Second one is meh, first and third videos are good though. Nice use of lighting in particular - something which can be achieved when you don't have an atrociously bad computer, and no funds to purchase a better one.
Second one is unrelated to the TPS stuff I usually do. It was more of a change of pace to design campaign style maps. And let some Infestation take it :P
Also, while I'd like to go badshit crazy with Doodads, due to the engines limits, I can't do that, if I want to keep it playable in that kind of view. Game hates many things on it's screen. Had to delete half the map just to get 30 FPS on this one X_x
Can't really see that work out. Melee Maps have to be very clean and defined, you can't go crazy with assets at all. Otherwise it will become problematic for the players. Which is the reason we don't see a lot of high quality terrain work on these.
Ah well in regards to the second one then, complete success haha. Looks like a campaign map alright.
Fully understand what you mean about the realistic doodad limit, kudos though for a job well done.
I respectfully disagree. You're right in two areas; melee maps do have to be defined, and you can't go crazy with assets because too much doodads will cause too much lag. That doesn't mean there's no high quality terrain work on them, though. Check out the melee boards for a sec; nearly everything I've seen there is just really well done. You're limited in some ways, that's right, but the art is in finding a way to work around those limitations and still producing an interesting piece of quality terrain; merely a less detailed one. In fact, I'd dare to say that melee maps by their very definition are about having an interesting and high quality terrain, purely because of the simple fact that terrain is all there is to a melee map.
Let me back that claim up with some examples.
Icetoad's LoS_Artemis features a pretty damn original use of textures to create a dusty, 'Greek' feeling. Even though the map is clear and defined, there are some interesting points of eyecandy on it; check the bottom couple of screenshots, for example. By creating some interesting templework and using cliffs and chesthighwalls as boundaries, it's still clean-cut for the players while offering something for the eye.
Then also by Icetoad there's LoS_Althea. The general theme of that map is pretty damn kickass, and he used the low-ground area to tell a story to prevent interference with gameplay. The walls in the background that seperate the ruined area from the intact city give the map a very distinct feeling. Some parts of the map are fairly empty, sure, but areas like the stair-ramps (never before seen in melee to my knowledge) and those 'crane-buildings' do nothing to lessen how defined the map is while still being original ideas that spice the whole thing up. And the longer you look at the map, the more of those little buildings you'll discover in the inaccessible areas. Helipads, power stations... you call it.
IronmanSC does the same thing in some of his maps (i.e. ESV Clearwater). Take a look at his middle temple, for example.
I could go on and find more melee maps, but I reckon my point is there; terrain in melee maps just equals some creative problem-solving and a slight limitation on detail, but that's not to say it's not quality terrain. Melee maps just focus more on the larger picture and giving you a distinct feeling to go with your game, and they do it like no other. Compare some of these terrains to for example my 'The Turning' map - detailwise I'm quite happy with what my map looks like, but it doesn't even get close in providing the same feeling and overall flow as good melee maps do.
Surely within terraining there are specializations within the profession as a whole (such as how you pretty much only do FPS-style terrains), but I don't think anyone can rightfully say that there's no quality in melee terrains; I personally love looking at them. They just require a different approach.
Going to have to agree with Mozared on this one. Though I think it's generally easier to see the details in custom maps because of the obvious presence of more doodad details and variable height levels, the amount of layout planning and execution that has gone into a good cohesive melee map goes beyond my skill set. Also, I cannot help but notice that the more I look at melee maps the more I realize the advanced detail in ground texturing that sometimes seems lost in non-melee maps.. something that makes me sort of sad =\.
That is a good point too. Perhaps the most influential yet elusive point of quality in melee maps is the ridiculous amount of textureplay that goes into the empty areas to make them look fuller. It's most obvious in citylike maps where park and different types of streetstone create variation, but it's nearly invisible on rocky or grassy tilesets; even though it's obvious so much work has gone into it.
Try doing more with the walls. The cliffs you used really don't look good from a third person perspective, and you lazy buggers need to start making walls out of doodads. 'Nuff said.
Also, try to add some small details to the walls. For the most part, they're just cliffs. Also try to do more texture play with the floor. Don't think that because the map is dark means you can get away with being lazy like that.
Second Terrain:
Eh, this one is alright. I'd recommend adding more general shrubbery on the ground, though. More rocks, too.
Third Terrain:
Same complaints as the first terrain. Also, that video really wasn't needed. It pretty much showed nothing.
@Mozared: Go
Most Melee maps - no matter what you do with them - just seem very boring from a top-down view. And they have to be, because the players have to be able to easily grasp any situation they see without getting distracted by eye-candy. If you take a close look at what I did with the Infestation video, you will notice how much attention to small details I took there, from mini rocks to little plants and grass. It's perfectly made for the regular game angles, but it is highly impractical outside of the gameplay it has been planned for.
Melee Maps do not heavily focus on art, they focus massively on easy visuals, balance and layout. They are functional, not artistic, in that sense. While they have quality, that quality is only related to terrain in a very small area. A lot more work goes into layout, planning, balance, testing and such. Terrain is not the primary focus of Melee maps and should never be, which is why I do not see me ever doing one, as I have a heavy focus on atmospheric work and do not enjoy the limitations of working on Melee maps. I actually would probably enjoy the limitations in a different game, like a shooter, because while you have to watch for balance and layout, you have a lesser importance on distinct visuals like SC2 does. I could probably build a CTF map that is balanced in it's entire build-up for all teams, but would still go pretty crazy visual wise. SC2 does not allow me to do that, due to the fact that high level play requires players to be able to notice something with just looking at it once, not lingering on it. Which is the reason that professional players actually have their game set to the lowest of the low settings. It's much clearer and defined.
I put a very strong focus on building areas that convey certain atmospheres and add scripting later on to improve these. For example by the use of music, sound, background noises, limitation of ammo, etc for a horror situation. There are many ways to play with light and shadows, too. Which is why I mostly decide to work with a shooter-like environment. It requires quite a few unique tricks and allows for some very atmospheric environments, that drag the player in. Melee maps are just too boring in what I can do with them for me, to be of any interest.
