3Dbuzz top 10 finalist so far

[Hyrage]

And I totally agree with that lol.

The other thing that Marauder and Gutter do not have is the use of (not obligated at all, but it helps) 3D meshes to orient the player while playing.

The map OutOfGaz from DGUnreal shows that perfectly. His layout wasn't the best, but it shows how to intuitively deal with the players by carefully placing his stuff in the envrionment in a way that it gives a natural feel of where you should go next. And that... without disturbing the gameflow.

For sure, that is the psychological part of Level Design, but it's there and does exist. If you want more information about that, I'm sure you can find plenty of books about that or plenty of documentation Online.

 

[G.Lecter]

OK, if you do agree, why do you keep saying Marauder and Gutter are not-so-good because of 'this' or 'that'? The lack of obstacles and unique meshes is just nitpicking, they are not any determining factor that makes a map 'good' or 'bad'. Conectivity/Flow, on the other side, is.

 

[Hyrage]

Maybe and simply because if the other maps have these... I'll go with them (you could see these as Polishing).

 

[d3tox]

Video game development knowledge is one thing,
Game Design understanding is one thing,
Level Design understanding is another
Being a good player doesn't and will never make you a great mapper.

Explain to me how you can be a good mapper without having a strong grasp of the mechanics of this game. Teamplay included.

 

[Hyrage]

Explain to me how you can be a good mapper without having a strong grasp of the mechanics of this game. Teamplay included.

You don't have to headshot your enemy to know if he will die or not, you know he will die, so you understand how it works
- Game Understanding... it doesn't matter if you are able to do it or not if you do understand how it works.

Understand the rules and the process of manipulating a world based on these specific rules
- Level Designer

Having fun with these rules
- the player

You aren't the best player of your game because you created the game.
You aren't the best chess player because you created that game.
You aren't the best archer because you created a great bow.

And you are certainly not the best Level Designer because you are the best player in the world.

 

[_Lynx]

You don't have to headshot your enemy to know if he will die or not, you know he will die, so you understand how it works
- Game Understanding... it doesn't matter if you are able to do it or not if you do understand how it works.

Understand the rules and the process of manipulating a world based on these specific rules
- Level Designer

Having fun with these rules
- the player

You aren't the best player of your game because you created the game.
You aren't the best chess player because you created that game.
You aren't the best archer because you created a great bow.

And you are certainly not the best Level Designer because you are the best player in the world.

That's veeery arguable point of view. especially that part:
"Game Understanding... it doesn't matter if you are able to do it or not if you do understand how it works."

It's like saying that in making cars it doesn't matter if you can drive or not, if you understand how it works. Theoretically yes. Practically no. The guy who stands all his life behind the drafting board and every evening cramps himself into the crowded subway car to get home will never make as good cars as they guys who regularly drives. Why? Simply because unlike first guy, second knows what the generic driver might want and expect from his car. Cars designed by the second guy will always outsell the ones made by first one.

Same goes with level design. Yes you may know the editor inside out, but if you don't know how the game is played, you're very likely to make it uncomfortable to play, and as in any other business it's quite easy to do so. Having to look for enemies most of the time? That's no good. Having to jump on the boxes just to get one level higher? No good. Getting stuck in a lot of "covers" while trying to dodge? No good. Doors that look openable while not being so or doors that I have to open manually by pressing a button in fast paced DM just to get to the other level part are no good to.


And about those "covers" - there'is pretty much no use in covers in UT3 f.e. like those that I saw in your map. Ducking behind the concrete block will not make you invincible to you enemy, that's not Gears. Here your enemy will produce ASMD and will make a combo that'll blast you from above. Stand-combo because you give him the time to stand and aim by not shooting at him.

 

[Hyrage]

I totally agree, but for the how it works it's not related to the level designer... but to the programmer.

What the LD needs is the distances for each gameplays and movements, that's it lol. He must test out the collisions, other than that... play it but if you are bad at aiming it will not make your map... a "bad one" lol.

 

[G.Lecter]

How can you agree with _Lynx when you're totally missing his point?
How can you agree with everyone when you're totally missing our points?

 

[Sjosz]

How can you agree with _Lynx when you're totally missing his point?
How can you agree with everyone when you're totally missing our points?

 

[_Lynx]

I totally agree, but for the how it works it's not related to the level designer... but to the programmer.

What the LD needs is the distances for each gameplays and movements, that's it lol. He must test out the collisions, other than that... play it but if you are bad at aiming it will not make your map... a "bad one" lol.

The funny thing that this has all to do with level design and game design but nothing with programming. All the code is "under the hood", no one will ever see it. It either works or it doesn't work (well, except performance, where it might work damn slow). But pretty much coders do what they are told by game designer. The only freedom they have is in how they achieve that. That's all. However the game or level design are out there for anyone to see it. And it's not the code people decide on whether they like the game or not. It's the gameplay which is made up by game and level design and is quite unaffected by game's code.

Second, games and levels are done for players to play. Level f.e. can be brilliant technical-wise with all the right distances you've mentioned above etc, but, it does not prevent it from being downright unplayable. And in that case players won't play it. The reasons can be any of the below:
- level too made too big
- unintuitive navigation
- necessity to repeat
- level too cramped to navigate well
- poor item placement

Same is for game-design - game may look stunning, have good levels, have low hardware requirements, have awesome voiceover, but if it fails to deliver the good gameplay - it's doomed. It's just the list of what may go wrong is much much bigger then in case with the level-design.

