A lot of mappers dont use common sense when creating their levels, and this can result in unrealistic, and unbelievable maps. While such details may not affect gameplay much, it's these little details that, as I always like to say, are the difference between a good map and a great map.

The thing that most mappers dont consider is WHY. WHY are the various things in my map the way they are? Why is a sandbag placed there? Why is a building destroyed? Why does the road turn there? Also, HOW? How was this building destroyed? By a mortar? Airstrike? Finally, what are the effects of WHY and HOW? If a wall was shot by a tank, how would the wall crumble? Would it affect the structural integrity of the building? How much rubble would there be?

Constantly be asking yourself these questions in order to make sure that your map MAKES SENSE. A street that winds in an 'S' pattern (such as the one in Kalt) DOESNT MAKE SENSE. Why have a road that takes so many turns when you can have a single straight one?

When you're making a building, know what kind of building it is. If it's a house, what kind of rooms are in a house? Typically, they have a living room, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom (at least). So make sure to include at least those rooms. The exterior of the building is just as important. Even if your building cannot be entered, imagine how the interior of the building would look like, and place doors and windows accordingly. Also think about what kind of buildings are placed together. A farmhouse typically would not be placed right beside an apartment building.

Now many times, your planned layout might not accomodate realism. Here's where you have to get really creative. Say you have an 'S' shaped path. Dont take the easy road and have a wierd and non-sensical winding road. Make a realistically straight road, but block of some parts of it, and have backyards, buildings, alleyways, etc. form the rest of your 'S' pattern.

The bottom line is, everything in your map should make sense. What I've explained are only examples. But you should all be thinking in a similar manner to the various other elements in your map, if you want to achieve a realistic and believable map.

That is all.

Do you make maps?

Originally posted by ultranew_b
Do you make maps?

Whether he makes maps or not, what he said is just true.

I think he does make maps, but I think it's rather irrelevant as I believe he makes a good point, and it doesn't necessarily require a mapper to determine whether a map seems real or not.

I will always hold gameplay above the appearance of a map, but I would never use that as an excuse to release a map of sub-par visual quality. Immersion is an important quality to satisfy and one that gives a map lasting appeal in my mind, and while it on its own isn't enough to save poor gameplay, both aspects coupled together rise above all other maps.

I agree with a lot of points here... everything just has to make sense. Usually people won't notice a lot of the finer details of a map until they're missing. A lot of the architectural work of the official maps just makes sense and you don't really give it much of a thought... until you play a map that has a "box" house with 2 chairs in it. I also think symmetrical maps are a rather cheap, easy way to keep things fair, although I'm usually a bit more lax on this since I do enjoy Kalt and Flash. I commend Anzio and Avalanche for avoiding this... even if they are a bit axis leaning, they feel a bit more realistic.

Yeah good points that are ofen missed out, but personaly I don't really notice small details as I'm running through the town unless it's really obvious or intrusive

Sure, a map can be super realistic, but not fun at all...I mean come on! you're suggesting Kalt to have a straight street... You have to find a balance between the two. Gameplay should be held above all else, then once you've got that down, sourcify your map and add those little realism kinks.

I guess what you're really trying to say is what a level designer should do. But to say that an "s" winding street doesnt make sense is complete nonsense (no offence). Streets really are that way, because they were always made historically speaking by generations over generations of people going the same way around individual properties.

Kalt is just about as realistic in its layout as a north/eastern european small city can be. Except for one thing, it's symmetrical.

If you think Kalt is bad, what do you think of Flash? Is it unrealistic to you? it's as close a rural area as you'll get (except for the back alleys, again just like Kalt, which are gameplay oriented only)

Avalanche, again, is very typical of mediterranean cities, with narrow streets enclosed between very tall buildings that prevent the scorching sun from shining everywhere and provide very good and useful shadows, all leading to the classic central plaza (where the church, market and, when appropriate, town hall would be)

Originally posted by deceiver
Sure, a map can be super realistic, but not fun at all...I mean come on! you're suggesting Kalt to have a straight street... You have to find a balance between the two. Gameplay should be held above all else, then once you've got that down, sourcify your map and add those little realism kinks.

