Metanet Forums

I'm looking to improve my map-making skills and am curious as to what people thinks makes a map fun/great/replayable/etc..

These are a good place to start. The best advice I can give to improve your mapmaking is practice. The more maps you make, the more you learn about the game and how to make it as enjoyable as possible. Playing a lot of maps will also help. Good luck!

Most of the featured maps are considered to be good.

Fish, trees, penises.

1/3 = okay
2/3 = pretty damn good
3/3 = i don't even know

flagmyidol wrote:Fish, trees, penises.

1/3 = okay
2/3 = pretty damn good
3/3 = i don't even know

...No. Those make /horrible/ maps.

Try Pheidi's suggestion.

I find that establishing a solid theme within a map adds hugely to the player's experience. If the tileset is of a consistent theme (Like forest, or futuristic, or some more exciting things) and the objects correspond to that, you create a great atmosphere. The trick though, is to then make the gameplay match the theme too. Getting the right combination of enemies and potential maneuvreability for the atmosphere you create is essential.

Also, sometimes the simplest mechanics are the best ones to go for - just a drone going up an down in single column has been done a million times, but it's still a nice touch to an otherwise empty corridor.

Destiny wrote:I find that establishing a solid theme within a map adds hugely to the player's experience. If the tileset is of a consistent theme (Like forest, or futuristic, or some more exciting things) and the objects correspond to that, you create a great atmosphere. The trick though, is to then make the gameplay match the theme too. Getting the right combination of enemies and potential maneuvreability for the atmosphere you create is essential.

Also, sometimes the simplest mechanics are the best ones to go for - just a drone going up an down in single column has been done a million times, but it's still a nice touch to an otherwise empty corridor.

QFE
I'm all about the atmosphere and the action coming together to make a great experience.

Rhekatou wrote:...No. Those make /horrible/ maps.

Try Pheidi's suggestion.

Wrong. Like any other mechanic/motif, they only make horrible maps if you use them horribly. The only reason people think they're bad is because they're more common, meaning the 90% of crap predicted by Sturgeon's Law is far more apparent.

As for how to handle such mechanics/motifs so that you don't use them horribly, the guides will help.

Edit: And Blizz (below). He kinda knows his stuff. Kinda. ;)

Send me a PM with some maps / concerns and things you're trying to do and I'll get you started.

multiple paths

This post has received the inaugural bok_choy prize for excellence!



(That's the prize.)

A solid concept, good gameplay, cool looking and nice placement of enemies and other stuff therefore these all should look good with the tiles you're making. If you can establish these all, you will have a perfect map.

Conglaturations, Orange!!

EdoI wrote:Most of the featured maps are considered to be good.

lol.

In general the featured maps are maps one person finds somewhat different to other maps, and reviews generally don't say anything about the map, so really won't help you that greatly.
If you're going to take this approach I'd suggest looking at the old Bitedized maps.

Just look at my archive for all you need to know. My maps are awesome.

a happy song wrote:Just look at my archive for all you need to know. My maps are awesome.

QFE

a happy song wrote:Just look at my archive for all you need to know. My maps are awesome.

Your pedestal is so high. It would really hurt to fall from way up there.

epigone wrote:

a happy song wrote:Just look at my archive for all you need to know. My maps are awesome.

Your pedestal is so high. It would really hurt to fall from way up there.

I was being facetious, you silly git. But still, I'm obviously good at mapping and that's not ego, nor arrogance, merely an objective observation. And so while my archive won't provide all you need to know, it's a good indication of what to aim for in general if you're new or struggling.

a happy song wrote:

epigone wrote:

a happy song wrote:Just look at my archive for all you need to know. My maps are awesome.

Your pedestal is so high. It would really hurt to fall from way up there.

I was being facetious, you silly git. But still, I'm obviously good at mapping and that's not ego, nor arrogance, merely an objective observation. And so while my archive won't provide all you need to know, it's a good indication of what to aim for in general if you're new or struggling.

To me you really just show constraint more than anything. Yes, you make good maps, but it seems rare that you ever think about thinking outside the box and even more rare when you actually think outside the box. That's just my opinion though, GTM is a victim of the same thing.

If you really want to get better at making maps read either of atob's guides. They can help you expand upon your mapmaking.

Manus Australis wrote: To me you really just show constraint more than anything. Yes, you make good maps, but it seems rare that you ever think about thinking outside the box and even more rare when you actually think outside the box. That's just my opinion though, GTM is a victim of the same thing.

This is a critique made of me that I just don't get. Outside the box? A good amount of the gameplay mechanics on NUMA today were innovated by me. And think outside the box? I've done more than my fair share (start at the end of the link I've left below and work up).

I've tagged a load of my favourite maps to bunch them up, check through and tell me if you honestly still think the same.

The following contains a collection of maps at varying levels of innovation. Gameplay mechanics invented by me, original artistic designs, or even more standard maps but ones that I don't make often (my newest, for example, is a type I've never tried before) etc.. and a good deal of variety from map to map.

Remember, a good deal of the elements in my maps you find generic are because they're copied so often by others.

click

I've probably got one of the most varied archives on NUMA, and this isn't including the 200 odd experimental maps I delisted. I find it very odd when people tell me to innovate or think outside the box more when I've probably done so more than most.

Sure, I have a lot of maps that follow themes, but they're all bunched together in chronological order as the themes progress and develop.

Again, I'm not saying this to boast, I'm simply confused about this opinion.

a happy song wrote:

epigone wrote:

a happy song wrote:Just look at my archive for all you need to know. My maps are awesome.

Your pedestal is so high. It would really hurt to fall from way up there.

I was being facetious, you silly git. But still, I'm obviously good at mapping and that's not ego, nor arrogance, merely an objective observation. And so while my archive won't provide all you need to know, it's a good indication of what to aim for in general if you're new or struggling.

I'd rather be a silly git than a pompous prat.

ANGER WAR RAGE HORMONES

but seriously... what's wrong with any of these?

From the thumbs of the first ten, the only one with potential was "Deepdown Trauma Hounds." The rest are too ugly.

The people who make them, obviously. I will always produce superior maps, regardless of content, while Pheidi and Atob up there are doomed to a mapping career riddled with mediocrity.

epigone wrote: I'd rather be a silly git than a pompous prat.

Fuck off.

I was joking and you came in here waving your self-righteous ego about like some kind of ridiculous little crusader. Stop causing aggro where there is none.

flagmyidol wrote:From the thumbs of the first ten, the only one with potential was "Deepdown Trauma Hounds." The rest are too ugly.

Huh.

I people really do judge books by their cover.