Blog Archives

« Smarties for Statistics Dust 2 = Cobble? »

Working from the Core (Apr 28, 2005)

I read or heard something the other day about the problem people have with doing something (yes, I've forgot entirely what that `something' is or was, but bear with me). The issue most people had with this something was never being able to go from nothing or something (the other something) to anything/something good.

With that covered, I can now apply it to level design and actually make sense.

One of the issues I come across as a designer is not quite knowing where to start. My head can be pounding with ideas, visions, angles and concepts, and my desktop littered with reference shots and doodles, but getting the first few pieces down is always difficult. It always feels like a committment - the first few brushes you place must stay there. The area you're building is indicative of the final product. When this bit fails, I become disheartened and struggle to take it anywhere further.

Thinking of cs_compound I was wondering, if I had made it, where I would have started. What particular feature of the map would decide the outcome of the rest of it? If my mind was empty, where would I begin?

The answer was the catwalk in the middle of the map, between the two buildings. That would set the scene. Large height differential, excellent view. Openness. That's what would have triggered the design of the rest of the map the way it is - it is built from those very principles. That single structure would have been the starting point for the rest of the map design. It's designed around those buildings, that catwalk, the fantastic view and how you, as a player, would counter that advantage. It's a very basic concept for a 3D game, but was used perfectly and separates it from the existing CS:S maps.

My point is, if you're trying to make a map, you should start with something brave. Design something unique. Don't start by designing a room and a corridor - where does that take you? The best maps come out of simple concepts that set the stage for the gameplay. The most enjoyable/fun maps (not the ones which one finds easiest to play/win) always have something unique about them, and are the maps which gamers find themselves most drawn towards (or away).

Once you've got your basic principle (or `gimmick', although that springs up the wrong images), you can work outwards - how can you exploit features of it to offer fun gameplay? How does that single idea, that single principle, open up the door to an entire experience? You know you've hit a good idea when the floodgates open in your head and it grows from there.

So, always work from the inside out. Forget about making a map. Instead, think of yourself making something fun from a simple idea. The simpler the better. Once you have got this into your head, everything becomes a lot lot easier.

« Smarties for Statistics Dust 2 = Cobble? »

user comments

smeerkat at 18:55 on Apr 28, 2005

Interesting article. But with this strategy, how do you account for lines-of-sight, i.e. this particular map is heavy on the sniping and you can be shot from vast distances? I think dust2 does a better job of controlling the sniper sight lines, so you can survive with other weapons. What would you define as the "core" of dust2?

boubou at 19:08 on Apr 28, 2005

If I'm correct, I think that Dust2 had several "cores" when he made it. He explains this in his "The making of Dust2" article. These cores might have been those familiar pieces that were in Dust1. The underpass and the area directly to the right of T base for example. Correct me if I'm wrong.

dave at 19:25 on Apr 28, 2005

smeerkat: well, specific gameplay elements like that are to be countered as you're branching out from that initial idea. That's part of level design that I find the most fun - checking in my head that all the lines of sight work and that everything can be countered somehow.

As for cores in Dust 2, there isn't one. Dust 2 was just `made' without much thought for focus. That's because it's just a standard map with nothing special about it...

dave at 20:45 on Apr 28, 2005

boubou: I would say the underpass area is a very important aspect of the map - the visibility between the two sites is important. But that was born out of map evolution rather than starting with that bit.

smeerkat at 20:53 on Apr 28, 2005

When you made dust2, did you consciously plan to have the line of sight from T spawn on the ramp all the way to the mid double-doors?

dave at 21:06 on Apr 28, 2005

smeerkat: it certainly wasn't something I planned.

m0nKeY at 11:36 on Apr 29, 2005

Dust2 is a special map, even if you find nothing specifically special about it. Dust2 is a favourite among all skilled gamers and even the public players's. The maps diverse style of play is loved by all.

The same however could not be said for dust, which is favoured by the lower skill bracket because of it's simplicty and potential for luck. Easy to get shot in the back on dust while firing in other direction.

smeerkat at 19:52 on Apr 30, 2005

The only thing that bothers me about dust, is that one CT sniper can look all the way through the tunnel, from the 'A' side to the catwalk side.

It's a great map for introducing CS to new players, and it's always fun to play T and try to survive the early rush.