tain.totalcodex.net

Remind me to send you that $20 Will No mention of Dol Baran or Nightfall though? :: sobs ::

There's been so many good 3rd party levels that I've forgotten most. I really enjoyed Ares's 1st CoD levels (the later Deceiver one was a pain though - a mapmaker's level rather than a player's). Datax's Senex Silvae grabbed me too as it had so many original concepts.

CoM's unfinished Great War rocked as well. Is the version that GHOST fixed/finished available anywhere?

Baron LeDant wrote:I'm not sure what you're really asking. Is it " What makes a fun myth level?", or "What makes a good myth level from a map-maker's perspective?". Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not. Example, the ibis crown is a very nice level from a mapmakers view, however its not as much fun to play as other solos.

iron wrote:(the later Deceiver one was a pain though - a mapmaker's level rather than a player's).

I don't think I'd make that distinction. A mapmaker will design levels that the mapmaker enjoys. That's always going to be the first priority for any of us. The folks at Bungie may have thought Ibis Crown was really awesome. It isn't one of my favorites, but I do enjoy it quite a bit because I appreciate storytelling at least as much as fast-paced action, and every moment in Ibis Crown tells a story.

Because I make maps, I've put a lot of thought into figuring out what it is that I like about the levels that I like. Common threads emerge. I like linearity better than nonlinearity, because it shapes my experience of the level more. I like levels that require broader strategic innovation better than levels that require hyper-micromanagement. As I mentioned above, I like levels that tell me stories.

But variety is important too, and in the end what I think makes a "good" level in general is that the mapmaker had a strong sense of what they were trying to create, and made choices that fit. That can mean all sorts of things--and that's probably why we all like different maps. Bagrada and Mazz VI both had strong visions behind them, and as a result they each play very coherently--but those visions are also extremely different for each map, so they'll appeal to different people with different tastes. I'm just asking whether some of those "different people with different tastes" could explain what those tastes are.

B and G tickles my fancy for its distinct gameplay. [At least when I play] the gameplay is like no other myth game. None of the things that make me dislike WWII (circles much?), while still having gameplay that I find pretty exciting. Timing yyour charges to avoid reload time, things like that make it one of my favorites...

-DA

I think part of the reason we see so much uber-coop is that it's a different kind of experience. Take the scope, for example—there's only so much variation in Stair of Grief, and all of it's pretty binary (you either get wiped out or you don't, there's very little room for "wearing down" because the map just isn't long or complex enough for that kind of resource management). You play Stair of Grief for two hours, you end up doing pretty much exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. This is also the reason that we're now playing Mazz VI, despite the fact that Mazz IV is obviously the stronger map—there's just more options, more complexity, more room for experimentation.

Also, there's who you can play it with. We're unfortunately not able to get many people together at any given time, but back in the day a group of about a half-dozen of us would Mazz pretty regularly. There are very few non-uber maps where you can usefully divide units six ways, and fewer still that give every one of those six ways a chance to be really useful in more than a meat-shield capacity.

~J

iron wrote:Remind me to send you that $20 Will No mention of Dol Baran or Nightfall though? :: sobs ::

Hehehe,
well Ephor got a particular mention because I actually managed to win it I usually stumble pretty hard in any level that isn't "Across the Gjol" or "The Baron".
Though now that you mention it, the colourmap for Dol Baran kicked butt.

Death's Avatar wrote:B and G tickles my fancy for its distinct gameplay. [At least when I play] the gameplay is like no other myth game. None of the things that make me dislike WWII (circles much?), while still having gameplay that I find pretty exciting. Timing yyour charges to avoid reload time, things like that make it one of my favorites...

-DA

B&G is a real telling personality test, I find. I usually wind up going for the bayonet charge, purely because I think it looks awesome. Hardly ever works..... :/ It's not that it "cannot" work, it's just that I never really think of the right time to use it.

My main thought on this is that there's such a thing as putting TOO much into a mesh. This includes the following:

• Unit selection - I don't care if you have a million different units, five friendly, and maybe 5 enemy is a good maximum in most cases.
• Graphics - gameplay should always come first. Design a map for good gameplay, and make it look pretty afterwards.
• Too much STUFF - so the limits on what/how-much we can put on a map have been increased, that doesn't mean you need to use them, they just mean your ideas are less likely to hit a wall later on. Don't put 4,000 units on a map just because you can.
• New features - the new features are great, but just because they're there doesn't mean you have to use them.
• DESIGN - emphasised for importance. If you don't think about your map before you go into it, then it'll be crap. With enough, careful, considered design, it's possible to go overboard on everything else above and still come out with a good map.

