Talk:What Makes a Good Level?

No Credit Needed

It's not necessary to provide a credit for this, since it came from the Hammer documentation. --JeffLane 22:25, 11 Jul 2005 (PDT)

Article Makeover/Huge argument

HEAVILY edited the article. enjoy! ^^ --Kizzycocoa 20:12, 25 Nov 2009 (GMT)

Next time at least follow basic punctuation rules. I have reverted the page. --cheesemoo0 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

....what?

that page had near EVERYTHING that was needed for a good map! and you replace it with some poetic rubbish?!

what a GREAT move that was. I'm sure people will DEFINITELY find that more useful. *rolls eyes*

regardless of punctuality, that article was LOADS better. but if you think poetic rubbish if better, w/e.--Kizzycocoa 08:45, 26 Nov 2009 (GMT)

"Protecting Wikipedia from misconceptions! Also I'm very much a newbie Wikipedian." ^[1]

well, here's what happens. you edit a page. if it's better than the last page, it stays. if it's unbiased/obviously using bad punctuation, it gets marked to be fixed.

the previous page was WAY more informative to the user than the poetic rubbish that is currently there. if you can't see it, you're either blind, can't read, or not understanding of anything I said on the article. and you call reverting it to THAT protecting a wiki?

have a problem with that? contact a mod. because I can GUARANTEE a mod AND any user would find my revision WAY better than that poetic rubbish currently there.--Kizzycocoa 08:56, 26 Nov 2009 (GMT)

To be honest i think the short piece that was there before better summed up the article than your long winded list of things. Like i said, don't post the framework, try having a more finished version done before posting it. Solokiller 11:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

are you serious?

it went on about having a design/concept. it used unnecessary poetic talk. it had no sense to it at all!

at least with my one, people could UNDERSTAND it. KNOW what they have to do, KNOW what parts are important to make perfect. I took the poetic rubbish, took out what little was useful, and added a step-by-step guide on HOW to make it better. not how much poetic ability I have.

can you HONESTLY say a clueless member stumbling upon here would benefit from poetic rubbish, rather than my step-by-step guide?

sure. it's slightly wrong with punctuality and that stuff. but hell, it works. it helps all those n00b mappers know what to do, where to go, how to create much better maps.

if they read the previous poetry-based madness, I assure you, they'd be much more CONFUSED than feeling helped.

so either change the punctuality, or leave it alone. because despite how "un-wikipedia" this article is, it's a damned lot better than mindless babble about design.--Kizzycocoa 11:50, 26 Nov 2009 (GMT)

I just updated your text to be more readable, you didn't seem to use capital letters AT ALL. Solokiller 11:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have aspergers syndrome. I am not good at capital letters. sue me :/ --Kizzycocoa 11:57, 26 Nov 2009 (GMT)

This should focus more on gameplay (which Valve does constantly with non-gamers). --Foda 11:51, 26 Nov 2009 (EST)

true, but gameplay is such a big generalisation.

I mean, you have L4D maps, TF2 maps, portal maps etc.

each one of the above have very different gameplay. it just isn't possible to add in this topic.

prehaps adding into a "what makes a good map/gameplay/L4D or /portal etc. etc.? Kizzycocoa 16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything you, Kizzycocoa, have added is covered better and concisely in other articles already on this wiki. This page is meant to be about more abstract thinking not the mechanical use such and such program to protect a map from compiling and bzipping textures in. Be forewarned this will be reverted back to it's former state if you don't give good enough reason. --cheesemoo0 05:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

