The Quake series - Learn from this please.

o_own3r · 03-22-2006, 10:28 PM

One thing which has struck me looking at ID's quake series, is just how bad the architexture is.

Most of the rooms have pipes almost everywhere, almost making up for the lack of architextural content. Which essentially they only really consists of outward slanting walls, separated in two, with some useless trim shuved in for good measure. Surely this is not something you want to replicate in your maps.

Recently it has struck me how much you can do with hammer, if you "think different" and create something off the wall. I think a focus on wider open spaces in interiors with room to rocket jump, and strategic postions for sg's will really liven up the gameplay of any map.

One thing which i am seeing alot in maps is the flat floors in interiors, why not use displacement maps throughout the map? After all you can place vis blocking floors below. Doing displacement brushes dont have to disrupt player movement either, clip brushes can be placed over bumps etc to allow better concing and offence so go wild!

o_mikequist · 03-23-2006, 12:07 AM

I think I am missing something. I understand what you mean about architecture in Quake, but the floor thing can't change IMO. It would be awkward, and despite clips, would disrupt gameplay. That, and since when is your floor bumpy.

o_sidd42 · 03-23-2006, 01:04 AM

Have to agree with Own3r here. In terms of architecture, mappers are essentially lazy. It's square walls, dressed up with generic props and a few curved edges. It's very rare to see a fundamentally "off-grid" design, because they are far more awkward to deal with. The level designers get paid to churn out maps which are simple, but superfically aesthetically pleasing. There's no reason for them to follow real world architectural rules.

Again, flat floors are so ubiquitous just because they are the easiest to make. Concing is no harder from ramps or gentle slopes. There's no reason why a ff map shouldn't have more realistic architecture. I've been to plenty of historical forts, and you only get large flat floors in the dining halls, and domestic rooms. Fortress architecture should be functional and bumpy.

o_d3pth charge · 03-23-2006, 01:36 AM

K, have fun trying to make a map with a curved floor and after you've spend 30 hours just trying to create a non-textured wall that correcly lines up with it without leaks, etc, then feel free to go back to using flat floors. I've been to "fortresses" as well, and can't remember one that had curved or bumpy floors in the interior of the castle. It doesn't happen. It's not just for realism either, it would just be irrational and hinder gameplay to have a bunch of floopy doopy curves and stuff on the floors. I think valve's maps are very immersive for CS:S, yet i see no curvy floors, and imo it's sort of offending to say "mappers are lazy," mapping is hard-ass work, if you don't believe me I suggest you try it. I think the architecture that has been done by devs and community members alike is very impressive, not sure what you are talking about or what you expect from mappers.

o_etzell · 03-23-2006, 01:45 AM

"Man, this wavy floor you had installed KICKS ASS. OH MY GOD I FELL ON MY FACE AND BROKE MY NOSE, WTF!"

o_kam · 03-23-2006, 02:03 AM

pics or it didn't happen

q3 has pretty good architecture btw

o_player · 03-23-2006, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etzell

"Man, this wavy floor you had installed KICKS ASS. OH MY GOD I FELL ON MY FACE AND BROKE MY NOSE, WTF!"

Rofl.

Bumpy floors are bad for games like TFC and Quake, end of story. That is, of course, unless the bumps are there for a reason such as trimping or ramp sliding otherwise a bumpy floor just to make your map look "good" isn't the way to go.

o_sh4x · 03-23-2006, 10:32 PM

Just wanted to say that I'm actually working on a map that has fucked up architecture...

and I gotta say it's a fucking bitch to complete.

Next time (if there's one), I'll go the simpler way and make things a little more conventionals.

o_own3r · 03-24-2006, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Player

Rofl.

Bumpy floors are bad for games like TFC and Quake, end of story. That is, of course, unless the bumps are there for a reason such as trimping or ramp sliding otherwise a bumpy floor just to make your map look "good" isn't the way to go.

You are all missing the point, you clip the bumps so it is a smooth surface but it appears to be natural and interesting. Quake architexture is unimspired to say the least. Trying to imitate the real world is a good start in my opinion, imitating an imitation is asking for trouble.

o_ghost · 03-24-2006, 07:28 PM

So you levitate over the dips?

Circuitous · 03-24-2006, 09:42 PM

Sounds pointless.

o_kam · 03-25-2006, 02:10 AM

you dont need the clip brushes anyway

o_nezumi · 03-25-2006, 10:14 AM

Is this the kind of thing we're talking about?

I don't like it.

o_dammage · 04-02-2006, 09:58 PM

to be honest, if going realisting, you will see curved/bumpy floor only in the nature

as for movement, even if you clip it, it will be f*ed up to say the least. Ever got arghs about hitting edges with your nose? that's not often. But be warned of psyched players who cannot predict how high their next hop will go.