If level-design or game-design are made without the player (or to say exactly thinking like player who would play the map/game) are doomed to fail before they're released. Your case is exactly that. Do things by the book, using scientific approach of keeping the right sizes etc. But not thinking as a player will result in product that is good, but not really suited for a player. And to know how majority of the players think, you need to play the game with them. Otherwise even if you'll think you know what the player might want you might be wrong, and in this case, once again, your work won't be played.

I highly recommend you to read these articles:
http://www.cliffyb.com/rants/art-sci-ld.shtml
http://www.cliffyb.com/ut-ld-tips.htm

 

[Hyrage]

You stated the basic of level design... I never argue against these, I talked about polishing the map...

Where is your point? other the basic you must play with distances if you dont you scrap the gameplays. If we both agree there is nothing to argue lol.

 

[_Lynx]

First in the part of obstacles being polishing. Obstacles are affecting the way players can move around the map, thus they're affecting the game flow, thus they're affecting pretty much the "core" of the what the map is being built around, so this can't be called polishing.

Second in the part where you say that "What the LD needs is the distances for each gameplays and movements, that's it lol. He must test out the collisions, other than that...". Yes, that would be enough to be a level designer. But most likely it will be a bad level designer, average at most, because he knows the distances, he knows how to add eye-candy but he doesn't know the flow. And the map without a flow means no fun for the player.

 

[Hyrage]

Do we agree that an obstacle here is appropriated?

The area is large enough to implement a proper obstacles to improve the gameflow instead of decreasing it.

Without these obstacles, the area would be a waste of space.

 

[JohnDoe641]

You're showing an example of a map designed to host a Dark Walker, that's not exactly the standard map in UT3.

 

[Hyrage]

Same for these?

Large areas need obstacles.

 

[JohnDoe641]

Those aren't large areas, not like Heatray.

 

[Hyrage]

Larger than a wall-dodge, enough large to add an obstacle to balance the too large area.
I don't see how fun these areas can be without these obstacles, it would be an absurd waste of space.

Don't you think? It would feel unfinished.

 

[Hyrage]

If you look at the bridge we can see some kind of light glitch. Is there anyway to get rid of that??

 

[T2A`]

Use a better engine?

That's a not great example of good decoration or good anything given that area has almost nothing of worth in it. Aside from some connectivity it's pretty much useless.

 

[hal]

Same for these?

Large areas need obstacles.

That was already addressed. The problem here is that you're done with whatever formal training you've had and have decided to stop learning.

Big mistake.

You also seem to think that everyone around you doesn't have a grasp of the mechanics behind basic level design, and have stated as much in a very condescending manner.

You also seem to think that understanding how a game is played is not relative to designing good spaces in which to play that game. You've very nearly stated that the player's job is to "adapt" to whatever it is that the level designer throws at them. I can design a chess board with only four squares... but will anyone play it?

The very best level designers for Unreal Tournament have a very good understanding of the mechanics and flow of the game either through play time of their own or feedback of those that actually play the game. You seem unwilling to do either.

Of course, you're under no obligation to take any feedback and there's no need to attempt to understand or even contemplate the advice that everyone has given. We're under no obligation to play your level.

I've played your level and I have it on my hard drive at home right now. I can see that you understand how to use the editor, in fact you do some things very well. I can also see that you either have no grasp of how the game is actually played by competitive or even somewhat regular players. Some of the criticisms raised so far have been accurate, but you've stood firmly, impudently, rooted to your belief that you know better than the rest.

Anyone that plays deathmatch online with any regularity would be able to tell you that your level is a nightmare to navigate. It's filled with tiny twisting corridors, rooms to nowhere (don't even try to tell me what they are supposed to be there for), random meshes that interfere with gameplay. You've got a half dozen control items within a couple of jumps of one another. You've got doors that don't open that look just like all the other doors (don't even start me on a bunch of doors in a UT deathmatch level). You have an AVRiL in it for Christ's sakes (yeah, I know that you think it's the weapon of a skilled player... see how far it gets you against a real skilled player).

I've seen video you've recorded of someone running around your map hiding behind meshes like you were playing Gears of War. That's not how deathmatch maps are played.

Now I bring all of this up, not because I want to embarass you. I'm sure you're a nice enough person. But I can't stand to hear you making stupid criticisms of a terrific map. Plutonic was making amazing levels when you were probably still in grade school. (sorry if I'm wrong about guessing your age)

You've demonstrated time and time again that you do not know how this game is played at even the most basic of competitive levels. What was it you said? Your map was big enough to even handle CTF? Dear god I hope you aren't saying Str8control would work well as a CTF map too. A good CTF map isn't dependant only upon size, but flow and balance. I have yet to see a good Unreal deathmatch map that would also work as a good deathmatch map without great modification.

But I digress...

To get back to my original point. It's clear that you've spent a great deal of time learning things in books. Perhaps you've even designed successful levels for other games. But let me make this clear... you cannot take experience from playing dissimilar games like Halo and spend a month playing UT3 and make a great level. The Unreal Tournament games are some of the simplest first person shooters ever made? I suggest that you don't understand the depth that is there in both the movement and the weapons, nor how either are used at higher levels.

I'm terribly sorry if I sound harsh in what I've said, but you've got a lot more to learn than you think you do. A dose of humility wouldn't hurt either.

We all "get it" that there are other play styles for other games and gametypes. However, I don't think that you understand this one very well.