My "style"

[Radium]

My most recent map, An Ocean Between Us, is a map that I believe defines my style as a map-maker.

atob however disagrees,

I can't see much personal flair in the design

This perplexes me as I havn't really seen a mapmaker map quite this. What do I have to do to create "personal flair"

Thoughts?

[TribulatioN]

Well if you feel as though it is your style, then let it be.
I'm almost sure if that comment wasn't from atob, and from an unknown, you wouldn't have given it a second thought.
But since it's an opinion, then it shall be just that, rather than something for you to dwell on.

I personally think your style is quite defined and a mix of a lot of different aspects.

[a happy song]

If you started a new account and subbed your next map without saying anything, I doubt very much anyone would be able to tell it was you.

I'm sure you'll get enough reassurance here to get you comfy again (just like the ghm thread), but most people don't really know what it is to map well enough to define a style in the first place. Hell, a lot of people think it's a detriment to have a style. A lot of people just don't care.

You guys seem to take my comments to heart - this is the second thread that's cropped up to do with my opinions on style recently - if you didn't think there was anything in what I was saying you wouldn't be posting these. But then what is it you're actually looking to achieve?

I'm not really sure what threads like these are for.

[Radium]

Well atob, you are "the man" so me and alot of other people take you very seriously :)

[MattKestrel]

I second that motion!

Radium, imo your style's fine as it is, just make sure your maps progressively evolve to avoid becoming stagnant.

And I for one started my thread to get a broader base on opinions and just that, which I'm sure RF was trying to do as well.

[SkyPanda]

I think that people need to learn to reject certain criticism.
Also, everything TribulatioN said was intelligent and spot-on.

As for personal flair, find something that not many other people use, and use it over and over again 'til it is recognised. It could be an object pattern, or a style of tileset, or a particular gameplay speed, anything really. If you're being called for not having personal flair, its most likely because others are mapping just like you, and vice versa.

Also, consider what atob said- there's many people who don't think that having a style is a good thing, myself included. But if you're set on having one, good luck :)

[crescor]

The only thing that matters is that you (the maker of the map) like it.

You don't need to whine about 'your' style and you don't need to make different maps because people say so, just do as you feel and makes maps you feel yourself comfortable with

[a happy song]

The entire point of this is that you cannot 'learn' a style without it being contrived.

Styles emerge when authors who are good enough at imagining their own visions hit their stride. Every truly great author - the ones who have gained the most recognition and had the most impact - can be identified by their personal style. This is something very valuable and the core of what drives the creative ambitions of any creative community, what inspires and evolves everything about them.

I wrote that some people consider a style to be a flaw, they're generally the ones who don't truly understand the value and worth of what this real creativity can be.

[crescor]

Yes,I do think it's good to have style, although I know I don't have one.
Style is a very big plus, but not 'really' necessairy to make good maps.

[SkyPanda]

The entire point of this is that you cannot 'learn' a style without it being contrived.

What? Of course you can. Style involves technique, and technique can be shared and taught.

Styles emerge when authors who are good enough at imagining their own visions hit their stride.

Styles actually emerge from an author's first few maps, often unconsciously. Later on, an author might create and maintain a style/styles for a multitude of reasons, some of which are good, some of which are bad, some because of talent, some because of a lack of talent.

This is something very valuable and the core of what drives the creative ambitions of any creative community, what inspires and evolves everything about them.

You're confusing your own methods and inspirations with the inspirations of the wider community. If the desire for or the presence of style drives you to create, that's wonderful, but don't be so naive as to try and speak for everybody.

[a happy song]

This is exactly why you never quite grasp my arguments surround this topic, you've no idea how style develops and its actual importance.

The entire point of this is that you cannot 'learn' a style without it being contrived.

What? Of course you can. Style involves technique, and technique can be shared and taught.

The key part is 'without it being contrived'.

People will either be good enough at an art to develop their own style, or they will emulate and copy to the point of producing contrived and/or derivative efforts. This is true and evident in all art throughout history, it's not just my opinion.

