Another thing, Wazat, about your comment on gameplay that allows the player to approach a problem however they want, that was one of the main ideas I presented in my novel. Drop the player into an environment with two things, how they got there and why they must find a way out. Let them do the rest.

I had theoretically designed a Q1SP map around this concept. I was to build a large industrial complex and present the player with multiple solutions to the final conclusion. Each difficulty setting on the map, easy, normal, hard, nightmare, was a completely different game through the same environment. The start map presented this to the player quite simply. The game would be easy if the player made their way into the sewage system and sneaked (Yes, that is the correct word) into the base. The game would be a nightmare if the player charged straight in the front door with guns blazing. And, as a result of the different locations (I had 4 in all, one for each difficulty) of each games' beginning, the pathways through the industrial complex had to adjust accordingly. Then, in each game, make minor differences in obstacles and plots, rearrange the placement of the buttons, doors and keys and you have four games for the price of one.

Anyways, the player should choose their path. Oprah calls this Empowerment. 

That's good. It's simple, and it doesn't require a lot of matching of items etc or figuring out obscure solutions. Straight forward choice and execution. 

Just on the distinction between believable and realistic...

It's logically possible that I might flap my arms and fly from Melbourne to Sydney, but not physically possible given the world as it exists. I might believe without contradiction that it is possible whilst never actually being able to do it. However, in virtual worlds "reality" is up for grabs on a lot of different levels. One may well set the scene such that an inhabitant can jump the equivalent of six stories in a single leap (Ziggurat Vertigo). The game designer is in effect realising a possible world...and here's the kicker. To be believable, possible worlds must be consistent - but only in the strictest sense of the word. For instance, there's no problem with me finding myself inverted after traversing a teleporter in Zippie's Stampot - that's just the way that teleporter works in that possible world. However, it is hard hard for me to believe that I can be in two places at once. It is not consistent with me investing myself in a particular avatar at some given time. It's hard to believe because it's logically impossible.

And the point of this...well I guess it's a precursor to asking,"In game design, just how far can we twist reality before teh experience becomes unbelievable?" "Is breaching logical impossibility our only barrier?" 

I forget who said it first, but good movies all start with an amazing coincidence or impossible premise, and then everything follows logically from that. I don't think good (or realistic) game plots should be any different.

If I opened a portal to the realms of hell, I shouldn't be finding alien technology half way through the game, it just doesn't follow. Realistic all becomes relative to me opening that portal. 

If I opened a portal to the realms of hell, I shouldn't be finding alien technology half way through the game...

Unless of course that hell dimension is an alien construct and the cracks are starting to appear. Hmmm, not a bad premise for a movie... 

would it be possible to make editing tools where you can manipulate the texture in-program like to add some noise or "battering" effects in certain areas. it would be useful like maybe in corners of walls and stuff. i dont wanna come up with impossible thigs but...if anyone made something like it you could all have basic textures and the edit prog contains the tool to add an extra layer to the textures.

end of note 

But done right. 

nice idea actually
In adition to the set of predefined textures/shaders you have a library of effects you can apply to any surface with some spray-like tool, adding dirt, stains, moss etc. And the compiler itself creates aditional texture pass with all those effects 

nane, is there any chance to try that map with alternative routes, I`m interested even if there is nothing to look at, just for a gameplay 

> Then what will happen to custom mapping
> when level designing becomes much more
> complex and way more time-consuming? It
> already takes quite a while for one person
> to build a level, but that one person may
> yet need to learn texturing and modelling
> just to make a map.

It will, as soon as Doom3 comes out. It already is, really, for the Unreal2 engine. Half of any UT2/U2 map is models and extra junk they stuck in - so is Doom3. We're all going to have to turn into modellers to keep up, or start collaborating a lot more often on things, or both. Mapping is starting to turn into modelling: shaders, high poly mapmodels ...

In 1998 we had Quake 2. Next year we'll have Doom 3. Now, think about five or six years ahead of THAT ... boo! :) 

Gamespy last year did series of articles and interviews regarding future of games. Featuring Sweeney, Spector, Molyneux and something else

http://www.gamespy.com/futureofgaming/engines/ 

i'm actually better at modelling than mapping (quite good at the first, crap at the second) so that keeps me optimistic. i dont like animating tho so BOOOOOO! 

the joys of being a coder... 

There's joy in being a coder? 

Us left-brained people don't have to do any real work. It doesn't even matter what end of the body it comes out, managers discard it equally. There's a bit of satisfaction in being permanently doomed but assured it will never get any worse. :)
Dilbert type senario. 

if you're a masochist. ("What new and exciting things are broken today?" et cetera) 

This is where part of the discussion appears to be heading.

Now, I've been playing a couple of Doom/Build engine games recently, but there, instead of textures being complete images, they're constructed from piles of "patches", or even "decals" (like hazard signs.)

The impression I'm getting is this:

In the future, texture-specific shader files can be overridden by surface-specific shader files.

The question, of course, is whether this is a good idea or not... 

Shaders are going to have to be texture specific to a certain extent (if we're ever going to get any serious shadering done) because the textures are mostly responcible for determing material. Concrete doesn't damage the same way that iron does. And steel doesn't weather the same way copper does.

What I see as most useful is textures defining a series of characteristics about themselves. Then the mapper would say "scraped damage here," "scorch mark here," "water damage there" etc on a per surface basis.

That work share work evenly between texturer and mapper, while putting a lot of it on the cpu. I always believe in making the computer do all the bitch work. 

We really need to get more people that work at game companies to read and post in discussions like this. Since they are the ones making the technology, it would be excellent for us, the community, to bring up points of mapping (tool designs etc) to developers. Developers could also benefit because they could get direct feedback about design ideas or even questions about topics they might not have thought of. This is of course provided they want feedback, keep the discussions from mentioning anything specific that would fall to NonDisclosure Agreements, and have the time to even bother with this minority community.

bleh. 

I disagree with what you wrote. 

http://home.worldcom.ch/~negenter/031AA_Tx_E.html

I'm guessing that most Quake levels are semantic architecture. 

I really hope peej finds a way to at least recover all of the qmap posts/threads for archive purposes -- there were some meaty conversations on there. 

I mostly agree with the stuff Nane talked, but I totally disagree that small embossed textures should be replaced to brushes, because by small sizes there is barely a difference between 2d and 3d, and textures can contain much more details than a light entity can effect an embossed brush. (Example: compare the TECH04_6 texture with a round-cornered TECH04_2 texture.) And even if this detailed-brushes-stuff looked better (but it doesnt), then okay, here you are, you got beatiful brush-rivetted door-jambs and stuff, and you only see the grey void instead of the rest of the map :).
In my opinion there is certain threshold (according to the size of the object) between texture-detailing and brush-detailing, it is not a fix value, depends also from the amount of emboss. This threshold is very easy to find, if one doesnt, and uses textures instead of a big ceiling-decoration made of thick bars or puts small 2x2 pixel brush-needles on a metal surface, then that one is stupid, and needs more experience about Quake mapping. 

of course, you have a point.
otherwise one goes mad in search for detail and each map takes months to do.

there is always a quick and efficient way (or various) and not so efficient ways.

a bad mapper can always use his texturing skills for example. its good that each mapper has his own view.

we are lucky there are so many good texturers around and we depend on them (not me personally but...) 

IMO that puzzles shall be as natural as possible,you can find examples in Halflife. But for Fantasy game s as Quake or Unreal(tech fantasy)you can even a new world and make the players bilieve in the Natrual things THERE. For example you can't jump more than xx meters up,but if the game occurs on another world (matrix i.e.) it's possible to jump that high,so you can make pouzzles like that.