I guess what it boils down to is making it work. New features used in your map shouldn't require lots of learning to use properly, they should be made seamless. Limits shouldn't be pushed unless you actually need them for a good reason, other than bigger somehow being better.

Mazz manages to achieve these, good reg maps achieved this under tighter restrictions. If you set out on making a map, try to keep these things in mind. Bar Room Brawl 2 is supposed to be my example of this, but it's eh...coming along very slowly =(

I'm tempted to write an article about it on the train or something since I'm back at university again.

I think Crow's Bridge was the best solo level and Willow Creek the worst.

Crow's bridge was very good. Willow Creek was abysmal, definitely the worst of the bungie levels. Its the antithesis of "fun", and I still can't believe they chose to begin the game with it. These therefore serve as an excellent example for this debate.

What made one level so good and the other so poor?

Unit Selection
Crow's bridge had the same player unit combination as Willow, so its not that.

Willow had only ghasts, which a dwarf kills easily, an archer with several shots and a warrior has difficulty with. So the warriors redundant, best left at home for the most part, and the archers may as well stay behind to protect them. That leaves one unit to kill a ton of ghasts ... tedium.

Enemy behaviour
In Crows the enemy behaved in interesting ways. There were thrall patrolling & guarding the bridge. There were orderly platoons of thrall and soulless. There were ghols running amok, circling around and avoiding combat until you start fighting thrall, at which time they attack from behind. Kill enough thrall and they give up and retreat - how often do you see that in Myth?

In Willow there were just ghasts attacking from random directions, followed by a big horde of 'em. Kill them all to win.

Pacing & Buildup
Crows has a definite build up of tension and threat, climaxing in the desperate fight to protect the village.

Willow has an interminable period of killing wandering ghasts before all of a sudden the horde appears. No buildup at all.

Ambience
In Crow's bridge there were villagers, who got together in a group and abandoned the town early in the level. There was also the immortal "what 's going to happen to my pumpkins?". Buildings looked nice & had blood-stained interiors, barrels had interesting contents when exploded.

Willow had mindless peasants and boring buildings. True, it did have the singing at Tuncer's and the exploding outhouse ... and it had pigs. They do little to relieve the tedium, in fact they just remind you how much fun the tutorial was by contrast. Oh, and it had a fisherman. Yep.

Final Touches
Crows was scripted by none other than Jason Jones. In the scripting he wrote the following:-

i remember sleep the way a man
saved from the gallows recalls the itchy
hemp being drawn over his head and
around his neck. i no longer believe in
the nonsense that sleep repairs the body
and balances the mind.

one day we'll look back on all this...

jason
9.26.97

Willow was scripted by some nameless drone. He wrote no poetry.

iron wrote:Crow's bridge was very good. Willow Creek was abysmal, definitely the worst of the bungie levels. Its the antithesis of "fun", and I still can't believe they chose to begin the game with it.

Heh, yeah, Willow Creek was one of the worst Myth levels and Crow's Bridge was great. But again, it was the first level I have played, so maybe it's just an impression. But who cares, Crow's Bridge is cool

Nobody has mentioned that the TFL Bungie crew and the myth 2 bungie crew are completely different staff members. I think that clearly the core bungie members (guys from all the marathons and even other pre myth games) Are better at coming up with good ideas and great storys then the myth 2 dev team was.

To me its like if you love some movie and the director who made the first one was great....then the sequel was made by another director.

Might still be a good movie, but it wont be the same kind of feeling as the other project.

The Dev team and I are working to get some great new story driven COOP maps out there...a lot of work has been going into our Solo/COOP maps for our Wind Age campain and we have many great ideas to use on them.

It just seems like the amount of scripting that needs to be done is going to be the thing that delays us the most.

Some of our maps are completed except for a lack of scripting...and much more is needed. I would script them myself, but i wear many many hats and as much as i would like to....i cant do it all alone.

Ooga and I have worked very long and hard to give fun variations in the goals and reasons for what happens on our solo leves...many times the use of combined magics or melee units with magics cast on them will play a roll in how to beat a level. New skills will have to be learned and a computer that isnt from the 90's is needed to play some of our more Super epic maps.