This is something very valuable and the core of what drives the creative ambitions of any creative community, what inspires and evolves everything about them.

You're confusing your own methods and inspirations with the inspirations of the wider community. If the desire for or the presence of style drives you to create, that's wonderful, but don't be so naive as to try and speak for everybody.

This is where you're most wrong. I'm not attempting to speak for anyone, I'm pointing out how creative communities work and flourish.

Within any creative community there will be those who are considered the best at what they do. These artists will indefinitely have a way about their work, a style that they've developed that is held in high enough regard by enough people that they become the forerunners in their fields. Its these styles that inspire the community around them to push forward with their own ideas.

And its a simple fact that if you don't possess a style of your own you will never really make any kind of meaningful impact in any creative medium as it's style and personal creative ability that inspire, motivate, and drive everything to do with art in all mediums: music, painting, film, n maps... everything.

Please, just don't be so naive.

[Kablizzy]

I really can't see much of a style, to be quite honest. Every NUMA map I see these days has that same style, really.

I think that those of you who grew up with Yahoozy as the premier mapmaker - and with deleting your maps or retiring from NUMA being a fad rather than something that people do as a statement of protest - might have a sort of distorted sense of what constitutes a "style."

Those of us who have been around the community since before Yahoozy remember what it was like to see an LLCoolDave map and say, "Dude, that's an LL map." I can point a maximo map out from 100 yards, even in a field of maximo clones. I know exactly what types of styles atob and Sendy have, and the types of things that tktktk and blue_tetris do are unique to them. I bet even I have a style - despite being one of the few mapmakers that severely lacks a style - And I'm sure that style could probably be readily discernible if someone set a Kablizzy map in the midst of nine imitations. Especially after Legacy, since I've grown as a mapmaker exponentially since then.

Anyway, I guess I'm not disputing that this is your style - Because you obviously do have a style there as I look at your maps, but I think what atob might be getting at is how common that style is. As it is, "Style" is less of a style and more of a norm in mapmaking for people these days, following in the wave of mappers who adopted this type of mapmaking. If I had to guess, I'd say that atob isn't saying that you don't have a style, I think he's rather referring to the idea that mapmakers today don't have a unique style. Whether that's a personal fault or a fault of the community's stagnation is entirely up for debate - And even though most of us old-timers rarely speak out in these threads, I thought it pertinent to give atob a bit of much-needed backing. He's been going at it alone in these threads, so I think it's good for some of us to step forward and let you guys know that we have a very different perspective on maps than most mappers today do.

I do disagree, however, that without a style of your own you can't make an impact - Take myself, for instance. My style is by no means distinct or revolutionary, but my maps have made an unfathomably large impact here regardless. Perhaps because I've simply made more maps than any other mapper, granted - But still, the concept remains, I think. I was about to group Stepself into the same class as myself, but as I remember, his maps did end up developing a rather distinct style. Also, something to keep in mind is whether or not variety is a style, or episodic maps are a style.

[SkyPanda]

The key part is 'without it being contrived'.
People will either be good enough at an art to develop their own style, or they will emulate and copy to the point of producing contrived and/or derivative efforts. This is true and evident in all art throughout history, it's not just my opinion.

Nah, you're being overly idealistic and I think you underestimate just how effective expert help can be. For example, Bobby could be looking at ways to develop a personal style. Timmy could tell him that using a unique object cluster pattern could be effective in doing that. Just nudging him in the right direction. Bobby then goes off and develops his own, unique, uncontrived object pattern, and he's on his way to developing a unique style.
In 'all art throughout history', very few develop their art in isolation. Emulation and guidance are usually vital, even if only in the first few stages.

Within any creative community there will be those who are considered the best at what they do. These artists will indefinitely have a way about their work, a style that they've developed that is held in high enough regard by enough people that they become the forerunners in their fields. Its these styles that inspire the community around them to push forward with their own ideas.