Like I said in my second last paragraph, the challenge is giving your map the appearance of realism without having to change your layout around. Take Kalt, for example. Yes, I'm suggesting the streets be straight. BUT, I'm not saying that the layout of the map must follow the streets.

Originally posted by Furyo
I guess what you're really trying to say is what a level designer should do. But to say that an "s" winding street doesnt make sense is complete nonsense (no offence). Streets really are that way, because they were always made historically speaking by generations over generations of people going the same way around individual properties. Kalt is just about as realistic in its layout as a north/eastern european small city can be. Except for one thing, it's symmetrical.


Well, I've never seen any urban area with roads like that, unless you care to show me. It just doesn't make sense to me why you'd have a winding road when you can have a straight one. The fastest path from point A to point B is a straight line, afterall.


If you think Kalt is bad, what do you think of Flash? Is it unrealistic to you? it's as close a rural area as you'll get (except for the back alleys, again just like Kalt, which are gameplay oriented only)


Flash's 'S' shaped layout makes sense actually, because the huge surrounding hills limit development. The bottom of these hills just happen to make an 'S' pattern.


Avalanche, again, is very typical of mediterranean cities, with narrow streets enclosed between very tall buildings that prevent the scorching sun from shining everywhere and provide very good and useful shadows, all leading to the classic central plaza (where the church, market and, when appropriate, town hall would be)

Okay...I never mentioned Avalanche, but okay.

And yes, I am a mapper. Not that it matters.

Interesting. I think that although it is a valid point, this is, after all, first and foremost, a game. Kalt should not have straight streets, imho. Having traveled through Europe, I've seen some pretty crazy streets, like in Paris, Dublin, Normandy, Orleans, Amsterdam, Rotterdam . . . streets don't always make sense or have what current culture of automobiles would think of as intuitive. Plus, at this time in Europe, the horse was still the more dominant transportation, so they weren't limited to the restrictions of an automobile in navigation. (one of my favorites was in Dublin - one of the "main" streets changed names 5 times before I got to where I was going, and by no means was straight).

Just my thought.

It may or may not be the result of realism, but I just think symmetrical maps are less interesting in my opinion. Some maps hint at symmetry which is ok (think Argentan, Donner, etc) but Kalt is just downright symmetrical with a few aesthetic touches to keep each side from looking identical. I'm with Furyo though, it's the symmetry of Kalt... not so much the layout.



Well, I've never seen any urban area with roads like that, unless you care to show me. It just doesn't make sense to me why you'd have a winding road when you can have a straight one. The fastest path from point A to point B is a straight line, afterall.

New York City:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.715257,-73.990602&spn=0.031292,0.080509&om=1

Paris:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&om=1&ll=48.886194,2.341461&spn=0.013573,0.040255

The point I'm making here is the difference between planned urban development and... a typical European city. European cities have been around for a long time and people just kind of plopped buildings down and eventually, when it came time for an honest effort at road network, had to kind of work around what was already there. No, there probably isn't a perfect "S" shaped road there, but keep in mind that it IS possible to partition off a certain area of a city to create that kind of effect. I'm aware of at least one road that continues on in Kalt that's blocked by props. That's really the best way to kind of lead to the illusion that you're IN a city as opposed to some deathmatch arena.

now i know WW2 was never fought in the Americas, but here in New England, you can find many roads that evolved from something like this:

deer/moose trail --> indian footpath --> 17th-century mail route --> rural gravel road --> early paved road --> modern interstate/turnpike

i'm sure the same logic applies to many roads in Europe, minus the native american influence :tnp: And I don't think the deer were out there with line levels, straight edges, and compasses when they blazed the first paths :)

you do have a lot of valid points though, especially when it comes to artilley damage, tank barrages etc... good fuel for discussion!

