Jaquaying the Quake Maps - Analysis of Quake 1 and 2 Maps (PART I)
Geophobia by Andrew 'than' Palmer
INTRODUCTION
I decided to conduct a little experiment. Since Jaquay had worked on Quake 2 maps, and that both Quake maps are heavily praised in their design (mostly), and I had found memory of the game back when it came out, I decided to analyse the maps from a dungeon making perspective. I will not tackle, for now, any mod/wad/exterior maps.
I could have spoken about other great design choices that have a link with D&D too, such as how monsters can fight between themselves, how traps and (some) secrets are telegraphed, how you can use the environmental hazard and traps against enemies, and how it's all about focusing on "exploring/figthing as action" and so on. But for now, I'll only speak about level design. Also, I might have chosen instead Doom 1/2/64 since the simpler and non-3D layout is more suited to D&D. I might do it later, under some other circumstances, but for now, it's Quake.
To do this, I determined some criteria, heavily influenced by what I had read personally about good map design and the Alexandrian series on Jaquaying the Dungeon. Before explaining my criteria, I just want to point out some obvious things:
- Both FPS games are linear by nature, except for the rare occurence of secret levels. Therefore, non-linearity per se will not be tackled.
- Since they are FPS games, some elements are 100% dropped and will not make appearance in here, especially with regards to faction and all.
For each criterias, I will vote them 0 or 1, a binary criteria. For the overall "feel" or appreciation, it will be /5 (because some maps, although not super complex, can still be fun in their own simple ways).
Here are the criterias I decided to go with, with a small explanation. I understand some might seem arbitrary, but that's how it is:
- Doom Rule (DR): Romero is said to have given the following general rule: if you can make your map in Doom, then it's a failed Quake map. By this, he meant that if you didn't take advantage of the Quake 3D engine (because no, Doom isn't "real" 3D), then it's not a good map. For the purpose of this exercices, I understand it as: if the map is all on a single plane (no use of real verticality, of stacking rooms, of undergrounds, etc.) then it's 0. This rule can also be understood as the Over/Under Rule.
- Loops: Is there multiple ways to reach the same location, and is there moments when you go back to the same location (although sometimes changed, for example, through the use of over/underground).
- Secrets/Unusual Paths: Are there secrets and unusual path that brings something to the level design. Here, I will not make use of the normal "hidden item" as a secret per se, because the game is "made" to have a bunch each level. I'm only going to be reviewing secrets that add something to the level itself such as: secret level, alternate path, gamechanging bonus (such as a Quad Damage in a room full of monsters or a quad damage before a teleport to a room of enemy that normally would be more difficult). It needs to add something to the level.
- Elevations Shifts (ES): All maps have elevations, that's just how the 3D engine works. What I'll be looking for, is only for those that the elevation provide something, i.e. where it links different sections, can lead to loops or secrets, and so on.
- Entry: I'll consider here if there are multiple entries into the same core section of a level OR if the level starts at a midpoint entry, i.e. it can go in multiple direction from the get-go.
- Landmarks: Is there any easily recognizable landmarks to ease navigation or create foreshadowing, such as having the exit portal/door in view/right at the beginning but locked. It can also be the presence of a "hub"-like room, i.e. a room where you return to in different iteration of the map loop for multiple reasons.
- Atmospheric Tools (AT): Here I'll take note of all kinds of use of contrast (light/dark, cramped/open areas, above/under ground), texture changes between areas/elevations, isolation, etc. This one will be heavily subjective.
- Environmental Interactions (EI): Switch and all yes, but also clever use of traps, area changes, teleporters, chute, windows, collapsed passages, bridges and so on.
- Intuitiveness: I don't mean simplicity here. Rather, I mean can you see/understand what happened when you flip a switch? Can you get to where you can see? Can you move naturally between areas without too much backtracking? Anything that deals with flow and navigation.
- Single Room Architecture (SRA): This is a catch-all for all other "room only" considerations, such as compact spaces with overlaps, composed chambers (multiple paths from the same room), texture or light highlight, waves of monster through hidden compartment, and so on. In other words, was there a "wow" factor included regarding room design instead of general level design.
- Personal Appreciation (PA): /5.
In total therefore, each map will be ranked on 15. Just to clarify, it's not a matter of a "passing grade X/15". Any map that has 5-7 or more is a solid map IMO becaue it can showcase multiple good level design choice (and be fun).