As for architecture: same as for the floor, you don't want the players to hang on every detail or run against invisible walls. Maybe it makes sense in such games as splinter cell etc, but ever wondered why players play dm6/6++ over and over again?

o_jarek · 04-03-2006, 02:40 AM

everytime i read this forum people make me want to take up mapping again by the sheer uniformity of the maps. everyone goes for that central theme of WALLS WITH PIPES AND PRETTY DISPLACED ROCKS in the yard, that i think people are forgetting about THEMED maps all together. i have been sketching something up for FF for some time, and if any of you are Robert Jordan fans i think you will like the two maps i decided on.

Jiggles · 04-03-2006, 02:59 AM

As long as they're not as big as the books themselves. I don't think the Source engine could handle that...

o_tyrus · 04-03-2006, 03:08 AM

I agree with "pipes for detail" being just a little over used in mapping. This post made me rethink the detail I "will" be putting in my map. I admit, in my previous maps, I had lots of pipes

As for rocky terrains, well, there isnt much more you can do with terrains. You could stretch it to saying "everyone makes crappy bridges" too. Well, its better than two bases just facing eachother with a flat middle ground, isnt it? You could add all kinds of models and cars and this and that, but then your map gets cluttered. In my opinion, cluttered maps wouldn't suit the fast paced game play of fortress based mods. Although I haven't played it yet, Cornfield is a good example of this. I have a strange feeling that map is not going to be very fun to play. It looks great, but eye candy doesn't make for a good map.(in my opinion) All their other maps, however, look great and I think they will also play great. I can't wait for FF!

One thing I have noticed about most Fortress type maps is, ALL of them are symmetrical along some axis. Red base is always the same as the blue base, but maybe flipped. Although my map is still symmetrical, I'd like to see a map where each base is totally different. Blue may have some advantages and red may have some advantages! That may sound bad, but that would enable very interesting match play. Especially since in my experience, most matches are more than 1 round long, and usually you switch colors. So both teams will get to have those certain colore based advantages on their side.

There are some asymmetrical maps out there, but usually their game play is NOT capture the flag. They usually have some other type of objective like an assault map.

A really creative of which I forget the name, had a great idea for capture the flag. Each time the other team captured your flag, the flag moved to another spot in your base. Thus your team's defense would have to all relocate and get setup. There were about 6 different flag positions.

wow, I'm rambling, and I'll stop now

Jiggles · 04-03-2006, 03:19 AM

Darkness was asymmetrical. Was never a huge fan of it, though.

Circuitous · 04-03-2006, 03:57 AM

And casbah.

o_kam · 04-03-2006, 05:10 AM

darkness looks like someone took a dump in hammer and compiled it

03-22-2006, 10:28 PM	#1
o_own3r Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	The Quake series - Learn from this please. One thing which has struck me looking at ID's quake series, is just how bad the architexture is. Most of the rooms have pipes almost everywhere, almost making up for the lack of architextural content. Which essentially they only really consists of outward slanting walls, separated in two, with some useless trim shuved in for good measure. Surely this is not something you want to replicate in your maps. Recently it has struck me how much you can do with hammer, if you "think different" and create something off the wall. I think a focus on wider open spaces in interiors with room to rocket jump, and strategic postions for sg's will really liven up the gameplay of any map. One thing which i am seeing alot in maps is the flat floors in interiors, why not use displacement maps throughout the map? After all you can place vis blocking floors below. Doing displacement brushes dont have to disrupt player movement either, clip brushes can be placed over bumps etc to allow better concing and offence so go wild!

03-24-2006, 09:42 PM	#11
Circuitous Useless Retired FF Staff Join Date: Jun 2005 Class/Position: D Soldier, O Scout Gametype: AvD Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times	Sounds pointless. __________________ Look at all those dead links.

04-03-2006, 03:08 AM	#17
o_tyrus Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I agree with "pipes for detail" being just a little over used in mapping. This post made me rethink the detail I "will" be putting in my map. I admit, in my previous maps, I had lots of pipes As for rocky terrains, well, there isnt much more you can do with terrains. You could stretch it to saying "everyone makes crappy bridges" too. Well, its better than two bases just facing eachother with a flat middle ground, isnt it? You could add all kinds of models and cars and this and that, but then your map gets cluttered. In my opinion, cluttered maps wouldn't suit the fast paced game play of fortress based mods. Although I haven't played it yet, Cornfield is a good example of this. I have a strange feeling that map is not going to be very fun to play. It looks great, but eye candy doesn't make for a good map.(in my opinion) All their other maps, however, look great and I think they will also play great. I can't wait for FF! One thing I have noticed about most Fortress type maps is, ALL of them are symmetrical along some axis. Red base is always the same as the blue base, but maybe flipped. Although my map is still symmetrical, I'd like to see a map where each base is totally different. Blue may have some advantages and red may have some advantages! That may sound bad, but that would enable very interesting match play. Especially since in my experience, most matches are more than 1 round long, and usually you switch colors. So both teams will get to have those certain colore based advantages on their side. There are some asymmetrical maps out there, but usually their game play is NOT capture the flag. They usually have some other type of objective like an assault map. A really creative of which I forget the name, had a great idea for capture the flag. Each time the other team captured your flag, the flag moved to another spot in your base. Thus your team's defense would have to all relocate and get setup. There were about 6 different flag positions. wow, I'm rambling, and I'll stop now Last edited by o_tyrus; 04-03-2006 at 03:19 AM.

