Originality in mapping

[obsidian]

I've decided to start this off as a new discussion, since I thought Kat made a good point that was largely overlooked and deserves a separate thread.

You'll be amazed, theres simply tons of more posibilities than in q3...

And here-in lies the problem, so far no one want that type of map and instead have opted for 'Pro' type maps al-la what were being produced latterly for Q3.

There has been a lot of talk among developers and players about the lack of originality in FPS games and we're starting to see it in Q4 (and also in Q3) mapping. I've been popping in for some of my local IGDA meetings to chat with some people and it seems as if many of them have come to loath FPS games.

I'm starting to feel the same way lately as well. I haven't really felt the need to touch *radiant in the past few months, only when/because I have to. Instead, I've been working on web related stuff on my free time.

In terms of community mapping, maps are all starting to look and feel the same, since they are being produced using the same tried, tested and true methods. As solid as they are, they lack the feeling of ingenuity, they are the same as the next map and the previous map that it was partially based on. We're building off each other's work in some ways.

So, what will it take for originality? What do we need to do? What are we doing wrong? Discuss.

[wviperw]

"So, what will it take for originality?"

If you're talking about Q4, the answer is simply time. You never see originality at the beginning of a game's life because everybody is still learning the ins and outs of editing as well as using the stock media. As time goes by, however, custom content will be created and mappers will really have a chance to flex their originality muscles. In Q3 this took close to 2 years before it happened. Then we got things like the original GeoComp and a bunch of innovative mappers like nunuk, sock, etc.

[Foo]

Which, no offense and to be painfully blunt, noone much played outside of the mappers themselves.


My primary answer to this thread is this: Quake is not the series for innovation. Innovative design is going on all the time in the field of FPS gaming, but you may not witness any of it if your FPS games playing is restricted to 'arena' type games. Or worse, only one game or series (Q3/Quake).




And that's about the sum of it in my opinion. To elaborate:

For starters, if you pull back out of the Quake series and take a look at 'arena' FPS games. Not a very busy genre, but definable. The unreal tournament series of games has a much more varied community in terms of the work being produced. The game attracts both a casual and hardcore crowd, and although the hardcore crowd has somewhat forced the nature of created content to become a lot more guided, there's still a shitload of really original content coming out. What's more, it's making it into the mainstream of games playing and actually seeing server time. See some of the content in the community bonus packs for UT2004 for a glimps of what I'm talking about (DM-Reconstruct is truly innovative - yet it's still 'just' a standard deathmatch arena and plays extremely well)

Anyway, come up another level and look at FPS games as a whole. Far cry is getting some awesome stuff being made for it. Why? Absolutely stunning engine, and excellent tools to go along with it.




And a summary of the other major things which I think contribute to the stagnation you describe:

1. The sheer number of games being created commercially leads to: division of gamers across hundreds of games therefore less hobbyist developers AND gamers who give a shit, per game.

2. Related to point 1: Less people care about addon content, therefore less people will want to develop it. Say what you like about the reasons behind creating this stuff, but knowing that few people will give a shit when you release it is a real discouraging piece of knowledge when doing something you may spend hundreds of hours on and many more hours learning the necessary skills.

3. So many of the ideas have been done before. Take that escher relativity mock-up screenshot I posted in the ss thread. I assumed it had been done before but the possibility that it hadn't was leading me towards wanting to develop it into a working level. When I checked out some of the reproductions that had already been done along the same lines, it was far less appealing. I've completely ignored it since, in fact.

4. Quake 3 is not a suitable game for innovation outside of strict arena combat disciplines. In terms of mapping, the available entities/game functions a mapper can tap into are really, really low. Compare that to unreal with unrealscript.... it doesn't compete. That's fine though, becuase it's a straight tradeoff speed against flexibility and with Q3 speed was the priority.

[obsidian]

By "originality", I'm refering to both appearance and playability. A lot of pro maps are (IMO, anyway) starting to look and play the same. I'm sure people will argue that, of course - but I don't see beautiful maps like Estatica for "pro" maps. Playability wise, I find that pro maps have very similar formulas that people tend to stick with. While not necessarily a bad thing, it does make playability have the same 'feel'.

But maps like Estatica look amazing and play pretty well. But because they don't have the pro feel, it's part of the reason why they don't get played. So the other problem seems to be getting original maps into the mainstream.

[Foo]

I disagree that it's down to some mystical 'feel'.

