Func_Msgboard: Thought 2 - The Increasing Purposelessness Of Mapping.

Thought 2 - The Increasing Purposelessness Of Mapping.

Posted by Shambler on 2003/04/22 04:43:28

Perhaps not of that much relevance to this particular forum but still perhaps of interest. Probably applies more to SP than DM (think on that?)

Is custom mapping becoming increasingly pointless as games progress? Why - because game mapping is generally getting more spectacular, more impressive, more specifically themed and better executing those themes. In short game mapping and the associated technology could be leaving custom mapping behind. After all what`s the point in creating - or, more importantly, playing - a custom map for a game that`s already full of great maps.

For example, take Quake. Good in-game maps at the time, but it was and still is a piece of piss to make vastly better maps even quite soon after the game`s release (and that`s bearing in mind how new true 3D mapping was in those days). No doubt the game`s open-ended themes helped.

On the other hand, take, say, RTCW. Some bloody great maps with fairly specific styles. It seems to me it would be pretty hard to beat those maps at their own game. Unless one is to create entirely new themes (again, harder than before due to increased quality demands), it would seem quite purposeless to create something that`s unlikely to be better than what`s already there.

This is, I think, an increasing trend with games too. Personally, a lot of older (or cruder, e.g. DKT) games have given me much mapping inspiration (yes, JUST inspiration), while newer games have often have such good maps, I can`t think of anything worth adding that they aren`t already doing.

Thoughts?

First | Previous | Next | Last

Add To That

#1 posted by nitin on 2003/04/22 04:59:23

the increasing amount of work involved to make a good map (well SP stuff anyway).

Good Point Nits...

#2 posted by Shambler on 2003/04/22 05:07:45

....you could file that under "increasing technology" too, basically the whole thing is getting harder and what you`re competing with is getting further away.

But there are two counter-points to what I`m suggesting. Free* chocolate if someone gets both.

(* Note: That is free chocolate for Shambler hehe)

Yeah

#3 posted by Vondur on 2003/04/22 05:19:43

i thought about that too
modern games usually strongly tied to the story
it`s either hard to map cuz of the strong storyline (RTCW) or the game is so complex technically that it kills the desire to map for it. that`s usual for the modern games.
quake was universal for that indeed. freedom creating your own style and relative simplicity creating maps.
and i think that in the future only for few games will be possible to map as from the style freedom as from the technical side pov. i still believe that doom3 will be relatively easy to map for. cuz it`ll support editing from the very beginning, and this game will have some default story as usual (i hope). easy to modify and create your own worlds.
the same goes for unreal2, even having some silly story it`s rather easy to make the map with absolutely no relation to original concept.
as for the other games, well, they use either u2, q3/d3 or lithtech engine, so why bother mapping for them (of course if you want to create some branch of the story or something) if there are original games on that engines which is easier to modify?
so the bottomline of my speech is that mapping (fps) will narrow down to that 3 main engines (d3, u2, lithtech) and initial games based on them. of course there will be some sporadic activity in the other games communities, but i think only half-life 2 will be able to keep vast community and long life.

#4 posted by Gom Jabbar on 2003/04/22 06:52:14

Yeah, what Vondur said. Except that I don't think Doom 3 will be easy to map for.

As far as I followed the recent developements, mapping gets more and more like modelling. So, you need to spend more and more time to get the details ironed out, to make it look cool. I'm not saying that this is neccessarily bad, but as it gets more time consuming there's almost no room left for mappers that want to create maps in their spare time. That means we will prolly see less custom made maps in the future imho.

Hmm, just my thoughts on this, you're free to prove me wrong...

...

#5 posted by starbuck on 2003/04/22 06:59:53

I think this is a rather interesting topic, and one that is certainly very close to my heart, having failed to map on countless new games, having already learnt the editor.

Quake editing to me is an artistic form of expression in a way in which many games since have failed to emulate, partly due to the simplicity of constructing the game world. To me, editing in something like the UT2003 engine is like an artist having to tell his paintbrush where to go by entering coardinates! By this I mean that the complicated process of editing puts a stopper on the flow, and creativity cannot be so easily expressed.

That said, editing for the Doom 3 engine is a very exciting concept, and I look forward to working with it. Bump-map technology of that quality is going to produce incredible possibilities for creating the worlds mappers and modders envisage, although of course it will bring limitations.

First | Previous | Next | Last

You must be logged in to post in this thread.