well, I assumed this page had to answer questions, not create them. if you want to better the article, fire away. go wild. but to have THAT in the place of this page is counter-productive to the mapping community, and if reverted, I will ensure it is marked for deletion. because when new mappers come to this page expecting tips on how to make the map good, they DO NOT expect a bunch of philosophical babble about what an idea is. and that will severely deter the ones that WANT to learn, thus making the mapping community just that little bit smaller. I summed up how to do it in an easy, user-friendly way. this is NOT wikipedia. you do NOT need references to everything, not need proof, nothing. I simply turned a philosophical page that should have been up for deletion, to a user-friendly, step-by-step guide. if it's too easy for you, feel free to shove loads of poetic rubbish and philosophical "MAPPING IS A TALENT THAT MUST BE LEARNED HARD" lessons. because that only makes the mappers that look at it feel even more confused--Kizzycocoa 09:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Kizzy, you have absolutely no idea of what you're going on about. You clearly partake the designing of levels for something else. Mainly because A. not every game is the same, and B. every game has different mechanics. Games are built differently, and therefore is exactly why this so-called poetic rubbish is going to stay. It makes complete sense. It literally, and I shit you not, is a giant volume of theories, ideas, and even failures. Game design is much more than what you described in your more longer, and confusing article. Not understanding what an article means is not any reason to re-write it.

Lastly Kizzy, your 14. You've made no completed mods, you've made not more than a few small levels, and you're already going on about how the community will be ruined and how it will be smaller. No. Shut up. It is Large. Very large. This page as been sitting as is for a few years now, and no one has even had any problems. I seriously doubt a 14 year old who's hardly accomplished anything, or for what matter truly understands game design is going to change that.--Gear 10:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am 16. I have made a LOT of maps, but as the mod is completely secret, I can't RELEASE them.

you understand this, but anyone NEW wouldn't. at all. this tutorial tells them WHAT they need to do. it is not confusing. it is bordering stupidly simple. sure, there's not much detail. but it's a hell of a lot better than before.

the article itself is bad. I admit it. hence the cleanup tag. but I'll be damned if I'll let it fall into the amount of nonsense that is was before.--Kizzycocoa 11:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

in fact, you know what? why not try the first chamber of Chamber One. try it, see the decomp version, see ow much detail I have put, and if the design of the chamber (baring in mind, it is only meant to be an insight into the environment) doesn't suit your needs, and you have a reason, I'd be happy to remove the article myself.--Kizzycocoa 12:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? If this is the case, it looks particularly rubbish to me. No offense though, but you seem to be way ahead of yourself. I must agree with everyone here. --NykO18 15:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

that was just one part of it. the rest of it was also good.

and that particular part holds masses of potential

also, way to not read the ORIGINAL article? *rolls eyes* read it. then tell me this article is not an improvement of any sort. Kizzycocoa 16:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to act like a troll, at least don't make it something stupid like this. Like i said before, if you don't like somebody editing what you've written, or changing it altogether, then you won't like wiki's at all. Solokiller 17:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* that whole convo was completely legit. I am NOT a troll. the reverse actually. I get trolled easily. but that whole convo was legit. and like I said, I don't care who edits it. but to revert it to the previous thing is just insane. purely insane. especially as mappers would benefit more from this article >.> Kizzycocoa 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if that conversation was "legit" or not, it doesn't matter if that conversation was with a VALVe employee or a dog, posting it here is asking for trouble. Solokiller 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

how? :/ Kizzycocoa 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you act like you know what you're talking about. What you wrote slowly turned into detailing a level, not what made a level good. A good level is from a technical standpoint. Not how much detail there is, not how much overlays there are, and how much HDR is in your face. The meaning of what makes a good level goes much more deeper. You need stop. Just stop.--Gear 01:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

fine. I made a good contribution, and you lot rejected it like it was rubbish.

I have fixed the page. I WILL keep reverting it. Kizzycocoa 02:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously full of yourself.--Gear 02:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

oh, I suggest the thing be deleted by adding that, and I'M full of myself? sure. w/e. you believe that. I've given up on this page. and I look forward to the day the mod's decide to delete or replace it. Kizzycocoa 04:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're thinking you know what you're talking about, thats being full of yourself.--Gear 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

oh, and you saying you know more due to your age?

