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. 

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.) 

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. 

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 am easily bored, with a low attention span.
I thought rpgsp1 and could were the perfect length 

I also thought your maps were a good length, RPG, and not too short at all. 

a mapper's maps are never short -- they are exactly as long as they are meant to be.

;) 

...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. 

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.) 

...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 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

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. 

"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?" 

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. 

what, you mean like this one?

http://kinn.spawnpoint.org/randompics/hordeage.jpg 

do you mind if i worship you for a bit? 

^_~ 

so cute!! look how little they are! with their little swords!! 

0/20 

comes with a nuclear detonator. Jeez -- imagine having only an axe to handle them! 

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. 

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 ...