I myself have allways thought bungie pussied out on the large scale battles in all the myth games.....the whole "Hey there is this really big battle taking place, (Siege of Madrigal) but O yea you dont get to take part in it or even see it, cause you gotta lure this tiny part of the enemy away"

Kinda bugs me and takes me out of the story a bit....WE DONT WANT TO LURE SOME DAMN SMALL ARMY! I think we all want to be there when the Gates of Madrigal are flung open and lead the charge as the light rushes out to face a gigantic enemy army of maybe 100,000 or 50,000 with our smaller but yet good sized one (5,000 im thinking)

We are trying to give a more realistic vision of what the battles in the lands of myth would really be like, and do justice to the levels of unspeakable carnage that would occur. Bodies that pile to the heavens and swarms of flies soo thick the sun is completely blocked out by them for miles around. The aftermath of some of the larger battles, hardly a breath could be taken without inhaling biting flies. The resulting spreading diseases and unbearable stench would make nearby towns of cities leave to find unspoilded lands.

A bit of doom and gloom to be sure...but look on the bright side....after all those bodies rot away....it will be great soil for farming crops the following year! IF anybody is still alive to plant the crops. Thats why we renamed the Leveler "The fertilizer" in our campain's story. ~8^) j/k

Small goal oriented levels are also part of our stuff....i just love killing massive amounts of shit. and when we all dream of battles...i dout we are thinking in terms of 30-60 guys vs 200 heh.

-Renwood

Hmm. This is a very interesting discussion.

Let me list my favorite levels and see. (No particular order)

Emonds Field (I must say I'm biased, but I love the gameplay.)
Gonens Bridge
The Wall
Mazz (Pick a number, it will be fun)
Landing at White Falls
The Great Library
Grave Tidings (tourney edition)
The Baron
Shadow of the Mountain(original, 3, or RTTM are all fun)

I think most of my choices boil down to how fun they are in a cooperative game. That is the type of game I most like to play.

A-Red made one point that affects levels I like. I like levels where you can lose a few units and still win. I think he meant lots of units, but the theory is the same. Losing those units can greatly change your strategy but you can still win.

You may notice I listed tourney edition for Grave Tidings. This emphasizes another thing I like to see in maps. I like to win. Normal Grave Tidings was too hard without saving. The tourney edition made it possible without saving and therefore made it a much better game for coop.

Renwood wrote:... I think we all want to be there when the Gates of Madrigal are flung open and lead the charge as the light rushes out to face a gigantic enemy army of maybe 100,000 or 50,000 with our smaller but yet good sized one (5,000 im thinking)

Actually I don't. I enjoy Myth because you control more than one single unit (aka an FPS) but less than an epic wargame. Not to say that when I saw LoTR I didn't lust after a game built on 'Massive', but that's a different itch than the one Myth scratches. I've played both FPS's and more large-scale wargames and I prefer the small squad-based tactical fighting found in the Myth series.

Probably just my newbie-ness but I have a hard time keeping track of more than a couple handfuls of units. Myth by design rewards a certain level of micromanaging that I have great difficulty doing with very large numbers of units.

vinylrake wrote:

Renwood wrote:... I think we all want to be there when the Gates of Madrigal are flung open and lead the charge as the light rushes out to face a gigantic enemy army of maybe 100,000 or 50,000 with our smaller but yet good sized one (5,000 im thinking)

Actually I don't. I enjoy Myth because you control more than one single unit (aka an FPS) but less than an epic wargame.

Agreed here. The one thing I've thought about before however, is that you can have an epic feel to a battle, without the player requiring far too many units.

You can achieve this by having scripted groups of enemies fighting each other, with the player's little band of troops in the middle trying to achieve some specific object. Kind of like what happens on the TFL level whose name I can't remember, where you're hunting a Shade, meanwhile forces controlled by the Deceiver and the Watcher are slugging it out here and there.

But in general, lots of units does not equate to a good time, especially if those lots of units are all available at once, as controlling them become impossible.

Im not saying each level should be huge massive battles.
Just like LOTR and other myth games have shown, rather small battels can be intense and frantic as well.

But every now and then you need a Gates of Madrigal or helms deep kind of scope level.

Think Huge armys that have a LOT of NPC units, and a handfull are controled by the player. But when you play that same big NPC battle level in COOP the more players that join you the more NPC units are given to the players. Just like how twice reborn works now.

myth will allways be small squad based combat oriented....but those small squads should also be part of huge battles as well.


Think "The Black Company"


-Ren