Uses of Dynamic Lighting and Shadows in FPS MP.

[wviperw]

Is this the time to raise the issue of gimmickery vs simplicity? There is a line to be drawn between playing the game and playing the map. A simple and easily understood gameplay element (e.g. a trap) will probably add to the overall map and game experience. Too complex, too random, too spurious and I think it will switch players off. I’m a big fan of tricks and traps, but remember that a good map includes a number of elements, of which one may or may not be traps/gizmos/gimmicks.

Well said. Gimmicks/traps can have their place in DM maps, as long as there is a concrete reason for them being there. Remember, the players should ultimately be fighting against each other, not against the map’s devious ploys. That’ s one of the reasons why you never saw any space/void maps serve as competitive maps in Q3.

[K_2]

I don’t think there should be player-vs-map traps, except, maybe, to get some special items, but not just to get from place to place. There should be some good player-vs-player traps, though.

sys.random

Thank you.

[swelt]

You kinda have to look back to Q1 and 2 maps for good trap implementations, as Q3 (and I think to an extent UT tho I’m not an expert) is held back by what bot AI can cope with (pretty much nothing!). Q2DM3’s lava trap room (reimaged in frag chamber?), Q1DM2’s lava traps and bridges, Q2DM5s quad/rail squasher are some of my favourites.

[megaman]

whatcould work is a set of dark chambers throughout the map which switch on / off in a fixed order and for a fixed amount of time - say 15 secs each. that would make it possible to hide for the leading player (requiring skill tho) and still he could be intercepted easily, thus needing to guess his opponents move and try to avoid him… of course this will work best on ztn3t1 type maps…

[swelt]

I thought I’d open this discussion up to “the gaming masses”. So I’ve written a column on ESReality about this topic and other elements of MP map design, with a hope that we might get some interesting feedback from the more hardcore element. I don’t know how many of you frequent ESR, hence the cross-post.

[Wils]

Just a comment on your ESR article:

I think that the nature of the lighting in the Doom maps was heavily influenced by both performance and the need to showcase the new technology.

Performance is always a consideration, but we didn’t ‘leave areas black’ to save performance - I don’t think it’s really viable, for a start, because to get something which looks good fading to black, you tend to need about as many lights anyway - sometimes more if you want localised shadowed areas.

It’s not strictly accurate to say we wanted to showcase the new technology. It’s more that there were all these existing Doom 3 levels we had access to when we started on the MP maps (the game wasn’t finished yet), and they all had a specific style to them. Since the maps we were making were for the same game, it was important that they fit the overall theme of the game, lighting included.

This also extends to the gameplay - Doom 3 is not Quake 3. You might prefer Quake 3’s style of deathmatch, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but trying to turn one game into another is rarely successful. That said, there’s no reason to make a multiplayer map which plays like a singleplayer one. Trick jumps are a good thing

Personally, I’d really like to see some more Quakeworld style maps - they’re still by far my favourite multiplayer DM maps, and I think they strike a good balance between traps, lighting, movement, etc. Equally importantly, all evoke a certain element of what is basically fear. Fear for a multitude of reasons - are you going to die round the next corner? Can you get to the quad, or will your opponent shaft you into the fucking lava? The sort of fear that I found was missing from Quake 3 (space maps excluded - maybe that’s why I like them despite wanting to loathe and despise them for not being ‘proper’ maps).

[swelt]

Thanks for clarifying Wils. I certainly didn’t intend the article as an indictment of the MP maps, but rather a discussion on whether their characteristics were what new maps should be modelled on. Consistancy with the SP game is something I mentioned in the para on doors, but I can see that it holds true with the lighting; indeed with the maps as a whole.

And for reference, I don’t like the stock Quake3 maps. I too like Q1 (and Q2) maps, designs uninhibited by the limitations of bot ai, and of course CPM custom maps

Since ESR has collapsed, doom3euro have mirrored it.

[wviperw]

Hmm, so what happened to ESR?

EDIT: Thoughts on article:

Well, for the first two points you seemed to argue your point based on technical/performance issues more than anything. While this is in fact true, I would have rather seen you discuss the gameplay ramifications of having light vs. dark, as well as the ramifications of having doors vs. no doors.

For example, with pitch black corners as well as character shadows–are these, or should these, become valid gameplay/strategic elements? I don’t know the answer to that question yet, I think time will tell. But on the map I am making now, I’m going to initially try to have 2 or 3 black corners on purpose and see how it effects gameplay vs. fully lit everywhere. I can see the potential for it adding a gameplay element if used correctly. The idea is that shadowy corners should be advantagious to the down player, though only temporarily, giving him a few seconds of safety or a possible ambush. Shadowy corners shouldn’t be advantagious to the up player ever, which means that end game situations have to be dealt with (where the up player hides). Ultimately, this puts more pressure on the up player. Much like on aerowalk where a good up player will always take a prediction shot at the RA spawn after a kill; with only a few dark corners in the level, a good up player should take prediction shots at these corners. If he doesn’t, then the down player should be able to take advantage of that.

So the above is how dark corners could theoretically become a gameplay element, but again, time will tell.

With regards to doors, I agree that doors slow gameplay down by quite a bit; especially when you “bump” into them because they don’t open fast enough. I’ve found this to be a problem on the stock id maps. However, I wouldn’t rule doors out completely. I think they too have the potential to serve as an added gameplay element when used right. For one, doors are big giveaways to a player’s location because of the sound cue and because you can tell where a player has been in the level based on the most recent doors which have opened. So, for example, a door could be the short way to a main item, in addition to a longer non-door way. Also, there are certain mind games that can occur with doors, again because of the sound cues, as well as the fact that you can shoot doors open, therefore tricking your opponent or surprising your opponent who was just about to come through the door.

[tequila]

quick note on doors, you can alter the triggersize (trigger_size?) key if doors opening too slowly is a problem. no idea what the default is so may take some trial and error to get a good value.

[swelt]

Well, for the first two points you seemed to argue your point based on technical/performance issues more than anything. While this is in fact true, I would have rather seen you discuss the gameplay ramifications of having light vs. dark, as well as the ramifications of having doors vs. no doors.

What I was trying to do was explain some of the reasons that might have driven these decisions in designing the stock maps, then leave it as a platform for others to discuss the effect (whether or not I succeeded is another matter). ESRs database went down, so we’ll see what we get when it comes back up (normally takes a few days).

Doors: the best example is the pair of high doors on fragchamber between chaingun and rl rooms. The number of times I get ambushed going through those doors by someone waiting to the side (or even sometimes the front) of those doors is remarkable. Now you could argue that I should stop going through that predictable route, but I would argue “I don’t want to play a door camping game”

[Browser_ICE]

Interesting thread on the use of dynamic lights/shadows. D3 does bring new areas to explore when it comes to map making (SP or MP). News ideas to explore. Old concept not generaly accepted before now more suitable in D3.

As an idea of using dynamic lights and shadows, how about a map (SP/MP) located on some distant planet or asteroid and the main source of light is a sun or a star that is moving faster then earth’s sun. As result, in a 30 min period, the light would be casted from one side of the map to the other. You could then build structures to take advantage of that.

Structures could be made to strategicly be more usefull when in full light projection or in a partial light project (sun moving).

Also, dark spots would gradualy become visible, making camping a temporary thing.

It would create an overall cool effect to see shadows gradualy growing/decreasing as the light projection moves.

How about it ?