Question about levels and old school level designers.

    I had a strange thought lately and decided it would be something interesting to ask. We know that over the years many level designers from the old school scene have dropped off. Either promoted or unable to find level design work or simply moved on to something else. But one of the things that has been nagging at me lately is the thought that there are levels that these people have created that are still played to this day.


    How many level designers do you know of that no longer make levels but their levels are still played regularly to this day?


    Isn't it a strange thought that the maps are out there providing value yet the original authors could be destitute for all we know. Its not crazy of a concept to see this happen honestly. Imagine if the levels we designed worked in the same way as YouTube how this would change things. There are old schoolers out there right now who would likely be millionaires if this were the case. Yet I couldn't tell you honestly how well off some of the greatest level authors have fared over the years.


    What are your thoughts on this?

    Is it really that strange? You make something for a game, game is made and published, thing continues to exist.


    It's like a piece of art that changes slightly over time for each new generation... Or a piece of code that must be updated when the original author has since moved on... Or a road that is laid down and over many years it is patched up and resurfaced.


    Or even a weapon that is made... Look at the original AK-47 and it's father Mikhail Kalashnikov. He made an original design back in 1946 and it just keeps going, most of the modern versions of the AK are variants of the original design, improved with newer materials.


    I would say it's the same for a lot of things in life. Most of what we make will outlast us.


    Am I maybe missing the point?


    Nah, you're right on the money in those examples. But the question is, in this day and age, should it really be that way?

    Quote from Puddy

    Dust2 is a great map. Dust is 90% nostalgia imho.


    Dust(1) isn't a success because of its layout but because of many aspects it has brought to the CS series and D2. It settled all the basics of dust2, the double doors, the arches, the tunnels, the big clean walls, the lighting ... The creator also said that some parts of D2 has basicaly been taken from D1 but in a complete different context (like the ramp on the right side on the map for terrorists, that became the bombsite A of dust2, for example).


    Si yes there is nostalgia but it was also very innovative and unique when it released !

    Quote from Puddy

    Dust2 is a great map. Dust is 90% nostalgia imho.


    I disagree. For it's time, although that time has faded, it was an exceptional level and one of the best of all time. Same with Cobble, in its time it was exceptional.


    You have to look at old game content in the context it existed in, you can't look at Mario 64 and say it has bad graphics, because for its time it was world class. Dust 1 was a world class level in its time. The fact that it's not as great in CS:GO says more about CS:GO and how the game has evolved, than it does about Dust.

    Quote from Castle

    Nah, you're right on the money in those examples. But the question is, in this day and age, should it really be that way?


    When I first started my degree, the first thing they told us was "When you need to code something, chances are someone else has already done it and better. Don't copy but look for resources first to better aid you."


    Essentially: "Don't reinvent the wheel"


    Personally I'd liken everything to a technological version of survival of the fittest. Stuff needs to adapt or it will be left behind.


    Occasionally a game changer is released, but everything has some sort of roots in something that already existed or wasn't already being worked towards in some way, they just found a different more efficient route of getting there.


    So where do you draw the line for something completely new?


    EDIT: I guess sometimes you have something like a crocodile which fills it's niche so well it doesn't need to change much at all over millions of years. Relatively speaking I would equate that to Q3/QL

    Quote from jackophant

    EDIT: I guess sometimes you have something like a crocodile which fills it's niche so well it doesn't need to change much at all over millions of years. Relatively speaking I would equate that to Q3/QL


    We have some serious crocodiles going on in a lot of these shooters, some of them span multiple games. XD

    Quote from FMPONE

    Dust2 is a great map. Dust is 90% nostalgia imho.

    I disagree. For it's time, although that time has faded, it was an exceptional level and one of the best of all time. Same with Cobble, in its time it was exceptional.

    You have to look at old game content in the context it existed in, you can't look at Mario 64 and say it has bad graphics, because for its time it was world class. Dust 1 was a world class level in its time. The fact that it's not as great in CS:GO says more about CS:GO and how the game has evolved, than it does about Dust.

    Well Aztec was highly regarded in 1.6 times, but isn't it unanimously considered unbalanced? Same Dust. Those maps came out at the right time and gained critical mass; that made em famous. When I started playing CS, toward the end of 1.6 life cycle, they started to be looked at more objectively, got less and less play and that convinced Valve to modify their gameplay in recent iterations.

    Am I completely wrong?

    Quote from blackdog

    Well Aztec was highly regarded in 1.6 times, but isn't it unanimously considered unbalanced? Same Dust. Those maps came out at the right time and gained critical mass; that made em famous. When I started playing CS, toward the end of 1.6 life cycle, they started to be looked at more objectively, got less and less play and that convinced Valve to modify their gameplay in recent iterations.

    Am I completely wrong?


    I think you're right about the critical mass suggestion making them famous, but I don't think the same considerations of balance went into the maps either.


    People were initially happy with it, but as time went on, the game needed to develop for the competitive scene. Instead what happened was better community balanced maps and the better stocks maps were used instead and aztec/dust were left behind. Although Nuke wasn't... I suppose it's not so wide open and awp friendly, despite it being CT sided

    The difference back then was there was literally 5 maps (2 were considered T sided, 2 CT and one somewhere inbetween) so it kinda balanced out:


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Yeah I agree that de_dust is not his best work, I only mentioned it because its what made him kind of a big deal.


    But the real reason why I think he is the best is because he replicated the success with dust2 and cbble (and I thought aztec, but today I learned that he didnt create aztec, so I guess that just leaves those three very good maps

    Oh and he also made one of my favourite hl sp called ETC and ETC2

    Quote

    How many level designers do you know of that no longer make levels but their levels are still played regularly to this day?


    Well the specialists is pretty dead but sometimes my maps are still played

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login