Addmitedly, im not going to read every damn post here, i got through most of the first page, and i got the jist of whats going on. Besides Devilesk trolling.

Mapping has become for me, largely, although not entirely, just terrain. I terrain when im feeling creative, when i want to create something that is beautiful in my eyes, and enjoy the looks of it. I never really liked doing triggers, and i have an arrangement with a fellow map maker, so that i dont really have to do much with them. I have eliminated the 'not fun' part from my job, and in doing so, purely enjoy every aspect of what i do.

Do i take this seriously? Of course i do. Im making terrain which the trigger maker depends on in order for the map to be complete for release. Not only that, but there are people who have liked our previous work and constantly ask me when the next product is going to be done. I dont so much feel pessured, but ive taken some personal responsibility on myself that i said i was going to keep making these maps, which i and others play for enjoyment, and i continue to say that i am not yet done working at that. I strive for the perfect 256x256, the single map that will bring both they and I the most enjoyment.

Ive built a reputation on the work ive done, and even though ill never meet these people or have a beer with them or know them as much more than a name in a game, lobby, or channel, they still matter because they took the time to play my creation, my gifts to battle.net which has given my so much enjoyment, and i want to give back.

Im not sure if the discussion is so much why we map, but more of how seriously do we take those reasons, and for me, in my way of having a great respect and care for everyone that takes the time to play what ive worked on, and be part of something thats already been good to me, i believe they deserve a good map in turn, and so i take it as seriously as i would school work, or writing, or anything else that i put effort into. I only do what i like doing, and i do it well.

I hope this answers a bit of what you were wondering Tux. Ive really been skimming this topic quickly.

The goal of making a map is for SOMEONE to have fun playing it, right? The simpler maps that are widespread on battle.net seem to have accomplished this goal. In addition, they are pretty quick and easy to make. What exactly is so bad about them?

Not to sound like Devilisk, but what do we consider a "successful" map? Any examples?

P.S. Out of curiosity, how many mapmakers actually enjoy playing the maps they personally finish? I suppose people who make the more simple maps(bounds, defenses, etc.) probably enjoy playing them, but what about the mapmakers who make complex maps with hundreds of triggers? Do they find their own maps fun?

Yeah, I find that it truly depends on the map, since some maps you have to test so many times it gets old to you, I'd say that if the map stays fun for the maker himself, it will stay fun for the players.

Wow, that's soooo five posts ago, only counting mine. Falkoner, learn to pee in toilets. Yea, that's right, I'm referring to when you were one.

If the small maps fulfill the goals of map making, why even attempt larger maps?
I love playing any of mine. (With the notable exception of bounds because I've played it enough to realize that most people I play with make horrible levels.)

Yep. Maps should be taken a bit seriously if you plan to release them to the public. If it's just for like a small group of friends, I think you can lack a few aspects and make it more about the gameplay. Then again, if you want to be seen as more than a "good" mapper, you'll need to give of an awesome presentation, possibly some overlaps and colors. And of course the quality and amount of fun the map will be. In my opinion, spending too much time on a map kind of ruins the fun in mapping, but all that work put into actually playing it is probably the funnest compared to having fun while in the process of making terrain and triggers for a specific map.

Don't even give me that. I'm not just talking about this topic, you've been doing it all over the place, I can't even say a word that's remotely controversial without you saying "What's 'x'?"

But back on topic, I think that if a map is no longer fun to the map maker when they are finished, then it is usually not fun to players after a game or two, or maybe even less. So in order to make a good map, you better be having fun while you make it.

The map maker should only be serious enough to finish the map, other than that, fun should be the primary motivation. I mean, do you want to look back at the process of making the map as a chore or a fun experience? If you didn't have fun in the process of making maps, why continue to make them and why join a map making community?

On a side note, devilesk is just asking people to define what could be ambiguous terms so that no misconceptions are made.

No he's not, he's just doing it because he can't think of anything else to reply.

