Staredit Network

What makes a map fun? This is a one million dolor question for the starcraft mapping community. Here's my theory, which I highly encourage everybody to poke holes in. It'd also be nice if you presented your own theories and analysis.

We are not talking about what makes maps replayable here.
Yes that obviously ties into making maps fun, but it is unrelated enough, big enough and complex enough that I don't want to get it involved here.

Action:
This is harder to put into words than I thought, but to see what I mean by action all you need to do is compare to Honor of the Fallen #1 to The Five Samurai ver. X or Sunken D 10 way Advanced to Tarpit Defense 3.3. I recommend all four of these maps highly, but in both cases the later is far more action packed. The more stuff is happening at once, the more units on the screen at once, the quicker things can change, and the more precise timing is needed the more action there is.
Best example of action done well: The Five Samurai ver. X

Strategy:
Strategy is the measure of how much you need to think in a map. If the map is single player or multiplayer cooperative, strategy describes how much you need to think and vary your approaches in order to win. If the map is multiplayer competitive, strategy describes how complex the game can become and how many different approaches there are to beating your opponent.
Best example of strategy done well: Melee Starcraft

Balance:
Balance ties into strategy very strongly. In multiplayer competitive maps balance means that all the strategies are equally viable and that all the players (or races) are on equal footing (this is particularly important for melee maps). In multiplayer cooperative maps the same principals apply as multiplayer competitive maps, but primarily balance means balancing the difficultly level of the map and making the map get gradually harder over time.
Best example of balance done well: DOTA All Stars (WC3 map), especially when you consider the number of heroes it has.

Polish:
This particularly refers to user interface and ease of use. A good user interface is intuitive and powerful. Good UI is particularly hard to execute in starcraft maps. I'm trying to change that using EUD conditions. Besides GUI polish also includes responsiveness and helpfulness. If someone needs to explain a map to you it doesn't have very good polish.
Best example of a well polished map: Uberena honestly I have no idea

Ambiance: Terrain, music, story line, strong characters, good special effects and all that other yummy stuff that makes maps enjoyable places to be.
Best example of ambiance done well: Chrono trigger for the SNES

Some people might favor some of these elements over others (when it comes to starcraft maps I'm an action junky), but overall the five different elements are on fairly even footing?

So what's wrong with this theory? Doodle77 says that it doesn't explain why this map (he posts better versions later in the topic) is so fun, and I'm sure you people could find many more issues with it.

I like single player games a lot. And the fact you put story in the "ambience" category offends me! I put tons of work in my stories, and that's the element I care most about. A good story is like a strong glue that holds all the other elements together (in a map with a story of some sort, that is).

But after story, I think polish, balance, and the level of strategy involved (all 3 or which are closely linked if you ask me) are super important too. IMO, action isn't always the best thing. I think its best with proper buildup. If a map has a good story (like The Honourless), then the anticipation and suspense of coming action can be just as gripping as the fights themselves.

Terrain, music, ambient sound, doodads, etc., don't matter as much to me. As long as they aren't so bad they call attention to themselves, then they're okay with me.

Action is the only one out of those I disagree with. I really think it's the people, strategy, and gameplay... like if all I'm doing is building cannons, killing 290309320923190320921 zerglings it's not very fun.

It's wierd that you think that, because according to the Bnet population building tons of stacked cannons and exploding absurd amounts of zerglings is extremely fun.

ADDITION:

Well, not every single map is an RPG you know... I tired to make this inclusive.

Also when I grouped them together I was thinking Chrono Trigger a lot. The story and music are WONDERFUL, but if you have one of them without the other in that game it fails to become a the masterpiece it is.

I know. It's so boring ~.~

Why not Replayability? I remember Sand Castle wars was soooo fun first time i played it, now its just boring as hell lol

I do.

no really in depth responses.

Also DEAD, what are you talking about? What does "I do" mean here?

Maybe people will feel compelled to give more thought out answers in Lite Discussion, so let's try moving it there for now.

>>Moved

Challenge - if the map doesen't give the player a worthy challenge, he will not paly it.

Atmosphere/Gameplay - Music, souds, menu options (if the map has any), story, easy to use functions, anything else that I've missed.

I think I maneged to compress it to 2 components... or I've missed something?

This is my map-making philosophy:

1. Simplicity of Idea
The idea must be simple enough for the average B.net gamer to understand. I think that complexity takes the fun out of maps.

2. Simplicity of Execution
The map should be bug-free and have an easy-to-use interface. The rules should be clearly set out and the conditions for victory attainable but not too easily. The map should be light on theatrical effects but cleanly presented.

3. Variety
The map should have a variety of options for the player in order to maintain their interest. This might be in the form of additional game modes, 'specials' or variable difficulty.

4. Competition/Comradeship
This is essential for a multiplayer map. The players, even if they are on the same team, should feel that they are competing with their team-mates, and there should be scope for tactical play using their knowledge of SC units and spells. In survival-style maps the players should feel like comrades united against some common enemy.

I think these are some of the most important aspects to making a fun map on battle.net.

I kind of rolled both of these into polish. Part of the reason is because I haven't ever played a map where the idea wasn't simple, so the idea that some ideas are too complex confounds me. Perhaps if you could give me an example of a idea which is far too complex I'd see what you mean and revise my philosophy.

Now for simplicity of execution, I've always seen that as a pure UI problem, which fits squarely under polish. The whole idea surrounding the polish section is that the map shouldn't fight with you, it should work with you.


I was trying to ignore this whole issue at first because I thought it got too much into replayability, but in retrospect I shouldn't have. To hold someone's interest, especially in longer maps, level 1 has to be different from level 2. However level 2 shouldn't be a completely different kind of map than level 1.
When a map has too little it's repetitive. When it has too much it's and when it has the right amount it's


You have a point here, but what I don't understand is how such a thing could be done well or poorly. Surely having stuff like the ability to donate minerals to each other works, but I don't get how it can improved beyond that. It'd be great if you could link me to a map which does this really well or poorly.

With point 4 I kind of meant stuff like leaderboards for different things to emphasise competition, rewards for points and an emphasis on co-operation and communication between players.

I'd hesistate to link to any of my maps because they're old and they suck, but I tried to put my philosophy into practice on them.

That makes sense, but there's not much room for too much development there.
It's certainly important, but there's not much you can do with it besides the basics when it comes to a starcraft map.

I can understand it being more of an issue for game design though. There are some games that really screw up multiplayer, and some that do it well (like starcraft).

In a defense game I like something hard. Like the first time you play and you lose, you want to play again. You try beating it but you dont for a while. You get a little further everytime. A defense that has many strategies of winning, you just have to pick the best one. I think that a hard game is played over and over more than an easy game.

Strategy and Action are the most important parts of a map, and replayability is important too. If a map is fun and unpolished I'm still happy with it, and if its complicated it only makes it harder which also makes it better. My favorite map has people sometimes going like how does this work? Fleet command is a cool map, but barely anyone know how to play.

A great example of a game that's hard to learn how to play, but fun once you learn it is Nethack.

I still think Nethack should have an interactive tutorial though.

The fact that i had some role in this map:
i made it/modifyied it/as a tester/a charactor in an rpg

I'd say strategy and variety hold the best to me.

I can always play a game of melee Starcraft and never be bored. The games I play have people always doing different things. One game could be about zealots, another with reavers.

A game that's based on story gets old and tedious because it's the SAME story played again and again. I guess that's the same with other maps.

So I like maps that are randomized or involve variety, so it's not the same pattern of doing things again and again.

As for what makes a map fun... the question can not be answered the same way for everyone. Rather, what makes a map fun for you?