I have been using source for a while. I have made maps. I have learned from previous mistakes.

now, tell me. if mappers read this article, what have they learned? what can they do now than not before?

then ask yourself the same question, but with mine. will they learn something? will they be better off for reading it?

it seems I may have done the wrong thing here. someone just told me that putting that up meant more than suggesting it's deletion?

if that's the case, I am sorry. it was just me not understanding wikipedia-style stuff.

however, what I say about the article still stands for me. I believe the last article I made is better than this. if somewhat a bit wrong with the style of the VDC.

also, I couldn't help but notice M2VC planning to merge his "shinier" version with this. I assume that has absolutely nothing with the standard of this well thought out page, nor my proposed slightly bad article? Kizzycocoa 07:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't understand how the wiki works, then you should not be editing it. Plain and simple. Your formatting sucks, I'm looking at it right now in this talk page. Knowledge isn't a matter of age, it's a matter of ingenuity, and will power. I understand more because I've done more with the source engine. That reflects upon anyone, even Valve themselves. The clear contrast of know-how from Half Life 2, too Episode 2 is visible. This article is the way it is because level design isn't about how much detail you can pour into it, not how much HDR you can smack in someones face. It goes deeper, much deeper. It brings a varied amount of things together. Not just music and textures, and art. It brings soul, life, and character to the design of it. It is the game. It is what makes the game. Your version of this article turned into how to make a level. Not What makes a good Level. What makes, and how to make are two very separate things. They are separate because you could fill a volume of books with the info, just like what you were trying to do, write the article. The design of a level is a perspective, much like beauty, or love. Some people find things beautiful, while others don't. You're understanding of that clearly is missing. You haven't even lived life long enough to know that either. The problem is you think your a bigshot. You think your mod is going to be the best ever, even with you saying that it's going to revolutionize the Portal community. It's not, and thats giving you false importance. You have as much right as any other out here true. I like people who contribute, and people who care. Though if they come onto the wiki, thinking they know how shit works, then I have a problem. It's not about thinking you know. It's about knowing. Thats something age does give you, because we advance like that in our lives as humans. We can't learn everything at once, unless someone sits down with us and shoots a zillion tips our way. But we aren't like that here at the wiki. Aside being useful, we don't need to tell the mappers, the modders everything. A lot of it is discover for themselves.

Hence is why all this philosophical bullshit as you say, is here. Do you know who wrote this article? Any thought? The collection of great minds that have worked with the Source engine, every since Half Life 2. Even if you haven't though, I don't hold that against you. The point stand as is: These people know what they are talking about.--Gear 07:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

in other words,you don't know an answer, and are just trying to make your mapping skills sound similar to being a god of mapping.

And I'm full of myself?

considering what I said, I thought that delete thing was a suggestion. I woudn't revert it should that not be the case. but I am not going to withdraw my opinion of this while thing. I wasn't "full of myself". I was standing up for my opinion, which now seems more than it was due to misunderstanding. so you can't say I was full of myself then. otherwise, well, nearly everyone is full of themselves for standing up for themselves. Kizzycocoa 08:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Man you totally missed the point. The point isn't about standing up for yourself, it's a WIKI, A GODDAMN WIKI. We have had 0, ZERO complaints of that article being confusing. Why would you know, think you would have to rewrite it? Because you obviously cannot handle intellectualism. I bet you're going to have to google what intellectualism means. Smart people like philosophical stuff, dumb people don't. Because they have a hard time understanding it. Maybe it should perhaps been seen that your the first "dumb guy" to go over this page. I just looked at this page's stats, and it's over 45,000 views. That is a lot of smart people. And not one man, bothered to re-wrtie it.--Gear 08:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

believe it or not, I am intellectual myself SHOCK! HORROR!

I know full well what it means, but I thought the context inside the article was lacking severely.

also, philosophical talk isn't really wiki-talk, is it? in fact, it's anti-wiki. something meant to confuse others.

you got no challenges as all those who read it didn't want to re-write it or complain as they were looking for a place that tells them how to make their mod good. so, naturally, they went back to google and kept looking for more help. I noticed it was short and went around in a cirle that left you knowing nothing else other than "ideas are good". I have no INFORMATION on WHAT makes a good level. which is really the details and gameplay.

BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE FOUND FOR YOURSELF, THATS WHAT LIFE DOES, IT MAKES YOU LEARN ON YOUR OWN THROUGH EXPERIENCE. ZOMGOGOGOGOAOSLOLOL. Sweet baby jesus on Ice skates, dammit you are just the stupidest, illiterate person I have ever met. Life just doesn't hand it's eggs in one basket to you, you learn what makes a good level, a good game through experience. Because ever level is different, ever game is different.--Gear 08:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

aha. just the answer I wanted. so, you're saying you make it hard for them to understand on purpose?

isn't this meant to be a place to share information? not to make them search for it more?

as such, this very article, as I have previously said, doesn't really teach anything.

on a side note, name calling is a pretty petty level to steep down to. Kizzycocoa 08:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

anyway, I think that, for the sake of your VDC (apparantly), the log is too full. if you want to take this further, you can easily contact me through email. Kizzycocoa 08:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WHOA LOOK AT THAT, some maturity!--Gear 08:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am mature. I just wanted to know the reason you wanted the page up. I now have that answer.

like I said, email if you want to continue it.

on a side note, a comment like that of all the pages should be in my user's talk page as it isn't really relevant to this topic Kizzycocoa 08:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And after this wall of text, you finally say that? Dear god.--Gear 08:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

the wall of text was required to get the answer to why the article was better for people. I got the answer, it isn't.

regardless, email if you want to continue. every reply is another pointless repeat of the last. you don't know why I made a page, I got my answer.

what I will say is that it is rather crowded now all for one answer. it should be edited to be shorter. maybe a spoiler tag or something. Kizzycocoa 08:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not going to email you, to tell you the same thing. Your still misunderstand the point, this page teaches you something. oh it does. It's a load better than: "Probably the hardest thing to perfect, lighting is very important for atmosphere. " Whoa! Totally didn't know that! How very useful, it's so much more useful than before! Now we are telling noob mappers it's hard! WOW!--Gear 08:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

it used the same approach that you used. telling them something, but not everything.

ugh, forget it. if this keeps up, the log will be 50% us arguing. let just ignore everything that happened now I know what it's for, and you know I won't contribute there anymore. Kizzycocoa 08:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

YES, YES, YES! THANK YOU JESUS. BE GONE NOW--Gear 08:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

=/ Kizzycocoa 09:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hurray! The malevolent Kizzycocoa has been defeated in battle, no longer able to terrorize the "What makes a good level?" VDC page!--Zipfinator 09:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not malevolent. I just believed the article was insufficient and wanted to help.

also, it's things like that that'll bring "the molevolent kizzycocoa" back here to tell you this, possibly causing ANOTHER long paragraph.

and I'm sure M2VC and yourself do not want that.

I was not defeated. no-one was. I got what I wanted, and so has M2VC. you can kindly not reply to cause more replies now. Kizzycocoa 09:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kay.--Zipfinator 09:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is why it told you, Kizzycocoa, that you wouldn't like wiki's if you couldn't handle your text being changed or removed. You made a drama out of all this, and filled the talk page with useless banter AGAIN. The recent changes page is now filled with useless edits, which will confuse people more than this article ever could. Solokiller 11:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I can handle that. it was the deletion of it I can't handle.

and I thought we would stop doing this by not continuing this =/ Kizzycocoa 12:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is stubby. It is in no way whatsoever helpful to anyone in particular. Please, someone improve it. I personally liked kizzy's version, but since not everyone does, this article is still in process. Also, I dislike reading walls of text, and what I got from above is this: BLAH BLAH BLAH this article sucks BLAH BLAH BLAH imma change it >:O BLAH BLAH no how could you BLAH BLAH BLAH poetry BLAH. Please, someone get rid of that. and fix the article. Subject15837 15:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically, Kizzycocoa, if you dislike the "poetic rubbish", so be it. But that also lets us know that you don't understand abstract thinking and the fact that level design is art. If you can't understand these concepts, than all I can see you ever being is a know-it-all about hammer, but with no acknowledged work in the field of this knowledge. Without an artistic mindset, your maps will be bland and uninteresting, therefore, the poetic structure of the original page is very much "Everything that is needed for a good map." You may have also noticed the "See also" at the bottom of the page linking viewers to this: http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/How_To_Develop_A_Map_That_Works Which is pretty much a more professional, compact, a thorough approach to what you created. Also, we would love to see some of your work at www.interlopers.net

