Blog Archives

« A little wad (the story of cs_tire) Big airy bits »

DoD:S mapping and that (Mar 28, 2006)

I've been playing a lot of DoD:S in the past couple of days, and naturally having been used to BF2 (and the aggravation that comes with it), I'm hooked (again.) Typically, my designer hat refused to fall of and the differences to CS mapping were all so apparent...

One of the significant differences is in navigation. In Counter-Strike, the player typically advances somewhere in stages, taking cover when necessary and/or camping wide-open areas. There is a lot of waiting and sneaking around, often on only a couple of planes. Day of Defeat, on the other hand, requires (and encourages) a lot more movement. Once one flag is taken, you have to keep moving to survive (and win.) You have to keep an eye out for snipers much more than you do in CS, and the maps are typically tighter, denser and make greater use of height and multiple planes.

With CS mapping, you can afford to skip a few brushes here and there to force the player to jump over obstacles and slowly make progress through difficult bits. DoD is the opposite: you have to pay extra attention to edges and details, to make absolutely certain the player won't get caught, or even just to help them slide through some of the smaller, more detailed areas. With CS, the player can afford an extra few milliseconds to work out where they're going to go next. With DoD, their exit has to be immediately apparent.

In addition, DoD has so much rubble and half-destroyed buildings that not only must the collision be neat and tidy, but the player has to realise which areas are passable and which areas are not. There are so many small, tight interiors that they all have to be fairly unique to stop the player getting lost. This is true all multiplayer maps for all games: wherever the player is, they should be able to work out exactly where they within only a second, simply by looking at whats in front of them.

In this respect, DoD is a lot more like conventional Quake DM mapping - keep it tight, enclosed, and oil the walls. It's a very fast game (especially compared to something like BF2, or even CS) and visually vibrant, making it a lot harder to design maps for, especially fun ones. In a DoD game, the last thing the player wants is to get lost or caught on a table. The key really is to avoid unneeded detail and keep paths clear and concise.

« A little wad (the story of cs_tire) Big airy bits »

user comments

smeerkat at 14:59 on Mar 31, 2006

I tried the DoD:S free weekend, it was a fun game. But Valve missed the boat, charging $20 USD. I've already paid arm+leg for HL2, no way I'm paying another huge chunk for a game with 5 maps.

Anonymous Idiot at 21:38 on Mar 31, 2006

I neither had the bandwith nor the time to play at that free weekend. It felt like a party for the rich kids to me.

I remember the old DoD and it was fun. Still, I always thought this is just another CS/TFC hybrid. Porting all their most successful mods to Source sounds logical. But thinking of all the new and fresh ideas that have to wait for year-old mod-conversions to be polished up for a new engine (with near identical gameplay) makes me cry. I even think a new, quality Valve game could be more successful than any port.

But of course Dave's right. The maps look excellent. ;)

furrisch at 19:12 on Apr 1, 2006

love dod:s

the maps are amazing, though i think avalanche feels a bit restricted, id love to see what valve have come up with for the next update. steam news said theres a new game-mode!

btw, w/e happened to the article on originality, i cant see it now... or did i just imagine that?

Squad at 22:18 on Apr 1, 2006

I can't see it either, so you're not imagining it :)

dave at 23:42 on Apr 1, 2006

Don't worry, it was only a crappy April fools joke, you're not missing much! Gone now since it's past 12pm and someone took it way too seriously.