Originally posted by Dwin
Constantly be asking yourself these questions in order to make sure that your map MAKES SENSE. A street that winds in an 'S' pattern (such as the one in Kalt) DOESNT MAKE SENSE. Why have a road that takes so many turns when you can have a single straight one?

so why isnt there a straight line from my house to my school. BAH!

anyways, with your other points, you are looking for way too much realism in the design of maps. most decisions a mapper makes is based on gameplay. The amount of rubble, either to block a path or just add some detail is up to the mapper. If you are upset with minor discrepancies such as these, well then you should try to find another game, because its never going to change.

Originally posted by Neutrino
well then you should try to find another game, because its never going to change.
I would assert that such a game would be difficult to find, unless it was more the chess/checkers/backgammon/go variety.

The reason you see so many "S" turn maps has nothing to do with anything other than performance. It's the same reason why you have so many "S" turn pathways in HL2 as well. Even though Source is a much more evolved game engine it still suffers from performance hits if too many items are in the engines view at any one time. "S" maps cut the draw distance down so fps can be made managble. It's the ONLY reason why there are so many of them.

BTW...Argentan is also an "S turn map both horizontally and vertically. It can get away with the long-ranged visuals because the hill in the middle blocks the engines view to the other side.

The highways on Long Island in New york are so dumb, all these freaking slight turns and nothing is straight there, so annoying, just saying anyway he has a good point. Listen to Fuzzdad he's the man:D

Originally posted by FuzzDad
It's the ONLY reason why there are so many of them.


i dont think its the only reason.
its also a good way to cut of huge ranges for snipers as well as decrease open running for infantry
old maps like Northbound and Escape didnt use the S pattern (unless im missing it) and they turned out great.
i agree that using the S pattern can cut draw distances and is a big reason for so many mappers doing it, just that, a corner in a map needs to be brought up sometimes (or else it would be a straight line), but why does it need to be in the shape of an S?

I don't think he's arguing against the S-shape in and of itself...

Make a realistically straight road, but block of some parts of it, and have backyards, buildings, alleyways, etc. form the rest of your 'S' pattern.

...he clearly understands the need to accomodate for engine visibility and overall gameplay concerns (snipers, mgs, etc) as Neutrino pointed out, and suggests an alternative.

To be honest, I feel Kalt is the textbook example of how to create a balanced, well-performing map... but it's downfall is that it's too formulaic (in symmetry and S-shape). This is what I assume Dwin finds unbelieveable about it (even if we can slightly overlook it on the basis of crazy European layouts). Neutrino also pointed out other examples of good maps that worked well without the simple S-shape... something to keep in mind mappers.

What dwin was saying was the movement path for the players can follow an "S" but the actually layout (say a city) should follow a more traditional layout (ie straighter streets with proper intersections)

ok comp and mumblyjoe, you guys got it. But lets forget about street layout or whatever. That's not the point. It was only an example of the way you should be thinking if you want to make a believable map (and for that, we can just assume that Kalt's crazy streets are unrealistic, okay? ;) )

Originally posted by Neutrino
so why isnt there a straight line from my house to my school. BAH!

anyways, with your other points, you are looking for way too much realism in the design of maps. most decisions a mapper makes is based on gameplay. The amount of rubble, either to block a path or just add some detail is up to the mapper. If you are upset with minor discrepancies such as these, well then you should try to find another game, because its never going to change.

You've misunderstood the meaning of my post. I'm not looking for realistically designed maps. I'm looking for realistic LOOKING maps. The layout may unrealistic and made purely for gameplay, but the APPEARANCE is realistic.

And I'm not upset about anything. This is not a major problem for me. I'm simply putting my suggestions out there, for mappers who choose to take them into consideration.

(and for that, we can just assume that Kalt's crazy streets are unrealistic, okay?)

