TheXraptor
Well-Known Member
Gaming is a positive experience. As gamers, we see more in video games than pushing buttons to correlating pixels on a screen. We get attached to our games in both an emotional and competitive way, and it's amazing. However, at times, our games are not the cheerful bliss they're supposed to be. At times they can be a nightmare.
We don't get angry at the games we care about so much for nothing, however. It could be anything from an exploitable glitch to that one weapon everybody and their mother seems to use. Today though, we're going to talk about map design in multiplayer shooters. It's crucially important to nail this subject over the head and for some reason many modern day developers seem to struggle with it. It's by no means a simple subject, however, we as gamers do know the core concepts that make or break a map.
To put it simply, a well designed map is fair to all parties playing and adds its own unique set of elements to differentiate itself from every other map in the game. Maps that do this correctly are fantastic, and we seldom forget them. When maps butcher this, they can directly harm gameplay. It's simple, yet complicated; maps need to be fair and fun. Unfortunately, developers seem to be taking the easy way out these days; if the map's a giant cluster-fuck of gun fire, then it must be fun, right?
If you're catering to an incredibly casual audience, then yes. However, anything greater than that, and the sheer lack of depth in your map becomes a huge problem. Call of Duty has become especially guilty of this crime, with it's map design gradually becoming more and more unbalanced and shallow. Call of Duty 4 had good maps, and even the most stern Call of Duty hater can agree to a certain extent. Crash, Strike, Overgrown, and Shipment all offered different flavors of gameplay, and they always did it well. Crash and Strike offered unique mixtures of short, mid, and long range combat. Overgrown was all about long range combat, and while it was slower than other maps in terms of pace, it was still interesting. Shipment was crazy. There was little time to plan your movement, you had to run around and light up son's of bitches.
While Shipment madness was always welcome from time to time, it certainly wasn't something I'd want to do 24/7. Slowly, maps in the series became nothing but constant, pulse-pounding, 24/7 runnin' and gunnin' action. From a developer's standpoint, why shouldn't they do this? It's far easier to create a shallow, "run like a chicken with its head cut off" than it is to create a well thought out and balanced masterpiece. Nothing but maps conducive to mindless trigger spamming is what got Call of Duty the reputation it has today. The thing is though, map design can be sloppy in far more ways than Call of Duty displays.
Battlefield 3 is a mediocre game at best. I've said it before, and I'll stick to that statement. While the poor map design may be overshadowed by much larger problems (such as ADS spread and suppression), it is still ever present. While Call of Duty's poor maps revolve around cheap thrills from constant action, DICE seemed to think that bigger meant better. The problem was, there was very little action going on at once due to this. It was snail pace. The map simply didn't feel like..... well..... a battlefield. Operation Firestorm, all of the Armored Kill maps, Kharg Island, and Caspian Border are all guilty of this. Conquest is quite possibly the worst gamemode in the game due to this. On the flip side, DICE tried to attract the "COD kiddies" with Team Deathmatch maps that lacked balance and revolved around shooting the nearest person you saw in the face. While the Rush maps were decent, you needed a good team to truly enjoy them. Finding such teams is easier said than done when playing with randoms. Here's to hoping Battlefield 4 undoes the damage dealt by BF3.
Games will always have a few poor maps in them. However, as consumers, we need to at least try and put an end to shallow and lazy map design. Non-stop chaos is not the answer and neither is maps the size of an entire country. Unique, fair, and fun. Today, many maps can't be described by these words. This needs to stop. Why? Because a game with fun game mechanics is good, but a game with fun game mechanics and amazing maps sticks with you.
We don't get angry at the games we care about so much for nothing, however. It could be anything from an exploitable glitch to that one weapon everybody and their mother seems to use. Today though, we're going to talk about map design in multiplayer shooters. It's crucially important to nail this subject over the head and for some reason many modern day developers seem to struggle with it. It's by no means a simple subject, however, we as gamers do know the core concepts that make or break a map.
To put it simply, a well designed map is fair to all parties playing and adds its own unique set of elements to differentiate itself from every other map in the game. Maps that do this correctly are fantastic, and we seldom forget them. When maps butcher this, they can directly harm gameplay. It's simple, yet complicated; maps need to be fair and fun. Unfortunately, developers seem to be taking the easy way out these days; if the map's a giant cluster-fuck of gun fire, then it must be fun, right?
If you're catering to an incredibly casual audience, then yes. However, anything greater than that, and the sheer lack of depth in your map becomes a huge problem. Call of Duty has become especially guilty of this crime, with it's map design gradually becoming more and more unbalanced and shallow. Call of Duty 4 had good maps, and even the most stern Call of Duty hater can agree to a certain extent. Crash, Strike, Overgrown, and Shipment all offered different flavors of gameplay, and they always did it well. Crash and Strike offered unique mixtures of short, mid, and long range combat. Overgrown was all about long range combat, and while it was slower than other maps in terms of pace, it was still interesting. Shipment was crazy. There was little time to plan your movement, you had to run around and light up son's of bitches.
While Shipment madness was always welcome from time to time, it certainly wasn't something I'd want to do 24/7. Slowly, maps in the series became nothing but constant, pulse-pounding, 24/7 runnin' and gunnin' action. From a developer's standpoint, why shouldn't they do this? It's far easier to create a shallow, "run like a chicken with its head cut off" than it is to create a well thought out and balanced masterpiece. Nothing but maps conducive to mindless trigger spamming is what got Call of Duty the reputation it has today. The thing is though, map design can be sloppy in far more ways than Call of Duty displays.
Battlefield 3 is a mediocre game at best. I've said it before, and I'll stick to that statement. While the poor map design may be overshadowed by much larger problems (such as ADS spread and suppression), it is still ever present. While Call of Duty's poor maps revolve around cheap thrills from constant action, DICE seemed to think that bigger meant better. The problem was, there was very little action going on at once due to this. It was snail pace. The map simply didn't feel like..... well..... a battlefield. Operation Firestorm, all of the Armored Kill maps, Kharg Island, and Caspian Border are all guilty of this. Conquest is quite possibly the worst gamemode in the game due to this. On the flip side, DICE tried to attract the "COD kiddies" with Team Deathmatch maps that lacked balance and revolved around shooting the nearest person you saw in the face. While the Rush maps were decent, you needed a good team to truly enjoy them. Finding such teams is easier said than done when playing with randoms. Here's to hoping Battlefield 4 undoes the damage dealt by BF3.
Games will always have a few poor maps in them. However, as consumers, we need to at least try and put an end to shallow and lazy map design. Non-stop chaos is not the answer and neither is maps the size of an entire country. Unique, fair, and fun. Today, many maps can't be described by these words. This needs to stop. Why? Because a game with fun game mechanics is good, but a game with fun game mechanics and amazing maps sticks with you.