04-03-2006, 03:57 AM	#19
Circuitous Useless Retired FF Staff Join Date: Jun 2005 Class/Position: D Soldier, O Scout Gametype: AvD Posts Rated Helpful 9 Times	And casbah. __________________ Look at all those dead links.

03-23-2006, 12:07 AM	#2
o_mikequist Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Tampa Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I think I am missing something. I understand what you mean about architecture in Quake, but the floor thing can't change IMO. It would be awkward, and despite clips, would disrupt gameplay. That, and since when is your floor bumpy.

03-23-2006, 01:04 AM	#3
o_sidd42 Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Have to agree with Own3r here. In terms of architecture, mappers are essentially lazy. It's square walls, dressed up with generic props and a few curved edges. It's very rare to see a fundamentally "off-grid" design, because they are far more awkward to deal with. The level designers get paid to churn out maps which are simple, but superfically aesthetically pleasing. There's no reason for them to follow real world architectural rules. Again, flat floors are so ubiquitous just because they are the easiest to make. Concing is no harder from ramps or gentle slopes. There's no reason why a ff map shouldn't have more realistic architecture. I've been to plenty of historical forts, and you only get large flat floors in the dining halls, and domestic rooms. Fortress architecture should be functional and bumpy.

03-23-2006, 01:36 AM	#4
o_d3pth charge Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Davis, CA Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	K, have fun trying to make a map with a curved floor and after you've spend 30 hours just trying to create a non-textured wall that correcly lines up with it without leaks, etc, then feel free to go back to using flat floors. I've been to "fortresses" as well, and can't remember one that had curved or bumpy floors in the interior of the castle. It doesn't happen. It's not just for realism either, it would just be irrational and hinder gameplay to have a bunch of floopy doopy curves and stuff on the floors. I think valve's maps are very immersive for CS:S, yet i see no curvy floors, and imo it's sort of offending to say "mappers are lazy," mapping is hard-ass work, if you don't believe me I suggest you try it. I think the architecture that has been done by devs and community members alike is very impressive, not sure what you are talking about or what you expect from mappers.

03-23-2006, 01:45 AM	#5
o_etzell Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	"Man, this wavy floor you had installed KICKS ASS. OH MY GOD I FELL ON MY FACE AND BROKE MY NOSE, WTF!"

03-23-2006, 02:03 AM	#6
o_kam Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Melbourne Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	pics or it didn't happen q3 has pretty good architecture btw

03-23-2006, 10:32 PM	#8
o_sh4x Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montreal Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Just wanted to say that I'm actually working on a map that has fucked up architecture... and I gotta say it's a fucking bitch to complete. Next time (if there's one), I'll go the simpler way and make things a little more conventionals.

03-24-2006, 07:28 PM	#10
o_ghost Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	So you levitate over the dips?

03-25-2006, 02:10 AM	#12
o_kam Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Melbourne Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	you dont need the clip brushes anyway

03-25-2006, 10:14 AM	#13
o_nezumi Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Peoples Republic of Harmfull Free Radicals Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Is this the kind of thing we're talking about? I don't like it.

04-02-2006, 09:58 PM	#14
o_dammage Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	to be honest, if going realisting, you will see curved/bumpy floor only in the nature as for movement, even if you clip it, it will be f*ed up to say the least. Ever got arghs about hitting edges with your nose? that's not often. But be warned of psyched players who cannot predict how high their next hop will go. As for architecture: same as for the floor, you don't want the players to hang on every detail or run against invisible walls. Maybe it makes sense in such games as splinter cell etc, but ever wondered why players play dm6/6++ over and over again?

04-03-2006, 02:40 AM	#15
o_jarek Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	everytime i read this forum people make me want to take up mapping again by the sheer uniformity of the maps. everyone goes for that central theme of WALLS WITH PIPES AND PRETTY DISPLACED ROCKS in the yard, that i think people are forgetting about THEMED maps all together. i have been sketching something up for FF for some time, and if any of you are Robert Jordan fans i think you will like the two maps i decided on.

04-03-2006, 02:59 AM	#16
Jiggles Retired FF Staff Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: CowTown Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	As long as they're not as big as the books themselves. I don't think the Source engine could handle that...

04-03-2006, 03:19 AM	#18
Jiggles Retired FF Staff Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: CowTown Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Darkness was asymmetrical. Was never a huge fan of it, though.

04-03-2006, 05:10 AM	#20
o_kam Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Melbourne Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	darkness looks like someone took a dump in hammer and compiled it

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)