---

Pwnd Ja, I didn't speak. go troll elsewhere >.> and I know it's art. all my maps are perfectly texture-aligned, and I work hard on the details. download the first maps of "Chamber One" and you DARE tell me I don't think mapping isn't a work of art, if not, more. I am not the best at hammer, butI know what it meant. I FEAR THE NEW MAPPERS WON'T.

and interlopers if for HL2 stuff. MyApertureLabs is specialized for portal. if you wish to copy/paste them, fine. but I say again. I think mapping is art, which takes time to learn. I just wanted a few mappefrs who visit here to learn faster, then this massive hellstorm was created >.> Kizzycocoa 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you just stop telling us your maps are perfect every time you make an edit? Reminding us all the time of your portal maps being well made doesn't means all that much. Solokiller 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

he accused me of my maps not being made to the same standard as art. what do you expect me to do? sit back and take it when I didn't do anything to deserve his criticism? Kizzycocoa 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Kizzy, there comes a point where you must learn to grow up and just stop. You said you wanted to stop clogging the logs and making walls of text then do it. Just stop. Yes, that means not even replying to this. Please everyone, no more. This has gone on long enough. --cheesemoo0 19:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, cheesemoo0, for doing precisely what you've asked us to not do, but I have a suggestion. I believe the text that is up on the page as of now is perfectly adequate; I have no problems with it whatsoever. That being said, does anyone else think that Kizzy is on to something? I'm not talking about completely redoing the page, I mean adding a few lines at the bottom that point to the "aspects of design" mentioned in the article itself. It seems to me that once a person has the idea that a map should be fun, there should be a natural transition to the ways that a map can be made fun. Something like this:

Some Aspects of Design

• Textures make an environment realistic; they can create beautiful landscapes or add detailed effects to models. See Material System.
• Models can provide more detailed geometry than brushwork while still creating less of a system drag. See Modeling.
• Particle Systems add effects that are unattainable using textures or sprites. See Particle System.
• Sound adds life to maps, ranging from believeable weapon/NPC sound effects to ambient soundscapes that set the mood of your map. See Sound.
• Lighting also sets the mood for maps and can highlight areas that you want to draw attention to. See Lighting.

Does anyone else think this would help? Once again, tacking this on at the end of the text that's already there is all I'm suggesting. I didn't add it in directly to the page because I figured given the current state of page editing, it would be best to run stuff by the talk page first.--WinstonSmith 22:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not the realistic aspect. Some people don't aim for that art style.--Gear 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm not trying to force any specific art style, however--I thought it might be helpful to provide links that give people the necessary information to use the aspects to develop their own intent. Do have any suggestions as to something that might convey the idea more clearly?--WinstonSmith 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about just an art style in total, perhaps something kinda like going with something distinctive. How level design can convey an art style, even if the game doesn't use it universally.--Gear 04:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So...you mean linking to pages that give suggestions on how to achieve different art styles (eg "Use yellow lights to achieve a bright and warm environment")? I thought that just linking to pages on how to correctly set up aspects--while letting users develop their own art style--would be best.--WinstonSmith 03:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with this personally.--cheesemoo0 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a step forward. I appreciate it.--WinstonSmith 03:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, my only issue is with the description for textures.

• Textures help to illustrate the world's art style. Whether it be Realistic, or cartoony. See Material System.--Gear 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. So...should I go ahead and tack the lines (with the edited Textures line) up on the page?--WinstonSmith 01:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Go for it.--Gear 10:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.--WinstonSmith 00:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don’t understand why anyone felt it was necessary to edit this article at all, it was directly from the original Worldcraft (Hammer) documentation and for that reason should be left in its original entirety, as a quote. I suggest reverting it to it’s original state (after JeffLane’s edit) and amending the new ‘Some Aspects of Design’ list.--treb

I didn't even realize that there was originally more to this page. I don't know why the information was excised; does anybody know if it was transfered to another page? Also, how do you suggest the Design Aspects list be amended?--WinstonSmith 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Article should be inflated

I know I'm suggesting a huge piece of pie here, but for a page with the name 'What makes a good level?', I would think it would require more than two sections worth of information. I'm requesting anyone with expansive knowledge of level design theory to inflate this article with more in-depth information on what really makes a good level. —Mattshu 10:08, 24 April 2012 (PDT)