It's true that the best inspire the rest, but not necessarily through style. You're making illogical connections. It's not the style that is the focus, but the quality. It's not impossible for what you say to sometimes be true, but it is impossible that you can make such blanket statements and expect them to apply to even a majority.

And its a simple fact that if you don't possess a style of your own you will never really make any kind of meaningful impact in any creative medium as it's style and personal creative ability that inspire, motivate, and drive everything to do with art in all mediums: music, painting, film, n maps... everything.

No, quality ultimately trumps having a style. I believe that quality is what inspires, on the most part.



Kablizzy, if anyone knows what they're talking about it's you ,and please take this with good humour, but I still can't help getting so weirded out by guys going old-boys-club on a flash game ;) I agree with what your sayin' tho. <3 peace

[a happy song]

In 'all art throughout history', very few develop their art in isolation. Emulation and guidance are usually vital, even if only in the first few stages.

Obviously. Lock a baby in a blank room until it's 18th birthday and it won't have the chance to learn. I'm not arguing that we need influence and inspiration to learn and grow.

It's a simple fact that some people have inherent talent that trumps others'. It's the largest factor in not every artist being able to succeed ('succeed' being relative to the context, of course).

It's true that the best inspire the rest, but not necessarily through style. You're making illogical connections. It's not the style that is the focus, but the quality. It's not impossible for what you say to sometimes be true, but it is impossible that you can make such blanket statements and expect them to apply to even a majority.

My connections are founded and accurate, you're the one who's being illogical.

The evidence is there for you: every single author in this community who has achieved a certain level of renown has first achieved a style that separates their work from the rest.

Blizz (thanks for the back-up <3), some of your maps are great and you certainly helped shape NUMA back in the day, but I don't think you belong in this category. Authors such as: stepself, tktktk, lv, b_t, hoozy, krusch, baraba, amlt, l_d, e_b, nevermore, etc... all of these defined a style which elevated them above the rest of the higher quality authors who couldn't achieve that.

Quality inspires further quality and is important, but it's only when combined with a personal style that this quality is elevated to something more.

No, quality ultimately trumps having a style. I believe that quality is what inspires, on the most part.

No, you're just arguing without thinking now.

Almost anyone can learn to produce 'quality' maps. All you need to do to learn to produce quality gameplay and slick aesthetics is a decent sense of what makes a level enjoyable in both of these regards and motivation.

Only a small percentage of authors can go beyond that and add a level of artistry (either in terms of gameplay, aesthetics, or both..) to their work that makes it more than the average 'quality' map. These are the authors who develop their own style. This is something that you're either creative enough to achieve or you're not.

This is why the vast majority of higher quality maps on NUMA blend into each other entirely, this is why the vast majority of music sounds like an amalgamation of derivative sound rather than anything fresh, this is why most films retread old ground and devices, and why most games rehash mechanics and structure.

You can teach the ability to acquire imagination to a degree, but you can't teach the vision you need to truly apply it.

[SkyPanda]

I'm not arguing that we need influence and inspiration to learn and grow.
It's a simple fact that some people have inherent talent that trumps others'. It's the largest factor in not every artist being able to succeed ('succeed' being relative to the context, of course).

Inherent talent is not a case of has it or doesn't have it, it's a scale, everybody has a degree of talent. You've basically saying that people with no talent for mapping will not be able to develop a style even with help. Most people have some degree of talent for mapping, and guidance will only build on this talent. Furthermore, you seem to have ignored the main part of my post where I explain how an expert can help somebody develop an individual style.

The evidence is there for you: every single author in this community who has achieved a certain level of renown has first achieved a style that separates their work from the rest.

That doesn't do it for me. They have also achieved the making of good maps. Furthermore, that isn't even close to being evidence that style is the major inspiration for the new folk.
Remember, the statement I contended was not "most talented mappers have their own style", it was, "the style of these top mappers is what inspires creative communities", to which the reply is still a resounding no from me. I don't see how this could be argued out, its a matter of opinion, experience and judgement.

