 |
|
 it
really all started with Doom,
actually. when i first discovered that people could make levels for Doom,
i was very interested in doing that myself. i used to download dozens of
levels a day back then to play, and i quickly discovered that the skill
levels varied widely, from the unnamed horrible first efforts to levels
like UAC_DEAD,
which wrung the most out of the Doom engine. i dinked around with editing
there, but never really produced anything. then Doom2
came out, and i guess it was the editors getting
a lot better that induced me to try to make some level of my own. of course,
i didn't know much about what all the terms meant, so i downloaded just
about all the information that i could find... and it still took
me a long time to figure it out. i eventually did, but then i thought other
people might have the same problem understanding this stuff as i did. since
i'm an english major, i figured i'd write myself a WAD
Designers' Handbook, and i did... with the help of the people on the
old FidoNET Doom echo (which i ended up moderating for a time). the Handbook
went through i think three or four revisions before Ron
Allen did a lot of revising himself and put
it on the web. as far as i know, it's still being accessed and used, and
i hope it helps out anyone starting out in Doom2 editing. (for the record,
i've released two single-player Doom2 levels -- 3XPLAY.ZIP
and DIAMONDS.ZIP
-- along with having three levels in the Strain
mega-wad for Doom2 [maps 01, 11, and 12] and
one in Requiem [map 05].
all of these should still be available on cdrom.com if you're interested.
i think 3XPLAY.ZIP was
my best one, though, because it has "random monster placement" in addition
to different key and weapon placement for each skill level, which is something
i don't think many other levels had.)
what i learned most from that period (that i apply to Quake and Quake2 level reviews, anyway) is how good levels are put together, how they play (flow and mood and setting and theme), and what they feel like. it's odd that i use such a subjective term, because i attempt to be as unbiased as possible, but that's why i left myself an out with my "Fun" rating category... good levels have a certain feel to them, and it's a strange synergistic combination of monster placement and weapon placement and architecture and lighting and mood. it's not something you can point to or quantify and say, "yes, that's what i'm talking about!" but it's something that every good level has that makes it worth playing over and over. maybe it's mood, maybe it's theme, maybe it's something else entirely. all i know is that every TLKA level has it, and that's why it's TLKA. i still read all the specs i can get, though, and i try to keep up with the editing developments as much as i can; it's hard to realistically rate levels when you don't know what is or isn't possible. |
[enuff variety] for the range of levels we'll be seeing? sure, at the outset, there'll be lots and lots of base-type maps and city-type maps and industrial-zone type maps; after all, that's what the texture set was made for. i don't think it'll be long until we see some truly interesting stuff from Q2 mod and level authors, and i personally think a non-fixed palette will be the biggest help to the artists on these mod and level and TC teams. having plug-in models is also very cool.
 |
| BACK | MORE |
   |
depends on how you look at it and what you like. me, i like science fiction,
so Quake2's overall theme is precisely up my alley. in my opinion,
Quake1 was an outstanding engine demonstration; Quake2 is an outstanding
game.
required
daily stops include quake2.com,
blue's, sCary's,
and planetquake.
i also hit as many SPQ/2 sites as i have time for, including the Hotel,
SPQ2 Heaven,
AWOQ2, Talon's,
and Lt. Dan's.
the Armageddon
and BANGG sites
(LAN gaming groups where i live) are on the list as well. finally, i try
and keep up with other sites as they catch my interest, such as gamegirlz.com,
skillz, redwood's, gamers extreme, zanshin's,
voodooextreme, AoE Heaven, etc. etc. etc.
i guess i spend too much time on the web. :)
in
general, i'm all for them. we all have different tastes, and none of us
can truly be completely objective, so i like having a lot of differing
sites -- with differing opinions -- around for variety. plus, it makes
for some great email with Matt when
we don't agree on the qualities of a given level. :) (hey, Matt,
you kiss your wife with that mouth?! hehehehe) i mean, that's what
the 'net is all about, isn't it? there's enough room out here for everyone,
and it's not a competition or anything. i've been getting a bad feeling
that some folks might think it's becoming a competition, though, and i
really really don't want to see that.