Aside from performance concerns (which are entirely valid), Ecstatica's layout was acceptable for FFA but for any kind of 1v1 or Team Deathmatch it's easy to control. Not just the item layout, but the overall layout of the floor/rooms doesn't lend itself to balanced play.

Second to that, the level arrived way late to the party.

Third, it wasn't part of either OSP or CPMs standard map lineups. I doubt cardigan would have attempted to have it to be included in either, and AFAIK it never went through the normally quite thorough playtesting required of a level before it enters one of those level sets.

I think the gaming population that plays quake is inherently not that interested in what you would call 'original' level design simply becuase it doesn't meet the requirements of the quite highly refined and specific gameplay which they come to Q3 to enjoy.

I think the biggest clue to this has to be the mods... look at the 3 major mods for Q3. One of them changes the default Q3 weapon balances and movements in subtle ways which a beginner would hardly even spot (CPM), another just alters a few rules and introduces a different kind of area (RA3), and the other one doesn't change it at all (OSP)!

The point is the 3 big mods for Q3 barely changed jack shit. Why? Because the unique gaming aspect Q3 brings is highly specific. Possibly the most evolved and specific form of video gaming thus far developed. It's no wonder when you look at where Q3 sits in the gaming world, that there's little room for what we would classically term 'originality'. The big 3 mods being so samey shouldn't lead one to the conclusion that Q3 never had original creations made for it, it's just that they were never adopted.

[Scourge]

I thought you meant maps in general, not just pro type maps. I was going to go the same route with Far Cry. The possibilities with that engine are large. With some new textures and vegetation types the limits are endless.

As far as pro maps, I don't really know as I don't play on that level. A lot of them do seem similar. But though, SP has always had more potential for originality IMO.

[Lenard]

Have you guys ever played natural selection, the counterstrike mod? IMO, there is a game worth innovating for. The game dynamics are really beautiful. The stock maps are already amazing. The use so much vertical connectivity, and connectivity in ways that would never be possible in a quake game. Then, as you upgrade, you are allowed access to more or less ways of getting around the map. That is a beautiful game. If you haven't played it, you really should.

[Oeloe]

@Lenard: Having to learn those 'buildings' put me off so i never played the mod.

I know Hipshot attempted to get some advice from pro players to make a good tourney map , but that didn't turn out into anything.

[Fjoggs]

IMO you can't compare originality between two different games. Q3 and Q4 has their own strengths and weaknesses, and it's by those we build and design our maps. You can build anything you want in most engines, the problem is that it will most likely look either like shit, or make your computer drop off more smoke then a burning cigarette.
The sky's the limit, but the brain blocks us from touching it.

[MegaMan44]

Quake is not the series for innovation. Innovative design is going on all the time in the field of FPS gaming, but you may not witness any

Oh, right, im constantly playing all those innovative shooters that came out last months. like... uhm... would Far Cry count?

Im still playing quake 1 Singleplayer regularly. I recently played through descent 2 again.

Innovation in Games is like innovation in maps. 95% are boring sht.

[Lukin]

@Lukin: Having to learn those 'buildings' put me off so i never played the mod.

You thought about Lenard, right?

I know Hipshot attempted to get some advice from pro players to make a good tourney map , but that didn't turn out into anything.

He must been asking wrong people. 99% of good, custom tourney maps are made based on pro players advices.

Speaking about originality: I think there is no space for it in a competitive maps. You can try to include some innovations, but the gameplay core must stay the same. Still you can put something fresh into visual part of the map.

One more thing to consider: there is a thin line between the originality that add innovations to the game and originality that destroys the whole game.

[Oeloe]

You thought about Lenard, right?

Yeah.

He must been asking wrong people. 99% of good, custom tourney maps are made based on pro players advices.

I think he put his attention on other things.


Damn i suddenly feel like eating straciatelly ice cream!

[obsidian]

I thought you meant maps in general, not just pro type maps.

Well, this is more about maps in general. I was using the pro maps as an example. I'm really not sure about the direction of where I'm taking this. Just a discussion in general to maybe fuel a few ideas to help us create something new and different.

[Foo]

What you guys are talking about as 'pro' maps is somewhat of a misnomer. It's what everybody online plays (nowadays, it must be 95% of the player base and at least 99% of the online playing time I'm talking about here), therefore I wouldn't label them in that manner.

Perhaps 'popular' maps would be more fitting.

[GODLIKE]

Unless I'm missing something: Obsidian's post was designed to solicit feedback for mappers. It was not a "please hold forth in some callous way about why trying to innovate while mapping is a huge waste of time" request.