Only a small percentage of authors can go beyond that and add a level of artistry (either in terms of gameplay, aesthetics, or both..) to their work that makes it more than the average 'quality' map. These are the authors who develop their own style.

You're confusing having a personal style with creativity. I can make a one-off creative, stand-out map that would be better than the average quality map. This does not require a personal style at all.

A personal style, as I have said before, is actually a limitation on creativity, because it requires doing things in a similar way over and over, whereas pure creativity involves doing things completely differently. It does indeed take a leap of creativity to make a map with an original style. But if your next map is similar, and the next, and the next, then there is no more creativity involved. However, if you were to instead make the second map have a completely original style again, that requires another huge creative effort.

You can teach the ability to acquire imagination to a degree, but you can't teach the vision you need to truly apply it.

This seems an interesting debate topic- can creativity/imagination be taught? I say yes, it can be taught, inspired, developed. It's too late at night to argue this in full, perhaps some other time.
As for teaching how to apply imagination to mapping, you'd have to have a very narrow definition of teaching to claim that it couldn't be done. Even if you believe that people cannot be taught creativity, new mappers can be taught where to apply their creativity- their ideas can be given focus, and they can be taught how to develop them in terms of the conventions of mapping.

[unoriginal name]

Hell, a lot of people think it's a detriment to have a style.

I would be among those people.

Striving for a style is stupid, if you ask me. It means you're closing yourself in. I mean, if a style just develops, then it's fine, but just conforming to a design means you don't try new, maybe better ones. I did that for a time, and they were the worst maps I've made, save my first ten or so.

My point is, don't try to make this your style, Radium. Keep experimenting. Strive to make different maps every time. Just go with the flow.


Or you could keep making the same map over and over. Your choice.

[Pheidippides]

I think we need a Style Manifesto.


I agree with a few points from both sides here. Basically, I want to point out a bit of an extreme mentioned here. That's that style limits creativity. I honestly don't feel it does. Take atob, for example. He has a definitive style, but many of his maps are new and different than his previous maps, despite common motifs. Taking a style and using it in new ways requires just as much creativity as mapping totally without style, which I don't even think is entirely possible. There are many who have a style but do not develop it in the way that atob does, and allow themselves to stagnate. This is not the ideal definition of style. A style is a set of techniques that a mapper is not only known to use, but is good at using in new and creative ways. I also have to say that both well-used motifs and overall quality will inspire a community. Everyone is inspired in different ways. I don't see why you have to hem yourselves in in that argument.

There are more arguments that I'm probably forgetting to answer, but I don't have time to check right now. Just a few of my thoughts on the matter.

[a happy song]

Firstly, I would like to point out that quality is inherent to style whereas style is not inherent to quality. Achieving the former without the latter is an easy task, achieving both is how the greater artists make their mark.

This is the absolute flaw of your argument, the one part that proves you've no idea about the value of style and what it really means:

You're confusing having a personal style with creativity.

A personal style applied with a certain quality is the very height of creativity. It's the stage that comes when you've practised and refined your art to the finest point possible for that period. It's an intelligent and unconscious amalgamation of everything you've learned and loved about a certain art, it's the magic that happens for true greats of a medium. It's that intangible thing that cannot be taught, the part that's stumbled upon due to an inherent potential being sparked by a desire to achieve something more than most.

I'm not sure why you're trying to belittle such an obvious truth.

I can make a one-off creative, stand-out map that would be better than the average quality map. This does not require a personal style at all.

No it doesn't, but it does take a certain amount of style to be able to maintain that achievement.

A personal style, as I have said before, is actually a limitation on creativity, because it requires doing things in a similar way over and over, whereas pure creativity involves doing things completely differently.

Again, you're being very thoughtless.

A style isn't simply about repeating patterns, it's an intangible sense of things that produces a vibe that's both familiar - and in the cases of those who've fully achieved its potential - exciting each time it's experienced.

A style in this sense would be in a state of constant flux.

