Does limited monster variety add to the level character?

[Triple_X_Stacy]

When I played Coiled City from Legacy of Rust, and it's strictly intentional selection of new monster types, I got the idea that limited monster variety is actually good for a level character. Even if said level has some questionable traits, it's a highly unique and memorable piece in the mapset. This is not a new thing too, we remember maps in Plutonia with only archviles or in TNT with only hitscanners.

 

If all monsters appear at a level, the level will often feel random and less memorable (not counting other factors OFC). If some (particularly the mid or high tier) types are intentionally missing, and others dominate, it will give a level an extra bit of character. Actually the same can be said about texturing, but that's a more complex topic.

 

Do you agree with this? Is it good in bigger or smaller doses? I'm not saying a level should use 1 or 2 monster types only, but there should be some "science" behind the placement in each map. Also maybe themes (hell, techbase, city) should guide the actual monster types of the level. Cacodemons and barons feel more relatable in hellish, reddish environments (they often look weird in some humanmade modern maps), while mancubi or arachnotrons are much better in cities or techbases.

[Stabbey]

Only if it's extremely limited, perhaps. I don't agree that limited monster variety is what makes a map memorable, I think what makes a map memorable are the encounters and setpieces.

 

Those setpieces can (and almost always do) have limited monster variety, which can contribute to the uniqueness, but for me it does not follow that limiting the entire rest of the level to the exact same limited monster variety is a benefit. I'd rather see a  map which makes different setpieces featuring different monsters than similar setpieces featuring the same monsters over and over again.

[Jayextee]

Plutonia's MAP11 would be forgettable as all hell were it a variety of chaingunners, revenants, and hellknights.

[Gez]

Ultimately, character is what helps distinguish from the others.

 

Using a limited monster palette can play that role since the default is that the entire roster is available. But if Hunted is memorable for using only arch-vile, is The Crucified Factory also memorable for using only arch-viles? Entryway only has zombies and imps, but when you think about Doom II's opening map, is your first thought about how it has even less monster variety than Doom's opening map which had zombies, imps, and sergeants (on UV, that is).

 

Basically what I'm saying is that a limited roster can help give a level some character, but it's not necessarily sufficient or even necessary. Level design is an art, not a science.

[Uni]

Only if it's used in a clever way or if the level is designed around a certain type of monster to warrant a limited selection.

[Agent Strange]

As in all things, it depends on the execution. A map full of zombies with a BFG in it isn't exactly going to be super engaging. 

[Budoka]

1 hour ago, Jayextee said:

Plutonia's MAP11 would be forgettable as all hell were it a variety of chaingunners, revenants, and hellknights.

Yeah, but its replay value is effectively zero. You can't get much more gimmicky than that thing.

[Jayextee]

And yet, replay value wasn't at all mentioned in the OP as criteria for what we're talking about.

[Gifty]

I think, historically, smaller monster rosters have sometimes pushed designers to consider their map environments more economically and use monsters in tandem with map hazards more deliberately--but there's nothing inherent to smaller rosters that makes this the case, it's just an interesting correlation. I find Doom 1 mapsets tend to have a more "traversal"-focused, dungeon-crawly feel, but you could just as easily create this feel with the Doom 2 roster.

[Faceman2000]

40 minutes ago, Budoka said:

Yeah, but its replay value is effectively zero. You can't get much more gimmicky than that thing.

I love replaying that map, thank you very much

[Sneezy McGlassFace]

I'm very surprised how much hate Coiled City is getting. I guess Xaser was right in calling it "love or hate" kind of map. Well, I love it. Easily the best map of the whole set. And the monster choices play a big part in that. Being occupied exclusively by the new monsters, and with the new weapons, makes it feel unique. And with the very specific geometry, and illusive room-over-room hacks, it becomes something entirely new. Still very clearly Doom but also with the most essential Doomy elements removed/replaced. You have to spend a lot of time in the large open area with lots of verticality and lots of little nooks with snipers, that doesn't happen all that often in official releases. Making the player feel naked. Autoaim is entirely useless in such vast distances, and only having the flamethrower for majority of the map (if not all of it), a weapon that hurts you! Makes you feel even more powerless. Less powerful? Like you're the pray, not the hunter. If there were standard monsters involved, the map would definitely suffer. It's made as a stand-out.

I do believe that people often use all the monsters just because they're there. Every monster plays a role in the bestiary, and if one isn't needed, it doesn't need to be involved. Coiled City has a very particular design in mind, and laser-focuses on that. Not all maps could (or should) be focused like that but if they are, it's such a treat. Like Scythe 2 Map16 is very memorable too. I have a huge respect for strong creative vision regardless of how fun it actually is to play. When it's strong vision and fun to play (like Coiled City) that's just awesome.

[Faceman2000]

Just now, Sneezy McGlassFace said:

exclusively by the new monsters

Arch-Vile: Am I a joke to you?

 

Agree with everything else though. That map is awesome.