Lots of us map. Lots of us hear that our maps don't "break the mold". For interest's sake: Let's hear about what you think would be innovative (using Quake, yes. Not Far Cry.).

[Survivor]

Lots of us map. Lots of us hear that our maps don't "break the mold". For interest's sake: Let's hear about what you think would be innovative (using Quake, yes. Not Far Cry.).

That is the main problem. When a mapper asks feedback of a 'pro' player he will get answers that conform to the most played tactics which in turn come from the most played maps and thus the cycle we are in never ends.

I think sometimes mappers should force their will of gameplay on the player, not the player on the mapper. Some mappers think that they have a horrible feeling for weapon layouts and such but it's their vision and if they are afraid to make an unpopular map than they themselves are stiffling innovation just as much as the public that only knows one way and not the countless other possibilities.

[Foo]

I'm explaining the causes behind why we're not seeing that originality. It's not simply a case of 'our work is unoriginal, lets discuss until we come up with something amazin', that doesn't make for much of a discussion, aside from being an odd way to 'come up with something'.

BTW, I have no idea what you mean by "solicit feedback for mappers".

When a mapper asks feedback of a 'pro' player he will get answers that conform to the most played tactics which in turn come from the most played maps and thus the cycle we are in never ends.

I don't think that's accurate at all. First of all, you're using the old 'pro' player reference again, which is misleading - most feedback comes from guys on forums and there are perhaps 2-3% of those people who actually compete. How about just calling them skilled players.

Anyway, I think it's a great injustice in what you're saying - you're essentially stating that non-mappers wont give feedback which results in an original design. That's BS. For starters, by the time a map hits feedback stages the design on a macro scale is already there and won't be changed by feedback (which is typically regarding things such as item layout and connectivity). So in that sense, skilled gamers providing feedback only have a very narrow margin in which they can impose their ideas.

I think sometimes mappers should force their will of gameplay on the player, not the player on the mapper. Some mappers think that they have a horrible feeling for weapon layouts and such but it's their vision and if they are afraid to make an unpopular map than they themselves are stiffling innovation just as much as the public that only knows one way and not the countless other possibilities.

Again, I think it is a hugely arrogant view to suggest that mappers have some ability in innovation above and beyond that of any other Quake player.

Anyways, I'm stifling this topic. Will duck out now for a few days

[GODLIKE]

Lots of us map. Lots of us hear that our maps don't "break the mold". For interest's sake: Let's hear about what you think would be innovative (using Quake, yes. Not Far Cry.).

That is the main problem. When a mapper asks feedback of a 'pro' player he will get answers that conform to the most played tactics which in turn come from the most played maps and thus the cycle we are in never ends.

I think sometimes mappers should force their will of gameplay on the player, not the player on the mapper. Some mappers think that they have a horrible feeling for weapon layouts and such but it's their vision and if they are afraid to make an unpopular map than they themselves are stiffling innovation just as much as the public that only knows one way and not the countless other possibilities.

I think I get the gist of your point, and I'm not here to niggle around and nitpick (odd, I know; I'm here and everything)...

I think that what I was hoping would happen with this thread was to see some "map concept ideas" thrown in by the general population.. "pro-tourney" (not nec for pros, but designed to reach widespread usage in 'serious' competitive play) style maps tend to be designed around this kind of "extreme sports" kind of gameplay attitude, and it's cool.. but we don't get as many "hey, what a great idea" maps... and I agree that mappers are maybe less willing to take design risks than they used to be, for fear of getting lambasted by players for not keeping the "competitive" crowd happy.

I don't think that "a great injustice" is occurring; in fact I think that non-mappers are more likely to throw out ideas that would lead to originality... there are ultimately many more players than mappers.

Anyway.. useful discussion has more or less stopped; we're all back to defending our little stances.. :icon26:

[Geit]

I think sometimes mappers should force their will of gameplay on the player, not the player on the mapper. Some mappers think that they have a horrible feeling for weapon layouts and such but it's their vision and if they are afraid to make an unpopular map than they themselves are stiffling innovation just as much as the public that only knows one way and not the countless other possibilities.

The people that play custom maps will play the maps they like, you can't force them to like certain maps because the players themselves know what they like and what not.
There's no forcing anyone. The mappers build maps they like to build generating a huge pool of maps out of which players can select wat they like to play. You could call mapping a supply and demand business :icon25:
Further more, mappers are always biased where their own work is concerned. It's harder to find design flaws when you've built it yourself.