It does indeed take a leap of creativity to make a map with an original style. But if your next map is similar, and the next, and the next, then there is no more creativity involved. However, if you were to instead make the second map have a completely original style again, that requires another huge creative effort.

As I've explained, achieving a style is not just about producing the same kind of maps over and over ad nauseam, indeed the authors I've listed above all take their styles through stages of a constant evolution.

The most amount of creative effort comes from applying a vision to steer the evolution of this style and constantly push forward. Indeed, an artists early works might be unrecognisable at a glance from his latest, but you'll find a thread that runs throughout it all and links each piece without each seeming like a stale imitation or simply a building block.

This seems an interesting debate topic- can creativity/imagination be taught? I say yes, it can be taught, inspired, developed. It's too late at night to argue this in full, perhaps some other time.
As for teaching how to apply imagination to mapping, you'd have to have a very narrow definition of teaching to claim that it couldn't be done. Even if you believe that people cannot be taught creativity, new mappers can be taught where to apply their creativity- their ideas can be given focus, and they can be taught how to develop them in terms of the conventions of mapping.

How to apply imagination can be taught to a degree.

That vision cannot be taught - that it is more inherent in nature, and something that is stumbled upon my a kind of chance - is proven in the fact that the very top of any field is made up of only a small percentage of those attempting to aim for it.

If there were a way to absolutely teach people how to be truly great at something, then there would be no need for the actual word 'great' at all.

I'm not saying don't attempt to guide people, we all need guidance, I'm saying that only a very small amount of us will ever find the chance to achieve that aspect that allows our work to rise above what's considered the highest standard of simple 'quality' and stand out as a testament to intelligent vision as the height of what creativity means.

-

Striving for a style is stupid, if you ask me. It means you're closing yourself in. I mean, if a style just develops, then it's fine, but just conforming to a design means you don't try new, maybe better ones. I did that for a time, and they were the worst maps I've made, save my first ten or so.

My point is, don't try to make this your style, Radium. Keep experimenting. Strive to make different maps every time. Just go with the flow.

Striving for a style will most likely lead you to to contrived and clinical design. It's a ridiculous burden to put upon yourself, and will only damage the work you produce.

Any artist who's achieved a flair that lets their work stand out above others' of a certain quality will have stumbled upon it without even knowing. Of course, they'll be concious of wanting to create something individual, but they won't be pushing for that alone. They'll be experimenting with ideas that make them happy with their work, they'll be accepting and paying attention to feedback (both criticism and praise), they'll be constantly appraising their own works and achievements, and they'll be the ones who produce actual inspired works born of a passion for something more than just rehashing other's ideas and designs.

Of the many people that take this path, only a few will actually achieve what they set out to do, and these few will be the ones who define the fashions and trends and obtain a deep respect that will remain in their passing. This in itself is absolute evidence of the value of achieving individuality within a certain medium.

[Pheidippides]

I think we need a Style Manifesto.

*Looks at atob's last post*

I think we got one.

Seriously, atob, could you compile these thoughts into something like a map manifesto? That way, new mappers can learn a thing or two about style, and we also won't have to revisit this debate every time someone thinks somebody's copied someone else's style. I'd want to contribute to something like that, but it looks like you've got all the bases covered already, to be honest.

Edit: 200th newforum post.

[a happy song]

Sure thing. If I can find a way to articulate it clear enough for that then I'll certainly offer it up as a source.

I'll give it a go.

[unoriginal name]

Striving for a style will most likely lead you to to contrived and clinical design. It's a ridiculous burden to put upon yourself, and will only damage the work you produce.

Any artist who's achieved a flair that lets their work stand out above others' of a certain quality will have stumbled upon it without even knowing. Of course, they'll be concious of wanting to create something individual, but they won't be pushing for that alone. They'll be experimenting with ideas that make them happy with their work, they'll be accepting and paying attention to feedback (both criticism and praise), they'll be constantly appraising their own works and achievements, and they'll be the ones who produce actual inspired works born of a passion for something more than just rehashing other's ideas and designs.

