot.
I've Played Through
#50 posted by aguirRe [213.101.73.38] on 2004/09/07 07:04:45
this map (especially with those knights) so many times it haunts me in my dreams ...
Yesterday I also increased sound capacity in my engines and it seems to help a bit also when dealing with this knight horde. The Kinn Gib Sound gets a lot of playing time here ...
That ...
#51 posted by pope [207.6.244.93] on 2004/09/07 20:39:32
...tetris map was too big for me
Does That Mean You Need To Use Trash Bags, Blackpope?
#52 posted by R.P.G. [24.136.230.101] on 2004/09/07 21:23:34
But seriously, I agree that map (Pajitnov) was too long.

Post A Reply:

Name: |
Title: |
Body: |

Website copyright © 2002-2011 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.