I could probably pull something very nice looking off if I spend a lot of time on one of them, because I can think of quite a few unique things from the top of my hat that would still be very well playable (but would require a massive amount of testing, tweaking and detail work), but I personally think that the amount of time building it would stand in no feasible relation to the time I have at hand or would be willing to spend on them. This could also be related to me not being really interested in playing regular SC2 matches, because I stopped doing those regularly about 2 months after the game was out. It's just too much damn stress and annoying as hell if you don't play for a while. You need to constantly play regular SC2 games if you want to keep your skill level up and going.
@Nebuli2: Go
If I actually wanted to spend a lot of time on just a small area to make it as detailed as possible, I'd have to be a primary SC2 mapper, which I am not anymore. Haven't been for a long time. That Terrain didn't even take 6 hours to make and it actually covers quite a big area, I just hop into the editor from time to time to see if I can build anything fun with it. Usually ends up being better than most of what is flying around the forums being build in the same time.
Not to mention that building the entire area out of doodads, while a nice idea, proved to be a shitty one a long time ago. The map is 256x256. If I went all-out-bad-shit-crazy that would mean I'd easily put half a million assets on that map. Easily. I have done this kind of crazy shit before and it always ended with someone's PC (mostly mine) dying. And this thing can run Crysis 2 / Battlefield 3 on max details without breaking a sweat. Streaming becomes a no-go with that many assets, due to the lag it would create while streaming them. Not to mention SC2 actually renders anything it sees (because Blizz never thought that we would do this) and such has technical-based issues already. There is a reason games in this perspective only render what should currently be visible and we delete the backfaces on assets in actual productions.
Performance is a huge-ass issue on that "build-what-you-want-when-you-want"-map and since it's not a release project or anything, I can't be bothered to spend an entire week to make it as good as I probably could. There is a lot that could be done with both the walls and the floor alone, ranging from breaking it up with some of the Tarsonis terrain objects to cables, creep or more texture variation (entire area currently uses 4, some other textures have been taken for creep-caverns, a forest and a desert, so I'm limited on textures anyways).
All in all: Meh, why bother :P
@Selfcreation: Go
Which is why the "regular" terrain of video 2 is in there, too. But you are right, 90% of the Blizzard customer base have horrible PCs. So bad in fact, that bothering with releasing anything for SC2 has become too much a bother for most people that do highly visual terrain.
But there are some ways to work around it. I agree though that there are massive performance issues, which is why some of the projects got canceled. As nice as it looks and all, it just isn't up to a required quality standard.
___
Also, the Skyrim SDK comes out soon. I can go really badshit crazy with that one. I actually hope that I have the time to build a high-quality content mod for Skyrim. That should actually interest me enough to make me do a "release" project, instead of just messing around with the editor, like I do in SC2 for the most part now.
Lots of UDK work going on though. Lots of assets missing, too...
That is a good point too. Perhaps the most influential yet elusive point of quality in melee maps is the ridiculous amount of textureplay that goes into the empty areas to make them look fuller. It's most obvious in citylike maps where park and different types of streetstone create variation, but it's nearly invisible on rocky or grassy tilesets; even though it's obvious so much work has gone into it.
its funny how i find making melee map terrain harder than a custom map terrain. like you said, alot has gone into terrain-play, which we dont really see in custom maps. Sometimes I open Blizzard's maps and I see just how beautiful some of them are, in terms of cleanness and precision.
and as Foxtail said, alot has gone into planning and execution of melee map details. Where your natural is, where the ramp is, where the xelnaga towers are, to create balance. Totally agree on both of you guys here.
@Gorandor: Go
Its true that melee maps have a certain limitation around them that mappers cannot violate. Such as being clean with doodads and not too crazy with them either. However I must say that melee map 'art' should not be judged by how visually appealing it looks in comparison to TPS terrains and any other custom games. A melee-map's artistic value should be judged from how the map author has made the map look good while abiding to the rules that make a good, clean and balanced melee game.
Its like comparing graphics between a game like Crysis and Angry Birds. Crysis has definitely more details, and has put ALOT of work into making something with superb beautiful graphics. However i would not immediately say its lightyears more artistic than Angry Birds. Its art style is more realistic, but it does not mean its superior compared to Angry Birds.
There is art in simplicity. That is why corporate logos are all so simple, but they still communicate their company well. The same should be said to other stuff with artistic value such as fashion, fine art, etc etc. Melee maps should not be condemned of not being 'heavily artistic' because alot of work goes into making a simple but pleasing terrain.
Then again i am not by any means trying to pick a fight here :D im just saying melee maps have terraining value too. Your terrain is definitely awesome for TPS and shooter maps :) Your terrain work is definitely more 'complex' than melee maps in general.
I just woke up, so if there are mistakes, those are related to sleep. Could be that a sentence or two ends in nothingness.
I'm not saying Melee maps don't require a certain skill-set or are of "low quality". I just personally believe that the terrain is less of a focus point for them, which in turn makes them require a lot less work than a high quality environment for other game types. They are quite a bit more simplistic.
You don't have to really worry about hand-lighting the entire map, sound-effects and ambient, player-pickups, events, etc. There is quite a bigger rats tail on a good custom map than a melee map, due to all the features you can and probably will build into it.
Melee maps don't have to deal with these, but they have to work around their limitations due to the gameplay, the approach of Blizz to make you see anything at a moments notice, balance, etc.
But so do custom maps. You can't go above certain numbers of doodads on your screen at any time or the game will become a lag-fest. You only can build with so-and-so many textures at any time. Hell, you probably have a easier time picking textures for a Melee map, due to the fact that it won't require 3-5 different areas on the same map, that are entirely different in their style.
For example: I could probably build a very awesome looking Zerg Terrain for a Melee map. But it wouldn't work, because putting Creep somewhere gives Zerg an unfair advantage. Such, I'm limited by the game (which I personally don't even play anymore, which makes it even more of a nuisance) as well as the performance and balance. Maybe if the game was less-hectic and have a less importance on visual feedback, I could bring myself to do it. As it is now, I just don't see myself enjoying the work and since I don't get paid to do it, I will also not force me to build anything in that area. I could probably "pimp" a map without spending all the time on layout and balance, but meh.
I personally think I'm a lot more suited to work on campaign like stuff that doesn't require me to personally limit what I can pull off with the tools at hand outside of performance limitations. I could probably build some very nice Terrain for ANNO, due ot the fact that it's not as hectic as StarCraft 2 =) Which is the reason I'm pretty happy about the Skyrim SDK - it's an RPG, I can go as mofo crazy with the terrain as I wish, as long as the performance is alright. I just like building worlds and experiences, not a perfectly balanced Melee map with a lot more work on the numbers instead of the level art.
