Seems a little abstract for my own personal tastes based off what I see here. Im sure it'd be fine but What is this supposed to be contextually? Like if a player jumps into the map, will they be able to identify the area, as let's just say, a Warehouse? I feel that's pretty helpful for players to understand where they are in a map. To be fair though, I don't really draw top down sketches so it's a little bit difficult for me to understand your symbolism. Are the X's teleporters?
Unliked because of your edit. --- Double Post Merged, Jul 13, 2017 --- I'm gonna go against the prevailing perspective and say that the context is that it's a level within a first person shooter. Anything beyond that isn't that important. I realize this is a minority opinion, but oh well...
@A 3 Legged Goat You can't quit me, I fired! @MartianMallCop The theme is whatever the person that does the art decides is fitting. It's all good, I know it's difficult to get a grasp of at first. The Xs are pickup locations. The Vs (corners) are teleporters. The softer lines is overlapped geometry.
@a Chunk Interesesting. Personally I'm totally cool if others design in a sort of abstract fashion without art context. Even though im not a fan of that style, if that's what you like, more power to you. Personally my process is different. I like to create context in my own designs (some people may refer to this as a map theme) because that's the way I like to think. I can't creatively think of let's just say, a cylinder, as just a cylinder. to me it's gotta be like a water tank, or a tube, or something. @xzamplez Oh that's cool then. I used to do top downs years ago. Now when I sketch out my ideas, I like to sketch orthographic views. It's much easier for me to view map ideas that way especially with more vertical spaces.
@MartianMallCop i agree. i like to think of geometry to support encounters that make sense in the context of an overarching gameplay and visual theme. stringing a bunch of indiacriminate paths together doesnt really challenege me, or the player all that much.
It's just a different process. Layout is priority for me, and I feel restricting myself to only geometry I feel makes sense in the theme is very limiting. And I simply have no interest in that department of level design, which is why I outsource my maps for art.
Video walkthrough of Sketch1 incoming No commentary or weapon placements yet, but it's testable for the most part Insane accessibility is the theme, so get your jumping boots, stabilizer jets, and groundpounds ready - there is also team accessibility for red/blue modes
it's only limiting if your theme isnt very flexible. but overcoming those challenges to make something unique is part of the appeal of level design.
I hate that I like so many of goat's posts. I make an effort to not click like on even his most enjoyable ramblings but I keep finding myself clicking that lil button. **** you goat and your sexy comments.
Obviously every shooter has a list of "things that work" like how in Halo we avoid shield doors and very steep ramps. But as far as "limits" go, i think they are fine when theyre theme related. for example, one map im working on has one simple restriction: - A 2v2 map in a vast desert I want to do this because there are already indoor room based 2v2 maps, vertical 2v2 maps, and sandboxy 2v2 maps, but there is nothing where you fight across vast expanses for that player count. So the challenge has been deciding what structures would break up the sand, how the sand would create cool fights, how players would flow, and what color palette would provide the best contrast. within that theme, there are countless possibilities. i just need to discover the best one. as soon as i start arbitrarily limiting the size, shape or object usage tho - whether it's an intentional decision or a forge constraint - is when the creation of the layout will suffer.
Here's a concept piece for ya May not have that vastness you're going for but looks neato --- Double Post Merged, Jul 13, 2017 --- dammit...now I'm looking at concept art instead of working --- Double Post Merged, Jul 13, 2017 --- Oh **** I just found something kinda Ringworm-esque
That's not the appeal for me, though. Having free reign is far more enjoyable. I always have concepts in mind (like your open desert 2v2), but I don't consider them a part of the theme. They are strictly gameplay-oriented.
I mean i dont know what you think im doing other than designing for "gameplay." Every decision is made with gameplay in mind relative to the design; they aren't mutually exclusive. And if I don't intend to make a map that plays well in Halo, then there's no reason to use a primitive editor like Forge. i just prefer gameplay that feels unique to each map. If you can look at anything I've made and say "these fights feel exactly like X", then the map failed. It doesn't matter if the paths or visuals are different if the fights are the same. Sometimes that means one map requires you to look up at extreme angles and features that reward aggression, whereas another map has a flatter aspect ratio, more sprawled out encounters and therefore routes that facilitate dealing with the more methodical pace. Also, if you truly have free reign, then why are the majority of your maps indoor rooms? From the handful of maps I've seen from you, the freedom to add a path that "doesn't make themeatic sense" hasn't really afforded you the ability to branch out of a set formula.
My point is that I don't want to forge that way. I view my maps in grayscale. After it plays how I want it to, then I move to the visuals. I'm not saying you don't care about gameplay. I'm saying theme can dictate layout, and I don't want to design my maps that way. Overwatch is a perfect example. Some of the best competitive FPS designs in my opinion. There are spots all over the maps where I feel like the theme makes no sense with the geometry on the map. I'm guessing that's because the layout was done first, then skinned over.