My methodology was to play the map myself, and then put some playthrough/speedrun on repeat while taking down notes. I have not commented each point for each map outside of the score because it would be too tedious. If something was worth it, I commented in the commentary section of each of them.
I will divide the series in two parts: one for this introduction and Quake 1, and the other for Quake 2 and the conclusion.
My methodology was to play the map myself, and then put some playthrough/speedrun on repeat while taking down notes. I have not commented each point for each map outside of the score because it would be too tedious. If something was worth it, I commented in the commentary section of each of them.
I will divide the series in two parts: one for this introduction and Quake 1, and the other for Quake 2 and the conclusion.
QUAKE 1 ANALYSIS
Overall
Good maps in a solid 3D environment really gives life to concepts such as loops and verticality. This experiment really helped me see that. I don't know how much can be ported to TTRPG with a mapper, because here the concepts are put in place to keep the action/pace moving forward. In TTRPG I sometimes feel the Jaquaying technique are used mostly to confuse the players and/or offer multiple paths and therefore player agency. For example, they are not meant for players to come back faster to an area to unlock a door where they just picked up a key like it would be in Quake. This begs the question: how can you do a Quake dungeon in old school D&D? This will have to be talked in elsewhere, either by me or someone else. But I feel it would look more like a Dark Souls map than a classic D&D map with 15 empty room per level.
Per Designer
If you take a look, John Romero's map either have the highest or among the middle/half score. But in reality there were the most enjoyable one no matter the score. Therefore it seems to me that I missed one or more important factors to denote in my analysis that would probably have been there in all of his maps. One thing for sure is that generally, whatever he does, in terms of Loops/Doom Rule/Interactions/etc., he does it well. He did the best map IMO (e2m1), and his maps feel the best because everything is "right in place".
If you take a look, John Romero's map either have the highest or among the middle/half score. But in reality there were the most enjoyable one no matter the score. Therefore it seems to me that I missed one or more important factors to denote in my analysis that would probably have been there in all of his maps. One thing for sure is that generally, whatever he does, in terms of Loops/Doom Rule/Interactions/etc., he does it well. He did the best map IMO (e2m1), and his maps feel the best because everything is "right in place".
Tim Willits maps are the most "solid" overall and are in general the better "designed" with a constant quality to them. It was a shock to me since I knew nothing of the man, compared to other names that are known well in the industry and previous ID Software games (Romero, McGee, Petersen).
In the comments, it might seem like I diss a lot what McGee did, but in reality I just feel that his creavity (his map are creative, let's give him that) is not focused enough and it feels sometimes disjointed or completely out of place with the overall aim and action/pace of the game.
Petersen was a huge dissapointment. I didn't remembered his maps and now I know why: they feel weak, have weird (in the bad sense) layout, are static and void of interest, with only "gotchas!" (which I am not a fan of) as any kind of "surprise". They look more like bad mod/wad than actual maps. I know that for Doom, Romero had a moto of playtesting the same map over and over up to hundreds of time to make sure they were fine tuned. I'm willing to bet 20$ that nobody playtested Petersen's map a hundred time. On the other end, although he does not use enough design tools enough to my liking such as contrast, he has the most unique atmosphere and decorations. Some of his map weirdly feels empty, as if it didn't want to use them enough or all the time? Can't say. Also, the maze-like pattern of his maps are... different. Can't say it's better or worse, but personally I didn't like it since it was cutting to the action and making everything felt less intuitive. Maybe it's more like a D&D map? Who knows. I'd need to compare with his work on Doom and Doom II, since I love about all maps in both of those games. Maybe it was the transition to 3D? In any cases, by his own admission, his map were less "aesthetically pleasing".
I never played Quake, but I think mining computer games for insights on dungeon design is under-explored.
ReplyDeleteDid you find particular things that you'll bring to your own dungeon designs?
I agree with you. In the end a lot of video game level designer played or were influenced by D&D (and not just RPG, which is why I decided to take Quake as an example). I think it's a worthwhile exploration especially since the space aspect is the only redeeming factor of FPS level for example: contrary to RPG where nice scenes, combat encounter, treasures, etc. can have a really big impact on how the players perceive the dungeon design, FPS game are all about how you interact with the level (generally with guns).
DeleteYes I did! It will be the next entry. I'll breakdown what I think is really worthwhile, codify it into chunks that are useful for people and offer examples. I hope it will be a useful post.