Also, comparing Crysis and Angry Birds, doesn't work very well. Crysis is a elaborate graphics demo, while Angry Birds is a actual game. Crysis focus on graphics and atmosphere is way too heavy, they neglected nearly anything else in the process, because they want to sell the engine to other people. Their Artstyle is not very good either. If you actually wanted to compare two games against each other, take something from the same game type that were developed by about the same number of people with about the same budget. Otherwise you compare an apple to an orange.
Keeping something simple and still visually pleasing is a good thing. No argument there. I just don't like it in my map work. Now if you were to put a curvy redhead in a simple black dress and put a curvy blond in some elaborate death-trap of designer clothes next to that ... well, choice wouldn't be that hard. Redhead wins hands down :P
I could probably make a good looking Melee map if someone else did ALL the number crunching and just handed me the done layout. Should probably be done with Agria as a tileset. Also, with a big hole in the center. I think I'd like to build a farm-lands area with a giant central power-structure to deliver energy to the entire area. Some deep-cliffs that run around the map to put cables in. That kind of stuff. Damn you Mozared, now I got an idea and wanna try it.
On a sidenote:
The term "artistic" has held itself for years now in this area of work and I still don't think it fits in any way. Games are not art, they are entertainment. An interactive experience. Which means while they require a good degree of artistic and psychological knowledge (as well as a lot of other knowledge), they are - like movies - not focused on a single subject like the classical arts, but become a blend of a lot of them. And they require a fucking huge load of hard work. Actually, the "art" part of games and movies is about equal to the "let's get this done with, we have a schedule to meet". Most people I've met that talked about how their games were "Art" and the players just didn't understand it, had some games that were just goddamn fucking horrible in any respect. I remember someone saying a quote along the lines of "We are no Artist. We are Engineers." I think that fits what we do a lot more than the "art" description. We engineer an experience. Be it Melee maps, Shooter maps, a TD or a campaign. It all comes down to putting parts together. Like building a car. It should look good, but what the fuck is it good for if you can't drive it.
I'm not going to add another wall of text to this thread because I'm not sure there is any point, but there's a few things I'd like to pick from that post, Gor.
I'm not saying Melee maps don't require a certain skill-set or are of "low quality". I just personally believe that the terrain is less of a focus point for them, which in turn makes them require a lot less work than a high quality environment for other game types. They are quite a bit more simplistic.
You don't have to really worry about hand-lighting the entire map, sound-effects and ambient, player-pickups, events, etc. There is quite a bigger rats tail on a good custom map than a melee map, due to all the features you can and probably will build into it.
Melee maps don't have to deal with these, but they have to work around their limitations due to the gameplay, the approach of Blizz to make you see anything at a moments notice, balance, etc.
But so do custom maps. You can't go above certain numbers of doodads on your screen at any time or the game will become a lag-fest. You only can build with so-and-so many textures at any time. Hell, you probably have a easier time picking textures for a Melee map, due to the fact that it won't require 3-5 different areas on the same map, that are entirely different in their style.
This view I don't understand. Even putting the 'eyecandy' stuff on the sideline, you say that melee maps are more about balancing and lay-out. But balance and lay-out are per definition terraining in a melee map. Tell me, what actions do you take to create a melee map that do not take place within the terrain editor? My point. I could see how you'd want to make an argument for eyecandy being of less importance, which I could get into, but that doesn't make all your arguments right. While you might have an easier time picking textures for a melee map, I'd like to throw in that you'll have a harder time actually texturing your maps well than in custom games. Due to the simple fact that you mentioned; a custom map with 3-5 different areas means you can just use two textures in each area and fiddle with the other 6 to make it look original. While in a melee map, you'd have to use these same eight textures over a huge stretch of land and make every single area look slightly different from the previous one. That is hard.
If anything, I'd compare the two to painting landscapes for custom maps and painting Escher or Mondrian-like "square filling" (I do not know if there is even a good translation for that into English). Both are hard, but in a different way.
I could probably make a good looking Melee map if someone else did ALL the number crunching and just handed me the done layout. Should probably be done with Agria as a tileset. Also, with a big hole in the center. I think I'd like to build a farm-lands area with a giant central power-structure to deliver energy to the entire area. Some deep-cliffs that run around the map to put cables in. That kind of stuff. Damn you Mozared, now I got an idea and wanna try it.
Well, like I said, we all have preferences; I for the life of me can't stand the global lay-out balancing aspect of terraining either. I can do it if needed, but I really don't like it. But I'd love to see you try. And after all, what's stopping you from following a melee map pattern but not spending ages to completely balance it all out?
On a sidenote:
The term "artistic" has held itself for years now in this area of work and I still don't think it fits in any way. Games are not art, they are entertainment. An interactive experience. Which means while they require a good degree of artistic and psychological knowledge (as well as a lot of other knowledge), they are - like movies - not focused on a single subject like the classical arts, but become a blend of a lot of them. And they require a fucking huge load of hard work. Actually, the "art" part of games and movies is about equal to the "let's get this done with, we have a schedule to meet". Most people I've met that talked about how their games were "Art" and the players just didn't understand it, had some games that were just goddamn fucking horrible in any respect. I remember someone saying a quote along the lines of "We are no Artist. We are Engineers." I think that fits what we do a lot more than the "art" description. We engineer an experience. Be it Melee maps, Shooter maps, a TD or a campaign. It all comes down to putting parts together. Like building a car. It should look good, but what the fuck is it good for if you can't drive it.
Well, the definition of 'art' is something I wouldn't touch with a 10-feet pole because it's subjective as heck, but for me personally, I can call games art. My definition of art is "something made to convey emotions or feelings that also summons these emotions/feelings for the receiver". By that logic, Justin Bieber is art, but at least I've always got the distinction between crappy and good art. As for games: there are some I'd definitely want to give the title to. Portal 2 comes to mind, that gives the player a 4-5 hour long experience that doesn't only leave him thinking but actually makes him feel. The fact that this happens solely through the communication of robots and the feeling of specific areas make it even more well done. Assassin's Creed 2 falls into the same category. So does Mass Effect. So do Warcraft 3 (single-player), Starcraft 2 (single-player), and a couple more I've got on my list. You're right in that games do not require good psychological knowledge, but games that do have it are the good ones that I'd dub the nomer on. And the same is true for statues, movies, music, or any other form of expression.