Yes, Kalt is formulaic, mostly because of the architecture of HL2 performance (as FuzzDad pointed out). But it's been pointed out, it's "crazy" street is far from unrealistic. It's just the reality of old cities before urban planning.

The old world way of doing things also extended to the way they built houses; narrow narrow flights of stairs, odd corners, and all those sheds suddenly jutting out of nowhere. :)

It certainly made things more beautiful, but was totally impractical.

Just a comment: I only read the first page of this so I don't know what was said on the second, but I'd have to add that yes, streets do end up in S-shapes or V shapes or K shapes quite often in real cities.

I'll give you a perfect example:

I live in Oshkosh, WI...our town(150 years ago anyway) was a lumber mill town. Thus, we had several railways going straight through town, and the roads were built around them. Then, something like 50 years ago, some of the railways were removed, leaving some wierd street angles, so they fixed it up by adding more streets to connect certain areas.

I went and searched around and found a photo of it on terraserver.com...

http://www.terraserver.com/imagery/image_gx.asp?cpx=-88.53991911&cpy=44.03113613&res=8&provider_id=310&t=pan&OL=Off

You can't zoom in further without an account but you can definitely see my point...there are quite a few K and V-shaped intersections, as well as some curvy/S-shaped roads.

IMO, Kalt is not an "example" of how you should make a balanced map, since it's a mirror map. What I mean is that both sides are practically identical and they join up at the reflection axis of the map. Personally, Kalt is very weak in its level architecture if you want my opinion. Maps like avalanche and argentan deserve to be set as examples of good maps, since they offer a unique and non repetitive map structure.

As for the whole different shaped roads, there's no such thing as a pre-set S shaped road in a city, at least from an urbanist's point of view. What you call S shaped are either roads built along shores/mountains or combinations of roads that lead to making it look like an S. Also, the example given in the previous post is far from being very revelant for the cause, as you clearly see the K shaped roads are just a product of multiple different grid patterns interconnecting due to the shape of the shore.

If we go further more in architecture and road planning, you should know that the best way to build roads is to not build roads and let the people trample the grass to create their own paths, and then make a road out of it. You'll then notice how most paths are in a straight line, and that's how most European cities worked. If they wanted people to go from point A to point B, they just made a straight road in between the 2 points. Multiply this by 10000 and you get something similar to Paris.

Originally posted by Dash
IMO, Kalt is not an "example" of how you should make a balanced map, since it's a mirror map. What I mean is that both sides are practically identical and they join up at the reflection axis of the map. Personally, Kalt is very weak in its level architecture if you want my opinion. Maps like avalanche and argentan deserve to be set as examples of good maps, since they offer a unique and non repetitive map structure.


I totally agree with you 100% on all that... Avalanche and Anzio are among my top inspirations as a mapper because of their highly unique layouts and designs. To clarify my view on Kalt, when I said textbook example, I didn't mean it was the best example, but more of an elementary yet still functional example, and there's no denying that. However, yes, its downfalls lie in its simplicity of symmetry and design.

Going back to the street shape topic (ugh), I know that there does exist odd street patterns, BUT, to have such an oddly shaped street BY ITSELF is just illogical to me. In a small town/village such as Kalt, where there's basically one road and surrounding buildings, I don't understand why thhey would shape the road in such a way. I could understand if they had to due to the surrounding terrain, but IIRC, the landscape around Kalt is flat.

Originally posted by Dwin
Going back to the street shape topic (ugh), I know that there does exist odd street patterns, BUT, to have such an oddly shaped street BY ITSELF is just illogical to me. In a small town/village such as Kalt, where there's basically one road and surrounding buildings, I don't understand why thhey would shape the road in such a way. I could understand if they had to due to the surrounding terrain, but IIRC, the landscape around Kalt is flat.

I think the reason is simply real estate. Many curved roads in real life exist because you can fit more houses into a smaller space. Take a look at any subdivision around. Curvy roads. With an S-shaped road, look at how many more house are jammed into the map than if it were just straight. More curves = more houses. The more houses you sell, the more money you get. And they can all be packed into a smaller area. Just my thoughts.

