Indyskies misunderstood me in the comment i made on AMMayhem's article. I can't edit my comment there tho, so i'll post something here.
The article has a lot of truth in it. I don't think that gameplay comes first and foremost, though.
I do not want to say that graphics are more important than gameplay. I just want to comment on making levels which are substantially sub-par to the game's graphics they're made for.
If someone makes a level for UT99, and gives it custom 64x64 8 bit textures, 16 polygons on brushes in total, but it has a nice gameplay, does it deserve a high score? No.
Why not?
Because if i wanted to play levels like that i'd start up Quake or Doom, not UT99.
People need to see that levelmaking isn't just about gameplay. Immersion is a very important issue in all games, whatever the genre, and i can't get that immersion while looking at 2 cubes with monotonous grey painted walls whilst seeing in between the weapon effects and models that look entirely out of place.
Also, making levels isn't just about comming up with a lay-out, placing weapons and releasing the level 'because the gameplay rocks'. More people can make stuff like that.
Making a level needs an understanding of the game. The entire game. If people are satisfied with making levels that look and play like Doom, than something's wrong. Why then not play Doom in the first place?
Someone said to that: "Well, no one's playing Quake or Doom anymore, but i want to have the gameplay in UT"
Why the hell do you think that no one plays doom or quake anymore? If they have such a brilliant gameplay, why then are there virtually no servers online?
I just think that it's a lame excuse to not have to pay attention to what you;re actually trying to make. A level with bad or mediocre graphics doesn't set a mood. It doesn't pull you in. If people want to play UT just to kill stuff in a 2 by 2 room with 16 players, i suggest they go play Phobia II and no UT.
People need to see that they are contradicting themselves. They say that a level with good gameplay deserves a high score.
Well then, if a level with obnoxious graphics but brilliant gameplay deserves a full score, does a level with brilliant graphics and brilliant gameplay deserve the same score?
This is the reason why levels that look bad generally score lower than levels that look good.
Remember, Nalicity gives 3 scores:
Awe. For the graphics, the mood, the look, the immersion, the impressiveness of the art. While most people think that this doesn;t matter, should the time spent on this part of the design simply be ignored? That would be simply a HUGE insult to the people to have put their time into it.
Build. For how the level runs, how it is optimized, whether the functions that are used actually work well. This is an aspect what most people also ignore in the graphics vs gameplay discussion. If you build a level with brilliant cast but horrible build and awe, that just shows that those people don't know anything about using the editor, only about design.
Cast. How does the level play? How does the lay-out work out in actual gameplay? How is the weapons distribution? This is of course the third important part of a level's score. However, it is neither higher or lower in importance as the other 2, i;ve already explained why.
In short, a level is scored for how much effort the author put into it, and how much he learned from doing it.
Mel's level have some very intruiging designs, however, he doesn't improve on his skills with unrealed and simply make crude designs with basic shapes, hence his levels get a low score.
Kami's levels have good graphics, good build and good gameplay. He learned from every elvel he made and has shown that he has mastered both visual art and design prowess.
Now, according to some people who say that graphics doesn't matter, Kami levels should get the same score as Mel levels.
If someome can explain to me why things should be this way, please tell me why.
The article has a lot of truth in it. I don't think that gameplay comes first and foremost, though.
I do not want to say that graphics are more important than gameplay. I just want to comment on making levels which are substantially sub-par to the game's graphics they're made for.
If someone makes a level for UT99, and gives it custom 64x64 8 bit textures, 16 polygons on brushes in total, but it has a nice gameplay, does it deserve a high score? No.
Why not?
Because if i wanted to play levels like that i'd start up Quake or Doom, not UT99.
People need to see that levelmaking isn't just about gameplay. Immersion is a very important issue in all games, whatever the genre, and i can't get that immersion while looking at 2 cubes with monotonous grey painted walls whilst seeing in between the weapon effects and models that look entirely out of place.
Also, making levels isn't just about comming up with a lay-out, placing weapons and releasing the level 'because the gameplay rocks'. More people can make stuff like that.
Making a level needs an understanding of the game. The entire game. If people are satisfied with making levels that look and play like Doom, than something's wrong. Why then not play Doom in the first place?
Someone said to that: "Well, no one's playing Quake or Doom anymore, but i want to have the gameplay in UT"
Why the hell do you think that no one plays doom or quake anymore? If they have such a brilliant gameplay, why then are there virtually no servers online?
I just think that it's a lame excuse to not have to pay attention to what you;re actually trying to make. A level with bad or mediocre graphics doesn't set a mood. It doesn't pull you in. If people want to play UT just to kill stuff in a 2 by 2 room with 16 players, i suggest they go play Phobia II and no UT.
People need to see that they are contradicting themselves. They say that a level with good gameplay deserves a high score.
Well then, if a level with obnoxious graphics but brilliant gameplay deserves a full score, does a level with brilliant graphics and brilliant gameplay deserve the same score?
This is the reason why levels that look bad generally score lower than levels that look good.
Remember, Nalicity gives 3 scores:
Awe. For the graphics, the mood, the look, the immersion, the impressiveness of the art. While most people think that this doesn;t matter, should the time spent on this part of the design simply be ignored? That would be simply a HUGE insult to the people to have put their time into it.
Build. For how the level runs, how it is optimized, whether the functions that are used actually work well. This is an aspect what most people also ignore in the graphics vs gameplay discussion. If you build a level with brilliant cast but horrible build and awe, that just shows that those people don't know anything about using the editor, only about design.
Cast. How does the level play? How does the lay-out work out in actual gameplay? How is the weapons distribution? This is of course the third important part of a level's score. However, it is neither higher or lower in importance as the other 2, i;ve already explained why.
In short, a level is scored for how much effort the author put into it, and how much he learned from doing it.
Mel's level have some very intruiging designs, however, he doesn't improve on his skills with unrealed and simply make crude designs with basic shapes, hence his levels get a low score.
Kami's levels have good graphics, good build and good gameplay. He learned from every elvel he made and has shown that he has mastered both visual art and design prowess.
Now, according to some people who say that graphics doesn't matter, Kami levels should get the same score as Mel levels.
If someome can explain to me why things should be this way, please tell me why.