Yeap2, I too, like being able to create bizarre, badshit crazy terrain but requiring it to function is entirely something else, and often requires putting obvious limitations like say, Melee maps. Shooters have their own limitations as well like you said about zoning in a map, and I wont be saying either genre is better than the other. Both have its limitations and advantages.
If i had to pick making terrains for a shooter or a melee map for a life, hell ill be picking the shooter for sure :) (as long as it involves a creative art style, not mainstream cookie-cutter ones)
Also, comparing Crysis and Angry Birds, doesn't work very well. Crysis is a elaborate graphics demo, while Angry Birds is a actual game. Crysis focus on graphics and atmosphere is way too heavy, they neglected nearly anything else in the process, because they want to sell the engine to other people. Their Artstyle is not very good either. If you actually wanted to compare two games against each other, take something from the same game type that were developed by about the same number of people with about the same budget. Otherwise you compare an apple to an orange.
But wait, Crysis IS a game isnt it? Unless im reading or getting something you wrote wrong. All of the Crysis series so far are actual games with multiplayer support even if they are not popular. I've bought and played them. I do know they are selling their engine tho, maybe thats why ur calling it a demo? Nevertheless their art style isnt really creative, true that. Angry Birds would win IMO. Even with their budget differences and workforce differences, Its not about how big or large an artwork's canvas is, its about what the artist does within the constraints of his canvas size that matters. Im totally with Angry Birds in this one.
I agree with you there about the apple and the orange. But that is exactly why i chose them, to represent a comparison between a Melee map with a Custom shooter map :)
Yes I would pick the redhead too LOL
Just some random ramblings:
well... about your definition of art. I cannot argue with that as the term 'art' is entirely relative. Some artists value idealism while others value realism; hence the line between the realistic looks of Western RPGs (Mass Effect, Crysis, BF) and the more idealistic look of JRPGs (Final Fantasy, nuff said.) Some don't even see them at all in games :)
IMO (just my opinion really), i consider games as Interactive Visual Art. Where the viewer is involved to communicate the work of art. An example would be Dead Space 2 , a shooter, probably just like your map there. The psychological horror and lighting effects are truly, works of art. Portal 2 is a good choice too, as Moza said. I hope Dragon Age ONE (was RPG of the year before i think), is in that list Mozared, the story is epic. Bioware did a good job crapping its sequel.
I do agree some games are just... plain brainless tho.
Art overall ""relative to me"", is an artist's (or a group of people's, in a game studio point of view) creativity in doing something that is 'out of the box' while still staying inside the restrictions of a larger box. Different games from different companies will definitely have different sized 'canvases' that they can 'paint' on depending on their budget, workforce, game genre, story, game engine, etc. Using Angry Birds again here (and thus why i used it before), that mobile game definitely has a canvas so tiny in comparison to EA's Crysis but they have truly made something astounding with something of their scale.
This view I don't understand. Even putting the 'eyecandy' stuff on the sideline, you say that melee maps are more about balancing and lay-out. But balance and lay-out are per definition terraining in a melee map. Tell me, what actions do you take to create a melee map that do not take place within the terrain editor? My point. I could see how you'd want to make an argument for eyecandy being of less importance, which I could get into, but that doesn't make all your arguments right. While you might have an easier time picking textures for a melee map, I'd like to throw in that you'll have a harder time actually texturing your maps well than in custom games. Due to the simple fact that you mentioned; a custom map with 3-5 different areas means you can just use two textures in each area and fiddle with the other 6 to make it look original. While in a melee map, you'd have to use these same eight textures over a huge stretch of land and make every single area look slightly different from the previous one. That is hard.
What I mean with that is that the overall layout is far more important than the actual terrain. This might sound weird, but you really don't need to pay attention to detail on the terrain as much as you need to pay attention to making the game fair. While it seems like terraining the map and layouting/balancing it are one and the same, they are slightly different. You could make a melee map with no textures at all. Just a giant dust bowl. And it could still be playable and very well build for the players to use tactical advantages and have very interesting battles. Basically, that is Level Design. Adding all the shiny to it, is Level Art. Adding Events and such to it would be Scripting. Keep in mind that I use a slightly different view on things and it gets easier to understand what I mean. Might sound a bit weirdish in the pure relation to StarCraft 2, I guess.
Actually it's a lot easier to work with textures in any top-down environment I find. You are further away and don't have to adjust the tiling or variation like you do with a TPS-like environment. If you are closer to the textures, you need to increase their resolution and people will notice that they repeat itself a lot faster. At least in my experience.
Well, like I said, we all have preferences; I for the life of me can't stand the global lay-out balancing aspect of terraining either. I can do it if needed, but I really don't like it. But I'd love to see you try. And after all, what's stopping you from following a melee map pattern but not spending ages to completely balance it all out?
Actually started a Layout. Gotta playtest it a few times to see if there are any major problems with it. The AI is just too damn fucking stupid. Picked the size of Metalopolis, but made it into a 2 player map. Not that I ever saw anyone play Metalopolis outside of 1on1.
Well, the definition of 'art' is something I wouldn't touch with a 10-feet pole because it's subjective as heck, but for me personally, I can call games art. My definition of art is "something made to convey emotions or feelings that also summons these emotions/feelings for the receiver". By that logic, Justin Bieber is art, but at least I've always got the distinction between crappy and good art. As for games: there are some I'd definitely want to give the title to. Portal 2 comes to mind, that gives the player a 4-5 hour long experience that doesn't only leave him thinking but actually makes him feel. The fact that this happens solely through the communication of robots and the feeling of specific areas make it even more well done. Assassin's Creed 2 falls into the same category. So does Mass Effect. So do Warcraft 3 (single-player), Starcraft 2 (single-player), and a couple more I've got on my list. You're right in that games do not require good psychological knowledge, but games that do have it are the good ones that I'd dub the nomer on. And the same is true for statues, movies, music, or any other form of expression.