[Survivor]

I don't think that's accurate at all. First of all, you're using the old 'pro' player reference again, which is misleading.

I used quotemarks because I didn't really mean proplayers but neither did I mean to call in Joe at the corner. It's just the people that get asked or respond to mapping suggestion question threads are usually the same crowd.

Anyway, I think it's a great injustice in what you're saying - you're essentially stating that non-mappers wont give feedback which results in an original design. That's BS. For starters, by the time a map hits feedback stages the design on a macro scale is already there and won't be changed by feedback (which is typically regarding things such as item layout and connectivity). So in that sense, skilled gamers providing feedback only have a very narrow margin in which they can impose their ideas.

They can give feedback which results into an original design but if someone does not know the full scale of tools that are available (like a mapper) the chance of this happening is much lower. You're taking my statements to the extreme. And if they like you say can only comment on item layout and connectivity than it only proves even more to what i mean by the lack of possibility to innovate.

To make it clear: I am saying that those with the most possibility to create innovative designs are the mappers.

Again, I think it is a hugely arrogant view to suggest that mappers have some ability in innovation above and beyond that of any other Quake player.

I'm not being arrogant but because mappers as you said are the only ones truly able to change things at micro level. They should take some risks because they are able to change a map at a fundamental level thus making the greatest difference.

The mappers build maps they like to build generating a huge pool of maps out of which players can select wat they like to play. You could call mapping a supply and demand business.

But when demand is always the same what is offered becomes generic.

[Lenard]

You thought about Lenard, right?

Yeah.

What's that supposed to mean?

We will see a few good maps for q4. People need to evolve their talents. I feel like no one is really skilled in q4. Some people will be, but never as much as q3 imo.

[SonicClang]

Ohhh where's my damn easy button when I need it???!!! :icon23:

[v1l3]

There's Leaders, and there's followers.

There's inventors, and their are those who work on making a better version of someone elses invention.

There is repetition, and change.

You could compare mapping to music. Some band comes out, that creates their own sound that no one else has done, and a majority of people fall in love with their music because it's so new and unknown. Then 10000 bands come out of the woodwork imitating and covering that bands music, and sound just like them because they know people will like it, because of the media of tv/radio/internet.

With vQ3 you have players that play pro-q3dm6 over and over and over. With promode you have players that play cpm3 over and over and over.

I believe every mapper has a dream of creating a map that is going to be played repetitive by those kind of repetitive players.

Then there is a mapper that comes out of the woodwork, that makes a map that is so different and so beautiful, that all the players follow the other players to that map. Then a bunch of following sort of mappers make their own version of that popular map.

Are you a follower or a leader? Copier or Creator? Repetitive or non-repetitive?

The concept of Q3 is that you live forever, and frag for eternity against life-forms that are human and non-human located from wherever they come from in the galaxy. The galaxy is pretty big isn't it? So would there only be a limited amount of battle places?

ID made modification abilities, because there is no end to the game. Arena Eternal. Their may be a limit zone when it comes to gameplay, but there is no end to creating different arena's/places of battle.

Repetition is laziness. Sure someone that plays the same map over and over could probably kick you ass on that map, but then they suck on all the other maps because they can't find the damn Rocket Launcher =/

[Kat]

hmm ok.. one for the mappers here (rather than the players).

Based on what v1|3 just said (and some of the comments above)

- Do you map *for* something, i.e. are you mapping to *specifically* (consciously) conform to something like CMPA gameplay (for example)?.

- Or are you just makings maps more our less for your own benefit, just for the hell of it, without any particular peer group in mind - i.e. you're *not* mapping specifically for CPMA (for example)?.

Maybe we could add this as a poll, if it warrents it??

[Lukin]

You could be a follower, but who's your leader?
Break that cycle or it will kill ya.

Sorry, I just needed to quote some M.I.A.'s lyrics
I dunno if I'm the inventor. I always try to put some fresh things into maps (light-ramps on "Galang", RG room on "Monsoon", animated light on "Heavy Metal Machine", etc.) but the overall layouts I made are not revolutionary.

To answer your poll Kat I've got to say I'm mapping for something. It was CPMA in "Q3", and it is competitive scene in "Q4". I keep the the stuff I made for my own benefit for my eyes only Also, I don't think that we need so much originality in mapping - all those art forms are good in a short term, after a while everybody goes back to more classic levels.