[Erick]

While something like Plutonia's MAP11: Hunted stands out for only having Arch-Viles, its level design being that of a maze is what elevates it to being memorable. It's not so much only using a specific enemy or set of enemies that makes a level memorable, more how the level is designed overall. The different encounters and deliberate use of enemies in engaging ways is what people remember, not so much that only some monsters are used. Knee-Deep in the Dead's E1M8 encounter with the two Barons is memorable because this is the first time you face Barons in the game and the room you face them in is in the shape of a star. If you were to have encountered many more Barons earlier in the episode, it wouldn't have the same impact.

[Maximum Matt]

I was gonna be a hard "no" on this one, but then I remembered the boss levels in the first Doom...

[roadworx]

9 hours ago, Jayextee said:

Plutonia's MAP11 would be forgettable as all hell were it a variety of chaingunners, revenants, and hellknights.

that may make it more forgettable, but i still would've enjoyed it more than the slog we got!

[GibFrag]

I think it works well if you're aiming for a vanilla themed set within shareware limits or otherwise Ultimate Doom monsters. I could see that as a good mapping exercise trying to make something with such imposed limitations. Works well for earlier into a multi-level set for difficulty progression, or to introduce a monster(s) (ex. Dead Simple). 

[yakfak]

i personally make plenty of maps which just use three or four enemies

or which use a particular type of enemy primarily and sprinkles in a few of each of the rest

i can tell you it doesn't add to memorability because none of that stuff gets any press whatsoever giggle

or possibly cos i forget to release them

 

i think plutonia map 11 rules. i also love that ROTT level which introduces those monks with high toughness by making them the main enemy of the map

and tbh some maps which go hard on set pieces and encounter design and use the entire lexicon of enemies can be really tiring and depressing, i need gimmicks

[Triple_X_Stacy]

A bit of my tldr 2 cents, how I see this whole topic:

 

First, I have to agree with the guy who said a long level shouldn't use too many limitations because it will get tedious at some point. I generally don't like too long levels unless there is a thematic change in it at a certain position. I guess this whole topic interests me more from the map thematic/environment side of things.

 

Thematically OG Doom has two types of maps essentially, the shareware techbase and registered hellish environment. The former is based on the shotgun mostly and it's strength on cannon fodders. In Doom 2, this theme is often used as well in eariler maps, but with the chaingunners in addition. No SSG or even plasma are necessary for these maps I guess. The hellish environment has all the classic OG Doom midtiers, but with the plasma/BFG also added. My theory is that the cacodemon and the baron were made this durable because to urge the player to use other weapons as shotgun is terrible against them. Actually, OG Doom, despite it's roster holes, is a bit of a rock-paper-scissors like play with the monster types. It certainly doesn't need limitation IMHO.

 

What is more interesting is the Doom 2 roster. It has many tricky mid-tiers like the pain elemental, aracnotron, mancubus, revenant and archvile. I think archvile works amazingly in every environment, and shouldn't be part of limitations (except early maps OFC) simply because of its resurrecting strength. I would love to see it in some Sigil maps or in OG Doom maps too. Pain elemental works well in hellish environment, as it's part of the lost soul/caco "family", but I can't see it without the SSG though. IMHO cacos, PEs, barons, hell knights and lost souls are better to be limited in these types of maps, they don't look that great in cities or highly advanced human bases for example. Not just by art, but IMHO the trickier mid-tiers and the SSG made their presence somewhat obsolete as their menace is their strength against vanilla shotgun/chaingun, not their attack. I got this revelation when I played LOR Map03, Spirit Drains. A typical sewer and techbase map with mancubi and revenants... all those hellish enemies with their "lame" attacks felt weird added to the map.

 

OTOH, vice verza, I feel that some enemies, most particularly the mancubi and the arachnotron are better to be limited to these techbases/cities however. They look too human made to work well in hellish style. I guess Punschatz's different style to Carmack's might get this feel to me: the former's sculptures are made with Doom 2 in mind, the latter's creations are made with OG Doom in mind (at least in my theory). I also think that these mid-tiers are the ones that can lead a level narrative. One level has revenants only next to cannon fodders, the other has mancubus only, and so on.

 

And of course there are those Plutonia Map11 style levels, but these heavy limitations (only 1 or 2 or 3 enemy types) can only work once in a while I guess.

 

Then id24 comes, and the roster is expanded further... I don't think vassagos are out of place, on the contrary, to be frank. They are made by different people, but the classic roster is made by different people two as said above. Limitations should be heavy part of the id24, because I think arachnotrons and mindweavers are not really compatible, and so are ghouls and lost souls. It was absolutely weird to see the odd lost soul in the sea of ghouls at times. At this point, limitations should consider weapon narratives, ie. chaingunners paired with mindweavers and shocktroopers paired with arachnotrons.

[Cruduxy Pegg]

It can work but am sure you'll get very angry reviews if you make a map with nothing but pain elementals or lost souls.

[Jayextee]

28 minutes ago, Cruduxy Pegg said:

a map with nothing but pain elementals or lost souls

Legit sounds like something I'd do, to be honest.

[idbeholdME]

Not sure, go play 1Monster WAD and tell us how you really feel.