Well, ye. People like to call their work Art, so it sounds more fancy, if you ask me. As I said, I think Development really is more like Engineering. Due to the fact that there are actually proven and scientific ways to influence player behavior. You might say "oh this is art" - as with your example of Portal 2. But actually it's a very finely engineered device to make you feel that way. Music, Animations, Visuals, Voice Actors. These all work together. Similar to a movie. Ever thought "oh this movie is such bullshit" ? - well, guess what, a lot of other will think that way too. Because you can easily tell that something is lacking. That's not art, that's sloppy work for me ;) Which is why I can't stand calling it art, as it seems to degrade the work it actually is =) Not that anybody will agree on this topic at all, I guess. I just don't like calling it "Art" - because while there are artistic values being added to this very fine mix of a awesome flavored cake, they are just a piece of the puzzle. Or would anyone call the guy who wrote the exceptionally well done GDD that made the whole project possible an "artist" instead of a genius?
@Zolstice: Go
They called it a game, but nobody really takes it for one. As I said: elaborate graphics demo. Their games are 90% done to sell their engine and make it look real fancy.
if its in that sense, then yes. Crysis is rather a graphics showcase. Story wasnt too touching or creative.
Just a quick run-thru of your layout. Your natural and main are in pretty okay positions. Your third too. Hpwever:
- The attack paths are too narrow and limited. Currently i can only see 2 obvious attack paths with no open shortcuts or some other way to maneuver around it without breaking rocks. The paths on bottom left and top right are too narrow for a large scale attack to pass through effectively. This could be fixed however, if the hole in the middle of the map is made pathable, to encourage more aggressive play.
- There are some "dead-space" in your current layout. What i mean by this is places where its just a dead end without an expo. Could be good to encourage creative proxies. Unless of course, you are making them unpathable, in which its not much of a big deal.
- The Golds are too safe. Players should see the gold expansion as something risky to take. Furthermore your rocks-on-ramps blocking them make these Gold expos an imbalance for Terrans. Someone could liftoff at the start of the game and move their main to the gold and turtle without much risk, and protected by rocks. My suggestion, open up one of the ramps. This is my main point of concern.
How do i know this? i get these criticisms from melee players alot :( and I play ranked melee in SEA.
Nuff said'
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>All of these show playable Terrain btw
Second one is meh, first and third videos are good though. Nice use of lighting in particular - something which can be achieved when you don't have an atrociously bad computer, and no funds to purchase a better one.
@madlibrarian: Go
Second one is unrelated to the TPS stuff I usually do. It was more of a change of pace to design campaign style maps. And let some Infestation take it :P
Also, while I'd like to go badshit crazy with Doodads, due to the engines limits, I can't do that, if I want to keep it playable in that kind of view. Game hates many things on it's screen. Had to delete half the map just to get 30 FPS on this one X_x
You should try creating a melee map, would like to see how that turns out.
@Mozared: Go
Can't really see that work out. Melee Maps have to be very clean and defined, you can't go crazy with assets at all. Otherwise it will become problematic for the players. Which is the reason we don't see a lot of high quality terrain work on these.
@Gorandor: Go
Ah well in regards to the second one then, complete success haha. Looks like a campaign map alright. Fully understand what you mean about the realistic doodad limit, kudos though for a job well done.
@Gorandor: Go
I respectfully disagree. You're right in two areas; melee maps do have to be defined, and you can't go crazy with assets because too much doodads will cause too much lag. That doesn't mean there's no high quality terrain work on them, though. Check out the melee boards for a sec; nearly everything I've seen there is just really well done. You're limited in some ways, that's right, but the art is in finding a way to work around those limitations and still producing an interesting piece of quality terrain; merely a less detailed one. In fact, I'd dare to say that melee maps by their very definition are about having an interesting and high quality terrain, purely because of the simple fact that terrain is all there is to a melee map.
Let me back that claim up with some examples.
Icetoad's LoS_Artemis features a pretty damn original use of textures to create a dusty, 'Greek' feeling. Even though the map is clear and defined, there are some interesting points of eyecandy on it; check the bottom couple of screenshots, for example. By creating some interesting templework and using cliffs and chesthighwalls as boundaries, it's still clean-cut for the players while offering something for the eye.
Then also by Icetoad there's LoS_Althea. The general theme of that map is pretty damn kickass, and he used the low-ground area to tell a story to prevent interference with gameplay. The walls in the background that seperate the ruined area from the intact city give the map a very distinct feeling. Some parts of the map are fairly empty, sure, but areas like the stair-ramps (never before seen in melee to my knowledge) and those 'crane-buildings' do nothing to lessen how defined the map is while still being original ideas that spice the whole thing up. And the longer you look at the map, the more of those little buildings you'll discover in the inaccessible areas. Helipads, power stations... you call it.
IronmanSC does the same thing in some of his maps (i.e. ESV Clearwater). Take a look at his middle temple, for example.
I could go on and find more melee maps, but I reckon my point is there; terrain in melee maps just equals some creative problem-solving and a slight limitation on detail, but that's not to say it's not quality terrain. Melee maps just focus more on the larger picture and giving you a distinct feeling to go with your game, and they do it like no other. Compare some of these terrains to for example my 'The Turning' map - detailwise I'm quite happy with what my map looks like, but it doesn't even get close in providing the same feeling and overall flow as good melee maps do.
Surely within terraining there are specializations within the profession as a whole (such as how you pretty much only do FPS-style terrains), but I don't think anyone can rightfully say that there's no quality in melee terrains; I personally love looking at them. They just require a different approach.
@Gorandor: Go
Going to have to agree with Mozared on this one. Though I think it's generally easier to see the details in custom maps because of the obvious presence of more doodad details and variable height levels, the amount of layout planning and execution that has gone into a good cohesive melee map goes beyond my skill set. Also, I cannot help but notice that the more I look at melee maps the more I realize the advanced detail in ground texturing that sometimes seems lost in non-melee maps.. something that makes me sort of sad =\.
@F0xtail: Go
That is a good point too. Perhaps the most influential yet elusive point of quality in melee maps is the ridiculous amount of textureplay that goes into the empty areas to make them look fuller. It's most obvious in citylike maps where park and different types of streetstone create variation, but it's nearly invisible on rocky or grassy tilesets; even though it's obvious so much work has gone into it.
@Gorandor: Go
First terrain:
Try doing more with the walls. The cliffs you used really don't look good from a third person perspective, and you lazy buggers need to start making walls out of doodads. 'Nuff said.