Oh, i was just reminded of something. When i studied in germany, i lived on this road in Ulm, Germany (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=82+heidenheimer+strasse,+ulm,+germany&ie=UTF8&ll=48.412553,10.004768&spn=0.006409,0.020084&om=1). Check out the sweet S-shape. It never made much sense to me then either.

I think real estate's a little different in village-sized urban areas...

Originally posted by Dustin Diamond
Oh, i was just reminded of something. When i studied in germany, i lived on this road in Ulm, Germany (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=82+heidenheimer+strasse,+ulm,+germany&ie=UTF8&ll=48.412553,10.004768&spn=0.006409,0.020084&om=1). Check out the sweet S-shape. It never made much sense to me then either.
Perfect! Let's steal that shape

Originally posted by Ca-Chicken-Soup
Perfect! Let's steal that shape

Dev team beat you to it with dod_kalt :yar:

Originally posted by Neutrino

old maps like Northbound and Escape didnt use the S pattern (unless im missing it) and they turned out great.
Yeah and there's great deal of optimization done to archieve that, I was running at VERY high wpoly counts before we released it with 1.3. Thanks to IR, we managed to get the wpoly count lower and now its playable :)

Good times.

You can still see the VIS blocking techniques in those maps though.

It's not like you can have a great big open space with lots of detail in DoD and DoD:S.

The one straight, flat road just won't cut it in DoD, just as it won't in DoD:S. As a mapper Dwin you should know that, unless I got the wrong end of the comment you made?

Originally posted by haircut

The one straight, flat road just won't cut it in DoD, just as it won't in DoD:S. As a mapper Dwin you should know that, unless I got the wrong end of the comment you made?

You have got it wrong. First of all, map layout is not the only thing I was talking about, nor is it the point of this thread. BUT, if I have to talk about that, I'm talking about the APPEARANCE of a realistic layout of wherever the map takes place in, even if the actual layout in game is not realistic.

Here's a crappy diagram to illustrate this particular point. Let's just assume that the S layout is unrealistic, and the grid pattern is realistic in this case. It does not matter whether or not they are realistic or not in real life. This is just an example.

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/5060/diagram7mu.jpg

As you can see, there is a grid-like street layout, however, the actual paths the players can take do not follow the streets exactly, and instead, go through buildings and backyards. The paths are also defined by other objects such as walls and rubble.

I would kinda like to get back to the logic of the OP. I think he makes a great statement that seems to me is totally valid... I'm not a mapper, but I often wonder what the map creater was thinking when certain things pop up. I think he was making a very valid point about needing to put mor ethought into the hows and whys of a map. Kudos to him...

As far as this stupid S-shaped road debate goes... I think someone living in a hilly/mountainous area certainly sees lots of S roads. But I think what you guys are more often referencing, especially in old european cities, are merely awkward intersections. That would seem beleivable in kalt, but in my recollection isnt it implied to be 1 street that just happens to have all these 90 degree turns in it?

Originally posted by dobbles81
I think he was making a very valid point about needing to put mor ethought into the hows and whys of a map. Kudos to him...
Yes, the basic point is very good, something all of us mappers need a reminder of (especially noobs like myself).

Originally posted by Dwin
You have got it wrong. First of all, map layout is not the only thing I was talking about, nor is it the point of this thread. BUT, if I have to talk about that, I'm talking about the APPEARANCE of a realistic layout of wherever the map takes place in, even if the actual layout in game is not realistic.


I know it wasn't just the point of the thread. I did actully read your first post.

Like I said I might have misunderstood some of the comments about the "S" thing.

Your "crappy" diagram explains "your point" quite well.

Glad you understand. And yes, like dobbles said, the basic point is that a mapper should put more thought into the whys and hows.

Amen. A good custom map can't be rushed. And even though some appear to be good customs (dod_sora), experience shows they can still be a lot better. Give it time people !