RSS Feed Hellkeeper.net

Last Updated: 10/04/2012 at 21:45

Current Project: Dunno.

Index of tutorials

# Construction of a map

The map, like all other artists, painters, writers, designers, is exposed to the anxiety of the blank, and the problem of method. Where to begin once the idea is well formed?

There are two schools of Mapping: the first is to create the map in large cubic voids and non-textured to test the gameplay and interconnections of rooms and corridors, before the full texture of the map, then place all statics then put all the lights.

The second is to create a room, decorate the bottom, to the light and all the elements that should be there, then move to another room where the procedure is repeated for each room is perfectly finished before moving on to another.

Many map with some renown apply the first solution. If you read a paper Hourences example, he will explain that this allows to map a coherent and in one piece without using all the good ideas in one room before you run out of creativity. He then criticized the other method by explaining that it is only applied by novices and incompetents who should never map, and then show you how his method to him is so great and extraordinary. In fact, if the first method is more popular with high-level mappers, it is because it gives the best gameplay maps and therefore played. However, these mappers have the intent to make playable maps and played, sometimes to the detriment of the aesthetic quality.

Forget what Hourences said, and besides, remember also what others are saying about a particular method. Anyway, no argument can stand. The only way to see which method you will apply is to force you to make a map "as you feel", then think about how you just do it. For example, to create Premaka, I started doing a corridor. Then I have connected a lift. Then I added up another corridor. I have connected a piece. Then I added lanes on the other side. For Karalen, I made a big room, then bridges on the top ... We see, personally I belong to the second category of mappers. I do not make you use it, but I do not dissuade you either.

## Strengths and weaknesses

The arguments by defenders out of the first method are always the same:

- The map is in one piece if it is created completely before decorating
- This can work to better the gameplay
- This will keep ideas
- The maps created with this method seem smoother.

Advocates of the second method believe their method:

- Can better focus on each part of the map
- To ensure that each piece is worked over (the map is not worked a whole)
- Each piece serves as inspiration for the next

If you pay attention, we conclude that the first method is to map the gameplay focus that prefer a map, and the player experience, and the second type of map favors the aesthetic and the level of detail.

Contrary to what some say, build a map piece by piece does not necessarily make the card less visually fluid: a real map will not hesitate, once the map is almost complete, to add elements that pass from one room to the other, thus preserving a high consistency.

The argument that is often used when constructing a map piece by piece, the pieces seem to stand out from one another. This is largely true: it depends on the level of the map. Someone like Bot_40 is more than capable of creating a map piece by piece in a consistent manner, while a novice will map a map incoherent even from the first method.

## What to remember

Do not listen to the opinions of others regarding the method to use. Make maps as you want until the result is good. Once you think you have done your best, spread the map and see what it tells you. If it is well received, you iron band Mental réemployez its construction and the method you used for it. Otherwise, continue to train yourself, and try changing the mode of construction. Nobody, not even Hourences in person, do not tell you which method is better. Everything depends on you. If you feel an artist, you will still most likely to use the second method, whereas if you love the game and want to make one map Gameplay concrete, the first is perhaps more appropriate. But remember that at a certain level of experience, the method you use no longer affects the final result. The only thing that counts is the pleasure you take to build the map. When I created Premaka, I did not hesitate to test huge structural changes, just to see if it's improved, simply because this construct excited me tremendously. Construct a map without pleasure will not receive the same attention and give at best a map without a soul, at worst, a map without interest. As long as you love what you do, you can lead to something interesting. Who knows, once you have gained more experience, you may return to an old map that you had at heart! This happened to me for Premaka: a map that I loved, but I knew full well she was not good. Once reaped few months of work and development, take those old projects. The second work of their hands is very profitable in general /

2005-2008, by Hellkeeper .

Valid XHTML 1.1 CSS 2.1

# Original text

Si on y prête attention, on conclura que la première méthode convient aux mapper qui préfèrent privilégier le Gameplay d'une map, et l'expérience du joueur, et que le second type de mapper privilégie l'esthétique et le niveau de détail.
Contribute a better translation