Also, try to add some small details to the walls. For the most part, they're just cliffs. Also try to do more texture play with the floor. Don't think that because the map is dark means you can get away with being lazy like that.
Second Terrain:
Eh, this one is alright. I'd recommend adding more general shrubbery on the ground, though. More rocks, too.
Third Terrain:
Same complaints as the first terrain. Also, that video really wasn't needed. It pretty much showed nothing.
title should say..
Make maps that good if you want 90% of players to ignore it.... lag fest much??
people think that because the game editor lets you do it that you should do it.. BIG mistake.. its not a FPS or TPS game engine.. LAAAAAAAAAAAAAG!
and sadly most people on Bnet have crap comps...
@Mozared: Go Most Melee maps - no matter what you do with them - just seem very boring from a top-down view. And they have to be, because the players have to be able to easily grasp any situation they see without getting distracted by eye-candy. If you take a close look at what I did with the Infestation video, you will notice how much attention to small details I took there, from mini rocks to little plants and grass. It's perfectly made for the regular game angles, but it is highly impractical outside of the gameplay it has been planned for.
Melee Maps do not heavily focus on art, they focus massively on easy visuals, balance and layout. They are functional, not artistic, in that sense. While they have quality, that quality is only related to terrain in a very small area. A lot more work goes into layout, planning, balance, testing and such. Terrain is not the primary focus of Melee maps and should never be, which is why I do not see me ever doing one, as I have a heavy focus on atmospheric work and do not enjoy the limitations of working on Melee maps. I actually would probably enjoy the limitations in a different game, like a shooter, because while you have to watch for balance and layout, you have a lesser importance on distinct visuals like SC2 does. I could probably build a CTF map that is balanced in it's entire build-up for all teams, but would still go pretty crazy visual wise. SC2 does not allow me to do that, due to the fact that high level play requires players to be able to notice something with just looking at it once, not lingering on it. Which is the reason that professional players actually have their game set to the lowest of the low settings. It's much clearer and defined.
I put a very strong focus on building areas that convey certain atmospheres and add scripting later on to improve these. For example by the use of music, sound, background noises, limitation of ammo, etc for a horror situation. There are many ways to play with light and shadows, too. Which is why I mostly decide to work with a shooter-like environment. It requires quite a few unique tricks and allows for some very atmospheric environments, that drag the player in. Melee maps are just too boring in what I can do with them for me, to be of any interest.
I could probably pull something very nice looking off if I spend a lot of time on one of them, because I can think of quite a few unique things from the top of my hat that would still be very well playable (but would require a massive amount of testing, tweaking and detail work), but I personally think that the amount of time building it would stand in no feasible relation to the time I have at hand or would be willing to spend on them. This could also be related to me not being really interested in playing regular SC2 matches, because I stopped doing those regularly about 2 months after the game was out. It's just too much damn stress and annoying as hell if you don't play for a while. You need to constantly play regular SC2 games if you want to keep your skill level up and going.
@Nebuli2: Go If I actually wanted to spend a lot of time on just a small area to make it as detailed as possible, I'd have to be a primary SC2 mapper, which I am not anymore. Haven't been for a long time. That Terrain didn't even take 6 hours to make and it actually covers quite a big area, I just hop into the editor from time to time to see if I can build anything fun with it. Usually ends up being better than most of what is flying around the forums being build in the same time.
Not to mention that building the entire area out of doodads, while a nice idea, proved to be a shitty one a long time ago. The map is 256x256. If I went all-out-bad-shit-crazy that would mean I'd easily put half a million assets on that map. Easily. I have done this kind of crazy shit before and it always ended with someone's PC (mostly mine) dying. And this thing can run Crysis 2 / Battlefield 3 on max details without breaking a sweat. Streaming becomes a no-go with that many assets, due to the lag it would create while streaming them. Not to mention SC2 actually renders anything it sees (because Blizz never thought that we would do this) and such has technical-based issues already. There is a reason games in this perspective only render what should currently be visible and we delete the backfaces on assets in actual productions.
Performance is a huge-ass issue on that "build-what-you-want-when-you-want"-map and since it's not a release project or anything, I can't be bothered to spend an entire week to make it as good as I probably could. There is a lot that could be done with both the walls and the floor alone, ranging from breaking it up with some of the Tarsonis terrain objects to cables, creep or more texture variation (entire area currently uses 4, some other textures have been taken for creep-caverns, a forest and a desert, so I'm limited on textures anyways).
All in all: Meh, why bother :P
@Selfcreation: Go Which is why the "regular" terrain of video 2 is in there, too. But you are right, 90% of the Blizzard customer base have horrible PCs. So bad in fact, that bothering with releasing anything for SC2 has become too much a bother for most people that do highly visual terrain.
But there are some ways to work around it. I agree though that there are massive performance issues, which is why some of the projects got canceled. As nice as it looks and all, it just isn't up to a required quality standard.
___
Also, the Skyrim SDK comes out soon. I can go really badshit crazy with that one. I actually hope that I have the time to build a high-quality content mod for Skyrim. That should actually interest me enough to make me do a "release" project, instead of just messing around with the editor, like I do in SC2 for the most part now.
Lots of UDK work going on though. Lots of assets missing, too...
its funny how i find making melee map terrain harder than a custom map terrain. like you said, alot has gone into terrain-play, which we dont really see in custom maps. Sometimes I open Blizzard's maps and I see just how beautiful some of them are, in terms of cleanness and precision.
and as Foxtail said, alot has gone into planning and execution of melee map details. Where your natural is, where the ramp is, where the xelnaga towers are, to create balance. Totally agree on both of you guys here.
@Gorandor: Go Its true that melee maps have a certain limitation around them that mappers cannot violate. Such as being clean with doodads and not too crazy with them either. However I must say that melee map 'art' should not be judged by how visually appealing it looks in comparison to TPS terrains and any other custom games. A melee-map's artistic value should be judged from how the map author has made the map look good while abiding to the rules that make a good, clean and balanced melee game.
Its like comparing graphics between a game like Crysis and Angry Birds. Crysis has definitely more details, and has put ALOT of work into making something with superb beautiful graphics. However i would not immediately say its lightyears more artistic than Angry Birds. Its art style is more realistic, but it does not mean its superior compared to Angry Birds.
