#1 posted by -
on 2015/07/27 03:00:48
I just make cool looking areas and then connect them to other cool looking areas and slowly try and decide how they should fit together into a cool layout as I go. Sometimes I have some specific gameplay ideas I want to do, and I'll start there and design around that.
Planning everything first is a way better approach and gives much better results though... but I find it so boring to work on a level that I already know where it's going.
#2 posted by JneeraZ
on 2015/07/27 11:20:57
I agree with Scampie. I have an additional problem where I find it hard to stay interested in a box map. It needs to look cool to maintain my interest and that's not always productive, I know, but it's how my brain works.
#3 posted by scar3crow on 2015/07/28 18:34:46
These replies are very curious after reading the rock bottom frustration thread.
I plan my map holistically, I map it out in a crappy paint program, labelling what I want where. The exact details get ironed out during the build, but I have most of the ideas in my head from the get-go.
Then as I continue I realise that my skills and my imagination don't correlate and I end up simplifying or giving up :)
As for the last question, the two are inseparable. I think "ooh gee, I'd like some zombies... I know a graveyard!" or "this is an excellent balcony, ahh, the perfect place for an ogre"
#5 posted by eukara
on 2015/07/31 20:32:50
Usually when I have a map idea in my head (sometimes a series of images, sometimes static) I just try to recreate it. If I am out of ideas, I imagine walking around the level and what areas it could connect to that would be cool. Most of the time I always think of something but some ideas just take a long time to actually create faithfully.
#6 posted by oGkspAz on 2015/08/05 14:22:13
I start by having the layout and items of a room or two in mind and then try to fit the lot together with a relatively good flow. Actual build starts with floors only after which I start filling in walls and architectural detail.
It Depends, As Usual
#7 posted by quakeulf
on 2017/08/15 18:51:20
If I have a very clear idea of what the map will be like, then I think of it from start to finish in one go.
However, every time I start making the map I begin changing up thinks as I go along because either it doesn't look as good as I had thought or things like the game logic and monsters aren't behaving as they should.
Then again, I am doing this as a hobby in my spare time so it's limited to how much actual mapping time I get. Mostly I just think over the ideas in my head and plan it back and forth until I have something I can be satisfied with.
When I mapped for the Quake 3: Areners I often drew elaborate maps with paths on paper to get the planning right with regards to the items. For Quake 2 I've only done it once for one map. The rest has become muscle memory now.
#8 posted by NewHouse on 2017/08/15 21:47:48
Very Interesting Thread
#9 posted by Tronyn on 2017/08/16 00:49:42
Particularly regarding functional or pseudo-functional architecture. I often have a vision in my head of what a cool scene would be, but it only becomes clear to me what goes where and how things fit together as I'm in the process of building - which gets longer and longer as areas get larger and more complex. I gave up planning maps years ago. Yet even if I didn't consciously plan anything, I get this strange feeling when I've built something in a way that finally seems logically "finished" layout-wise (if not detail-wise, since I do tend to sacrifice detail for scale). Lord Dunsany said in writing his stories it was like remembering lands he wandered in forgotten dreams and that's the best way I can express it. Most of my maps don't display any obvious sense of pseudo-functional place, but I'm hoping future ones still may. I think if the mapper has an idea in mind, the player will benefit from that in terms of atmospheric experience, even if the communication of that idea is unconscious. I can think of some great maps like mfx's ikwhite map for example, that do just that.
Some Mapper On Twitter...
#10 posted by quakeulf
on 2017/08/16 01:46:50
Said the best maps are those that look like they can continue existing without the presence of the player.
I think he's on here but I forgot his name. sorry to you, but that was well spoken and something I always keep in mind when I map.
Blockout All The Way
#11 posted by megaman
on 2017/08/16 11:49:17
In DM detailing is really hard, however, because now you need thematic excuses that fit exactly to block geometry.
#12 posted by mjb
on 2017/08/16 12:54:44
I have an overall idea which is usually just a theme or a cool gimmick. Then I try to think of layouts in my head. I still only go room by room with light details along the way. What I have in my head is rarely what appears in the editor though!
A Bit Of Both
I try to get a holistic overall view of my map for consistency of theme.
Individual rooms, however I vary the mechanics or theme slightly to retain interest. I Blend different rooms together through shared textures (or similar colours).
...is a shitshow. I try and map things out ahead of time on paper but it's just a blueprint that can change dramatically. My most recent map started with only the floors so I could visualize the layout and scale. I still made the level way too big. Still learning how to be efficient - long way to go.
Planning Is Fun But Mostly Useless
#15 posted by Qmaster
on 2017/08/18 04:28:34
I love some graph paper sketches. Most of the time I end up just doing stream of conscious mapping and everything changes. Like others I have the idea in my head first.
Lately, I've been attempting planning out more thoroughly the idea in my head. Attempting.