Of the many people that take this path, only a few will actually achieve what they set out to do, and these few will be the ones who define the fashions and trends and obtain a deep respect that will remain in their passing. This in itself is absolute evidence of the value of achieving individuality within a certain medium.

Yes, exactly.

People, read this instead of my rickety mangle of a post. It basically says the same thing, but written worlds better.

[wolfgang]

I've got to agree with a lot of what atob is saying. Cultivating your own fairly unique style will generally lead to having a greater impact upon the community, through inspiring imitation and forging a brand for yourself as an author, which leads to greater recognition. I would also agree that deliberately trying to create a style for yourself is pointless and will lead to contrived designs.

However, I think one thing that is helping atob's argument is how vague he is in defining style, calling it an intangible sense of things that creates a familiar vibe is very insubstantial, and I would argue, often determined by the player's expectations. Maybe it's a bit closeminded, but I would say that unless you can point to recurring gameplay or aesthetic design elements running through an author's maps, then their style is probably not that distinctive.

A style should not be limiting, unless the author consciously chooses to never stray outside of their self imposed boundaries (read: contrived). But by the same token, developing a signature style does not improve the quality of any single map, and whether or not the style actually adds to the mapper's status is in the eye of the beholder.

For example, I would say that the best mapper on numa is Palemoon, but he does not have any identifiable signature style. (Except perhaps a faint undercurrent of invention and whimsy) *looks away dreamily*.

[a happy song]

For example, I would say that the best mapper on numa is Palemoon, but he does not have any identifiable signature style. (Except perhaps a faint undercurrent of invention and whimsy) *looks away dreamily*.

The reason that my definition was vague before was because I didn't have a specific target, my definition stands solid as a general grasp of what style means in this context. You can only get specific when you focus on a single author who's managed to create an individual sense with their maps. Such as:

PALEMOON has a very distinct style: clinical and almost bauhaus in fashion with brief spots of artistic flourish separating the more rigid structures. Often minimalist and simplistic while exuding certain charm that allows the clinical nature of the designs to retain a sense of warmth and atmosphere that other similar authors fail to attain.

[Pheidippides]

For example, I would say that the best mapper on numa is Palemoon, but he does not have any identifiable signature style. (Except perhaps a faint undercurrent of invention and whimsy) *looks away dreamily*.

The reason that my definition was vague before was because I didn't have a specific target, my definition stands solid as a general grasp of what style means in this context. You can only get specific when you focus on a single author who's managed to create an individual sense with their maps. Such as:

PALEMOON has a very distinct style: clinical and almost bauhaus in fashion with brief spots of artistic flourish separating the more rigid structures. Often minimalist and simplistic while exuding certain charm that allows the clinical nature of the designs to retain a sense of warmth and atmosphere that other similar authors fail to attain.

Ooh, ooh, pick me! Me next! XD

Also, the fact that wolfgang picked PALEMOON, who has a very noticeable style, as the best mapper on NUMA proves atob's point that finding your style is one of the most important things you can do for your mapping. I want to say more on the subject, because I really enjoy map theory like this, but I think atob said it all already. Aspiring NUMA greats, read this thread.

[wolfgang]

The reason that my definition was vague before was because I didn't have a specific target, my definition stands solid as a general grasp of what style means in this context. You can only get specific when you focus on a single author who's managed to create an individual sense with their maps. Such as:

PALEMOON has a very distinct style: clinical and almost bauhaus in fashion with brief spots of artistic flourish separating the more rigid structures. Often minimalist and simplistic while exuding certain charm that allows the clinical nature of the designs to retain a sense of warmth and atmosphere that other similar authors fail to attain.

Ah well, I think what I was trying to get at was the highly personal nature of perceiving a signature style as you defined it, which makes it hard to centre arguments around. Which is evinced by our disagreement over Palemoon's style (although I'm guessing I'm the minority).
I can easily appreciate your description of his style, and apply it to a fair number of his maps, but there are an equal number that feel very organic and loose in their design.