There is art in simplicity. That is why corporate logos are all so simple, but they still communicate their company well. The same should be said to other stuff with artistic value such as fashion, fine art, etc etc. Melee maps should not be condemned of not being 'heavily artistic' because alot of work goes into making a simple but pleasing terrain.
Then again i am not by any means trying to pick a fight here :D im just saying melee maps have terraining value too. Your terrain is definitely awesome for TPS and shooter maps :) Your terrain work is definitely more 'complex' than melee maps in general.
@Zolstice:
I just woke up, so if there are mistakes, those are related to sleep. Could be that a sentence or two ends in nothingness.
I'm not saying Melee maps don't require a certain skill-set or are of "low quality". I just personally believe that the terrain is less of a focus point for them, which in turn makes them require a lot less work than a high quality environment for other game types. They are quite a bit more simplistic.
You don't have to really worry about hand-lighting the entire map, sound-effects and ambient, player-pickups, events, etc. There is quite a bigger rats tail on a good custom map than a melee map, due to all the features you can and probably will build into it.
Melee maps don't have to deal with these, but they have to work around their limitations due to the gameplay, the approach of Blizz to make you see anything at a moments notice, balance, etc.
But so do custom maps. You can't go above certain numbers of doodads on your screen at any time or the game will become a lag-fest. You only can build with so-and-so many textures at any time. Hell, you probably have a easier time picking textures for a Melee map, due to the fact that it won't require 3-5 different areas on the same map, that are entirely different in their style.
For example: I could probably build a very awesome looking Zerg Terrain for a Melee map. But it wouldn't work, because putting Creep somewhere gives Zerg an unfair advantage. Such, I'm limited by the game (which I personally don't even play anymore, which makes it even more of a nuisance) as well as the performance and balance. Maybe if the game was less-hectic and have a less importance on visual feedback, I could bring myself to do it. As it is now, I just don't see myself enjoying the work and since I don't get paid to do it, I will also not force me to build anything in that area. I could probably "pimp" a map without spending all the time on layout and balance, but meh.
I personally think I'm a lot more suited to work on campaign like stuff that doesn't require me to personally limit what I can pull off with the tools at hand outside of performance limitations. I could probably build some very nice Terrain for ANNO, due ot the fact that it's not as hectic as StarCraft 2 =) Which is the reason I'm pretty happy about the Skyrim SDK - it's an RPG, I can go as mofo crazy with the terrain as I wish, as long as the performance is alright. I just like building worlds and experiences, not a perfectly balanced Melee map with a lot more work on the numbers instead of the level art.
Also, comparing Crysis and Angry Birds, doesn't work very well. Crysis is a elaborate graphics demo, while Angry Birds is a actual game. Crysis focus on graphics and atmosphere is way too heavy, they neglected nearly anything else in the process, because they want to sell the engine to other people. Their Artstyle is not very good either. If you actually wanted to compare two games against each other, take something from the same game type that were developed by about the same number of people with about the same budget. Otherwise you compare an apple to an orange.
Keeping something simple and still visually pleasing is a good thing. No argument there. I just don't like it in my map work. Now if you were to put a curvy redhead in a simple black dress and put a curvy blond in some elaborate death-trap of designer clothes next to that ... well, choice wouldn't be that hard. Redhead wins hands down :P
I could probably make a good looking Melee map if someone else did ALL the number crunching and just handed me the done layout. Should probably be done with Agria as a tileset. Also, with a big hole in the center. I think I'd like to build a farm-lands area with a giant central power-structure to deliver energy to the entire area. Some deep-cliffs that run around the map to put cables in. That kind of stuff. Damn you Mozared, now I got an idea and wanna try it.
On a sidenote:
The term "artistic" has held itself for years now in this area of work and I still don't think it fits in any way. Games are not art, they are entertainment. An interactive experience. Which means while they require a good degree of artistic and psychological knowledge (as well as a lot of other knowledge), they are - like movies - not focused on a single subject like the classical arts, but become a blend of a lot of them. And they require a fucking huge load of hard work. Actually, the "art" part of games and movies is about equal to the "let's get this done with, we have a schedule to meet". Most people I've met that talked about how their games were "Art" and the players just didn't understand it, had some games that were just goddamn fucking horrible in any respect. I remember someone saying a quote along the lines of "We are no Artist. We are Engineers." I think that fits what we do a lot more than the "art" description. We engineer an experience. Be it Melee maps, Shooter maps, a TD or a campaign. It all comes down to putting parts together. Like building a car. It should look good, but what the fuck is it good for if you can't drive it.
@Gorandor: Go
Had time to watch the first video. Looked pretty cool.
@EternalWraith:
You have time for anything these days? I don't think so! Go back to slaving away! ;D
I'm not going to add another wall of text to this thread because I'm not sure there is any point, but there's a few things I'd like to pick from that post, Gor.
This view I don't understand. Even putting the 'eyecandy' stuff on the sideline, you say that melee maps are more about balancing and lay-out. But balance and lay-out are per definition terraining in a melee map. Tell me, what actions do you take to create a melee map that do not take place within the terrain editor? My point. I could see how you'd want to make an argument for eyecandy being of less importance, which I could get into, but that doesn't make all your arguments right. While you might have an easier time picking textures for a melee map, I'd like to throw in that you'll have a harder time actually texturing your maps well than in custom games. Due to the simple fact that you mentioned; a custom map with 3-5 different areas means you can just use two textures in each area and fiddle with the other 6 to make it look original. While in a melee map, you'd have to use these same eight textures over a huge stretch of land and make every single area look slightly different from the previous one. That is hard.
If anything, I'd compare the two to painting landscapes for custom maps and painting Escher or Mondrian-like "square filling" (I do not know if there is even a good translation for that into English). Both are hard, but in a different way.
Well, like I said, we all have preferences; I for the life of me can't stand the global lay-out balancing aspect of terraining either. I can do it if needed, but I really don't like it. But I'd love to see you try. And after all, what's stopping you from following a melee map pattern but not spending ages to completely balance it all out?
