Hakuryu
08-28-2007, 08:41 PM
I've been making some terrain in Maya, and buildings in the Doom 3 editor, while trying to study QW maps and come up with some good ideas that fit the gameplay. From my notes, it seems like this to me :
1. Although maps can be large, you still end up with objectives rather close to one another. Having something long range, like an obj at the end of a long freeway wouldn't play well. For designing maps, this makes me think of all the smaller objectives as pieces of a puzzle, perhaps better off left to fit into a terrain, rather than making your terrain and then fitting buildings into it.
2. Real world isn't necessarily good. From designing an Alactraz map, I found that trying to fit routes and gameplay into something realistically sized is not a very good idea. Even if you can make something work, it would probably work better to design with objectives in mind rather than trying to stay true to a real world place. Currently I'm looking at revising my Alactraz map with the basic feel and structures, but arrayed (and sized) in a manner to fit a certain type of gameplay rather than fitting the gameplay into the map.
3. Buildings solid or not? I spent alot of time creating interiors for some of my buildings, before having a finished map in mind, and I think I wasted my time (other than learning/work value). Now I usually just make solid buildings, and if interiors are called for, I think it will be easier to make them once I have the solid buildings placed - ie I can see where an interior would be good to have better with surrounding buildings/terrain finished.
So my workflow idea is this. Instead of working on maps, work on objectives. I like the idea of a southwest river canyon, and instead of starting on a terrain, I'd start by designing objectives seperately to fit my theme. Once they are layed out, then I'd drop them onto my terrain, fit them together, and then craft the terrain around them.
Anyone care to share how they design, tips, or any critiques of this post?
1. Although maps can be large, you still end up with objectives rather close to one another. Having something long range, like an obj at the end of a long freeway wouldn't play well. For designing maps, this makes me think of all the smaller objectives as pieces of a puzzle, perhaps better off left to fit into a terrain, rather than making your terrain and then fitting buildings into it.
2. Real world isn't necessarily good. From designing an Alactraz map, I found that trying to fit routes and gameplay into something realistically sized is not a very good idea. Even if you can make something work, it would probably work better to design with objectives in mind rather than trying to stay true to a real world place. Currently I'm looking at revising my Alactraz map with the basic feel and structures, but arrayed (and sized) in a manner to fit a certain type of gameplay rather than fitting the gameplay into the map.
3. Buildings solid or not? I spent alot of time creating interiors for some of my buildings, before having a finished map in mind, and I think I wasted my time (other than learning/work value). Now I usually just make solid buildings, and if interiors are called for, I think it will be easier to make them once I have the solid buildings placed - ie I can see where an interior would be good to have better with surrounding buildings/terrain finished.
So my workflow idea is this. Instead of working on maps, work on objectives. I like the idea of a southwest river canyon, and instead of starting on a terrain, I'd start by designing objectives seperately to fit my theme. Once they are layed out, then I'd drop them onto my terrain, fit them together, and then craft the terrain around them.
Anyone care to share how they design, tips, or any critiques of this post?