But once again, you definitely need to have a lot of seriousness to finish a map, but then the fun comes in, so you need to work hard to acquire the fun.

It's a subjective term. But the common might-makes-right definition of success is of course spread and appeal. But maps just being made achieve other goals, too. Such as improving credibility with the community, adding new material to hold and generate new interest, etc.

Low-end maps are not bad, but they're not the stuff you can base much of an intelligent mapping community off of. But of course, following that statement to its logical conclusion comes down to a variation of the debate about intellectuals vs. idiots, which I'm not gonna do (there'll be nothing useful to come of discussing it, I mean).



I'm just gonna walk away from the topic now settled on the notion of "to each his/her own". Even if I did continue it along this path, the smell of nihilism further ahead is repugnant.

Once again you're behind.

And let's suppose I was still asking for definitions. Who are you to say why I am asking for them? Clearly you missed the entire point of them. Define "think"

To be honest, I'll stop working on a map if I'm no longer having any fun. If a game becomes a chore for me, why play it?

Because you end up getting more enjoyment when you manage to push through the hard parts, the ultimate pleasure is from finishing the map.

No, because you're a masochist and like the pain. Although wouldn't the pain then become "pleasure"? Interesting...

*Note I wasn't referring to you specifically, but to any person in general. I used "you" because the post I quoted used you. Although feel free to apply what I was saying to yourself.

Okay, maybe I do enjoy the challenge of pushing myself to complete the map, I still gain pleasure from it.

Then most unfinished maps would just be like a waste of time... since you're just placing triggers together you've known would work in the first place. Meaning you do have to be a bit serious about map making, unless mapping is a hobby .

So, basically, we decide to make maps for fun, however, making maps require serious effort, which isn't fun.

The paradox is revealed!

I like making maps because it's one way of getting out what's inside my head. I love working with the Editor (annoying as it can be), I love the way it looks, I love making triggers (tedious as they are), I love solving the kinds of problems the Editor poses, even if they're the same ones over and over again. Plus, despite the declining number of fans and players, Starcraft is like a second language to me. I can express myself freely in it. It's like a part of my consciousness, now. If I have an idea I want to implement, it's natural for me to do so in Starcraft.

But in order to show my ideas to other people, I need the motivation to actually finish a map.

It's a lot like writing a forum post. I can easily just type words and be finished. I enjoy typing my thoughts out. It's fun and natural.

But if I'm actually going to post it for other people to read, I want to take time to make sure it makes sense, and sounds good, and actually communicates what I want to say. It takes work and motivation to revise my post to make sure I feel good about posting it. Same thing for maps.

Of course, some people derive a strange sense of pleasure from revising their posts. Or maps.

If I abandon a map, it's because I realize my current idea is no longer expressing what I wanted to express, so I start over.

Or, if I have an idea I KNOW is good, I get stuck... there will be small conceptual decisions I have to make NOW for the map's world that will affect the entire structure of the map. Usually the only solution is to back off and wait for it to become clear. Forcing it does not work. Forcing is ok for problem solving, like figuring out a more efficient trigger system. Forcing creativity is not.

Unfortunately this means my (good) maps take forever to materialize. Sometimes I worry SC2 will come out before they're done and everyone will go play that instead. My only consolations are 1) people will stick around SC1 and 2) my good ideas are platform-independent. For now I use Starcraft for the reasons I stated above.

Was revealed. Now it's a matter of coming to terms with it. But I'm ok with the "to each his own" answer, now. I think forcing a decision for people to find a way to be more serious will do more harm than help, now that I think on it carefully.

Well written. That is the process I go by for doing my maps. I just make it my personal preference to also attribute a 'serious' reason along with it. But even my reason, prototyping, isn't altogether that good on its own; there's MUCH better games to prototype ideas with, after all. But it's simply for the fact that I'm so familiar and comfortable with Starcraft that I'm using it for that purpose. Kinda like what you described.

I like making maps too. <--- Shortest post.