Well, the definition of 'art' is something I wouldn't touch with a 10-feet pole because it's subjective as heck, but for me personally, I can call games art. My definition of art is "something made to convey emotions or feelings that also summons these emotions/feelings for the receiver". By that logic, Justin Bieber is art, but at least I've always got the distinction between crappy and good art. As for games: there are some I'd definitely want to give the title to. Portal 2 comes to mind, that gives the player a 4-5 hour long experience that doesn't only leave him thinking but actually makes him feel. The fact that this happens solely through the communication of robots and the feeling of specific areas make it even more well done. Assassin's Creed 2 falls into the same category. So does Mass Effect. So do Warcraft 3 (single-player), Starcraft 2 (single-player), and a couple more I've got on my list. You're right in that games do not require good psychological knowledge, but games that do have it are the good ones that I'd dub the nomer on. And the same is true for statues, movies, music, or any other form of expression.
damn you mozared, i was gonna reply!
@Gorandor: Go
lol I actually read your whole post :P
Yeap2, I too, like being able to create bizarre, badshit crazy terrain but requiring it to function is entirely something else, and often requires putting obvious limitations like say, Melee maps. Shooters have their own limitations as well like you said about zoning in a map, and I wont be saying either genre is better than the other. Both have its limitations and advantages.
If i had to pick making terrains for a shooter or a melee map for a life, hell ill be picking the shooter for sure :) (as long as it involves a creative art style, not mainstream cookie-cutter ones)
But wait, Crysis IS a game isnt it? Unless im reading or getting something you wrote wrong. All of the Crysis series so far are actual games with multiplayer support even if they are not popular. I've bought and played them. I do know they are selling their engine tho, maybe thats why ur calling it a demo? Nevertheless their art style isnt really creative, true that. Angry Birds would win IMO. Even with their budget differences and workforce differences, Its not about how big or large an artwork's canvas is, its about what the artist does within the constraints of his canvas size that matters. Im totally with Angry Birds in this one.
I agree with you there about the apple and the orange. But that is exactly why i chose them, to represent a comparison between a Melee map with a Custom shooter map :)
Yes I would pick the redhead too LOL
Just some random ramblings: well... about your definition of art. I cannot argue with that as the term 'art' is entirely relative. Some artists value idealism while others value realism; hence the line between the realistic looks of Western RPGs (Mass Effect, Crysis, BF) and the more idealistic look of JRPGs (Final Fantasy, nuff said.) Some don't even see them at all in games :)
IMO (just my opinion really), i consider games as Interactive Visual Art. Where the viewer is involved to communicate the work of art. An example would be Dead Space 2 , a shooter, probably just like your map there. The psychological horror and lighting effects are truly, works of art. Portal 2 is a good choice too, as Moza said. I hope Dragon Age ONE (was RPG of the year before i think), is in that list Mozared, the story is epic. Bioware did a good job crapping its sequel.
I do agree some games are just... plain brainless tho.
Art overall ""relative to me"", is an artist's (or a group of people's, in a game studio point of view) creativity in doing something that is 'out of the box' while still staying inside the restrictions of a larger box. Different games from different companies will definitely have different sized 'canvases' that they can 'paint' on depending on their budget, workforce, game genre, story, game engine, etc. Using Angry Birds again here (and thus why i used it before), that mobile game definitely has a canvas so tiny in comparison to EA's Crysis but they have truly made something astounding with something of their scale.
What I mean with that is that the overall layout is far more important than the actual terrain. This might sound weird, but you really don't need to pay attention to detail on the terrain as much as you need to pay attention to making the game fair. While it seems like terraining the map and layouting/balancing it are one and the same, they are slightly different. You could make a melee map with no textures at all. Just a giant dust bowl. And it could still be playable and very well build for the players to use tactical advantages and have very interesting battles. Basically, that is Level Design. Adding all the shiny to it, is Level Art. Adding Events and such to it would be Scripting. Keep in mind that I use a slightly different view on things and it gets easier to understand what I mean. Might sound a bit weirdish in the pure relation to StarCraft 2, I guess.
Actually it's a lot easier to work with textures in any top-down environment I find. You are further away and don't have to adjust the tiling or variation like you do with a TPS-like environment. If you are closer to the textures, you need to increase their resolution and people will notice that they repeat itself a lot faster. At least in my experience.
Actually started a Layout. Gotta playtest it a few times to see if there are any major problems with it. The AI is just too damn fucking stupid. Picked the size of Metalopolis, but made it into a 2 player map. Not that I ever saw anyone play Metalopolis outside of 1on1.
Well, ye. People like to call their work Art, so it sounds more fancy, if you ask me. As I said, I think Development really is more like Engineering. Due to the fact that there are actually proven and scientific ways to influence player behavior. You might say "oh this is art" - as with your example of Portal 2. But actually it's a very finely engineered device to make you feel that way. Music, Animations, Visuals, Voice Actors. These all work together. Similar to a movie. Ever thought "oh this movie is such bullshit" ? - well, guess what, a lot of other will think that way too. Because you can easily tell that something is lacking. That's not art, that's sloppy work for me ;) Which is why I can't stand calling it art, as it seems to degrade the work it actually is =) Not that anybody will agree on this topic at all, I guess. I just don't like calling it "Art" - because while there are artistic values being added to this very fine mix of a awesome flavored cake, they are just a piece of the puzzle. Or would anyone call the guy who wrote the exceptionally well done GDD that made the whole project possible an "artist" instead of a genius?
@Zolstice: Go They called it a game, but nobody really takes it for one. As I said: elaborate graphics demo. Their games are 90% done to sell their engine and make it look real fancy.
@Gorandor: Go
if its in that sense, then yes. Crysis is rather a graphics showcase. Story wasnt too touching or creative.
Just a quick run-thru of your layout. Your natural and main are in pretty okay positions. Your third too. Hpwever:
- The attack paths are too narrow and limited. Currently i can only see 2 obvious attack paths with no open shortcuts or some other way to maneuver around it without breaking rocks. The paths on bottom left and top right are too narrow for a large scale attack to pass through effectively. This could be fixed however, if the hole in the middle of the map is made pathable, to encourage more aggressive play.
- There are some "dead-space" in your current layout. What i mean by this is places where its just a dead end without an expo. Could be good to encourage creative proxies. Unless of course, you are making them unpathable, in which its not much of a big deal.
- The Golds are too safe. Players should see the gold expansion as something risky to take. Furthermore your rocks-on-ramps blocking them make these Gold expos an imbalance for Terrans. Someone could liftoff at the start of the game and move their main to the gold and turtle without much risk, and protected by rocks. My suggestion, open up one of the ramps. This is my main point of concern.
How do i know this? i get these criticisms from melee players alot :( and I play ranked melee in SEA.